10 ms·

If they hate Uber so much they should stop using it. They aren't obligated to Uber in any way. The "rampant firing" happens when drivers who suck get poor rati

If they hate Uber so much they should stop using it. They aren't obligated to Uber in any way. The "rampant firing" happens when drivers who suck get poor ratings (below 4.7 and you go on probation according to an Uber driver I talked to) sounds like their own problem not Uber's.

Sam_Odio 14y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems like a valid point (specifically, if they dislike Uber they should stop using it). Can anyone elaborate?
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Well Sam, if I had some issue that I wanted to discuss, and the response I got from you was [take it or leave it/piss off/eat crap/sit on it and spin/go fly a kite]. I might down-vote you. The fact that the drivers want to negotiate means they clearly like something about working with Uber.
  - kirillzubovsky 14y ago
    How about - they know Uber is dominating and they aren't going to stop, therefore if the drivers quit they are simply screwed and there won't be any more work for them? This is a free market, so they can start a competitor to Uber and work there together, but if they can't, negotiating by means of protesting isn't really helpful. This looks like a dirty union-type negotiation. Those were great a 100 years ago, maybe, when low wage laborers were really poorly treated, but no more. These guys are taxi drivers, and I am sorry if Uber is cutting their wages a little or firing the bad ones. This is a free market economy and no one said taxi drivers are entitled to anything.
ryan_f 14y ago
It's not as simple as you state. Uber gets a lot of the business so the drivers won't have work without them. That 4.7 is out of 5 also and it is true about the terminations. I have witnessed the mass firings and how they are handled. Drivers also can't dispute their ratings so it takes one person to give them a one star which could lead to being fired. And can you truly say all customers are fair in their ratings? The best thing that could happen for these drivers is having another company open up to compete against uber. Then they wouldn't be a commodity. If they were not "taxi drivers" than everyone would be furious at how they are treated.
- socalnate1 14y ago
  What exactly were these drivers doing before Uber showed up?
  - ryan_f 14y ago
    Working of course which I am guessing you realized? I am not debating that Uber is a huge help for getting business. I just feel that their employee conditions are not what many others expect in their daily jobs. I don't feel that is wrong.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Working for car services - many of whom Uber has soundly defeated in the relevant cities and no longer exist. The "if you don't like it, tough!" angle sounds nice, but is untenable in cities where Uber has absorbed the lion's share of the towncar market. Just because Uber is "one of us" doesn't mean they're scrupulous. I'd be very wary of trading disparate, crappy towncar companies for a single monolithic one with startupy roots.
- samstave 14y ago
  Uber should have audio and video captured. And review the audio/video whenever a rating is poor.
  - troymc 14y ago
    That solves one problem but creates ten more.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      Exactly, just what I want, another SOB potentially watching and listening to me, and or recording me/posting me to youtube.
      - samstave 14y ago
        Have you ridden in any cab recently? Every single one of them is equipped with video and audio recording. As is BART and Muni buses.
pud 14y ago
> below 4.7 and you go on probation This brings up a related point. For a typical Uber ride, do you give the driver 3-stars or 5-stars? I usually give 5-stars when a ride goes smoothly. But I know people who default to 3-stars (average) unless the driver goes out of his way & is exceptional. I've considered switching my default to 4-stars for a nice ride, leaving me a 1-star buffer for exceptional service. But using that scale, I wouldn't want a 4.7 driver to get dinged.
- eridius 14y ago
  You know people use 3-star average for Uber? That surprises me. One of my earlier Uber rides I decided to go ahead and rate 3 stars because I felt it was a fairly average ride. Pretty quickly I got contacted by someone at Uber who wanted to ask me what was wrong with my ride. When I explained that I felt it was merely average, they told me a simplistic version of what jamiequint said, that they only want to work with the best drivers and therefore 3 isn't an average rating, it's actually a bad rating.
  - naner 14y ago
    Then they shouldn't use ambiguous stars for a rating system.
    - samstave 14y ago
      Agreed, they should have a colored scale from: red -- poor -- 0% yellow -- ok -- 5% green -- fine -- 10% blue -- great -- 15% gold -- superb -- 20% Attach a tip % to each (perhaps)
      - eridius 14y ago
        That would incentivize riders to rate their drivers lower.
        samstave 14y ago
        Then don't attach tips, though maybe this would allow for more accurate reviews? I always give 5 stars, because its easy and all rides have been great. Only one driver though, provided me with water bottles and candy. That was a superb experience. Maybe the only superb one while the rest were fine.
littlegiantcap 14y ago
I think it's also very pertinent to point out that they in fact aren't employees of Uber. They aren't being denied work or fired, they're being denied from using Uber's service. This is absolutely no different than hell banning a troublesome user on a site.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  “Uber chooses to call us partners for their tax benefit. If they called us employees, they’d have to cover us all,” said Alazzeh.
twelvechairs 14y ago
They have every right to complain (whether or not they stop using Uber). They are (successfully it seems) drawing the wider public's attention to an issue. Low-skilled labour always teeters on the edge of turning into sweatshop conditions (huge working hours, poor security, low pay). This is especially an issue for monopolised industries (like Uber). I'm not sure how bad it is for them really (I live in Australia), but I really don't see how you can take issue with their right to discuss it. As far as I knew, not being able to complain about conditions was something for China and Africa, not for advanced egalitarian societies...
