Drivers might have the freedom to turn off their phones and choose not to work, but they don't have the freedom to choose which routes/destinations. Seems to me that their argument is one-sided and deceptive.
Drivers might have the freedom to turn off their phones and choose not to work, but they don't have the freedom to choose which routes/destinations. Seems to me that their argument is one-sided and deceptive.
There's a penalty for rejecting too many rides - but i think that's a fair outcome.
Ideally, uber also allows a driver to set the price, and allow a customer to see price comparisons between all offered drivers (and wait times etc), to truly make it a competitive market place.
According to this article drivers weren't given information on fare or destination when they were offered fares, until legally required in California. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/uber-change...
They won't be letting drivers set fares until legally obligated. They are a taxi service that cosplays as a "ride sharing" "marketplace" in the legal system.
Uber is all about keeping maximum control of the driver while denying them the rights of employees (or in the UK, "worker" status, which is a halfway house between employee and self employed)
If Uber let drivers reject as many rides as they wanted and allowed drivers to set their own fares and negotiate directly with their clients, then they may very well have won the case. But then they would also be a very different company.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uber/comments/lzl3xp/why_doesnt_ube...