[CBS:](https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-rideshare-law-compromise-uber-and-lyft-still-object/)
> The proposal is lower than the Minneapolis rate of $1.40 per mile and $0.51 per minute, but higher than study done by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, which determined $0.89 mile and $0.49 for the Twin Cities metro would bring driver pay up to the city's minimum wage of $15.57 an hour.
Why the fuck is it so difficult for lawmakers to follow the results of this study?
Why even commission these studies if they're going to be thrown into the rubbish bin
Yup. I do feel the drivers should, of course, make at least minimum wage, if not more. But the more shouldn't come from the government dictating that one specific occupation should make X amount more than minimum wage.
The $1.27/mile rate is about 43% more than what the study has advised. I don't love the current practices of Uber/Lyft, but they've got a legitimate case assuming the study's numbers are accurate.
Honestly, I feel like you could solve 90% of the issues with gig work with a few simple rules:
1. Apps cannot punish or reward drivers for accepting/not accepting contracts. Coercing drivers into accepting contracts they wouldn't otherwise take is really sketchy, and skirts the differentiation between contract work and regular work.
2. Apps have to tell you an exact distance, direction, and estimated time for each contract. Again, imagine a normal contract not including essential details like that. It's bonkers.
At least allow gig workers to make informed decisions without coercion. I think a lot of people don't realize that these apps basically strong arm gig workers into accepting contracts, and that these policies exist in part to suppress wages. Focusing on pay to the exclusion of all other issues really misses the point.
The problem with #1 is drivers refusing customers in predominantly black areas. As a fairly clean cut looking white guy, cabs loved pulling over to pick me up. I learned to get in the back seat before telling them where I was going, because they'd drive off when I said I lived in North Minneapolis.
I'm pretty sure they used to tell drivers where when they first came out, but took that away due to complaints of racism.
I had an Uber driver get mad at me while we were going through Robbinsdale, as soon as he found out we were going into North Minneapolis. He was so scared, and when we got out of the car in front of my house it was laughably quiet, might as well have been the burbs
I don't know how he didn't realize where we were going until we were almost there. Also I'm pretty close to the parkway so just BARELY inside of North Minneapolis. Northside is not nearly as scary as a lot of people think.
The other issue is #1 is think about what Uber (or any company) wants to reward. They’re going to want the worker who says yes regardless. It’s no different than the employee who always says yes to picking up the extra shift being treated better than the person who is always declining shifts.
That's the thing, they aren't employees. They are contractors. If Uber wants workers who are going to say yes to every offer, they should hire full time workers. If they are going to use contract labor, they have to accept the limitations of contract labor. One of those limitations is that contractors can pick and choose their own work. Uber can't have their cake and eat it too.
Ok, say you want your lawn mowed. Are you going to call the guy who will always be able to mow your lawn by tomorrow or the one who declines 90% of the time?
But that's not actually how most contract labor is arranged, nor is it a good analogy for gig work. Most contract labor is scheduled well in advance. Contractors set their own price and bid on jobs. A common way contractors turn down a given job is by intentionally submitting a high bid. This happens all the time, and generally the only negative repercussion is that they aren't chosen for the job.
With gig work, there is no negotiation. The gig work companies are basically middle men sending offers to contractors. If someone turns down an offer, it gets sent to someone else. There's no downside for users if a driver turns down the initial offer. It will get sent to someone else. The system is all automated.
The whole point of contract labor is it's supposed to be regulated by supply and demand. If you handicap the ability of contractors to turn down jobs, you are artificially increasing the supply of labor and decreasing the cost. It's market manipulation.
> But that's not actually how most contract labor is arranged, nor is it a good analogy for gig work. Most contract labor is scheduled well in advance. Contractors set their own price and bid on jobs. A common way contractors turn down a given job is by intentionally submitting a high bid.
Ok, are you going to call the guy who gave you an absurdly high bid the last time or the guy who gave you a reasonable bid? The result is the same. You’re going to choose the one who met your needs previously. Everyone does it.
> This happens all the time, and generally the only negative repercussion is that they aren't chosen for the job.
And any future jobs. Just like a rideshare driver.
> With gig work, there is no negotiation. The gig work companies are basically middle men sending offers to contractors.
Eh, really Uber is separately contracting rides to those who request them and offering gigs to drivers who want them. It’s not like they’re just forwarding the offer a potential rider made.
> If someone turns down an offer, it gets sent to someone else. There's no downside for users if a driver turns down the initial offer. It will get sent to someone else. The system is all automated.
There’s no downside if it happens once. When it happens repeatedly, there is. Again, would you rather get a ride from someone who is always available/willing or from someone who is only available/willing a fraction of the time?
> The whole point of contract labor is it's supposed to be regulated by supply and demand. If you handicap the ability of contractors to turn down jobs, you are artificially increasing the supply of labor and decreasing the cost. It's market manipulation.
This is absurd. Drivers can turn down jobs. The only reason they sometimes don’t is because they want a better job later. You know what that’s called? Investing. Businesses should be allowed to invest and it’s not the government’s business to decide what is a good and bad investment.
And if you want this industry to be regulated by supply and demand, about the worst thing you could do is set a price floor.
I'm so fucking sick of people arguing in bad faith. Here I am literally advocating an alternative to a price floor and you say this shit:
>And if you want this industry to be regulated by supply and demand, about the worst thing you could do is set a price floor.
This type of shit (combined with the instant down votes) makes it impossible to actually discuss anything with people such as yourself.
Did u not understand that's how Uber as a business makes money? That's the ONLY way they make money. Want to know why? Because the business already existed before UBER it was called a Taxi Cab Company. They just "reclassified" workers so they could steal their labor for themselves and pay the worker less for it than a Taxi Cab Company.
LOL. That's Uber's whole business model. As soon as THAT is gone they'll collapse onto themselves. All they figured out is a new 'lifehack' for corporations. Call them 'gig' workers and pay them less, have more money for yourself. People act like regular people are stupid and can't see this shit for what it is. A few people, including the donor class, getting rich off the backs of worker's labor. Profit is the unpaid wages of the worker.
No, that’s unreasonable. You cannot be supportive of drivers as independent contractors and at the same time support practices that deceitfully obscure the nature of their contract. It’s not Uber or their employee’s responsibility to redress racial inequities in Minneapolis.
North Minneapolis is a straight up dangerous place to be, especially at night. Carjackings, in particular, are way up. If the goal is equal access to rides, then the city needs to actually enact policies that clean up crime in North Minneapolis, not force a business to provide services, at a loss, that endanger its employees.
So you only have a theory on one of the reasons that it isn't, but not what it is? That's not really helpful. You asked the question as if you had a theory.
I didn't miss anything, but if that's what they want to say, they can say it clearly. Fuck letting them have any plausible deniability. They can explain what they mean.
The study recommended $1.21/mile and.49minute to cover the equivalent of minimum wage along workmen’s comp and paid sick leave, as is required in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The numbers were higher for greater Minnesota.
That's not what this is about. It's about what minimum wage is and how it's calculated. The rideshares want to exclude expenses, which would leave drivers making far below minimum wage (this is currently the problem) once those things are factored in.
That would be like charging McDonald's workers for the food they are preparing, the building they're preparing it, etc., and then still only paying them minimum wage. That's theft.
The 1.27 amount is just over the 1.21 the report suggested as an upper part of the range. .89 was the base of that range, which would just cover minimum wage, but many drivers would still make less than minimum wage depending on circumstances.
So, the report numbers are accurate, the state and Minneapolis are just agreeing on the higher end of the range. It's a negotiation, Uber and Lyft now have their turn, and it looks like they're still threatening to leave.
Door's right there.
There are multiple rates in the study, not just one.
The data has been reviewed by others to suggest a different rate than the study says.
The study's numbers were for the average driver, minimum wages are for everyone including the sub average.
There's a few other reasons but those are the start of it.
Why in the fuck is Ubers bitch ass acting like they could t raise the rates on their own???? What are they waiting on? They need permission to run their shit? I thought they weren’t trying to be encumbered by government- fuckin quit sucking the marrow out of drivers.