- yesplorer 14y ago
  nobody has monopolized the cab hailing industry (for Uber)
kpao 14y ago
Not really... I spoke with a driver down in LA once, he got on probation because 2 obnoxious passengers rated him 1 star. One of them was smoking in the vehicle, got told to stop, didn't like it, 1 star... The other one wanted to get to the other side of the city in 45 minutes on a Friday afternoon at 4pm... They didn't make it despite the driver's best effort, so she rated 1 star. That seems unfair that the driver gets on probation for those 2 instances.
konstruktor 14y ago
Walking out is one way to exert influence in a market, organising is another. They are also not obligated to choose the option you want them to.
abcd_f 14y ago
They should really use a simpler rating system I'd like to use this driver again I'd like not to use this driver again I don't feel either way That's it.
carlob 14y ago
The fact that they are being called partners and not employees is probably something that tax enforcement should look into. I don't know jackshit about California law on that, but it seems reasonable that this means that the company is: 1. paying less taxes than it should and shifting the cost onto its employees. 2. denying their workers benefits they would be entitled to as employees (401k, healthcare…). 3. denying their workers rights they would be entitled to as employees (maternity leave…). 4. being far too elastic when demand is low. With employees they'd have constant costs even with no customers. Those are all reasons why we have labor laws, and why at-will employment can work only for the most sought after professions, and not for blue collars.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure that all of those things are legal.
  - carlob 14y ago
    Probably. Another interesting factoid is that the US is only one of four world countries that doesn't have compulsory maternity leave (some states do though).
- 18pfsmt 14y ago
  In the freight transport world, the truckers that work for carriers directly make 1/2 to 1/3 what the independents get. In addition, the independents have the right to chose when they work, so if they want to take a week off, that's their prerogative (no requests required). It's fundamentally, a different arrangement.
  - carlob 14y ago
    The same holds for the software industry if you are a freelancer you make much more an hour than an employee. On the other hand if a freelancer has only have one source of contracts/income and said freelancer doesn't make significantly more an hour than an employee would, then the employee is getting the short end of the stick. I'm willing to argue that this kind of outsourcing jobs you should employ people for, should be discouraged by law, either by making it more costly for the employer or by actively forcing employers to hire these not-so-free-lancers.
pron 14y ago
Of course it's their problem. They're the ones being fired. Let's assume that all customer ratings are merited and that Uber puts in place all of the wonderful suggestions made by other commenters here, that ensure people only give a bad review if it's very well deserved. Now, suppose you're an Uber driver, and you wife has just left you or you've found out that your daughter is sick. I think you'll be having a very bad week at work. You might even be -- god forbid -- rude to a customer. Or, let's not go that far; say your boss has mistreated you or you think your pay is unfair and you're just having a bad day. So you think these cases should mean automatic termination, too. That the driver who lost his wife should lose his job too because he wasn't able to fully maintain his composure and provide the service Uber customers expect. These are not just people -- they are your employees! (de facto if not de jure). This brings us to the very important question of what a business is for. There are several views on the subject, but I like this one: a company is a social organization constructed for the purpose of providing income to its members, namely its owners and employees. Now, I'm not saying everyone should get the same -- some have assumed a greater risk than others, and the laws of supply and demand are at play when it comes to skills, too -- but the pay should be fair because that is the company's raison d'etre. "The customer comes first" only inasmuch it helps achieving this goal; if you don't treat your customers right, you will lose their business to competitors and will be unable to provide for your employees. But really, it's the employees who come first. The place of work is a very important social organization, because you spend most of your day as its member. This organization not only provides you with livelihood, but with a sense of respect; for many, what they do and where they work is an important part of who they are. And that is why when I hear of a business mistreating its customers, I think "that's a really bad business", but when I hear of a business mistreating its employees -- I get angry; that's breaking a social contract, and one with people who are weaker than you and that you have responsibility for. That's why you may dislike that couple down the block who are rude to everyone, but if you heard that your next door neighbors, who are always nice and offer to water your plants when you're gone, are pimping their daughters, you'll get really mad. Automatically firing your employees based on a few bad reviews (if that's what Uber is in fact doing, according to the information presented), is akin (continuing the family analogy that I'm growing tired of) to kicking your child out of the house for getting bad grades at school. Sure, the kid has a responsibility to learn, but you have a stronger responsibility towards your kid. It appears that Uber thinks that by not calling their employees "employees" they are somehow absolved from this social contract. They're not. Now, I'm not saying that Uber are definitely in the wrong here because we have not yet heard their side. Maybe those drivers are lazy money-grubbers seeking to exploit their good-hearted, yet gullible, employers. But the allegations sound very serious.

