• 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

Honestly if I was Travis I would probably do the same thing to the drivers.

Emp9

Well-Known Member
the only issue is they do get 20 percent ,they claim to be losing money right now. lowering rates hurts them as well. but you are right as long as they have people driving for 70 cents they will. its up to drivers to say no we wont drive for that little.
 

Backdash

Well-Known Member
Many would and do operate with the same mindset regarding a company's workforce.
Many would not and do not operate with the same mindset regarding a company's workforce.

I think it mostly depends on how a person was raised and if they ever, even in some small way, felt or actually have been taken advantage of or treated poorly in the workforce.
I blame the parents for not raising their kids with ethical common sense and not teaching empathy.

A significant majority of people will be very dependable, loyal, honest and hard working if they feel they are respected. appreciated and treated fairly.
 

Oc_DriverX

Well-Known Member
If you can exploit the dumb and the desperate and prosper, wouldn't you? I'll keep lowering the rates to the brink of zero if there are drivers dumb enough to drive for me, I still collect the SRF and minimum fare commission.

Why not?
There are a few reasons why you might not. For one, are you comfortable having drivers who are that desperate and unintelligent driving for you? It could hurt your brand. Of course, it might be tough to weed them out.

Also, if you stop cutting whenever you can, you might have a happier driving force. This might lead to better rides and better word of mouth from the drivers.

Travis seems like he is just in a race to the IPO. Caring about his brand may be too much of a long term issue for Travis. Travis may be better suited as an "idea" guy and much less so as an effective manager or leader. He does not seem capable of being an effective day to day leader of the company.
 

Raider

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
There are a few reasons why you might not. For one, are you comfortable having drivers who are that desperate and unintelligent driving for you? It could hurt your brand. Of course, it might be tough to weed them out.

Also, if you stop cutting whenever you can, you might have a happier driving force. This might lead to better rides and better word of mouth from the drivers.

Travis seems like he is just in a race to the IPO. Caring about his brand may be too much of a long term issue for Travis. Travis may be better suited as an "idea" guy and much less so as an effective manager or leader. He does not seem capable of being an effective day to day leader of the company.


Having a higher rate doesn't stop dumb drivers from driving for me. They will sign up anyways, this is technology and Internet based so we can't tell who's dumb and who's not without an interview. Basically anyone with a pulse can drive for uber, and that's good, that's the game plan. Like it or not, Travis is a mastermind, he did every single thing right from the start, and is one of the most successful entrepreneur of this decade. I still wanna take a dump on his chest tho but the dude is smart, ruthless and smart.
 

Toby

Active Member
Having a higher rate doesn't stop dumb drivers from driving for me. They will sign up anyways, this is technology and Internet based so we can't tell who's dumb and who's not without an interview. Basically anyone with a pulse can drive for uber, and that's good, that's the game plan. Like it or not, Travis is a mastermind, he did every single thing right from the start, and is one of the most successful entrepreneur of this decade. I still wanna take a dump on his chest tho but the dude is smart, ruthless and smart.
We'll see, Travis could end up in debt or in jail. Does anyone believe his behavior doesn't extend to other parts of his life? Would anyone be surprised if he evaded taxes or gets brought up on racketeering, fraud or corruption charges?
 

KGB7

Well-Known Member
Dont hate the player, hate the game.

God gave you free will, but you keep going back to being ass reamed by banks. So whats your excuse? Yet you still use same banks that sold toxic loans.


Its a kill or be killed world. If you want to cry about it, go look at middle east, ISIS and what they are doing to innocent people. A gallon of milk used to be 50cents and so was a gallon of fuel.

All of it is wrong, but we have Free Enterprise in this country, bills have to be paid and kids have to be fed.

Ill do it if i could.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzyelvis

Well-Known Member
Having a higher rate doesn't stop dumb drivers from driving for me. They will sign up anyways, this is technology and Internet based so we can't tell who's dumb and who's not without an interview. Basically anyone with a pulse can drive for uber, and that's good, that's the game plan. Like it or not, Travis is a mastermind, he did every single thing right from the start, and is one of the most successful entrepreneur of this decade. I still wanna take a dump on his chest tho but the dude is smart, ruthless and smart.
Having a higher rate WILL stop the good drivers from leaving though and if a better rating system were designed the bad drivers would eventually lose business to the better drivers as the pax would be more discerning due to the higher rates. A rating system where the pax can see available cars willing to go to their location and the ratings for things like safe driving, cleanliness of car, knowledge of the city, even things that vary but are not necessarily positive or negative, like talkativeness would allow them to pick what works for them ON THAT DAY (because sometimes you would choose the driver whose city knowledge is the best as you're in a hurry and you don't care if his car is not pristine; another day you may not care about much but you absolutely don't feel like talking to someone--the "quiet" driver would be best then) but a low rating on too many things and that bad driver will not get trips.
An easy way to reward drivers would be to allow them to set up their own clients by having them pay a smaller commission to you for rides where the client specifically requests them. This would allow drivers to build up a client base perhaps in their neighborhood.

