6 ms·

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uberx-sting-deplorable-charade/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uber... "We ful

by trevyn 12y ago

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uberx-sting-deplorable-charade/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uber... "We fully stand behind our partners and will cover all costs associated with this deplorable charade."

ripb 12y ago
Strong statement and fair play to them for standing behind their operators.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  It's a strong statement, yes. But will they follow through? They've screwed their drivers over many times in the past.
  - ripb 12y ago
    Out of interest, could you give examples? Because abandoning Uber operators at a time of transition, or industry revolution as it could be called, would in many ways undermine its expansion if potential operators have abandonment to fear.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-partners-now-by-forcing-uber-black-drivers-accept-uberx-fares/ http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-part... http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-protesting http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-prote... http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-weeks-screw-this.966/ http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-week... "In a week of driving (24 rides), you'll only make $312 once Uber's taken its cut" - http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_being_an_uber_driver_in_los_angeles.php http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_be... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-battle-against-its-drivers-continues.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-batt... http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest-their-employer/373388/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest... http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-changed-in-virtually-every-way-possible-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-...
      - ripb 12y ago
        Very interesting, thank you very much.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Yeah, most of those are uber screwing over drivers. Except the one you quoted, which really confuses me. It's not uber's fault if demand is low in a particular location. Heck, that's actually a pretty good rate, full-time minimum wage for only doing a ride every two hours.
        morganvachon 12y ago
        The reason I included that one is because Uber pushes the fantasy that you can make enough money in a weekend of driving to replace your full time job. The reality is that competition is fierce, especially in larger markets, and unless you're a reckless, aggressive driver you'll never make enough in a full week to pay for the brand new car they require you to drive along with a living wage. Basically, you end up an indentured servant, getting pennies on the dollar.
tedunangst 12y ago
Thanks. "Deplorable charade." Are they referring to their own actions? I mean "charade (n.) something that is done in order to pretend something is true when it is not really true." The PPA regulations are true, are they not? It's the legality of driving an UberX which is the charade, no?
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Perhaps the "deplorable charade" is the argument that PPA regulation isn't necessary in the mobility space? Or overbearing? I don't much care for Uber's practices, but I agree with the argument that taxi medallions are rent-seeking and all efforts to break down senseless regulation of the taxi industry should take place. Note I said "senseless" regulation. You should still require insurance, background checks/driver's license verification or drivers, and so forth.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Whether it's necessary or not doesn't change the fact that Uber knew the current state of the laws and told their drivers they were operating legally. It looks like Uber set up the situation so that these drivers could be martyrs in Uber's PR cause. Uber can now say "look, how terrible the PPA is, we shall defend our drivers from this injustice!". They score some PR points at the cost of massively affecting the drivers' lives. The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop. Unfortunately, Uber's process is much more likely to evoke change than "participating in the political process". Consumers are much more interested in the interests than your average voter.
swartkrans 12y ago
If you pay someone to commit a crime, doesn't that make you criminally liable as well? How are they going to reimburse someone for being caught breaking the law? That seems less than sane.
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  It's unclear if it's a criminal case (my guess is no). It is relatively common to indemnify partners against civil penalties.
- baddox 12y ago
  If you legislate and enforce a law that is harmful to society, does that make you criminally liable?
  - runeks 12y ago
    Only if your intent is to cause harm, I would say.
  - swartkrans 12y ago
    Crime is a function of law, an action is only a crime if it breaks the law. So no legislating the law by lawfully elected individuals is not a crime. This is true even if you disagree with the laws that were written. I will be candid and share with you that I think what you asked is a stupid question on multiple levels. I assume you're riled up whenever the government does its job of governing, which yes, involves enforcing the law and taking things from people, like their freedom and or property. There's a democratic process in place in our country that allows you to help decide who is in power, if you're unhappy with who is in power become more involved in elections.
    - baddox 12y ago
      It's not so simple. I'm not aware of all the laws that would apply in this particular case, which is why I asked the question, but I know that in many jurisdictions there are laws against abuse of power and corruption. If a political official were to explicitly say "I am supporting Proposition X because it will return some benefit to my benefactors," would that not be a criminal offense? Granted, it's well-accepted that such is the norm in politics, but I don't think that means that it's not criminal. Many politicians have been charged with crimes like abuse of official capacity, bribery, and fraud, for similar actions. I disagree with and resent both your claim that my question is stupid and your claim that the recourse for a broken political system is becoming more involved in elections.

