In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Those are the IRS guidelines. No one is required to give a 1099 for income under $600
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Those are the IRS guidelines. No one is required to give a 1099 for income under $600
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Those are the IRS guidelines. No one is required to give a 1099 for income under $600
Yes but apparently quite a few people made more and still didn't get a 1099.
It's weird, I don't know why since there seems to be no benefit for Uber
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
All they have to do is ask.
That has happened to me several times. When I ask the company for a 1099 (even for less than $600), they have always complied.
Edit: It still doesn't have anything to do with a driver's ability to claim the mileage they drive.
Actually, failing to send a 1099 could potentially work in favor of the drivers.
If a driver chose to not admit the income on their tax returns, it would be hard for the IRS to prove it if there was no 1099. (This is illegal)
And they could STILL claim the mileage.
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
Agreed - I find it kind of distasteful but not "wrong", per se. I really thought I read something more recent about the phone number thing, though, and that they were still charging restaurants on a per-call basis. They had a way to report that a call was just to check the hours or some other non-revenue type call, but it was somewhat cumbersome to submit. Again, like you say, it's not wrong, but I don't want to put my favorite joint in a position where they have to go data-enter something just so they don't get charged money because I called to find out if they were open on Mondays or whatever.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:Actually, failing to send a 1099 could potentially work in favor of the drivers.
If a driver chose to not admit the income on their tax returns, it would be hard for the IRS to prove it if there was no 1099. (This is illegal)
And they could STILL claim the mileage.
If they put in the effort, sure, but from what I remember reading very few did.
I'm not saying they can't legally, just that they didn't because they didn't know/laziness/etc.
carguy123 said:In reply to z31maniac :
The only thing I see is a problem is that the costs are not clearly disclosed. They are worded in a way to make you think it's $x when it fact it is $XX.
Regardless of who is getting paid what, who is upcharging, etc, you can still see the total for your order before you click "Place Order."
Like I said on page 1. If it's not profitable for the restaurants they wouldn't do it, same for Uber and the driver. Now what constitutes how MUCH profit each entity should get is a different question.
In reply to z31maniac :
That's not the point. The point is they are going to great lengths to hide the true cost. Even so far as to "clone" a website and make you think the restaurant is charging the higher cost of the food.
I could understand it if the restaurants did it to to cover the extra cost of Uber et al, but no they are hiding it. The restaurants I've talked to today say they have no idea what Uber is charging for the food and that they universally hate it, but that until we reach some kind of normal they feel they have no choice
carguy123 said:In reply to z31maniac :
That's not the point. The point is they are going to great lengths to hide the true cost. Even so far as to "clone" a website and make you think the restaurant is charging the higher cost of the food.
I could understand it if the restaurants did it to to cover the extra cost of Uber et al, but no they are hiding it. The restaurants I've talked to today say they have no idea what Uber is charging for the food and that they universally hate it, but that until we reach some kind of normal they feel they have no choice
The fake website thing was debunked on the last page.
The "true" cost, is what they display before you hit "Place Order." If you don't like that cost, drive to the restaurant and get it yourself. You're paying a premium for the convenience, don't want to pay the added cost, you don't have to.
I'm not really sure what the issue is.
z31maniac said:carguy123 said:In reply to z31maniac :
That's not the point. The point is they are going to great lengths to hide the true cost. Even so far as to "clone" a website and make you think the restaurant is charging the higher cost of the food.
I could understand it if the restaurants did it to to cover the extra cost of Uber et al, but no they are hiding it. The restaurants I've talked to today say they have no idea what Uber is charging for the food and that they universally hate it, but that until we reach some kind of normal they feel they have no choiceThe fake website thing was debunked on the last page.
The "true" cost, is what they display before you hit "Place Order." If you don't like that cost, drive to the restaurant and get it yourself. You're paying a premium for the convenience, don't want to pay the added cost, you don't have to.
I'm not really sure what the issue is.
No it was not debunked.
It was happening and some bad actors were caught. I believe it is still happening.
In reply to tuna55 :
Please provide link.
As far as I can tell, it's false. No one has provided a link (though I have requested)
https://www.mashed.com/226382/how-the-food-apps-are-scamming-restaurants/
https://chicago.eater.com/2021/8/27/22644787/chicago-grubhub-doordash-lawsuit-third-party-delivery
https://www.independent.com/2021/06/14/fake-website-alert-issued-for-la-tapatia-3/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/29/uber-grubhub-and-doordash-under-scrutiny-as-indust/
TL:DR (because real life is way more complicated) Laissez-faire works great until people start putting coolant in the Gatorade. The restaurants get in, and are lied to about what the fee structure is, they find out and are either circumvented, spoofed with a fake website, blacklisted from searches with their own money, or continue to operate as a loss. The price increases were involuntary and the restaurants didn't see any of it. Stories of owners finding out they their increase in sales was accompanied by a literal loss for the month abound. This is not a case of "they should have known what they were getting into", this is a case of a predatory and immoral action on the part of these services.
In reply to tuna55 :
I've only read your first link, but it describes EXACTLY the fee structure I previously described in this thread. There is NO alternate priced menu on these sites. In fact, your article says they are contractually bound to gave the same price as in the restaurant, and that some restaurants are passing on the costs for online orders in violation of the contracts.
Which is exactly what we have described in this thread.
There are other aspects that are predatory, but the specific accusation that the delivery services are creating alternative websites with inflated menu prices is false.
I'll read more of your articles later.
