People who criticize Uber either don’t get it, or don’t use it. Rideshares, like Uber, are the solution for a system that’s been broken for too long. I’ll start with the biggest point against Uber, although it’s not my biggest point.
As someone who has had to put up with traditional taxis from time to time, Uber is a savior. But not only that, its a genius business model that shouldn’t change for the user’s sake! What needs to change is people’s understanding of Uber, so I don’t have to hear complaining about problems that don’t exist.
By the way, here’s my referral link for you to get a free ride.
1) “Surge pricing” is a good thing
Prices go both ways
Surge pricing is good not because prices go up, but because Uber uses supply and demand both ways! I have yet to see critics explain that prices can go down when it’s slow. A few nights ago it was slow in Vienna and upon checking for a ride, I got an alert for a discount. My ride across Vienna to check into another hotel cost only €5!
How supply & demand works
The optimal solution for both drivers and customers is this: when it’s slow Uber tells the drivers they make less money, causing them to go home and giving you discounts. When it’s high, prices go up to get more drivers out. This ensures that drivers don’t waste their time, and gets all the drivers out in peak times.
If Uber drivers sat around all day wasting gas all day… well, they would have to start treating people like taxis currently do! Which is not good. Mainly, Uber wouldn’t be cheap, which they are.
If you prefer to waste money/gas, support taxis instead.
Surge Pricing gives BIG alerts
I’m so tired of hearing about surge pricing. This is not a trick.
If I went on ebay and bought a $500 suitcase, clicked “buy now” and confirmed with paypal… how many people would sympathize with me when I was shocked to get a $500 bill?
“Oh my gosh, last time I bought a suitcase, it was totally like $25. I’m so shocked!”
No! You had to click accept, it’s not a shock.
Does no one see how ridiculous this is? If you don’t like the price, don’t confirm!
This is not like the discount where it just lets you know the price is lower. When the price is higher you get a popup and you have to click “I ACCEPT HIGH FARE” (yes in all caps) before you can even look for a ride.
Did you know airlines and hotels have the same pricing model? When your flight has high occupancy early on, they can charge double, triple, or more for the same economy seat! If you don’t like the business model, I doubt you’re going/staying anywhere in the world any time soon.
Additional points: Taxi lines & where the money goes
Before posting this I realized that GLeff wrote a post on why Uber’s surge pricing is “Great”. And he nails it with a killer point, “The alternative to surge pricing is not enough rides at any price”. He points out something I’ve seen many times, very long taxi lines. Uber gives the option to forgo long taxi lines.
You don’t have to go with Uber’s solution to long taxi lines, I don’t, but clearly many people do. This is called “demand”. It is there and as Gary points out, 80% of the money always goes to the drivers. This is back to what I say about incentivizing more drivers in these times.
There is nothing to object to, other than people hitting “accept” and then complaining about it. I object to the continual reporting of this non-sense. If it’s not worth more money to spend less time waiting for a taxi/uber… don’t.
2) Transparency
If you read my story about the taxi with a hot meter (who also drove me a way that according to google is 3km instead of 1.5k), you know, what we are up against is surge pricing without warning.
Not only that, you are totally clueless as to what route your driver took, or if it’s an efficient one.
I have never had an Uber driver with ill-intent. They don’t run you around in circles, because when your ride is done you get a big map of the route they took.
Pricing will always be consistent to what they said. This is not a guarantee with regular taxis.
Back to pricing: Uber is simple
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve gotten out of a taxi and the driver hits a button that jacks up the price, at the end and I don’t know what it’s for. The other day it was for our bags. Sometimes airport fee. Whatever it is, you don’t know the rules and you’re constantly being taken advantage of.
What is there about Uber that isn’t transparent? Why are people wanting to keep taxis around instead?
3) Accountability
Did you leave something in a taxi? Guess what, there is zero way of knowing in hindsight which cab it was you were in.
Did your local friend later tell you that you got taken around the block and paid way too much? You can do nothing about it. Even if you did know the driver’s name, you can’t prove that it wasn’t the fair price.
With Uber the rate is, again, guaranteed to to be consistent to the pricing model quoted. However, if for some reason your driver took a wrong turn, you can contact Uber and make sure you are given the price for the most efficient route.
4) Corruption
Do you want to know why Uber isn’t allowed at the Chicago airports?
Do you want to know why the monorail going down the Las Vegas strip doesn’t go to the airport (when it was supposed to)?
Do you want to know why you had to pay $40 in Phuket for a short taxi ride? And why tuk-tuks aren’t allowed to pick you up at hotels?
And what you may not know is that mafia-like corruption (like in South Africa’s taxi wars) and bribes are ruining good people here. In DC, Boston, New York, Vegas, San Francisco, and in general the taxi drivers in the US are working more and getting paid less because of the corrupt medallion system.
If there are taxis, expect corruption.
Finally! We have a system that is developing to replace the dangerous, corrupt, and poorly functioning taxi system and it’s opposed because some drunk guy clicked okay on a price that was too high. Or because the taxi mafia is suing.
