Relevant detail that I'm sure most commenters have not read:
> drivers are directed to a web link that shows a weekly breakdown of their fares, how much Lyft took, and how much all of their riders paid during that time period in aggregate
> Lyft explained how the decoupling of driver and rider payments influenced their decision to no longer show the driver what the rider paid. “Because driver pay is decoupled from what a rider pays, we wanted to highlight aggregate earnings content and basic insights like total hours & booked hours which can encourage drivers to rely less on individual ride details, which can be misleading, and more on the larger weekly earnings picture.”
Ie, drivers can still see what passengers pay on trips, and what Lyft's take is. The only thing they can't see is what individual passengers paid on individual trips.
I don't have a strong opinion on this change, but the above detail seems very relevant to the discussion on why this change is bad for drivers.
Why would that be relevant? What Lyft and Uber have been telling us all along is that they are not a ride-hailing company, they are just a marketplace bringing together riders and drivers. In that scenario, it is all about the up-to-the-minute price that riders are happy to pay, and drivers happy to accept.
Imagine a stock exchange where you can't see the market price, and after a week the exchange tells you "heres what buyers paid, sellers received, the difference is our subject to change take we don't let you know". Imagine a stock exchange that proclaims "stock price is decoupled from what sellers offer and buyers pay".
This sort of thing is dangerous if you want to keep drivers as independant contractors. Lyft sounds like they're no longer paying by the job, but more of a salary. Such a reclassification could retroactively allow their drivers to benefits, taxes, and other entitlements. Lyft shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, classifying workers as employees when it suits them, then as independant driving service companies when it doesn't. Who do drivers work for? If it's Lyft, then how Lyft treats their workers is very illegal. But right now the answer is "for themselves." It will be interesting to see if Lyft shoots itself in the foot getting greedy at some point.
Yea. Lyft wanting to make their take more opaque is certainly a plausible motivation. But since Lyft and Uber are now offering complicated reward/discount programs, it's plausible that the rider's payment on any given trip is misleading and mostly a source of confusion. Driver's won't complain when Lyft's take is unusually small, but will when it's unusually large, even if it balances on average.
In general it's frustrating that pricing is becoming more opaque for everyone. Despite multiple emails exchanged with Uber, I still cannot get them to tell me how exactly the Ride Passes work in the SF area. There doesn't seem to be an unambiguous description on the website, the receipts don't explain, and different customer support agents give contradictory statements.
I have only recently used Lyft with discounts or promo deals. I don't need it enough to use it otherwise and it really is more for convenience like needing to get to the airport at 5am or back from a bar downtown without finding a bus.
My data would probably throw off the driver if they see that I paid $20 for a ride that should have been $30. The rider pay may vary on if I tip based on the actual vs discount price of the ride or other elements too.
I think the metrics they are providing are potentially more useful if the driver is able to ingest and use the data but it's likely Lyft isn't 100% honest with their presentation or made this change to benefit their business over the drivers.
> I still cannot get them to tell me how exactly the Ride Passes work in the SF area. There doesn't seem to be an unambiguous description on the website, the receipts don't explain, and different customer support agents give contradictory statements.
As a user of Ride Pass in LA, I'm also confused about what it does and does not cover. When I first bought it, it locked in a rate on a route I used frequently - but now I'll see Ride Pass discounts for trips to/from LAX and other unrelated places.
Still supposedly saves me more per month than I spend on it, though.
Yep. Sympathetic guess is that they are just rapidly trying a bunch of promotions to see what people like, and they are too internally dysfunctional to keep their agents/app/website up-to-date. Cynical guess is that opaqueness is the goal, and they want you to just get in the habit of trusting their "here's how much you saved!" number without anyone looking closely at the counterfactual.
It seems clear they want to remove the disincentive for drivers to simply not work when higher pricing multipliers are not in effect (which they have the right to do if they are ostensibly independent contractors).
Had the same impression about this. Also some drivers used these figures to cap their _daily_ driving. I guess there may be still some way to estimate this based on their experience.
