"Flexibility and Fairness" report

Duderx

Well-Known Member
Commissioned by Uber - totally unbiased NOT. All quoted data references Sydney where, surprise surprise, Uber rates are higher than other states.

Take a look at this report, commissioned by Uber, written by Alphabeta and backed by University of Melbourne Professor Jeff Borland.


How embarrassing, check out the chart (exhibit 8) on p.15, which shows 'renumeration' (sic) instead of 'remuneration'. Can't these jokers even proof read a document.

From https://writingexplained.org/renumeration-vs-remuneration-spelling:
Is it renumeration or remuneration? Remuneration is a noun that means the act of giving payments for work or services. Renumeration is a misspelling.


I once worked with a HR manager who made the same error and refused to be corrected. He wasn't the sharpest pin in the cushion either.

I also call into question the hourly costs involved in providing Uber rides in Sydney. They seem low and income tax is ignored.

And the response rate of 12% is, sub optimal. The issue of response bias is not addressed. I would suggest that the 1,154 partners that responded of the 10,000 invited would be those with a higher than normal level of satisfaction with Uber, and a greater longevity, given the reports that driver turnover is north of 90%.

And why Sydney only? Why not select a sample frame that is state-based and give tables comparing the drivers' responses to each question on a state by state basis? Because, as I've already said, Sydney rates are higher and therefore look better in this 'report'.

As a piece of research, Uber has got what it paid for. A favourable view of the Uber - driver relationship.

Unfortunately, as an independent piece of research, I will now look very sceptically at anything produced by, or in collaboration with, Professor Jeff Borland.
 
Last edited:

Apollo

Well-Known Member
Commissioned by Uber - totally unbiased NOT. All quoted data references Sydney where, surprise surprise, Uber rates are higher than other states.

Take a look at this report, commissioned by Uber, written by Alphabeta and backed by University of Melbourne Professor Jeff Borland.


How embarrassing, check out the chart (exhibit 8) on p.15, which shows 'renumeration' (sic) instead of 'remuneration'. Can't these jokers even proof read a document.

From https://writingexplained.org/renumeration-vs-remuneration-spelling:
Is it renumeration or remuneration? Remuneration is a noun that means the act of giving payments for work or services. Renumeration is a misspelling.


I once worked with a HR manager who made the same error and refused to be corrected. He wasn't the sharpest pin in the cushion either.

I also call into question the hourly costs involved in providing Uber rides in Sydney. They seem low and income tax is ignored.

And the response rate of 12% is, sub optimal. The issue of response bias is not addressed. I would suggest that the 1,154 partners that responded of the 10,000 invited would be those with a higher than normal level of satisfaction with Uber, and a greater longevity, given the reports that driver turnover is north of 90%.

And why Sydney only? Why not select a sample frame that is state-based and give tables comparing the drivers' responses to each question on a state by state basis? Because, as I've already said, Sydney rates are higher and therefore look better in this 'report'.

As a piece of research, Uber has got what it paid for. A favourable view of the Uber - driver relationship.

Unfortunately, as an independent piece of research, I will now look very sceptically at anything produced by, or in collaboration with, Professor Jeff Borland.
Pure crap at its finest.
 

Kick poor Ant in guts

Well-Known Member
Commissioned by Uber - totally unbiased NOT. All quoted data references Sydney where, surprise surprise, Uber rates are higher than other states.

Take a look at this report, commissioned by Uber, written by Alphabeta and backed by University of Melbourne Professor Jeff Borland.


How embarrassing, check out the chart (exhibit 8) on p.15, which shows 'renumeration' (sic) instead of 'remuneration'. Can't these jokers even proof read a document.

From https://writingexplained.org/renumeration-vs-remuneration-spelling:
Is it renumeration or remuneration? Remuneration is a noun that means the act of giving payments for work or services. Renumeration is a misspelling.


I once worked with a HR manager who made the same error and refused to be corrected. He wasn't the sharpest pin in the cushion either.

I also call into question the hourly costs involved in providing Uber rides in Sydney. They seem low and income tax is ignored.

