This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver.
I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to explain things from his perspective. He could have just said: "sorry no time". Instead he shook the driver's hand, tried to explain the logic of his moving down the luxury scale.
The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material.
What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.
Kalanick's opinions and behaviour are obviously of interest to the public right now. There are quite a few anecdotes that, taken together, paint the picture of a thoroughly chauvinistic CEO with a bit of social darwinism thrown in for good measure.
His comments here further that impression: he throws around jingoism in his awkward attempt to impress his companions ("every year is hard for Uber...") and is either uninformed or dishonest with regards to the driver's complaints.
The "footage of him with two women" could not be cut out because it is the entirety of this video. It's necessary both to prove the identity as well as adding context and body language.
The women aren't identifiable and him being out & about with two women could have been observed by anybody, and was probably observed by the people at whatever Super Bowl event he was visiting.
It's also hard to judge this without remembering that Uber employees had, for years, full access to any customer's ride data, and often used it for fun & stalking. They boasted about their ability to algorithmically tag "rides of glory", set out to punish a journalist by digging up private information about her, and collect data about user's positions not directly required for their actual service.
I fail to see how this is character assassination. It's a primary source – the video itself carries the meaning, and if that is damaging to his reputation, then the flaws are his and not something made up by any journalists. Likewise, I ain't reducing anyone's "bayesian priors" because the driver's credibility is completely irrelevant. He's not making any relevant statements of fact beyond those visible in the video.
Well what do you know, at the time of writing this, it's the top comment!
> The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material.
It's relevant because he said things like this:
“That’s kind of how I roll. I make sure every year is a hard year. If it’s easy I’m not pushing hard enough.”
at a time when we're supposed to be trusting that Kalanick is fixing his company's culture...
> the most blatant character assassination
Where was the character assassination? They just reported on what happened in the video. The video is relevant to the public interest. Do you have a right to not be filmed in an Uber... maybe? I don't know. It's not my car, and the driver could need the film for their own protection. I think I would be okay with being filmed as long as it wasn't secret.
> Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money.
> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver.
Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I would have no credibility?
Here in London I've assumed that cabs are always filming.
> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral,
To me this is a very classist oppinion. Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have? If we promote this case due to the expectation of privacy that only serves to create this devide between rich and poor in which only the rich can afford privacy rather than a precident in which everyone deserves it.
Also, while it's perfectly okay for the driver to tell Travis what his concerns or pain points are, it's rather rich of him to assume that he has any context to tell Travis what business decisions make sense. As if Uber won't have charged higher prices if they could get away with it.
The CEOs being disconnected with the masses is bad, but so is the masses assuming that somehow THEY know just the right thing the CEO should have done without being privy to any of the data that a CEO has access to.
It's not too different from the arrogance you see on HN.
This will probably be unpopular as well. I think Travis overreacted and lacked empathy with the driver, but the driver didn't seem to understand that TK doesn't control market forces, and doesn't "have the business model in his hand". Uber was doing well with Black Cars, but the company did the right thing by undercutting its own market so that it could survive and grow. There's also nothing wrong with "giving every person a ride", rather than limiting Uber to just black cars for the riches. Uber adapted to market forces, the driver didn't, and then he blamed the company for his problems.
Maybe teaching economics in primary school could solve this problem.
Gee how are you going to catch anyone doing something immoral if you warn them before they do it? Not sure what you are trying to say about bayesian priors, but when you say untrue things it ruins your credibility. Not sure why people are upvoting you. Yeah, bad people hate it when you talk about the things you do. Fortunately, like the PewDiePie incident, famous people can't ruin others just because they are upset they reveal the things they do.
> What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.
You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses.
American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be.
The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda.
Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media.
Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.
A relative of mine was a chief of a fire department. During a nasty contract battle, he had people picketing his home -- a miserable experience for his family at the time.
But... he was a public figure and the protestors were on a public sidewalk.
