Uber charges driver for completing a 13-mile fare(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Uber charges driver for completing a 13-mile fare
https://twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1398990015611473927
141 comments
> I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip
Bugs notwithstanding, if intentional, then that's a pretty scummy thing to do. Not all drivers are given the full details of the offer they are accepting (it's the norm not to have details), but some offers that drivers receive do include things like "guaranteed $X trip". So even if unintentional, someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).
Bugs notwithstanding, if intentional, then that's a pretty scummy thing to do. Not all drivers are given the full details of the offer they are accepting (it's the norm not to have details), but some offers that drivers receive do include things like "guaranteed $X trip". So even if unintentional, someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).
> if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver
The rider isn't guaranteeing a $X trip, if anyone is -- that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference. If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message, right?
Guessing or investigating the internal negotiations between a service provider and their own service providers is not the responsibility of the customer!
The rider isn't guaranteeing a $X trip, if anyone is -- that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference. If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message, right?
Guessing or investigating the internal negotiations between a service provider and their own service providers is not the responsibility of the customer!
> that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference
No one here is arguing otherwise.
> If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message
What is your conception of "update" here? Someone receives an offer for a given payout. The driver accepts and goes to pick up the passenger. The passenger gets into the car and then changes the destination, nullifying the entire set of conditions that were in play for the original arrangement. Does your "update" involve something magic, like a time machine?
No one here is arguing otherwise.
> If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message
What is your conception of "update" here? Someone receives an offer for a given payout. The driver accepts and goes to pick up the passenger. The passenger gets into the car and then changes the destination, nullifying the entire set of conditions that were in play for the original arrangement. Does your "update" involve something magic, like a time machine?
> No one here is arguing otherwise.
I thought you were, actually:
> someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).
This is a little meta, but it seems weird to describe company C getting screwed if they are "forced" to cover their contracts, even while agreeing that they ought to cover their contracts.
> What is your conception of "update" here?
No time travel required; "update" meant as Uber moves into the future and makes adjustments to how they approach new agreements. If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or use language like "expected" instead of "guaranteed", or charge a floor to future riders, or both.
In the specific case of this specific ride, Uber ought to pay out the amount they guaranteed, as you agree above, but there is no obligation of the rider to determine if or how their behavior impacts contractual language between Uber and the driver.
I thought you were, actually:
> someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).
This is a little meta, but it seems weird to describe company C getting screwed if they are "forced" to cover their contracts, even while agreeing that they ought to cover their contracts.
> What is your conception of "update" here?
No time travel required; "update" meant as Uber moves into the future and makes adjustments to how they approach new agreements. If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or use language like "expected" instead of "guaranteed", or charge a floor to future riders, or both.
In the specific case of this specific ride, Uber ought to pay out the amount they guaranteed, as you agree above, but there is no obligation of the rider to determine if or how their behavior impacts contractual language between Uber and the driver.
> it seems weird to describe
It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an argument that says, essentially, that if something is possible and/or not illegal, then it's okay, which fundamentally recasts the context of the conversation to give that perspective a kind of leverage that it doesn't have in the original, moral context.
This is all moot regarding the specific case, of course, given the reply of the original commenter, who clarified that it was not intentional (and who agrees that it would be scummy if it were intentional). But I find it disturbing the number of people here who were willing to jump in and argue for the "nyah, nyah, I'm not touching you" take, as if that were a serious argument, i.e. in the event that it were taking place in the context they desire.
But on the topic of litigating the point both figuratively and literally, legislatures and courts, not to mention private businesses, do have the power to say, essentially, "We see what you're doing. Knock that shit off." E.g., a law that addresses unfair practices by laying out that something can be a cause for action not only if a person makes an untrue statement of material fact, but also if they fail to state "a material fact necessary to make other statements made not misleading". The responses here are pretty devoid of any kind of indicator of an awareness of this, and instead come off as My First Attempt to Exploit a Legal Loophole.
> No time travel required; "update" meant
Thanks for clearing this up.
> If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or
... or charging those riders a fee that happens to correspond with the delta between the original and the new destination, or firing the rider.
It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an argument that says, essentially, that if something is possible and/or not illegal, then it's okay, which fundamentally recasts the context of the conversation to give that perspective a kind of leverage that it doesn't have in the original, moral context.
This is all moot regarding the specific case, of course, given the reply of the original commenter, who clarified that it was not intentional (and who agrees that it would be scummy if it were intentional). But I find it disturbing the number of people here who were willing to jump in and argue for the "nyah, nyah, I'm not touching you" take, as if that were a serious argument, i.e. in the event that it were taking place in the context they desire.
But on the topic of litigating the point both figuratively and literally, legislatures and courts, not to mention private businesses, do have the power to say, essentially, "We see what you're doing. Knock that shit off." E.g., a law that addresses unfair practices by laying out that something can be a cause for action not only if a person makes an untrue statement of material fact, but also if they fail to state "a material fact necessary to make other statements made not misleading". The responses here are pretty devoid of any kind of indicator of an awareness of this, and instead come off as My First Attempt to Exploit a Legal Loophole.
> No time travel required; "update" meant
Thanks for clearing this up.
> If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or
... or charging those riders a fee that happens to correspond with the delta between the original and the new destination, or firing the rider.
I totally agree if intentional it would be scummy.
The details are kind of irrelevant so I had left them out. I was going home from the airport, with a stop on the way to drop off a friend. I had a 10am call I needed to take in private, and the pickup and first stop took too long, so I re-routed my final destination to a co-working space nearby to be able to take the call.
I didn’t feel bad at all because the new drop-off point is a hugely busy spot for Uber. Driver already had another fare on queue. The original destination was out in the sticks and driver would have had to come back to the city for their next fare. It definitely worked out better for the driver with the change!
The details are kind of irrelevant so I had left them out. I was going home from the airport, with a stop on the way to drop off a friend. I had a 10am call I needed to take in private, and the pickup and first stop took too long, so I re-routed my final destination to a co-working space nearby to be able to take the call.
I didn’t feel bad at all because the new drop-off point is a hugely busy spot for Uber. Driver already had another fare on queue. The original destination was out in the sticks and driver would have had to come back to the city for their next fare. It definitely worked out better for the driver with the change!
Situations and destinations change. There is nothing "scummy" about changing where you're going on a trip you're paying for.
Any guarantees to the driver are an issue for the company to deal with.
Any guarantees to the driver are an issue for the company to deal with.
Why did you chose to direct attention to the one set of circumstances that the comment you're responding to deliberately and visibly contains a hedge for? Arguing against the comment on the unintentional side of the issue doesn't even make glancing contact with the subject that's actually in focus.
