Good, maybe now that they have to bare the cost, they'll be force to stop sending drivers halfway across cities to pick up meals delayed by 20+ minutes and do something about the complete joke we call McDonalds.

 

And they can kick off the people taking multiple orders from different apps at once. If you can hustle it and do that, great. But when I get cold food and a later delivery after I watch my delivery driver go in the other direction, stop, and then take 25 minutes for a 5 minutes drive, that's frustrating as a driver myself.

 

For background on how the ACCC has the authority to oblige Uber to make these contractual changes, see https://uberpeople.net/threads/accc-cracks-down-on-ubers-unfair-small-business-contracts.187223/.

See also https://www.smh.com.au/business/sma...ir-to-become-the-new-standard-for-small-business-contracts-20161028-gscp1u.html.

 

ACCC media release:

Uber Eats amends its contracts

17 July 2019

Uber Eats has committed to changing its contracts with restaurants following an investigation by the ACCC.

From at least 2016, Uber Eats' contract terms made restaurants responsible for the delivery of meal orders, in circumstances where they had no control over that delivery process once the food left their restaurant.

Uber Eats' contract terms give it the right to refund consumers and deduct that amount from the restaurant even when the problem with the meal may not have been the fault of the restaurant.

"Following our investigation, Uber Eats has committed to changing its contract terms that we believe are unfair, because they make restaurants responsible and financially liable for elements outside of their control," ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

"We consider these terms to be unfair because they appear to cause a significant imbalance between restaurants and Uber Eats; the terms were not reasonably necessary to protect Uber Eats and could cause detriment to restaurants."

Uber Eats has agreed to amend these terms, to clarify that restaurants will only be responsible for matters within their control such as incorrect food items or incorrect and missing orders.

Under the amended contracts, restaurants will also be able to dispute responsibility for any refunds to customers and Uber Eats will reasonably consider these disputes.
"We will continue to monitor Uber Eats' conduct to ensure restaurants are not unfairly held responsible for matters outside of their control and Uber Eats does not hold anyone else responsible for parts of the service it controls," Mr Sims said.

"Ensuring small businesses aren't subject to unfair contract terms by larger businesses is one of our top priorities."

"Business are warned that if they include unfair contract terms in their contracts, they will risk close scrutiny from the ACCC," Mr Sims said.

Under the Australian Consumer Law as it presently stands, a large business including or relying upon an unfair contract term against a smaller business is not illegal and penalties cannot be imposed for such conduct. However, a Court can declare such terms to be void and not enforceable.

"We have called for legislative changes so the ACCC can seek penalties and compensation for small businesses where large businesses impose unfair terms." Mr Sims said.

"We welcome the Government's commitment in March this year to consult on options to strengthen unfair contract term protections for small business."

In addition to these contract terms, the ACCC was also investigating whether a contract clause which referred to Uber Eats not providing logistics services was misleading.

The ACCC was concerned by these terms given Uber Eats' role in determining the pool of drivers available to restaurants, their payments, and providing facilities such as the consumer's address, map services and GPS tracking to assist the driver in delivering meals. Uber Eats also agreed to remedy this clause.

"We welcome Uber Eats agreeing to remove the statement in its contracts saying it does not provide logistics services, because clearly, in our view they do," Mr Sims said.

Uber Eats will begin rolling out changes to its contracts shortly and says all will be completed by December 2019. Uber Eats has committed not to enforce the terms that the ACCC considers to be unfair while these changes are completed.

Background

The ACCC has published guidance on unfair contract terms for small businesses which can be found here: Unfair contract terms: New protection for small businesses.

Release number:
117/19

ACCC Infocentre:
Use this form to make a general enquiry.

(https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/uber-eats-amends-its-contracts)

 

See also https://uberpeople.net/threads/accc-unfair-contracts.341783/.

 

And they can kick off the people taking multiple orders from different apps at once. If you can hustle it and do that, great.

Requiring exclusivity, hmmmm. That's very much employee territory.

