A rant and personal ehtical dilemma about "ridesharing"

[MisterSG1]

As I may have stated on previous threads, I have recently started Ubering in the past month, but yet something just doesn't feel right about the whole thing....I feel as I am participating in the black market so to speak.

Let's be practically clear about one thing, I find the term "ridesharing" a made up term by Uber (and perhaps Lyft) to excuse itself of not being a taxi service. When I hear the word "ridesharing", I assume it means much the same thing as carpooling. What I would consider ridesharing, is if an app paired you up with 2 or 3 people that were heading the same direction as yourself.....for instance I go to school in downtown Toronto, and ridesharing to me would mean this app pairing me up with people who are headed to the same destination as I am who live close to me.

The fact of the matter is, when I go online on the Uber Partner app, I have no control where I am going to go. If my position is the closest relative to the quickest time on a NAV system to reach someone who requests a ride, I will get "buzzed" to go pick up that passenger requesting a ride. I am only given a first name and have absolutely NO IDEA where I am going to be sent once the passenger gets in the vehicle. For instance, I may pick someone up who lives a block away from me, and next thing you know, I am being sent to the other end of the GTA (This did in fact happen to me last Saturday when I attended to just stay in Brampton). Exactly how is this "ridesharing" other than I am literally sharing my ride with passengers for money? It is exactly what the critics say it is, a BANDIT CAB service that jumps around claiming it's not a cab service because no money is handled by the drivers, and there are no street hails, all rides are "pre-arranged".

Uber has created a real great app for a modern taxicab concept, but at what moral cost. The taxicab industry is incredibly regulated and in most cases all rates are set by each individual city. With uber in town, and them generally operating outside the law, they have brang the taxicab industry to its knees. Generally, the amount of taxicabs allowed in a city are capped, and how someone becomes a taxi operator usually involves leasing a plate from someone who owns a plate.....I heard in NYC that such plates (or medallions as they are called there) cost upwards of a million dollars. While the cabbies haven't exactly made things look better on their end (check out their protests all over the world, it's hard to even sympathize with the thuggish behavior they partake in) the situation is incredibly understandable, someone invests a crap load of money to make money as a cabbie and is now worthless because a gypsy cab service has now taken over.

One of the concepts of having caps is to prevent over saturation of cabbies on the road, and it makes perfect sense, as I have experienced it myself as an Uber driver when I attempted doing Friday night downtown once. There were empty periods where I had no luck for about 10 minutes trying to catch a fare, in fact in most cases, I would only catch a fare if I was literally right on top of where the passenger requested a ride. Obviously, during business hours, this over saturation also puts unnecessary cars on the road who don't have a purpose of being downtown in a city that is already congested to the tee.

It's also interesting (or shall I say ironic) at least in my eyes, that my generation, the millennials, who a lot of them are fairly left leaning, seem to love using the Uber service. The reason why I mention left leaning, is that they are generally more in favor of stronger government programs, and yet Uber essentially brings ZERO revenue to governments. This also brings me to my next point about how shadowy Uber really is....I signed up and I have never even seen a human who actually works for the company. All contact is done through e-mail and I cannot phone anyone. If I have a question or an issue, I have to contact big brother and wait hours to get a reply.

That's not to also mention, that when city governments also try to make rules to accommodate Uber and make them legal, in many cases Uber does not like this, and they will get angry. Case in point, Calgary made rules and Uber decided to balk because they didn't want to follow them. I will admit, Uber's system is indeed a great system, but there has to be a way to make this work for everyone to be happy. I propose that Uber drivers at least in Ontario get some sort of provincial license that allows them to "rideshare", and then make a certain amount, perhaps 10% of each fare, be given to the city to where an Uber trip originates....suppose I pick up someone here in Brampton and they want to go to downtown Toronto, 10% of this fare would go to the City of Brampton. Even allow traditional taxis to do the same thing....eliminate the pointless city cab licenses and have this ran by the province, thus a Toronto taxi could pick someone up in Brampton, rather than what currently happens, if a Toronto cab ends up in Brampton it cannot pick up any fare in Brampton as he's only licensed to pick up in Toronto....eliminate these bureaucratic rules and open it up for the entire province.

Again, I don't know what to say about all of this, but I do feel a sense of guilt, where I pull over downtown to pick up a passenger, and a cab is in front of me, and I am in a way, illegally picking him up and taking business away from the cabbies who had to pay a lot of money to even be allowed to operate a taxi in the city.

I don't know, what do you guys think about this.

