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: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @03:45PM (5 children)
We the best, yeah. Dick Nіggers.
Shit, we never fuck no old pussy.
But damn do we fuck a whole lotta young pussy.
Yo ain't gotta pay, girl, Dick Nіggers gonna fuck ya for free.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:00PM (4 children)
I was going to add those filters after breakfast along with the &#x versions. I think I'll have a nap first though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
Are you one-at-a-timing it, Buzz, or did you get yourself a list of unicode-letters-that-look-like-other-letters?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:25PM
I got several lists and globbed them all together about the middle of last week. I'm just trying to not get too far ahead of him so he doesn't feel bad, so I've only been putting them in one method (glyphs, decimal entities, hex entities, etc...) at a time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by NewNic on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
Stop replying to them, because your replies make them visible with my preferences.
Or reply as an AC.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21 2017, @01:55AM
You assume buzzard is not aware of the fact.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @03:50PM
Fuck Yeah!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by crafoo on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:00PM (47 children)
Free market relies on perfect information so that consumers and business owners can come to terms on the lowest, most efficient price.
Modern technology is being used to hide and pollute information to introduce inefficiencies in the market in favor of the middleman.
Should all corporate business software be regulated and have its source code published? In the same way that corporations can be audited and their transaction methods openly analyzed? Part of the protections granted for incorporating could be in exchange of opening and publicly audited business transaction software.
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jcross on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:21PM (6 children)
I was kind of surprised by this one:
"Drivers could have simply asked a User how much he or she paid for the trip to learn of any discrepancy."
This seems like a really awkward thing for a driver to do. What they're saying is, the information could have been transparent if the driver were willing to disturb their rider and appear to be in conflict with their "employer" or whatever you call Uber in this situation. It would be like a hotel clerk asking at check-in "how much did you pay for this room, because I'm supposed to get a percentage". I imagine most riders would rather think everything's fine between the driver and Uber. They don't really want to think about their participation in the locust economy (https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:44PM
Honestly, that would be pretty low on the awkward scale for (what is in my experience) an average Uber driver.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
"I imagine most riders would rather think everything's fine between the driver and Uber."
Yeah, and I imagine that dragons and unicorns live all over the earth.
Don't you think that "most riders" have to work for a living? And, most of those riders are well aware that management is out to screw the working man, as often as not?
Now, back to dragons and unicorns - why can't I find them living anywhere near my home? Is it because of pollution? Lack of living space? Noisy kids? Maybe light pollution - they probably have a hard time sleeping with all the lights burning every night!
(Score: 5, Funny) by frojack on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:32PM
Because nobody audited your neighborhood development plat.
The developer was specifically required to provide a unicorn herd.
Instead he sold them to Disney, and pocketed the money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:02PM (2 children)
This makes Uber look utterly sleazy. Almost everything about how they operate has some kind of sleaziness to it. The quicker they self-destruct the better.
Sure, the cab system in many towns has problems, but those problems are easily fixable, they just need to address the corruption in the political system (too much pay-to-play) that's making the free market and competition impractical.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:18PM (1 child)
I'd recommend removing the word "just" from that statement: It should be abundantly clear by now that there ain't no such thing as a non-corrupt political system.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:40PM (8 children)
"Modern technology is being used to hide and pollute information to introduce inefficiencies in the market in favor of the middleman."
I'm wondering if you understand how things USED TO WORK. Forget about the term "free market". Let us just consider how inefficient the market has been for all of our industrialized history.
A manufacturer goes into business, producing widget "q". He thinks there is a market - but he never really connects to any large markets, and his widgets sit in warehouses, slowly being distributed here and there, with no real plan. That manufacturer goes bankrupt.
Another manufacturer produces widget "r". He KNOWS there is a market, and he goes out of his way to connect to some real marketers. He pays the fees, and maybe 1/2 of his potential market hears of his product. The widgets go to wholesalers, located in a dozen different cities, where the wholesalers are rewarded for pushing the product to retailers. In turn, retailers are rewarded for making the product conspicuous in their stores, attracting a lot of end user attention.
Now, how many middle men have I involved here? At least one marketing agent. Each of the wholesalers. Hundreds to thousands of retailers. And, then, finally the end user, or the "customer".
I don't know if this manufacturer "thrives", but he meets costs, and makes a living at least.
