Uber and Lyft are quitting Minneapolis over a driver pay increase:
Uber and Lyft say they're ending services in Minneapolis over a city-mandated driver pay increase. The city council pushed through the measure to bring driver pay closer to the local minimum wage of $15.57 an hour.
[...] However, Uber and Lyft say they'll end services in the city before the pay rise takes effect on May 1. Lyft says the increase is "deeply flawed," citing a Minnesota study indicating that drivers could meet the minimum wage and still cover health insurance, paid leave and retirement savings at lower rates of $1.21 per mile and 49 cents per minute. "We support a minimum earning standard for drivers, but it should be done in an honest way that keeps the service affordable for riders," spokesperson CJ Macklin told The Verge.
An Uber spokesperson told the publication that the company was disappointed by the council's choice to "ignore the data and kick Uber out of the Twin Cities," putting around 10,000 drivers out of work. They noted Uber's confidence that by working with drivers, drivers and legislators, "we can achieve comprehensive statewide legislation that guarantees drivers a fair minimum wage, protects their independence and keeps rideshare affordable."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday March 18, @02:00AM (16 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday March 18, @02:44AM (15 children)
By throwing out the two principle competitors? Not feeling the competition over here.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @02:53AM (8 children)
Nobody threw them out. The same rules will apply to anyone who enters that marketspace. They just threw a tantrum and left.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18, @02:57AM (7 children)
Aside from the city of Minneapolis, that is.
Or don't enter the marketspace. I remain skeptical of any scheme that chases out competitors and then assumes that new competitors will replace them somehow.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aafcac on Monday March 18, @11:59AM (6 children)
They entered the market by paying subminimum wage and without the drivers even having appropriate insurance. This is probably for the best
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @03:04AM (5 children)
And given the large number of contractors they had, that indicates that someone needed those subminimum wages too. But I guess the desperate worker will be better off without those wages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @04:39AM (4 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @01:41PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @03:39PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:21AM
It's rather on the policy makers who pulled that minimum wage regulation out of their ass.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aafcac on Wednesday March 20, @01:09AM
They won't ever be profitable if the drivers are making a living wage. Taxi drivers used to make a living wage before they got undercut by the illegal ride share services. The whole business model is completely based off the fact that they can have people driving for subminimum wage pay, and even at those rates, they've still struggled with profitability.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday March 18, @03:53PM (5 children)
I remember when you were against hyperbole, heh. They elected to strike to depress wages. Either competition will come in or Uber and Lyft will have to fight each other over the region. What shouldn't happen is the local government having to subsidize the workers being exploited so they don't end up homeless.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @03:05AM (4 children)
Push the cost onto someone else. Actually, my take is that it's nobody's job to subsidize those workers. As I noted before, if they can't cut it in Minneapolis, then move somewhere else.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday March 19, @03:26AM (3 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @11:31AM (2 children)
It's not Minneapolis's job to insure that Uber and Lyft don't make a profit.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday March 19, @04:34PM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:38AM
My imagination isn't strained by this conversation. As to your alleged competition, what efforts will Minneapolis take next to screw over the remaining competitors? I imagine this one weird trick will work in a fashion over and over, until they get voted out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday March 18, @02:02AM (36 children)
"Uber and Lyft say they're ending services..."
Works for me.
The only reason those companies even exist is because they used smell phones to turn everyone in to contractors. There is no good reason they should still exist.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Monday March 18, @02:45AM (35 children)
Cheaper way to get from point B to point A.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday March 18, @05:51AM (27 children)
Slaves pulling rickshaws would also be a cheaper way to get from B to A, but it wouldn't be a social good.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Monday March 18, @11:17AM (26 children)
A slave typing away to generate your post above wouldn't be a "social good" either. But it turns out you figured out a way to do without increasing human suffering. So did the ride hailing services in our story. And there is this huge human need that has been slighted in this feeble social scheme, the need to travel.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday March 18, @12:28PM (23 children)
Funny...some of us tend to think that policies that benefit "society" as a whole are the way to go, and don't have brains that vomit "SJW" every time we see the word social.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18, @11:02PM (22 children)
This policy greatly reduced competition in ride hailing and gave 10k people reduced work/income options. Similarly, people who need rides will have less rides available and will pay more. Where's the benefit to society?