This isn't as bad as the fact that you have no idea where a passenger is going until you get to their location.
I recently moved to New Jersey a too up driving to help ends meet.
There are times where you drive 10 miles to pick a passenger and drop them a block (.5 miles) away from their location.
Even worse is the integrated Google app that consistently routes you through tolls enroute to picking passengers even though you don't get reimbursed for that.
Lyft is a cesspit for bottomfeeders and unfortunately I'm one.
Uber on the other hand isn't taking on new drivers since their ipo.
(If you're a Lyft Dev here please consider giving us the option too filter toll preferences when we're on our way to pick up passengers)
> There are times where you drive 10 miles to pick a passenger and drop them a block (.5 miles) away from their location.
As a daily rider, I agree completely. I get an Uber/Lyft every morning at 5:00 to catch a 5:25 train about 3 miles away in the Chicago suburbs. Sometimes there aren't many drivers out, and it connects to a driver near O'Hare, about 20 minutes away. So, I miss my train, have to wait 20 minutes when I could have asked my wife to take me, and it is a waste of the driver's time as well. But, I'm not going to cancel and get a fee for a ride that is only $6 to begin with. I'd love to be able to filter on drivers that are less than 10 minutes away.
Also, don't get me started on the Pre-Tax commuter program... It can only use Pools, and there are ZERO drivers that accept it now near me. I'd have to wait 30+ minutes, or it just gives up and says no drivers are in the area. I have several hundred dollars set aside in my commuter account for this, and it is useless the way they have it set up. I don't blame the drivers, but it is a shitty situation that they would promote this program, and it is kind of useless.
> Uber on the other hand isn't taking on new drivers since their ipo.
Not taking on new drivers at all, or just not paying big sign-up bonuses?
Not taking on new drivers seems like a very silly move on Ubers part, because the large supply of drivers is what keeps supply prices low and their margins healthy.
This could be a social politics move. By disassociating trips with money earned, it’ll stop a driver saying “I’m not going to accept a trip from these people/this area because then I won’t make as much money than if I waited for a trip from this person/this area”
That too. The drivers are not supposed to make decisions about clients like an independent contractor. Because they are employees. The rest is a fiction to get around labor rights.
As a rider, I'm for this. I've had on more than one occasion a driver complain about how little I paid and checking their earning right in front of me. Maybe they were trying to guilt trip me into a higher tip, I don't know.
Side note, ended up using a taxi in Orlando for the first time in years and it was surprisingly a much easier, cheaper, and faster ride (plus the driver knew the area and didn't need nav).
Edit: I know they're doing this to screw drivers ultimately and that's not cool.
So, back when I first started using Lyft, in 2014 or 2015, I thought it was customary to stay in the car until you rate and tip your driver.
One day, as I was doing this the driver started aggressively demanding I tell him how much Lyft charged me. And of course I was having signal issues with my phone so the rate/tip screen was taking forever to come up. And he kept getting more and more impatient and demanding, and he repeatedly took screenshots on his phone during this time.
Eventually, it came up, and he had creeped me out so much that I lied to him, told him I still wasn't getting signal, and I left.
He had dropped me off at a bar, by the way. I went inside, ordered a drink, then went out on the patio to drink it (the patio is near the front entrance). As I was drinking it, I saw that he still hadn't moved his car and was staring right at me. I went right back in and was afraid to go back outside.
That incident broke me of this habit, by the way. Now, as soon as I get to the destination, I quickly thank the driver, open the car door, and bolt. I don't even pull my phone out to rate/tip till I'm inside.
> plus the driver knew the area and didn't need nav
You really don't want that. Having the passengers be able to see the nav is a way to ensure transparency and make sure you aren't getting shafted by the driver. You want your driver to use the nav, even if they know the area like the back of their hand.
When i was driving even if it was a route I had done hundreds of times before, I made sure the nav was on and in full view of the passengers.
While I agree, it's a problem, especially in Orlando, when the drivers are new to the area and end up driving dangerously. I've only had a few drivers that had the nav on but drove like a responsible adult. I don't know if it's an Orlando problem or what, but it's really scary using ride-share there.