Today, the nature of "middle man" has changed, somewhat. But, without middlemen, you'll never hear about the widget maker. You'll have no idea what he makes, or how suitable it might be for your purposes.
If you only meant to point out that the position of "middleman" can be abused - well, then, I have to agree with you. If, on the other hand, you mean to paint all middlemen as evil, well, you've lost me. Middlemen serve a purpose, however good or bad a job they do at it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:04PM (7 children)
Nope, you need to see /Office Space/ again. Specifically the "I'm a people person" scene.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by frojack on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:42PM (2 children)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:54PM
You seem not to understand the function of parody.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:39PM
Nothing I previously posted can, by anyone with a brain, be interpreted as saying we should base real life on movies. I'm concluding therefore, from this and other posts you make, that your brain coefficient is severely, perhaps terminally, lacking.
Anyway, must rush, the sauna in my downtown penthouse apartment (and I say "my", as I own it outright unburdoned with any debt) has just reached a good temperature for some steam. You're not invited, I fear you'd bring a stench.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
You need to watch the IT Crowd again. Specifically the first episode, and the scene where the IT worker gets the shit beaten out him till the "people person" intervenes.
Sometimes it is a good thing to have a person capable of speaking with normal people, being understood, and not causing the pitchforks and torches to come out :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:37PM (2 children)
GPP: "\forall x \in X, P(x) is true"
Me: "\exists x_f \in X : P(x_f) is false" is a counter argument to that argument
You: "\exists x_t \in X : P(x_t) is true" is neither a supporting argument for GPP, nor a counter to me.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 22 2017, @02:08AM (1 child)
That's why I thought you thought otherwise and responded with my own movie/tv scene...
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 22 2017, @08:28AM
"X satisfy predicate Y" means *all* X satisfy predicate Y. One X that doesn't satisfy predicate Y is a counter-example, and all that's needed to disprove the initial statement. In this case, predicate Y was serving a purpose, and I identified a middleman that didn't serve a purpose.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:58PM (15 children)
No, free market relies solely on absence of regulation.
An honest free market relies first and foremost on parity of power between buyers and sellers. Perfect information could be a step towards achieving that. But that doesn't prevent price gouging - parity of power does.
E.g., if the number of taxi's and number of taxi takers in an area are in balance, then there's a balance of power. Taxi takers could switch to another taxi if the first one is too expensive, and taxi drivers don't have to pick up someone if the offered compensation is too low. If one or the other side becomes a minority, then they can more easily gouge the other side. Both have an upper limit: a taxi standing still costs $x an hour, a night in a hotel costs $y, so no taxi taker is forced to pay more than $y, and no taxi driver would need to take a client if executing the ride would lose him more than $x.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:21PM (11 children)
No, free market relies solely on absence of regulation.
You must pay for the goods you take is a regulation. Free Market's don't work so great without that one.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Scrutinizer on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:41PM (9 children)
No, that is not a "regulation". Acts of force and fraud are outside the scope of the "free market" concept (though help to protect against such acts can indeed be purchased using a free market). Free markets work solely on voluntary trades: the sale happens only if the buyer and seller BOTH agree on the price. If there is no agreement (e.g., the "buyer" doesn't want to pay a price the seller will accept), then trying to take the goods anyway is a violation of the seller's natural right to life (and the right to life requires the right of property ownership, as the seller is the sole and exclusive owner of his body, and he uses his body and/or mind to obtain the goods he offers for sale), at which point the seller can defend himself - and his property - as he best sees fit.
If you object, you need to show how a free person cannot be the exclusive owner of his body without simultaneously showing your support for literal slavery.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:46PM (8 children)
Regulation [dictionary.com]
noun
1.
a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)
The legal term is Larceny, generally regulated a the State level:
Here's a bunch of regulations that apparently don't exist. [findlaw.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:19PM
Law, your "legal terms", follow the commons. Theft existed before governments. "The commons" is just a term for how people conducted themselves before governments butted in, usually in the form of conquering warlords.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:57PM (1 child)
Conclusion: we can have free markets only with true Scottish regulations.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM
Yeah, apparently their definition of "regulation" is "any regulation I don't like."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Scrutinizer on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (3 children)
There's your error. Even current-day US courts acknowledge that certain rights, laws, etc. exist outside of, apart from, and even predate governments. Don't take my word for it
If the "mere" right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged as pre-existing government by today's USSC (a jaw-dropping miracle at that), how much more is the right to life - and thus the right to own property including one's own body?