You said it not me. "Social justice" isn't justice like "social good" isn't good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @02:35AM (11 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @03:02AM (10 children)
Except that reality went the other way in Minneapolis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @03:07AM (9 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @03:17AM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @03:27AM (7 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @11:30AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @03:04PM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:40AM (4 children)
How about you write an essay on how two similar things can't both be true so that we can marvel at your mental (in)capacity?
In any case, I don't believe that either is a falsehood - that would require it to be false first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @01:48AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:15AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @06:44AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21, @03:04AM
That has to happen first. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday March 19, @05:03AM (9 children)
Unemployment is temporary. Exploitive wages are not.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @01:37PM (8 children)
Why quote the question when you don't bother to answer it?
Second, they are both just as temporary. If the work is truly terrible, then it may well be worthwhile to quit before you found new work. But I've seen a lot of life stories here on SN where people started dropping resumes when their current employer signaled job suck was incoming. The obvious advantage is that you have income and thus, can be much more choosy when considering your next job.
Third, your quip demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of what work is. Exploitive wages are merely people who are gainfully employed. Funny how all the solutions to such alleged problems just make things worse: higher cost of living, higher cost of employing people, lower competitivity/market breakdowns, and more bureaucracy to slow everything down.
Finally, revisiting the second point, a lot of these policies have the unintended consequence of making temporary unemployment far longer and permanent than it need be. One of the big factors that can result in permanent unemployment is a lack of so-called exploitive jobs with those exploitive wages. If the prospective worker has a criminal record, belongs to certain minorities, young, or just hasn't worked for a while, then who will risk hiring this person for so-called living wages? If your work isn't worth minimum wage, then you won't get hired.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday March 19, @04:10PM (1 child)
Reads fine to me. *shrug*
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:33AM
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday March 20, @01:11AM (5 children)
The benefit to society is that regulated taxis can take up the slack, and pay the drivers some sort of decent wage that would result in more money circulating in the economy. If there's not enough of those, there probably will be after they stop having to compete with exploitative services. Also, regulations could be adjusted to allow for more taxis if there's a legitimate shortage.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:17AM (4 children)
What need has been shown for regulated taxis? My take is that the primary purpose of regulation in this case is merely as a barrier to entry.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday March 20, @12:16PM (3 children)
The requirement that the people driving be paid a living wage. It's literally why the "rideshare" companies threw this tantrum and left the city. Up until the point where there's actual Johnny Cabs, professional cabbies are going to be needed. Not everybody needs a car and sometimes it doesn't make sense to take a busy, walk or bike.
This whole thing is rather dumb. The whole purpose of any regulation is to be a barrier to entry so that things like rideshare companies can't explore drivers and harm their customers. I'm not sure what regulation is for other than keeping out irresponsible entities and limiting the race to the bottom.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21, @04:40AM (2 children)
Sorry, that's labor regulation not taxi regulation. And Minneapolis hasn't demonstrated a need for people to be paid alleged living wages. I find it interesting how much cognitive dissonance there is in this discussion.
That last point is a huge one. Large numbers of people chose Uber and Lyft either as customers or drivers. They knew about living wages and all that nonsense. They knew about professional cabbies. And even if drivers didn't know about total cost of ownership at first, they would have learned quick. To be blunt, the Minneapolis move is a combination of well-meaning ignorant people making life harder for a large number of people combined with various cartels and labor unions feathering their own beds. It won't help anything because nobody involved has that combination of good intentions and good understanding of the economy that they are manipulating.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday March 21, @12:02PM (1 child)
I don't know why I bother because this is a whole load of stupid.
