The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, everyone has probably heard of the current golden child of the tech industry, Uber. Though as of late, it's been less for their service, and for the various ethical missteps they've been making.
Like a senior executive stating that a reasonable response to critical press was to dox the journalists involved.
...there's no way that they would be that stupid.
You would be surprised.
This is actually a bit frightening, when you think about it - you have a top executive publicly stating that the acceptable response to critical press is to drag the journalists (and their families) through the mud. Of course, this is only the latest piece of Uber's cavalier attitude towards privacy - prior to this, there was the rider who found that he was having his location monitored in real time as a party favor.
That's...creepy. But those people were pretty high profile - this sort of thing wouldn't affect me.
Oh, they have policies that will. The CEO has been dismissive of claims that Uber drivers have attacked and mistreated customers. There's also the fact that the service's background check process is questionable (not like that stops them from charging an additional fee for it). Oh, and if a driver does misbehave, well...Uber is more than happy to note that they only contract with the driver, so they have no liability, such as the case where an Uber driver ran over a 6 year old girl.
Not that things are better on the other side of the wheel.
What do you mean?
They don't treat their drivers all that great, either. For example, they are now their high end Black drivers to take lower tier runs. And when drivers talk up about their poor treatment, Uber is happy to impersonate drivers to perform damage control. Not to mention things like the "hot chick" campaign in Lyon.They're also engaged in some really sleazy campaigns to kneecap the competition.
They sound out of control.
They are, most likely due to being the golden child of Silicon Valley at the moment. But as this Slate piece points out, these actions could drive away both the drivers and riders the company needs.
Like a senior executive stating that a reasonable response to critical press was to dox the journalists involved.
...there's no way that they would be that stupid.
You would be surprised.
This is actually a bit frightening, when you think about it - you have a top executive publicly stating that the acceptable response to critical press is to drag the journalists (and their families) through the mud. Of course, this is only the latest piece of Uber's cavalier attitude towards privacy - prior to this, there was the rider who found that he was having his location monitored in real time as a party favor.
That's...creepy. But those people were pretty high profile - this sort of thing wouldn't affect me.
Oh, they have policies that will. The CEO has been dismissive of claims that Uber drivers have attacked and mistreated customers. There's also the fact that the service's background check process is questionable (not like that stops them from charging an additional fee for it). Oh, and if a driver does misbehave, well...Uber is more than happy to note that they only contract with the driver, so they have no liability, such as the case where an Uber driver ran over a 6 year old girl.
Not that things are better on the other side of the wheel.
What do you mean?
They don't treat their drivers all that great, either. For example, they are now their high end Black drivers to take lower tier runs. And when drivers talk up about their poor treatment, Uber is happy to impersonate drivers to perform damage control. Not to mention things like the "hot chick" campaign in Lyon.They're also engaged in some really sleazy campaigns to kneecap the competition.
They sound out of control.
They are, most likely due to being the golden child of Silicon Valley at the moment. But as this Slate piece points out, these actions could drive away both the drivers and riders the company needs.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
0
Posts
small samples/ anecdotes i know, but every uber driver i've talked to about what it's like driving for uber has been real enthusiastic in their praise. most were livery drivers or regular cab drivers in addition or previously. the rest were part-timers - generally immigrants - picking up a little extra cash.
Here's the thing though - are they genuinely enthusiastic? Or are they just pretending to be to protect their contract?
Most of what's asserted in that first post is accurate, including the cavalier attitude the execs have about laws in the regions where they operate and the downright snotty attitude towards complaints and critical press. Usually Uber is a 'enter market first, ignore any cease and desists, dox and petition until you get the laws you like' kind of guy. Which could be a good thing or bad thing in the long run, but not the classiest behavior.
A little misleading about the liability thing - the crash he mentioned with the 6 yr old happened when the driver was logged into the app but did not have an active ride, and after that accident they changed their policy to cover that “insurance gap” period (all UberBLACK drivers are commercially insured by the driver, so Uber isn’t on the hook for them). A few states, like my native Colorado, mandate even more insurance for TNCs than they ask taxicabs to carry, but those are just where legislatures have bothered to regulate them at all.
There are plenty of arguments that TNCs are definitely a good thing, and the taxicab industry needs a serious shakeup - Uber and Lyft have a lot more incentive to treat customers right and listen to demands:
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/03/24/ubers-battle-in-seattle-highlights-the-irony-of-regulation-hurting-the-consumers-it-was-designed-to-help/
- http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_24864612/carroll-lyft-and-uberx-are-latest-threat-taxi
(Also, I made my account to comment on this thread, so this is my very first post. Hi everyone!)
(And if anyone's interested I have a 30 page working paper beastie on this topic... oh wait only I am that lame. lol)
i mean i can't speak to another man's heart of course, but they seemed earnest and in any case didn't have any obvious reason to lie to me - it's not like i'm an uber exec.
contrast boston taxi drivers who will nearly universally, at the drop of a hat unload a litany of complaints about their shitty job, shitty working conditions, pittance they're paid, the indignities of renting a medallion from a mobster, etc.
i can't speak to other locales, but the boston taxi situation is a textbook example of logrolling, regulatory capture and oligopoly. it is fucking terrible.