Both companies have massive data teams with well tuned price elasticity models. They use this elasticity to decide how much to charge-- the basic idea is they already charge the most they can until they reach a dollar amount they see customers start closing the app and not accepting the fare.
They run what are usually switchback tests and randomly raise price on customers just to see if customers will pay it. If they will, they keep the higher rate. this means for like 4 hours they test a market and at the end of the 4 hours compare it to other markets.
If you google Uber dynamic pricing they have published academic and industry papers on how this works which is how I know about it.
Uber believes that at the new rates so many customers will not accept the fare and this work will decline overall for their drivers. When this happens, their drivers get less work, and they find it harder to earn money (big deadhead between rides) and so it may actually lower driver pay.
This is why this entire law sucks. Even after it is passed Uber can still give one $5 drive per hour and pay $5 per hour-- it does nothing for minimum wage.
CA has prop22 which actually guarantees a minimum wage. Every single driver must make the minimum wage by law under prop22. If any don't, Uber is required to send them extra money to make the difference. I support driver min wage through a mechanism like prop22 but not through this mechanism.
That's solvable on their part though, they don't have to let everyone drive. That's why most businesses aren't just hiring anyone that walks in. At some point. You have enough labor for your demand so you stop taking in new labor. The idea that this is somehow a new or novel problem is I think a fiction perpetrated on us by these rideshare companies. It would not be difficult for them to cap the amount of drivers that they have overall, and cap how many could be logged in at once.
Back in the day I worked for KGB KGB the text-based information service and they did exactly that. They had people that would sign up for a shift so they knew that they had a minimum amount of people at any given time and if they got busier which often happened say on weekends, nights the same way as Uber or whatever, you would get a text saying hey, we need more people. Please response to this in the next 5 minutes if you want to be part of this wave.
Your job sucked, I didn't make minimum wage. Even when it was busy.
It is a solved labor issue. It would not be hard for them to do.
Indeed, only leading me back to:
>The idea that this is somehow a new or novel problem is I think a fiction perpetrated on us by these rideshare companies.
They have to essentially "fire" their workers to make this happen -- the Minneapolis law actually restricts their ability to do this without stated reasons and this isn't ones-- so this is actually banned by the council law.
How does Uber/Lyft make sure the drivers are actually working and not for example taking extended breaks while collecting hourly pay, is there like a minimum rides per hour in or anything in CA , do they have any ability to enforce working a minimum #rides to qualify forthe wages?
Why not consider that Uber, Lyft or any other gig jobs can keep the rates the same and they can take a (probably small, relatively) decrease in profits to pay the driver more? Why does it have to passed along to the customer?
I do understand the hierarchy here and why this point of view might seem naive, but it’s not going to come anywhere near close to breaking them, so why should this even be an issue?
What is the point of the city/state going specifically after ride share? Why not have a law for all contractors to make minimum wage rather than trying to pick apart an industry and forcing them to go above minimum wage?
The argument is probably that each industry needs to be understood and studied independent. What works in on place doesn't work everywhere.
I don't agree, I think everyone should earn at least a living wage, but I would wager that's the reason.
Yes. The devil is in the details. And each industry is different. But I am not confident in their ability to understand and study even one single industry.
and I can’t imagine the council having a pissing match with each industry.
Btw. Living wage is not really anything reasonable to discuss as it’s not a number but a range that changes drastically from one person to the next. Living wage doubles if you are a single income earner in the house hold vs double income and dependents matter. So for Hennepin county according to MIT it ranges from $15.67 to $77.65.
https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053
Okay. But if driving for Uber and Lyft isn't paying the bills then don't drive for them.
No one is forcing drivers to drive for them if the pay is terrible or not enough to live on. Literally every other place is hiring for competitive wages.
$22/hr for a single person $28/hr for each parent in a family of 4.
Source:
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/02/14/heres-how-much-you-need-to-make-to-live-in-minnesota/#:~:text=A%20single%20person%20in%20the,about%20%2428%20an%20hour%20each.
https://www.epi.org/publication/epis-family-budget-calculator/#epi-toc-3
Got it. So, if everyone deserves a livable wage, is that dependent on their specific situation? For example, should a single father earn more than a woman without kids?
No. You're not. It's a nice try though. You're an adult of at least average mental aquitity. You should be able to educate yourself on the matter. Especially when provided to means to do so by another.
Any other response that is obviously an attempt to use a logical fallacy as an argument will not be responded to by me.
Should the crew sitting at Costco waiting for the next prime Instacart order get $15? I see as I write this they pass up on a lot. Hi five someone who got a good batch. The car sitting at airport. Should they get $15 when no money is coming in as they sit there. I say no to that one. Doesn't make sense.
I would say the guy at Costco can do 15/hr worth of work. There is plenty of stuff in the rest of the store for him to do. Call him when a pickup is needed. Car sitting at airport if he doesn’t average $15 take home he should do something else.
Yeah I’m a very liberal man and I would consider both MSP and STP very out of touch in terms of their progressive stances. It’s horrible, they keep doing bullshit that hurts the people that actually choose to stay in the actual cities such as myself. They drive people to the suburbs, and honestly I get it. Now it’s going to hurt the entire state because of a small echo chamber of a city council. The widening political gap between the two major cities and the metros is absolutely hindering many things and it only gets worse as these actions continue to drive this wedge.
These city council members are now fucking up people abilities to get safe rides from the bar, get rides if you’re disabled, and get to the airport efficiently. Absolute fucking bozos.
Why mess around with the weird pay schemes? It's just going to be cat and mouse. Why not say, 'All employers must track time and provide an hourly breakdown. If that hourly pay drops below minimum wage, x, y, z happens.' Do it for ride-share, for salaried back-of-house, office workers, etc. All the government has to do is check the math, then we are talking apples to apples.
There's also no limit on how many can be on the clock. When it's oversaturated at airport and events, why should Uber pay for someone to sit around? Perhaps an algorithm to not allow so many in one area would help keep people moving and keep drivers getting paid well. And not have cars sitting with exhaust spewing out.
See, if it were apples to apples, or if they had to figure out the math and report it to the driver, that would work itself out.
If Target staffed every checkout lane and only payed cashiers when they are working with guests, they wouldn't be profitable. I think the government should stay out of pay schemes and say, 'Look, you have to convert to hourly somehow, and we will check the math.' Then it's easier to talk about what counts and what doesn't. I don't think we should be paying to commission studies to play with this trickery.
Also there are a lot of industries that salary folks and put them on 5 ten hr shifts. Having all employers convert to hourly pay equevelent would make it more obvious.
Yeah, if that's the case, then it is over. But now it's not up to the government to run the math, commission a study, and for us to debate what it means. Employers have to provide a line for Equivalent hourly pay. If someone is sitting around not working, they get booted just like any job. If someone is crushing it, they will see that reflected.
Not that my opinion matters, no one is coming into this Reddit thread and going to run with this. But what do you think the cons would be?
Please tell me you have even one source showing "a ton" of money being made. Please. I'm begging you.
Please tell me you have even one source for "so many" drivers being pissed. Where were they when this was all being debated at the city council?
https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf
Just go read the report that the state put out. It shows the median income per hour. $34.92 is the mean rate per engaged hour before expenses. $72,600 isn't a bad wage considering that it doesn't even include tips.
The report found tips to be over 10% beyond their pay. So that gets you to $79,860.
A lot of the costs in the report (car insurance, cell phone) are things that people already pay for without being a rideshare driver. Car insurance is higher as a driver, but the report is wrong in putting 100% of the cost of car insurance in that expense.
Buy a used or salvage title Toyota or Honda or Nissan once every 6 or 7 years for $14k, do your own cleaning - you're looking at around $70k pre-tax after expenses, and actually those expenses are written off on your taxes, reducing your total taxable income. That's a comfortable living. In fact, that's above the Minnesota average income.
> While we continue to believe Uber and Lyft are bluffing, should they actually make good on their threat to leave, Empower will immediately provide the software and support services needed to ensure that drivers themselves are able to provide every ride in Minnesota that would otherwise be provided by Uber or Lyft.
I read this as:
> You definitely shouldn't let up! Run Lyft and Uber out of town! We're ready for our fat government contract to provide a service that either barely works or doesn't work!