Sam_Odio 14y ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems like a valid point (specifically, if they dislike Uber they should stop using it). Can anyone elaborate?

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Well Sam, if I had some issue that I wanted to discuss, and the response I got from you was [take it or leave it/piss off/eat crap/sit on it and spin/go fly a kite]. I might down-vote you. The fact that the drivers want to negotiate means they clearly like something about working with Uber.
- kirillzubovsky 14y ago
  How about - they know Uber is dominating and they aren't going to stop, therefore if the drivers quit they are simply screwed and there won't be any more work for them? This is a free market, so they can start a competitor to Uber and work there together, but if they can't, negotiating by means of protesting isn't really helpful. This looks like a dirty union-type negotiation. Those were great a 100 years ago, maybe, when low wage laborers were really poorly treated, but no more. These guys are taxi drivers, and I am sorry if Uber is cutting their wages a little or firing the bad ones. This is a free market economy and no one said taxi drivers are entitled to anything.

ryan_f 14y ago

It's not as simple as you state. Uber gets a lot of the business so the drivers won't have work without them. That 4.7 is out of 5 also and it is true about the terminations. I have witnessed the mass firings and how they are handled. Drivers also can't dispute their ratings so it takes one person to give them a one star which could lead to being fired. And can you truly say all customers are fair in their ratings? The best thing that could happen for these drivers is having another company open up to compete against uber. Then they wouldn't be a commodity. If they were not "taxi drivers" than everyone would be furious at how they are treated.

