Many UK Uber drivers earning far less an hour under dynamic pricing, study finds
Many Uber drivers are earning 'substantially less' an hour since the ride hailing app introduced a 'dynamic pricing' algorithm in 2023 that coincided with the company taking a significantly higher share of fares, research has revealed.
The findings are in a study released on Thursday by academics at the University of Oxford. They analysed data provided by 258 UK Uber drivers responsible for 1.5m trips.
Having initially taken a fixed 20% cut of the UK fares charged, which subsequently rose to 25%, Uber introduced dynamic pricing in 2023, an algorithm that variably sets pay for drivers and fares for passengers. It is a later iteration of Uber's 'surge pricing' that increased fares during periods of peak demand.
Uber is now claiming a cut, or 'take rate', of 29% of a fare, rising to more than 50% in some cases, the researchers found.
Unions criticised the move when it was made in 2023, claiming there was no transparency and that the technology 'could push down working conditions by targeting drivers based on their willingness and ability to accept lower fares'.
The Oxford research said: 'Post-dynamic pricing, Uber's passengers now pay higher prices, but the drivers are not better off.'
The paper, which was published in partnership with the non-profit gig worker organisation Worker Info Exchange (WIE), concluded: 'Our findings suggest that post-dynamic pricing, many aspects of Uber drivers' jobs have gotten worse. Average pay per hour on the app is stagnant, and is lower in real terms in the year following the introduction of dynamic pricing.
'Uber's median take rate per driver has increased from 25% to 29%, and on some trips the take rate is over 50%. Furthermore, the higher take rates are concentrated among higher-fare trips, which explains how Uber can extract an additional 38% [income] from its driver's labour on average … Many drivers are earning substantially less per hour.'
The findings follow a series of controversies to have engulfed the technology firm, including a 2021 UK supreme court ruling that Uber drivers are entitled to the minimum wage and paid holidays, as well as the 2022 release of the Uber files, a global investigation that revealed how the company duped police and regulators, and secretly lobbied governments across the world.
After the release of the Uber files, Jill Hazelbaker, Uber's senior vice-president of public affairs, said: 'We have not and will not make excuses for past behaviour that is clearly not in line with our present values. Instead, we ask the public to judge us by what we've done over the last five years and what we will do in the years to come.'
The Oxford research added that drivers' average hourly pay was £29.46, using an Uber definition, or £15.98 if counting waiting time when they made themselves available to pick up passengers. Neither average takes into account costs including vehicle maintenance, insurance or fuel.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Uber said it did 'not recognise the figures in this report', adding: 'Every driver is guaranteed to earn at least the national living wage.'
One interviewee in the study said it was only when passengers volunteered the fares they paid in conversations with drivers that 'you discover they [Uber] are robbing us and the customer'.
An Uber spokesperson said: 'Uber drivers in the UK took home over £1bn in earnings between January and March of this year, which is up on the year before. Drivers choose to drive with Uber because we offer total flexibility on when they work and provide full transparency over the trips they accept.
'All drivers receive a weekly summary of their earnings, which includes a clear breakdown of what Uber and the driver received from trips. We are proud that thousands of drivers continue to make the positive choice to work on Uber as passenger demand and trips continue to grow.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Insolvencies rise as firms face tariffs and higher costs
The number of businesses becoming insolvent rose sharply last month as companies faced higher staff costs and continuing uncertainty over trading arrangements with the United States. Business insolvencies in England and Wales rose 15 per cent to 2,238 in May compared with the same month a year ago, according to data from the Insolvency Service. The figures showed that the number of creditors' voluntary liquidations, through which a director chooses to close down the business, rose by 13 per cent to 1,734, while the number of company administrations, which usually involve larger enterprises, was up by 12 per cent to 136. Businesses started paying higher national insurance contributions for employees in April and also faced an increase in the national minimum wage. The corporate environment has also been hit by uncertainty over tariffs, although Britain has now signed a trade deal with the US. Tom Russell, president of R3, the UK's insolvency and restructuring trade body, said the uncertainty over trade costs had made 'medium and long-term planning more difficult' for companies. Mark Ford, partner in the restructuring team at S&W, the professional services firm, said: 'The impact of sluggish economic growth, high borrowing costs, low consumer confidence and high inflation in recent years has eroded cash reserves for businesses and left some in a perilous position. 'Businesses are now facing newer challenges that threaten their viability and this means we are likely to continue to see a steady stream of company insolvencies in the coming months. 'Higher costs resulting from increases to employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage and business rates are all heaping considerable pressure on businesses, particularly those that feel they are unable to increase prices for fear of losing customers.' Kathleen Garrett, partner at Reed Smith, the law firm, said the Bank of England's decision to hold interest rates on Thursday showed that while borrowing costs were falling, they were facing 'a much more gradual descent than many would have hoped'. She added: 'Businesses are facing a raft of challenges which have caused insolvencies to start rising again. The headwinds from additional business costs such as the recent increases to national insurance and a fraught geopolitical environment in terms of tariffs and unrest appear to have had an effect on business.'