[mrsman]

You bring up a very interesting topic.  I also don't like the term ridesharing, since in all respects uber is a replacement cab service.

I believe that the government should have little interference in private arrrangements.  The gov't should set certain rules for safety.  The vehicles should be inspected more regularly than private cars.  The drivers need to have increased insurance.  The drivers should undergo background checks. 

But I do not believe in setting caps and limits.  Let the market bear the price.  This will make taking a cab/uber a lot cheaper for the passengers.

With Uber being more popular, I believe that there should be no more traditional taxi cabs.  All drivers for hire should face the same requirements. 

I understand that taxi companies have spent a lot of money on medallions and similar exclusive licensing.  Let's set up a time limit for about one year to give taxis the exclusive legal right to pick up hails and then let the taxi licenses expire.  As we can see, there is no longer a need for taxis thanks to uber.

[jeffandnicole]

...Uber essentially brings ZERO revenue to governments...

That's not entirely true.  You'll be getting a 1099 at the end of the year for the money you made, and will have to pay your applicable percentage to the feds on your tax return.  This fouls many people up...they made hundreds or thousands of dollars during the year.  They probably spent most of it.  And then come late January, they get this little tax notice.  They plug it in to their 1040...and realize they owe quite a bit in taxes!

Again, I don't know what to say about all of this, but I do feel a sense of guilt, where I pull over downtown to pick up a passenger, and a cab is in front of me, and I am in a way, illegally picking him up and taking business away from the cabbies who had to pay a lot of money to even be allowed to operate a taxi in the city.

City buses do the same thing.

And taxis - the problem is they, as a group, had this pretty good monopoly on car services.  Sure, there's limo-for-hires, and buses and trains, but for the most part if you wanted to go directly from Point A to B you had one option.  Taxi drivers kept their cars up to minimum standards, and many showed little care for their customers.  Now, Uber & Lyft exist (among others), and they're upset.  And there's basically two options one can do: A) Improve themselves, or B) Complain.  Taxi drivers have done a lot of complaining, but go right back to the stuff that drove customers away in the first place. 

I'm sure you've picked people up in neighborhoods where you don't see any taxis whatsoever.  We're not talking bad neighborhoods - we're talking decent ones that taxis simply didn't want to serve.  A customer could make a phone call and say they want a ride, and then wait...and wait...wondering if the taxi will ever show.  Or a customer can click on an app to request an Uber, and know exactly where that vehicle is at.

For you, I wouldn't be upset about it for a moment.  Uber is providing an option, and it's an option many have grown fond of.  Competition is a good thing.

And trust me - the government will get its share of the revenue!

[empirestate]

I wouldn't say we've yet reached a point where we can be comfortable with Uber. For one thing, they're under investigation in a lot of places for a lot of their business practices, one of which is employee misclassification, an issue that also affects me often in my own line of work. Suffice to say, they definitely have a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach when it comes to the legitimacy of their business model.

That being said, the way their system works and is set up is admirable (although I'd still be curious to hear what exactly it is that distinguishes so-called "ridesharing" from a taxi service). I have faith that eventually, this new type of service will be brought into comfortable compliance with existing regulations, where applicable, and/or that regulations will be modified or created to address needs that aren't currently filled.

And the reality is, I don't need to use Uber anyway. Where I live now, every so-called taxi service is already just run like an Uber program, the only difference being that they run by telephone dispatch rather than app-based. And when I lived in the Bronx, the city had just created the "borough cab" category of legitimate, regulated, non-hailable taxis; together with the existing yellow cabs and new app technology that allows hailing, tracking, payment and other functions from within the app, I found no need for Uber.

[MisterSG1]

I wouldn't say we've yet reached a point where we can be comfortable with Uber. For one thing, they're under investigation in a lot of places for a lot of their business practices, one of which is employee misclassification, an issue that also affects me often in my own line of work. Suffice to say, they definitely have a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach when it comes to the legitimacy of their business model.

That being said, the way their system works and is set up is admirable (although I'd still be curious to hear what exactly it is that distinguishes so-called "ridesharing" from a taxi service). I have faith that eventually, this new type of service will be brought into comfortable compliance with existing regulations, where applicable, and/or that regulations will be modified or created to address needs that aren't currently filled.

And the reality is, I don't need to use Uber anyway. Where I live now, every so-called taxi service is already just run like an Uber program, the only difference being that they run by telephone dispatch rather than app-based. And when I lived in the Bronx, the city had just created the "borough cab" category of legitimate, regulated, non-hailable taxis; together with the existing yellow cabs and new app technology that allows hailing, tracking, payment and other functions from within the app, I found no need for Uber.