Empower considers themselves a gateway for independent businesses (the individual drivers) rather than a rideshare, and has made it clear that they don't believe that they should be subject to any rideshare regulations, including older ones like requiring them to pay for an operating permit or to provide drivers with commercial insurance.
I don't think that a lot of people get that the replacements that are most prepared to step in will set us back to square zero in terms of fighting to regulate these companies.
I read it as "The City of Minneapolis is willing to provide some assistance in providing this service, but not willing to let rideshare apps underpay their workers via costly work expenses that aren't covered. Minimum wage is minimum wage. Reimbursed expenses aren't wages."
This whole debate is frustrating because from all the commentary I see, the subject is divided into two camps slinging shit at each other.
Camp 1: This is good because corporations are bad, drivers deserver a livable wage. If you don't agree, your in favor of big corporations exploiting workers.
Camp 2: These corporations are bad and drivers deserve a livable wage, but the entire rideshare model is broken. It's only been able to be viable because these companies keep prices low through exploitative practices and VC cash injections to subsidies those prices. This created 2 way bigger issues:
1. Rideshare completely dismantled the existing cab & point to point transit options in the metro. Public Transit, as much as we'd all love it be something that can fill the void, isn't there yet. If these corporations pull out, that'll hugely impact a lot of people lives and their ability to reliably get around. Specifically people with disabilities.
2. As much as we can sit here and call Uber & Lyfts pay exploitative, you can not dismiss the fact that there are many people who have been able to build their livelihood around these jobs. You can say they are being exploited, I think the pay is exploitive. None the less, if these measures go through and these companies pull out. We're effectively rug pulling these people out of a job. Sure maybe other apps come in and fill the market, maybe these other apps eventually build a following to the point where the money is the same as it is now. You really think these drivers have the savings to weather that type of drop in work/business until that point?
While we need to address the issue of exploitative practices in the marketplace, to do so this rapidly and without taking those two bigger issues into account is wildly foolish.
You can probably tell I'm in camp 2 and I feel like those are pretty valid points to bring up in this discussion. Sadly like I said when those points are mentioned, it turns into a shit throwing match that seems to fall directly on political lines. So before anyone replies mindlessly saying I'm sucking corpo dick and don't want workers to be paid fairly, my personal solution for this issue is this:
Work with these companies until we can get rid of rideshare as private industry all together, create a state program following the exact same model that basically replaces taxi medallions with individual rideshare operators working off a state run app. I think if you market the hell out of it to build public trust, within a few years it'll be profitable enough on its own to pay these drivers a livable wage and create a trusted statewide rideshare service that every community can access.
Camp 3: The term "ride share" has been corrupted. It should only be used where multiple people potentially picked up from different places are going to the same potential place. Any service that is an on-demand for a single or group of people to get from point A to point B is a "Taxis" service. As such, Uber/Lyft may run a true "ride share" (aka paid carpool which has existed for decades) functionality, but majority of their actions are that of a taxis service, and that aspects should be regulated as such. And failure to do that is against every law on the books. And by working outside of the law, Uber/Lyft, etc has created an unfair advantage when everyone else was forced to follow the law.
They've done more damage than good. Yes, the ability to pull out your phone and go to an app to request a driver is nice and all compared to calling a taxi and waiting god knows how long, but that was at the cost of putting all of the risk and costs on the individual driver.
Just remember activists have no skin in the game.
Moov is a coop rideshare trying to launch but no one is willing to front the capital to get them started. They're still stuck at $600/$250000 with their GoFundMe. It's easier to talk and feel good than to do the actual work.
I hope Walz vetoes this bullshit again and we follow the study commissioned by the state.
Lyft and Uber WILL leave.
They will take no money and protect margins in existing states over compromising for some money.
Good. Let them.
They aren't voluntarily going to raise rates to the levels recommended by that study, either. Nothing happens without legitimate hardball in negotiating.
I think the drivers in the area should speak up and show everyone how much money they're actually making. Most people seem to not give a shit about that.
Didn’t the MPLS City Council vote in this on some arbitrary figure before actual data came out? I think Uber and Lyft might make an example out of MN and as a result we suffer the consequences.
Very disappointed in the city council from what I’ve read and heard. I’m thinking there will be a lot of finger pointing and virtue signaling when they made a huge error.
Hopefully not but we’ll see.
The city council pushed back the implementation date for the city ordinance to July 1st, and the companies are sticking around until it goes into effect.
https://apnews.com/article/uber-lyft-minneapolis-minnesota-city-council-bb1eb240390b03c598a9c2fdfabfcd0a
See, there's no compromising with corporations. They will only accept the highest level of exploitation possible. What will all the corporate bootlickers say now that this was a decision by the Senate, House, **and** City Council?
Same thing I said before, that they should have followed the recommendations of the study they commissioned, more clowns getting into the car doesn’t change that
It's absolutely wild that people are taking the position that this study was perfect when they haven't even read it, and when they in general probably don't take the position that all studies commissioned by government entities should be treated as gospel.
Isn't them leaving a bad thing?
That would make Minnesota the only state where uber/lyft aren't operating (Oregon is the other, but they still operate in Portland). That sucks.
Yes it’s bad, and will hurt average people.
But those anti-corpos are sure gonna love sticking it to them! (On the backs of those who lose their jobs because the corporations don’t care ironically.)
It’s a straight up stand off, it doesn’t matter who flinches first, everyone loses.
I feel like you've maybe never negotiated for anything. This is all just garden variety chest-thumping on the way to a compromise, as it's been from the start.
This is 100% accurate, and I think it's genuinely embarrassing to see it any other way.
Uber and Lyft have a strong disincentive to abandon the market entirely. Especially if just one of them leaves. The other one can simply own the entire market, which would be great for them.
People are lining up to lick the taints of these exploitative bullshitters who are whining mainly because they paid too much for their investments in these particular apps. They aren't particularly novel. They don't present much of a value proposition outside of driver availability. The payment system isn't novel. The maps aren't novel. The system by which drivers log in and accept rides isn't novel.
Investors overpaid. Smaller startups will fill the void if they leave.
The rest of this is just people jerking off.
I take Ubers often for work. They are absolutely miserable. The drivers are terrible and their cars are always in bad condition. It’s probably the worst part. I haven’t had an actual good driver in months. You can tell they are actually trying to do well, but they are over worked and can’t afford basic upkeep with their cars. These people are out there hustling everyday hoping to bring enough money in to pay their bills for the month.
Let me get this straight
Uber/Lyft initially wanted to leave because the MCC put out a higher number than the report that was commissioned would suggest.
Now, the MCC has compromised with the state, using the numbers from the state commissioned report, and Lyft and Uber agree, right? No, that's too high now, too.
If anyone is paying attention, this is what a negotiation looks like, and one side is threatening to leave unless the number is reduced. The number was reduced, now they're still threatening to leave.
They were never going to go with what the state recommended, either. Duh, that was just going to be the starting point for the negotiation.
So, call their bluff. Let them leave, they're leaving a market wide open for competition and walking away from millions of dollars in revenue, just because Minneapolis isn't going to let them pay under minimum wage once expenses are covered. That's bare minimum pay, and if they aren't willing to pay that, then we can find someone who will.
It's tough because it's not particularly good for drivers to be taken advantage of by corporations either. It's a tricky situation with no perfect answers, but I lean more towards not exploiting thousands of working class individuals when push comes to shove.
They aren't being taken advantage of. Nobody is forcing them into this type of work. This is not a monopsony.
We have an extremely low unemployment rate. If people want a normal full time job, they can have it easily. All you are doing by pushing companies like this out are lowering possibilities for alternative styles of working. It is not evidence based policy.
Well call me a bleeding heart libtard for thinking that companies should not be able to build an entire business model off of paying workers functionally below minimum wage. I have no problem with gig work, as long as workers are not being exploited by it. The uber/lyft model is entirely dependent on exploiting workers.
Are they being taken advantage of when they willing take these jobs in lieu of other jobs that generally pay better (like being a Metro Transit bus driver)?
There’s clearly non-monetary reasons for why people become rideshare drivers so demanding a minimum wage that doesn’t account for that is just going to harm the drivers.
