SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the always-read-the-fine-print dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1937
Uber is fighting a proposed class-action lawsuit that says it secretly over charges riders and under pays drivers. In its defense, the ride-hailing service claims that nobody is being defrauded in its "upfront" rider fare pricing model.
The fares charged to riders don't have to match up with the fares paid to drivers, Uber said, because that's what a driver's "agreement" allows.
"Plaintiff's allegations are premised on the notion that, once Uber implemented Upfront Pricing for riders, it was required under the terms of the Agreement to change how the Fare was calculated for Drivers," Uber said (PDF) in a recent court filing seeking to have the class-action tossed. "This conclusion rests on a misinterpretation of the Agreement."
The suit claims that, when a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride, the fare the app immediately shows the passenger is based on a slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the driver. The rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to the lawsuit.
Uber claims the disparity between rider and driver fares "was hardly a secret."
"Drivers," Uber told a federal judge, "could have simply asked a User how much he or she paid for the trip to learn of any discrepancy."
(Score: 0, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:04PM (12 children)
Nah, that information is utterly unnecessary to wage negotiations. Look at unions, for instance. They've been arguing for higher wages with no regards for the company they're negotiating with even being able to stay afloat for quite some time now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:09PM (6 children)
Way to not only completely miss the point but somehow turn it into a shambling, zombified, perverse, antimatter parody of itself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:12PM (5 children)
Can't be helped when the point is unable to stand on its merits.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
If the point is unable to stand on it's merits, then there should be little difficulty making a clear and direct arguement against it. You're welcome to do so whenever you feel so inclined.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:37PM
You wont get anything from TMB. When he makes up his mind no amount of facts or logical arguments will change it.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:27PM
I did. That tactic's well established enough that the Romans named it back when they had an empire.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
Modded up, not because I exactly agree with the Buzzard, but because his answer is ON TOPIC. Moderators, stop being asses.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:26PM
Yup. I'll be back later when I have more mod points. (note: this post is offtopic.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)
Such an epic strawman. Consumers have no choice anymore, the overwhelming majority of products are owned by massive umbrella corps. Collusion has been going on for a long time and the consumers have next to no power while the corps can buy there way through any obstacle. This is the free market end-game where government is beholden to corporations. If it isn't through straight bribery *ahem* LOBBYING I mean, then it is done through shady back stabbing buy outs of the competition. It is insanely difficult to create competitors to these corporate behemoths. Oh, don't mention government regulatory capture being the problem because that is part of the corruption that inevitably happens.
The free market has failed, the only way to save it is with massive anti-corporate legislation of some form. Better yet mandate that all businesses be employee owned with min/max limits to prevent someone from owning 99% and giving employees 1%.
Why am I even bothering, TMB pursues his ideology no matter the cost *shrug*.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:29PM
Fixed that for ya.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:48PM
you have so many original ideas. karl, is that you?
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM
Yeah, because only governments that espouse free competition in the marketplace are vulnerable to corrupt cronyism.
No. ALL governments are vulnerable to corrupt cronyism. It has nothing to do with "free market" ideals. Rather, it is a danger inherent to the concept of government itself: people weasel their way into using the power of the law to benefit their cause, and to pick the winners.
Examples are too numerous to list. Perhaps it should suffice to point out that the Soviet Union had the exact same issues? Or that China does as well? Pick anyplace human activity is going on and you will find it.
In the US, winners are definitely being picked. The common complaint about how laws seem to only apply to individuals and smallco, but not to the huge guys, is one great example. Another is the patent system, which does the same thing: protect the huge from the small. Or any of the millions of regulations designed to make building a new business cost more than it is worth so that the huge have less competition. These are all the power of the state being used in a corrupt manner, in very similar ways to has happened throughout history in every government system.
The problem when you start blaming the "free market" is that you are denying the real issue: the state using its power to pick winners. The fact that those winners "lobbied" for it is not what is relevant, since in every system the same thing happens.
The part that is important is that the people are active and keep their government in check. Many government systems have been designed to facilitate this*. But for this to work, the population has to have an understanding of what is going on. Being upset alone is not sufficient. The population needs to understand that the more numerous the rules, the more opportunity there is to play favorites. The population needs to understand that it is critical to have rules that are applied based on the rule, rather than coming up with some excuse to favor the side you already want to win**. Right now we have a population where both sides just want to win, and that is a recipe for corruption.
Populations, in any government system, must also be vigilant against attempts to manipulate them.
*The ability to resolve these things peacefully is one of the greatest advances of modern society. When they are resolved by force, the result is almost always bad.
**A system where both sides are willing to throw out the process when it doesn't favor them quickly degenerates into back-room rule.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:36PM
Except that you're looking at it all wrong.
IF Uber is NOT an employer, then it is a service company. No different than SaaS company offering accounting services like FreshBooks. They collect your payments, issue invoices automatically, provide reporting, and basically give you what a good accountant would give you. Uber LOVES to play games, and it loves to claim that it isn't an employer when it suits it to do so.
If I was a driver, and I HIRED Uber to provide me with services, then I'm the customer. Is Uber servicing the customer correctly, or even honestly, when it charges MY customers a different rate, but pays ME differently? We all know the answer. Fuck Uber. If they're a service provider bringing together drivers with fare paying passengers, than under all circumstances they are providing the drivers with the expensive and valuable services the taxi cab companies were doing. That's the whole idea about this great new fantastic economy. Technology freed me from having to wage slave for the evil taxi company (with their fucking medallions), and I have an app my fares can find me on, and what I make depends on how nice I am and how nice my ride is.
Except Uber is defrauding their real customers, the drivers. They don't give the services that drivers really want, they exploit drivers, and in the end, grind their faces into the dirt no different than the medallion-waving rent-seeking fuckers that owned the taxi cab companies. Uber cannot have it both ways. The drivers are either employees, or they're customers. Uber's actions clearly show that the drivers are employees, and not customers. The best thing that drivers can do is show how they're really just employees and let the local and federal governments of the world tear them the fuck apart.
Strange thing is, there is a market for a company to provide honest services to people wanting to make a living driving people around. Nobody wants to get in that market to just service these small business entrepreneurs, and instead want to exploit the fuck out of them below a living wage. Humanity is true pestilence...
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.