socalnate1 14y ago
What exactly were these drivers doing before Uber showed up?
- ryan_f 14y ago
  Working of course which I am guessing you realized? I am not debating that Uber is a huge help for getting business. I just feel that their employee conditions are not what many others expect in their daily jobs. I don't feel that is wrong.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Working for car services - many of whom Uber has soundly defeated in the relevant cities and no longer exist. The "if you don't like it, tough!" angle sounds nice, but is untenable in cities where Uber has absorbed the lion's share of the towncar market. Just because Uber is "one of us" doesn't mean they're scrupulous. I'd be very wary of trading disparate, crappy towncar companies for a single monolithic one with startupy roots.
samstave 14y ago
Uber should have audio and video captured. And review the audio/video whenever a rating is poor.
- troymc 14y ago
  That solves one problem but creates ten more.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Exactly, just what I want, another SOB potentially watching and listening to me, and or recording me/posting me to youtube.
    - samstave 14y ago
      Have you ridden in any cab recently? Every single one of them is equipped with video and audio recording. As is BART and Muni buses.

pud 14y ago

> below 4.7 and you go on probation This brings up a related point. For a typical Uber ride, do you give the driver 3-stars or 5-stars? I usually give 5-stars when a ride goes smoothly. But I know people who default to 3-stars (average) unless the driver goes out of his way & is exceptional. I've considered switching my default to 4-stars for a nice ride, leaving me a 1-star buffer for exceptional service. But using that scale, I wouldn't want a 4.7 driver to get dinged.

eridius 14y ago
You know people use 3-star average for Uber? That surprises me. One of my earlier Uber rides I decided to go ahead and rate 3 stars because I felt it was a fairly average ride. Pretty quickly I got contacted by someone at Uber who wanted to ask me what was wrong with my ride. When I explained that I felt it was merely average, they told me a simplistic version of what jamiequint said, that they only want to work with the best drivers and therefore 3 isn't an average rating, it's actually a bad rating.
- naner 14y ago
  Then they shouldn't use ambiguous stars for a rating system.
  - samstave 14y ago
    Agreed, they should have a colored scale from: red -- poor -- 0% yellow -- ok -- 5% green -- fine -- 10% blue -- great -- 15% gold -- superb -- 20% Attach a tip % to each (perhaps)
    - eridius 14y ago
      That would incentivize riders to rate their drivers lower.
      - samstave 14y ago
        Then don't attach tips, though maybe this would allow for more accurate reviews? I always give 5 stars, because its easy and all rides have been great. Only one driver though, provided me with water bottles and candy. That was a superb experience. Maybe the only superb one while the rest were fine.

littlegiantcap 14y ago

I think it's also very pertinent to point out that they in fact aren't employees of Uber. They aren't being denied work or fired, they're being denied from using Uber's service. This is absolutely no different than hell banning a troublesome user on a site.

damncabbage 14y ago
“Uber chooses to call us partners for their tax benefit. If they called us employees, they’d have to cover us all,” said Alazzeh.

twelvechairs 14y ago

They have every right to complain (whether or not they stop using Uber). They are (successfully it seems) drawing the wider public's attention to an issue. Low-skilled labour always teeters on the edge of turning into sweatshop conditions (huge working hours, poor security, low pay). This is especially an issue for monopolised industries (like Uber). I'm not sure how bad it is for them really (I live in Australia), but I really don't see how you can take issue with their right to discuss it. As far as I knew, not being able to complain about conditions was something for China and Africa, not for advanced egalitarian societies...

yesplorer 14y ago
nobody has monopolized the cab hailing industry (for Uber)

kpao 14y ago

Not really... I spoke with a driver down in LA once, he got on probation because 2 obnoxious passengers rated him 1 star. One of them was smoking in the vehicle, got told to stop, didn't like it, 1 star... The other one wanted to get to the other side of the city in 45 minutes on a Friday afternoon at 4pm... They didn't make it despite the driver's best effort, so she rated 1 star. That seems unfair that the driver gets on probation for those 2 instances.

konstruktor 14y ago

Walking out is one way to exert influence in a market, organising is another. They are also not obligated to choose the option you want them to.

abcd_f 14y ago

They should really use a simpler rating system I'd like to use this driver again I'd like not to use this driver again I don't feel either way That's it.