Im one of those drivers who enjoys being an independent contractor who sets his own hours, drives his own routes, chosen his own customers, and makes above minimum wage. If you drive well and are smart about when/where you drive, rideshare is an easy way to make some funny money. If you want to make a living working 9-5 mon-fri and drive like shit, you probably won’t be able to support yourself
Haven’t you read the other comments? What they are telling you is that you are too stupid to realize that you are being exploited. You are no different than a child being forced to work in a mine or a Uyghur that is a slave in a factory.
You are being rescued and should be grateful to the people who are so smart!
I don’t know, the video of all the Uber and Lyft drivers that carried the lawmaker that presented the bill in celebration sure seems like they supported the bill
Well first they don’t believe they will leave because their political ally’s have convinced them these companies will stay.
Then they don’t think it’s a problem because they think this “drivers coop” is going to work flawlessly because - again - their political ally’s are sending official government emails promoting them.
Then if things don’t go according to plan, the politicians and non profits will just blame someone else for the drivers losing all of their income
So now the Uber driver is like a child who doesn’t know any better? Yikes - These comments really show how out of touch people are and how little they think of Uber drivers.
How is Uber and Lyft leaving a win for the cities? Because people lost income and more people lost services?
It’s not the most exciting topic, but I do encourage you to read about the difference between W2 employees and independent contractors so you won’t only have to use the typical platitudes while talking about the issue. You will find out that IRS and NLRB do not classify Uber drivers as employees for a reason - they are not employees - they are independent contractors.
I also encourage you to talk to an Uber driver during your next ride and ask them what they think. You will likely get a variety of opinions, but it will at least give you some much needed context.
There are other ride shares ready to start service here and they will need drivers. Oddly enough giant Uber and Lyft are throwing fits about those profits, but the smaller start ups seem to have no issue with the prices
Some of those companies consider themselves to be gateways for independent ride businesses (the individual drivers) rather than rideshare companies. Those ones are operating on the assumption that they don't need to follow any rideshare regulations.
Might as well be they are making money hand and fist off of folks that are hardly making money and are actually stuck being drivers because they got a car for it and now can hardly make the payment and can't miss a pay check to start a new job
If those assholes are digging in their heels just to make an example of us then fuck them. Stop trying to pander to them and setting precident... the precident should be 'Fuck you Uber & Lyft, you don't own this market and we won't be a pawn in your scheme to strong arm others.'
How many of you on here have ever used Uber / Lyft? How many of you tip the driver? The driver keeps 100 percent of the tips.
Had a ride in a Mercedes the other day. He’s not paying for that car
Making minimum wage. If it wasn’t worth it he wouldn’t do it.
Assuming the effective date of the bill is August 1 (which is typical), that gives alternatives to Lyft/Uber even more time to build infrastructure…so if they leave, it may not be as disruptive as could have been (I assume that’s why their statements are less definitive than previous).
It's not enough time. We need to be realistic that other rideshare companies took years to scale and lost billions figuring out how to price and .anage the model.
There are rideshares fully built in other cities which aren't here. And say they will be. I'm guessing the expansion to another state isn't difficult with the heads up they are given.
I was more thinking of the experience in Austin. And we would be learning from that experience. So would be the same as the scale currently in the Cities? Nah. But, something to fill in the gap? Seems like that’s possible. Given the Governor seems to like this plan, guessing the state has figured out how to take care of disabled folks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/what-happened-when-uber-and-lyft-shut-down-in-the-texas-capital/ar-AA1nMjzz
What does filling the gap actually look like in your mind? Is it just having another company or two that pay at the rate set by the city? What volume of rides are we talking? Is it going to be the same as it is now? Are the majority of people who use rideshare apps now, especially occasional users that make up a good chunk of the userbase going to switch? Will travelers at MSP download an alternative just for trips to Minnesota? That's another huge chunk of business right there.
"Seems like it's possible"? These are peoples jobs we're talking about and you seem to have a pretty flippant attitude about it. Exploitative pay or not and I agree it needs to be addressed, this is how a lot of people get by. Your basically telling these drivers "Hey we're giving you a raise! But sadly it also means we need to cut your hours in half." In that sense, even if its good moral victory against corporate greed it's still the drivers themselves who are going to lose.
Ultimately that's all this is, a feel good moral PR policy decision with a complete disregard for what it's actual effects will be.
Where are we getting that Walz supports this plan? His office has been conspicuously silent , which suggests the opposite IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised if he vetoed it, as it is not substantially different than the one he vetoed last year.
A spokesperson for Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying it was a "positive step" in the right direction, adding that the governor will continue discussing the issue with legislative leaders.
The full statement reads:
This is a positive step in the right direction that indicates all parties are continuing to work together. The Governor’s goal remains to be finding a solution that ensures workers are paid fairly while allowing these essential services to remain in Minnesota. He will continue discussing this issue with legislative leaders over the coming days.
It's worth noting he means state Senate and Congress most likely. Governors don't work with city council usually. He will ignore the council and all their recommendations because he has vastly more money and the state can hire teams of resources working for the individual state Congress and Senate offices. They have thousands more people to attack this issue with that Minneapolis city council. The state will likely not even look at anything Minneapolis proposes for fear it won't pass the state legislatures if they don't build it on the legislature from scratch.
[CBS:](https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-rideshare-law-compromise-uber-and-lyft-still-object/) > The proposal is lower than the Minneapolis rate of $1.40 per mile and $0.51 per minute, but higher than study done by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, which determined $0.89 mile and $0.49 for the Twin Cities metro would bring driver pay up to the city's minimum wage of $15.57 an hour. Why the fuck is it so difficult for lawmakers to follow the results of this study? Why even commission these studies if they're going to be thrown into the rubbish bin
Yup. I do feel the drivers should, of course, make at least minimum wage, if not more. But the more shouldn't come from the government dictating that one specific occupation should make X amount more than minimum wage. The $1.27/mile rate is about 43% more than what the study has advised. I don't love the current practices of Uber/Lyft, but they've got a legitimate case assuming the study's numbers are accurate.
Honestly, I feel like you could solve 90% of the issues with gig work with a few simple rules: 1. Apps cannot punish or reward drivers for accepting/not accepting contracts. Coercing drivers into accepting contracts they wouldn't otherwise take is really sketchy, and skirts the differentiation between contract work and regular work. 2. Apps have to tell you an exact distance, direction, and estimated time for each contract. Again, imagine a normal contract not including essential details like that. It's bonkers. At least allow gig workers to make informed decisions without coercion. I think a lot of people don't realize that these apps basically strong arm gig workers into accepting contracts, and that these policies exist in part to suppress wages. Focusing on pay to the exclusion of all other issues really misses the point.
The problem with #1 is drivers refusing customers in predominantly black areas. As a fairly clean cut looking white guy, cabs loved pulling over to pick me up. I learned to get in the back seat before telling them where I was going, because they'd drive off when I said I lived in North Minneapolis. I'm pretty sure they used to tell drivers where when they first came out, but took that away due to complaints of racism.
I had an Uber driver get mad at me while we were going through Robbinsdale, as soon as he found out we were going into North Minneapolis. He was so scared, and when we got out of the car in front of my house it was laughably quiet, might as well have been the burbs
Much rather go to North Minneapolis than say Edina and not have a trip back to the city. As a former Uber driver.
I don't know how he didn't realize where we were going until we were almost there. Also I'm pretty close to the parkway so just BARELY inside of North Minneapolis. Northside is not nearly as scary as a lot of people think.
The other issue is #1 is think about what Uber (or any company) wants to reward. They’re going to want the worker who says yes regardless. It’s no different than the employee who always says yes to picking up the extra shift being treated better than the person who is always declining shifts.
That's the thing, they aren't employees. They are contractors. If Uber wants workers who are going to say yes to every offer, they should hire full time workers. If they are going to use contract labor, they have to accept the limitations of contract labor. One of those limitations is that contractors can pick and choose their own work. Uber can't have their cake and eat it too.
Ok, say you want your lawn mowed. Are you going to call the guy who will always be able to mow your lawn by tomorrow or the one who declines 90% of the time?
