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: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:46PM (6 children)
I'm no fan of Uber's "regulations don't apply because internet" stance but in what other industry does the cost to produce a widget have any bearing on the widget's price (other than as a floor)?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:32PM (2 children)
I agree; there is nothing to see here.
This just seems like social justice for what should be a regular business transaction. As the Uber lawyer had stated, the driver could ask the rider what the charge was. Nothing was hidden behind the scenes and there was no skimming off the top.
If drivers were paid what riders were charged, there'd be no profit model..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @08:33PM
right, and then when Uber uses rush pricing at a peak time the driver may not feel comfortable asking the price the rider paid
there could be other reasons that asking the rider about the fare could be problematic. I fail to see why Uber can't publish this information to the drivers, as well.
It isn't about paying the driver what the rider pays, that would be stupid, but paying a consistent % to the driver
(Score: 1) by trimtab on Friday September 29 2017, @01:33AM
If Uber was being fair, the driver would not have to ask the customer what they paid. Uber would be showing that amount in the Phone app being used by the driver. And if the driver were the 'customer' that is what would happen.
It is actions like this by Uber that PROVE that drivers ARE Uber's employees.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:24PM
But it's not that, it's "regulations don't apply, because *shaaaaring*, not business". Which is even more bullshit - if it was really sharing, then you wouldn't demand money for it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:56PM
Any highly competitive industry where you have lots of sellers and lots of buyers. That's a major piece of how capitalism is supposed to work. The cost of producing widgets is generally supposed to determine the supply curve of the classic supply-demand price diagram. Some examples of industries that behave like that are smaller-scale farmers (e.g. my neighbor's vegetable stand, one of many in my area) local pizza joints, and home services like plumbers. Such businesses will generally be profitable enough to keep the proprietor in business if they're good at it, but they aren't going to be raking in millions either. Part of the brilliance of this system is that it encourages each competitor to find ways of becoming more efficient, which will up their profits until their competitors figure out how to do the same thing, at which point the price of the widget goes down, which helps everybody trying to buy it.
The reason you're likely confused is that many if not most industries these days are not highly competitive markets but instead have only a few sellers (oligopoly) or a few buyers (oligopsony). In the more extreme cases, there's only 1 buyer or seller, or a monopoly / monopsony. Once you've gotten to that point, the system breaks down, because now the competitive pressure to keep the prices down are much more limited. For example, if you have 3 sellers, they could compete viciously with each other trying to increase how many widgets they sell, or they could tacitly agree to keep the price artificially high, and it's a matter of game theory which one each seller will try to pull off. Similar things start happening when you only have a few buyers, e.g. agricultural distributors, except they tacitly agree to keep the price artificially low.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:47PM
That's not the question. I agree with you, but that only applies if Uber is the employer, the customer is the fare paying passenger, and the driver is employed by Uber.
Otherwise, Uber is the 3rd party vendor, the driver is the customer of the 3rd party services, and the fare paying passenger is in fact the customer of the driver, NOT Uber. In this situation, the one Uber loves to flaunt to avoid regulations and taxes, Uber failed to service its customer properly. Misrepresented the route, the fare, charged the fare improperly to the rider, then failed to give the amount of money that was owed to the driver, the real customer.
Depends on how you look at it. Is Uber an employer? Or is Uber a provider of services that drivers need?
It's funny, but the majority of comments on this article paint Uber as an employer and the driver's concerns an issue between employer and employee, hence bringing into union and labor arguments. That's precisely what Uber likes to avoid since the regulatory implications are not good for its profits.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.