19 ms·

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and backend balance rules) Now every dollar coming in seems to very clearly go from rider to driver. - removed upfront pricing in California and once again charging riders the precise trip amount based on time and distance. [0] [2] - A new driver incentive was released too tied to purchasing the service fee at a lower rate [3] (since every dollar is supposed to flow clearly from the price breakdown) - “Favorite Driver Feature”, so even if they set higher fares, riders will be able to request one of their favorite drivers if they’re nearby [2] These seemed primarily to try to address the flexibility evaluated by “Prong A” of AB5, however some public experts were concerned it wouldn’t address “Prong B”, which requires the “drivers’ work is outside ‘the usual course of the company’s business,’” [0]. This might have been where the judge focused their ruling. Other companies didn’t make changes for drivers, “Lyft [also afaik Postmates, and DoorDash] continues to operate as if it’s business as usual.” [0] [0] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-03/uber-ab5-driver-app https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-03... [1] https://therideshareguy.com/set-your-own-rates-uber-feature/ https://therideshareguy.com/set-your-own-rates-uber-feature/ [2] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-rolling-out-new-driver-features/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-rolling-out-new-driver-feat... [3] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-drive-pass/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-drive-pass/

mtnGoat 6y ago
i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.
- chucknthem 6y ago
  Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a better legal framework for gig workers until self driving technology catches up. Its best hope to make it work (and what Uber is lobbying for) is a third 'worker' classification between contractor and employee like what the UK has.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Goal of the government isn't to make marketplaces efficient. Regulations focuses more on making them "fair", "safe" and "non-discriminator". Note - definition of those is very political and open to huge interpretations. Gig-working enjoyed unregulated market, which is great for efficiency. But law is catching up now. Note - I'm not arguing that laws passed by government are correct. But they're in line with what government thinks it should be doing, and how they act in other business areas.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      But was Uber unfair and unsafe? That's very hard to argue, especially when compared to the prior reality rather than a theoretical perfection.
      - dtech 6y ago
        Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
        TallGuyShort 6y ago
        So if Uber does shut down, how are drivers better off than if they simply chose not to drive for Uber? (or Lyft)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        Either companies will fill the gap left by Uber in a way that gives drivers a better version than they had before, or drivers will find other work. This same faulty argument is made often to argue you shouldn’t reduce exploitative child or sex labor, especially in developing countries, but it’s not valid. If Uber employment option is exploitative, you cannot use drivers’ own willingness to accept work via that platform as some tacit endorsement that “consenting adults” are each ok with the arrangement, because the exploitative nature creates a duress / desperation aspect that means you can’t differentiate between drivers who are fully aware of the situation they are agreeing to and are happy to do it vs people who were banking on Uber being very different and now find themselves underwater on a car loan and not making enough for health insurance and thus unable to stop driving and look for other work because of a nasty feedback loop or reinforcing problems. Part of a governments job is to set up rules whereby such a situation cannot be entered into in the first place, given that by doing so you become stuck in it under duress (eg not having health insurance, paid rest periods, etc.).
kirykl 6y ago
Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features
- iooi 6y ago
  How is removing upfront pricing friendly to customers? It's horrible UX.
  - kirykl 6y ago
    getting charged exactly for what you use is great
    - donatj 6y ago
      I as a user would far rather know exactly what I'm getting charged ahead of time, on basically everything, even if it were more. I'm 100% certain most people would.
      - rramdin 6y ago
        I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.
        jedberg 6y ago
        The upfront pricing was just an estimate of the total based on previous data. I much prefer it, because it incentivizes the driver to take the most efficient route, since they get paid based on arrival and not the way they go. In the pay as you go system, you are at the mercy of the driver, and they are actually incentivized to take a longer route. I've definitely had drivers take longer routes under the pay as you go system. I would complain to Uber and they would refund the money, but it was still a hassle to complain.
Will_Do 6y ago
That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.
- deminature 6y ago
  AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The modifications discussed in the top-level post address the A and C portions of the test, but not B unfortunately. The B clause is very broad, so likely has ramifications for many tech companies. Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. [1] https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
  - novok 6y ago
    So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?
    - omnipugent 6y ago
      Couldn't Uber allow other operating companies to use its service along with Raiser/Raizer LLC as long as they follow certain platform terms?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Keyframe 6y ago
mrfusion 6y ago
Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?
- kingnothing 6y ago
  Uber positions itself that way all over the place: Uber is a tech company that connects riders and drivers. It is not a taxi service.
  - raducu 6y ago
    To some extent, they are right. To their customers, they pretty much are a (more convenient) taxi company. To their drivers? They are a shittier taxi company that doesn't provide cars, yet still charges drivers 25% of fares in exchange for legal protection against taxi laws and customers/brand.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    The absurd part is that this is exactly what a taxi service does as well. Most Taxi drivers are 1099 contracts that are connected with rides by dispatch. Taxi driving contractors have less autonomy than uber drivers, but you don't see Cali prosecutors going after taxi companies.
- jasode 6y ago
  >Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers? A rideshare company could theoretically be just a pure lead generation platform but the economic forces preventing that is the nature of multi-sided platforms: The drivers don't hold all the leverage. The other actor in the multi-sided platform are passengers/customers who _pay the money_. If Uber was only lead gen, they would be outcompeted by another company that offered all the following conveniences: + predictable fixed price to prevent customer anxiety of overcharging + integrated payment processing so no worry of drivers playing games such as, "my Square credit card processor doesn't work so you need to pay cash" + driver ratings for reputation ... because customers/passengers value those features. If you create a rideshare platform that's too advantageous to the drivers (e.g. no ratings, can charge variable fare per mile, etc), it would end up being hostile to potential customers and it won't attract enough paying fares to be financially sustainable.
rubatuga 6y ago
This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  I think it's going to depend by area. The last time I tried to use Uber to get a ride from the airport, I had several drivers accept, then call me - "I'm all the way in midtown, it'll take me 45 minutes to get to you, you probably want to cancel this." The incentives for drivers have always been fucked. I'd rather the drivers not accept my ride than try to play a weird game of chicken to get me to cancel when I'm trying to get somewhere.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    I never had that at the airport but my contingency plan for the times when drivers decided not to show in an obvious attempt to get me to cancel was to pull up the other ride sharing app and then use that, and leave the original one running.
    - boring_twenties 6y ago
      Have you ever had them both eventually show up?
    - pavel_lishin 6y ago
      I thought about doing that. But I don't want to punish people whose economic incentives are apparently so shitty that they have to pull this kind of nonsense. I'm only that petty against spammers.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.
  - 6y ago
Simulacra 6y ago
Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?
- pageandrew 6y ago
  Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.
  - bgorman 6y ago
    However there is no penalty for drivers refusing to take your to the airport once they show up. It's an absolutely infuriating experience. Drivers should be banned from the platform if they are not able to take people from downtown to the closest airport.
    - pageandrew 6y ago
      I think there is/was a penalty for that. You could report drivers for abandoning you through the app.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
  That is quite an abusive mentality to have. You would force someone to expose themselves to danger and the risk of violence and even death just so you could feel virtuous about yourself, while surely not at all exposing yourself to the same dangers you prescribe and force on others? It's really a rather twisted mentality to have; like typical aristocratic supremacist types that demand the disposable peasants serve their wishes and whims. "Go to get robbed and shot by criminals and make your children orphans so I can feel virtuous about myself, peasant!" – Simulcra, 2020
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
I feel like this is an Uber-troll. I can already hear the rising crescendo of liberal screeching about "discrimination" by letting dirty peasant drivers pick their fares and set their rates, while also making the limousine … UberLiberals … freak at being inconvenienced by a loss of upfront pricing. "Pay living wages for thee, low price immigrant worker slaves for me." – Liberals for the Working Class PAC, 2020 It's sarcasm and allowable, censor goons.
- blueline 6y ago
  do you normally just have cage matches with straw men in public?
tlogan 6y ago
The goal of AB5 is to help drivers - so they can get health insurance, etc. All these changes Uber is doing just so that drivers are not employees. The question here is: what is the problem with making drivers employees? How much money that will be?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Average monthly pay for an Uber driver is $400. Not all of them will qualify for health insurance, as you have to work 30 hours a week. Median health insurance cost is $600.
  - brianwawok 6y ago
    Median health insurance for someone making $400 a month under the ACA is not $600.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Corporate plans don't qualify for the ACA, only individuals. That is the actual median rate, from Anthem, for a corporate plan. Uber might get a better rate.
shrib 6y ago
hello test xyz
ValentineC 6y ago
> Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip Not having this was a feature for Uber's customers when they were still in Southeast Asia. Grab (Uber's competitor, mainly in Asia) allowed drivers to see their proposed destinations, and the experience just wasn't as good.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Was one of the features health insurance?
GoodJokes 6y ago
“I work for uber.” So you are getting paid for this comment?