I had the same experience with a few taxi rides in NYC. Uber drivers utterly reliant on sat nav, yet I give a yellow cabbie the destination address and they're able to get there with no problem.
Hailing took less time than waiting for the uber and the ride was nearly 30% cheaper than what uber was quoting me - so I gave the cabbie a fat tip in cash. Wins all around.
> Side note, ended up using a taxi in Orlando for the first time in years and it was surprisingly a much easier, cheaper, and faster ride (plus the driver knew the area and didn't need nav).
Did you hail a taxi through an easy to use smartphone app?
About 99% of times I've taken a taxi I've called a number, spoken briefly with a dispatcher, then waited for my taxi. I'd say about the same ease as an app, maybe easier in the rain. Trying to enter info on a touch screen while water falls from the sky can be a trial.
That is not nearly as easy as an app... you have to talk to someone, you have to know where you are, and you have no information about how close they are.
That is fine if that works for you, but the app is way easier for most people... which is why they have totally taken over most ride hailing business.
If people agreed with you that calling a taxi is just as easy as calling an Uber or Lyft, those two would have never taken off.
Uber/Lyft took off because they were MUCH cheaper than taxis for a while - plus taxi drivers kind of gave themselves a bad reputation. Seems we've come full circle.
> plus taxi drivers kind of gave themselves a bad reputation.
I think it is usually "people who can afford to go into a taxi do not like mingling with people who are only worth a taxi driver's salary".
I don't think most would say many positive things about a person that is only worth $x/hr on the economic market (where $x/hr is a taxi driver's average wages). Whether it is due to lack of education / opportunity, I do not know.
I've never used uber or lyft, so I'm not sure how their apps work, but I keep my location turned off on my phone always, so I'm assuming the apps would have no way of knowing where I am without either turning it on or manually entering my location. Typically, I usually know where I am enough to give a cross street. I can't imagine getting an uber to a place where I couldn't describe my location. Every taxi place I've called, gives a wait estimate and generally tells me how far away the closest taxis are. The taxi companies here at least have actually released apps that let you call a taxi, track where they are generally many of the features uber and lyft's apps offer.
To be honest, I don't trust taxi drivers much either, but they're regulated, they have cameras and they're accountable to somebody. The same can't really be said for uber/lift.
Sure, if you don't use location on your phone, and have a need to always know exactly how to describe where you are, you might not get as much a benefit from using Uber vs a taxi... but most people use their phone location and often don't know how to direct someone to where they are.
I always find these sorts of threads interesting, because it is often someone arguing against some popular service by describing how they do things... but the way they do things is vastly different than 99% of people.
Maybe taxis work better for you, but that is because you are pretty unique in how you operate.
I bet when street signs were introduced, people said "Are we seriously living in a a world where people can't look around at landmarks and know where they are? They need to look at the name written down on a sign? These popular street signs offered convenience that seems to have withered most people's brains"
> I've never used uber or lyft, so I'm not sure how their apps work
What country are you in? I'm curious what percentage you are compared to working adults in your country because "never used Uber" in my social circle/area is very close to "living under a rock"
As a side note, 99% of the times I have called a taxi, I end up with a very poor connection, having to repeat myself multiple times, talking to someone who makes it seem like helping me get a taxi is the last thing they want to be doing. They don't understand what I want, can't figure out where I am, and get angry at me when I have trouble hearing them on the crappy phone line.
No, I walked up to the taxi booth and was in a car faster than I could have pulled out the lyft app.
The theme parks have a horrible ride-share setup and recently Universal moved ride share pickups to their parking garage roof which has made the problem even worse. I literally waited an hour for a ride the night before which is why I decided the next day to just get a taxi.
> What's easier to use than holding your hand up while on the street?
A smartphone app that essentially guarantees that the car will show up, and having shown up, won't listen to where you want to go and then refuse to take you there.
> these apps have made arranging a ride a lot easier. But they're not a requirement in 100% of cases.
When they are a requirement in cases as common as "it's raining", they might as well be a requirement in all cases.