carlob 14y ago

The fact that they are being called partners and not employees is probably something that tax enforcement should look into. I don't know jackshit about California law on that, but it seems reasonable that this means that the company is: 1. paying less taxes than it should and shifting the cost onto its employees. 2. denying their workers benefits they would be entitled to as employees (401k, healthcare…). 3. denying their workers rights they would be entitled to as employees (maternity leave…). 4. being far too elastic when demand is low. With employees they'd have constant costs even with no customers. Those are all reasons why we have labor laws, and why at-will employment can work only for the most sought after professions, and not for blue collars.

pessimizer 14y ago
I'm pretty sure that all of those things are legal.
- carlob 14y ago
  Probably. Another interesting factoid is that the US is only one of four world countries that doesn't have compulsory maternity leave (some states do though).
18pfsmt 14y ago
In the freight transport world, the truckers that work for carriers directly make 1/2 to 1/3 what the independents get. In addition, the independents have the right to chose when they work, so if they want to take a week off, that's their prerogative (no requests required). It's fundamentally, a different arrangement.
- carlob 14y ago
  The same holds for the software industry if you are a freelancer you make much more an hour than an employee. On the other hand if a freelancer has only have one source of contracts/income and said freelancer doesn't make significantly more an hour than an employee would, then the employee is getting the short end of the stick. I'm willing to argue that this kind of outsourcing jobs you should employ people for, should be discouraged by law, either by making it more costly for the employer or by actively forcing employers to hire these not-so-free-lancers.

pron 14y ago

Of course it's their problem. They're the ones being fired. Let's assume that all customer ratings are merited and that Uber puts in place all of the wonderful suggestions made by other commenters here, that ensure people only give a bad review if it's very well deserved. Now, suppose you're an Uber driver, and you wife has just left you or you've found out that your daughter is sick. I think you'll be having a very bad week at work. You might even be -- god forbid -- rude to a customer. Or, let's not go that far; say your boss has mistreated you or you think your pay is unfair and you're just having a bad day. So you think these cases should mean automatic termination, too. That the driver who lost his wife should lose his job too because he wasn't able to fully maintain his composure and provide the service Uber customers expect. These are not just people -- they are your employees! (de facto if not de jure). This brings us to the very important question of what a business is for. There are several views on the subject, but I like this one: a company is a social organization constructed for the purpose of providing income to its members, namely its owners and employees. Now, I'm not saying everyone should get the same -- some have assumed a greater risk than others, and the laws of supply and demand are at play when it comes to skills, too -- but the pay should be fair because that is the company's raison d'etre. "The customer comes first" only inasmuch it helps achieving this goal; if you don't treat your customers right, you will lose their business to competitors and will be unable to provide for your employees. But really, it's the employees who come first. The place of work is a very important social organization, because you spend most of your day as its member. This organization not only provides you with livelihood, but with a sense of respect; for many, what they do and where they work is an important part of who they are. And that is why when I hear of a business mistreating its customers, I think "that's a really bad business", but when I hear of a business mistreating its employees -- I get angry; that's breaking a social contract, and one with people who are weaker than you and that you have responsibility for. That's why you may dislike that couple down the block who are rude to everyone, but if you heard that your next door neighbors, who are always nice and offer to water your plants when you're gone, are pimping their daughters, you'll get really mad. Automatically firing your employees based on a few bad reviews (if that's what Uber is in fact doing, according to the information presented), is akin (continuing the family analogy that I'm growing tired of) to kicking your child out of the house for getting bad grades at school. Sure, the kid has a responsibility to learn, but you have a stronger responsibility towards your kid. It appears that Uber thinks that by not calling their employees "employees" they are somehow absolved from this social contract. They're not. Now, I'm not saying that Uber are definitely in the wrong here because we have not yet heard their side. Maybe those drivers are lazy money-grubbers seeking to exploit their good-hearted, yet gullible, employers. But the allegations sound very serious.