If intentional, lying about the ultimate destination and then changing it after pickup is a scummy thing to do.
If intentional, lying about the ultimate destination and then changing it after pickup is a scummy thing to do.
[deleted]
Many places have legislation that forbids taxis from discriminating based on trip destination.
If someone lives in such a place, Uber shouldn’t be allowed to incentivize one trip over another based on destination, so if a passenger circumvents any such incentives, the ethical problem really is not with the passenger.
If someone lives in such a place, Uber shouldn’t be allowed to incentivize one trip over another based on destination, so if a passenger circumvents any such incentives, the ethical problem really is not with the passenger.
Here are screenshots of the “service fees”:
https://twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399070201925312512?s=2...
https://twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399070201925312512?s=2...
Thanks for this; I'm a little confused since they still don't show the total accounting. One screen shows $11 total service charge, another shows $6 for Third-party fees (either way thats crazy Uber passes this cost on)
There is a missing $5 they're not explaining
There is a missing $5 they're not explaining
As someone who does uber eats for some side cash (I have a very small and fuel effecient car, so it actually works out gas wise for me), the 11 dollars was the total service charge. Uber then breaks it down by what they take (the first party part, not included), and any other fees are in a seperate Third party section. So from my perspective of 11 dollars total, with 6 for the third party (which they absolutely pass onto the driver), the missing 5 could be made up by the Uber first party charges.
Now I can't confirm this, I'm not on his account, and he hasn't posted it yet. But I would put a nickel on the other 5 bucks being paid directly to Uber. Which again, not uncommon.
Here's an example from a delivery I did the other day, I can get more screenshots if you want. But out of the 22 dollars the customer paid for the delivery, I received 5.61 before tip. The rest went to uber [1]
[1] https://imgur.com/a/WaNh692
Now I can't confirm this, I'm not on his account, and he hasn't posted it yet. But I would put a nickel on the other 5 bucks being paid directly to Uber. Which again, not uncommon.
Here's an example from a delivery I did the other day, I can get more screenshots if you want. But out of the 22 dollars the customer paid for the delivery, I received 5.61 before tip. The rest went to uber [1]
[1] https://imgur.com/a/WaNh692
> out of the 22 dollars the customer paid for the delivery, I received 5.61 before tip
I am completely ignorant on how this works on the driver’s side, so I could be missing something here:
Those 22 dollars the customer paid include whatever food you were delivering, right?
Now, I’m sure the Food cost/Service cost split changes from country to country (I’m somewhere in the Euro zone)… but interpolating from those numbers, I get the feeling that Uber must be subsidizing the service very heavily.
They don’t charge that much extra money to the customer, so I wonder where the profit is coming from.
I’m having trouble conceptualizing how they are making any actual profit after expenses, and in the meantime they (and their ilk) are pushing the traditional restaurant delivery network away since they cannot compete or price nor convenience.
I don’t have a conclusion for this train of thought, just a bit of shock here in the early morning.
I am completely ignorant on how this works on the driver’s side, so I could be missing something here:
Those 22 dollars the customer paid include whatever food you were delivering, right?
Now, I’m sure the Food cost/Service cost split changes from country to country (I’m somewhere in the Euro zone)… but interpolating from those numbers, I get the feeling that Uber must be subsidizing the service very heavily.
They don’t charge that much extra money to the customer, so I wonder where the profit is coming from.
I’m having trouble conceptualizing how they are making any actual profit after expenses, and in the meantime they (and their ilk) are pushing the traditional restaurant delivery network away since they cannot compete or price nor convenience.
I don’t have a conclusion for this train of thought, just a bit of shock here in the early morning.
> I’m having trouble conceptualizing how they are making any actual profit after expenses
They're not. They aren't profitable. They have never been profitable. They admit that they would not have been profitable even without COVID last year. They do not expect to be profitable until Q4 of this year - if you remove half their costs and their assumptions hold. They do not expect to actually be profitable (even on EBITDA) for even longer.
http://techcrunch.com/2021/02/12/will-ride-hailing-profits-e...
> in the meantime they (and their ilk) are pushing the traditional restaurant delivery network away since they cannot compete or price nor convenience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
They're not. They aren't profitable. They have never been profitable. They admit that they would not have been profitable even without COVID last year. They do not expect to be profitable until Q4 of this year - if you remove half their costs and their assumptions hold. They do not expect to actually be profitable (even on EBITDA) for even longer.
http://techcrunch.com/2021/02/12/will-ride-hailing-profits-e...
> in the meantime they (and their ilk) are pushing the traditional restaurant delivery network away since they cannot compete or price nor convenience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
That’s insane. 25% went to you.
Update from Uber Support 30 minutes ago https://mobile.twitter.com/Uber_Support/status/1399149311175...
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention,
@TheSofaaa
. We believe this is due to a technical bug, which we are actively investigating. We apologize to you and any other drivers who may be impacted, all of whom will be fully refunded."
But the OP also has a screenshot(1) of Uber's fare review saying they were in fact charged correctly. So the review process is broken as well?
^1 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399079166046314...
But the OP also has a screenshot(1) of Uber's fare review saying they were in fact charged correctly. So the review process is broken as well?
^1 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399079166046314...
[deleted]
the fare review probably triggered the same bug
The verbiage specifically says "your fare was within our estimates", but wouldn't negative fares at least be flagged as out of range?
The fact that one of the most important parts of the billing system of a billion dollar corporation lacks >0 check is really bizarre
Maybe they have to use negative fares for some reason?
Maybe they have to use negative fares for some reason?
Negative fares for what tho? Taxis have a minimum for just getting in the car. Seems like Uber could figure out some minimum so that the driver isn’t being charged to work. Is hostile design with complete disregard for all users.
Yeah I think that usually is how it works. The question is how many of these mistakes have happened.
I'd guess the fare review only covers the $9.06 listed as fare, and not the service fees/net earnings
That's not a review.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but does that mean that Uber refunded their employee the $2.20 they paid for doing their job, so driver ended up with exactly $0 after this trip?
[deleted]
Was wondering the exact same thing! Talk about a raw deal.
It's a bit terrifying that people on twitter seem to think this is an intentional product decision rather than a bug plus shitty automated support with no human in the loop.
I guess if you keep setting OKRs like "5% lower support call volume" for years then at some point your reputational risk goes up because you've made it impossible to contact an actual human being.
I guess if you keep setting OKRs like "5% lower support call volume" for years then at some point your reputational risk goes up because you've made it impossible to contact an actual human being.
Uber, Doordash, and the like have consistently played games with payments, fees, and tips; an intentional decision would just be par for the course, to see how much you can get away with and toe the line before enough people complain.