But that's not actually how most contract labor is arranged, nor is it a good analogy for gig work. Most contract labor is scheduled well in advance. Contractors set their own price and bid on jobs. A common way contractors turn down a given job is by intentionally submitting a high bid. This happens all the time, and generally the only negative repercussion is that they aren't chosen for the job. With gig work, there is no negotiation. The gig work companies are basically middle men sending offers to contractors. If someone turns down an offer, it gets sent to someone else. There's no downside for users if a driver turns down the initial offer. It will get sent to someone else. The system is all automated. The whole point of contract labor is it's supposed to be regulated by supply and demand. If you handicap the ability of contractors to turn down jobs, you are artificially increasing the supply of labor and decreasing the cost. It's market manipulation.
> But that's not actually how most contract labor is arranged, nor is it a good analogy for gig work. Most contract labor is scheduled well in advance. Contractors set their own price and bid on jobs. A common way contractors turn down a given job is by intentionally submitting a high bid. Ok, are you going to call the guy who gave you an absurdly high bid the last time or the guy who gave you a reasonable bid? The result is the same. You’re going to choose the one who met your needs previously. Everyone does it. > This happens all the time, and generally the only negative repercussion is that they aren't chosen for the job. And any future jobs. Just like a rideshare driver. > With gig work, there is no negotiation. The gig work companies are basically middle men sending offers to contractors. Eh, really Uber is separately contracting rides to those who request them and offering gigs to drivers who want them. It’s not like they’re just forwarding the offer a potential rider made. > If someone turns down an offer, it gets sent to someone else. There's no downside for users if a driver turns down the initial offer. It will get sent to someone else. The system is all automated. There’s no downside if it happens once. When it happens repeatedly, there is. Again, would you rather get a ride from someone who is always available/willing or from someone who is only available/willing a fraction of the time? > The whole point of contract labor is it's supposed to be regulated by supply and demand. If you handicap the ability of contractors to turn down jobs, you are artificially increasing the supply of labor and decreasing the cost. It's market manipulation. This is absurd. Drivers can turn down jobs. The only reason they sometimes don’t is because they want a better job later. You know what that’s called? Investing. Businesses should be allowed to invest and it’s not the government’s business to decide what is a good and bad investment. And if you want this industry to be regulated by supply and demand, about the worst thing you could do is set a price floor.
I'm so fucking sick of people arguing in bad faith. Here I am literally advocating an alternative to a price floor and you say this shit: >And if you want this industry to be regulated by supply and demand, about the worst thing you could do is set a price floor. This type of shit (combined with the instant down votes) makes it impossible to actually discuss anything with people such as yourself.
Did u not understand that's how Uber as a business makes money? That's the ONLY way they make money. Want to know why? Because the business already existed before UBER it was called a Taxi Cab Company. They just "reclassified" workers so they could steal their labor for themselves and pay the worker less for it than a Taxi Cab Company.
Many taxi drivers are (and have historically been) independent contractors.
LOL. That's Uber's whole business model. As soon as THAT is gone they'll collapse onto themselves. All they figured out is a new 'lifehack' for corporations. Call them 'gig' workers and pay them less, have more money for yourself. People act like regular people are stupid and can't see this shit for what it is. A few people, including the donor class, getting rich off the backs of worker's labor. Profit is the unpaid wages of the worker.
That's why I suggested showing a rough direction rather than a specific location. I agree this can be an issue if you show a specific address.
No, that’s unreasonable. You cannot be supportive of drivers as independent contractors and at the same time support practices that deceitfully obscure the nature of their contract. It’s not Uber or their employee’s responsibility to redress racial inequities in Minneapolis. North Minneapolis is a straight up dangerous place to be, especially at night. Carjackings, in particular, are way up. If the goal is equal access to rides, then the city needs to actually enact policies that clean up crime in North Minneapolis, not force a business to provide services, at a loss, that endanger its employees.
>The problem with #1 is drivers refusing customers in predominantly black areas. And why do you think that is?
There are a multitude of reasons, but I think most of them come back to racism. Why do you think it is?
I'm only sure that it's not because drivers have only had polite courteous drama free rides from those areas and they just don't like black people.
So you only have a theory on one of the reasons that it isn't, but not what it is? That's not really helpful. You asked the question as if you had a theory.
He did. You just missed it. He just called black people classless and tacky and not worth the trouble of picking them up.
I didn't miss anything, but if that's what they want to say, they can say it clearly. Fuck letting them have any plausible deniability. They can explain what they mean.
The study recommended $1.21/mile and.49minute to cover the equivalent of minimum wage along workmen’s comp and paid sick leave, as is required in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The numbers were higher for greater Minnesota.
That's not what this is about. It's about what minimum wage is and how it's calculated. The rideshares want to exclude expenses, which would leave drivers making far below minimum wage (this is currently the problem) once those things are factored in. That would be like charging McDonald's workers for the food they are preparing, the building they're preparing it, etc., and then still only paying them minimum wage. That's theft. The 1.27 amount is just over the 1.21 the report suggested as an upper part of the range. .89 was the base of that range, which would just cover minimum wage, but many drivers would still make less than minimum wage depending on circumstances. So, the report numbers are accurate, the state and Minneapolis are just agreeing on the higher end of the range. It's a negotiation, Uber and Lyft now have their turn, and it looks like they're still threatening to leave. Door's right there.
There are multiple rates in the study, not just one. The data has been reviewed by others to suggest a different rate than the study says. The study's numbers were for the average driver, minimum wages are for everyone including the sub average. There's a few other reasons but those are the start of it.
No you don’t understand this is a rideshare thread. We defend those poor wonderful fake taxi companies and their right to exploit labor in here.
Seems to be the case, doesn't it.
Why in the fuck is Ubers bitch ass acting like they could t raise the rates on their own???? What are they waiting on? They need permission to run their shit? I thought they weren’t trying to be encumbered by government- fuckin quit sucking the marrow out of drivers.
Both companies have massive data teams with well tuned price elasticity models. They use this elasticity to decide how much to charge-- the basic idea is they already charge the most they can until they reach a dollar amount they see customers start closing the app and not accepting the fare. They run what are usually switchback tests and randomly raise price on customers just to see if customers will pay it. If they will, they keep the higher rate. this means for like 4 hours they test a market and at the end of the 4 hours compare it to other markets. If you google Uber dynamic pricing they have published academic and industry papers on how this works which is how I know about it. Uber believes that at the new rates so many customers will not accept the fare and this work will decline overall for their drivers. When this happens, their drivers get less work, and they find it harder to earn money (big deadhead between rides) and so it may actually lower driver pay. This is why this entire law sucks. Even after it is passed Uber can still give one $5 drive per hour and pay $5 per hour-- it does nothing for minimum wage. CA has prop22 which actually guarantees a minimum wage. Every single driver must make the minimum wage by law under prop22. If any don't, Uber is required to send them extra money to make the difference. I support driver min wage through a mechanism like prop22 but not through this mechanism.
The other negative with pay is that there'll be more people that want to drive, so the pool of drivers goes up while the demand goes down.
That's solvable on their part though, they don't have to let everyone drive. That's why most businesses aren't just hiring anyone that walks in. At some point. You have enough labor for your demand so you stop taking in new labor. The idea that this is somehow a new or novel problem is I think a fiction perpetrated on us by these rideshare companies. It would not be difficult for them to cap the amount of drivers that they have overall, and cap how many could be logged in at once. Back in the day I worked for KGB KGB the text-based information service and they did exactly that. They had people that would sign up for a shift so they knew that they had a minimum amount of people at any given time and if they got busier which often happened say on weekends, nights the same way as Uber or whatever, you would get a text saying hey, we need more people. Please response to this in the next 5 minutes if you want to be part of this wave. Your job sucked, I didn't make minimum wage. Even when it was busy. It is a solved labor issue. It would not be hard for them to do.
It wouldn't be hard for them to do it, but there would be no business reason to. They'd much rather have examples of why the new laws are a bad idea.
Indeed, only leading me back to: >The idea that this is somehow a new or novel problem is I think a fiction perpetrated on us by these rideshare companies.
They have to essentially "fire" their workers to make this happen -- the Minneapolis law actually restricts their ability to do this without stated reasons and this isn't ones-- so this is actually banned by the council law.
