
I was an undercover Uber driver - robdimarco
http://citypaper.net/uberdriver/
======
krapht
I also drove for Uber in DC for a few months while I was between jobs. I
thought it would be a fun and easy way to get a few dollars for beer. My
experience mirrors that of the reporter. Towards the end, I would only drive
during surge pricing hours, as that was the only way to make a reasonable net
hourly wage.

I have no problem hailing an Uber - they are really, really cheap. However,
it's a raw deal for drivers. Uber turns a blind eye to driver-contractors
driving without commercial vehicle insurance. It has to, as the additional
cost (which is pushed onto the driver) would cause the driver's hourly rate to
plummet even further. In addition, there is no way to purchase commercial
insurance on an hourly basis - therefore part-time drivers would be squeezed
out. The flat-rate $1 safe rides fee causes low-distance fares to be even more
unprofitable, even when many short trips are already a bad deal due to the
overhead involved in each pickup and drop-off.

To fix this, Uber should probably cover drivers with an on-demand commercial
policy while they are logged into the app. The flat per-ride fee should go
away. And while I doubt this is going to happen, Uber should probably also
reduce the commission they take per ride.

~~~
aikah
> It has to

So basically you mean than Uber can only make money if most their drivers do
not respect the law. Which gives Uber an unfair advantage over the competition
(regular taxis that do respect the law ). It's like saying employer X doesn't
check if his employees are legal workers, because if he did it would be too
expensive to do business. But hey, even startups got to hussle to make a good
living.

~~~
danieltillett
This is the whole idea behind regulatory arbitrage. Find an industry that has
built up "inefficiencies" due the law and then undercut by deliberately
breaking the law.

The only thing that amazes me about uber (apart from its current valuation) is
that the taxi industry is powerful enough to prevent the issuing of more taxi
medallions, but not powerful enough to get the current laws enforced against
uber. Assuming uber recognised this in advance (I don't have any evidence that
they did) then this was pretty clever.

~~~
rhino369
"Taxi lobby" makes it sound like Uber is disrupting some megacorporate
industry who control government in smokey back alleys. Taxi corps are small,
many are essentially sole proprietorships. The drivers are essentially all
running their own business, but the medallion owners tend not to be huge
corporations.

Medallions are required because cities regulate taxis prices and policies.
Doing so distorts normal market forces. So medallions are a sort of
conciliation prize for taxi drivers having the business model dictated.
Govenment limits price, but also lowers competition to ensure they can make a
profit.

Uber isn't beating some mustached villinous Taxi lobby. They are beating
cities who wanted a regulated car service.

I think Uber is probably better than the status quo, but it's not fighting big
business, it is big business.

~~~
rayiner
Uber is nearing $10 billion in bookings, or about 50-100x as much as the
largest cab companies. The need of some people to see every tech company is
the underdog is ridiculous. By and large the whole point of tech entering
these traditional markets is to use capital and technology to achieve scale
and efficiency the small businesses playing in those spaces can't hope to
match.

~~~
cdcarter
You need to look at market size to make that statistic anywhere near
interesting.

~~~
rayiner
Uber is 2-3x the size of the whole taxi industry in SF. Remember, it's not
like there is a national taxi regulatory system. It's a bunch of separate
municipal systems and Uber is far bigger than any of the other players in all
of them.

~~~
cdcarter
Yes, of course, that's what makes the 50x-100x number so inaccurate.

------
DigitalSea
A few months ago when I was in Seattle for work, I caught Uber everywhere. I
had so many conversations with Uber drivers about why they drove for Uber, how
much money they made and why they weren't doing something else.

Needless to say, unless I felt legitimately fearful for my life (which rarely
ever happened) I would always rate 5 stars. I realised a lot of these Uber
drivers (usually migrants with broken English) probably didn't have many other
options to earn money. An almost consistent sentiment amongst those drivers
was they were working long hours and support family (not just a wife and
children but parents/relatives). My reasoning for this was I am paying like
half the cost of what a taxi would cost me, so why not 5 stars?

I think Uber is great for a certain subset of people. While most people who
frequent HN on six figure tech salaries would definitely struggle to live on
an Uber salary, a lot of people rely on it. In all honesty, I couldn't do it
and I have a certain level of respect for those willing to earn so little and
work so much to support their families. As a passenger Uber is great, but you
can't deny that drivers get absolutely shafted unless they're driving through
surge pricing periods and areas. I always rate 5 stars when I get an Uber
unless of course the driver is swerving all over the place, speeding or doing
dangerous things to endanger my life (which has happened like twice in all of
the time I have used Uber).

Aside: Anyone else find the article sporadically refresh? Made it very
difficult to read the article.