Also, really consider this from the employee’s perspective. Taxi drivers can rent the taxi for $100 and they have to make up that money. Or imagine if they are renting the license, they are essentially in debt.
Uber drivers have basically no start up cost! This is great. Because of this we don’t need them during low hours. In fact, as I said earlier, they have incentives to take off during lower paying times.
5) Safety
Ah. Safety. That’s why people want to allow taxis instead of Uber. Safety. That makes so little sense, I don’t know where to begin.
Canada Statistics study shows “taxi drivers were twice as likely as police officers to be a victim of homicide while working”. Safety for who then?
And if you think that Uber’s background checks are less formal than taxi drivers, you are kidding yourself. The rights to drive a taxi get pawned, rented out, and are bribed for on a regular basis. The entire back end of the taxi system is corrupt.
Read any article on how many illegal taxi drivers there are. Then, take an Uber ride and realize the process can’t be photoshopped, printed out, or hidden. Your driver will match the Uber system, and you can see the driver’s picture and plate number.
And as if there aren’t more stories of issues with taxis and sexual assault, or rape. If we were keeping score… it would be pretty obvious which track record is worse.
If this is a reason to not let Uber in a city, than by any reasoning at all, we would also have to get rid of taxis all together, given the terrible track record.
6) It’s a lot cheaper
Reasons 1-5 mean allow Uber to be a way cheaper option for me 99% of the time. Here in Budapest (where Uber has had ton of opposition (coincidence that the taxis are super corrupt here and it’s needed here more than other places?)), the price is way less than a taxi.
Taxi prices in Budapest are as follows:
- Meter starts at 450 Ft
- 270 Ft per km
- 70 Ft per minute
With Uber the price is:
- Meter starts at 300 Ft
- 130 Ft per km
- 25 Ft per minute
That is a huge difference. Your ride is likely to be half priced with Uber and even less the longer the ride is.
But what’s a complete joke is that my two taxi rides both took routings later that were higher than google. Giving prices well over triple the Uber quote. Triple!
And the first is the hot meter story that came out over $20 for a $2-$3 Uber ride.
Come on people. This is a joke, and I’m tired of putting up with this in real life, and then reading about how bad Uber is. Maybe I should do it like this.
Top 6 reasons to HATE Uber:
- You love paying more money.
- You like gambling with not knowing how much more you’re going to pay.
- You don’t want to be able to have any accountability for the driver, if you found out later your got a higher price.
- You honestly can’t read. So you never know if the big blue button you are hitting is accepting higher fares or not. You can see it, but just don’t know what it says.
- You love taxi lines.
- You are just a HUGE fan of the 1995 Crown Victoria, and prefer it over newer cars.
Did I miss anything? Maybe you like supporting taxi mafias? Perhaps you think innovation and change is a terrible idea?
If you identify with 5 out of 6 of these, you’ll love the taxi!
Conclusion
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming infallibility. Any actual mistake of Uber, like an oversight in background checks, needs to be brought to public. That being said…
What really should be made public is who is leading the opposition to Uber in many cities? Where is that money coming from? A corrupt taxi union leading the way, and upset because for the first time they have real competition.
Competition is where innovation is born.
But the main point is that Uber is cheaper, better, transparent and more reliable. And it’s pathetic that a drunk on Halloween can get a great company more negative attention for agreeing to higher rates. Not higher than she was quoted, but higher than the person wanted. Tough.
But for the sake of those of us who do travel, and actually have to deal with the taxi mafias around the world, and fighting for fair prices every ride, think about who you want to support.
Whether you value your time and don’t like waiting in taxi lines, or you are a budget traveler and one the cheaper option (assuming you know how to read at all), Uber is the better option. Basically, it’s the better option for everyone.
Could not agree more. I like being able to pay with my card on Uber rides too. I have had several cab rides where the driver claimed to not have change.
Didn’t even think to mention that, but definitely enjoy paying with card, or even being guaranteed to, or not hassled for it.
Great post. I’m going to use some of your points when debating with friends. Really love the top reasons to hate Uber.
lol, yea, I didn’t realize how much cheaper it was until I started actively looking at the price on the side of taxis and comparing it to the Uber rates.
Spot on! Uber is just better than taxis. Funny thing is that most of the bad press is coming from journalists who are butthurt that Uberdpesnt respect them, so they go out of their way to make them look bad in the media. Typical media bias toward the sensational and not the greater good they contribute to society. I am better off because of Uber and many others are too.
Why do you say that Uber doesn’t respect the journalists? Just that they don’t suck up to journalists, like they expect?
Because:
– one of their VPs is on record suggesting that Uber was considering hiring a team of private investigators to investigate the journalists and their family members.
– one journalist was presented with several weeks of her personal ride information when interviewing one of Uber’s principals.
I think uber, lyft, etc are definitely a better alternative to taxis. After your newsletter article 😉 I will try it more often. Thing is, I rarely take taxis in the first place. I’d way rather take, say, a marshrutka for 50 cents from TBS to center of town than a taxi. Even if everything is written in some alphabet I don’t understand, and I get off a good mile or two in the wrong direction. It’s the fun of being with the locals, and exploring.