Same is true in NYC - uber drivers are near-universally happier than black car / taxi drivers. I refuse to believe that this is a charade the 100+ rides I have taken with uber with just as may drivers have put on.
I have used the service enough to have unlocked their VIP service, and I have had exactly 3 bad uber rides. In all three cases, I have been refunded money and apologized to by the service.
I have had DOZENS of shit yellow cab rides, and unless I want to go through mountains of bureaucracy and hour-long phone calls with 311 explaining my issues... yeah, I just eat the cost.
edit: I am not approving of all their tactics, mind you. Just pointing out that there is a reason the service is popular, and there is a reason the drivers for the most part seem happy to be a part of it. If any of those factors change I am sure my experience will change to, as will my general happiness with the product.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And because of this lots of yellow cabs stuck to only the places with high churn (read: Manhattan south of 72nd-96th street and a few places in Brooklyn) so they could justify the crippling cost.
The Green Cab medallion initiative (cannot pick up in manhattan south of 96th but can drop off there - operate and pick up out of the remainder of the boroughs) was a good move to reduce the cost of operating as an official vehicle for the city... I think those medallions go for 10-15k right now and people driving them are supposedly making 2x more money than they were busting their ass in manhattan under the weight of a 1mil medallion.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm on the side of surge pricing being dangerous and exploitative After about 3x.
I think Uber has a responsibility to the safety of their passengers and drivers to not try and entice drivers onto the road during a snowstorm with 7x or 8x pricing, and in turn passengers in need of a ride shouldn't be bent over a barrel at rates like that just because uber can.
I would rather there be no cars on the road then that.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
It's absolutely gooseshit, and illustrates why regulations are needed. The argument is that it "makes sure" that cars are available, but what it does is ration supply by cost (for a wonderful example of how well that works, see our health care system.)
i hadn't really thought about it that way. i guess i'd be supportive of straight-up blackouts if safety is a concern.
in general, though, the idea that high multiples would incent more taxis at scarce times/ locations is IMO an elegant solution to the problem.
The only times I have ever seen multipliers over 4 or 5 is during shitty weather events. And I have a hard time seeing it in any way other than Uber enticing drivers against their own good judgement to get on the road with the promise of a great payday.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Here's my harebrained "what if:" TNCs multiply and soon you want to check Lyft, Uber, SideCar, LadyGreeperDrivesU, etc, all for which fare is cheapest during an obvious surge time, i.e., Halloween.
A new app emerges which is like Priceline for TNCs - shows you all the rates on the different sites and you hail a ride through the Pricelineish app. You get an Uber. Uber crashes.
WHO DO YOU SUE?
these are the questions that keep me up at night
it doesn't matter, really. you sue everyone and whoever the jury sides against is forthwith on the hook to get insurance.
or, i guess, a far-sighted legislature or regulatory agency could set such standards upfront (hahahahaha)
it gets around there on friday and saturday nights in boston. usually, then, i wait it out or switch services or take the t or hail a cab or just walk.
who cares? all the non-uber modes of transportation are still available. if uber is a poor deal to a consumer then can't they use one of those?
This is a stupid analogy, most things are rationed by price without issue. Healthcare is a special case because it breaks all of the supply/demand curves.
Uber's argument is that they'd rather rather have people unhappy about not being able to afford the service, rather then having people unhappy because the service was poor.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
This is my biggest break point with AH on this topic.
The way he discusses uber it leads me to think he sees it as a public/municipal service and not a private/publicly traded business.
I can disagree with a lot of their pricing tactics but still know that what they are doing is well within their rights as a business establishing competitive price points.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So, you're arguing that it's okay that Uber gauges their customers because there are other options?
That is a spectacularly bad argument.
does it really? i don't think I've ever seen over 1.5x-2x even at bar closing
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
How is it a bad argument?
EDIT: Let's define 'price gouging', too. What's the difference between something being expensive and something being gouging?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because it's saying that unethical behavior is alright if there are other alternatives. It also ignores that they are currently in a scorched earth campaign to eliminate the alternatives.
As for a definition, I like the Wikipedia one:
And in this case it is even worse, because the supply shock is artificially induced.
how is this "gouging" in this context?
what does "price gouging" even mean in a market with hundreds of substitution goods?
Easy. You sue them all.
wait you waited at my place for an hour at 3 am just to save a 0.5x multiple!? you cheap bastage!
i used to see the larger multiples before the service was quite as large as it is now, and generally when it was raining. not necessarily **unsafe** weather conditions but **no one in the whole city wants to walk** weather conditions.
that extra 1x was like $20!
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
No, Will was saying that because there were alternatives that the behavior is ethical.
This is a separate issue, Just looking at the article you linked, they aren't doing anything wrong there. I know in some areas they were getting legislation crafted that benefited them and not other TNCs, but that usually hung on that fact that--at least nominally-uber goes through a more comprehensive selection and insurance process than, say, lyft.
Okay, so then it's just a pejorative for prices you subjectively don't like? Well that doesn't really help the level of discourse.
And, generally, Uber's surges aren't artificial. It's when they either have not enough drivers, or too many riders.
EDIT: And even if they are artifical, who cares? I'm still failing to see how Uber has an ethical responsibility to price anything a specific way.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
If demand outstrips supply for a good, some way of rationing that good will be necessary, yes? What would you propose?