4 ms·

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit ag

by smdz 10y ago

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.

tptacek 10y ago
Beyond the fact that there's no employer/employee relationship between Kalanick and the driver, I don't think the specifics of the business partnership they have much matters. Nor does the amount of market power the driver has. The driver has a specific grievance. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he clearly has standing to relate it to Kalanick. Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.
fragmede 10y ago
The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver. Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago. It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal. Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage. Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole. In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit. Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.
- nunez 10y ago
  Holy shit. That explains why I took a S550 the other day despite it being an UberX ride. This would have been avoided if Uber had never got into the auto loan business. This is gross. I'm glad to have deleted my account and go full Lyft.
  - brian_cloutier 10y ago
    Not so fast! Lyft has done something rather similar: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes-upset-some-drivers-5768364.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes-ups...
    - nunez 10y ago
      The biggest difference is that Lyft didn't create a car lending program and dupe people into thinking that their $5k/month Escalade would ALWAYS yield $10k/mo profits. Lyft cars are wholly owned by their drivers

by smdz 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Beyond the fact that there's no employer/employee relationship between Kalanick and the driver, I don't think the specifics of the business partnership they have much matters. Nor does the amount of market power the driver has. The driver has a specific grievance. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he clearly has standing to relate it to Kalanick. Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.

fragmede 10y ago

The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver. Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago. It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal. Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage. Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole. In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit. Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.

nunez 10y ago
Holy shit. That explains why I took a S550 the other day despite it being an UberX ride. This would have been avoided if Uber had never got into the auto loan business. This is gross. I'm glad to have deleted my account and go full Lyft.
- brian_cloutier 10y ago
  Not so fast! Lyft has done something rather similar: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes-upset-some-drivers-5768364.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes-ups...
  - nunez 10y ago
    The biggest difference is that Lyft didn't create a car lending program and dupe people into thinking that their $5k/month Escalade would ALWAYS yield $10k/mo profits. Lyft cars are wholly owned by their drivers