[Michael - Cleveland]

Any attorney who would set foot in small claims court is a dumb ass.

Any attorney who ignores a demand to appear from a small claims court is a dumb-ass - as is anyone who suggests they ignore an order to appear in small claims court. THAT is the power of small claims court.

Your choice is only to keep doing what you are doing. Comply. Or sue.

My doing what I am doing IS complying. Uber hasn't told me that I have to do anything differently than I am doing...
they are just using their 'scare tactics' to 'encourage' drivers to accept all ride requests.
For Uber to require me (or any driver) to accept all ride requests would be for them to exert the control of an employer.
That's the LAST thing Uber is going to do right now.

How is it that you don't understand these things?

... let us know how it works out for you.

I will, of course.
As will others who are doing exactly what I am doing: driving for profitability.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

I recieved last 2 weeks this one: [UBER] M, it looks like you're accepting less than 80% of trip requests. Please sign offline when you are not in a position to accept requests. Accepting at least 80% of trips will help you earn more money, keep the Uber system working smoothly, and ensure you can continue to use the Uber platform. Thanks! Then I asked them, what's going on?? Because a accepted all requests, only thing is, when sometime I'm accepting requests it shows "Error" and automatically turns off and program may calculated like I did not accept.. But it's not my fault if it shows "error"...... They answered , like it happens sometime and if I really accepted all that'll be OK. .. I recieved summary for last week and it shows my acceptance rate 68%, but I accepted all.

yeah, the app and network do brain farts on occasion. It's another reason Uber will not deactivate a driver for only issues with their acceptance rate unless they think you're trying to game the system for some reason.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

I was placed on probation on Monday. I just simply sent them an email the next day requesting to be deactivated pure and simple.

Wait...
So you were deactivated because you requested deactivation -
not because they were harping at you over your acceptance rate?

 

[Uber-Doober]

Uber CSR replies:

Hi Michael,
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to explain.

I completely understand your stance.
We want the Uber system to be as reliable as possible so riders are always able to get a ride when they need one. To help make that happen, we use acceptance rates to encourage drivers to accept all trip requests.
Here are a few tips you can use to make sure you have a high acceptance rate:

• 
  
• Accept all trip requests that you receive.
• If you're not ready to accept requests, be sure to go offline.
• Make sure the volume is turned up on your phone so you can always hear the sound when a new request is received.

Hope that helps clear this up for you, and please let me know if I can help with anything else.
Sincerely,
Keesha

Uber | Community Support​

----------------------------------

I reply to CSR:

Hi Keesha -

Thanks for your reply and your tips.

Drivers also want the Uber system to be as reliable as possible so riders are always able to get a ride when they need one.

If Uber wants to see 90%-100% acceptance rates, here are a few tips for Uber:

- Do not send ride requests to drivers who are more than 5 minutes away from the rider.

- Raise the rates to levels where a driver can make a profit. Stop publishing 'recommended' rates that are lower than what it costs the driver to complete a pick-up and trip.

- Allow SELECT/LUX/XL drivers in ALL markets to be available for both X and SELECT/XL rides - OR - SELECT/XL ONLY rides.

- Allow drivers to set an adjustable maximum radius (or 'time-to-pick-up') from their current location so that they are not penalized for exercising their right to decline rides that require them to drive unprofitable, ridiculous distances to pick-up a min fare rider. Write an algorithm to calculate the profitability of the ride based on driver location, rider location and rider DESTINATION - and let the driver choose the threshold for accepting the ride request. (In other words, write the driver app so that it supports the ability of the independent drivers to make intelligent decisions based on the 'rights' afforded them in their Uber Partner Agreement)

- Stop running promotions which require a driver to give-up their right to not accept a ride request (due to distance to pick-up or rider rating).

- Do not count driver non-acceptance or cancellations against the driver when they are made to riders with a rating below, oh, let's say 4.0.

- As revenues and profitability for Uber rises, LOWER the cost of using the Uber app/system to drivers: Put the incentives in the right place to get drivers to drive more and reward drivers who drive more by charging 20% on the first $50 in a day, and then 15% on the next $50, and then only 10% on all fares over the first $100 in a day. (Then sit back and just watch how much longer drivers stay on the road with the Uber app on.)​

Thank you for your time!

- Michael

^^^
Do you actually think that "Keesha" has any idea of what you're talking about.... or even care?
Her first comment to you was a "Shift-F6" that was kicked out to you, and her admonishment to you was a plain F-10.
It's just the battle between the Morelocks and the Eloi.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

"Additionally, you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests for Transportation Services while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users of Uber's mobile application. If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."

Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement. And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.

That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.

I know you don't like legal stuff and in your opinion it is meaningless, but it's not.
The contract clause(s) which make drivers Independent Contractors and give partners the right to accept the rides they want to accept, makes the scare sentences you've quoted utterly meaningless. Unless you are just leaving the app on and not accepting ride-request after ride-request, (tying up the system) then you are in compliance with the agreement.

In MY case (and I'm only speaking about me here), I am being discriminate in my accepting ride-requests - but I am not abusing the system.