And the response rate of 12% is, sub optimal. The issue of response bias is not addressed. I would suggest that the 1,154 partners that responded of the 10,000 invited would be those with a higher than normal level of satisfaction with Uber, and a greater longevity, given the reports that driver turnover is north of 90%.

And why Sydney only? Why not select a sample frame that is state-based and give tables comparing the drivers' responses to each question on a state by state basis? Because, as I've already said, Sydney rates are higher and therefore look better in this 'report'.

As a piece of research, Uber has got what it paid for. A favourable view of the Uber - driver relationship.

Unfortunately, as an independent piece of research, I will now look very sceptically at anything produced by, or in collaboration with, Professor Jeff Borland.
Love to see Professor Borland's fee paid by Uber - he's a Melbourne Uni staffer which means he's doing it all for the cash baby.
 

Hugh G

Well-Known Member
A cynic might suggest that those preparing this B*llshit report were directed to ensure that final nett rate per hour for Uber drivers will be above the national minimum wage of currently $18.93 per hour .
see: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/723/Minimum-wages.pdf.aspx


The extract below shows Depreciation of 64 cents per hour of running costs based on :
  • Vehicle value of $34,500 (based on weighted average of top 10 models)
  • Estimate reflects calculation approach based on developing a depreciation model based on real vehicle price data to determine the impact of additional kilometres

Depreciation at 64 cents per hour
Hours
Weekly
Yearly
10​
$6.40​
$332.80​
15​
$9.60​
$499.20​
20​
$12.80​
$665.60​
25​
$16.00​
$832.00​
30​
$19.20​
$998.40​
35​
$22.40​
$1,164.80​
40​
$25.60​
$1,331.20​
45​
$28.80​
$1,497.60​
50​
$32.00​
$1,664.00​
55​
$35.20​
$1,830.40​
60​
$38.40​
$1,996.80​

An underestimate perhaps !

Depreciation Crap.png


This rubbish just reinforces my view that many of our supposed "EXPERT" tenured academics:
  • Are detached from the realities of the world we live in
  • Will produce the nice glossy report with the results you want - for a price
 
Last edited:

Hugh G

Well-Known Member
Depreciation Crap.png


Using their quoted data:
  • In an hour they use $2.57 in fuel
  • Their fuel costs $1.41 per litre, so they use 1.822695 litres in an hour
  • They say they get 13.25 kms per litre, therefor they are averaging 24.15 kms traveled per logon hour
If we use these figures:

Depreciation at 64 cents per hour, kms at 24.1507 per hour online
Hours Weekly KMSWeekly DepreciationYearly KMSYearly Depreciation
10242$6.4012,558$332.80
15362$9.6018,838$499.20
20483$12.8025,117$665.60
25604$16.0031,396$832.00
30725$19.2037,675$998.40
35845$22.4043,954$1,164.80
40966$25.6050,233$1,331.20
451,087$28.8056,513$1,497.60
501,208$32.0062,792$1,664.00
551,328$35.2069,071$1,830.40
601,449$38.4075,350$1,996.80

This is 2.65 cents per km in depreciation !

So doing say 40 hrs per week gives over 50,000 kilometres per year on a vehicle to depreciate at $1,331 !

The vehicle they quoted costs $34,500, so at 40hrs per week / 50k kms per year and $1,331 depreciation per year it would take over 25 years to write the vehicle off with 1.3 million kms on it !

An underestimate perhaps !
 

Immoralized

Well-Known Member
View attachment 308359

Using their quoted data:
  • In an hour they use $2.57 in fuel
  • Their fuel costs $1.41 per litre, so they use 1.822695 litres in an hour
  • They say they get 13.25 kms per litre, therefor they are averaging 24.15 kms traveled per logon hour
If we use these figures:

Depreciation at 64 cents per hour, kms at 24.1507 per hour online
HoursWeekly KMSWeekly DepreciationYearly KMSYearly Depreciation
10242$6.4012,558$332.80
15362$9.6018,838$499.20
20483$12.8025,117$665.60
25604$16.0031,396$832.00
30725$19.2037,675$998.40
35845$22.4043,954$1,164.80
40966$25.6050,233$1,331.20
451,087$28.8056,513$1,497.60
501,208$32.0062,792$1,664.00
551,328$35.2069,071$1,830.40
601,449$38.4075,350$1,996.80

This is 2.65 cents per km in depreciation !