 

You can use multiple apps, but when you accept 3 orders from 3 apps at the same time, that's bull. Cold food for customers hurts everybody. You couldn't accept passengers from 2 apps at the same time. So how is this ok?



There's a serious issue in my area of drivers staying under bike accounts to get the short distance orders, and Uber isn't really trying to fix the issue because they pay the bike accounts less than car accounts. There's also an issue with people using Whatsapp phone numbers and getting family members to sign up so they can take multiple orders at the same time. That's my issue. Again, if you want to work for multiple services, fine. But don't take 3 orders all at once, however you're trying to swing it. It's detrimental to customers that get cold food, and really unfair to delivery drivers that are being honest and NOT doing that who don't get orders because of it.

 

Uber is entitled to sever associations with delivery "partners" that impact customers.

That's also true for casual employees. One needs to be careful about attempting to control how an independent contractor chooses to compete their task, that's also encroaching upon employee territory.

 

I agree that we have a right to work for multiple partners. If quality suffers though, then we lose customers. They all track us. They all have the ability to see if a delivery person is heading the opposite way of the restaurant and customer. At that point, the delivery partner is not following the contract. You can't have passengers in your car for Uber, and then go pick up more passengers for Lyft before completing the Uber ride. That's essentially what the UE people are doing. It shouldn't take a customer complaints for the services to see that the partner is abusing the system when they track everything. Finish your first delivery, then take another from whatever service. But don't take 3 in the same 5 minute time span that are all over the city.

 

Again, by that logic, before Uber people had other options too. Are you an Uber driver, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm not saying Uber eats is a savior. But it does expand options for everybody, including those who can't easily just go to the restaurant.

You're completely ignoring the real logistics when somebody orders from any of the services. If a pax has an issue with a driver taking too long they can cancel and use lyft or be assigned a new driver. Food delivery isn't that simple. All the services will give the customer the run around to not cancel the order because the restaurant has already made it and/or it's been picked up. It's not nearly as simple when there is a 3rd party. And now your lunch break is over and you still haven't gotten your food. When it does arrive, it's too late and cold. You can't leave your job during lunch because you were dropped off and don't have a vehicle to leave, or your break is 30 minutes so it's way more efficient to have it delivered. It's totally reasonable to expect a service in the time frame given.

There's more delivery services too than dealing with pax- Uber and Lyft mainly. For food there's like 5 in my area. Dealing with 2 is a lot different than 5, and some people sign up for all of them and then take every order that pings on all services. Is it fair to the restaurants that current contracts force the restaurants to eat the cost of a customer complaint about cold food and wants it replaced? At what point is that not ok?

We generally are compensated decently without having to work for that many services at once. I'm averaging $18/hour with tips. It's more than people I know that deliver for papa John's and Jimmy John's When you don't try to overdo it, the tips are there. It's just really frustrating that people are being so greedy that it turns customers away from all the services in general.

Is there a reason you're so adamant about this? Are doing this and trying to justify it? It's just not that hard to provide quality over quantity.

 

We generally are compensated decently without having to work for that many services at once. I'm averaging $18/hour with tips. It's more than people I know that deliver for papa John's and Jimmy John's When you don't try to overdo it, the tips are there. It's just really frustrating that people are being so greedy that it turns customers away from all the services in general.

It all comes back to money. You're averaging $18/hour before tax? To make the equivalent remuneration of a casual employee, you'd need to make $26.68/hr before tax and after expenses. How many "delivery partners" make that in your estimation? If people want a dedicated delivery driver that delivers steaming hot food they can certainly have it, provided they pay enough to secure their exclusive service. Otherwise find some other means of securing that steaming hot meal, or bring your own lunch from home, chuck a frozen meal in the microwave, etc.

Is there a reason you're so adamant about this? Are doing this and trying to justify it? It's just not that hard to provide quality over quantity.