[deleted]
Complaining will do nothing. They will continue this behavior until they're forced to change through regulation.
Even if you ignore Uber’s history of screwing people and lying about it, if this is a bug the decision not to test core software and have ineffective support is an intentional product decision. Senior management sets the structures which make things like this a predictable outcome.
"Shitty automated support with no human in the loop" is an intentional product decision, and so are the consequences of it.
Why is it terrifying? It's accurate.
A bug plus shitty automated support with no human in the loop is an intentional product decision. They could have humans in the loop. They could have human support. They could make bugs like this more easily remediable. But they don't. On purpose. To the extent that their "fare review process" and the app failed. Now it's going to be fixed by some PR person. Because it's still cheaper, apparently, than the alternative design decisions.
This outcome is a result of their intentional product decisions.
A bug plus shitty automated support with no human in the loop is an intentional product decision. They could have humans in the loop. They could have human support. They could make bugs like this more easily remediable. But they don't. On purpose. To the extent that their "fare review process" and the app failed. Now it's going to be fixed by some PR person. Because it's still cheaper, apparently, than the alternative design decisions.
This outcome is a result of their intentional product decisions.
I'm pretty sure that at no point did anyone sit down and say "let's charge drivers for trips". It's clearly the unintended consequence of real product decisions, but it's equally clearly not a new strategic direction to bill the supply side of the market.
It's terrifying because it illustrates the lack of trust that the general public has in tech. Instead of "looks like someone's having a bad day at the Uber office, guess they'll fix it soon," it's a plot trialling a new form of exploitation. Two replies in, someone wants to nationalise the company. That's a lot of lost trust.
It's terrifying because it illustrates the lack of trust that the general public has in tech. Instead of "looks like someone's having a bad day at the Uber office, guess they'll fix it soon," it's a plot trialling a new form of exploitation. Two replies in, someone wants to nationalise the company. That's a lot of lost trust.
They had many years of time to address this class of issues, and sometimes it has consistently gotten worse, not better. Why would the trust not go down?
I don't know, why would the trust not go down? Is this a riddle? Of course trust has gone down.
I'm not saying it's unexpected, I'm remarking on adverse market conditions that will affect most of HN.
I'm not saying it's unexpected, I'm remarking on adverse market conditions that will affect most of HN.
No, but they did say, "let's take a fixed fraction of total charges" rather then "let's take a fixed fraction of the amount after paying third parties", not realizing the former could be more than the driver's share.
Yeah, but the ramifications of the unending automation is indeed exactly the impossible-to-deal-with bugs. The fact of the matter is that Uber (the company, not any specific PMs/Engineers inside it) decided that this was unnaceptable loss of money and they instead shift that to the customers. That decision, to not "invest" in support, is completely conscious by the founders/investors to make the business more viable, because at their scale, support can be quite expensive.
In other words, technology is bringing scale and leaving the cost of the rounding errors to the most vulnerable.
In other words, technology is bringing scale and leaving the cost of the rounding errors to the most vulnerable.
Yes, but that's still a different thing than "a human sat down and decided that there would be trips that would cost the driver money to run; and that Uber wouldn't announce this change."
One is an emergent consequence — the "banality of evil", a property of the corporation itself. The other is active malfeasance — something that's not so much even about the corporation as about an individual horrible person in a decision-making role, where the correct move for customers/employees is to boycott the decision-maker, rather than the company; and where the correct move for the company is to fire the decision-maker, and distance themselves from them as much as possible. (Unless it keeps happening with different people in the same company, at which point it becomes a thing about the company's culture.)
One is an emergent consequence — the "banality of evil", a property of the corporation itself. The other is active malfeasance — something that's not so much even about the corporation as about an individual horrible person in a decision-making role, where the correct move for customers/employees is to boycott the decision-maker, rather than the company; and where the correct move for the company is to fire the decision-maker, and distance themselves from them as much as possible. (Unless it keeps happening with different people in the same company, at which point it becomes a thing about the company's culture.)
Businesses deliberately plan for and rely on people like you making that distinction, even though you shouldn’t. Why should it matter? The consumer is fucked either way.
For the same reason that if some kind of Cordyceps-like brain-parasite were to infect a person and make them murder people, that wouldn't be that person's fault. Especially if the brain parasite could be removed, reverting their personality to normal. I wouldn't hold that against the person going forward (unless they for some reason actively pursued further brain-parasite infections as a general preference.)
Companies can be evil on a structural level. But also, companies that aren't evil on a structural level, can be parasitized by evil individuals. Unless the company actively pursues hiring evil individuals, why would you hold the latter against them?
The point of companies having reputations is to predict what they'll do, and thereby trade with companies for which trade with them will predictably be positive-sum, and avoid trade with companies that would predictably be zero-sum or negative-sum.
A company itself being evil on a structural level, predicts that in the future it will do many zero- or negative-sum things, regardless of employee turnover.
A company that is not evil on a structural level, hiring one evil individual, who does an evil thing and then gets fired, doesn't predict any future evil behavior from the company.
Companies can be evil on a structural level. But also, companies that aren't evil on a structural level, can be parasitized by evil individuals. Unless the company actively pursues hiring evil individuals, why would you hold the latter against them?
The point of companies having reputations is to predict what they'll do, and thereby trade with companies for which trade with them will predictably be positive-sum, and avoid trade with companies that would predictably be zero-sum or negative-sum.
A company itself being evil on a structural level, predicts that in the future it will do many zero- or negative-sum things, regardless of employee turnover.
A company that is not evil on a structural level, hiring one evil individual, who does an evil thing and then gets fired, doesn't predict any future evil behavior from the company.
That's an interesting way of framing the issue. By that logic, while active malfeasance may be the scenario that generates more outrage, it's actually the banal/emergent evil that represents more of a reason to avoid a business because between the two it's much harder to fix.
I don't know where the talk about evil individuals came from - Uber's billing is not the result of a single "potentially evil" individual. Instead it is the result of the company culture and processes. This incident was not an intentional decision to charge drivers to work, but still a predictable outcome of the way they operate, and thus indistinguishable from actual malice from the perspective of the customer, both in terms of result and predictive value.
> I don't know where the talk about evil individuals came from - Uber's billing is not the result of a single "potentially evil" individual.
It's what would be true for the situation outlined in the root comment of this subthread to pertain: that it was "an intentional product decision."
For that to be true, there would need to be an individual that made that decision, with the thought-process I outlined in my first comment. Such a thought-process wouldn't just be sociopathic (zero-sum), it'd be negative-sum/"evil". It would be a choice to hurt both drivers, and the corporation itself (when people inevitably find out), and oneself (when blame is inevitably pointed at them.) For what? Who knows. Evil. (Industrial sabotage, maybe.)