Of course a REAL background check would also help to weed out some of those drivers as well.

And God forbid you put a limit on how many drivers you have. Of course if you made the platform available only 40 hours a week and no more than 12 hours a day that would help safety.

Which brings me to not being an @@@@@@@. If I were running this and my not giving a shit caused a driver who was working 100 hours a week to try and pay his crappy Santander lease AND keep a roof over his head to kill someone because he fell asleep at the wheel I would be devastated. But Travis has no conscience. He doesn't care. Yes, accidents happen but a decent person tries to minimize the risk. Travis doesn't give a damn about the drivers, the pax, or anyone else out there who is broke, suicidal, injured or dead as a result of Uber's practices.

IMHO you have to be a psychopath to act the way he does. We all know the research that showed that CEOs have more psychopathic tendencies than the general population. He's a prime example.
 

Toby

Active Member
my bank treats me well thank you, instrumental in getting me a loan under 6% and opened a line of credit that lowered my overhead by 25%. But I do agree that wall street banking is a scourge that gets off too easy.

Uber is like a food truck that says that since they have wheels they shouldn't be inspected by the health department.

We don't have Laissez faire in America, it's only when the power brokers convince the masses that it's a good thing even though the workers get screwed that people ask for it
 

KGB7

Well-Known Member
Having a higher rate WILL stop the good drivers from leaving though and if a better rating system were designed the bad drivers would eventually lose business to the better drivers as the pax would be more discerning due to the higher rates. A rating system where the pax can see available cars willing to go to their location and the ratings for things like safe driving, cleanliness of car, knowledge of the city, even things that vary but are not necessarily positive or negative, like talkativeness would allow them to pick what works for them ON THAT DAY (because sometimes you would choose the driver whose city knowledge is the best as you're in a hurry and you don't care if his car is not pristine; another day you may not care about much but you absolutely don't feel like talking to someone--the "quiet" driver would be best then) but a low rating on too many things and that bad driver will not get trips.
An easy way to reward drivers would be to allow them to set up their own clients by having them pay a smaller commission to you for rides where the client specifically requests them. This would allow drivers to build up a client base perhaps in their neighborhood.

Of course a REAL background check would also help to weed out some of those drivers as well.

And God forbid you put a limit on how many drivers you have. Of course if you made the platform available only 40 hours a week and no more than 12 hours a day that would help safety.

Which brings me to not being an @@@@@@@. If I were running this and my not giving a shit caused a driver who was working 100 hours a week to try and pay his crappy Santander lease AND keep a roof over his head to kill someone because he fell asleep at the wheel I would be devastated. But Travis has no conscience. He doesn't care. Yes, accidents happen but a decent person tries to minimize the risk. Travis doesn't give a damn about the drivers, the pax, or anyone else out there who is broke, suicidal, injured or dead as a result of Uber's practices.

IMHO you have to be a psychopath to act the way he does. We all know the research that showed that CEOs have more psychopathic tendencies than the general population. He's a prime example.
Everything you do in life is a risk. Life it self is a risk.

Yes there are better ways of doing things, but taking high risk nets the most results and Uber has proved it. Uber is a single "transportation" company that has gone global in the shortest time, not including airlines.
 

Toby

Active Member
Uber lays the high risks onto the drivers and they benefit from the results. This was the way management/labor worked 100 years ago when laborers were paid in company currency that they could only spend in the company store.

Uber claims to be a software based transportation network company that has no responsibility related to transportation...even though they lease cars now.
 

Fuzzyelvis

Well-Known Member
Everything you do in life is a risk. Life it self is a risk.

Yes there are better ways of doing things, but taking high risk nets the most results and Uber has proved it. Uber is a single "transportation" company that has gone global in the shortest time, not including airlines.
In that case if you can make money selling toys with lead in them is that ok? Cars without seatbelts? Even if it were legal does that make it ok when you KNOW those things are dangerous but make and sell them anyway? An Uber driver and his car are essentially being sold to the masses and there is no effort put into making that driver safer.

A kid who is killed by a sleepy Uber driver shouldn't be exposed to the UNNECESSARY risk of having them on the road in that condition. Uber's practices do not even ATTEMPT to mitigate that risk.
 

