6 ms·

This customer service just baffles me. Why not just pay their cleaning bill and be done with it, instead of trying to deal with court and lose/ban the customer

This customer service just baffles me. Why not just pay their cleaning bill and be done with it, instead of trying to deal with court and lose/ban the customer and all their future business?

joncrane 8y ago
Because people take advantage when the policy is "just pay out."
- munk-a 8y ago
  Not often. Work in a small town sometime and realize the respect you get - people take advantage of your company out of vengeance more than anything else - which is why most people here would be happy to exploit any justification to lower their cable bill.
mindslight 8y ago
Uber's philosophy is to cast themselves as an abstract service that merely connects drivers with riders, and anything that goes on between them is not their problem. Any admission of culpability or recognizing that users are patronizing "Uber" and not "FungibleDriver23815" erodes that narrative, and pushes them into higher overhead territory (aka it's not "scalable").
jellicle 8y ago
Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber!
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Someone is clearly not voting with their wallet. The question is, who else isn't?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. This case is just one small example in their long and well-documented history of sociopathic behaviour, and they still are around and happily growing.
    - jeromegv 8y ago
      Some % of their customers did vote with their wallet, the Delete Uber campaign was measured to have a significant impact and it's most likely what motivated them to have a very large cleanup of their executives after all the scandals. Yes, still growing, but that changed their growing curve and gave larger marketshare to Lyft. https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft-market-share-sales https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft... Customer activism can still have some impact at scale. Why the OP did not decide to switch out of Uber after this incident also baffles me, but to each their own. Crazy how people will let a multi-billion dollar corporation do anything to them and will keep giving them money.
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      I did, but that probably $100 they have missed out on, while everyone else I know uses them more and more.
    - DINKDINK 8y ago
      >Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. How is this not a perfect example of the "customer voting with their wallet"? Maybe its not the vote you or I would have made. Clearly the customer values continued access to the network more than buying new clothes once. That is a vote for Uber's shitty [;P] business practices.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Uber is customers voting with their wallets... because they're cheaper than Taxis! Here, we're simply facing the unfortunatey reality of network effects / moats (barriers to entry).
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber! Also, free advertising and reputational damage! I've literally never used Uber because of stuff like this, and I discourage others from using them also. I mostly drive myself, but I'm content to use regular taxis and occasionally Lyft.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - technofiend 8y ago
    I reinstall Uber for company-related travel because it's integrated with our billing app. As soon as the trip is over, the app is removed. It's really not that much trouble.
mikeash 8y ago
I suspect it’s not customer service making the call. Legal comes up with this agreement and says that it must be part of any such transaction, and that policy can’t be overridden.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Yep. Uber is more than one person or team. Competing priorities. The customer service team's priority is maximizing customer satisfication. The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability.
  - wahern 8y ago
    > The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability. If that were literally true Uber wouldn't currently exist. They were knowingly breaking laws and arguably continue to do so. Uber's lawyers are interested in advocating for Uber, period. In most organizations the legal department can and will be overridden when it's in the company's financial interests. Saying that something is non-negotiable is the oldest negotiating tactic in the book. If Uber refuses to bargain over a settlement it's because (a) you're not bargaining hard enough or (b) they're prepared to go to court. You can never know without forcing the issue. The Anglo-American legal system, and to a lesser extent most other legal systems, principally evolved to adjudicate disputes among aristocrats and merchants. Neither group is shy about advocating for themselves. If they want the maximum benefit of the law, neither should regular individuals be shy.
    - Whitestrake 8y ago
      It is true. The part that makes it consistent with Uber's flouting of the law is that there's another team above the legal team, and that team's job is to find ways to maximize income. It's a function of priority: make money > minimize legal liability > satisfy customers.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      And I am 100% sure the impetus was not from the legal team. That was from the business strategy and distribution folks. And then legal does the best they can with what they have. Point being.... Don't be surprised by unoptimal actions if they are local optimums for the people involved. Thus the overreaching contract for $100 incident.