mtnGoat 6y ago

i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.

chucknthem 6y ago
Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a better legal framework for gig workers until self driving technology catches up. Its best hope to make it work (and what Uber is lobbying for) is a third 'worker' classification between contractor and employee like what the UK has.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Goal of the government isn't to make marketplaces efficient. Regulations focuses more on making them "fair", "safe" and "non-discriminator". Note - definition of those is very political and open to huge interpretations. Gig-working enjoyed unregulated market, which is great for efficiency. But law is catching up now. Note - I'm not arguing that laws passed by government are correct. But they're in line with what government thinks it should be doing, and how they act in other business areas.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    But was Uber unfair and unsafe? That's very hard to argue, especially when compared to the prior reality rather than a theoretical perfection.
    - dtech 6y ago
      Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
      - TallGuyShort 6y ago
        So if Uber does shut down, how are drivers better off than if they simply chose not to drive for Uber? (or Lyft)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        Either companies will fill the gap left by Uber in a way that gives drivers a better version than they had before, or drivers will find other work. This same faulty argument is made often to argue you shouldn’t reduce exploitative child or sex labor, especially in developing countries, but it’s not valid. If Uber employment option is exploitative, you cannot use drivers’ own willingness to accept work via that platform as some tacit endorsement that “consenting adults” are each ok with the arrangement, because the exploitative nature creates a duress / desperation aspect that means you can’t differentiate between drivers who are fully aware of the situation they are agreeing to and are happy to do it vs people who were banking on Uber being very different and now find themselves underwater on a car loan and not making enough for health insurance and thus unable to stop driving and look for other work because of a nasty feedback loop or reinforcing problems. Part of a governments job is to set up rules whereby such a situation cannot be entered into in the first place, given that by doing so you become stuck in it under duress (eg not having health insurance, paid rest periods, etc.).

kirykl 6y ago

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

iooi 6y ago
How is removing upfront pricing friendly to customers? It's horrible UX.
- kirykl 6y ago
  getting charged exactly for what you use is great
  - donatj 6y ago
    I as a user would far rather know exactly what I'm getting charged ahead of time, on basically everything, even if it were more. I'm 100% certain most people would.
    - rramdin 6y ago
      I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        The upfront pricing was just an estimate of the total based on previous data. I much prefer it, because it incentivizes the driver to take the most efficient route, since they get paid based on arrival and not the way they go. In the pay as you go system, you are at the mercy of the driver, and they are actually incentivized to take a longer route. I've definitely had drivers take longer routes under the pay as you go system. I would complain to Uber and they would refund the money, but it was still a hassle to complain.

Will_Do 6y ago

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.

deminature 6y ago
AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The modifications discussed in the top-level post address the A and C portions of the test, but not B unfortunately. The B clause is very broad, so likely has ramifications for many tech companies. Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. [1] https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
- novok 6y ago
  So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?
  - omnipugent 6y ago
    Couldn't Uber allow other operating companies to use its service along with Raiser/Raizer LLC as long as they follow certain platform terms?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Keyframe 6y ago