Want a defense?

Hey Uber, what's the purpose of
SHOWING THE DRIVER A RIDER'S RATING BEFORE THEY ACCEPT A RIDE-REQUEST
if the driver is not given the discretion to decline to accept a poorly rated rider?​

Judgement for the plaintiff.
Case closed.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

^^^
Do you actually think that "Keesha" has any idea of what you're talking about.... or even care? Her first comment to you was a "Shift-F6" that was kicked out to you, and her admonishment to you was a plain F-10.

Agreed - but read my reply about documentation.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

You're the one who sounds like a jail house lawyer.

Nothing wrong with being a jail house lawyer if you know what you're talking about.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

The point is what they say specifically denies drivers a right retained to the drivers in the contract.

And just as importantly, IMPLIES that a driver is violating the terms of the agreement and is in danger of being deactivated.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

Play whatever games you want, but ultimately every ping you don't accept is now going to someone even further away, costing them more overhead, in my book that makes the op a dick.

Yeah - because that driver doesn't have the same right to not accept the ping if they choose not to?
Get real. No one is driving to make decisions based on how it effects other "Independent Contractors".
In that sense, drivers are COMPETITORS.

Hey, wait a minute...
I seem to recall that you support the idea of staying offline until a surge kicks in...
isn't THAT also passing off ride requests to drivers who are further away?
Maybe that was someone else... but I sure didn't hear you suggesting that practice was 'unfair' to other drivers.

And I do not consider it a 'game' to play by the rules I was given - and being discriminative about accepting ride-requests is absolutely not any kind of 'scheme' (the like of which we see posted here on a daily basis).

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

Just up them to district court and MAKE THEM PAY OUT THE ASS for their bullshit claims in attorney fees.
Guess what? ALL bullshit claims disappear when the claimants have to open their wallet to PLAY.

I agree...
but what we're discussing here isn't a BS claim, now is it?
Or are you suggesting that Uber DOES have the legal right to deactivate a driver solely on the basis of their 'acceptance rate'?

 

[Uber-Doober]

Agreed - but read my reply about documentation.

^^^
Oh, yeah, no problem there.... but the thing that set me off about the messages from the CSR is just the thought of some whiny little petulant 20 year old who just got her first job sitting there and telling a guy who has his money involved in trying to make a living out of driving and having his messages coming back to him in the form of sheer bullshit from somebody who is no more understanding than talking to a block wall.
It's just infuriating.
It pisses me off.

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

^^^
Oh, yeah, no problem there.... but the thing that set me off about the messages from the CSR is just the thought of some whiny little petulant 20 year old who just got her first job sitting there and telling a guy who has his money involved in trying to make a living out of driving and having his messages coming back to him in the form of sheer bullshit from somebody who is no more understanding than talking to a block wall.
It's just infuriating.
It pisses me off.

Me too... but try to remember they are just trying to make a living, too.
That's their job.
They don't make policy.
They follow orders and are not empowered to do anything outside those policies.

I've stopped yelling at CSRs unless they go off the reservation and start giving me a hard time.

 

[Uber-Doober]

Me too... but try to remember they are just trying to make a living, too.
That's their job.
They don't make policy.
They follow orders and are not empowered to do anything outside those policies.

I've stopped yelling at CSRs unless they go off the reservation and start giving me a hard time.

^^^
Yes, but.
I think that somewhere in the interview process, the CSR's that make the grade are those that actually like to be confrontational and are particularly self-centered.... not to mention ignorant of the human condition.
Hah!

 

[Michael - Cleveland]

^^^
Yes, but.
I think that somewhere in the interview process, the CSR's that make the grade are those that actually like to be confrontational and are particularly self-centered.... not to mention ignorant of the human condition.
Hah!

Seems that way at times - but in my market, I've had some really great CSRs - and they are always happy to research something about a ride if I ask them too, and have been pretty clear with me on what they can and cannot do. For the most part, I really like our Uber CSRs. Lyft could take some lessons from Uber on customer service training. I like Lyft's executive management team - but in my experience, their customer service systems are appalling.

 

[scrurbscrud]

I agree...
but what we're discussing here isn't a BS claim, now is it?
Or are you suggesting that Uber DOES have the legal right to deactivate a driver solely on the basis of their 'acceptance rate'?

Our driver agreements can be cancelled without cause.

Ask me how important cause is when 'no cause' is the standard?

 

[scrurbscrud]

Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement. And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.

That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.

I know you don't like legal stuff and in your opinion it is meaningless, but it's not.
The contract clause(s) which make drivers Independent Contractors and give partners the right to accept the rides they want to accept, makes the scare sentences you've quoted utterly meaningless. Unless you are just leaving the app on and not accepting ride-request after ride-request, (typing up the system) then you are in compliance with the agreement.

In MY case (and I'm only speaking about me here), I am being discriminative in my accepting ride-requests - but I am not abusing the system.

Want a defense?