Well, when I first started, I assumed that they could get away with calling it ridesharing by claiming it that it was a 100% fully pre-arranged ride. But as an Uber Driver, when the passenger gets in, I start an invisible meter on my app, and when the trip is over, I stop the invisible meter. Invisible in the sense that I don't see it physically.

In most cases a passenger has a destination inputted into the app, but if the passenger needs to go somewhere else, or doesn't input a destination whatsoever, they can request where they want to go, and the passenger is charged on their credit card depending on the route I take using GPS tracking on my phone.

The problem with Uber is that since their prices are much lower than cabbies, it becomes a point where an Uber driver realizes that he has entered into a scam. In Toronto, the rates aren't currently too bad, Uber charges 80 cents per km and 18 cents per minute, as well as a $2.50 starting fare. In the end, I get 75% of the fare total in the end, where Uber gets the other 25%.

I've heard in some markets that Uber charges as low as 60 cents per mile, ouch. When you factor in the wear and tear on your car, it becomes questionable if it's even worthwhile doing it at all.


Uber gets a lot of criticism due to surge pricing, and it's understandable. Due to supply and demand ran by Uber's algorithms, sometimes fares will cost 3.0x. Taxis on the other hand by law are not allowed to charge any kind of surge (although Toronto's new laws have bent in favor of Uber and Taxis can now indeed charge surge if they want to but they say they don't want to) A lot of times, passengers who want a ride will wait out until the surge is over, so the gold rush that occurs with drivers who want to chase a surge in many times will end with no one getting a big fare....I have to run now currently and I'll type more of these thoughts later, but Empirestate is right on the money, the cavalier attitude of Uber is what many don't like, me included.

[vdeane]

Millennials like Uber because they can use it to get to places by car without actually having to own a car or drive (so no worries about car payments, maintenance, or parking, all things Millennials don't want to deal with, especially since they like living in urban apartments with no off-street parking available).

Taxis are unreliable and expensive.  I once needed one for the five mile trip from the hospital back to my car.  It took them an hour to show up and they charged me $20.

[renegade]

^^ No.  Millenials like "uber" because it gives them another reason to whip out their "smart" phones and stick their faces in them.

And, yet another word that has been converted into a verb:  "I have recently started Ubering..."

[hbelkins]

Government has no business regulating the number of businesses operating in a particular market. Cab companies have been government-sanctioned monopolies for years and I for one am glad to see it come to an end in favor of a free-market solution.

As for employee classification -- it's not really any different than the situation newspaper carriers face. They are considered to be independent contractors, not employees. Only difference is that newspaper carriers are expected to work a set schedule. Uber/Lyft drivers get to choose if or when they want to work.

Taxi companies have been protected by the government for years against competitiveness, as have a number of other businesses (in Kentucky, this includes hospitals and certain other medical facilities, which require a "Certificate of Need" from the state, the issuance of which can be challenged by an existing competitor). This tends to drive up consumer prices and results in complacency if you're the only game or one of the only games in town.

I have no sympathy for cab companies. Time to face the free market and earn your keep.

[empirestate]

Government has no business regulating the number of businesses operating in a particular market.

I don't know that there's any issue with regulation the number of companies–I've never seen a citation where government claimed Uber couldn't operate because it was the twelfth, rather than the eleventh, company in the area. The issue seems to be that Uber and the government have different expectation on which regulations apply to them, with some governments stating that taxi regulations apply and Uber stating that they don't, because Uber isn't a taxi company.

As for employee classification -- it's not really any different than the situation newspaper carriers face. They are considered to be independent contractors, not employees. Only difference is that newspaper carriers are expected to work a set schedule. Uber/Lyft drivers get to choose if or when they want to work.

Yes, there are various types of work where classification is a concern. The problem is illustrated by your phrase "considered to be"–the law says that actual factors surrounding the work are what determine the classification. "Considering [the work] to be" one type or the other doesn't make it so (although the parties' mutual expectation in that regard is one of many factors that are applied); thus, companies may be avoiding responsibilities to their employees and/or the government because they don't consider them to be employees.

So, when the worker considers it to be one way, and the company considers it to be the other, you have a potential case of misclassification, and you then have to check with the government and see what they consider it to be. That's what Uber and other types of companies are going through lately.