Obviously, like another commenter said, this wasn't an intentional product decision. (It was maybe an intentional project management decision, but one made in by no one individual.)
But that same commenter rhetorically asked why it mattered whether it was an intentional product decision or not. That's why I explained the difference. Acts of evil individuals that have parasitized good companies shouldn't reflect on those companies (once the evil individual is removed.) Acts of structural evil — acts that are generated from an algorithm the corporation is following as a whole, and would still follow if you replaced every employee ship-of-Theseus style — should reflect on the company itself.
This, of course, is an example of the latter kind of act, one that should reflect on the company itself.
But it's important to distinguish these acts from acts that are, in fact, committed by bad actors that have "infiltrated" the company. For the same reason that we distinguish "terrorism" from "domestic terrorism." The latter — domestic terrorism — can, in some ways, be "a reflection of the culture of the country." When there's a school shooting, we can ask what the country is doing wrong that leads to people like this cropping up. But the former — plain old terrorism — is not, and cannot, reflect on the country. The person who committed the act wasn't even an enculturated citizen of the country, so what would it tell us about the country?
It's what would be true for the situation outlined in the root comment of this subthread to pertain: that it was "an intentional product decision."
For that to be true, there would need to be an individual that made that decision, with the thought-process I outlined in my first comment. Such a thought-process wouldn't just be sociopathic (zero-sum), it'd be negative-sum/"evil". It would be a choice to hurt both drivers, and the corporation itself (when people inevitably find out), and oneself (when blame is inevitably pointed at them.) For what? Who knows. Evil. (Industrial sabotage, maybe.)
Obviously, like another commenter said, this wasn't an intentional product decision. (It was maybe an intentional project management decision, but one made in by no one individual.)
But that same commenter rhetorically asked why it mattered whether it was an intentional product decision or not. That's why I explained the difference. Acts of evil individuals that have parasitized good companies shouldn't reflect on those companies (once the evil individual is removed.) Acts of structural evil — acts that are generated from an algorithm the corporation is following as a whole, and would still follow if you replaced every employee ship-of-Theseus style — should reflect on the company itself.
This, of course, is an example of the latter kind of act, one that should reflect on the company itself.
But it's important to distinguish these acts from acts that are, in fact, committed by bad actors that have "infiltrated" the company. For the same reason that we distinguish "terrorism" from "domestic terrorism." The latter — domestic terrorism — can, in some ways, be "a reflection of the culture of the country." When there's a school shooting, we can ask what the country is doing wrong that leads to people like this cropping up. But the former — plain old terrorism — is not, and cannot, reflect on the country. The person who committed the act wasn't even an enculturated citizen of the country, so what would it tell us about the country?
You're missing the actually relevant case: the company hires evil individuals on a regular basis.
I believe the term we are looking for is 'terrifying accurate'.
It won't be long before we have a daily post here on HN called Killed by Algorithms, and every story will be different.
It won't be long before we have a daily post here on HN called Killed by Algorithms, and every story will be different.
I'll start it off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Bugs like this happen sometimes. I used to work at Uber, here is what happens with bugs like this:
A lot of the people in the comments here are reacting negatively to the fact that support tickets are partially automated. However, there are a few things to note.
The first is that fare calculation code is very complicated, it involves lots of geofence calculations (e.g. to detect toll roads or bridges) and in some cases there are other location-dependent rules, various promotions may be running, etc. The only people at Uber who are qualified to determine whether or not there is a fare calculation bug are the engineers who actually work on fare calculation code. Sometimes there are obvious errors (like in this example), but in most cases the fare calculation bugs are subtle enough that support agents wouldn't actually be able to verify if the code is wrong. Even if the support person could tell there was an error (as in this example) the best they could do would be to escalate the issue to engineering and wait for a fare calc engineer to investigate.
Additionally, besides support tickets there are a lot of other monitoring systems that look for abnormal deviations in number of trips happening, fares, etc. If there is a major bug affecting something like fare calculation it will show up in these metrics and someone will investigate.
I don't work at Uber anymore so I don't know the specifics of how this bug was handled. But in general I would say that bugs do happen sometimes, and Uber has policies that seem reasonable (to me) for detecting the problems and correcting any erroneous payments made.
- Some engineer will get paged, look at the incident, and eventually the root cause of the bug will be found.
- The root cause of the bug will be fixed to prevent it from happening on new trips, new fare calc tests will be added, etc.
- Engineers will identify which commit introduced the bug and which dates/trips are possible affected.
- Someone will run a batch job that recalculates fares for all of the trips that might be affected, and payments will be made to any drivers who were underpaid.
A lot of the people in the comments here are reacting negatively to the fact that support tickets are partially automated. However, there are a few things to note.
The first is that fare calculation code is very complicated, it involves lots of geofence calculations (e.g. to detect toll roads or bridges) and in some cases there are other location-dependent rules, various promotions may be running, etc. The only people at Uber who are qualified to determine whether or not there is a fare calculation bug are the engineers who actually work on fare calculation code. Sometimes there are obvious errors (like in this example), but in most cases the fare calculation bugs are subtle enough that support agents wouldn't actually be able to verify if the code is wrong. Even if the support person could tell there was an error (as in this example) the best they could do would be to escalate the issue to engineering and wait for a fare calc engineer to investigate.
Additionally, besides support tickets there are a lot of other monitoring systems that look for abnormal deviations in number of trips happening, fares, etc. If there is a major bug affecting something like fare calculation it will show up in these metrics and someone will investigate.
I don't work at Uber anymore so I don't know the specifics of how this bug was handled. But in general I would say that bugs do happen sometimes, and Uber has policies that seem reasonable (to me) for detecting the problems and correcting any erroneous payments made.
And, on average, how many drivers/passengers are permabanned before any engineer is paged?
It might be a "bug' from uber's perspective. For we mortals they interfere with basic economic functions. When my grocery store overcharges me for something they can can push a fix to me within seconds. The customer service person doesnt need an engineer to see that potatoes shouldnt cost that much. And they are empowered to correct the error immediately, with cash in hand if necessary. Nobody at uber has such power.
It might be a "bug' from uber's perspective. For we mortals they interfere with basic economic functions. When my grocery store overcharges me for something they can can push a fix to me within seconds. The customer service person doesnt need an engineer to see that potatoes shouldnt cost that much. And they are empowered to correct the error immediately, with cash in hand if necessary. Nobody at uber has such power.
The Uber fare calculation engineers should add a geofence at $-0.0.