I understand I will be downvoted for this, but don't you think you should tip more? I don't know where you live, but I do know in the US drivers depend on tip income and when you don't tip sufficiently it really hurts them.
Tipping also supports tipping culture. Tipping should be abolished in favor of decent living wages which can not be done if you will guilt trip people who oppose tipping.
Also why tip someone for a job I'm capable of doing myself? I can deliver food. I can drive a taxi. I can, and do, cut my own hair. I did however, tip my urologist, because I am unable to pulverize my own kidney stones..
This logic is all well in good if people are actually pushing for that living wage. In reality though it seems like a lot of people who don't tip are just being cheap and are are taking advantage of the fact that part of these people's pay comes from tips and are using that to basically get cheaper labor.
People who refuse to tip out of "principle" but also refuse to do anything to change the existing situation are just as guilty of exploiting workers as the employees who rely on tips are.
For what it's worth, the second paragraph (about refusing to tip for jobs they are capable of performing) in the comment you replied to is a direct quote of Dwight Schrute's character from the US version of the the TV show The Office.
oh do come on. as a society we have come to the conclusion that the value of an hour of labor is worth something. now greedy corps are skirting around the rules (restaurants and now ride sharing) and somehow a few greedy individuals are the problem.
stop demonizing the individual here - it's the companies that are skirting around the well established law. individuals are not capable of raking these businesses over the coals; that's what the government is, honestly, explicitly supposed to do.
If their current job is unprofitable to a point that they rely on charity (aka “tips”) then they are probably in the wrong business or they should demand to be paid more by their employer.
Tipping isn't charity, though. There is literally a legal loophole that lets employers pay less than minimum wage on the basis that the employee will receive enough in tips to make up the difference.
Don't get me wrong, I hate tipping too. But it's disingenuous to describe it as charity when our legal system has made it legal to deprive workers of a wage because of an assumption that people will tip. So we should. And should support all efforts to remove the absurd loophole from the law.
>There is literally a legal loophole that lets employers pay less than minimum wage on the basis that the employee will receive enough in tips to make up the difference
I thought Uber and Lyft drivers weren't employees? Even if they were, that "legal loophole" isn't a federal thing, it only exists in certain states. Where I live, the minimum wage for tipped and untipped employees is the same. I still tip, but if I tip less than 20% I know that the workers are still making a floor of $15/hour.
Tipping is 100% charity. In today's environment of 3% unemployment, if someone doesn't like their job, they can find another one pretty quickly. If they don't like the fact that restaurants can pay them less than minimum wage, they should find a new job.
> In today's environment of 3% unemployment, if someone doesn't like their job, they can find another one pretty quickly.
Have you ever talked to a real person about that theory? Do you really think that a nationwide unemployment level applies equally to people in all parts of the country, with all levels of education? Do you really, really think that people dissatisfied with their jobs just need to be less lazy and apply for more jobs? How many people do you actually know in this situation?
The highest unemployment rate in the country is in Alaska (6%) and for people with less than a high school education it's 5.6%.
Not 3% but still the lowest it's ever been and lower than the average is in EU countries (6.2%).
The person you are replying to isn't saying anything about the actual rate of unemployment, but more that while the rate may be low, the actual number of quality jobs that pay well/treat people well isn't reflected in that percentage.
Then why, in a 3% unemployment economy, if you think that employees have so much power, why are there so many jobs paying minimal wage (Or less)? Why hasn't there been more upward pressure on wages?
Do you think people for some strange reason absolutely love these minimal wage jobs, and just stick to them, despite the pay? Or maybe, could you consider that minimal wage workers don't have as much economic power as you think they do...
People are taxed for getting a certain amount of tips - they pay those taxes whether they actually get tips or not. And employers have a lower minimum wage for those employees.
Additionally, it's still illegal for an employer to let you end up below federal minimum wage, tipped or not. But shady places are happy to steal from their employees.
And here is the age-old response to that: by tipping you support that system.
