Uber - Today's #1 WORST Corporation

[astroNikon]

Trying to go driverless was the reason Uber was banned in California for testing driverless technology back in 2016 (one car ran 6 red lights), even though they denied it was driverless, of which they then were found out to be lying as it was driverless. ==> A self-driving Uber ran a red light last December, contrary to company claims

They essentially, since not buying a permit, was able to skirt having to document any issues of the self driving cars. Essentially Uber has been trying to be at the bleeding edge, steal technology from other companies, steal drivers, thwart authorities efforts, etc. You'd think they were a subsidiary of North Korea. lol

 

[Braineack]

You'd think they were a subsidiary of North Korea. lol

they don't force children to pull rickshaws, then kill them off if they pick up someone late or take too long or pay them with some rice if they succeed.

 

[pendennis]

Uber has filed an appeal in a California case, where it was ruled that Uber is an employer. Uber maintains it is only a communication line (for lack of a better term), putting driver and rider together only.

Uber require drivers to work a certain number of hours. Uber sets the fees drivers get. Uber controls how and when the driver gets paid. Their drivers are employees. Uber is just using drivers as "contractors" so that the drivers take on the overhead, insurance,ect. Uber is just cheating the game and operating and lower costs.

The cost Uber saves is just pushed onto the driver and that's why they only last 6mo-12mo. The time it takes to run a car down and not have the money to maintain it.

My post was merely meant to cite Uber's concept of their driver/Uber relationship.

Uber's not the only company who maintains they don't have employees. The employer/employee definition has usually meant that the employer provides a workplace; and in some instances equipment, especially those which the employee may not typically have in the tool box. Auto repair shops are great examples.

"1099" workers are generally independent "contractors". The hiring company doesn't supply work space, equipment (generally), work clothing, etc.

By their very business model, they believe that they can circumvent the punitive fees, taxes, etc., that governments use to monopolize taxi services.

 

[limr]

of which they then were found out to be lying as it was driverless. ==> A self-driving Uber ran a red light last December, contrary to company claims

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

 

[Fstop-]

"1099" workers are generally independent "contractors". The hiring company doesn't supply work space, equipment (generally), work clothing, etc.

Their are many more conditions that make a person an employee vs contractor. Two big ones are

How they get paid - Employees get paid a set price determined by their employer. Contractor bid jobs set their own price on the job or work they are bidding on, the client accepts the bid/price.
Time- Employees are expected to work set times or amounts of time. Contractors set their own time they work within project deadlines.

 

[pendennis]

"1099" workers are generally independent "contractors". The hiring company doesn't supply work space, equipment (generally), work clothing, etc.

Their are many more conditions that make a person an employee vs contractor. Two big ones are

How they get paid - Employees get paid a set price determined by their employer. Contractor bid jobs set their own price on the job or work they are bidding on, the client accepts the bid/price.
Time- Employees are expected to work set times or amounts of time. Contractors set their own time they work within project deadlines.

My response was not a "be all, end all" description of how a "1099" worker was defined. By contract specifics, projects are all defined within the triple constraints of project management (cost, scope, time). This subject requires far more study than the mere surface comments a blog allows.

 

[kap55]

From all the things uber did they also did this .. Interesting. ==> Uber employed espionage unit to steal rivals’ secrets — is that legal?

And there was good reason why SoftBank undervalues uber ==> Uber’s net loss widened to $1.46 billion last quarter, SoftBank reveals

Just an update to the story posted by astroNikon...

Uber used 'undercover agents'

Things are getting a little out of hand.

 

[astroNikon]

From all the things uber did they also did this .. Interesting. ==> Uber employed espionage unit to steal rivals’ secrets — is that legal?

And there was good reason why SoftBank undervalues uber ==> Uber’s net loss widened to $1.46 billion last quarter, SoftBank reveals

Just an update to the story posted by astroNikon...

Uber used 'undercover agents'

Things are getting a little out of hand.