[deleted]
It will take massive fines and employment regulation to change anything. Uber will continue and defend this type of behavior until they're made to do otherwise.
No. It will take a driver shortage. Or a rider shortage.
They’re just recently coming out of one of those.
Uber's handling of edge cases is...something.
My wife is banned for life from Uber because after she was overcharged by a driver by $80 (for a five minute ride), and after Uber denied her dispute of the fraudulent charge, she flagged the fraudulent charge with the credit card company and got refunded via that route. I don't think a human was in the loop for any step of this process on Uber's end.
My wife is banned for life from Uber because after she was overcharged by a driver by $80 (for a five minute ride), and after Uber denied her dispute of the fraudulent charge, she flagged the fraudulent charge with the credit card company and got refunded via that route. I don't think a human was in the loop for any step of this process on Uber's end.
This is such a big thing nowadays and it needs regulation. Dispute a charge on Steam? Banned for life. Return one too many item according to some neural network on Amazon? Banned for life. Do nothing wrong at all? Random chance to wake up to a banned Google account, no recourse. Your business runs on GCP? Bad luck.
There need to be serious consequences for this "the computer made a mistake" bullshit.
There need to be serious consequences for this "the computer made a mistake" bullshit.
Disputing charges with a credit card is an interesting thing. It's a consumer being able to unilaterally say "give me my money back" and the merchant basically being stuck with the tab. Doing a chargeback means the relationship between consumer and merchant is ineffective that they can't resolve their differences normally. That the merchant doesn't want to risk more money on serving such a customer in the future is perfectly rational.
I hate having to dispute charges with the CC company because I don’t like the idea that the merchant gets stuck with the bill, but I have done it on a few occasions where I felt like I had absolutely no recourse. I recently had to do this with one of those gigantic furniture warehouse places. I paid full retail price + delivery and setup changes for a bed. The guys came and set up the bed, but it had some greasy smudges all over the headboard and some other ones issues I can’t recall, so I called to complain and they basically gave me the runaround and said there’s nothing we can do because I didn’t reject the item right away and that it was only cosmetic. I wasted my time begging and pleading with store management and their customer satisfaction department, but there was never any real resolution. In the end they offered me a $100 gift certificate towards my next purchase. I felt insulted and exhausted at that point and kindly informed them that I would be doing a chargeback. “ok”, they said. The next day I got a credit for the full cost, which IIRC was about $900. I honestly felt horrible for doing that because I essentially got the bed free. I suppose the company’s policies simply didn’t allow them to actually do the right thing and fix or replace the bed. Perhaps it was simply less costly for them to eat the coat of a chargeback instead of paying someone to fix the problem or replace it due to labor and other costs.
Some of the chargebacks get eaten by the merchant, and some get eaten by the credit card company’s “satisfaction guarantee” (which is accounted as a form of insurance).
Rational? Maybe for them. But when they refuse to help the consumer, it’s the customer’s right to issue a chargeback. That’s their purpose: to deal with bad merchants. Too many chargebacks can get you dropped from your payment processor. But when the merchant bans you to hide the fact that they suck (from the processor), that’s pretty messed up.
> It's a consumer being able to unilaterally say "give me my money back" and the merchant basically being stuck with the tab.
That's not even remotely true. The merchant absolutely has the ability to dispute chargebacks.
That's not even remotely true. The merchant absolutely has the ability to dispute chargebacks.
Yes, but the bank takes the money immediately after accepting the chargeback. The merchant can provide evidence and dispute it to get their money back, but it is immediately withdrawn. And, if I’m remembering correctly, along with a fee.
Assuming the merchant is 100% honest and accurate, yes this is rational. If the merchant is error-prone and doesn't want their occasional erroneous (or intentional) overcharges affecting their relationship with credit services, it's also rational.
The credit card company is the one that holds the power I guess. I wonder if someday visa will start threatening merchants who retaliate via bans as an extra card feature.
Previously, Visa(?) had tried to prevent merchants from having separate cash and debit/credit prices (gas stations for example), and they got in trouble with “monopoly laws”. So I wouldn’t hold my breath on them retaliating on merchants who ban customers.
It's not a guaranteed refund. It's just another dispute resolution, but done by the card issuer rather than the merchant.
Often they will side with the consumer and will refund the charges through their various policies, but they also investigate the case and will let the payment go through if there's no actual problem found. There are plenty of cases where consumers didn't even contact the merchant at all and yet still chargeback.
Often they will side with the consumer and will refund the charges through their various policies, but they also investigate the case and will let the payment go through if there's no actual problem found. There are plenty of cases where consumers didn't even contact the merchant at all and yet still chargeback.
I think most chargebacks are by fraudsters and carderz.
> It's a consumer being able to unilaterally say "give me my money back"
That is actually not true. The credit card company must follow established guidelines and pragmatically look at the available information/user agreement/contract and decide on whether there was a breach of contract. They can not blindly stick the bill to the business.
That is actually not true. The credit card company must follow established guidelines and pragmatically look at the available information/user agreement/contract and decide on whether there was a breach of contract. They can not blindly stick the bill to the business.
Merchants can appeal. And if they do, you can be out of luck - they can lie that they did provide you with a service, and you won’t have access to any of their statements to respond to them. It’s many months long process but possible.
Source - happened to me. Ended up relationship with both the merchant and credit card company. And have $2k less in my wallet.
Source - happened to me. Ended up relationship with both the merchant and credit card company. And have $2k less in my wallet.
> It's a consumer being able to unilaterally say "give me my money back" and the merchant basically being stuck with the tab.
The merchant is stuck with more than the tab. There's also a chargeback fee, which can range from around $15 to several times that depending on who they use for payment processing.
> Doing a chargeback means the relationship between consumer and merchant is ineffective that they can't resolve their differences normally.
Sometimes it means that the customer didn't even try to resolve the dispute. At one place I worked we always gave a refund when one was requested, with no hassle. Some customers, though, would not ask. They would go straight to chargeback.
I think that because some companies make it a major hassle to get them to issue a refund, some consumers try to do a chargeback first and only call the merchant if the bank requires them to try to settle the issue directly first.
The merchant is stuck with more than the tab. There's also a chargeback fee, which can range from around $15 to several times that depending on who they use for payment processing.
> Doing a chargeback means the relationship between consumer and merchant is ineffective that they can't resolve their differences normally.
Sometimes it means that the customer didn't even try to resolve the dispute. At one place I worked we always gave a refund when one was requested, with no hassle. Some customers, though, would not ask. They would go straight to chargeback.
I think that because some companies make it a major hassle to get them to issue a refund, some consumers try to do a chargeback first and only call the merchant if the bank requires them to try to settle the issue directly first.