1 they're not really competition, they're just there to break up the current market with a service that clearly costs more than they're charging.
2 it absolutely is a temper tantrum, the taxi companies aren't leaving, they're figuring out how to make it work, which is less of an issue for them as they can charge what the market will bear now that the anticompetitive rideshare companies are leaving.
3 it's completely relevant. These aren't real competitors, eventually, they need to turn a profit, and apparently that won't happen until they're done destroying the market. Dunping is illegal for a reason.
4 idiotic tautolology you could say the same thing about every crime in this country as things are legal by default.
5 exactly my point, that's why allowing them to dump their service is do problematic. There will be 2 options for professional drivers if this nonsense is allowed to continue long enough.
6 that's only because you choose to be ignorant on these things and are looking to prop up weak arguments by just making things up and ignoring reality. Anybody with any sense knows what's going on is deeply problematic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21, @11:07PM
Perhaps because you just might learn something?
Actually looks like Uber made [yahoo.com] a profit in 2023. Lyft was a bit shy [yahoo.com]. Both would have profits, if they weren't spending on marketing and R&D. In other words, they're both spending a lot on the future - market expansion and R&D on things like autonomous vehicles. If they didn't spend on these future bets, they would be able to lower their prices and still make a profit.
The taxi companies benefit greatly from this measure because they just lost their biggest competition and the anchor holding down the price of taxi rides. Great use of double think in calling Uber/Lyft "anticompetitive". Those competitive taxi companies can now, in your words, "charge what the market will bear" a sure sign of lack of competition for the clued. I already covered point 3 in point 1. Doesn't look like either Uber or Lyft is on life-support when you look at their financials.
Sorry, not so. There's a rule of thumb in law called "ignorance is no excuse". The idea is that some laws are so obvious that one can't make the excuse that they weren't aware it was a law. For example, suppose someone leaves a car in a public area with the key in the ignition. Does this mean that I can just hop in ride off into the sunset with my new car? No. Law says you don't get a pass on that. You knew that people don't give away cars like that even if you genuinely weren't aware of the specific law that made that theft.
Here, there's no such obvious law that requires Uber and Lyft to screw up their business models for your ideological comfort.
Even if that accusation were true, it means cheaper transportation for the people using their services. It's not problematic for the customers! This was my point.
People don't use ride hailing services and such to pay for someone's living wage. They do it to go places. As long as you continue to ignore the value of transportation, you can't understand why these policies are so bad. It's not Uber hoarding the cookies and just making a policy to fairly distribute those cookies to others. Instead, it's poorly thought out shenanigans that harm fundamental transportation infrastructure.
Sorry, not so. You're turning human beings into pets -and not very well cared for pets at that. That's what anyone with sense would notice.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 18, @08:27PM
No, they really didn't. That's the problem. When Minneapolis insisted that they must, they decided to pick up their marbles and stomp home in a huff.
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday March 19, @12:18AM
Actually, as I think about it, Lyft and Uber wouldn't like the slave option. They'd have to provide enough food, clothing, and shelter to protect their investment, as well as buying the car. That's more than they pay now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @01:24PM (1 child)
In my country the taxis were fairly affordable to get from A to B. Many were using NGV as fuel which is cheaper than petrol.
Then Grab and Uber undercut them (free etc). So lots of taxi operators protested. Many ignorant people said they should just compete.
But how can they compete against companies that can afford to lose BILLIONS for years? Of course while they're burning money, Uber drivers in nice Toyotas and Hondas can give cheaper/free rides and outcompete some taxi driver in a battered old NGV car.
The aftermath is many taxi companies went bust. Now there are far fewer taxis on the road. I think Softbank which owned Uber and Grab, arranged things so now there's only Grab. And prices have gone up.
So yeah "cheaper way to get from A to B" for a few years while they're willing to burn billions. More expensive after that.
Sounds a bit like "anticompetitive dumping" to me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18, @11:49PM
In other words, it's still cheaper now. Sounds like the ignorant people nailed this one.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday March 18, @03:12PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @04:12PM (3 children)
> Cheaper way to get from point B to point A.