I think the best place for these services are in places where public transit sucks. Parts of the Middle East for one. Definitely much of the US as another.
I really like it in the US actually. Going from downtown Charlottesville north to the Airport is $25 with a cab and there is no bus that does the route. None. Zero public transit at the airport.
But definitely lean towards public transit most of the time for a number of reasons, like you said, even if just to see what locals see.
You’re missing the point why many people criticize Uber, which is their highly questionable and often unethical business practices. Critics who cite those reasons aren’t against ridesharing. They are against supporting a company like that with their business.
David, I’m sure there are some people who don’t like their “ethics”, although that’s not what I hear. I see twice a day an article on how evil surge pricing is, because someone can’t read.
But I’d be open to hearing why you think they have poor ethics?
Here are some reasons:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-uber-allegedly-stalked-users-for-party-goers-viewing-pleasure/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft
http://rt.com/usa/207103-uber-investigation-spying-journalist/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/22/technology/innovationnation/uber-hot-chick-ride/?iid=EL
A good summary can be found here: http://fortune.com/2014/11/18/a-brief-history-of-ubers-controversies/
I know you won’t agree with all of the stuff listed by Fortune, but you can’t argue with all of them.
1) God view is a non issue to me. Don’t even feel like debating it.
2+3) Again, the Lyft allegations are allegations. I’ve canceled a ton of rides, not out of ill will. See the chart correlating Nic Cage movies to pool drownings below.
4) God view again, plus allegations of a creepy CEO. Okay, sure. That’s odd. They even apologized for it.
5) The hot chick thing is totally not my thing, and entirely social norm. I’m surprised anyone has a problem with it. If they do they should throw out their TV and not support basically any clothing company that has ever used models. IMO.
Yea… I mean, I can google anything and find someone who says its bad. Name anything. Heck name me anything and I can find you a quote from an expert in the field on why its bad.
I hate to say it again, but in the face of actually unethical companies all around and the terrible practices in labor for ALL products made in Asia, Africa, and Latin America… and a corrupt food industry… I can’t take Uber’s “God view” too seriously. I can’t worry about it.
Further more, I’m not going to call it unethical based on Lyft’s accusations.
If you came to me and told me one of my friends was guilt of theft, I would say, “really how do you know?”
And if you then said, “well I was missing some money and I feel like he took it”, I wouldn’t then go disowning my friend for theft.
And the fact that more than one journalist has written about doesn’t exactly mean anything to me.
Years ago there was a senator who said something along the lines of, “I’ve heard some racists say that ____”. The news took out the part making it clear that she was quoting someone and it was front page, headline news, morning news, evening news and everywhere. She had to resign over something she didn’t say.
There is an entire book filled with these examples (“Trust Me I’m Lying”) and it’s because journalists get paid per page view, and clearly people click it.
Therefore I think it’s the consumers responsibility to make sure that the facts that could hurt a company are substantiated. The fact that the media prints it doesn’t make it true. I’m not saying Uber is a board full of saints, but I’m saying that there is zero reason to be against them.
There’s no point in debating this then. You asked for factual examples of their unethical behavior. These “facts” don’t measure up to your standards, so you disregard them. They do measure up for many other people. Just like it can’t be expected of them to conform to your set of standards, you can’t be expected to conform to others.
It’s hard to say that a company or a person should be viewed according to one allegation, but if there are many allegations of bad behavior, behavior that’s against norms acceptable to individual people, then it adds up. For example, Bill Cosby has never been convicted of drugging a woman for sex, but there have been lots of allegations by different women. It doesn’t mean that he should go to jail because the allegations exist, but people can justifiably make their own assumptions around his innocence or guilt.
You’re free to choose to use Uber. I would be against people telling you not to. That said, it’s illogical for you to assume that just because none of your standards of acceptability have been violated that others’ opinions of Uber’s way of doing business is unwarranted and baseless.
It is not unreasonable or illogical to base beliefs on facts. The “facts” provided are allegations without reason. This isn’t even the same as the Cosby issue in anyway (not that it matters). Not only did Uber deny allegations, they weren’t eye witness allegations at all. Lyft didn’t say someone with the CEO’s name… they just “made allegations”. It wouldn’t pass in the court of law, it wouldn’t pass in real life, it wouldn’t pass in science, etc… Reason is built on evidence.
It’s not many different allegations giving credibility, it’s the same story over and over again. And to say that multiple people believe something without evidence gives credibility, this is another “logical fallacy” (bandwagoning). People believing it or people repeating it, doesn’t make it true. There are many things that people have believed without logic, too many to name.
Furthermore it’s not unreasonable to believe there are unjust attacks from journalists because there’s a story behind it. As I said, there is an entire book (which I recommend) about this exactly. Journalists make attacks because it sells, not because it’s factual. Fox news reported the Obama was Osama Bin Laden multiple times, multiple reporters. I’m pretty sure we can now agree that this is absurd. But in the news allegations are made unsubstantiated.