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why is Angela Rayner shifting the council tax burden from north to south?
When Angela Rayner took over her department, the first thing she did was to delete 'levelling up' from its name. But she insisted that she was committed to the idea behind the phrase, and now she is about to announce a change in local government funding to prove it. The new funding formula is expected to allocate money from central government according to local needs, including population, poverty and age, with extra weighting for rural and coastal areas with higher transport costs. The effect will be to force local councils in London and the home counties to put up council tax. Many of them are expected to increase tax by the maximum 5 per cent a year for several years, and more than before will ask Rayner for permission to hold a local referendum on an increase greater than 5 per cent. Councils in the north, the Midlands and east London, on the other hand, may be able to cut their council tax, or at least increase it by less. Is this fair? Labour argues that the Conservatives have fiddled the funding formula for 14 years, resulting in artificially low council taxes in places such as Westminster and Wandsworth – former Tory councils that attracted disproportionate media coverage in local elections. In the end, this attempt to cook the books could not hold back the electoral tide, and Labour won control of both councils in 2022. Clobbering those councils is going to make it harder for Labour to retain control, so it could be argued that Rayner is motivated purely by wanting to rebalance the national distribution of resources according to need. The new system will probably be fairer than the current one, if not perfectly fair, but any attempt to adjust local government funding throws up winners and losers – and the losers always make more noise than those who quietly pocket their gains. How quickly will the change happen? Even if the change were totally fair in principle, any sharp fall in central government funding and big increase in council tax is likely to cause hardship. That is why Rayner is expected to adjust her new formula by putting a limit on how much any council's income from central government can fall in a year. David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says: 'It's been 20 years since we've had an effective system to allocate funding between councils so it is out of whack and the changes are going to be big.' That means any changes will probably be phased in over several years. What could possibly go wrong? If Rayner delivers a funding system for local government that is more closely aligned with local needs, she could deliver more radical policy substance than the Conservative slogan of 'levelling up' ever managed. But Phillips points out a philosophical problem. The more the government tries to redistribute resources from 'leafier places' to deprived areas, the more 'it is making a trade-off to prioritise need over incentives for councils to tackle need and grow their council tax base', he says. If councils receive more funding the higher their indicators of deprivation are, there is a danger of perverse incentives for them to keep those indicators high. Shouldn't council tax be revalued from scratch? Of course it should. It is based on notional property values in 1991 (in England; in Wales the reference date is 2003), so it is hopelessly out of date. But revaluation would produce even more dramatic individual winners and losers than changing funding for whole council areas. Rayner's redistribution is already what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'very brave, deputy prime minister'; a full revaluation would be several times braver – in other words, a guaranteed political disaster. The most that is likely to be politically feasible would be to revalue council tax for more expensive properties, such as the one in 20 UK homes currently on the market for more than £1m. A similar policy, called a mansion tax, was considered by the coalition government – George Osborne and the Liberal Democrats wanted it but David Cameron vetoed the idea, saying the Tory party's donors wouldn't wear it. Given that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is likely to be looking for new sources of revenue in the autumn Budget, this may be an option. She did rule out a mansion tax before the election, but I don't think it has been mentioned since. Look out for even greater 'fairness'.
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
LME imposes new restrictions on large positions
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - The London Metal Exchange (LME) has imposed new restrictions on large positions in nearby contracts, it said on Friday. The exchange, the world's oldest and largest market for industrial metals, said its so-called "front-month lending rules" would take effect on Monday and be temporary.
