Uber is charging drivers to work

Since Uber is in control of the dispatch, do drivers trust Uber not to throttle the rate of their rides as they approach/pass the break-even point? Given the shenanigans they've pulled with geofencing around regulatory agencies, I don't think I would trust them, but perhaps if they do have a history of letting people hit the driving incentives, I'd be more willing to give it a shot...

I do not understand the sensationalism. I think there would be reason to be upset if Uber decided to enforce a system where if you drive less than $x per week then y% of your nominal rate is cut. However, this is a incentivizing system, not a coercing system. In other words instead of punishing those that do not drive as much, it&#x27;s rewarding those that do.<p>It&#x27;s effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts. You pay $xxx for a card to get a y% reduction on transactions through a certain time period. If you engage in a high volume of transactions, it&#x27;s +EV and you purchase it. If you don&#x27;t then it&#x27;s not +EV and so you don&#x27;t purchase it. The industry operator profits in either case since their margins exceed the real value of your discount, and so it is win-win for them.

I&#x27;m going to concur with the observations that the title is sensationalist, though there <i>is</i> some really interesting thought fodder in this. A key thing that doesn&#x27;t come through in the title is:<p>&gt; After I tweeted out the pay-to-play screenshot (Fig 1), Uber wrote to me to explain that the screenshot refers to a study in Houston that is part of a research collaboration between Uber and two MIT economists. They added that, “Further, drivers have to opt-in to the offer and there is a disclaimer explaining that if they opt-in they will be part of an academic research project.”<p>In some ways, the questions that are raised are more about the underlying research ethics (did the authors get IRB review? One presumes, but it&#x27;s not stated either way in tfa), than about Uber&#x27;s actual behavior. Or perhaps the question is whether Uber should be participating -- or what conditions Uber is imposing on the study to ensure that the drivers that accept are <i>not</i> going to be harmed substantially.

They&#x27;re testing a scheme to ensure availability of drivers for Halloween. If enough people take the offer than Uber can be pretty sure they will work at the time.

Note that although I used the original title of the article, I do feel it is a little sensationalist.

How is this not a Pay to Work Scam? [0]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.consumer.ftc.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;0243-job-scams" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.consumer.ftc.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;0243-job-scams</a>

This has eerie parallels to in-app purchase options in freemium games, wherein you pay X dollars to earn extra Y in-game. It’s extremely upsetting to see the same psychological hooks used by IAP applied to an already low-margin pool of drivers.

Unethical because guess what people who drive for Uber probably care a lot about losing $115 and will work their ass off: i.e. drive fatigued, perhaps kill someone ... to make sure they don&#x27;t.

I have studied behavioral economics. I think that not many people will take this offer for a number of reasons. The most important one is that losing 115 now and then having to earn it back feels significantly worse than losing 0 now and earning 115. At least that is what prospect theory predicts.<p>That aside, if Uber is a profit maximizing entity why would Uber offer this promotion if it isn&#x27;t worth it for them? I&#x27;d be very very sceptical on Uber&#x27;s attitude towards consumers .. uhmm I mean drivers&#x2F;&quot;employees&quot;.

The author is not telling the whole story. Uber still gets their cut of each ride, the initial $115 is simply used as a hedge or insurance. If a driver doesn&#x27;t make above the $349 for the week than the $115 is returned to the driver. Uber doesn&#x27;t simply pocket it. If a driver makes over $349 for the week, they get the %33 surge, and Uber will keep the initial $115.

I love it. They&#x27;re literally trying things that have never been done before. Look, at the end of the day, these drivers can just as easily 1) go to lyft, or 2) get a &quot;real&quot; job. And Uber can&#x27;t afford for either to happen. This is pure capitalism, pure economics, pure financial calculations. We&#x27;ll see how it works out, and they&#x27;ll probably drop it at some point, but hell, let&#x27;s give it a shot. If it&#x27;s as &quot;terrible&quot; as everyone is bitching about, it won&#x27;t hold up. What&#x27;s your problem?

It seems that Uber is frequently receiving bad press for practices that outrage a lot of people. The impression I get is most commenters on HN take issue with many of these practices. Yet at the same time, they seem to be one of the poster boys of the SV new economy. To me this seems at odds with the HN community. I&#x27;m curious if others find this as well.

I wonder how this would work out legally if someone accepted this offer and then was sick and unable to work during the window it pertained to.<p>Consider, maybe, that the worker has a migraine and feels like it&#x27;d be unsafe for them to be driving.

And this is only the facet of the real story here.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE</a><p>Uber is an old scan. - By Richard D Wolff<p>We legislated and regulated the old Taxi Cab industry when there was no insurance, bad employees, criminal activities, badly maintained vehicles. And someone can move in and laugh at the laws, and offer it for cheaper (Uber). Its only time until they die, or are regulated themselves.

I think there&#x27;s another side to this: Uber is hedging the supply of drivers in a period of high demand. By asking them to pay, the drivers are effectively committing to drive in that period.<p>Sounds like an interesting idea given all the outrage with price surges.

This is a part of an academic study. So I wonder if Uber went to the researchers with this proposal or the other way around.<p>And what would the researchers be studying?

How in the world is this kind of thing legal?

Is Uber trying to be another real world enactment of Animal Farm?<p>The resemblance doesn&#x27;t seem to be a coincidence.

No matter what the motive for this, it does not look good for the future. Uber kind of showed its hand here. What is the guarantee that they will not ask for a fee to get rides in the future? Or may be ask for a recurring fee of some sort as a privilege to drive for them? I know I am extrapolating too much here may be, but the path is there.

Isn&#x27;t this also true for anyone that has to pay money to commute to work?

Sensationalist title indeed, still interesting though. Based on the author&#x27;s previous posts it seems he has a distaste for Uber. I am curious to know why views them so negatively?

I don&#x27;t have any issue with this; it&#x27;s basically just opt-in A&#x2F;B testing. Better than other companies that force their A&#x2F;B testing on you randomly. The conditions of the deal are pretty obvious, it&#x27;s not like they&#x27;re hidden in some abstruse legalese. The only potential issue with this is that Uber could manipulate the driver&#x2F;passenger matching so that the driver doesn&#x27;t come out ahead.