If Lyft had ANY reason to believe Uber did this, they can sue them. That would then go to a place where facts can be examined, and not public entertainment. If you had linked to a court case that said that Uber attacked Lyft and were found guilty, that is a fact. What you have are allegations by journalists, not facts. Unless you also believe that Obama is Osama Bin Laden because it was said multiple times on the news? Or that Obama has no birth certificate because he’s a fake illegal alien (which probably made the news hundreds of times)?
You link to it and seem to expect me to accept it because it’s in print but the articles themselves call the facts allegations. They aren’t facts. They are bias “ad hominem” (another logical fallacy) usually added to enforce how bad surge pricing is or something similar.
You have to not believe things that don’t have evidence. This IS reason. Evidence should absolutely be the standard for anything logical.
Personally, I expect people not to spread negativity and slander (which is what these journalists are spreading) based on not-facts and not-evidence. I expect people to draw their beliefs not because something goes viral and attacks more articles, but because something is supported with facts and evidence. We can disagree on whether facts need evidence, or if facts are needed to boycott a business… but I wouldn’t say it’s illogical.
I think the moronic drunk girl pointed out a legitimate design flaw. Thanks to her they now have a verification system for surge pricing so even that is no longer an excuse 🙂
Sure. I agree that any business has growing pains. Uber invented a huge market. But I definitely agree that you should have to confirm something crazy like 12x!
I love your post. I AGREE on everything specially the corruption and Mafia. I am Thai and hate to go to phuket because of 40usd one way taxi. Thank you for a fantastic post.
Carrie saw an article that said the new government in Thailand is trying to decrease the mafia in Phuket. So there’s hope. But the hope isn’t to let taxis do their thing. :-p
I think David makes the right point – what’s missing from above. The ethics of Uber – especially the CEO are pretty appalling. Going after journalists and bombarding competition with fake requests, etc. Ridesharing is great and I admittedly still use Uber for all the reasons you’ve pointed out but am trying to pursue some alternatives. The other possible counterpoint to your argument is NYC, where cabs really are a pretty highly regulated alternative form of public transit. I’m not saying it’s perfect and couldn’t use some competition, but NYC cabs are nothing like cabs in most cities – they are clean, accept credit cards, have standard pricing, are almost always available (in Manhattan at least). To be fair, you have to distinguish NYC cabs from other cabs. They just are different animals.
So if these things are true, I’d say you make some good points. But let me explain what I’ve seen around the anti-Uber articles. Please correct me if I’m wrong or bring up any more details of the poor ethics of the company but let me defend my position with the following:
I’ve seen 100 articles on why Uber is bad an 75% are about surge pricing (because it’s just a more popular story). Another 24.99% are about regulation.
Regulation IS the issue keeping Uber out of a lot of cities. And it’s… stupid.
So I’m saying that all the arguments I hear against Uber aren’t really about ethics. When I do see something about ethics, it’s an ad hominem at the end of a long article about why Uber is bad, and I never see it as the reason Uber is bad.
In regards to “missing the point”, I’d say, well I’m not missing the point that the media is constantly making.
Now in regards to their ethics, the attacks have been weakly supported at best. It seems to me they are under a microscope and a lot of journalists have an agenda to point out why they are bad.
It is confirmed that the CEO made cheap shots at a bunch of journalists but he later apologized and said it wasn’t right, and that he was frustrated because these journalists live to tear apart people’s lives and are untouchable themselves. He apologized.
In regards to booking rides on competitors, clearly unethical. I only saw one article on the subject of Lyft accusing Uber of booking a ton of rides, but Uber denied it. It’s a non-fact story. It’s the type of article that should stay in gossip magazines.
It seems to me that the hundreds of articles on the ethics of Uber are completely unsubstantiated claims taken way out of proportion compared to actually documented cases of unethical/immoral practices (say slave labor of our clothes manufactured in Asia by little girls in rural areas). The number of articles that Uber gets in relation to the facts about these claims, or the actual reasons Uber is bad… it’s absurd. But it gets shared…
In regards to the NYC cabs. I’m not really concerned with whether or not the quality of the cab is good or bad. It’s hardly my main point. Clearly competition is good for the consumer, and that’s my main point. And because there has been no competition the industry is whack.
Drew, I think you’re taking people’s criticisms of the company and equating that to criticism of the service. I personally think ridesharing is good, and in many markets, a vast improvement of what’s available. There’s a difference though in going along with the market leader just because they “invented” the model vs. giving your business to other companies that do business more ethically.
I’ve used Uber, but I no longer do because I don’t like how they conduct business, and not just because of surge pricing.
“Uber”+”Surge pricing” – that in google produces 500,000+ results. Over half a million results specifically talking about Uber’s surge pricing. That IS the majority of the complaints against Uber.
I hear very few reasonable attacks on the company’s conduct. There are allegations, true. But I don’t boycott businesses on hearsay.