> Some customers, though, would not ask. They would go straight to chargeback.
I was always under the impression that if consumers did this sort of thing too often it would end up hurting them because the CC company would start to flag their account.
Sort of an algorithmic version of "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
I was always under the impression that if consumers did this sort of thing too often it would end up hurting them because the CC company would start to flag their account.
Sort of an algorithmic version of "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
maybe if chargebacks are so bad try to invest in better dispute resoluton processes
No this actually puts the merchant and customer on equal footing. The card company has an incentive to please both sides.
It certainly feels illegal to have the threat of a ban when you make a good faith report of fraudulent charges. A business could have a pattern of deliberate overcharges that they layer in with regular transactions with the knowledge that enough users will just give in and eat the fraudulent charge to avoid losing access to the service. If the business has run the numbers and found that it's a net gain in profits from this practice, there would be a reasonable (if completely corrupt) motive for operating the scam.
Regarding the dead sibling comment, it's never RICO.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
As these systems become monopolies - or at least defacto standards - these blanket bans without insight into the process, appeal, or even notification is getting ugly.
Right now, it's "only" a frustration in most cases but what happens when Amazon bans you while PillPack is how you receive your meds?
Right now, it's "only" a frustration in most cases but what happens when Amazon bans you while PillPack is how you receive your meds?
Sounds like the movie Brazil to me. Or Computers Don't Argue.
“Your business runs on GCP? Bad luck.”
Luck has nothing to do with it. That’s bad planning. Really bad.
Luck has nothing to do with it. That’s bad planning. Really bad.
The “Does your business run on GCP?” needs to be understood by every VP out there. If you are a software company, and a _cough_ security company, that’s all in on GCP, you don’t know what you are doing.
Can you say more? The risk of account locks seems very similar on any of the major cloud providers? A brief search shows similar complaints on AWS, for example.
Indeed. AWS has kicked customers off too. Never said they didn’t. I’ve heard more stories from people getting booted from GCP than AWS. By order of 10x it seems like. I’m sure someone’s been kicked off Azure too. Hybrid cloud with some on-prem backup solution is the only way to truly be cloud agnostic and protect yourself and your data from deletion due to a variety of issues. GCP kicked off a game developer (and deleted his data). AWS kicked off Parler. What I’m saying is that if you’re a VP in charge of cloud strategy, make sure you have a solid DR plan should you intentionally or unintentionally run afoul of that providers rules. Either from policy or politically. Doesn’t matter. GCP just has more of a track record in my news feed of deplatforming than AWS.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/terraria-developer-c...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/terraria-developer-c...
> What I’m saying is that if you’re a VP in charge of cloud strategy, make sure you have a solid DR plan should you intentionally or unintentionally run afoul of that providers rules.
Really all you need is a mediocre Plan A: don't run afoul of the providers' rules. It's not hard. AWS hosts a lot of content that's even more offensive than Parler, the thing that got Parler in trouble was they weren't able or willing to act on Amazon's demand that they promptly remove content that encouraged or incited violence. So if you're running a platform that hosts content like that, or you're breaking the law or generally breaking the pretty straightforward rules, yeah, have a Plan B, C and D ready to go at a moment's notice. Most of us aren't running things that cater to people who are into political violence or other liability-causing activities so it's not a thing we need to spend a lot of time and money planning for.
Only exception to this rule would be GCP or any other company that's widely known for atrocious service and capricious, random bans.
Really all you need is a mediocre Plan A: don't run afoul of the providers' rules. It's not hard. AWS hosts a lot of content that's even more offensive than Parler, the thing that got Parler in trouble was they weren't able or willing to act on Amazon's demand that they promptly remove content that encouraged or incited violence. So if you're running a platform that hosts content like that, or you're breaking the law or generally breaking the pretty straightforward rules, yeah, have a Plan B, C and D ready to go at a moment's notice. Most of us aren't running things that cater to people who are into political violence or other liability-causing activities so it's not a thing we need to spend a lot of time and money planning for.
Only exception to this rule would be GCP or any other company that's widely known for atrocious service and capricious, random bans.
That's fair. In my news feed, this is mostly an issue for independent developers than companies (all providers). We are a startup (year and change old) and we have human contacts in GCP. And not because we have personal connections in GCP teams. GCP reached out to us, we have had a few calls and so on, like any normal vendor. Our experience has been totally contrary to what I hear from independent developers.
If you can get a signed enterprise agreement it's not as bad. I would do the same if I was on AWS (in fact, we did at the company I worked for) or Azure. My news feeds have a horror story every few months from someone getting locked out/banned/deleted from GCP though.
> she was overcharged by a driver
Drivers don't charge riders - Uber does.
Drivers don't charge riders - Uber does.
When she got out of the Uber, the driver continued driving for a long time before "ending" the ride, and the tab ran the entire time which racked up extra charges.
I thought the ride automatically ended, geo-fenced to the destination. Is that not the case?
Nope. If you've ever taken an uber/lyft ride before you will know that the driver has to tap the end button in order for the final bill to show up on your phone app.
Auto-ending rides doesn't even make sense. If the final destination pin happens to be in the middle of a highway off ramp (due to a map error) would you want the app to "autoend" the ride on the offramp (and kick the passenger out on the shoulder), or let the driver do the sensible thing, get off the ramp and pull over to a safer location to let the person off?
This case happens especially often at airports, where the passenger drop off area can literally be represented on the maps as "side of the highway" but in fact, there are traffic loops that the driver needs to navigate in order to comply with traffic rules and routing at airports.
Auto-ending rides doesn't even make sense. If the final destination pin happens to be in the middle of a highway off ramp (due to a map error) would you want the app to "autoend" the ride on the offramp (and kick the passenger out on the shoulder), or let the driver do the sensible thing, get off the ramp and pull over to a safer location to let the person off?
This case happens especially often at airports, where the passenger drop off area can literally be represented on the maps as "side of the highway" but in fact, there are traffic loops that the driver needs to navigate in order to comply with traffic rules and routing at airports.
nope. As a driver, you never know when your passenger is gonna be like, "I'm gonna change my mind, let's go all the way to santa barbara instead". Both you and UBER/lyft want that ride. Surprised-not-surprised that uber doesn't send the client app a message asking for approval.
Maybe they added this recently:
> Using sensors and GPS data, RideCheck can help detect if a trip goes unusually off-course or a possible crash has occurred. If the app notices such events, we’ll check in on you and offer resources to get help.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/safety/
> Using sensors and GPS data, RideCheck can help detect if a trip goes unusually off-course or a possible crash has occurred. If the app notices such events, we’ll check in on you and offer resources to get help.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/safety/
I once suggested my driver to drop me off before the destination as it was more convenient and he said no, that he really had to go to the exact agreed upon destination. I presumed it was for insurance purposes, like if something happens in the interval I was supposed to be in the car.