by trevyn 12y ago

ripb 12y ago

Strong statement and fair play to them for standing behind their operators.

morganvachon 12y ago
It's a strong statement, yes. But will they follow through? They've screwed their drivers over many times in the past.
- ripb 12y ago
  Out of interest, could you give examples? Because abandoning Uber operators at a time of transition, or industry revolution as it could be called, would in many ways undermine its expansion if potential operators have abandonment to fear.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-partners-now-by-forcing-uber-black-drivers-accept-uberx-fares/ http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-part... http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-protesting http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-prote... http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-weeks-screw-this.966/ http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-week... "In a week of driving (24 rides), you'll only make $312 once Uber's taken its cut" - http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_being_an_uber_driver_in_los_angeles.php http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_be... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-battle-against-its-drivers-continues.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-batt... http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest-their-employer/373388/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest... http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-changed-in-virtually-every-way-possible-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-...
    - ripb 12y ago
      Very interesting, thank you very much.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Yeah, most of those are uber screwing over drivers. Except the one you quoted, which really confuses me. It's not uber's fault if demand is low in a particular location. Heck, that's actually a pretty good rate, full-time minimum wage for only doing a ride every two hours.
      - morganvachon 12y ago
        The reason I included that one is because Uber pushes the fantasy that you can make enough money in a weekend of driving to replace your full time job. The reality is that competition is fierce, especially in larger markets, and unless you're a reckless, aggressive driver you'll never make enough in a full week to pay for the brand new car they require you to drive along with a living wage. Basically, you end up an indentured servant, getting pennies on the dollar.

tedunangst 12y ago

Thanks. "Deplorable charade." Are they referring to their own actions? I mean "charade (n.) something that is done in order to pretend something is true when it is not really true." The PPA regulations are true, are they not? It's the legality of driving an UberX which is the charade, no?

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Perhaps the "deplorable charade" is the argument that PPA regulation isn't necessary in the mobility space? Or overbearing? I don't much care for Uber's practices, but I agree with the argument that taxi medallions are rent-seeking and all efforts to break down senseless regulation of the taxi industry should take place. Note I said "senseless" regulation. You should still require insurance, background checks/driver's license verification or drivers, and so forth.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Whether it's necessary or not doesn't change the fact that Uber knew the current state of the laws and told their drivers they were operating legally. It looks like Uber set up the situation so that these drivers could be martyrs in Uber's PR cause. Uber can now say "look, how terrible the PPA is, we shall defend our drivers from this injustice!". They score some PR points at the cost of massively affecting the drivers' lives. The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop. Unfortunately, Uber's process is much more likely to evoke change than "participating in the political process". Consumers are much more interested in the interests than your average voter.

swartkrans 12y ago

If you pay someone to commit a crime, doesn't that make you criminally liable as well? How are they going to reimburse someone for being caught breaking the law? That seems less than sane.

fiatmoney 12y ago
It's unclear if it's a criminal case (my guess is no). It is relatively common to indemnify partners against civil penalties.
baddox 12y ago
If you legislate and enforce a law that is harmful to society, does that make you criminally liable?
- runeks 12y ago
  Only if your intent is to cause harm, I would say.
- swartkrans 12y ago
  Crime is a function of law, an action is only a crime if it breaks the law. So no legislating the law by lawfully elected individuals is not a crime. This is true even if you disagree with the laws that were written. I will be candid and share with you that I think what you asked is a stupid question on multiple levels. I assume you're riled up whenever the government does its job of governing, which yes, involves enforcing the law and taking things from people, like their freedom and or property. There's a democratic process in place in our country that allows you to help decide who is in power, if you're unhappy with who is in power become more involved in elections.
  - baddox 12y ago
    It's not so simple. I'm not aware of all the laws that would apply in this particular case, which is why I asked the question, but I know that in many jurisdictions there are laws against abuse of power and corruption. If a political official were to explicitly say "I am supporting Proposition X because it will return some benefit to my benefactors," would that not be a criminal offense? Granted, it's well-accepted that such is the norm in politics, but I don't think that means that it's not criminal. Many politicians have been charged with crimes like abuse of official capacity, bribery, and fraud, for similar actions. I disagree with and resent both your claim that my question is stupid and your claim that the recourse for a broken political system is becoming more involved in elections.