Side note: what authority existed before governments? That of a single individual, no greater and no lesser than the next individual's.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)
If you don't know what the word "or" means you should probably avoid semantic arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:56PM
Try diagramming that sentence to realize that the word "or" being in your definition supports my post and has no bearing on your latest criticism of it.
Otherwise you are claiming that laws and rule do not come from governments aka "authority", which I doubt, as that's my post's primary point.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:08AM
The only "or" in that quote is the one in the list "a law, rule, or other order". That list as a whole is then attributed as "prescribed by authority".
And even if you parse it differently so that "prescribed by authority" only refers to "order", then "other order prescribed by authority" implies that the first two options are also specific types of orders prescribed by authority.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday September 21 2017, @09:56AM
This doesn't require regulation, just the seller that's not going to let you take stuff from him twice without paying.
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:00AM (1 child)
A market without any regulation is known as black market.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday September 21 2017, @10:02AM
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
While a black market is a deliberate circumvention of existing regulation (and thus has less regulation, perhaps none), this does not imply that any market without regulation must necessarily be black. The old "all cows have four legs, but not everything with four legs is a cow" thing. (was explaining that superfluous?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21 2017, @01:21PM
No, not this kool-aid again!
Free Market exists precisely because of regulation. Things like anti-monopoly laws exists solely to protect the idea of Free Market. The entire point of much of government regulations is to facilitate continuation of Free Market. Another large chunk of regulations is to protect common good and otherwise try to avoid Tragedy of the Commons.
Saying that "free market requires no regulation" is as naive as you can get.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:20PM
"Free market relies on perfect information so that consumers and business owners can come to terms"
I'm quite certain that Uber wants to maximize their profits, but let's talk about that perfect information, shall we?
How do $million dollar taxi medallions flow into the information consumers have? At most airports, only certain taxi companies are allowed to pick you up - they've negotiated with the airport, gotten the contract, and charge you whatever surcharge they feel like. You, as the consumer, have no insight into that process.
Uber has its problems, but it is a lot more transparent that the taxi companies. More importantly, it is a competitor in markets that are (in many cities) otherwise completely locked up via corporate cronyism. The corporations don't like the competition - and that is what is really behind many of the complaints about Uber.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:21PM
Well, that seems like a rather pedantic rant, not totally on topic. Why should privately developed software used privately in a business require open source?
Here's your estimated ride duration, driver, car, yadda yadda: Accept / Decline
Here's what your fare: Accept / Decline.
Here's your credit card charge: Accept / Decline:
As long as your ride takes place (and you weren't raped or robbed by the driver) and your credit card was properly charged, you got everything out of the software you were entitled to.
Similarly the driver is offered a gig for X dollars, and X route, and can decide, screw that, the 405 is bumper to bumper for the next 3 hours, no way am I doing that for that price.
These are both private transactions between consenting parties. Why do you get to audit software?
If you want to audit somebody's software go audit the Cell Phones and the carriers that service them. Good luck with that.
The company could draw fare out of a hat if they wanted. If the drivers acc
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:08PM (1 child)
What caught my eye was the statement that the customer is shown and charged for a longer, slower route that they don't intend to take. That sounds like some sort of false advertising or some other misleading business practice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:49PM
If I see a scenic route being offered, pay for a scenic route, I'm going to be annoyed when they don't drive past the Houses of Parliament like they promised.
I thought that one of the prime motivators for taxi alternatives was the route was the one you paid for, not the driver padding the fare. Now the driver gets screwed and the passenger. Ain't this future grand.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
Did they just admit there's no need to trust them? Isn't that usually the opposite of what a company wants?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:30PM
It does seem a little circular doesn't it? "We're not misleading the driver. All they had to do was assume we're misleading them to find out how we're misleading them. So we can't have been misleading them"
(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.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Wednesday September 20 2017, @04:57PM
<sarcasm>
Freaking hipsters, asking questions and demanding a fair treatment... can't you just go back to the idea that we are the savior of modern transportation, that we are a "ride sharing" service and that we are the best? Wasn't better when everybody was blinded by the Uber factor? People love Uber because it's a social thing, you get to drive around, meet people, share stories, trade instagram profile info etc. etc.