In the case of Uber and Lyft, rides were cheaper only when they were using big VC subsidies --with the goal of killing the existing taxicab companies (kept quiet at first, but eventually came out as their real goal).
Now that the cab companies are mostly gone, prices are back where they used to be, but the drivers make less while the fat cats take bigger and bigger cuts. MPLS decided they wanted to keep some of the take local (into the pockets of the drivers, spent in the local economy).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18, @11:52PM (2 children)
Does this place have a name?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @04:44AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 05, @05:42AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday March 18, @02:36AM (24 children)
So Uber and Lyft are both saying that they'd rather refuse service than pay minimum wage. Which means that they're claiming that the only reason they're profitable is because they pay the workers that they rely on to provide their services less than they are legally allowed to, all by the legally questionable claim that the people who provide their core product are all independent contractors.
Screw 'em. And anyone considering driving for them, take a job in fast food, retail, or pretty much any other industry if you can do that instead, because it will pay better and also won't do as much damage to your car.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday March 18, @02:59AM (4 children)
Or move out of Minneapolis to a place that has jobs.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @04:16PM (3 children)
> Or move out of Minneapolis to a place that has jobs.
Should have done some minimum research before posting that line!
https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/june-2023/metro.jsp [mn.gov]
This was the first hit I got -- the MPLS job market is really hot now, lots of unfilled positions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 19, @12:04AM (2 children)
Then why do people drive for these ride hailing services if it's such a thriving job market? Surely they can do better, right? Why would the region need a high minimum wage when companies are willingly paying already? There's something wrong with the narrative. Personally, I'd start by looking at the 2% drop in labor force from 2020 to 2022.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @04:59AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:43AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 18, @03:09AM (1 child)
>"We support a minimum earning standard for drivers, but it should be done in an honest way that keeps the service affordable for riders,"
I say: instead of pulling out, they should give the drivers the pay required by law and charge whatever is necessary to cover their slice plus the drivers' money. Let the riders decide if the service needs to be scaled back 20, 50, or 90% in those cities due to reduced demand.
It's not like they can't scale back their "fleets" accordingly. I would assume the same pay scale requirements apply to traditional yellow cab services, so let the two compete for customers and let the customers decide if they'd rather own and operate their own vehicles, or maybe pay for a workable public transportation system instead.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday March 20, @01:15AM
They can't, then drivers in other municipalities would make similar demands and they'd lose the advantage they've been using to drive cab companies out of business. Except that unlike the ride share companies, the taxi drivers are often times genuine independent businesses that mostly just get dispatched through whatever company.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 18, @03:20AM (9 children)
>And anyone considering driving for them, take a job in fast food, retail, or pretty much any other industry if you can do that instead, because it will pay better and also won't do as much damage to your car.
The Door Dash / Uber / Lyft / Instacart driver we know (all too well) is a Native American, with all kinds of benefits through the tribe, including cash every so often. She prefers to tell the world to fuck off on a regular basis and drive for pay when she pleases, so it's a good fit for her... although her passengers might choose other transportation if they knew about her (and so many other Uber/Lyft drivers') substance abuse problems...
For people serious about getting off of rock bottom and making forward economic progress in their lives, I agree with you: these services are predatory, the mileage costs to the drivers eat into earnings in ways they are usually unable to truly "grok," and they would indeed make more long term by driving their Lexus to Micky Ds and asking "you want fries with that?" for what they pay. Thing is: an awful lot of people take great pride in their vehicles and driving around in them, and that makes them feel good, and being able to drive around in their vehicles and get paid for it strokes their egos in ways that smelling like fry-vat oil at the end of every shift just doesn't.