When you're a public figure that carefully nurtures a bad-boy, asshole image and attitude of privacy bordering on contempt, you shouldn't expect kid gloves.
Immoral perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. Does anyone know where this took place? I wasn't 100% certain from the article. Many U.S. states have a single-party consent wiretapping law, which permits this kind of surreptitious recording.
Every taxi I've taken in the last 5-6 years has built in cameras that film both the back seat and the passenger before pickup. There notices but I don't believe you can assume privacy from the driver when it's not a limo with the screen up or something similar.
There are legitimate reasons why this is done in a taxi: preventing people running away from payment, engaging in harassment or other bad behavior, or claiming you refused to pick them up for reason X when you had a good reason to not pick them up. From what I know of Uber, these reasons all apply to their drivers as well.
This is exactly how entrepreneurship works - you take risks, sometimes enormous risks with huge capital investments, and it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does work out and you reap great rewards for a long time.
The driver signed up for this and the gamble didn't work out... now he's blaming Uber?
The CEO of Uber is a public figure and has as much right to privacy as he gave Sarah Lacy whom he let Uber stalk her and family for a negative article.
He is a ruthless, greedy, ignoramus, misogynistic pig who needs his ass handed to him and Uber to crumble before his eyes!
To me this illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in america which is the crazy firewall between rich and poor. Kamel wanted to have a serious discussion with Kalanick about how his decisions as CEO were affecting Kamel's life and Kalanick gets upset about this. That's your job! At least it should be. If you can't even handle light criticism from the people you employ, you shouldn't be at the top.
I believe the driver was itching for a confrontation (he stopped Kalanick as he was getting out of the car to start the conversation).
It was only after being berated for a minute or two and interrupted that Kalanick's composure started to crack. Before then, I don't think anything Kalanick could have said would have mollified this driver. He had an axe and he was going to grind it. Kalanick could have handled it better, but he didn't totally melt down either.
And I think the guy is pretty terrible in general.
Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money.
This seems like a slam piece following the #DeleteUber bandwagon.
1). The title doesn't match the contents. Instead of reporting on the specifics of the fare changes, Newcomer rehashes the more prominent Uber scandals and some short commentary on TK's "short temper."
2). A very short paragraph (around 1/20th the article) breifly elaborates on the fares:
> And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services.
3). The video transcription selectively takes out parts and fudges others:
> "Kalanick begins to lose his temper."
> Omitting the civil conversation preceding "But people are not trusting you anymore"
The following is just my personal anecdote: I have an immigrant in my family who's just like the driver. He's not interested in "fighting over a good idea, which sometimes means admitting that his isn’t the best one," but looking to assert his ideas onto anyone who takes his argument-bait.
Additionally, it's plain rude to engage in this sort of thing with a stranger.
Honestly, as much as I don't like Kalanick and would love a reason to dislike him even more, to some degree I have to side with him on this situation.
The footage with the girls, while incredibly awkward, is nothing more than a flirtatious conversation. Now, fair enough that the driver realises he has the CEO of Uber in his car and wants to talk about his situation as a driver, and I give props to Kalanick for actually taking the time to listen and explain.
Did the ending clip not paint Kalanick in the best light? Sure, but keep in mind that in this situation he is a guy in his private life who has been blindsided and accused of ruining this guys life, with, what it seems like from other posts here, lies.
If telling the guy he needs to take responsibility for his own choices instead of looking to blame someone else is the worst thing that Kalanick could say to anyone, then there really isn't a story here from my point of view.
Also, Bloomberg should really take a good hard look at themselves for posting that video without cutting out the conversation with the women. Posting that section of the video is the kind of disgusting shit that TMZ and other gossip rags would pull.
I hope that at the end of all this, we as a society realize that we need to actually enforce, as well as update the rules we set regarding employment. We're effectively subsidizing companies that find loopholes, or simply ignore laws.
- Contractor-not-a-contractor employment merely pushes costs and risks on to the worker. We all end up paying for the worker's social safety net, and costs of doing business (Such as insurance premiums, for example).