~~~
guessbest
> Aside: Anyone else find the article sporadically refresh? Made it very
> difficult to read the article.

Yes. It did for me in Firefox on the desktop, but not on mobile safari. I
thought I was crazy when it did it the first time but the second time, I knew
it was the citypaper site.

~~~
perfTerm
Very strange. For me on mobile safari (iOS 8.whatever's newest) it refreshed
six or seven times by the end. Very frustrating. I don't have traffic
inspection tools on my iPhone but usually I find weird page refreshes like
that are due to advertising.

~~~
xasos
Same for me on an iOS 8 iPad. I only got the website to stop refreshing by
constantly holding down the screen and scrolling

------
maceo
Human labor is not a commodity.

This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th
century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time,
said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork."
And working people, along with the management class for the most part,
understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense
was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The
labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the
last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense
understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.

The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the
notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just
as easily as you can order vitamins online.

It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm
believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe
that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as
expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand
this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy
looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far
more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems
they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger
business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy
is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something
about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like
these to a serious critique.

~~~
smil
That labor is a commodity is not an "idea", but in the case of Uber drivers
and the Foxconn workers who assemble iPhones, a fact. It is a fact because
that's how those jobs and service/production processes have been designed. The
work has been broken down into their smallest parts, so that it will require
no special skill or intelligence to perform them. As anyone can do those jobs,
they have been de facto commoditized.

For someone who cares for the wellbeing of people at the bottom of the
enterprise pyramids, the goal should be to design new organizations, with jobs
that have latitude for learning and development, that is multi-disciplinary
and creative. And many of the worst jobs today should be automated because
they are not fit for human beings.

~~~
maceo
In that regard, it's been a fact since the division of labor was first
outlined (and then fetishized) in the late 18th century. In terms of breaking
down the tasks needed to build the final product, early Ford factories were
just as efficient as modern Foxconn assembly plants.

I'm not arguing whether it's a fact or not. Culturally, in 2015 America it's a
fact. In 1915 America, the same "fact" would have been handily rejected, even
by conservative minds. Most people only read the first chapter of Wealth of
Nations where Adam Smith extolls the virtues of the division of labor. The
second half of the book, where he warns that the division of labor taken to
the extreme could result in unfathomable social ills, and we ought not ever
travel down that path, is usually conveniently ignored.

I'm all for automating jobs that technology deems unnecessary. The solution
isn't to push everyone into some multi-disciplinary creative class. Many
people would be very happy as uber drivers, or any other menial job, if they
were treated with respect by their employer. I'd say the solution begins with
treating workers with dignity and respect.

~~~
smil
>I'm all for automating jobs that technology deems unnecessary. The solution
isn't to push everyone into some multi-disciplinary creative class. Many
people would be very happy as uber drivers, or any other menial job, if they
were treated with respect by their employer. I'd say the solution begins with
treating workers with dignity and respect.

I agree, but the problem is not a moral problem but a business problem. How do
you design a product, and then the process of making that product, so that you
can afford to treat employees well in a competitive, global market? I'd even
put it like this: How can you turn paying employees more into a competitive
advantage?

------
somberi
I live between NYC and Bangalore, India. I have used Uber and its closest
competitors (Lyft and Ola respectively), in both cities.

I have a mental questionnaire I go through with 90% of the drivers and here is
what I have learnt:

Uber vs Lyft: Drivers make more money with Uber, but rules of engagement are
more relaxed in Lyft.

Uber & Ola (not vs): The drivers in India hone in on these three points:

1\. They make 3-4 times the money they would if they were employed as a driver
in a upper-middle class household (very common in India).

2\. They feel respected and think of themselves as "Business owners" now. It
is heartening to see how much the "feeling respected" theme repeats itself.

3\. They know the good times won't last.

Unlike US, in India, Uber and Ola are do not take a cut from the ride. In fact
it is the opposite - They keep the per kilometre cost to the end consumer
lower than Auto Rickshaws and compensate the drivers the difference. In fact
Uber has taken a "not-for-profit" model in India (and in Beijing).

Citation for not-for-profit: [http://blog.uber.com/the-government-
way](http://blog.uber.com/the-government-way)