This customer service just baffles me. Why not just pay their cleaning bill and be done with it, instead of trying to deal with court and lose/ban the customer and all their future business?

joncrane 8y ago

Because people take advantage when the policy is "just pay out."

munk-a 8y ago
Not often. Work in a small town sometime and realize the respect you get - people take advantage of your company out of vengeance more than anything else - which is why most people here would be happy to exploit any justification to lower their cable bill.

mindslight 8y ago

Uber's philosophy is to cast themselves as an abstract service that merely connects drivers with riders, and anything that goes on between them is not their problem. Any admission of culpability or recognizing that users are patronizing "Uber" and not "FungibleDriver23815" erodes that narrative, and pushes them into higher overhead territory (aka it's not "scalable").

jellicle 8y ago

Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber!

Fnoord 8y ago
Someone is clearly not voting with their wallet. The question is, who else isn't?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. This case is just one small example in their long and well-documented history of sociopathic behaviour, and they still are around and happily growing.
  - jeromegv 8y ago
    Some % of their customers did vote with their wallet, the Delete Uber campaign was measured to have a significant impact and it's most likely what motivated them to have a very large cleanup of their executives after all the scandals. Yes, still growing, but that changed their growing curve and gave larger marketshare to Lyft. https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft-market-share-sales https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft... Customer activism can still have some impact at scale. Why the OP did not decide to switch out of Uber after this incident also baffles me, but to each their own. Crazy how people will let a multi-billion dollar corporation do anything to them and will keep giving them money.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    I did, but that probably $100 they have missed out on, while everyone else I know uses them more and more.
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    >Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. How is this not a perfect example of the "customer voting with their wallet"? Maybe its not the vote you or I would have made. Clearly the customer values continued access to the network more than buying new clothes once. That is a vote for Uber's shitty [;P] business practices.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Uber is customers voting with their wallets... because they're cheaper than Taxis! Here, we're simply facing the unfortunatey reality of network effects / moats (barriers to entry).
CharlesColeman 8y ago
> Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber! Also, free advertising and reputational damage! I've literally never used Uber because of stuff like this, and I discourage others from using them also. I mostly drive myself, but I'm content to use regular taxis and occasionally Lyft.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- technofiend 8y ago
  I reinstall Uber for company-related travel because it's integrated with our billing app. As soon as the trip is over, the app is removed. It's really not that much trouble.

mikeash 8y ago

I suspect it’s not customer service making the call. Legal comes up with this agreement and says that it must be part of any such transaction, and that policy can’t be overridden.

paulddraper 8y ago
Yep. Uber is more than one person or team. Competing priorities. The customer service team's priority is maximizing customer satisfication. The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability.
- wahern 8y ago
  > The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability. If that were literally true Uber wouldn't currently exist. They were knowingly breaking laws and arguably continue to do so. Uber's lawyers are interested in advocating for Uber, period. In most organizations the legal department can and will be overridden when it's in the company's financial interests. Saying that something is non-negotiable is the oldest negotiating tactic in the book. If Uber refuses to bargain over a settlement it's because (a) you're not bargaining hard enough or (b) they're prepared to go to court. You can never know without forcing the issue. The Anglo-American legal system, and to a lesser extent most other legal systems, principally evolved to adjudicate disputes among aristocrats and merchants. Neither group is shy about advocating for themselves. If they want the maximum benefit of the law, neither should regular individuals be shy.
  - Whitestrake 8y ago
    It is true. The part that makes it consistent with Uber's flouting of the law is that there's another team above the legal team, and that team's job is to find ways to maximize income. It's a function of priority: make money > minimize legal liability > satisfy customers.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    And I am 100% sure the impetus was not from the legal team. That was from the business strategy and distribution folks. And then legal does the best they can with what they have. Point being.... Don't be surprised by unoptimal actions if they are local optimums for the people involved. Thus the overreaching contract for $100 incident.