- Not Uber-specific, but technically-not-full-time employment that just barely allows employers to bypass benefits owed to full-time employees needs to be fixed. See Walmart and how they help employees sign up for government benefits as part of their on boarding in some areas.
In the end, somebody is paying for these costs. Why shouldn't it be the companies doing business?
Interesting how it ends with "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own actions"
Watching as someone who already doesn't like Kalanick due to recent news, but at first, I didn't really take sides. The driver engaged first, and his tone was a little more tensive than Kalanick's. Moreover, Kalanick's argument seems sensible[0] regarding why he might have had to lower rates.
However, once Kalanick's retort essentially becomes "you're not taking personal responsibility and blaming others (ie., me)" he loses me. It's a fair discussion up till that point and each party's argument is reasonable (even if the tone isn't polite). What does Kalanick know about the driver's situation that he can say that?
When taken along with current news regarding Uber's culture, this doesn't look very good for Uber and Kalanick as a person.
[0] I'm not judging it based on its merits because I am not in the know regarding the numbers of the issue.
I don't consider it a fair discussion when the driver falsely insists the fair is $2.75/mile, when it is $3.75/mile and continues to pound the theme when Kalanick had already given his explanation. What is the driver expecting? For Uber to go back and raise fairs on Uber Black?
A bit of a tangential point: last week there was a post here about Facebook "changing the rules" and a significant number of small businesses disappearing as a result. Whether or not Uber's black car reimbursement really did change, it strikes me that drivers probably made business decisions (e.g. car purchases) based on Uber's initial reimbursement and are now seeing the rules change and grossing far fewer profits than expected (and prices still have a ways to go).
One can argue that these small business owners / contractors should have had the foresight not to do business on someone else's platform, but this strikes me as a bit Malthusian. Going through bankruptcy is no small price to pay for this lesson. Hopefully the next Facebook or Uber will have to promise some degree of stability (the same way I am very wary of working with SaaS startups), but I'm not optimistic - there's a fool born every minute.
The problem with this is that it ignores the economic realities that went into the decision of Uber to lower fairs and assumes that their demand would have remained the same with or without doing it. Drivers would have not been happy with higher fairs if they couldn't, well...get a fair because of lowered demand.
How is this video not illegal, especially in California?
And sure rates went down, but it's still 3X the price of UberX. It didn't go down precipitously. From $4.90/1.25 to 3.75/0.65 won't cause someone to lose $97k and probably he got more activity overall. I agree with the CEO that this guy sounds like he's blaming Uber for his problems, when there are plenty of UberBlack drivers making hand over fist otherwise the drivers wouldn't be there. My wife's last UberX driver said he was making $3k/week.
> How is this video not illegal, especially in California?
You agree to surveillance when you enter the car. Just like a taxi, a bus, a train or a trolley.
You actually don't have an "expectation of privacy" in these spaces either. So a drone cam or telephoto lens is okay too. That's where state law is interesting.
California is actually surprisingly permissive for photographers and videographers.
"You know what? You know what? Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame every single thing in their life on somebody else". Less than a minute after having blamed the lowering of prices on his competitor(s). That delicious irony.
That's funny Kalanick still thinks he's beaten Lyft. The TNC lot at LAX tells a much different story.
I've been working it for Lyft since December. The lot has about 170 spaces. Lyft and Uber can each queue up 100 vehicles so some would have to park on streets.
Before #deleteuber, I would come in with 90+ drivers ahead of me. I'd have to wait an hour. I would watch Uber drivers arrive after me and leave before me. And the lot was always full while the airport had arriving passenger traffic.
Since #deleteuber, it's much different. LAX seems to be in Prime Time much of the time. But here's the weird thing, the lot is like half empty. There's like 20 cars in the lot that fly only the Uber branding (and plenty flying both logos on their Uber-leased Priuses). I haven't waited more than 10 minutes to get dispatched, except at like 2AM when the passenger air traffic tapers off. On most of my LAX dispatches in the last week, I couldn't even reach a parking space and park before getting dispatched. And this arriving with sometimes as low as 50 drivers ahead of me, and typically 80 or more.