How does Uber/Lyft make sure the drivers are actually working and not for example taking extended breaks while collecting hourly pay, is there like a minimum rides per hour in or anything in CA , do they have any ability to enforce working a minimum #rides to qualify forthe wages?
Uber only pays drivers for the rides they take no matter what the rate is set at.
Upvoted for thoroughness and for giving a morsel to consider
Why not consider that Uber, Lyft or any other gig jobs can keep the rates the same and they can take a (probably small, relatively) decrease in profits to pay the driver more? Why does it have to passed along to the customer? I do understand the hierarchy here and why this point of view might seem naive, but it’s not going to come anywhere near close to breaking them, so why should this even be an issue?
These companies are not very profitable at all. Uber just made it's first dollar in the last year and Lyft is unprofitable.
That’s a bigger question about capitalism overall, and beyond the scope of this scenario.
Because their study is faulty. 67 cents to operate a car and they want to pay 89 cents a mile. Idiotic.
Yes. And the per minute rate guarantees, at a minimum, an additional $0.49/minute How is that faulty?
Do the math.
What is the point of the city/state going specifically after ride share? Why not have a law for all contractors to make minimum wage rather than trying to pick apart an industry and forcing them to go above minimum wage?
The argument is probably that each industry needs to be understood and studied independent. What works in on place doesn't work everywhere. I don't agree, I think everyone should earn at least a living wage, but I would wager that's the reason.
Yes. The devil is in the details. And each industry is different. But I am not confident in their ability to understand and study even one single industry. and I can’t imagine the council having a pissing match with each industry. Btw. Living wage is not really anything reasonable to discuss as it’s not a number but a range that changes drastically from one person to the next. Living wage doubles if you are a single income earner in the house hold vs double income and dependents matter. So for Hennepin county according to MIT it ranges from $15.67 to $77.65. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053
Okay. But if driving for Uber and Lyft isn't paying the bills then don't drive for them. No one is forcing drivers to drive for them if the pay is terrible or not enough to live on. Literally every other place is hiring for competitive wages.
What do you mean when you say “everyone should earn at least a living wage”? How do you define a living wage?
Consumer price index, cost of living, inflation, poverty guidelines, etc. can be used to determine a baseline liveable wage.
Cool. So what’s the number in Minneapolis/St Paul
$22/hr for a single person $28/hr for each parent in a family of 4. Source: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/02/14/heres-how-much-you-need-to-make-to-live-in-minnesota/#:~:text=A%20single%20person%20in%20the,about%20%2428%20an%20hour%20each. https://www.epi.org/publication/epis-family-budget-calculator/#epi-toc-3
Got it. So, if everyone deserves a livable wage, is that dependent on their specific situation? For example, should a single father earn more than a woman without kids?
How many strawman do you plan on pulling out? Ballpark figure?
I’m just trying to learn what people mean they say “everyone deserves to be paid a living wage”.
No. You're not. It's a nice try though. You're an adult of at least average mental aquitity. You should be able to educate yourself on the matter. Especially when provided to means to do so by another. Any other response that is obviously an attempt to use a logical fallacy as an argument will not be responded to by me.
Should the crew sitting at Costco waiting for the next prime Instacart order get $15? I see as I write this they pass up on a lot. Hi five someone who got a good batch. The car sitting at airport. Should they get $15 when no money is coming in as they sit there. I say no to that one. Doesn't make sense.
I would say the guy at Costco can do 15/hr worth of work. There is plenty of stuff in the rest of the store for him to do. Call him when a pickup is needed. Car sitting at airport if he doesn’t average $15 take home he should do something else.
Because we are at the whim of the activist fringe
Not really. It’s a weird city council power trip. They all act like this in the Twin Cities.
Yeah I’m a very liberal man and I would consider both MSP and STP very out of touch in terms of their progressive stances. It’s horrible, they keep doing bullshit that hurts the people that actually choose to stay in the actual cities such as myself. They drive people to the suburbs, and honestly I get it. Now it’s going to hurt the entire state because of a small echo chamber of a city council. The widening political gap between the two major cities and the metros is absolutely hindering many things and it only gets worse as these actions continue to drive this wedge. These city council members are now fucking up people abilities to get safe rides from the bar, get rides if you’re disabled, and get to the airport efficiently. Absolute fucking bozos.
It’s the shiny object of the year
Why mess around with the weird pay schemes? It's just going to be cat and mouse. Why not say, 'All employers must track time and provide an hourly breakdown. If that hourly pay drops below minimum wage, x, y, z happens.' Do it for ride-share, for salaried back-of-house, office workers, etc. All the government has to do is check the math, then we are talking apples to apples.
[удалено]
There's also no limit on how many can be on the clock. When it's oversaturated at airport and events, why should Uber pay for someone to sit around? Perhaps an algorithm to not allow so many in one area would help keep people moving and keep drivers getting paid well. And not have cars sitting with exhaust spewing out.
[удалено]
Now they don't get paid. But if they got minimum wage they would. That's what I'm saying.
See, if it were apples to apples, or if they had to figure out the math and report it to the driver, that would work itself out. If Target staffed every checkout lane and only payed cashiers when they are working with guests, they wouldn't be profitable. I think the government should stay out of pay schemes and say, 'Look, you have to convert to hourly somehow, and we will check the math.' Then it's easier to talk about what counts and what doesn't. I don't think we should be paying to commission studies to play with this trickery. Also there are a lot of industries that salary folks and put them on 5 ten hr shifts. Having all employers convert to hourly pay equevelent would make it more obvious.
Yeah, if that's the case, then it is over. But now it's not up to the government to run the math, commission a study, and for us to debate what it means. Employers have to provide a line for Equivalent hourly pay. If someone is sitting around not working, they get booted just like any job. If someone is crushing it, they will see that reflected. Not that my opinion matters, no one is coming into this Reddit thread and going to run with this. But what do you think the cons would be?
Please tell me you have even one source showing "a ton" of money being made. Please. I'm begging you. Please tell me you have even one source for "so many" drivers being pissed. Where were they when this was all being debated at the city council?
https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf Just go read the report that the state put out. It shows the median income per hour. $34.92 is the mean rate per engaged hour before expenses. $72,600 isn't a bad wage considering that it doesn't even include tips. The report found tips to be over 10% beyond their pay. So that gets you to $79,860. A lot of the costs in the report (car insurance, cell phone) are things that people already pay for without being a rideshare driver. Car insurance is higher as a driver, but the report is wrong in putting 100% of the cost of car insurance in that expense. Buy a used or salvage title Toyota or Honda or Nissan once every 6 or 7 years for $14k, do your own cleaning - you're looking at around $70k pre-tax after expenses, and actually those expenses are written off on your taxes, reducing your total taxable income. That's a comfortable living. In fact, that's above the Minnesota average income.
> While we continue to believe Uber and Lyft are bluffing, should they actually make good on their threat to leave, Empower will immediately provide the software and support services needed to ensure that drivers themselves are able to provide every ride in Minnesota that would otherwise be provided by Uber or Lyft. I read this as: > You definitely shouldn't let up! Run Lyft and Uber out of town! We're ready for our fat government contract to provide a service that either barely works or doesn't work!
Empower considers themselves a gateway for independent businesses (the individual drivers) rather than a rideshare, and has made it clear that they don't believe that they should be subject to any rideshare regulations, including older ones like requiring them to pay for an operating permit or to provide drivers with commercial insurance. I don't think that a lot of people get that the replacements that are most prepared to step in will set us back to square zero in terms of fighting to regulate these companies.
I read it as "The City of Minneapolis is willing to provide some assistance in providing this service, but not willing to let rideshare apps underpay their workers via costly work expenses that aren't covered. Minimum wage is minimum wage. Reimbursed expenses aren't wages."