Thinking for a moment only about the restaurants that have consented to being listed with the courier companies, why do they renew their agreements? Or even sign them in the first place? If fulfilling those delivery orders actually costs them money and yet they continue to do it, I'd argue they kind of deserve to go out of business. I can absolutely understand how a joint that doesn't want to be listed could have some righteous indignation about their good name getting sullied by GrubHub listing their restaurant as open and taking orders when the place is, in fact, closed that day, but there are a ton of places around me that have the stickers from the various courier companies plastered all over their door so I can only assume that they've entered into this willingly. I would assume that at least some restaurants find that it increases overall profits? Or that there's some sort of advantage that being listed on Doordash brings?
wae said:Thinking for a moment only about the restaurants that have consented to being listed with the courier companies, why do they renew their agreements? Or even sign them in the first place? If fulfilling those delivery orders actually costs them money and yet they continue to do it, I'd argue they kind of deserve to go out of business. I can absolutely understand how a joint that doesn't want to be listed could have some righteous indignation about their good name getting sullied by GrubHub listing their restaurant as open and taking orders when the place is, in fact, closed that day, but there are a ton of places around me that have the stickers from the various courier companies plastered all over their door so I can only assume that they've entered into this willingly. I would assume that at least some restaurants find that it increases overall profits? Or that there's some sort of advantage that being listed on Doordash brings?
That was exactly my point on the first page.
If doing X is making a company lose money, they will no longer do X. If they continue to do X and lose money, that's not my problem.
tuna55 said:
https://www.mashed.com/226382/how-the-food-apps-are-scamming-restaurants/
https://chicago.eater.com/2021/8/27/22644787/chicago-grubhub-doordash-lawsuit-third-party-delivery
https://www.independent.com/2021/06/14/fake-website-alert-issued-for-la-tapatia-3/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/29/uber-grubhub-and-doordash-under-scrutiny-as-indust/
TL:DR (because real life is way more complicated) Laissez-faire works great until people start putting coolant in the Gatorade. The restaurants get in, and are lied to about what the fee structure is, they find out and are either circumvented, spoofed with a fake website, blacklisted from searches with their own money, or continue to operate as a loss. The price increases were involuntary and the restaurants didn't see any of it. Stories of owners finding out they their increase in sales was accompanied by a literal loss for the month abound. This is not a case of "they should have known what they were getting into", this is a case of a predatory and immoral action on the part of these services.
I can see from the URL of the first two stories you linked, they are outdated. The one from 2019 was shown to not be accurate anymore on the last page.
But I'm still not seeing the problem. If a consumer, myself for example, is willing to pay more for a product to be delivered, what's the issue? It's not like DoorDash is saying your meal is $50..........then the next day you get a bill for $80.
The consumer knows what the cost is and decides to pay it or not. If the restaurant or driver aren't making enough, the restaurant can choose not to use that service, or the driver can choose not to work for that company, right?
Having a kid driving around in an unreliable 1975 Maverick delivering your pizza doesn't come free.
More people ordering delivery means the restaurant can cut back on square footage and get rid of staff and tables, which cost money.
I guess it balances out if you run your business properly.
I think there is a bit of legitimacy to their concerns... once GrubHub (et al) has the tool that enables them to direct traffic, they can send customers to competitors if a restaurant won't play ball with them. That's a problem.
But it's not fraud. Separate menus with different prices would be fraud.
The answer would be for restaurants to have their own delivery service, or join together and boycott the online delivery services in favor of a local contract delivery which they all share the costs.
Its super easy to build an app site like that. There are websites dedicated to showing people how to build clone delivery systems using Uber's code.
Streetwiseguy said:Having a kid driving around in an unreliable 1975 Maverick delivering your pizza doesn't come free.
More people ordering delivery means the restaurant can cut back on square footage and get rid of staff and tables, which cost money.
I guess it balances out if you run your business properly.
Right. Witness Chick-fil-A.
It's very unlikely many of them will reopen their dining rooms. EVER.
They figured out they can make more money by focusing on drive-through.
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
To add to that about chick filet, Wendy's has committed to opening a butt load, like 1/3 of the new locations over the next 5 years, as delivery app only locations.
Link something like 700 of them
forget this thread, you guys are missing the boat here. I won't use those services because they're universally bad for the restaurant. They have indeed been caught making clone menus, and are indeed still doing it. They are indeed still making clone websites, and artificially inflating prices.
In reply to tuna55 :
I'm not doubting you. But as I said, I read the first article you posted and that's not what it said.
In reply to tuna55 :
Amazon and WalMart are universally bad for small businesses too. I'll bet you still use them.
Not using the services doesn't fix the problem. It puts your favorite restaurant out of business faster. There are other solutions, but restaurants are making bad business decisions.
Looks like a fantastic business opportunity. Clone the delivery services, and offer the service to local businesses at a fair price. Get the local businesses to agree to use your business exclusively.
tuna55 said:forget this thread, you guys are missing the boat here. I won't use those services because they're universally bad for the restaurant. They have indeed been caught making clone menus, and are indeed still doing it. They are indeed still making clone websites, and artificially inflating prices.
OK, so don't use them? That's the great thing about the US, we can vote with our dollars.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to tuna55 :
Amazon and WalMart are universally bad for small businesses too. I'll bet you still use them.
Not using the services doesn't fix the problem. It puts your favorite restaurant out of business faster. There are other solutions, but restaurants are making bad business decisions.
Looks like a fantastic business opportunity. Clone the delivery services, and offer the service to local businesses at a fair price. Get the local businesses to agree to use your business exclusively.
Come on Paul, you know people don't like to have their hypocrisy shown to them.
You'll need to log in to post.