The most incredible time, I arrived at LAX. It was Prime Time in the airport. The app told me the queue was full and to leave. I drove slowly down Jenny Street, the app flipped to 98 ahead of me. I entered the lot, followed the traffic jam of Lyft drivers trying to get to the designated parking area. It took like three minutes. I was dispatched as I entered the parking area. I took the short cut through the fence to exit the lot and picked up my fare.
But here is the clearest indication to me that Lyft completely owns LAX now. I arrived, parked, ran to the porta potty and took a leak. 3 Uber drivers were hanging out near that end of the lot, talking to each other. I got my dispatch while walking to my car. I picked someone up, took them to Marina Del Ray, came back, got dispatched again and those same 3 drivers were still killing time talking to each other.
Typical and unfortunate outcome: there is a serious problem with a company's policies. Suddenly everything slightly controversial coming from that company is newsworthy. In doing so, the original well-founded and important criticism is diluted. This is just a more refined form of clickbait.
Granted, this is all still speculation, but what would such a lawsuit do to the Uber brand? They'd basically be telling all of their drivers in two-party consent states not to not use dashcams because of the liability, which seems tenuous given some of the terrible videos of riders abusing drivers we've seen. Legal liability over safety seems like a hard sacrifice for people who make so little as it is.
I'm ... fare-ly ... certain certain this law does not apply to recordings for security purposes in a place of business; the vehicle being the place of business of the Uber driver.
EDIT: Er, scratch that. Didn't realize there was audio attached. I think audio might be the incriminating factor in the two party consent thing. I mostly just wanted to make a bad pun.
This is a terrible jab at Uber. I expected Bloomberg for higher journalistic standard than this.
1. What does "two female friends" have to do with driver's argument with Kalanick? Should've cut that out. I read it as slimy ad hominem to reinforce bias on Uber's culture. Uber might have some culture problem, but it is completely unrelated with driver's issue.
2. Does driver's argument have any basis? The piece merely draws attention to Kalanick and driver's tension - is Bloomberg now a TMZ for business world?
No one seems to be discussing this, but is Travis personally responsible for the loss of the drivers 97k? The driver sure thinks he is. Perhaps he played some roll in it. But the driver certainly made the decision to take out that loan. And I guess the driver had enough sense at the time to understand the risks involved with credit when he took out the loan. Well then you might say it's not the most compassionate thing to say to someone who clearly is suffering from financial loss. But I think it only seems like a mean thing to say because it's true. And it's really these truths that people don't want to accept about themselves. That they themselves are responsible for their own suffering.
I've been reading through these comments and find it quite interesting because both the driver and Kalanick are correct, but as is usual in these confrontations, they weren't communicating properly with each other.
On Kalanick's side, he is entirely correct that Uber has to compete in a very competitive market and most of that competition is in price. If Uber didn't compete on price, they would sign their own death warrant.
On the driver's side, he took a risk in going for an Uber black car and he probably wasn't fully aware of that risk. He seems justified in feeling upset at how exposed he is to market forces that are outside of his control.
Given that, perhaps Uber should better inform drivers of that risk and offer some way that drivers can buffer themselves from that risk. For example, Uber could offer drivers some sort of insurance against rate changes. This would incentivize Uber to be more careful about rate changes since they would pay a penalty if the delta is too big and it would stabilize the rate for drivers -- there are a lot of variables to play with here to make the outcome mutually beneficial.
[+] [-] seertaak|9 years ago|reply
I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to explain things from his perspective. He could have just said: "sorry no time". Instead he shook the driver's hand, tried to explain the logic of his moving down the luxury scale.
The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material.
What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.
[+] [-] matt4077|9 years ago|reply
His comments here further that impression: he throws around jingoism in his awkward attempt to impress his companions ("every year is hard for Uber...") and is either uninformed or dishonest with regards to the driver's complaints.