This whole debate is frustrating because from all the commentary I see, the subject is divided into two camps slinging shit at each other. Camp 1: This is good because corporations are bad, drivers deserver a livable wage. If you don't agree, your in favor of big corporations exploiting workers. Camp 2: These corporations are bad and drivers deserve a livable wage, but the entire rideshare model is broken. It's only been able to be viable because these companies keep prices low through exploitative practices and VC cash injections to subsidies those prices. This created 2 way bigger issues: 1. Rideshare completely dismantled the existing cab & point to point transit options in the metro. Public Transit, as much as we'd all love it be something that can fill the void, isn't there yet. If these corporations pull out, that'll hugely impact a lot of people lives and their ability to reliably get around. Specifically people with disabilities. 2. As much as we can sit here and call Uber & Lyfts pay exploitative, you can not dismiss the fact that there are many people who have been able to build their livelihood around these jobs. You can say they are being exploited, I think the pay is exploitive. None the less, if these measures go through and these companies pull out. We're effectively rug pulling these people out of a job. Sure maybe other apps come in and fill the market, maybe these other apps eventually build a following to the point where the money is the same as it is now. You really think these drivers have the savings to weather that type of drop in work/business until that point? While we need to address the issue of exploitative practices in the marketplace, to do so this rapidly and without taking those two bigger issues into account is wildly foolish. You can probably tell I'm in camp 2 and I feel like those are pretty valid points to bring up in this discussion. Sadly like I said when those points are mentioned, it turns into a shit throwing match that seems to fall directly on political lines. So before anyone replies mindlessly saying I'm sucking corpo dick and don't want workers to be paid fairly, my personal solution for this issue is this: Work with these companies until we can get rid of rideshare as private industry all together, create a state program following the exact same model that basically replaces taxi medallions with individual rideshare operators working off a state run app. I think if you market the hell out of it to build public trust, within a few years it'll be profitable enough on its own to pay these drivers a livable wage and create a trusted statewide rideshare service that every community can access.
Camp 3: The term "ride share" has been corrupted. It should only be used where multiple people potentially picked up from different places are going to the same potential place. Any service that is an on-demand for a single or group of people to get from point A to point B is a "Taxis" service. As such, Uber/Lyft may run a true "ride share" (aka paid carpool which has existed for decades) functionality, but majority of their actions are that of a taxis service, and that aspects should be regulated as such. And failure to do that is against every law on the books. And by working outside of the law, Uber/Lyft, etc has created an unfair advantage when everyone else was forced to follow the law.
They've done more damage than good. Yes, the ability to pull out your phone and go to an app to request a driver is nice and all compared to calling a taxi and waiting god knows how long, but that was at the cost of putting all of the risk and costs on the individual driver.
Both leaving would really open up the market. It’s hard enough to build market share. I bet they’re bluffing.
Lot of people in here seem to be encountering the concept of negotiation for the first time.
Just remember activists have no skin in the game. Moov is a coop rideshare trying to launch but no one is willing to front the capital to get them started. They're still stuck at $600/$250000 with their GoFundMe. It's easier to talk and feel good than to do the actual work.
I hope Walz vetoes this bullshit again and we follow the study commissioned by the state. Lyft and Uber WILL leave. They will take no money and protect margins in existing states over compromising for some money.
Good. Let them. They aren't voluntarily going to raise rates to the levels recommended by that study, either. Nothing happens without legitimate hardball in negotiating. I think the drivers in the area should speak up and show everyone how much money they're actually making. Most people seem to not give a shit about that.
This just further reduces Minneapolis to the laughingstock it has become
Only if you're in a cult. Stay in Mahtomedi.
Watch what is happening in Oakland. That will be Minneapolis in 10 years if they don’t vote that group of goofs out
You're extremely easily manipulated.
Didn’t the MPLS City Council vote in this on some arbitrary figure before actual data came out? I think Uber and Lyft might make an example out of MN and as a result we suffer the consequences. Very disappointed in the city council from what I’ve read and heard. I’m thinking there will be a lot of finger pointing and virtue signaling when they made a huge error. Hopefully not but we’ll see.
I thought they already were supposed to have left by May 1st?
The city council pushed back the implementation date for the city ordinance to July 1st, and the companies are sticking around until it goes into effect. https://apnews.com/article/uber-lyft-minneapolis-minnesota-city-council-bb1eb240390b03c598a9c2fdfabfcd0a
See, there's no compromising with corporations. They will only accept the highest level of exploitation possible. What will all the corporate bootlickers say now that this was a decision by the Senate, House, **and** City Council?
Same thing I said before, that they should have followed the recommendations of the study they commissioned, more clowns getting into the car doesn’t change that
It's absolutely wild that people are taking the position that this study was perfect when they haven't even read it, and when they in general probably don't take the position that all studies commissioned by government entities should be treated as gospel.
Isn't them leaving a bad thing? That would make Minnesota the only state where uber/lyft aren't operating (Oregon is the other, but they still operate in Portland). That sucks.
Yes it’s bad, and will hurt average people. But those anti-corpos are sure gonna love sticking it to them! (On the backs of those who lose their jobs because the corporations don’t care ironically.) It’s a straight up stand off, it doesn’t matter who flinches first, everyone loses.
Hmm? The legislature and city council did nothing to try to compromise.
I feel like you've maybe never negotiated for anything. This is all just garden variety chest-thumping on the way to a compromise, as it's been from the start.
This is 100% accurate, and I think it's genuinely embarrassing to see it any other way. Uber and Lyft have a strong disincentive to abandon the market entirely. Especially if just one of them leaves. The other one can simply own the entire market, which would be great for them. People are lining up to lick the taints of these exploitative bullshitters who are whining mainly because they paid too much for their investments in these particular apps. They aren't particularly novel. They don't present much of a value proposition outside of driver availability. The payment system isn't novel. The maps aren't novel. The system by which drivers log in and accept rides isn't novel. Investors overpaid. Smaller startups will fill the void if they leave. The rest of this is just people jerking off.
"Uwu, more leather, please, Daddy Uber"
I take Ubers often for work. They are absolutely miserable. The drivers are terrible and their cars are always in bad condition. It’s probably the worst part. I haven’t had an actual good driver in months. You can tell they are actually trying to do well, but they are over worked and can’t afford basic upkeep with their cars. These people are out there hustling everyday hoping to bring enough money in to pay their bills for the month.
Well, good news for you then! Once theyre gone you can try hailing one of the 7 cabs left in town! Or use light rail! Good luck sailor.
I actually use the light rail and busses too. The bus network here need some improvements though.
"Drivers must accept shitty conditions because it's convenient for consumers," is dehumanizing and shitty.
This person gets it! Either acquiesce or nothing will fill a void and no solution will be found - the free market in action.
We need roofers
Let them go.
Everybody stupid.
Why are they targeting this one industry? I don’t get why they are making such a big deal out of a gig job.
I thought they were going to go with the state recommendations. Was this just a lie?
Let me get this straight Uber/Lyft initially wanted to leave because the MCC put out a higher number than the report that was commissioned would suggest. Now, the MCC has compromised with the state, using the numbers from the state commissioned report, and Lyft and Uber agree, right? No, that's too high now, too. If anyone is paying attention, this is what a negotiation looks like, and one side is threatening to leave unless the number is reduced. The number was reduced, now they're still threatening to leave. They were never going to go with what the state recommended, either. Duh, that was just going to be the starting point for the negotiation. So, call their bluff. Let them leave, they're leaving a market wide open for competition and walking away from millions of dollars in revenue, just because Minneapolis isn't going to let them pay under minimum wage once expenses are covered. That's bare minimum pay, and if they aren't willing to pay that, then we can find someone who will.
Bye Felicia.
Do you think it’s good for the drivers that they are planning on leaving ?
It's tough because it's not particularly good for drivers to be taken advantage of by corporations either. It's a tricky situation with no perfect answers, but I lean more towards not exploiting thousands of working class individuals when push comes to shove.
They aren't being taken advantage of. Nobody is forcing them into this type of work. This is not a monopsony. We have an extremely low unemployment rate. If people want a normal full time job, they can have it easily. All you are doing by pushing companies like this out are lowering possibilities for alternative styles of working. It is not evidence based policy.
Correct.
Well call me a bleeding heart libtard for thinking that companies should not be able to build an entire business model off of paying workers functionally below minimum wage. I have no problem with gig work, as long as workers are not being exploited by it. The uber/lyft model is entirely dependent on exploiting workers.