Yeah, read this article
Uber corporate espionage and bribery alleged in ex-employee’s letter

 

[KmH]

Did ya'll see the poor guy in Canada Uber tried to charge $18,000 for an 11 mile Uber ride.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Waymo? As in, this is Waymo stupid than Uber?? Maybe this could be the next reality show, Getting in Cars with ____. Fill in the blank with your choice of words like goofballs, nincompoops, etc.

 

[astroNikon]

update on EU ruling ==> Uber Loses EU Court Fight as Judges Take Aim at Gig Economy

The good thing is Uber is helping craft the rules for the other ride sharing companies, and solely burdening the expenses to testing gov't regulatory transportation rules.

 

[KmH]

The countdown on Uber's well earned demise is tick, tick, ticking along at a faster pace these days.
"Meanwhile, the company continues to lose money and faces a growing roster of well-funded rivals, from Lyft in the U.S., to China’s Didi Chuxing in Asia."

 

[smoke665]

As to the independent contractor status, I used independent Owner Operators to supplement my fleet trucks for 25 years. Despite best efforts by the government to have Owner Operators declared employees it never succeeded and is still in practice today.

Driverless vehicles are closer than you might think. Las Vegas is in actual use tests of driverless shuttle buses with plans to expand the program. The same buses are also on the campus of the University of Michigan, and Apple has announced plans to use them on campus in the near future.

 

[astroNikon]

ran across this article, a very interesting read .... Uber’s Secret Tool for Keeping the Cops in the Dark

 

[Cortian]

Most of these companies like Target, Uber, and Yahoo, have never taken security very seriously, because security is a very high cost of doing business. I worked for 38 years for a top five corporation, ...

25+ years in IT, myself, with a strong emphasis on network security. Member pendennis speaks the Truth. If anything, he's understating the nature and scope of the problem.

Some examples (the guilty anonymous because I don't want to get sued).

I watched a major manufacturer gets its corporate email system taken down for two-three days by a virus/worm/trojan. Did they learn anything from that? Apparently not, because I watched it happen again, at least once, if not twice more. (Last I knew they were still using the same vulnerable systems.)

Company for which I consulted had a customer set up a "secure" site to submit invoices. Problem was the site had no host and domain name associated with its security certificate, which meant the certificate could be entirely bogus and there'd be no way to know. I alerted them to this problem. They insisted the site was secure.

A financial institution was instructing a client of mine on how to use their electronic systems to handle sensitive funds transfers of very large amounts of money. I was called-in to lend my expertise on what was being presented. After I politely balked at a couple issues it became clear the customer did not want to be bothered with "trivialities." When the PHBs were distracted, talking about something-or-another, I leaned over to the bank's IT person and said "You realize what you're asking us to do compromises our network security, right?" "Yes," she replied. "We've told our people that. They don't care to hear about it." (That was a major financial institution, btw.)

There was a certain identity theft service to which my wife and I used to be subscribed. On at least three different occasions they exhibited glaring lapses in security procedure, the first two times of which I appraised them. (I'm talking lapses so blindingly obvious you couldn't miss them. Lapses that would allow an ID theft actor to actually steal somebody's ID theft protection service!) On the third such lapse I dumped them.

When a customer was experiencing trouble with a major international manufacturer's e-transactions web site (used for orders, billing, invoicing, RFQ, change orders, what-have-you) I found their site's security was rated "F" by a security evaluation service. The site was rife with glaring security holes. I poked a message toward their site administration team. Never received a response. Last I checked that site still rated "F".

One of the major stock exchanges was distributing a stock ticker application for browsers. One of the PHBs at a client's wanted to run it. The firewall was preventing it. On a whim I called the stock exchange's help desk. Got myself escalated to Tier 2 support, where the following exchange took place (paraphrased):

"Do you perhaps offer an alternative stock ticker option?"
"No."
"Do you realize that application of yours requires us to compromise our border security to allow it to run"
"Yes, I suppose it does."
"Do you allow such things on your secure network?"
"Yes."
(Incredulous) "Really? You allow people on computers on your trading systems network to arbitrarily install applications that poke holes straight through border security?!?!"
(Horrified tone of voice) "Of course not!"

Yet they insisted their customers do just that.

That's just a few things I've experienced, over the years.