So doing say 40 hrs per week gives over 50,000 kilometres per year on a vehicle to depreciate at $1,331 !

The vehicle they quoted costs $34,500, so at 40hrs per week / 50k kms per year and $1,331 depreciation per year it would take over 25 years to write the vehicle off with 1.3 million kms on it !

An underestimate perhaps !
They are a good place to go to when you need to get glossy spreadsheets and pie charts for investors to pour $$$ into :redface:
I wonder if splend used similar tactics to secure over a hundred million dollars in funds.

Most vehicles loses half their value once they go over hundred thousand KM and basically 2/3 of their value approaching 200k mark then scarp value at quarter million KM. $2000 maybe $4000 but it will take a while to move. I generally drop them on the market when they over quarter million between $2500-3500 since I just want it off my hands. Since that $$$ that I can be spending on something that will be producing $$ instead of showing it around to hundred & one people.

A driver that is doing 60 hours weeks can easily get around quarter million mark in terms of KM. In which case the vehicle maybe worth 1/4 of it value at the end of 3 years if it is still running that is.
 
Last edited:

Immoralized

Well-Known Member
Here give this week SS to them quick as I've outdone even what they estimated :roflmao::thumbup::redface:



Would be a bit more but had to stop in the Syd forum about them going on about payout button not working so pressed it & got paid out & took SS for proof.

Not a bad week though averaged 38-41 bucks per hour on my cherry picked hours & trips. :redface::wink:\
 
Last edited:

Djhuber63

Well-Known Member
Here give this week SS to them quick as I've outdone even what they estimated :roflmao::thumbup::redface:



Would be a bit more but had to stop in the Syd forum about them going on about payout button not working so pressed it & got paid out & took SS for proof.

Not a bad week though averaged 38-41 bucks per hour on my cherry picked hours & trips. :redface::wink:\
Reckon Franco would have had something to say about this :wink:
 

LongTall

New Member
Commissioned by Uber - totally unbiased NOT. All quoted data references Sydney where, surprise surprise, Uber rates are higher than other states.

Take a look at this report, commissioned by Uber, written by Alphabeta and backed by University of Melbourne Professor Jeff Borland.


How embarrassing, check out the chart (exhibit 8) on p.15, which shows 'renumeration' (sic) instead of 'remuneration'. Can't these jokers even proof read a document.

From https://writingexplained.org/renumeration-vs-remuneration-spelling:
Is it renumeration or remuneration? Remuneration is a noun that means the act of giving payments for work or services. Renumeration is a misspelling.


I once worked with a HR manager who made the same error and refused to be corrected. He wasn't the sharpest pin in the cushion either.

I also call into question the hourly costs involved in providing Uber rides in Sydney. They seem low and income tax is ignored.

And the response rate of 12% is, sub optimal. The issue of response bias is not addressed. I would suggest that the 1,154 partners that responded of the 10,000 invited would be those with a higher than normal level of satisfaction with Uber, and a greater longevity, given the reports that driver turnover is north of 90%.

And why Sydney only? Why not select a sample frame that is state-based and give tables comparing the drivers' responses to each question on a state by state basis? Because, as I've already said, Sydney rates are higher and therefore look better in this 'report'.

As a piece of research, Uber has got what it paid for. A favourable view of the Uber - driver relationship.

Unfortunately, as an independent piece of research, I will now look very sceptically at anything produced by, or in collaboration with, Professor Jeff Borland.
Uber should have given the median driver take. They should not have used selected data. They should state what % of drivers responded to their ID linked survey.

The Rideshare Driver Cooperative released a survey of driver earnings taken from 1000 drivers Australia wide. The survey showed the average hourly take was $16. That was before tax and onroad costs. That figure has recently decreased.

Shall we call the Uber report questionable, or shall we call it a constructed lie?
 

RoboRider

Well-Known Member
I was surprised at the low % of drivers doing >30 hours per week. 14% of drivers and they are doing 44% of the total hours driven. And at the other end of the spectrum 48% doing less than 10 hours per week accounting for only 10% of the hours driven.
 
Top