The "footage of him with two women" could not be cut out because it is the entirety of this video. It's necessary both to prove the identity as well as adding context and body language.
The women aren't identifiable and him being out & about with two women could have been observed by anybody, and was probably observed by the people at whatever Super Bowl event he was visiting.
It's also hard to judge this without remembering that Uber employees had, for years, full access to any customer's ride data, and often used it for fun & stalking. They boasted about their ability to algorithmically tag "rides of glory", set out to punish a journalist by digging up private information about her, and collect data about user's positions not directly required for their actual service.
I fail to see how this is character assassination. It's a primary source – the video itself carries the meaning, and if that is damaging to his reputation, then the flaws are his and not something made up by any journalists. Likewise, I ain't reducing anyone's "bayesian priors" because the driver's credibility is completely irrelevant. He's not making any relevant statements of fact beyond those visible in the video.
[+] [-] chickenfries|9 years ago|reply
Well what do you know, at the time of writing this, it's the top comment!
> The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material.
It's relevant because he said things like this:
“That’s kind of how I roll. I make sure every year is a hard year. If it’s easy I’m not pushing hard enough.”
at a time when we're supposed to be trusting that Kalanick is fixing his company's culture...
> the most blatant character assassination
Where was the character assassination? They just reported on what happened in the video. The video is relevant to the public interest. Do you have a right to not be filmed in an Uber... maybe? I don't know. It's not my car, and the driver could need the film for their own protection. I think I would be okay with being filmed as long as it wasn't secret.
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|9 years ago|reply
Regarding Uber black, another HN user points out,
> Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13758023
[+] [-] wopwopwop|9 years ago|reply
Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I would have no credibility?
Here in London I've assumed that cabs are always filming.
[+] [-] timthelion|9 years ago|reply
To me this is a very classist oppinion. Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have? If we promote this case due to the expectation of privacy that only serves to create this devide between rich and poor in which only the rich can afford privacy rather than a precident in which everyone deserves it.
[+] [-] kinkrtyavimoodh|9 years ago|reply
The CEOs being disconnected with the masses is bad, but so is the masses assuming that somehow THEY know just the right thing the CEO should have done without being privy to any of the data that a CEO has access to.
It's not too different from the arrogance you see on HN.
[+] [-] mylinh|9 years ago|reply
Maybe teaching economics in primary school could solve this problem.
[+] [-] strathmeyer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheseDays888|9 years ago|reply
You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses.
American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be.
The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda.
Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media.
Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
A relative of mine was a chief of a fire department. During a nasty contract battle, he had people picketing his home -- a miserable experience for his family at the time.
But... he was a public figure and the protestors were on a public sidewalk.
When you're a public figure that carefully nurtures a bad-boy, asshole image and attitude of privacy bordering on contempt, you shouldn't expect kid gloves.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mintplant|9 years ago|reply
Sorry, why should we care about the driver's "credibility" here? Are you alleging the video has been doctored?
[+] [-] lr4444lr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikdaheratik|9 years ago|reply
There are legitimate reasons why this is done in a taxi: preventing people running away from payment, engaging in harassment or other bad behavior, or claiming you refused to pick them up for reason X when you had a good reason to not pick them up. From what I know of Uber, these reasons all apply to their drivers as well.
[+] [-] sjtgraham|9 years ago|reply
IMO the most incriminating thing in this video Travis did is that cornball shimmying in the back seat.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acchow|9 years ago|reply
This is exactly how entrepreneurship works - you take risks, sometimes enormous risks with huge capital investments, and it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does work out and you reap great rewards for a long time.
The driver signed up for this and the gamble didn't work out... now he's blaming Uber?
[+] [-] LargeCompanies|9 years ago|reply
He is a ruthless, greedy, ignoramus, misogynistic pig who needs his ass handed to him and Uber to crumble before his eyes!