There is no chance I will be doing UberEats in Perth. The rates are simply laughable. I can get long trips, surge, and tips doing UberX without the hassles and unpaid waiting time that comes with delivering food for Uber.

 

We generally are compensated decently without having to work for that many services at once. I'm averaging $18/hour with tips. It's more than people I know that deliver for papa John's and Jimmy John's When you don't try to overdo it, the tips are there. It's just really frustrating that people are being so greedy that it turns customers away from all the services in general.

While I'm adamantly opposed to UberDriverAU's view, and think they should be thrown off the platform based on these posts alone, I will point out that you are operating under at least one false assertion.

First - the tips are not there. This is Australia, and we do not have a tipping culture and are vehemently opposed to the introduction of one. You do not get tips on UberEats, or Deliveroo, or Just Eat, or Menulog. The rates are the rates, get used to it.

Second, $18 an hour would be minimum wage. In a capital city, you wouldn't be able to pay your rent with that, let alone be able to eat or buy fuel.

Third, $18 an hour is easy to make, with a $5.80 pick up, $2.70 drop off, and $0.90 per kilometre rate, as long as you reject every order from Macca's.

 

Second, $18 an hour would be minimum wage.

The full time minimum wage is $19.49/hr. Then add on casual loading (25%) and super (9.5%) to give you what the total casual remuneration should be.

 

It is before taxes, but anybody with half a brain tracks their mileage for the tax deduction in the usa. I'm only doing UE, so 18/hr is low end, and that's including the time I'm sitting at home because I'm in an area with a lot of restaurants.

There are clear community guidelines that specifically say you will be kicked off for consistently not making delivery times. Why is it so crazy to you that partners can stay busy and make decent money without taking multiple deliveries from multiple companies at once? Accept a door dash delivery, and log out of the other apps until that delivery is close to being completed, then log back onto them and take the next one you get. You'll be consistently busy and make more/hr without reducing quality. I have no issue with people partnering with multiple companies. The issue is accepting too many orders that they can't fulfill in a reasonable time. Again, you can't have Lyft and Uber passengers in the vehicle at the same time. Having multiple deliveries for multiple services is the same thing.

Your argument of "then do this or that" instead is moot. We're providing a service. It's reasonable to expect that service have a level of quality and be within estimated delivery times with food that is at a proper temperature. It's just ignorant of you to say that.

Again, that's equivalent to saying then people should just forego Uber and go back to taxis and car services. If that's your whole argument, then why do you think the service you're providing to passengers is so superior to deliveries? A passengers expectations to having a driver show up in a given time and have the ride be done in a time efficient manner is so much different than an expectation to have food delivered in an efficient estimated time and still be the proper temperature? Yeah, nah. They're not different.

Not everybody has a new car. I'm doing eats because I have a 99 camry. So unlike your holy self, I can't do regular Uber. I also don't have a car payment for that vehicle. So rates that you find "laughable" aren't an issue to somebody that doesn't have a car payment. I also get tips on 75% of orders, about 25% are equivalent to, or higher than the actual trip charges. It's customary in the usa to tip for food deliveries, but not necessarily for rides. My sister does pax for Lyft and Uber. she was surprised to see the rate I get tipped at compared to what she gets for rides. It's common sense that you get more, and higher tips when you provide quality. Taking multiple orders and bringing cold food leads to not getting a tip, so they don't really end up making that much more.

It's not an issue of being forced into exclusivity with Uber either. There are common sense ways of partnering with multiple companies to be consistently busy and still providing quality. When people are stupid about it, it hurts all the partners involved. The customer doesn't use the services again, hurting the drivers that do provide quality, and the restaurants are stuck compensating for things that are not their fault.

So in conclusion, you're commenting on something you aren't doing, don't have experience with, and you're not in my delivery country? Just Sit down.

 

It's reasonable to expect that service have a level of quality and be within estimated delivery times with food that is at a proper temperature. It's just ignorant of you to say that.

Why do people expect great service from people getting ~33% less than the minimum wage? If you want great service, you should pay for great service.