I have no dog in this fight, and know too little to have a valid response. I just find that tips being necessary for the waiter/driver to survive a strange concept. Not being able to count on a fixed income has to be tough.
Speaking of dogs, it’s time to rewatch Reservoir Dogs.
Every waiter I know says that they need tips to survive in order to justify asking for tips. Those same people also fight with tooth and nails any argument that perhaps we can abolish tips and give them a living wage.
Real truth: most likely than not, they are making a killing with tips, much more than they would make with a fair salary.
Especially considering that the employer is obliged to pay them minimum wage anyways if they don’t receive enough tips.
The myth of the waiter not meeting ends is hard to believe when a decent waiter can pull in $200-500 (minimum) per night in a decent restaurant.
Where do you live and what type of restaurant are they working in? A waiter at a trendy restaurant in a large city will make far more in tips than someone working in a diner in a small town. There are plenty of waitstaff who work hard and still have trouble making ends meet.
I worked in a Chili's in Encinitas CA about 13 years ago. I walked with $100-$150 / night in tips alone. A friend of mine made about the same at a Chili's in machesney park IL. Pretty good pay for part time work at a Chili's. It's not only waiters at posch spots that make relatively great money waiting tables.
No one I knew would have traded their tip money for $15 an hour.
I generally tip 15-20% (and used to tip cash before the apps added tipping in-app). If a driver bothers or harasses me about a tip, I'll be happy to make an exception for that particular driver.
I don't think the app even supported tips until a year or two ago. Part of their shtick was that you don't need to mess with cash, and the price in the app is all you need to pay.
afaik Uber/Lyft don't tell drivers if a single passenger leaves a tip, they only see an aggregate on their pay stubs. If they did then passenger ratings would become pretty useless.
I literally got asked what I will tip by my Lyft driver, and was reminded multiple times during the trip about the tip. Now, I understand, and I did tip, but I did not enjoy the experience. This is after I got stringed along by a no show for almost 30 min (at 11:30 PM), someone who had no intention to show. The aggressive tip dude that took me basically told me that my fare was "too short" and nobody wants to take it, but how he's such a good guy and doesn't play that game and that's why I should tip him well. He also gave me some insight into how they game it -- they adapt (as they should) to whatever changes Lyft makes and find a way to game it; my first driver, the no show guy, used me and my time as part of his gaming the system to get a better fare. I ended up wasting 30 minutes of my life waiting for somebody that was never going to show; I was tired and 30 minutes of extra sleep that night would have been great.
This was a few months ago from LAX to Venice. Last year ('18) was the last good year of ride sharing from LAX, 2-3 years ago it was actually great, I literally remember thinking how well the services work, how useful and pleasant they are for the customer, from the timeliness, to the cars, to the drivers and convos. Then in all went downhill, quick. Right now I loathe using UberLyft.
In my experience, Uber and Lyft have sucked out of LAX since they started requiring them to only use the arrivals level for pickups and dropoffs.
The drivers will consistently try to call/text me to ask where I'm going so they can cancel or ignore me if the ride isn't as long as they'd like. Then you end up playing chicken with the driver to see who cancels first and gets stuck with the penalty. If the driver does show up, I've noticed they'll often give a shitty rating out of spite.
I've decided that it's usually not worth it to deal with the Uber/Lyft bullshit when I can pay an extra $1-5 for a taxi. I don't have to wait for the driver to work their way around the horsehoe of LAX, I don't have to worry about the driver canceling on me, and I prevent the driver from wrecking my social credit score in the Uber and Lyft apps.
Why tip at that point? One of the major draws originally for these services was that the price you see is the price you pay, and drivers were discouraged from accepting tips. I tipped for a bit when that changed because of some imagined social infraction I was committing, but I got over it and now I tip pretty much never unless the driver goes out of their way to do something nice for me. I still get exclusively 5-star drivers from nearby locations, so I’m not sure what consequence I’m supposed to pretend to face by not tipping.
But I’ve also not once been asked about my tip or my fare so maybe it’s different in your part of the country.