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erdojo|9 years ago|reply
It was only after being berated for a minute or two and interrupted that Kalanick's composure started to crack. Before then, I don't think anything Kalanick could have said would have mollified this driver. He had an axe and he was going to grind it. Kalanick could have handled it better, but he didn't totally melt down either.
And I think the guy is pretty terrible in general.
[+] [-] rockarage|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stagbeetle|9 years ago|reply
1). The title doesn't match the contents. Instead of reporting on the specifics of the fare changes, Newcomer rehashes the more prominent Uber scandals and some short commentary on TK's "short temper."
2). A very short paragraph (around 1/20th the article) breifly elaborates on the fares:
> And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services.
3). The video transcription selectively takes out parts and fudges others:
> "Kalanick begins to lose his temper."
> Omitting the civil conversation preceding "But people are not trusting you anymore"
The following is just my personal anecdote: I have an immigrant in my family who's just like the driver. He's not interested in "fighting over a good idea, which sometimes means admitting that his isn’t the best one," but looking to assert his ideas onto anyone who takes his argument-bait.
Additionally, it's plain rude to engage in this sort of thing with a stranger.
[+] [-] shruubi|9 years ago|reply
The footage with the girls, while incredibly awkward, is nothing more than a flirtatious conversation. Now, fair enough that the driver realises he has the CEO of Uber in his car and wants to talk about his situation as a driver, and I give props to Kalanick for actually taking the time to listen and explain.
Did the ending clip not paint Kalanick in the best light? Sure, but keep in mind that in this situation he is a guy in his private life who has been blindsided and accused of ruining this guys life, with, what it seems like from other posts here, lies.
If telling the guy he needs to take responsibility for his own choices instead of looking to blame someone else is the worst thing that Kalanick could say to anyone, then there really isn't a story here from my point of view.
Also, Bloomberg should really take a good hard look at themselves for posting that video without cutting out the conversation with the women. Posting that section of the video is the kind of disgusting shit that TMZ and other gossip rags would pull.
[+] [-] ProfessorLayton|9 years ago|reply
- Contractor-not-a-contractor employment merely pushes costs and risks on to the worker. We all end up paying for the worker's social safety net, and costs of doing business (Such as insurance premiums, for example).
- Not Uber-specific, but technically-not-full-time employment that just barely allows employers to bypass benefits owed to full-time employees needs to be fixed. See Walmart and how they help employees sign up for government benefits as part of their on boarding in some areas.
In the end, somebody is paying for these costs. Why shouldn't it be the companies doing business?
Interesting how it ends with "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own actions"
[+] [-] noobermin|9 years ago|reply
However, once Kalanick's retort essentially becomes "you're not taking personal responsibility and blaming others (ie., me)" he loses me. It's a fair discussion up till that point and each party's argument is reasonable (even if the tone isn't polite). What does Kalanick know about the driver's situation that he can say that?
When taken along with current news regarding Uber's culture, this doesn't look very good for Uber and Kalanick as a person.
[0] I'm not judging it based on its merits because I am not in the know regarding the numbers of the issue.
[+] [-] pjwal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dokein|9 years ago|reply
One can argue that these small business owners / contractors should have had the foresight not to do business on someone else's platform, but this strikes me as a bit Malthusian. Going through bankruptcy is no small price to pay for this lesson. Hopefully the next Facebook or Uber will have to promise some degree of stability (the same way I am very wary of working with SaaS startups), but I'm not optimistic - there's a fool born every minute.
[+] [-] pjwal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omarchowdhury|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pfarnsworth|9 years ago|reply
And sure rates went down, but it's still 3X the price of UberX. It didn't go down precipitously. From $4.90/1.25 to 3.75/0.65 won't cause someone to lose $97k and probably he got more activity overall. I agree with the CEO that this guy sounds like he's blaming Uber for his problems, when there are plenty of UberBlack drivers making hand over fist otherwise the drivers wouldn't be there. My wife's last UberX driver said he was making $3k/week.