Well fuck me gently, Uber is an evil corporation that relies on underpaying people on one side and overcharging others on the other while pocketing the difference. Unbelievable I tell you, next thing you know people will argue that ISPs are also double-dipping. Nonsense!
</sarcasm>
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:07PM (4 children)
Tell me again how Uber isn't a taxi company when there is no direct connection between what the rider pays and what Uber pays the driver.
Uber can't claim to merely be an app that connects riders and drivers, taking a fee for this, when Uber decides exactly how much to pay the driver.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:31PM (2 children)
How about this instead, tell me why there should be any relation at all between the two without using the preschool "it's not fair because I don't like it" argument.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (1 child)
Think of it this way. Let's say I sign a contract with you to provide a service for a price. Then you turn around and contract with someone else to actually provide the service to me. This is perfectly legal, and there's no reason in this case that the price I pay you to need to have a relationship to what you pay the provider - you're effectively making money on your ability to make a market. But as far as I'm concerned, my contract is with you - I pay you, not the provider. I'm not involved in paying the provider. And if your service provider fails to turn up, you're still obligated to make good on your contract with me - I'm your customer, not the provider's customer. If your provider lets you down, that's your worry - you're the provider's customer, not me. And regardless, it would be hard for you to argue you don't provide services, since I have a signed contract with you that states you agreed to provide those services.
Now consider a different structure. Let's say that, instead of you signing a contract directly with me, instead you bring me and the service provider together, and I sign the contact directly with the service provider (after paying you a finders fee for your trouble in bringing us together). Now you're completely off the hook on what happens - if the service provider fails to deliver, my issue is with them. Because you're not a party to the agreement between me and the service provider. You're not a service provider - you never said YOU would provide services - you just introduced me to someone who does.
Uber has argued many, many times to regulators, lawmakers, and courts that Uber is the second type of middleman - they don't PROVIDE transportation, they just bring people who need transportation and people who provide transportation together. That means they're not a transportation company, so they shouldn't be subject to any regulations, taxes, or restrictions that apply to transportation companies. They just facilitate private parties to connect. In that worly - ld, the amount I pay and the amount the driver receive ARE related, because (in theory) I'm paying the driver directly - all Uber does is collect the funds to hold in trust, for eventual payment to the driver (less Uber's fees).
However, Uber's argument here is based on an argument that they're the first type of middleman - that THEY own the money the passengers pay, not the driver. And that THEY can, according to their contract, determine how much to pay the driver independently. That's fine - it's perfectly legal to run a business that way. But if they're the first kind of middleman, then they need to accept the consequence that it means THEY are a transportation company - THEY are the company that's providing service to passengers.
The problem isn't whether Uber claiming they can keep as much as they want of what the passenger pays is "fair" to the driver. It's that they can't claim to own those funds while ALSO arguing to be "just the matchmaker" to private parties.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:31PM
Okay, that's a solid logical argument. In this specific case I agree it does matter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:45PM
Let's take it a step farther.
Uber is arguing in court that they (not the customer) are the ones responsible for paying the drivers. They are also arguing that a legal agreement exists between Uber and the drivers, to which the passenger is NOT a party, which determines the amount that Uber will pay the drivers.
You can still argue that Uber is contracting with independent drivers to deliver transportation services (which would still mean they have at least an argument that drivers are not employees).
But it doesn't seem like you can argue that and ALSO argue that it's the driver (and NOT Uber) who is the one providing the transportation to the customer. The customer pays their consideration to Uber, not to the driver. Uber is asserting that it is Uber (and NOT the driver) who OWNS those customer-paid funds. Uber argues the funds due to the driver are separately provided by Uber to the driver, based on the terms of a contract between the driver and Uber, and are determined independently of the price the seller pays.
If the money is Uber's property, then they're not a facilitator - they're a market participant. That's huge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:06PM (3 children)
On one hand, Uber is an underhanded, regulation-evading, sociopathic corporation more than willing to throw their drivers under the bus and risk their passenger safety to make a buck; one the other hand, you have the local taxi company. Is there a way we can have both sides lose?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21 2017, @04:09AM (1 child)
Ride a bicycle, don't use a car at all. If you are flying, bring a folding bike with you...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21 2017, @01:27PM
Most places in the world also have a thing called public transportation. And in most places, it is efficient, almost as fast and much cheaper than either taxis or Uber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @09:49AM
Yes, get your local government to do their job and make the taxi companies behave. And the ones that don't aren't allowed to operate.