>I literally got asked what I will tip by my Lyft driver, and was reminded multiple times during the trip about the tip. Now, I understand, and I did tip, but I did not enjoy the experience.
This reads to me that you were pretty much harassed to tip.
> This reads to me that you were pretty much harassed to tip.
I was, but he did save my ass and it was very late and I was tired, so I was honest with myself and realized I would pay for his service. And I understand, he needs to eat too. Just a crappy situation all around. I'm gonna take taxis from now, if no public transport is avail. My fav would be something like ZipCar if possible, like renting the car equivalent of a Bird.
> The aggressive tip dude that took me basically told me that my fare was "too short" and nobody wants to take it, but how he's such a good guy and doesn't play that game and that's why I should tip him well.
He was gaslighting you. I've taken plenty of minfare trips when it's hot out in the summer or when my bad leg is acting up or when I have a cart full of groceries and I have never had a problem getting a ride with Lyft.
Also, I tip the vast majority of the time, only not tipping if the driver did something wrong (e.g. has issues following Google Maps's directions, gives me shit about sitting in the front seat, etc.), but if someone aggressively demands I tip them, that goes straight past "the driver did something wrong" and into "the driver did something so wrong that not only am I not tipping, but I'm 1-starring them and if I have some free time, I'm calling Lyft support".
This is why I now walk off-airport at LAX before hailing a ride or just grab a cab - it's not worth dealing with the bullshit anymore.
Also, I feel like your comment matches my experience that overall, the rider experiences with Lyft and Uber are steadily trending toward a level almost as bad as taxis used to be. Everyone was happy when it really was just a bunch of people driving in their spare time for extra cash close to their normal routes. Then a significant portion of drivers started driving full-time for basically minimum wage and the end result is... rideshare drivers are taxi drivers. Reckless driving, spamming the horn, poor communication skills, constantly gaming the system to try to get more money / avoid less-profitable fares, etc. I feel like the rating system doesn't really help here because most people don't want to give bad ratings and potentially destroy someone's primary source of income.
After about 5-10 minutes, Uber will cancel a ride if the driver makes no progress toward the pickup spot and local traffic does not justify the lack of progress. I don't know if it affects the driver's rating but it definitely doesn't affect the passenger's rating.
If the drivers are paid by distance and time, why doesn't it matter how much the customer paid? It might have mattered when they were taking a cut of the original fare, but now that it's fixed to time and distance, it really is none of their concern.
I learned yesterday that Uber maxes out tips at $10. My Uber driver returned my lost phone and I wanted to thank him with a big tip, unfortunately after giving $10 Uber suggests that you tip the driver further in cash. I'm confused about the rationale for this is..
This feels like an important distinction between a platform that contractors can come and offer their services on and a business that has full fledged employees. When Lyft controls pricing and all of the information about pricing, it’s laughable for them to make the argument that “we are just a platform, people come here and operate their own businesses on their own terms!” Action by lawmakers to right this wrong will be less painful now than it will be the longer we wait.
It's incredible how aggressively Lyft "woke-washed" their brand...and that people actually fell for it.
If you had problems with Uber's business model, then Lyft is the exact same thing, though would argue Uber has built much more comprehensive safety features directly into their app than Lyft.
It is, but as a continued Uber customer, I see it as a good thing. Uber needed a scary competitor in the US to force them to change quickly. They had playbooks to deal with regulatory threats that would have maintained status quo. Their playbook to deal with competitors was to quickly deploy changes that would erase Uber’s comparative deficiencies. Against Lyft, that deficiency was a lack of moral behavior signaling and the most straightforward way to achieve parity in that area was to uproot and out bad internal actors. :)
I fell for it with eyes intentionally closed, just like I have to do in so many other instances where I know that my luxuries have negative impacts on the world.
Those bars are everywhere in Korea, and if you read the story they didn't realize it was an "escort bar" until they were already there. I would blame the Uber Korea employees for bad judgement in bringing them there, not the CEO.
Yes that is how it works. All "picking" someone means is that they sit there with you and keep you company while drinking. It's tamer than a typical bachelorette party in Las Vegas.