[+] [-] KirinDave|9 years ago|reply
You agree to surveillance when you enter the car. Just like a taxi, a bus, a train or a trolley.
You actually don't have an "expectation of privacy" in these spaces either. So a drone cam or telephoto lens is okay too. That's where state law is interesting.
California is actually surprisingly permissive for photographers and videographers.
[+] [-] acchow|9 years ago|reply
The driver probably bought a few cars and runs a "small business" over Uber. He had dreams of making big money fast. It didn't pan out.
I understand the anger and frustration, but not the placement of blame.
[+] [-] moogly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CodeWriter23|9 years ago|reply
I've been working it for Lyft since December. The lot has about 170 spaces. Lyft and Uber can each queue up 100 vehicles so some would have to park on streets.
Before #deleteuber, I would come in with 90+ drivers ahead of me. I'd have to wait an hour. I would watch Uber drivers arrive after me and leave before me. And the lot was always full while the airport had arriving passenger traffic.
Since #deleteuber, it's much different. LAX seems to be in Prime Time much of the time. But here's the weird thing, the lot is like half empty. There's like 20 cars in the lot that fly only the Uber branding (and plenty flying both logos on their Uber-leased Priuses). I haven't waited more than 10 minutes to get dispatched, except at like 2AM when the passenger air traffic tapers off. On most of my LAX dispatches in the last week, I couldn't even reach a parking space and park before getting dispatched. And this arriving with sometimes as low as 50 drivers ahead of me, and typically 80 or more.
The most incredible time, I arrived at LAX. It was Prime Time in the airport. The app told me the queue was full and to leave. I drove slowly down Jenny Street, the app flipped to 98 ahead of me. I entered the lot, followed the traffic jam of Lyft drivers trying to get to the designated parking area. It took like three minutes. I was dispatched as I entered the parking area. I took the short cut through the fence to exit the lot and picked up my fare.
But here is the clearest indication to me that Lyft completely owns LAX now. I arrived, parked, ran to the porta potty and took a leak. 3 Uber drivers were hanging out near that end of the lot, talking to each other. I got my dispatch while walking to my car. I picked someone up, took them to Marina Del Ray, came back, got dispatched again and those same 3 drivers were still killing time talking to each other.
[+] [-] camillomiller|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jforman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NTDF9|9 years ago|reply
Not asking in support/opposition of uber. Genuinely curious about what are some ways drivers could get into so much trouble?
[+] [-] envy2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
Also, for all we know there could be a sign in the black car that says, "Smile you're on candid camera!".
[+] [-] coloneltcb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] save_ferris|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fudged71|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandomInteger4|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: Er, scratch that. Didn't realize there was audio attached. I think audio might be the incriminating factor in the two party consent thing. I mostly just wanted to make a bad pun.
[+] [-] thkim|9 years ago|reply
1. What does "two female friends" have to do with driver's argument with Kalanick? Should've cut that out. I read it as slimy ad hominem to reinforce bias on Uber's culture. Uber might have some culture problem, but it is completely unrelated with driver's issue.
2. Does driver's argument have any basis? The piece merely draws attention to Kalanick and driver's tension - is Bloomberg now a TMZ for business world?
I'm very disappointed in Bloomberg.
[+] [-] peternilson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danielrhodes|9 years ago|reply
On Kalanick's side, he is entirely correct that Uber has to compete in a very competitive market and most of that competition is in price. If Uber didn't compete on price, they would sign their own death warrant.
On the driver's side, he took a risk in going for an Uber black car and he probably wasn't fully aware of that risk. He seems justified in feeling upset at how exposed he is to market forces that are outside of his control.
Given that, perhaps Uber should better inform drivers of that risk and offer some way that drivers can buffer themselves from that risk. For example, Uber could offer drivers some sort of insurance against rate changes. This would incentivize Uber to be more careful about rate changes since they would pay a penalty if the delta is too big and it would stabilize the rate for drivers -- there are a lot of variables to play with here to make the outcome mutually beneficial.