| >This approach encourages tipping which is exactly what the OP isn't in favour of. Yes, I understand that OP and you don't favor tipping but we're already past that point. (The lawsuit was already settled and Uber lost the battle about tipping.) In other words, we can have 2 types of discussions about this: #1) a hypothetical clean slate where Uber didn't exist and a lawsuit was not settled. Therefore, we can discuss social idealization of not tipping, etc. or #2) the settled lawsuit is a reality and tipping (in some form -- but still possibly optional) is a fait accompli. In light of that, we discuss business responses in terms of practicality, customer filters, UX/UI complexity, etc. My post was talking about #2. If the OP's scope of "shouldn't ever be encouraged" includes a total revamp of Uber to remove all text throughout the website and internal documents referring to "tipping", I suppose that may be possible but I don't know how realistic it is. To me, it's just relabeling money that was classified as "tips" as "service fee" or even not label it at all. Money is fungible so there are many ways to game it. Lastly, I couldn't tell if your assertion of "this approach encourages tipping" meant that it would lead to isolated decisions of tipping or universal tipping. If you meant isolated tipping -- then yes, that would be obvious. However, if "encourage tipping" meant the entire economic ecosystem of Uber drivers converges towards tipping, that's not so obvious to me. Since Lyft has a tipping option, has social pressure caused 99% to 100% of Lyft passengers to always add a tip? (I'm not privy to Lyft's statistics so I don't know the answer to that.) |