They were higher margins for drivers for a while (2012ish) but the market has equalized that all out to the point where I've been told drivers make the same regardless of app these days (by drivers).
I'm sorry, Im pretty sure the evidence is clear [1] This is just one example. "A top Uber executive, who obtained the medical records of a customer who was a rape victim, has been fired"
> according to the media...
Who else besides the media should we listen to?.. the employees? Like this one? " As most of you know, I left Uber in December and joined Stripe in January. I've gotten a lot of questions over the past couple of months about why I left and what my time at Uber was like. It's a strange, fascinating, and slightly horrifying story that deserves to be told while it is still fresh in my mind, so here we go" [2]
We only hear about the abuses that happen to the white collar workers at these companies. However, the VAST majority of their workers are the voiceless blue collar drivers.
Uber or Lyft could have a culture of handling driver-abuse that is beneficial or detrimental to hundreds of thousands, and we'd almost never hear about it.
Yep - not sure why it's so controversial to suggest the media narrative is different than the opinion of actual drivers. Ask your driver next time which app they prefer.
How: Easier said than done. The key point is to acknowledge that businesses (even those we love), can sometimes do shifty shit.
So if a "reasonable" public complaint is made, the default response is: that is an understandable concern and here is the data to assuage you that your worries are unfounded. Lyft did not do this.
From the article:
Lyft’s hiding of the rider’s fare from drivers, which the company says began rolling out on September 12, came just a few weeks after a Jalopnik investigation found Uber and Lyft take a much higher portion of each fare than they publicly admit. Both companies denied those findings, but refused to provide any raw data to support their claims. Jalopnik used the information drivers could see about each fare, including the amount the rider paid, to conduct its study of 14,756 fares.
Thank you for asking. Corporations are effectively machines designed for one purpose: making money.
Now add in the fact that corporations are composed of people, and people typically put themselves first before others.
The point is: money comes first, and truth is somewhere down the line.
So if an accusation comes in that a corporation is doing something wrong and there is an obvious financial incentive for them to do so, and a "reasonable person" could construe such, then said corp should be rightfully compelled to prove otherwise.
After all, if they have nothing to hide, then it should be such a big deal.
tl;dr: Corporations aren't there for your health, but for theirs.
It's not unreasonable at all. We essentially do that already with finance.
We don't just blindly trust the company's tweets about finance until they are somehow eventually proved wrong. We require accounts to a certain standard and for them to be audited, and listing brings standards of financial disclosure. Obviously this isn't perfect either.
Seems reasonable to expect some duty of care and accountability for other matters of the company - the research that proves they knew smoking causes cancer, the blind eye to conditions or pollution, the scam javascript to fake up some artificial scarcity in booking, the illegal pricing scheme. The list is long, and history is full of examples.
Seems fair to require them past some point - of employees or turnover maybe - to prove they are fit to inhabit the world with the rest of us.
As long as Citizens United is upheld, despite how extreme this may seem I actually agree with it. Provided there was a sufficiently high bar for proving "an obvious financial incentive for them" (I see that as the most tricky part). Of course it will never happen and I'd rather just have C.U. thrown out, but it's a decent thought experiment.
Flagging for misleading headline. Passengers, of course, still get to see what they paid. It’s the driver who no longer gets to see it after the trip has completed; but they do get an aggregate report.
> drivers are directed to a web link that shows a weekly breakdown of their fares, how much Lyft took, and how much all of their riders paid during that time period in aggregate
> Lyft explained how the decoupling of driver and rider payments influenced their decision to no longer show the driver what the rider paid. “Because driver pay is decoupled from what a rider pays, we wanted to highlight aggregate earnings content and basic insights like total hours & booked hours which can encourage drivers to rely less on individual ride details, which can be misleading, and more on the larger weekly earnings picture.”
Ie, drivers can still see what passengers pay on trips, and what Lyft's take is. The only thing they can't see is what individual passengers paid on individual trips.
I don't have a strong opinion on this change, but the above detail seems very relevant to the discussion on why this change is bad for drivers.