[Nats121]

Uber being uber, if a cap becomes law, uber will attempt to undermine it.

They've already threatened CT that if the bill passes, they'll stop insuring drivers. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell.

They're smart enough to know if they go too far, CT will implement NYC regulations.

They also know if their schemes cost too much revenue, the stockholders will revolt.

It's certainly possible uber would announce that there will no longer be a fixed rate chart for miles, minutes, etc and that drivers will be paid a flat 75% of the gross.

What happens if uber cuts fares, or offers hefty discounts or promotions? Both of those could result in serious pay cuts for drivers.

The question is, what would the govt do to protect driver earnings from the effects of fare cuts and discounts?

I'm asking these questions because I didn't see anything in the CT bill that addresses these issues.

A fee cap will be an excellent improvement for the drivers, but it must be accompanied by minimum pay out protection.

 

[UserPablo]

Interesting

 

[Another Uber Driver]

They've already threatened CT that if the bill passes, they'll stop insuring drivers. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell.

Does Connecticut law require the TNCs to provide coverage? If it does, as the law does in some jurisdictions, that is an empty threat. If the law has no such requirement, Uber could still be held liable for damages in the event of a collision, something that occurs every day.

They're smart enough to know if they go too far, CT will implement NYC regulations.

They might know what Connecticut will do, but that does not mean that they are smart enough to avoid it. Fubar has engaged in brinksmanship more than once and has been surprised more than once when the jurisdiction took the dare.

A fee cap will be an excellent improvement for the drivers, but it must be accompanied by minimum pay out protection.

You hope that someone up there takes note and asks the Connecticut legislators to include said protections. If D.C. ever considers something like this, the City Council likely will hold pubic hearings on it. Drivers should sign up to testify and make sure that the Council Members are aware that these minimum protections need to be included. I do not hold out much hope for D.C.'s considering anything like this, though:

Bowser is in the pocket of the big money.
Uber has "made arrangements" with Cheh, McDuffie, Evans and Mendelson in the past. Grosso is just a stooge and the worst moron on the City Council since Nathanson (and he was pretty bad).

 

[unitacx]

Uber could still be held liable for damages in the event of a collision, something that occurs every day.

That wouldn't matter because of the economics. Large corporations use insurance companies because of the services, since there is no longer risk mitigation. (The reason is liability becomes an ongoing expense, like repairs on a car.)

The cost of payouts made through insurance companies is actually higher because two transactions are involved, but it is generally far more economical to "contract out" things like adjustments, negotiations, litigation management, etc. When you get to a company the size of Uber, it begins to become economical to set up a comprehensive loss department to do the same thing. So "still be held liable" doesn't make a difference because all they're doing is becoming self-insured.

I don't know how common this is, but I believe some self-insurers (large entities with assets) still contract out things like loss management and adjustments to insurance companies. It's just that the self-insurer will make the payments directly from corporate funds and maybe file a certificate of financial responsibility with state authorities. Most states allow individuals to do the same with mandatory car insurance, but of course that only becomes economical for an individual if the insurance rates are excessive.