• 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

Would you support the "70% Rule"?

Would you support a law requiring a minimum of 70% of the fare going to the driver?


  • Total voters
    83
  • This poll will close: .

Trafficat

Well-Known Member
Moderator
I only care how much I make per hour, not how much the company makes per ride. In my market I went from making ~70% of the fare to about 40-60% of the fare since I started 2.5 years ago.... but, my hourly earnings are higher than before, so I'm not complaining. They raised the per mile and per minute rate for drivers in my market.... Not as much as they raised the fares though. They also added in-app tipping, which helps even if only a minority of riders use it.

Overall, I actually prefer the flat-fare to the one calculated by the minute and the mile. It is less stressful not having passengers be as worried about the route I take, and they seem happy to pay a lot more for the certainty of knowing the exact price before the trip starts.

I hope a competitor can come along and offer higher per mile and per minute rates though. Uber and Lyft have an annoying habit of price fixing.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
The 70% rule:

"All TNC companies must pay a driver who is responsible for their own vehicle and gas no less than 70% of the gross fare charged to the passenger inclusive of any and all service fees."

Would you support this as a law?
Booking Fee was never included, and you really don't want it to be because then you'll have to pay for your own background checks (whenever they come up) and commercial insurance.

What SHOULD happen is drivers should be getting 75% (or 80% for those that have been around long enough) of the remaining fare after booking fee, like we used to.

My problem with the way the money is sorted is this.... on paper the pax are the drivers' customers and the driver's are Uber's customers. The service fee is what drivers pay Uber for the service provided. The way Uber is charging pax and distributing money to drivers now cannot be considered that, though. A customer is supposed to know, up front, either how much will be charged or how the amount to be charged will be calculated. Drivers don't get this information.

This is why Uber will eventually be forced to acknowledge that drivers ARE employees, and will have to either go back to the old system or ensure hourly minimums after expenses, state unemployment insurance, state disability insurance, Workers' Compensation insurance, and take out taxes... and provide health instance for those driving at least 30 hours per week or an average of 130 hours per month.
 

No Prisoners

Active Member
Anyone who supports this rule does not understand uber's business model. Please before supporting this rule try to understand how their model works.
Their current model cannot survive indefinitely even if uber took 80%. Their costs are too great. However, there's a way for uber to allow drivers to take not 70%," but 100% and be exponentially profitable. But I'm not having that discussion here. I'm not giving them the formula. Let uber bury itself. Another platform will rise with the right model.
 

BobMarley

New Member
Anyone who supports this rule does not understand uber's business model. Please before supporting this rule try to understand how their model works.
Their current model cannot survive indefinitely even if uber took 80%. Their costs are too great. However, there's a way for uber to allow drivers to take not 70%," but 100% and be exponentially profitable. But I'm not having that discussion here. I'm not giving them the formula. Let uber bury itself. Another platform will rise with the right model.
What are Ubers costs exactly? They claim 15 mil rides a day, given revenue of just $5 per ride that's 27 billion a year. WTF are they spending that kind of money on?
 

touberornottouber

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
I see this as being much better than laws such as in NYC where they try to mandate a minimum per hour for rideshare. I think something like this "70% rule" would be much more effective because basically in order for the company to make more money they would need to raise the price and also give more money to the driver. This means we truly become partners again rather than exploited low wage workers whom they take advantage of.

I see 70% as being very reasonable. That is still a 30% cut for the company when the driver is mostly providing the means of production. The company should absolutely be able to function on this and if they can't then that means they are being highly inefficient (such as spending all of the profits on driverless vehicle research). Really Uber/Lyft spending their money on driverless vehicle research is not that much different than if I decided to go out and waste all my earnings on scratch off lottery tickets. It's on them.
Post automatically merged:

What are Ubers costs exactly? They claim 15 mil rides a day, given revenue of just $5 per ride that's 27 billion a year. WTF are they spending that kind of money on?
Driverless vehicle research. Hookers and blow for the executives.

Now I do acknowledge that they pay a good bit for insurance and processing fees. But that doesn't exceed 15% by any calculation. It's likely below 10% because of their power due to scale.
 

OldBay

Member
Driverless vehicle research. Hookers and blow for the executives.
Driverless cars are a cute idea, like sending a man to mars, but in reality I don't think most people want driverless cars on the roads.

How many people will have to die because of autonomous cars? When there aren't any human brains behind gridlock, how many endless traffic jams will it take to sour opinion? No only that but it would eliminate an entire sector of jobs that government entitlements would have to absorb. Such a bad idea.
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
Anyone who supports this rule does not understand uber's business model. Please before supporting this rule try to understand how their model works.
Their current model cannot survive indefinitely even if uber took 80%. Their costs are too great. However, there's a way for uber to allow drivers to take not 70%," but 100% and be exponentially profitable. But I'm not having that discussion here. I'm not giving them the formula. Let uber bury itself. Another platform will rise with the right model.
Two laughable predictions from a Lyft driver. Keep entertaining us!! :smiles:
 

UberBeemer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Anyone who supports this rule does not understand uber's business model. Please before supporting this rule try to understand how their model works.
Their current model cannot survive indefinitely even if uber took 80%. Their costs are too great. However, there's a way for uber to allow drivers to take not 70%," but 100% and be exponentially profitable. But I'm not having that discussion here. I'm not giving them the formula. Let uber bury itself. Another platform will rise with the right model.
That seems impossible. Local municipalities would not likely leave collecting their fees for airport access up to drivers. And even if they just played the float on revenue by holding the money and implementing a two-week pay scedule, i don't think it would cover their costs.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
gustavusadolphus Australia 0
RickGnVa Washington DC 3
Coyotex People 13

Similar threads


Top