Our Native American friend actually leased a Prius and made the whole Uber business work cash positive for her, during the pandemic when everyone else was too afraid to go out and shuttle the doctors to and from their work and homes at shift change. Apparently after the lockdown panic was over, decreasing income from other driver competition made that lease arrangement unviable financially.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 18, @11:59AM (8 children)
That's where the "if you can do that instead" comes into play. I understand full well that some people doing that kind of work are doing it because they can't get a basic minimum wage job due to factors like being an ex-con, bad credit ratings, substance abuse issues, being in the country illegally or having the wrong sort of visa to be allowed to work, and disabilities that employers illegally refuse to accommodate.
As for your Native acquaintance, I'm guessing the totality of her situation depends a lot on exactly where you are, what nation she's enrolled in, whether she's living on the rez and dealing with the challenges of that, etc etc. My understanding is that it varies widely, e.g. the Seneca fairly near my area have a very different situation from the Lakota, who live quite differently from the Dine (Navajo), who have different challenges from the Ojibwe up north in Canada.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 18, @12:39PM (7 children)
Her tribe is from Alaska, she's living in Texas, and in addition to a small fairly regular payment there are benefits like student loans (that she'll never pay back) and other things that bring a little burst of support now and then. We met through "mommy groups" 20+ years ago when our kids were toddlers... the recent death of her daughter certainly isn't helping her substance habits go away...
Tribal benefits to vary - a lot - and since the Casino money started flowing they have also adopted a strong wealth inequality model among members of some tribes. The one thing that seems fairly constant through all the tribes at all levels of wealth is the high rates of substance abuse. And, from what I read here and there, substance abuse and Uber / Lyft / DoorDash et. al. driving is also strongly correlated regardless of racial background.
Around here what I observe in Uber and Lyft are a lot of people with nice big cars and a lot of time on their hands. We use InstaCart on a regular basis, and I doubt we've ever seen the same driver more than twice - and my wife still gives too big tips. The delivery drivers show up in more modest vehicles and most seem to be struggling financially from their appearance.
We (still) drive a 2002 Mercedes S430, back when it was shinier and we'd be out at the restaurant heavy area in the evenings a lot, more than once people approached us thinking we were their Uber - one set actually opened the rear door (when our central locking wasn't working) and hopped in.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:24AM (6 children)
This strong argument for UBI ought to help your stance on that. We definitely need a lot more substance abuse out there. Maybe more Uber/Lyft/Doordash contractors too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 20, @01:12AM (1 child)
Get some data on UBI correlation to substance abuse in the real world. In your fantasy land I'm sure you are convinced it's super high, pun and all.
Actual UBI programs show it to be a negative correlation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:26AM
I just found the JoeMerchant stories. Sounds like I hit the motherload.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @01:50AM (3 children)
hysteria.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:27AM (2 children)
There's a pill for that.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @05:48AM (1 child)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @06:14AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @03:25AM
Uber and Lyft are both public companies so financial statements are available. Even without paying their workers they have not managed to demonstrate that they can sustain a profitable business. Uber managed to have a net profit of about 2 billion in FY2023 but they burned 9 billion in FY2022. As far as I can see Lyft has never once had a year in the black since going public.
These companies will only last as long as the money burning party does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @11:22AM (4 children)
You assume anyone can just go get a job. Truth is, normal employers get very picky at those places. Long trick online tests, multiple interviews.. all for a part-time job. The people who work things like uber don't fit in the workforce. They don't get called back, they don't get hired. It's why they are attracted to task based work.
Fast food and retail may have upped their prices but often don't hire full-time, have to pay benefits then. The company is better off having multiple staffers rotate. Yes uber is predatory but don't assume people work as contractors because they are ignorant.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 18, @12:07PM (3 children)
This is what I wrote, with added emphasis:
I get that some people can't do that. But there are also people for whom gig economy work genuinely seemed like a good deal for them, and it would be good to recognize that they were wrong. And the fewer people willing to do the gig economy work, the higher the rate those who are willing to do that work can demand, which I also think is a good thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:31AM (2 children)
Except, of course, if they were right instead. I suppose there would be no case for the nanny state, if we assumed that people can figure these things out. So naturally, one must assume that the deviant gig economy behavior is wrong.
