1. UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

few questions to" xuberemployee"

Discussion in 'Los Angeles & Orange County' started by money time, Sep 29, 2015.

Tags:
  1. Hay there
    I already apologised for thinking you are glados hope my apology accepted.

    Please tell us more about these topics
    1 .how should we make that strike more efficient .we need to know where to hit uber.we have lots of underground ideas. Which one do you recomend?
    2. If we want to avoid suspension, how should we handle unwanted pings. Would you acro or just let it expire.
    3. When did you stop working for uber
    Please dont advise us to behave according to ubers rules .we already lost our pants. We are beyond that point and as you know travis takes us as animals not humans.
    We are really fed up with ubers attitute.
    Thanks x.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2015
  2. Optimus Uber

    Optimus Uber

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Driving:
    UberLUX
    5hy likes this.
  3. Showa50

    Showa50

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Driving:
    UberX
    1. ACRO. Uber hates it when we cancel on pax more than anything. Because Pax start whinning and complaining about service and price, usually via Twitter.
    Uber knows that ACRO is a problem because drivers are choosing not to give cheap rides, <gasp>. That's why they modified the app so riders don't experience ACRO as badly anymore. Uber is actually doing what software engineers are supposed to do, design around users.

    2. Suspension is most likely an inevitably. However you can complain to the CPUC about it. Since Uber themselves said to the state that drivers can decline rides. The decline option was slyly removed by Uber; ACRO is the only way to do it. Unless Uber specifically mentions otherwise.
    Complain to the CPUC. It could be a powerful tool if we start opening our mouths. Complaints can be done anonymously.
     
  4. Thanks lets see if he replies. He seems to be on tbe positive side here.
    Meanwhile he did not say anything bout the strike. He did deny anything to do with uber but im not sure its true.i tend to believe glados have a new outfit
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2015
    Optimus Uber likes this.
  5. Hi Money Time,

    No worries, I didn't even know what Glados is until I Google searched it.

    1. As you can imagine, sharing "where it hurts" Uber the most, would most likely break the confidentiality agreement that I signed. That said, I'm uncertain how effective a strike or sit-out really is. There has been strikes in front of the press, at Uber HQ and other places before, and while the media covers it, it hasn't stopped the company from growing (in terms of getting new drivers, new riders and more investor funding). I think the issue with strikes, in general, is that nobody benefits and whoever "bleeds" faster (there's no revenue coming in for both sides), is going to be the first to quit. In this case, Uber has the money to sustain a strike much longer than most drivers can. On top of that, it's really hard to get enough drivers to strike continuously where it actually disrupts Uber's business. You might call for a nationwide strike, but Uber is now an international company. A really effective strike would have to be done on a global basis. But by reading articles and where Uber is heading, Asian cities are clearly the current priority and as many people have already figured out, Uber isn't even making money in the Asian cities, they're throwing money to gain market share. From a business perspective, if Uber, as a company, is willing burn money in Asia (I can't quote how much money, but it's a lot), do you honestly think disrupting business for a few days (and this is a very generous assumption of every driver in the city strikes for more than 1 day, which is unrealistic) would get Uber's attention?

    I can't say that a strike definitely won't work, but the facts are there has been plenty of strikes in the past and has any of them really made significant changes the way you wanted them to?

    I'm a person that likes to think outside the box. So my only suggestion would be to try instead of a "me vs. you" approach, at least once, try an "us" approach. Which could be representing enough drivers in a given city to have a meeting with the city's GM and asking the GM, "what is Uber's goal and what is our common goal?" If we share a common goal, how can we work towards that together in a mutually beneficial way? I can assure you that any smart GM would welcome an open dialogue if it means possibly making the system better. Remember, Uber is a business that's trying to make money. Like any business, the GM is tasked to increase profits, anyway necessary. So they would be dumb to refuse a sit-down if that means a chance to influence their city's drivers without having to fight with money. I don't know what those common goals might be (more trips for everyone?) and what the possible solutions are, but I think it could be worth a shot.

    2. The answer to this question would require each driver to take a step-back and not look at the pings individually, but as a whole. Individually, it's understandably annoying to take a short-distance ride (less money) than a long-distance ride (more money), especially if you take a long time to get to the rider. As a bigger picture though, it's annoying for that rider when drivers repeatedly cancel. It's possible the rider typically does long-distance rides, but every so often does a short-distance ride and should be considered generally, a "good rider." Fed up with no drivers accepting the request, that "good rider" may then quit Uber and use another service instead. This is a lose-lose for both drivers and Uber because that's one less "good rider" in the system. One of Uber's mission (and this is real, you can Google TK saying this), is to make Uber as reliable as running water. This means that riders should feel safe knowing regardless the distance of their trip, someone is going to pick them up, and not after repeated cancels. Now, if people did believe Uber was as reliable as running water, then that means there'll be many new riders signing up than ever before. True, some new riders may start with short-distance rides, but could later turn to long-distance rides after experiencing the reliability of cars available. This is a win-win for both drivers and Uber because that's one more "good rider" in the system.