~~~
krrrh
I was just in Guangzhou where this is also the case; they have a non-
profit/subsidized tier called "People's Uber". A 20 minute ride would come out
to the equivalent of $3. The weird thing to me was that there were 5 tiers of
service and while there were different cars available for UberX and People's
Uber, I couldn't tell the difference in the service. Not sure why anyone would
choose UberX when the VC-subsidized version was available.

------
yellowapple
Is there some reason why the page keeps refreshing automatically? It's
annoying and makes it difficult to, you know, read the actual article.

~~~
StavrosK
I'm glad it wasn't just me, but I had this happen with (what I think is)
another site earlier. Are you guys using Ghostery too, perhaps?

~~~
yellowapple
I'm just using AdBlock Plus on this particular browser (Conkeror; Firefox-
like). Haven't bothered to try with Firefox (which doesn't have Ghostery, but
has a more stringent ad-blocking policy and some other privacy-ish addons that
I can't recall at the moment).

~~~
StavrosK
Hmm, must be the site, then. I'm using Firefox (with Ghostery, why do you say
it doesn't have it?) and it refreshes for me as well.

~~~
yellowapple
Well yeah, it's definitely the site; one of the replies to my original comment
managed to identify the piece of JS that's doing it. Using a JS-blocker (or
inserting a bit of JS into your developer tools to blank-out the offending
function) would do the trick.

------
Systemic33
Link to a version that does not autorefresh constantly:
[https://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http://citypaper.net/uberd...](https://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http://citypaper.net/uberdriver/)

------
phamilton
This site refreshed itself 6 times as I read it on my mobile device. Each time
it lost my location on the page. Quite a frustrating experience.

~~~
javert
Same here on laptop.

"Hey Boss, I know a way to increase visits to our site by 6x..."

------
Dujdovnik
Off-topic, but what the hell is wrong with the website? It kept refreshing
every minute or so for some reason.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, had the same issue here. It refreshed like almost 10 times before I
manged to finish the article. Incredibly annoying.

------
itgoon
While I like the improvements to regular taxi service that the competition has
brought, I don't like Uber. They're just shady all around.

The "We're not a taxi service, we just sell software" is a load of crap.

How many apps take a piece of the gross? Purchase a license? Ok. A monthly fee
for ongoing service? Sure. A chunk of all the money made from using it? I
don't think so.

~~~
NegativeK
Doesn't the App Store take a cut of in-app purchases?

~~~
dylanjermiah
If it's a 'digital' product by Apple's definition they get 30%. If it isn't
there is no cut.

------
platz
Not a bad investigation of Uber-like companies from an economics perspective,
Michael Munger on the Sharing Economy:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html)

------
jolan
Kind of disappointed that the author neglected to discuss how the $9.34/hr she
earned as an Uber driver compares to her salary as a "senior staff writer".

------
hudell
offtopic, but that website kept refreshing over and over, it was hard to read
on mobile

~~~
fideloper
Literally just threw my phone across the room in frustration over this.

------
olalonde
I found it interesting that many customers were complaining about drivers with
accents. I wonder if, would Uber implement per-driver pricing, those people
would really pay a premium for drivers with no accent.

------
bayesianhorse
Driving people from A to B individually would be a "perfect competition" kind
of situation without regulation. Some of the motivation behind regulating this
market was that some taxi drivers just started robbing their customers.

Now Uber is doing away with the regulation, and it's "perfect competition"
again, the state of affairs when prices have to be so low that there is almost
no profit for the suppliers. Uber will always make the most overall profit
with their drivers just on the edge of survival.

Uber may actually set the fares just below the profitability point, because
new drivers or those "driving for fun" actually put money on the table rather
than being paid.

------
lechuga
Travis sounds exactly like a Disney villain. I bet somehow dead puppies are
also involved.

------
joshjkim
Here's what I do: take lyft, and tip your drivers well!

