
Uber’s Complicit Board - robin_reala
https://mondaynote.com/ubers-complicit-board-9b3351cdee9
======
kartan
Uber was a "car sharing" company. Then it realized that some customers were
cheating and acting as pirate taxis. Uber saw that as an opportunity and
created a business model based on that fact.

Their business model is based on abuse employee protection laws, and ignore
professional drivers regulations and fighting against them in tribunals when
caught.

Years later they continue calling themselves "car sharing" company, even that
it has professional drivers which only income comes from them. All their
business model is based in lies, legal trickery, abuse of power, etc.

So, why people is surprised by this? I call this effect "Digital Stupidity".
e.g. Opening a letter or listening to a phone call are illegal without a
warrant. But, oh wait!, we are opening digital mails and listening to digital
phone calls: No problem. e.g. Paying below minimum wage and breaking
employment laws is wrong. But, oh wait!, we are using an app to hire our
employees on a digital contract, so no problem.

Breaking employee and customer protection laws is not a good business model,
even in an App. The rest of the behavior can be explained by their business
model lack of any morality.

* [http://www.timesunion.com/allwcm/article/Judge-finds-NYC-Ube...](http://www.timesunion.com/allwcm/article/Judge-finds-NYC-Uber-drivers-to-be-employees-11220139.php) * [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/uber-appe...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/uber-appeal-uk-employment-ruling-drivers-working-rights) * [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/uber-to-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/uber-to-shut-down-denmark-operation-over-new-taxi-laws) * [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-appe...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-appeals-against-ruling-that-its-uk-drivers-are-employees)

~~~
timcederman
> Uber was a "car sharing" company. Then it realized that some customers were
> cheating and acting as pirate taxis. Uber saw that as an opportunity and
> created a business model based on that fact.

When I first used Uber it was black cars only. This was great - I'd learnt in
the Bay Area that using black cars was cheaper than taxis, but finding a
reliable company and getting it on demand was a PITA. Then Uber came along,
awesome. Cheaper than what I was paying before, cheaper than a taxi, and on
demand, with no tipping.

Then Lyft came along and Uber (AFAIK) copied them with Uber-X.

"Pirate taxis"? What are you talking about?

~~~
ClassyJacket
Does anyone know what on Earth the motivation was for Uber to limit their
market to only black cars for such a long time? Or ever, for that matter?

~~~
heymijo
They began with black cars because that was the original idea from Garrett
Camp. Something on the scale of UberX wouldn't be fathomed by the Uber folks
for several years yet. Then, competition showed them the way [1].

"Now, an important clarification: Unlike Lyft and Sidecar, the so-called
ridesharing companies that were at that very moment making their debuts in San
Francisco, the original UberX accommodated only professional drivers who held
taxi licenses. Kalanick envisioned a fleet of black Toyota Priuses to be
driven by the same types of licensed chauffeurs who were behind the wheels of
other Uber vehicles."[1]

Also worth noting, black car drivers Uber used were licensed, just different
from cab drivers.

[1] The Upstarts by Brad Stone
[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29905580-the-
upstarts](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29905580-the-upstarts)

------
TeMPOraL
After all the current mess gets resolved and the dust settles down (hopefully
with Uber kicking the calendar), we'll still need to have a serious
conversation about _how was this allowed to happen in the first place_.

Uber built their business on utter disregard for the rule of law. In the
process, they highlighted just how poor - or unwilling - local governments are
at enforcing their own rules. This needs to get fixed, hopefully before the
next wave of "laws are for losers" "entrepreneurs" hits.

~~~
x0x0
The taxis, in sf at least, are pieces of human shit. I had a badly broken leg
(multiple surgeries, 10 months on crutches including a reinjury) and they were
horrible to me, even though I took 8-10 cabs/week. So I was deeply grateful
for uber because -- and this is a miracle compared to sf taxis -- they
actually came, or if they weren't going to, they told you! That's it! I was
willing to pay 2-3x just for that. SF taxis: "we'll be there in 15 minutes",
which was utterly unrelated to arrival time and destroyed your ability to plan
your day at all.

I've put these stats on here before, but even though I called a taxi every day
to go to work -- stats are in an xlx not on this laptop, so this is
approximate -- the 80% wait time was approximately an hour, for someone who
lived at 22/valencia and wanted to go to soma. And they regularly just didn't
show up ever. Or threw tantrums if I didn't shoot down two flights of stairs,
but it was totally cool for them to come an hour after being called. And the
card readers 'broke' all the time -- but when you refuse to go to an atm and
tell them their choice is to take a card or take $0, lo it's a miracle! The
card machine starts working! I had more than one driver get pissy they weren't
tipped after they tried to make me crutch over to an atm to pay them. Or one
who didn't start the meter and tried to charge me $30-ish for a ride that
normally cost $16.

Oh, and try getting a cab Thurs or Fri night to go home.

It's particularly amazing that a government sponsored monopoly would treat the
handicapped this way.

In conclusion, fuck yellow cab in particular, but also fuck green cab and
arrow. This is why no-one cared that uber ran a taxi service. Because it was
ludicrously better.

I stuck with Uber for a long time because they made my life work for the
second half of the injury, but finally switched to lyft 6 months ago.

~~~
TeMPOraL
One thing that I realized in the recent Uber threads, by reading stories such
as yours, is that regular taxis _in the US_ (in particular in SF and NYC) must
really, really suck. I can understand the popularity of Uber there, if things
were really as bad as it seems from reading HN. Maybe taxi regulations in the
States are really _that_ broken.

But at some point, Uber expanded overseas, and took their laissez-faire
attitude to regulations to places where taxis were kind of OK, and the laws
were reasonable. That behaviour is much less forgivable there - because there
isn't even a fig leaf of civil disobedience to hide behind, it's obvious money
grab through anticompetitive behaviour.

------
noncoml
Uber is what it is today because the board and Kalanick had no ethics and
complete diregard for the law since the beginning.

They showed that from their very early days. If you supported the company
until last year, then you supported their behavior as a whole. You cannot have
your pie and eat it too.

~~~
RickS
I think it's worth making a distinction between their public and private
conduct.

To be specific: I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider
this an extension of "move fast and break things". I am not okay with their
purportedly rampant sexual misconduct. It is morally reprehensible and has no
business value.

Roping both types of conduct under "their behavior" is a step too far, IMO.

~~~
alpha_squared
> I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an
> extension of "move fast and break things".

If there were any statement that is a good summation of tech culture hubris,
it's "move fast and break things." You can not and, more appropriately, should
not apply that to law as a basis for your business. If you are doing something
illegal in your resident locale, then you are doing something illegal and
reprehensible. Full stop.

If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. However,
intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits
of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a
pretty clear violation of ethics. Regardless, the court's decision is
ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is
still illegal.

~~~
ClassyJacket
>If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law.

This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far
quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them
politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry
against them.

It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible.
Some laws are just stupid.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _It 's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible.
> Some laws are just stupid._

Does Uber pick the laws to break by their apparent stupidity? Or just by them
being inconvenient for their money-making scheme?

> _The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them
> than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed
> with the entire global taxi industry against them._

Well, sure, just how like I could resolve a conflict with my associate by
killing him much faster than it would take me to go through courts. But the
very reason for laws to exist is to safeguard the needs of the whole. Just
because a law is invonvenient to an individual or an organization, doesn't
mean the law is stupid or obsolete.

~~~
cgag
They're stupid because they're inconvenient to almost everyone.