    Keep staying with me and look at the big picture. If the 1st driver that got pinged was willing to "sacrifice" and take that short trip, then (1) it builds that sentiment "Uber as reliable as running water" and builds more future "good riders" (2) any driver after the 1st wouldn't be dinged for not accepting the request and having their acceptance rating drop. Imagine in a situation with 1 rider and 5 drivers. All 5 drivers cancel and all 5 drivers get dinged on their acceptance rating. However, if 1 driver (say, Driver A) accepts, then no driver gets dinged on their acceptance rating. But that doesn't sound fair to Driver A who accepted. So to make it work, everyone would have to be willing to accept the ping. Driver A helps the community, but also gets helped in return when other drivers do the same and prevent Driver A from having to cancel and get dinged on the acceptance rating in the future.

    I know my response seems a bit more philosophical, but that really is what Uber is trying to build, and right now, they believe they can do so through controlling the acceptance rating.

    To answer your question more specifically, I can't think of a good way to prevent deactivation in regards to acceptance rating, with how the system currently works. If it falls below a certain %, it's pretty automatic. Uber does keep track of what is done in the Uber app (like any business would), so any clever temporary hacks around this topic would ultimately be noticed and stopped.

    3. I can't specify when I left Uber, since that may give away who I am to Uber, in case they don't like me being on this forum. But most of my knowledge should still be relevant, since it's unlikely so much would have changed at Uber so quickly. Sorry, can't get more specific on this one.

    Hope this helped!
     
    negeorgia, eman1122, ATL2SD and 3 others like this.
  6. Great.thanks again and keep up your quality postings.we need to know whats going on. Seems you know a lot and your knowledge is based on facts.
     
    eman1122 likes this.
  7. Hey Money Time,

    Thanks for the vote of confidence! I do have an idea on how to get a sit-down with a city GM, but you'll have to follow my philosophical ideas a bit again:

    First, understand why fares keep getting cut. My belief is because there's a market war between Uber and Lyft (and Sidecar, but not really...) in major cities. There are mainly 2 influencers in this turf battle, supply (drivers) and demand (riders). It's pretty common knowledge that veteran ride-share drivers, among many, drive for both Uber and Lyft. The problem then, is that it leaves only 1 influencer left in this turf battle, demand (riders). Business 101 in creating demand is to make your product cheaper than the next guy. Because supply (drivers) are out of the equation with drivers driving for both platforms, fares get cut to attract riders, hence the recent Lyft price cut. Now, I had thought after a few years of this, and when both companies had bled enough money (Uber and Lyft don't make money, or as much money, when they are locked in this kind of turf battle), a victor would emerge. I thought it would be Uber, but Lyft just joined this "global alliance against Uber" and got new funding to keep the game going. So I don't see fares go up any time soon.

    To get back into the equation as drivers, I think drivers need to commit to a single side and stay there (doesn't matter Uber or Lyft). (1) If all drivers are with Uber, then Lyft can't play in the game anymore and will be forced to pull out. The city becomes a monopoly for Uber which allows prices to go back up. (2) It makes losing a good driver that much more painful than before, which could possibly get the company to spend $ on you as retention, rather than $ on driver recruitment (especially from the other side), which is what is happening right now. From a business perspective, if I'm going to lose a driver today, I'd much rather spend $50 to retain the driver, then $100 to poach from the competitor. Uber already spends money on drivers, this is just shifting who they spend the money on. (3) I know there's negative sentiment, but in general, loyalty is rewarded. Which is why so many loyalty/reward programs exist in pretty much every business out there. If you're already working with the competitor, I have little incentive to retain you since I've already lost you to begin with.

    If you can get a decent # of drivers (I don't know if that means hundreds or thousands of drivers for the LA market, maybe you can do less if the average rating and trip completed is high) to pledge to sticking with Uber and not drive on multiple platforms and willing to have a genuine, unbiased conversation, I honestly believe you'll have a much better chance at talking with the city's GM, than getting a response from holding a strike.

    I just realized this sounded like a blurb to drive only with Uber, and not Lyft. But it's just my example (hopefully the logic proves itself to be unbiased). You could do the same with Lyft and not drive Uber and still be able to achieve the same result in meeting with the Lyft GM and get higher fares.

    Good luck!
     
    money time likes this.

Share This Page