Casuale Haberdasher

Well-Known Member
Having a higher rate WILL stop the good drivers from leaving though and if a better rating system were designed the bad drivers would eventually lose business to the better drivers as the pax would be more discerning due to the higher rates. A rating system where the pax can see available cars willing to go to their location and the ratings for things like safe driving, cleanliness of car, knowledge of the city, even things that vary but are not necessarily positive or negative, like talkativeness would allow them to pick what works for them ON THAT DAY (because sometimes you would choose the driver whose city knowledge is the best as you're in a hurry and you don't care if his car is not pristine; another day you may not care about much but you absolutely don't feel like talking to someone--the "quiet" driver would be best then) but a low rating on too many things and that bad driver will not get trips.
An easy way to reward drivers would be to allow them to set up their own clients by having them pay a smaller commission to you for rides where the client specifically requests them. This would allow drivers to build up a client base perhaps in their neighborhood.

Of course a REAL background check would also help to weed out some of those drivers as well.

And God forbid you put a limit on how many drivers you have. Of course if you made the platform available only 40 hours a week and no more than 12 hours a day that would help safety.

Which brings me to not being an @@@@@@@. If I were running this and my not giving a shit caused a driver who was working 100 hours a week to try and pay his crappy Santander lease AND keep a roof over his head to kill someone because he fell asleep at the wheel I would be devastated. But Travis has no conscience. He doesn't care. Yes, accidents happen but a decent person tries to minimize the risk. Travis doesn't give a damn about the drivers, the pax, or anyone else out there who is broke, suicidal, injured or dead as a result of Uber's practices.

IMHO you have to be a psychopath to act the way he does. We all know the research that showed that CEOs have more psychopathic tendencies than the general population. He's a prime example.
POST # 9/Fuzzyelvis: Your last two
paragraphs.....BRAVO!
Possibly....................Your Finest Work.

Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!
 

KGB7

Well-Known Member
In that case if you can make money selling toys with lead in them is that ok? Cars without seatbelts? Even if it were legal does that make it ok when you KNOW those things are dangerous but make and sell them anyway? An Uber driver and his car are essentially being sold to the masses and there is no effort put into making that driver safer.

A kid who is killed by a sleepy Uber driver shouldn't be exposed to the UNNECESSARY risk of having them on the road in that condition. Uber's practices do not even ATTEMPT to mitigate that risk.
Free will. Buy it or dont buy it, drive or dont drive it. Its your choice.

You could be taking a road trip from NY to LA, you fell a sleep and killed 20 nuns on a bus. Cant blame Uber or China sweat shops for it. You made the choice to drive for too many hours.

Free will.
 

Fuzzyelvis

Well-Known Member
Free will. Buy it or dont buy it, drive or dont drive it. Its your choice.

You could be taking a road trip from NY to LA, you fell a sleep and killed 20 nuns on a bus. Cant blame Uber or China sweat shops for it. You made the choice to drive for too many hours.

Free will.
I think you're missing my point. It's not just the drivers at risk here. It would be bad enough even if it were, but it's not.
 

KGB7

Well-Known Member
I think you're missing my point. It's not just the drivers at risk here. It would be bad enough even if it were, but it's not.
One more time; God gave you free will. What you and every living being does with it, is your and every one else prerogative.

No one put a gun to your head to buy toys with lead paint, or drive 36 hours with out sleep.

So stop looking for a scapegoat.
 

Toby

Active Member
Free will. Buy it or dont buy it, drive or dont drive it. Its your choice.

You could be taking a road trip from NY to LA, you fell a sleep and killed 20 nuns on a bus. Cant blame Uber or China sweat shops for it. You made the choice to drive for too many hours.

Free will.
Unless you're driving a semi and you have a deadline to meet that is only realistic if you don't sleep. The company who set the deadline has a choice that the extra $100 they make is not worth pushing their drivers to the point of driving under unsafe conditions.
 

KGB7

Well-Known Member
Unless you're driving a semi and you have a deadline to meet that is only realistic if you don't sleep. The company who set the deadline has a choice that the extra $100 they make is not worth pushing their drivers to the point of driving under unsafe conditions.
Such companies cant set such deadline because the driver will get a ticket, because drivers keep a log of hours driven and hours rested. Cops randomly check those logs.
There also laws in place that punish companies and drivers for breaking those laws.

With Uber, the longest trip i know of, is 3 hours. But thats 0.000001% of all rides. Truck drivers who take long drives over 4 hours, is 99.999% of all long rides. Thus trucker laws dont apply to Uber drivers.

Truck drivers have Unions and Teamsters. Uber drivers have.... nothing.
 
Top