• 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

Uber:We Don't Have to Pay Driver's Based off Rider's Fare

MHR

Well-Known Member
Moderator
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/uber-driver-pay-plan-puts-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/
Uber: We don’t have to pay drivers based on rider fares
Contracts allow rider fares to be higher than what is known and paid to drivers.
Arstechnica DAVID KRAVETS - 9/18/2017

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."

A contract is a contract
Uber doesn't consider its drivers employees, and it doesn't call their pay "commissions." Instead, it allows drivers to keep the fare presented to them in the Uber driver app, even if the fare is different from what the rider was charged. The driver then pays Uber a "service fee"—a percentage of the fare earned by the driver.

The San Francisco-based ride-hailing service also claims that it took "significant risk" under this "upfront" fare pricing model, which began last year.

Plaintiff further alleges that, after Upfront Pricing began, Drivers continued to earn based on the trip’s distance and the amount of time it actually took to complete the trip. Plaintiff claims the Upfront Price is often higher than the Fare, which is the basis of what is remitted to him. He neglects to mention, however, the significant risk placed on Uber, not Drivers, by Upfront Pricing: the User’s Upfront Price may just as easily disadvantage Uber, for example, where an actual trip takes longer than expected, yet the Driver’s earnings calculation remains constant.

What's more, a rider might also pay Uber more than what the driver's fare is based on because a driver's contract allows Uber to "adjust" the fare known and paid to the driver, according to Uber's legal filing.

"The Agreement allows Uber to adjust the Fare under various circumstances. For example, Uber is permitted to make changes to the Fare Calculation based on local market factors," Uber said in its federal court response. "Likewise, Uber may adjust the Fare based on other factors such as inefficient routes, technical errors, or customer complaints."

And here's the kicker:

Drivers disclaim any right to receive amounts over and above the Fare produced by the Fare Calculation.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, demands back pay and legal fees. It wants a Los Angeles federal judge to halt the alleged "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices."

A hearing is set for December 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fubernuber

Well-Known Member
This double dipping while not illegal, floats in a grey area of acceptable business practice. For uber it means constant lawsuits. Being a service provider that transports humand (not a tech company at all) uber has a VERY difficult challenge. That is to:
1. Make sure its drivers are not killing an injuring passegers. Impossible when they are being paid minimum wage.
2. Reduce the erraneous app incidents that will always be part of a class action. This is impossible to deal with because they provide the app, the terms, the logistics and will always be a target for class action as long as they continue to "innovate".

Uber=the are between a rock and a hard place. Investors welcome
 

MHR

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I understand that we get paid per mile/minutes. That's fine.

The problem for me is Uber doesn't even have raising our rates on the radar yet they charge pax more and more.

Gas prices rose with the hurricanes and while Uber gave free rides from the shelters they did nothing to help the drivers. They could have tossed in an extra buck per trip for gas not at the pax expense.

It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company. It seems as if they forget drivers are a necessary part of their business practice.
 

wk1102

Well-Known Member
It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company.
They simply do not care. In their eyes we are a means to an end. Uber is currently spending millions to come off as they do care but they do not. Evety single change uber makes is a benifit to uber 1st, riders second and if they can spin it as such, drivers 3rd. Even in app tipping , which took 7 years, wasn't for us. It was PR and to keep drivers from jumping ship to lyft who was/is expanding into more and more matkets that uber has/had a monopoly on. Every single change is to benifit uber first.
 

MoreTips

Well-Known Member
It seems like the next round of the "180 days of change" should of been announced by now, makes me wonder if this case somehow effects it. Just a thought.
 

WaveRunner1

Well-Known Member
It seems like the next round of the "180 days of change" should of been announced by now, makes me wonder if this case somehow effects it. Just a thought.
You mean 180 Days Of Scams. Notice how the first part was "earnings" and by that I mean allowing tipping. As if it's a nice gift they gave us. People rarely tip, one of ten rides max. They did this to appease idiot drivers while robbing them through upfront fares scam and increasing booking fees. So under their 180 Scams scheme they covered earnings cause now you'll be rich from them being gracious enough to allow tipping.
 

SEAL Team 5

Well-Known Member
It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company. It seems as if they forget drivers are a necessary part of their business practice.
You couldn't be any farther from the truth. Uber is in complete touch with drivers' ignorance. Uber is completely correct not paying drivers based off what they receive from customers. Drivers have ALWAYS been paid on a per mile/min basis with Uber.
When UberX started in Jan '14 the rates were $2.25/mile. The more Uber dropped their pricing the more drivers joined. Uber has had over 700k U.S. drivers with 400,000 active at any given time. Why would Uber raise pricing? They already make up to 50% of the fare from drivers with minimal overhead. The past has proven that Uber has an unlimited supply of drivers ignorant enough to drive for $.60/mile.
 

hulksmash

Well-Known Member
They dropped prices claiming pax were complaining of high fares and that lower fares equal more money. If we didn't know already, it's been proven to be balony, and what they are doing contradicts the theory.
 

Jesusdrivesuber

Well-Known Member
Lol@ not raising rates and catching up to the old rates with upfront scam.

How they managed to raise the rates back only for them to take more money, pass flyer's at airports making everyone aware of their scam to see how quickly they start losing drivers again or get sued.

Quote from ars technica

Most companies wait until they've established a monopoly before turning into utter and complete dicks. Uber did us the favor of previewing its own ethos beforehand. The only smart thing to do is to kill it. Let it choke on its own hubris.
Haha, this is Kalanick's big mistake and his very last, I said it from the start.
 
Last edited:

Too Many Miles

Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.
 

Tom Harding

Well-Known Member
so all Uber, Lyft, and VIA drivers band together to form the Independent Driver's Guild of Chicago. Get a hold of the union that is helping the New York drivers to organize. Make a stand, demand changes, if not by the companies then by the government. In the Chicago area there are supposed to be over 30,000 full and part time drivers. That is a lot of political pressure.
 

MoreTips

Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.
Exactly this is a huge miscalculation on Ubers part, you cannot have it both ways. Same thing with the employee or IC issue. Uber sooo should of went public last year. It's all catching up with them.
 

UberLaLa

Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.
Actually, Uber is now simply charging the passenger to use the Uber App to interact with drivers. Drivers have always been charged, so we simply just getting what we've always gotten. Screwed
 
Top