Uber/Lyft ride-sharing in Kansas City

[droopy]

https://help.uber.com/h/1be144ab-609a-4 ... c7de5ec073

From Uber's website:

DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER?

You don’t need cash when you ride with Uber. Once you arrive at your destination, your fare is automatically charged to your credit card on file — there’s no need to tip.

[scooterj]

This is a cut and paste from Uber's website

I had thought when I signed up that it said the tip is included, but I don't see that now. I have absolutely no problem tipping but I don't want to double tip either. It is nice not having to have the right change for tipping or even getting your wallet of of your pocket.

I noticed the same thing. They changed the wording from "tip included" to "no need to tip". On a driver's forum I saw several mentions that around that same time Uber reduced their rates, which meant the drivers were getting paid less.

So now I feel like a jerk for not having tipped the first few times I used Uber. (I typically use it a couple of times a week, now that I'm not within walking distance of my favorite hangouts the added expense beats a DUI any day.) So now I make sure I always have cash on hand so I can tip the drivers who go above and beyond (or a buck or two for those who least don't screw up).

I had a driver last weekend who offered complimentary scotch or champagne. Obvious tip-baiting, but it worked for me.

[cknab1]

Although I didn't tip in LA, one ride was from the new Fogo back to Venice beach where we were staying. The driver had mentioned how much he wanted to try Fogo de Chao so I gave him a couple of buy one/get one coupons. He seemed pretty happy with that, about a $100 value all together.

But in the future I will tip, now that I know things have changed for the driver. I would like to everyone to be paid for what the do and eliminate the need for tipping but we are not at that point.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

set fares to compensate drivers adequately

Just wondering. Who is saying the drivers are not compensated adequately? If I were a driver I would only expect my cut of the fare as compensation because that is all that I am assured of when I make the choice to accept the trip. A tip would be unexpected, not like in a restaurant where help staff are paid below minimum wage.

Of course the system may, by the back door, allow only cash tips so that the driver doesn't have to declare the tips as income.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

My response had to do with the setting of fares and adequate compensation. If the Uber payment system doesn't accommodate tipping then there wouldn't be the expectation of tipping, like a payment system accommodates restaurant patrons. It appears tipping driver is the exception and not the rule.

Of course one could look at some various sites that have to do with Uber and tipping and get some answers. Generally it is no tipping since the driver has reasonable compensation and tipping isn't expected. But it looks like it might depend on what level of service you are using with Uber, the X or the Black or a few other classifications of service.

As a side note it looks like Uber is in the middle of price wars in some cities and that has affected the compensation for drivers, which of course makes them mad. Also there are two lawsuits in the CA court system now with the drivers as plaintiffs. They want to be classified as employees of Uber instead of independent contractors.

[brewcrew1000]

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

[kboish]

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

I agree with you. All the city is asking is that Uber send the city copies of their drivers background checks and insurance. And the city lowered the costs of permitting. Seems like Uber should just play ball on this one.

[scooterj]

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

I agree with you. All the city is asking is that Uber send the city copies of their drivers background checks and insurance. And the city lowered the costs of permitting. Seems like Uber should just play ball on this one.

When I read the ordinance that's not what it sounds like. The way it reads it sounds like the city wants to make the drivers re-do the same steps they had to do to be hired by Uber, except repeat them at Regulated Industries HQ, require additional steps, and have the approvals take weeks instead of a couple of days. That plus ponying up cash up front.

[bobbyhawks]

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

I agree with you. All the city is asking is that Uber send the city copies of their drivers background checks and insurance. And the city lowered the costs of permitting. Seems like Uber should just play ball on this one.

I understand the sentiment, but I think Uber is concerned that capitulating in any way really erodes what makes them unique to begin with. If the city "gets its claws" into the regulation of this new spur to the industry, it could open up Pandora's box. I'm thinking things like tourism taxes to build arenas and defining what type of vehicles can be used. Pretty soon, you are back to having a company that operates just like the taxi companies. I don't think anyone wants that. KC's asks are reasonable at the moment, but Uber is dealing with many hundreds of cities asking for unique things. They have demonstrated enough of a benefit to the city now to make people angry if they pull out.

[grovester]

I think they capitulate, but the strategy involves making each city go thru the same steps. Sly had a good question: "Uber has tried to make city the bad guy here. But they need to be asked why they won't share background info w/us. They do in Dallas etc."

Apparently, concessions are not transferable.

[kboish]

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

I agree with you. All the city is asking is that Uber send the city copies of their drivers background checks and insurance. And the city lowered the costs of permitting. Seems like Uber should just play ball on this one.

I understand the sentiment, but I think Uber is concerned that capitulating in any way really erodes what makes them unique to begin with. If the city "gets its claws" into the regulation of this new spur to the industry, it could open up Pandora's box. I'm thinking things like tourism taxes to build arenas and defining what type of vehicles can be used. Pretty soon, you are back to having a company that operates just like the taxi companies. I don't think anyone wants that. KC's asks are reasonable at the moment, but Uber is dealing with many hundreds of cities asking for unique things. They have demonstrated enough of a benefit to the city now to make people angry if they pull out.

I agree people will be upset if Uber pulls out. Heck, I will be. I love using Uber. I just don't think the City is asking too much on this one.

Looks like Uber might pull out, I really think Uber is kind of the ones being babies and kind of lazy about this, why can't they just follow a couple rules to become regulated.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 88072.html

I agree with you. All the city is asking is that Uber send the city copies of their drivers background checks and insurance. And the city lowered the costs of permitting. Seems like Uber should just play ball on this one.

When I read the ordinance that's not what it sounds like. The way it reads it sounds like the city wants to make the drivers re-do the same steps they had to do to be hired by Uber, except repeat them at Regulated Industries HQ, require additional steps, and have the approvals take weeks instead of a couple of days. That plus ponying up cash up front.

From what I have heard during the discussions and read in the ordinance- it sounds like Uber is responsible for their drivers submission of the background info. Which is to say they (Uber) can use the info they have already obtained through the hiring process (background checks, etc) and submit that to the City on behalf of the driver to satisfy that part of the process.

The driver would have to go to physically apply for their license to operate and pass a test verifying the know the rules. (ie. not taking people to Kansas, etc...I was wrong about that in an earlier post). they only need to take the "test" once...not on renewals.

[pash]

.

[grovester]

I'm ok with verification of insurance coverage, vehicle inspections and perhaps some sort of driver check, but setting fee rates to meet existing budget needs seems off.

[brewcrew1000]

Maybe cities should just start deregulating like San Diego, the taxi lobby arguements in this story are hilarious, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr ... s-lawsuit/

[joshmv]

Uber now saying they're on their way out of KC because of the new regulations

http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 98274.html

[aknowledgeableperson]

Poor little Uber. Couldn't get it's way so it's going to leave and pout.

[joshmv]

Poor little Uber. Couldn't get it's way so it's going to leave and pout.

I assume that KC wasn't a very profitable area so they decided not to budge and if they didn't get their way they would leave and use KC as an example. They're now worth over $40 billion so I doubt any of them are pouting.

The problem is that this puts KC in a much worse position than it puts Uber, especially until/if Lyft starts back up. Pushing popular ridesharing companies out isn't a good look for a city who is trying to capitalize on being a technologically progressive city.

[brewcrew1000]

I can't believe Tulsa will have Uber but not Kansas City