[kphoger]

Yes, there are various types of work where classification is a concern. The problem is illustrated by your phrase "considered to be"–the law says that actual factors surrounding the work are what determine the classification. "Considering [the work] to be" one type or the other doesn't make it so (although the parties' mutual expectation in that regard is one of many factors that are applied); thus, companies may be avoiding responsibilities to their employees and/or the government because they don't consider them to be employees.

So, when the worker considers it to be one way, and the company considers it to be the other, you have a potential case of misclassification, and you then have to check with the government and see what they consider it to be. That's what Uber and other types of companies are going through lately.

I work in the cable/internet/phone industry, and we've gone through that sort of thing before.  My company is a contractor for the parent provider, and so our field techs are contractors as well; however, they are not full 1099 contractors for us but rather employees, unless both parties meet certain requirements related to pay, scheduling, liability, etc., etc., etc.

[empirestate]

I work in the cable/internet/phone industry, and we've gone through that sort of thing before.  My company is a contractor for the parent provider, and so our field techs are contractors as well; however, they are not full 1099 contractors for us but rather employees, unless both parties meet certain requirements related to pay, scheduling, liability, etc., etc., etc.

Your phrase "1099 contractors" points up another major misconception: Many people assume that if the company sends you a 1099 (or if you sent them a W9), that makes you a contractor. While a 1099 is the appropriate form to send to a contractor, it doesn't create that relationship. Even signing an agreement stating that you're acting as a contractor doesn't make you a contractor (although it does suggest that you're OK with the arrangement and thus less likely to contest it).

[kalvado]

Regarding ethical part of it.. As someone just said on a local forum: our taxi service fell so low, that any alternative is welcome. Uber CEO needs to come personally and  burns entire city to rescind public support.

[Duke87]

gypsy cab service

This phrase right here is the biggest problem I have. We've had "gypsy cabs" in NYC since long before smartphones, and being a black market service they have always had the inherent problem of lacking any consumer protection. Uber is perhaps marginally better since they have formalized the process, but nonetheless - getting in some random stranger's car, pre-arranged by an app or not, is something my sense of self-preservation will not allow me to do. An officially licensed taxi, at least, provides some greater reassurance of safety to the user.

Still, taxis are expensive and on that basis I refuse to use even an official taxi unless someone else is paying. If I can't drive or get a ride from someone else to where I'm going, I'll walk/use public transit.

[kalvado]

gypsy cab service

This phrase right here is the biggest problem I have. We've had "gypsy cabs" in NYC since long before smartphones, and being a black market service they have always had the inherent problem of lacking any consumer protection. Uber is perhaps marginally better since they have formalized the process, but nonetheless - getting in some random stranger's car, pre-arranged by an app or not, is something my sense of self-preservation will not allow me to do. An officially licensed taxi, at least, provides some greater reassurance of safety to the user.

Still, taxis are expensive and on that basis I refuse to use even an official taxi unless someone else is paying. If I can't drive or get a ride from someone else to where I'm going, I'll walk/use public transit.

This boils down to "background check", situation which lately culminated in Austin TX.
My impression is that regular taxi, at least in this area, scrape bottom of the barrel for drivers; and any background check should be done with minimum effort not to turn down anyone. Unlike taxi, Uber also has system of customer feedback - which should help to sort drivers out, at least to some extent.
But then, I am a middle-aged male in modest physical condition, and I would expect most  drivers to be afraid of me, not the other way around. Next, my common taxi situation (once a year maybe?) is "someone checking out of hotel and going to airport" or "guy in the airport with 2 bags" - which is probably a low risk scenario for driver anyway.

[lordsutch]

Uber is perhaps marginally better since they have formalized the process, but nonetheless - getting in some random stranger's car, pre-arranged by an app or not, is something my sense of self-preservation will not allow me to do. An officially licensed taxi, at least, provides some greater reassurance of safety to the user.

Still, taxis are expensive and on that basis I refuse to use even an official taxi unless someone else is paying. If I can't drive or get a ride from someone else to where I'm going, I'll walk/use public transit.

Uber (and Lyft) have a record of your entire journey from the driver's smart phone and yours, along with the identities of everyone involved. That alone should deter most foul play by drivers, since there's almost no way they'd get away without someone knowing who they are. Compared to any old taxi cab hailed on the street or from a taxi rank, I know which alternative seems safer to me.

[kphoger]

I used to hitchhike regularly. I'm good without background checks. Sobriety testing, OTOH...

[Scott5114]

^^ No.  Millenials like "uber" because it gives them another reason to whip out their "smart" phones and stick their faces in them.