My take on this is why give these people voting power, if they can't even get something like this right? Democracy assumes a certain level of competence in its citizens after all.
And one way people get that competence is by trying stuff, like trying the gig economy jobs. They might fail a bit, but at least we'll have citizens with experience.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 20, @11:51AM (1 child)
Just to be clear: I wasn't suggesting anything other than (1) Uber and Lyft should be required to follow the same labor laws as everybody else, (2) I was informing the audience here as a private citizen that the math does not work out in their favor, and (3) if they are unwilling to do business while following the same labor laws as everybody else that suggests that their business model is fundamentally flawed and maybe they shouldn't exist because other companies or services do a better job for less money.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21, @09:32AM
What makes you think they weren't? I also think that labor laws have a huge amount not just of cruft, but also rent-seeking and other special interest feeding. I'm fine with finding ways to work around that. If bad regulation gets worse enough, I won't be concerned about the legality of the workarounds either. Keep in mind that these loopholes aren't just one-sidedly being exploited by the ridesharing companies, but also by everyone else involved - particularly by the drivers. That indicates to me that the laws require a deep rethink. When employer and employee team up against the regulator, then there's something wrong.
You made an unfounded assertion. The math depends on the driver's costs and gains. Studies in the past have merely asserted that large numbers of drivers are below minimum wage, sometimes even losing money (for example, here [soylentnews.org] which showed its bias by claiming there were unpaid taxes to be plundered). I wonder what these studies would show, if they were weighted by driver miles? My take is that the drivers who get the math are the ones driving. The ones losing money figure it out and either modify their behavior or drop out.
Which only is a problem if they aren't following those laws and the laws are sufficiently just to obligate us to follow them. Now, you know my position on that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday March 18, @02:17PM
Remember that they claim that they are only platforms: an intermediary between the drivers and travelers, so why should they care if the minimum price goes up?
This shows clearly that these "platforms" are exercising a level of control that warrants treating the drivers as employees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @03:33AM (3 children)
These independent contractors cannot decide where they do the work (Minneapolis or not…), they cannot decide how much they charge (minimum wage, less, or more…)
At some point, when a lot of companies allow their permanent full-time employees to work flexible hours and remotely, I feel more independent than these so-called "independent contractors".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday March 18, @03:47AM (2 children)
Last I checked, they can decide where they do the work. They certain can decide when they do the work. They bring their own tools (cars, phones).
So you too can just quit without notice and then pick up where you left off six months from now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, @04:31AM (1 child)
Well, apparently they can no longer decide to work in Minneapolis.
Nothing specific to contractors, as I just mentioned above.
Mainly downsides, not upsides.
It’s called taking a sabbatical, and yes, I’ve seen several examples in my career of people going away for several months and coming back. Whether it’s to travel the world, to study some more, or to start their own business.
Point taken for the "without notice", but contractors in my industry don’t simply stop in the middle of their contract and they warn us before the end if they don’t intend to be available for a contract extension.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18, @05:41AM
I hope you agree that there's more outside of Minneapolis than inside.
No, you haven't seen several examples of people just disappearing for six months without notice and seamlessly starting work again as if nothing had happened. This is not a sabbatical - that has to be worked out with the employer and agreed to by the employer.
So what? It's still a huge sign that this is contract work not employment. Ride hailing and gig economy stuff in general is not your industry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday March 18, @06:33AM
Uber and Lyft are not viable businesses. They can't afford to pay a decent wage and even when they don't, they're not profiting. Better to get them out of the market so they don't damage viable businesses that provide transportation.
OR, they could try complying with the law and make some adjustments that might allow them to be viable.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 18, @12:28PM (2 children)
So at 49 cents per minute, they're not even close to 15.57/hr. Hmm. Let's calculate how many minutes are in an hour in MN... Is it some northern latitude thing or a Somalian culture thing that there are only thirty minutes per hour up in Minneapolis?