I love the 1995 Crown Victoria. Got ‘upgraded’ on a rental once and that trunk easily swallowed 3 full size suitcases 🙂
Funny, I’ve actually asked to be downgraded back so I don’t double my petrol consumption. They not only swallow suitcases. :-p
I love Uber and Lyft! I have my work credit card on file and it makes it so easy to pay and have a record of the purchase. Also love seeing the car drive up–I follow the progress on their way to me and see who is driving. Also seems to be some pride of ownership in keeping the vehicles clean with Uber/Lyft.
Unlike the taxi I took from the Las Vegas airport lat month. Filthy and stunk like a rancid ashtray. And the mysterious post ride button pushing that adds a few dollars to the ride–for what I have no idea, at the airport possibly the airport surcharge but from the hotel to the mall– a mall surcharge??
Two of the commenters above decry the ethics of Uber. Please give some concrete examples.
That’s a good point just in regards to accounting. Although perhaps not the number one reason people prefer it.
Yes! The button pushing. And what’s really bad is when they can just point to a sign that isn’t in english. I’m like, well, can’t argue with that.
I’d hardly describe my comment as “decry,” but here is a good summary: http://fortune.com/2014/11/18/a-brief-history-of-ubers-controversies/
I’m sorry, but this is list is absurd. They are either farflung allegations, or things like “Uber driver hits a 6 year old girl”. Come on, that’s so unfair. If that happened to a dominos driver (which I’m sure it has) it wouldn’t be a dominos story, it’s a human story.
A 6 year old dying is not a point of journalistic agenda, it’s just sad. These are, at best, ad hominem attacks unrelated to the company.
I agree with David and Chris. I was a pretty avid user of Uber but rarely use it now since Uber’s shady ethics and business practices came to light. I find it difficult to support a company that thinks it’s okay to dig up dirt on its critics and brags about knowing when its patrons go out to spend the night at someone else’s. And we haven’t even started talking about its shitty business practices of screwing over drivers: http://qz.com/312537/the-secret-to-the-uber-economy-is-wealth-inequality/
I’m just honestly missing any concrete examples.
These articles are what I call “crocodile brain” writing. It goes for your emotions, and downplays facts.
“Facts say that poverty exists. Poverty is bad. Uber is a part of this trend of badness and even was started in 2009- the midst of the financial crisis!”
I’m sorry, but most innovations come about in financial crisis. Always has and always will. And using the same logic… all these companies would be unethical just for starting in the same year of prey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2009
I think what this attack does is play on emotions.
Clearly this chart shows that the more Nic Cage movies there are the more likely people are to drown in swimming pools.
You can have coincidences explain anything.
Check this out http://tylervigen.com/
Another point against Uber is that the business model works and is replicated. But… does that make the originator of hotels bad? Because there are lots of those.
But these are really stretching it. I’m equally convinced that Nic Cage causes drownings.
I must agree with David here. Watching Uber try to muscle their way into the Portland market illegally has not been pretty. I’m all for alternatives to taxis, but Uber’s top management and documented business practices, including the way they treat their drivers, gives me pause.
We recently had to decide whether to call the usual small company we use to get to the airport when we can’t take the lightrail – it is not a taxi company but has all the proper licenses and vehicle inspections – or to give Uber a try using a free ride credit. Aside from our feelings about Uber as a company, we had reservations about whether we could depend on Uber, given it was operating here for just a few days.
We opted for the car company and it was a good thing we did. We hit unexpected traffic at a time of day when the freeway should have been a breeze and the driver knew exactly how to leave the freeway and get to the airport via back roads. (We’ve lived here 25+ years and know the city well, but the shortcuts he used were new to even us.) I am doubtful an Uber driver would have known how to get us to the airport in time for our flight despite the unanticipated traffic.
Since then, Uber has pulled out of Portland temporarily, and the city has agreed to rewrite the taxi regs to open up the field and allow Uber to operate here legally. I expect I’ll use Uber at some point, but I remain concerned about whether I want to patronize a company that operates as aggressively as Uber does.
So in regards to pay for a premium service, Uber does have that in many cities. Uber “Black” drivers are official chauffeurs.
But what did Uber do that was illegal? And what was illegal about it?
This is an excellent example of how comments sections can add instructive reason for reflection to an informative article. Uber is new to my community, and I haven’t had occasion to use it yet (nor on my travels), and the observations about corporate ethics do give pause. I think it’s great that entrenched taxi mafias some places are given some needed competition – I’ve been cheated plenty of times and robbed twice myself by them – but also believe Uber needs to hold itself to strong ethical standards. Not everyone just asks, “What’s the best deal for me this moment?” in making decisions. It’s one thing to be brash and creative, another to be sleazy.
What about Uber’s ethics don’t you like? No one has mentioned any factual claims yet.
No one hates the service they provide. I used to spend over 200 a week on Uber, and used them when they were still SF only. People question their unethical business practices, questionable insurance policies, driver pay. Their “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude rubs people the wrong way. They are like Microsoft of the 90s. People use it because it is the best they got, not because they are the best company.
I’ll shorten what I’ve said above.