As a millennial, would you mind telling me why I would go out of my way to come up with a totally new method of transportation just because I want to "stick my face in a phone"?

[The Nature Boy]

I like Uber because of its transparency. I can see when the driver will get there, the status of his trip to my prearranged pickup spot, and I know beforehand how much the trip will cost me. If traditional taxi companies offered such transparencies, I'd consider using them.

Uber doesn't just appeal to millennials who live in urban areas. It's useful when you're in a new city and you need to get around.

[SP Cook]

I am as much a libertarian as anyone, but some laws and regulations exist to protect the public.

Eventually, as with most things, the law will catch up with Uber.  Particularly:

- Insurance.  Insurance (note that the OP is Canadian) in the USA is mostly regulated by the states, so the law varies, but most places if you have a standard car policy, it does not cover its use as a "taxi". 

- Liability.  People have wrecks.  It is why you buy insurance.  Assuming (see above) a driver's insurance does not disclaim coverage, trial lawyers just sue everybody and let the courts sort it out.  That means they will sue Urbr corporate, the driver/owner of the car, and anybody else in the line of fire.  And, in most states, the amount of liability coverage really is not all that much.  If someone is an Uber driver and has any assets at all, these are at risk in the event a passenger is seriously hurt.  And the reverse is also true.  If someone is an Uber passenger, you may end up (depending on state law) in a wild goose chase after an assetless driver or a complex federal case against Uber corporate, with no insurance available to cover serious injuries.

- Taxes. Pretty much discussed by others, but yes, this is a business and you owe taxes.

- Law.  Uber, et al, can play the "we are not a taxi" card all they want.  It is still a taxi.  Taxi companies need licenses, pay taxes, and have to follow rules.  Now you can argure all you want about why that is wrong or whatever, it is still the law.  Eventually the tax man, the license man, and the regulation man show up.  They just do.

- Background checks.  Maybe the Uber driver is a psycho.  Don't know.  Can't know. 

- Civil rights.  In my state (and I think this is pretty universal) taxi companies have obligations, enforceable in court or before the taxi regulators, to serve the whole community.   That means in order to get the easy and profitable gigs like airport runs and train crew shuttles, they have to respond to all calls, including taking people to and from bad neighborhoods.  Uber has no such obligation.  So, in essence, it "cherry picks" driving rich liberal hipsters from one part to another of their pointless lives, leaving the taxis to serve the poor. Which drives up the costs of the taxis. 

And, lastly, every town I have ever been in, the taxi companies are mob run.  If the mob starts feeling  it is losing  business to Uber, bang.

[kalvado]

I am as much a libertarian as anyone, but some laws and regulations exist to protect the public.

Insurance and liability are beginning to iron out. Really not the biggest problem in grand scheme of things. Background check... As strict as taxi is the goal (I had an impression there is minimal check there anyway).
Driver qualification is another issue - NY used to have E type license to be used in for-hire cars, sort-of-almost CDL license. I am not sure about extra requirements, though.

In terms of public access - smartphone-only approach Uber has may be an issue...

But at the end of the day, Uber is just another way to dispatch taxi. I assume things would eventually settle to just that - online Uber  main app plus a call center in India to take phone-in calls. THis would replace zillion taxi companies in thousands cities with  two global companies.. So what?

[english si]

Eventually, as with most things, the law will catch up with Uber.

Indeed, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

But thankfully, in Common Law domains (where law plays catch up with technology allowing what isn't prohibited, rather than civil law jurisdictions where the law has to play catch up the other way, in order to allow technological advances - see Berlin asking people to shop in their neighbours* who are running AirBnBs) at least, their innovation is being rewarded and taxis will be allowed to enter the 21st century.

*You'd have thought Berlin would be sick of such things...

[empirestate]

I am as much a libertarian as anyone, but some laws and regulations exist to protect the public.

Eventually, as with most things, the law will catch up with Uber.

That's my expectation as well, and that will be fine with me. It's the scofflaw posture they're adopting in the meantime that turns me off to giving them my business.

- Taxes. Pretty much discussed by others, but yes, this is a business and you owe taxes.

"You" the driver, or "you" the company (and driver)? That's one sticking point of the misclassification issue.

So, in essence, it "cherry picks" driving rich liberal hipsters from one part to another of their pointless lives, leaving the taxis to serve the poor. Which drives up the costs of the taxis.

I was following right along with you until this paragraph. My question here is genuine: why diminish the strength of an otherwise cogent argument by injecting such obviously charged language?


iPhone