mrfusion 6y ago

Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

kingnothing 6y ago
Uber positions itself that way all over the place: Uber is a tech company that connects riders and drivers. It is not a taxi service.
- raducu 6y ago
  To some extent, they are right. To their customers, they pretty much are a (more convenient) taxi company. To their drivers? They are a shittier taxi company that doesn't provide cars, yet still charges drivers 25% of fares in exchange for legal protection against taxi laws and customers/brand.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  The absurd part is that this is exactly what a taxi service does as well. Most Taxi drivers are 1099 contracts that are connected with rides by dispatch. Taxi driving contractors have less autonomy than uber drivers, but you don't see Cali prosecutors going after taxi companies.
jasode 6y ago
>Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers? A rideshare company could theoretically be just a pure lead generation platform but the economic forces preventing that is the nature of multi-sided platforms: The drivers don't hold all the leverage. The other actor in the multi-sided platform are passengers/customers who _pay the money_. If Uber was only lead gen, they would be outcompeted by another company that offered all the following conveniences: + predictable fixed price to prevent customer anxiety of overcharging + integrated payment processing so no worry of drivers playing games such as, "my Square credit card processor doesn't work so you need to pay cash" + driver ratings for reputation ... because customers/passengers value those features. If you create a rideshare platform that's too advantageous to the drivers (e.g. no ratings, can charge variable fare per mile, etc), it would end up being hostile to potential customers and it won't attract enough paying fares to be financially sustainable.

rubatuga 6y ago

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
I think it's going to depend by area. The last time I tried to use Uber to get a ride from the airport, I had several drivers accept, then call me - "I'm all the way in midtown, it'll take me 45 minutes to get to you, you probably want to cancel this." The incentives for drivers have always been fucked. I'd rather the drivers not accept my ride than try to play a weird game of chicken to get me to cancel when I'm trying to get somewhere.
- chrischen 6y ago
  I never had that at the airport but my contingency plan for the times when drivers decided not to show in an obvious attempt to get me to cancel was to pull up the other ride sharing app and then use that, and leave the original one running.
  - boring_twenties 6y ago
    Have you ever had them both eventually show up?
  - pavel_lishin 6y ago
    I thought about doing that. But I don't want to punish people whose economic incentives are apparently so shitty that they have to pull this kind of nonsense. I'm only that petty against spammers.
adrianN 6y ago
Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.
- 6y ago

Simulacra 6y ago

Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?

pageandrew 6y ago
Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.
- bgorman 6y ago
  However there is no penalty for drivers refusing to take your to the airport once they show up. It's an absolutely infuriating experience. Drivers should be banned from the platform if they are not able to take people from downtown to the closest airport.
  - pageandrew 6y ago
    I think there is/was a penalty for that. You could report drivers for abandoning you through the app.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
That is quite an abusive mentality to have. You would force someone to expose themselves to danger and the risk of violence and even death just so you could feel virtuous about yourself, while surely not at all exposing yourself to the same dangers you prescribe and force on others? It's really a rather twisted mentality to have; like typical aristocratic supremacist types that demand the disposable peasants serve their wishes and whims. "Go to get robbed and shot by criminals and make your children orphans so I can feel virtuous about myself, peasant!" – Simulcra, 2020
- unethical_ban 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago

I feel like this is an Uber-troll. I can already hear the rising crescendo of liberal screeching about "discrimination" by letting dirty peasant drivers pick their fares and set their rates, while also making the limousine … UberLiberals … freak at being inconvenienced by a loss of upfront pricing. "Pay living wages for thee, low price immigrant worker slaves for me." – Liberals for the Working Class PAC, 2020 It's sarcasm and allowable, censor goons.

blueline 6y ago
do you normally just have cage matches with straw men in public?

tlogan 6y ago

The goal of AB5 is to help drivers - so they can get health insurance, etc. All these changes Uber is doing just so that drivers are not employees. The question here is: what is the problem with making drivers employees? How much money that will be?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 6y ago
Average monthly pay for an Uber driver is $400. Not all of them will qualify for health insurance, as you have to work 30 hours a week. Median health insurance cost is $600.
- brianwawok 6y ago
  Median health insurance for someone making $400 a month under the ACA is not $600.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Corporate plans don't qualify for the ACA, only individuals. That is the actual median rate, from Anthem, for a corporate plan. Uber might get a better rate.

shrib 6y ago

hello test xyz

ValentineC 6y ago

> Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip Not having this was a feature for Uber's customers when they were still in Southeast Asia. Grab (Uber's competitor, mainly in Asia) allowed drivers to see their proposed destinations, and the experience just wasn't as good.

GoodJokes 6y ago

Was one of the features health insurance?

GoodJokes 6y ago

“I work for uber.” So you are getting paid for this comment?