But Uber is not largely under attack for their ethics. It is sometimes an ad hominem attack in a foot note, and rarely is it substantiated. There isn’t enough “unethical” content to make up an entire article without stretching reasoning and facts. My points above address solely the concerns of Uber I see on the front lines.
If there were factual claims, I would take those into account.
However, I will stand up for the shoot first attitude because they are shooting it out with a very powerful taxi lobby/mafia. And sometimes they lose.
And the crazy thing is that they rely on the courts upholding their crazy antics. Like them getting fined in Portland. They went ahead, got fined, and it’s going to court. And my guess is that they’ll be on the winning side, not because of muscle but because it’s wrong to stop them. The biggest fight against uber is rooted in taxis not wanting competition (and journalists needing clickbait).
Totally abstracts the labor market discussion, and therefore calls into question the legitimacy and motivation of such an “evaluation.” If you’re thinking of just yourself in the world, then yes, this evaluates the CONSUMER’s experience. But in order to put your opinion out there on a subject, make sure you evaluate the economics of all sides, including (and perhaps most importantly to those with a sense of justice in the world), the perspective of the labor force that makes this system possible at all. Take time to get to know the UBER drivers, ask them what they were making before and after, talk to them about how much harder they’re working and how they’re at the mercy of the arbitrarily fluctuating rates that only have CONSUMER in mind. So yeah, go ahead and say you’ve evaluated it holistically…. even when you have only thought of yourself.
I’m not sure what your appeal is that someone with a “sense of justice in the world” is about. I can tell you personally, I’m very passionate about labor force injustices. In fact, we haven’t bought anything new (with exception to food and medical) in MANY years because we don’t want to support the labor industry that brings us our products by trapping those in poor countries into debt, or slave labor.
Honestly, it’s not hard to evaluate such claims that you’ve put forth, which is implicitly that Uber is screwing its labor force. I’m anxious to evaluate the facts that would suggest this is true.
But in the meantime, I don’t think it is hard to evaluate. I’ve asked MANY drivers about the income and their satisfaction. Sometimes people are real honest and say they do like it or don’t, and why. One guy said he’s making a spreadsheet to evaluate how well it pays compared to his other job.
And what’s incredible is that Uber can allow you to do that on the weekend. You don’t have to commit 40 hours a week, and it has helped a lot of people (that we’ve personally met) in between jobs.
What’s incredibly telling about how well people are doing with Uber is that people can easily phase it out. They can start another job at a moment’s notice, and phase Uber out slowly. If anyone is “trapped” inside an Uber job, it’s not Uber’s fault.
What is stopping anyone from applying somewhere else if Uber is lower paying? Nothing. So the people who drive for Uber are there because it’s the best opportunity at the time.
If Uber under-pays and under-supports, they will lose their labor force naturally. They have plenty of competition now.
But of course the article is about the consumer side. I’ve never written about anything else and had this response. I’ve never written about if AA has a better frequent flyer program than United (a consumer article) and had someone comment and say, “but hey, have you talked to the FAs and ask how they like their job?”, not once.
So why does this happen with Uber? There’s no reason other than journalists can get views by attacking Uber. Even in the anti-Uber comments, no one has included one fact to say otherwise. Just labeling them unethical without demonstrating why.
I’m interested in anything about Uber evaluating the labor end, but so far there’s no reason to.
Any article that could be stretched would pale next to the books of US investigator reports in SE Asia of clothing factories locking people in their work space, and the hundreds of rapes that occur in these factories. These are well documented, and anything about Uber is a non-issue article for click bait. I truly believe that.
What you have on the anti-uber side is that this one person one time of thousands of people a day said that they had a bad experience. There’s nothing to write about.
I’m sorry, but your logic of “if it’s not as bad as [insert horrendous crime/offenses] then it’s not an issue” is not something most people would subscribe to. Just because there are worse things in the world doesn’t mean that something can’t be bad.
As for concrete examples of unethical behavior, I’ve provided links above. Yes, the press sensationalizes some criticisms, but just because you yourself (seemingly) don’t care about the way Uber conducts their business doesn’t mean that they are above reproach. Clearly, there are many people who object to their business practices beyond just surge pricing and challenging the status quo.
Also, you should recognize that your experience with Uber drivers can’t be considered the same as Uber the company. Uber drivers are individuals — they can be great, or they can be rapists. The company has little control over that (though some would argue they should have greater control through better screening). Rather, the things they have control over is how they handle the business itself, and the examples below indicate they are not an ethical company:
— Misogynist ads that degrade women
— Sabotaging their competitors (and in effect, hurting those competitors’ drivers financially by keeping them from picking up real passengers)
— Sharing customers’ private data for inappropriate uses
— Advocating invasions of privacy of journalists to enable blackmail and keep press coverage positive
There are, I’m sure, other examples, but those should be enough for most people.
My argument is not that if it’s not as bad as child slavery it’s not bad. My argument is that there is proof of one, and there are allegations of the other. Further more, one gets countless articles (lord knows how many websites have written about surge-pricing) and the other gets basically none.