Hey Uber, what's the purpose of
SHOWING THE DRIVER A RIDER'S RATING BEFORE THEY ACCEPT A RIDE-REQUEST
if the driver is not given the discretion to decline to accept a poorly rated rider?​

Judgement for the plaintiff.
Case closed.

Judgment for the plaintiff? You've been watching too many Judge Judy shows.

There is no doubt that drivers who fall below an 80% acceptance rate get threats for deactivation, primarily on the driver agreement terms of creating a negative pax/user experience. We don't hear too many accounts of deactivation.

Maybe you can be a first poster test case? Let us know when Judge Judy hands over the booty.

 

[scrurbscrud]

Wait...
So you were deactivated because you requested deactivation -
not because they were harping at you over your acceptance rate?

I didn't question the poster on what I think was probation, supposedly meaning the driver had to get the acceptance rate up in a certain period of time or begone.

Driver chose begone. It's not a tenable driver situation, just as it is for us.

I'd expect you or any other driver with low acceptance rates, regardless of what the driver thinks, will experience a similar track with Uber.

 

[scrurbscrud]

yeah, the app and network do brain farts on occasion. It's another reason Uber will not deactivate a driver for only issues with their acceptance rate unless they think you're trying to game the system for some reason.

Let us know if/when you hit the probation warning level.

 

[UberHammer]

Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it contradicts. I can agree with Uber that my failure to accept requests does create a negative user experience while also retaining my option to accept, decline or ignore requests, without creating a contradiction. Agreeing with Uber regarding the result does not create an obligation to surrender the options I retain in the contract in order to avoid creating a negative user experience.

And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.

Correct! If in fact, the "failure" clause did create an obligation that contradicts the options the driver retains, then it is an ambiguous contract, and a suit regarding the contract would go in favor of the party that did not write it.

That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.

That's not the only place where meaningless language is used in the contract. Another example is where it says the driver always has the right to charge less than the pre-arranged fare. This is meaningless language because it's not establishing anything that isn't already established. Given Uber can do nothing more than make a recommendation for a fare for the service the driver provides the rider, the driver and rider own all rights to negotiate the rate. They can negotiate a lower rate, the same rate, or a higher rate. All are rights the driver and rider own. So Uber's lawyers, by stating the driver always has the right to charge less is doing nothing more than acknowledging a limited scope of the rights the driver and riders have... to negotiate a lower rate. By only acknowledging a limited scope of the their rights, the lawyers are trying to make it look like drivers and riders don't have the right to negotiate a higher rate. Of course they do. It's NOT the Uber/driver contract that establishes that right. WIth the rider NOT being a party of the Uber/driver contract, the Uber/driver contract can't establish nor limit rights of the rider. This is why Uber states their rate is nothing more than a recommendation. Uber can't do anything more than make a recommendation between the driver and the rider. If the driver and rider don't have a contract between themselves, then the relationship is bound by legislative law. The Uber/driver contract does not trump legislative law in regards to parties NOT part of the contract.

I know you don't like legal stuff and in your opinion it is meaningless, but it's not.
The contract clause(s) which make drivers Independent Contractors and give partners the right to accept the rides they want to accept, makes the scare sentences you've quoted utterly meaningless. Unless you are just leaving the app on and not accepting ride-request after ride-request, (typing up the system) then you are in compliance with the agreement.

In MY case (and I'm only speaking about me here), I am being discriminative in my accepting ride-requests - but I am not abusing the system.

Want a defense?

Hey Uber, what's the purpose of
SHOWING THE DRIVER A RIDER'S RATING BEFORE THEY ACCEPT A RIDE-REQUEST
if the driver is not given the discretion to decline to accept a poorly rated rider?​

Judgement for the plaintiff.
Case closed.

As long as there is absolutely no other reason than the acceptance rate issue, then yes the plaintiff wins this argument. But given Uber has the right to deactivate a driver for any reason, as long as it is reasonable (which is incredibly ambiguous), then all Uber needs is one reason outside of the acceptance rate issue to have contractual merit for deactivation.

This is why I don't think lawsuit's of wrongful termination are good ideas. Uber has the advantage in pretty much all of them, unless the driver is perfect, which none of them are.

A lawsuit of breach of contract is the correct route here, as Uber's operation fails to match it's contractual requirements and violates the rights retained by the drivers. Essentially Uber is treating the drivers like they are employees by violating their rights as Independent Contractors. Hence why the lawyers are attacking how Uber is treating active drivers, and not looking for justice regarding the wrongfully deactivated ones.

 

[scrurbscrud]

As long as there is absolutely no other reason than the acceptance rate issue, then yes the plaintiff wins this argument. But given Uber has the right to deactivate a driver for any reason, as long as it is reasonable (which is incredibly ambiguous), then all Uber needs is one reason outside of the acceptance rate issue to have contractual merit for deactivation.

Actually they don't even need one reason. It can, in every case, be termination without cause. (any reason)

As to the drivers and pax rates, most state laws mandate the pax KNOW, in advance of the fare, the price and terms of the fare, which the driver is not even involved with til after the fact. So there are other laws that play into this matter which functionally eliminate the driver from being involved at the legal point of PRE ORDERING.