Definitely lying to you. Thinking about it, what happened to you is kidnapping. If you ask to be let out of the car,the driver MUST honor your wishes and drop you off as soon as it's safe to do so.
The driver must end the ride, but the GPS is tracked on both devices and a driver that is far away from the rider on the same "trip" will cause an alert.
I've only been a passenger while someone else has ordered (?) an Uber, but my understanding is you say "take me to X location" in the app and then the ride completes when the GPS coordinates of the car roughly match that of the endpoint. Even if doing a multi-part trip (e.g. to drop off multiple people in different places) this is negotiated beforehand and accounted for.
How did this "attack" work, did the driver override the destination somehow?
How did this "attack" work, did the driver override the destination somehow?
I quit using Uber a few years ago when I was overcharged a higher surge multiplier than I agreed to and support was adamant that it couldn’t have been a bug.
My wife’s Uber account (for both rides and food) is banned for life because she had a sleazy driver aggressively come on to her and when she went to get out of the car he said “I know where you live now” and drove off. She complained to Uber, they did nothing other than say “the driver left negative feedback on your ride” and her account got instantly banned. Follow up calls to them just said she “broke terms and conditions and there’s nothing they can do”.
For perspective, she had a similar sleazy taxi driver years ago, who she complained about to the taxi company. He was fired immediately and the taxi company offered to help my wife with going to the police if she wanted to (and offered the in-car video).
Thankfully we still have taxis locally, but the drivers have told me their numbers have dropped and Uber is winning.
For perspective, she had a similar sleazy taxi driver years ago, who she complained about to the taxi company. He was fired immediately and the taxi company offered to help my wife with going to the police if she wanted to (and offered the in-car video).
Thankfully we still have taxis locally, but the drivers have told me their numbers have dropped and Uber is winning.
Wow, that's great to hear the taxi company stepped up, but I'm completely shocked by it! In the decade of taxi experiences prior to Uber/Lyft/ridesharing almost every taxi experience was absolutely awful. Driving erratically, on the phone, can't (or won't) take cards, won't take the route I said, literally kicking me and my spouse out of the cab and yelling at us for saying they needed to make a left turn instead of right (we lived in the area and knew where we were going). I'm convinced that a taxi driver has to literally kill someone before any action will be taken against them. I've found that Uber/Lyft usually tends to side with the rider but, like you shared, that's not always the case. The mutual rating system is a net plus IMO. Every cab company is different I guess, but I will never set foot in a cab again out of principle.
I've found the taxi drivers here to be really good. Most are older career-driver types who are really nice and know the city back to front, unlike the Uber drivers who are looking at their GPS more than the road or take wrong turns repeatedly.
I think location matters lots, the last city I lived in I avoided taxis at all costs because I found them to be more like you're saying... aggressive, clueless, dirty, etc.
I think location matters lots, the last city I lived in I avoided taxis at all costs because I found them to be more like you're saying... aggressive, clueless, dirty, etc.
The house always wins.
It's past time to nerf these yahoos. Civilize them. Impose tort, fair and impartial judiciary, right to appeal, property rights, and accountability & transparency.
It's past time to nerf these yahoos. Civilize them. Impose tort, fair and impartial judiciary, right to appeal, property rights, and accountability & transparency.
I'm not on any side, but I would love to make an observation.
> she had a similar sleazy taxi driver years ago, who she complained about to the taxi company. He was fired immediately
This actually scares me more than Uber banning your wife. I'm not saying you or your wife lied, but it's sad how just a complaint by a woman can ruin any man's life. (I'm assuming your wife didn't have any evidence and the taxi company just fired the driver due to her complaint.)
> she had a similar sleazy taxi driver years ago, who she complained about to the taxi company. He was fired immediately
This actually scares me more than Uber banning your wife. I'm not saying you or your wife lied, but it's sad how just a complaint by a woman can ruin any man's life. (I'm assuming your wife didn't have any evidence and the taxi company just fired the driver due to her complaint.)
I think you missed the part where the poster says the taxi company "...offered the in-car video."
Presumably they watched the aforementioned video recording of his behavior before firing him
[deleted]
You missed the part about the video surveillance
Whether or not it is fair, people should be aware that chargebacks are a nuclear option, at least in the US.
Sometimes they get hailed as a magic wand on consumer-advocate sites, but if you issue a chargeback with your bank, you should be prepared to completely sever relations with the vendor.
Sometimes they get hailed as a magic wand on consumer-advocate sites, but if you issue a chargeback with your bank, you should be prepared to completely sever relations with the vendor.
In my wife's case, Uber compounded the bad experience of a blatant overcharge by casually, automatically dismissing her when she flagged it with them, with no option to appeal to a human. Sloppy business practice built on sloppy automation. Permanently severing relations with them was a really easy call.
Uber Support on Twitter:
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @TheSofaaa . We believe this is due to a technical bug, which we are actively investigating. We apologize to you and any other drivers who may be impacted, all of whom will be fully refunded."
It's kind of sad that these days the only way to get real support is to make noise on Twitter. And probably 95% of the time posts don't get that initial snowball to make noise.
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @TheSofaaa . We believe this is due to a technical bug, which we are actively investigating. We apologize to you and any other drivers who may be impacted, all of whom will be fully refunded."
It's kind of sad that these days the only way to get real support is to make noise on Twitter. And probably 95% of the time posts don't get that initial snowball to make noise.
I suspect it’s not really the public nature of Twitter that makes its responses better, it’s simply that internal procedures empower people manning social media to fix customer problems more effectively than the normal customer support channels.
I don’t have Twitter, but I have complained to companies via Facebook (which at this point I don’t notably use either, but still have an account) private messages, and have had my problem fixed efficiently after complete failure via multiple other methods of contact. (Those companies being Vodacom South Africa who kept sending me some customer’s invoices, and Uber Eats, which made a complete mess of an order in multiple ways.)
I don’t have Twitter, but I have complained to companies via Facebook (which at this point I don’t notably use either, but still have an account) private messages, and have had my problem fixed efficiently after complete failure via multiple other methods of contact. (Those companies being Vodacom South Africa who kept sending me some customer’s invoices, and Uber Eats, which made a complete mess of an order in multiple ways.)
Yeah that's true. I was at an acquaintance's party on the rooftop of a sleek, modern apartment building near Berkeley and a tile came loose and almost fell through the floor, opening up a void into some machinery that this friend could have easily fallen through and gotten seriously injured, but with quick reactions we saved them from falling through.