Look, you can google anything and get the same. Try to find someone with a PHD in economics that says capitalism is bad, and then find one that says it’s good. You can do this for anything. Name a topic and give me 5 minutes on google. But I’ll reply to the above articles above. :-p
Your logic of “if it’s not as bad as [insert horrendous crime/offenses] then it’s not an issue” is not something most people would subscribe to. Just because there are worse things in the world doesn’t mean that something can’t be bad.
Also, you should recognize that your experience with Uber drivers can’t be considered the same as Uber the company. Uber drivers are individuals — they can be great, or they can be rapists. The company has little control over that (though some would argue they should have greater control through better screening). Rather, the things they have control over is how they handle the business itself, and the examples below indicate they are not an ethical company:
— Misogynist ads that degrade women
— Sabotaging their competitors (and in effect, hurting those competitors’ drivers financially by keeping them from picking up real passengers)
— Sharing customers’ private data for inappropriate uses
— Advocating invasions of privacy of journalists to enable blackmail and keep press coverage positive
There are, I’m sure, other examples, but those should be enough for most people.
Sorry for the dupe post — your WordPress was acting up.
I generally believe that Uber is doing a great job of disrupting a market in desparate need of disruption. But let’s try not to get into an Apple vs. Windows discussion here. Not everything is perfect at Uber — including business practices that were great when they were really small, but starting to rub people the wrong way as they’ve grown. Just like Apple and Facebook by the way… when you become big, some things you just can’t do anymore. Uber has built a similarly loyal brand and they need to be a little more tactful and careful on occassion.
Anyway what really inspired me to write a comment was surge pricing. Now, I have a M.Sc. in Economics so am very well versed in supply and demand, but the outrage has NOTHING to do with that. It has to do with human nature. Allow me to quite this HBR article (https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-economists-dont-get-about-ubers-surge-pricing):
“In the case of the Sydney crisis, you can see a similar logic. Those who object to surge pricing, even those of us who understand it, would rather live in a world where people would do the moral thing – give someone a ride out of the danger zone, without making them pay through the nose. I know we don’t live in such a world, but I sure wish we did. And acknowledging that we don’t feels like admitting failure.” (…) “Uber’s defenders have failed to acknowledge that this is a perfectly reasonable reaction. It can’t simply be dismissed (…)”
It’s about sociology, not economics and if/when Uber recognizes that and tweaks their system to take it into account, I think surge pricing can absolutely stay. Just remember… nobody likes the price of a flashlight increasing 100x during a power outage either even if it’s just supply/demand…
The outrage is MOSTLY to do with that. As I said there are well over half a million articles about Uber’s surge pricing. That’s insane. That has nothing to do with how they enter a market. It might not be what you object to, but it is the majority of the objections.
Uber gave EVERYONE free sides during the Sydney Crisis. How can they be expected to give free rides all the time in case of an emergency? This logic doesn’t work for ANY other company. If my grandparents were dying and I went to by a flight and the price was double for last minute, is that unethical?
And if the airline then gave me a free ride because of the tragic event… just… there’s nothing to complain about.
And furthermore, just because no body likes it doesn’t make it right or wrong. Just because you want something (a flashlight in your example) doesn’t mean that the business shouldn’t charge more money. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it wrong.
But the Sydney example is a great example of Uber getting slammed, when they gave free rides to everyone. Even if they didn’t, they aren’t a public service. But they did.
“Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it wrong”
Just because you don’t like the reasons why people criticize Uber doesn’t mean their reasons are wrong. 😉
Using reasons against emotions? 🙂 I don’t disagree with you RATIONALLY, but this isn’t a rational objection. If you peel it back further, just as people would HATE for the flashlight to be 100x more during a power outage at their local hardware store and would NEVER return afterwards — this is the same thing. Here there’s a face and a member of your local community coming to assist you in a time of need, but charging more for it than he normally would. It flies in the face of the culture of our society.
Airlines get away with it partially because it’s always been that way and partially because they are so large. They aren’t a local member of your community — and people don’t like airlines at all by the way…
My understanding of what happened in Sydney was that Uber charged surge prices during the time when people were told to leave the area. It was only after some bad publicity that they offered free rides:
http://rt.com/news/214407-uber-sydney-price-surge/
You asked above what laws Uber broke in PDX. This article provides info on the controversy here, as well as how Uber broke the law:
http://fusion.net/story/33680/the-inside-story-of-how-the-uber-portland-negotiations-broke-down/
While the current regs date back to 2009 and definitely need updating, Uber’s decision – as they have done in other cities as well – to disregard local laws prompted one of our City Commissioners to state:
“What Uber is doing is an insult to every law-abiding citizen,” Commissioner Steve Novick, who oversees the Portland Bureau of Transportation, told the Oregonian. “Everybody who applies for building permits, stops at stop signs, and obeys speed limits. Every restaurant that obeys health standards. If we let Uber get away with breaking the law, what would we say to ordinary citizens who could legitimately ask, ‘Which laws am I now free to ignore?’”