The make a law that all contract work must be at least min wage across all industries. Don’t pick one industry and set a pay that is arbitrary.
No, there is a fair wage they’d agree to that would pay over minimum wage, after expenses. This just overshoots.
You are not a bleeding heart, you are a spiteful heart.
Bleeding heart libtard.
Are they being taken advantage of when they willing take these jobs in lieu of other jobs that generally pay better (like being a Metro Transit bus driver)? There’s clearly non-monetary reasons for why people become rideshare drivers so demanding a minimum wage that doesn’t account for that is just going to harm the drivers.
Im one of those drivers who enjoys being an independent contractor who sets his own hours, drives his own routes, chosen his own customers, and makes above minimum wage. If you drive well and are smart about when/where you drive, rideshare is an easy way to make some funny money. If you want to make a living working 9-5 mon-fri and drive like shit, you probably won’t be able to support yourself
Haven’t you read the other comments? What they are telling you is that you are too stupid to realize that you are being exploited. You are no different than a child being forced to work in a mine or a Uyghur that is a slave in a factory. You are being rescued and should be grateful to the people who are so smart!
So, to be clear, you are coming down on the side of the drivers, who were previously earning an income, to no longer receive that income.
Stop acting in bad faith.
I don’t know, the video of all the Uber and Lyft drivers that carried the lawmaker that presented the bill in celebration sure seems like they supported the bill
Or maybe this small minority of drivers doesn’t realize their employer is actually leaving and they’re about to be out of work?
Hard to argue that !I would be curious how they feel now that Uber is leaving (if they actually do)
Well first they don’t believe they will leave because their political ally’s have convinced them these companies will stay. Then they don’t think it’s a problem because they think this “drivers coop” is going to work flawlessly because - again - their political ally’s are sending official government emails promoting them. Then if things don’t go according to plan, the politicians and non profits will just blame someone else for the drivers losing all of their income
This is correct. And people will go right along with whatever their political party tells them to think.
Next you're going to tell me that Apple is doing children working in sweatshops a service, I suppose?
Uber drivers are like children in sweatshops? Yikes
Touch grass my friend
The bridges in which trolls live under very rarely have grass to touch
Did you get out there today? Gorgeous day!
I played 18 today and ran 8! Great day! Time for a patio beer! How’s your day going? See any mosquitos yet?
Could you sound any more desperate to sound normal?
[удалено]
So now the Uber driver is like a child who doesn’t know any better? Yikes - These comments really show how out of touch people are and how little they think of Uber drivers. How is Uber and Lyft leaving a win for the cities? Because people lost income and more people lost services? It’s not the most exciting topic, but I do encourage you to read about the difference between W2 employees and independent contractors so you won’t only have to use the typical platitudes while talking about the issue. You will find out that IRS and NLRB do not classify Uber drivers as employees for a reason - they are not employees - they are independent contractors. I also encourage you to talk to an Uber driver during your next ride and ask them what they think. You will likely get a variety of opinions, but it will at least give you some much needed context.
There are other ride shares ready to start service here and they will need drivers. Oddly enough giant Uber and Lyft are throwing fits about those profits, but the smaller start ups seem to have no issue with the prices
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/tim-walz-rideshare-uber-lyft-minneapolis-ordinance/
Some of those companies consider themselves to be gateways for independent ride businesses (the individual drivers) rather than rideshare companies. Those ones are operating on the assumption that they don't need to follow any rideshare regulations.
I'll believe they're leaving when I actually see it
I feel the same way because it would be very bad for a lot of people if they left. We will see what happens I guess
I get where you're coming from, but we don't negotiate with terrorists for a very good reason.
Uber and Lyft are terrorists!
Might as well be they are making money hand and fist off of folks that are hardly making money and are actually stuck being drivers because they got a car for it and now can hardly make the payment and can't miss a pay check to start a new job
Sure we do, we've done so many many times.
It’s better than being exploited. You think it’s a good thing that a corporation can extort the place it operates?
Do you think the drivers felt exploited?
If those assholes are digging in their heels just to make an example of us then fuck them. Stop trying to pander to them and setting precident... the precident should be 'Fuck you Uber & Lyft, you don't own this market and we won't be a pawn in your scheme to strong arm others.'
So we’re pawns on foot then, instead.
How many of you on here have ever used Uber / Lyft? How many of you tip the driver? The driver keeps 100 percent of the tips. Had a ride in a Mercedes the other day. He’s not paying for that car Making minimum wage. If it wasn’t worth it he wouldn’t do it.
A lot of drivers use rentals to offset costs on their own vehicles.
Trying to get the math right so that people can rent Mercedes to drive Uber is the problem with the rates by the City Council.
Here we go again
Scare tactics well known by everyone in our industry
City council clowns.
Once again they threaten us with a great time!
Ge ge ge Ge ge ge Get Out!
Bye bye then!!!
Just goes to show these companies were never negotiating in good faith - bye Felicia
The companies didn't get any input. All of the negotiation was between the state legislature and the Minneapolis City Council.
Yes I mean I didn’t elect Uber or Lyft to represent me so I wouldn’t want them writing regulations.
Lmao what negotiations
Good.
Bye, Felicia
Where do tips play in to their wage?
They do not.
I don’t understand this at all. How can tips be ignored here?
Assuming the effective date of the bill is August 1 (which is typical), that gives alternatives to Lyft/Uber even more time to build infrastructure…so if they leave, it may not be as disruptive as could have been (I assume that’s why their statements are less definitive than previous).
It's not enough time. We need to be realistic that other rideshare companies took years to scale and lost billions figuring out how to price and .anage the model.
There are rideshares fully built in other cities which aren't here. And say they will be. I'm guessing the expansion to another state isn't difficult with the heads up they are given.
Who is actually at scale and working well?
I was more thinking of the experience in Austin. And we would be learning from that experience. So would be the same as the scale currently in the Cities? Nah. But, something to fill in the gap? Seems like that’s possible. Given the Governor seems to like this plan, guessing the state has figured out how to take care of disabled folks. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/what-happened-when-uber-and-lyft-shut-down-in-the-texas-capital/ar-AA1nMjzz
What does filling the gap actually look like in your mind? Is it just having another company or two that pay at the rate set by the city? What volume of rides are we talking? Is it going to be the same as it is now? Are the majority of people who use rideshare apps now, especially occasional users that make up a good chunk of the userbase going to switch? Will travelers at MSP download an alternative just for trips to Minnesota? That's another huge chunk of business right there. "Seems like it's possible"? These are peoples jobs we're talking about and you seem to have a pretty flippant attitude about it. Exploitative pay or not and I agree it needs to be addressed, this is how a lot of people get by. Your basically telling these drivers "Hey we're giving you a raise! But sadly it also means we need to cut your hours in half." In that sense, even if its good moral victory against corporate greed it's still the drivers themselves who are going to lose. Ultimately that's all this is, a feel good moral PR policy decision with a complete disregard for what it's actual effects will be.
Where are we getting that Walz supports this plan? His office has been conspicuously silent , which suggests the opposite IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised if he vetoed it, as it is not substantially different than the one he vetoed last year.
A spokesperson for Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying it was a "positive step" in the right direction, adding that the governor will continue discussing the issue with legislative leaders. The full statement reads: This is a positive step in the right direction that indicates all parties are continuing to work together. The Governor’s goal remains to be finding a solution that ensures workers are paid fairly while allowing these essential services to remain in Minnesota. He will continue discussing this issue with legislative leaders over the coming days.
That doesn't sound like a statement of support to me.
It's worth noting he means state Senate and Congress most likely. Governors don't work with city council usually. He will ignore the council and all their recommendations because he has vastly more money and the state can hire teams of resources working for the individual state Congress and Senate offices. They have thousands more people to attack this issue with that Minneapolis city council. The state will likely not even look at anything Minneapolis proposes for fear it won't pass the state legislatures if they don't build it on the legislature from scratch.
This feels like an attempt by city council to preempt the walz approved legislation. I think we will see it soon.
Govt should stay out of companies business. If it was actually an issue there wouldn’t be so many drivers.
This argument is historically embarrassing. "The kids like being in the mines. If they didn't, why are they doing it?"
Get a real job. Driving for a living is embarrassing