The acquaintance didn't care to do anything about it so I sent e-mails to their property management the next day, and got no response. I then shamed the property management co on their Facebook page in comments with photos of the void and that got a prompt response.
The acquaintance didn't care to do anything about it so I sent e-mails to their property management the next day, and got no response. I then shamed the property management co on their Facebook page in comments with photos of the void and that got a prompt response.
To be clear, I’m saying that I sent private messages to the company on FB, I didn’t post comments to any public location. From a company’s point of view, there wouldn’t be any difference between ignoring my emails or ignoring my FB messages, it’s purely a procedural difference in how they respond to one vs the other.
When will people realize Uber is a bad and evil company. From the get go, with waht they did to others in the sector, how they treat drivers and clients... I really can't believe anybody is still using them...
But they were cheaper!
... while illegally operating at a loss without a permit to drive the competition out of the space.
... while illegally operating at a loss without a permit to drive the competition out of the space.
TBH, I think the understated selling feature for Uber/Lyft was that they'd show you a price in advance of actually summoning the car.
No reason a taxi service couldn't offer the same experience, but you see a lot of scenarios where that's not an option.
Before Covid, I'd go to the head office in the suburbs of Chicago twice a year. The first few times, I took a taxi from the stand and watched powerlessly as the meter ticked up and up, not knowing when it would stop. With Lyft, I could at least see if it would be $25 or 65 before I agreed to summon the vehicle.
In other news, I wish Metra would go straight to and from O'hare.
No reason a taxi service couldn't offer the same experience, but you see a lot of scenarios where that's not an option.
Before Covid, I'd go to the head office in the suburbs of Chicago twice a year. The first few times, I took a taxi from the stand and watched powerlessly as the meter ticked up and up, not knowing when it would stop. With Lyft, I could at least see if it would be $25 or 65 before I agreed to summon the vehicle.
In other news, I wish Metra would go straight to and from O'hare.
The difference is that taxi services usually had one single rate no matter the time or day (at least where I'm at).
Indeed. My account has been locked since 2015 due to a similar edge case.
My card was stolen after taking a ride so I reported it. This prevented a ride charge from going through. Uber locked my account, which then prevented me from paying.
Uber support's assistance was Kafkaesque.
They advised that I could reactivate my account by logging in and paying the balance. I told them I couldn't. Around and around we went.
So I just use Lyft now.
My card was stolen after taking a ride so I reported it. This prevented a ride charge from going through. Uber locked my account, which then prevented me from paying.
Uber support's assistance was Kafkaesque.
They advised that I could reactivate my account by logging in and paying the balance. I told them I couldn't. Around and around we went.
So I just use Lyft now.
> after she was overcharged by a driver
How's that? Drivers don't set the fare, Uber does.
How's that? Drivers don't set the fare, Uber does.
13.5 miles in 16 minutes. Including stopping? That seems a little quick. Perhaps it was an automatically charged speeding fine ;)
The map appears to show the route as being mostly highway, with the destination being the airport. Depending on the time of day it wouldn't be unreasonable for that to average to about 60mph.
Obviously, the system shouldn’t be allowing negative fares to occur. Uber needs to eat the cost on those and provide some minimum payout floor for the driver.
The driver posted more details further down in the thread showing some of the charges: https://twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399070201925312512?s=2... Ironically, the negative balance appears to be due to regulatory fees applied haphazardly. This includes a $5 surcharge from the airport and two charges from the city of Chicago.
It seems like the correct solution would be to pass those charges to the customer, not the driver. I don’t know how they came up with the idea of charging the driver.
The driver posted more details further down in the thread showing some of the charges: https://twitter.com/TheSofaaa/status/1399070201925312512?s=2... Ironically, the negative balance appears to be due to regulatory fees applied haphazardly. This includes a $5 surcharge from the airport and two charges from the city of Chicago.
It seems like the correct solution would be to pass those charges to the customer, not the driver. I don’t know how they came up with the idea of charging the driver.
A minimum net hourly pay would solve this. The floor shouldn’t be $0 but the minimum wage plus the driver’s costs.
That floor should also apply when idling.
That floor should also apply when idling.
People try to take any chance to make a villian out of big tech, it's just a damn bug people!
They might not be the most decent "being", but the fact that this post is trending bothers me
They might not be the most decent "being", but the fact that this post is trending bothers me
And it bothers me that there are people who think they need to white knight for a company valued at billions of dollars when a bug causes a driver to pay money to work, yet here we are.
A company that provided jobs and services for millions of people. Nothing wrong with being valued at "billions of dollars" as long as things are done ethically.
A villain don't have to be evil, apathy that causes harm is enough.
I wonder if modern rates of depression are normal, and we're just diagnosing cases more accurately, or if more people are becoming depressives.
I haven't got data, and I'm not an expert in this field, but it feels to me like the latter is what's happening. If this is the case, I wonder what is causing it, and how it can be remediated. I don't remember so many people being depressed when I was young.
I haven't got data, and I'm not an expert in this field, but it feels to me like the latter is what's happening. If this is the case, I wonder what is causing it, and how it can be remediated. I don't remember so many people being depressed when I was young.
Why is everyone so concerned that the earnings was a negative amount of money? Instead of being charged, the driver only got paid $0.01. Would that be okay? In a way the driver is still getting charged because the gas alone is more than that. If this is just one example, imagine all the drivers who don't get a negative earnings but end up spending more than they make. The real question is what number is okay and how do you calculate it.
There are different levels of errors. Something like a negative number for a fare is a serious error in every circumstance and should ping the billing team in their Slack channel (or PagerDuty) immediately.
Something like a small positive number, while still concerning, is harder to calculate and harder to justify a critical alert for. For example, Uber does have a feature for drivers where they can type in where they are going (eg. for a personal errand) and be connected to a rider going the same direction, and the fares on those trips pay fairly small amounts of money.
Something like a small positive number, while still concerning, is harder to calculate and harder to justify a critical alert for. For example, Uber does have a feature for drivers where they can type in where they are going (eg. for a personal errand) and be connected to a rider going the same direction, and the fares on those trips pay fairly small amounts of money.
Uber needs to be mandated an employer in every US state and made to follow the existing laws.
Otherwise throw the management in jail.
Otherwise throw the management in jail.
I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip. After getting out of the Uber I clicked to pay a 20% tip, and it paid it on the original (much higher) amount. Worked out to be almost a 100% tip.
I called support, walked the very nice woman through what happened, she filed a bug report and reset the tip to a normal amount.