Steve is a progressive and Portland is a pretty forward looking city. The mayor has worked with AirB&B to enable them to operate legally here. I am glad that Uber decided to temporarily suspend their operations in Portland, and expect they will be back, legally, soon. But it is not a company I’d ever work for and I probably won’t use them.
The on-demand ride industry certainly has some positive aspects and I imagine that in a few years the vast majority of cab-hailing will be done by smart phone.
Uber, in particular, has some issues which will bother all except true-believers in the Church of Rand:
– Their stated policy is to disregard laws and regulations they don’t like and force the authorities to prosecute them rather than challenge the laws through lawful means. Whether that makes them a hero or a criminal to you depends in part on how you feel about the laws they’re disregarding. Since many of those laws arise directly from historic concerns for passenger safety many people are, understandable, concerned about a company that believes that they company, not society as a whole, can decide which laws they need to obey.
– As an investor, I would be concerned that a company that believes it is exempt from laws and regulations might also believe it is exempt from standard business practices such as GAAP.
– They have no effective privacy policy AT ALL regarding the very personal location data they collect on users and it’s clear that it’s accessible to anyone in the organization for any purpose. In one case an executive met a journalist who was coming to interview him at the curb and showed her his phone saying “I’ve been tracking you”. In another case, they plotted and publicly posted “rides of shame” in such a way that someone with a little knowledge could actually determine individual behavior of other people.
– Their pricing is completely opaque. While they reveal the approximate price of a ride immediately prior your contracting for the ride there’s no hint of how that price was actually decided — and whether the price is based on information about the passenger (credit history, place of residence, ride hisotry and past willingness to pay higher rates, etc), the demographics of the origin or destination, actual current demand or anything. All of these are “interesting” if not legal (or moral) factors that would go into making a rational decision about profit-maximization. In communications with their drivers they claim to control driver quantity NOT to provide the most possible rides but rather to maximize profitability per ride (which is fine, they’re a business after all, but let’s not pretend their primary goal is to maximize customer utility). People talk about a taxi mafia which colludes with regulators to fix prices and that’s true to some extent — but at least those prices are published and knowable.
This goes back to the “shoot first” policy that Uber has about everything they do… “let’s break the law, and then you can sue us” is NOT a great way to build public trust, and supposedly they’re trying to build the Next Great Public Utility, right?
The example you mention in Portland has been replayed dozens of times across the country… and although I agree with Drew that fighting the taxi mafia “special interests” in a few large metro areas pretty much means they have to break the law to try to break into those markets, they absolutely, without question, act as though laws don’t apply to them. Period.
If you think that’s great in a company, fine. Personally, I think the model of efficiency and responsiveness is tremendously valuable, but their management are acting like a bunch of adolescents.
Hopefully they get at least a veneer of maturity sooner rather than later and actually succeed in the long run at revolutionizing the taxi business.
Sorry Drew. Saving a few dollars is not enough motivation for me to get in a car driven by a for-the-most-part unregulated stranger. How’s the insurance coverage for what is in many cases an illegal operation? I don’t know either.
Are official cabs better on these points? I think they may be if one sticks to larger companies, writes down the number of the cab and the driver and uses a little common sense.
I do think Uber will in the long haul help clean-up an industry that badly needed it.
Love your posts for the excellent content. And now even more because I don’t have to register to some service or link via Facebook/Twitter just to post a comment!
I’ll preface with the fact that I am somewhat pro-Uber. You’ve dismissed the ethics issues as just “allegations,” and that’s true of the Lyft allegations; however, even though you don’t see God View as an issue, others do. That’s an ethics issue, and it’s not allegation. I don’t see it as an issue either. Many large companies could piece together TONS about individual habits and goings-on. But for some, it’s an issue.
My main complaint is not with Uber itself, but with the whole “ridesharing” label. Uber is not ridesharing. One of your mentioned companies – Blablacar – is ridesharing. Ridesharing is when one person is already planning on driving somewhere and offers rides, sometimes for a fee, to others who wish to go to the same place or somewhere along the way. No, UberX is a high-end taxi service, and Uber Black is a private car service. I firmly believe that Uber put itself forth as “ridesharing” for the sole purpose of skirting taxi regulations. I’d laugh at anyone who said Uber truly believes that most of their drivers are just sharing rides in their day-to-day lives. They know their drivers are taxis – going from fare to fare as a main or side income. Now, I agree with your point that taxi regulations are corruption and not beneficial to society, so I have no problem if Uber causes real change in that sphere. But can we drop the “ridesharing” shtick? It’s like saying AirBnB is for people to rent their home while the owner is on vacation. I’m tired of hearing of how Uber is revolutionizing/disrupting an industry when they’re just replicating it with (much appreciated) slicker processes and a higher class of “employees.” No, they are not part of the sharing economy. They are a traditional taxi/car service with neat bells and whistles.
Someone must have really gotten under this author’s skin.
It’s crazy that ride sharing is so much cheaper than taxis. I have only ever ridden in a taxi once, but it wasn’t that bad for me. I am going to share this