------
diminoten
> Uber reassures drivers that they've got them covered, but their vaunted $1
> million policy is secondary for collision — that is, drivers must try to get
> their own insurance companies to pay the claims first. If the claim is
> rejected because the insurer figures out it's Uber-related, then Uber's
> policy kicks in — but the driver's almost certainly going to have his
> personal insurance policy cancelled, and in some cases be investigated for
> fraud.

What? Has this ever happened before? Surely by now there would be specific
examples of this taking place, if it were indeed a real thing.

> CP: Yeah, not really — when they take UberX into a new market like Philly,
> they start off by paying drivers a lot. So in the beginning, you get a lot
> of drivers who look like the drivers in Uber ads, like, suits and bottled
> water and no accents. And everyone gets the idea that Uber drivers have
> suits and make a ton of money. Then after a while, usually when a competitor
> comes in — you know Lyft just started up a couple weeks ago, right?

(CP is the person who wrote the article, not anyone being interviewed) -- How
impressively unprofessional. The entire section that quote comes from is just
the person writing the article yelling at someone she's ferrying around as an
UberX driver. A more obvious hit piece could not have been written.

Also, the site keeps refreshing on me, losing my place in the article. I think
it's related to the graphs, but I can't be sure. They randomly go into
"loading..." mode when this happens.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Go check the forums at uberpeople.net to hear firsthand the numerous stories
of drivers having their personal insurance policies canceled after an
accident. The media doesn't care enough to cover these stories.

It's not a myth, it is actually right in the agreement with your insurer, that
your vehicle will not be used for commercial purposes.

Also, the $1 "Safe Ride" fee only covers excess liability, not collision. So
if you're driving for Uber or Lyft, and the accident is your fault, everyone
else is covered. Your passengers, the other driver(s), their vehicle(s). You
have a totaled car with no insurance and have to pay your own medical bills.

------
marincounty
I see people buying 2008 plus four door vechicles(that Uber approves of--on
the ever changing list) and not making money and stuck with a four door car.
Four door cars are harder to sell than two door cars.(I can't point to a link
to prove this, but I used to sell cars, and four door cars were a tough sell.)

My problem with Uber is the requirement for a 2008 or newer car, and Uber
decides if it's cool enough to represent their company. This is not an
independent contractor Uber?

Let the driver use any registered vechicle? Your brilliant app will let the
consumer look at the vechicle before before the hire? If you are worried about
safety--just because a person has an older car doesn't mean it's less safe.
Bring every vechicle in for a safety check if worried?

Maybe then, when the Uber driver finds out it's not the opportunity your
company claims; they aren't stuck with a car they can't sell, or take a huge
loss when selling your "acceptable" vehicle, or worse claim bankruptcy?

People are desperate for jobs--don't exploit them! I liked your company in the
beginning(before I looked into the requirements of Uber).

~~~
gcr
The "Sidecar" app may be more appropriate for drivers who want to take
customers for a ride in their go karts/tractor trailers/dune
buggies/mopeds/cat busses/... :)

~~~
marincounty
Besides the Moped--they aren't quite street legal? What is the point of the
App if you can't see the vechicle? Do you happen to work in a climate
controlled Uber office--with stock shares?

My point is don't claim Independent Contractor status when you're obviously
not. This link makes fun reading. Maybe you can explain automotive aesthetics
to me, Honda, Chevrolet, or Volkswagen?

[http://www.driveubernyc.com/vehicles/full-
list/](http://www.driveubernyc.com/vehicles/full-list/)

~~~
rconti
The list is amazingly odd. I get that a BMW 3 series is acceptable but an M3
is not -- perhaps they don't want customers being given rides by those who
fancy themselves "performance drivers".

But the Subaru Impreza WRX but not the Subaru WRX? They're the same car!
Impreza not acceptable, but WRX is? That turns the "performance vehicle" thing
on it's head.

Many small luxury vehicles (Audi A3, etc) are not acceptable. Okay, fine. But
the Prius is! But the Lexus Ct200h (which is a Prius with a fancier badge) is
not acceptable.

The BMW 3 series is acceptable, as is the 4 series coupe, but the 4 series
Gran Coupe (a Sedan version of the 4 series coupe, which is a coupe version of
the 3 series sedan.. yeah, don't ask) is NOT acceptable?