Another novelty: The IRS lets me deduct 65.5 cents/mile and they're earning 1.21/mile which is a bit less than twice. Every company in the USA is OK with a deduction of 65.5/mile, and only app drivers can't make ends meet at 1.21/mile. That seems odd to me.
The final oddity is I drive past a sign at Panda Express offering $25/hr and I live in a lower COL area than Minneapolis. Ziprecruiter claims "average hourly salary for fast food worker in Minneapolic MN is $21.15", OK fine seems low to me but maybe the standard of living is lower in big cities, would not be surprised to hear that. So... how do they get ANYONE to work there at $15.57? I'm not saying all drivers can or will work fast food but it does set certain expectations that everything else pays more, so how do these peeps get stuck driving for less than operating a cash register? I have a strange suspicion there's money laundering going on via apps.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 18, @12:49PM
I suppose it depends on your perspective of how $0.49/minute while driving translates into a "wage".
Back when I worked for a dirtbag temp agency, they paid a minimum of 4 hours any time I showed up to a job. So, that commute time was offset by a minimum of $24 in wage payment. I understand that 4 hour minimum is pretty standard across a lot of industries, possibly legally defined somewhere - I never researched that end of it.
When you get an Uber call, you have to drive from where you are to where the fare it, unpaid. Then you take them wherever they want to go, paid for time and mileage, drop them, and start waiting, unpaid again, until you get to your next fare pickup. You can split hairs about how efficient the "smart" drivers are, but what matters is the big picture of what the mean and median drivers are experiencing. I think it amounts to a little less than 1/2 of total mileage driven and 1/3 of time spent being "on the clock."
Stick that in your innumeracy and smoke it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday March 19, @05:27PM
What you are not considering is that rideshare drivers don't get paid a wage. They get paid to provide a service, and they are responsible for all of the costs of that service, including labor, fuel, vehicle, insurance, tolls, cellphone service, opportunity cost between rides, etc. This entire dispute appears to be about how much that other stuff costs. If I understand correctly, Minneapolis is saying that someone working 2000 hours a year should be able to make $31k in wages plus $28k a year to keep their car running. And Uber and Lyft are not saying that $31k is too much for the driver, they are saying that $28k is too much for the car. I have know idea how much a commercial vehicle costs, and so have no comment on who is right.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by DadaDoofy on Monday March 18, @02:30PM (10 children)
What's really sad is almost 20,000 workers are out of work because the far-lefties on the City Council are under the misguided impression they "help" workers by raising the minimum wage.
While the government can arbitrarily set the minimum wage to anything they want, it can't do a damn thing about businesses firing workers, or simply closing shop, in response to the higher labor cost. It should be painfully obvious by now a worker making $0/hr is considerably worse off than one making the previous minimum wage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @12:20AM (1 child)
Regulated free markets to the rescue! No need to worry your poor heart over the Uber and Lyft drivers about to be out of work:
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/with-uber-lyft-exit-looming-these-companies-say-theyre-ready-to-come-in/89-61ad09eb-6dcb-4777-9db8-7aa24bb3fa6e [kare11.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:31AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @02:49AM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday March 19, @05:06PM (6 children)
"I'll put it this way: why the ruddy fuck aren't you pissed off that a company like Walmart can pay their employees so little they qualify for food stamps?"
If people were forced to work at Walmart, that would be one thing, but the fact is, people choose to work at Walmart of their own free will. They even do it when the pay is so low they qualify for food stamps. You see, in a free county, people are free to make that choice. Apparently, Walmart employees aren't nearly as pissed off as you are about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19, @05:19PM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @12:45AM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @12:56AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20, @05:26AM (2 children)
Of course, what would a thread like this be without the empty threats? Here's my take. What's more important to you? That we crack down on Walmart for doing what we wanted them to do - hire poor people, or accept that not all consequences of a social safety net are positive?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, @05:55AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21, @09:37AM
Show there's a problem first.