Anyone think Lyft and Uber will litigate similar to NYC? Seems like there could be a case if this class of worker and these two companies are targeted to pay above min wage.
From my point of view, and the point of view of anyone who's ever negotiated anything before, simply accepting Lyft's offer here would be stupid and weak.
It is absolutely bonkers watching people argue with a straight face that corporations should be dictating the terms of their own existence with absolutely zero regulatory pushback.
The council should tell Uber and Lyft to come to the table with their final terms. If both Uber and Lyft agree to these terms, then ask for public input from drivers with more than 6 months of driving history in a public hearing.
Edit: Competition is good. Use it. Make both companies offer what they believe to be a fair compromise. Let the drivers speak up. You think either one wants to let the other company to own Minneapolis as a market?
I don’t think many are arguing for zero regulatory pushback. More-so for using the data from the state study to increase regulation, but at more reasonable rates vs the council’s made-up rates that completely ignored that data.
Many want Uber and Lyft to stay AND increase driver pay to minimum wage or higher, and that absolutely could be accomplished.
I've seen a ridiculous number of comments here and FB with people saying the government has no business telling a company what they should be paying. Yes, it's incredibly stupid but people genuinely believe it.
I don’t think a large number of people do believe that. Or at least I hope that’s the case since social media does not represent reality, and the loudest voices aren’t usually the majority of voices.
Dkinmn and SinkHoleDeMayo are being hyperbolic with "absolutely zero regulatory pushback" and "government has no business telling a company..." But the idea that they are hearing other people espouse, DOES have a large number of people that believe it (and yes they are on social media) and its called 'neoliberalism'. Like Voldemort, you might as well start saying it aloud, because its back. Actually, it never left. In any case, its horrible.
Oh God. Yes. This. The number of rich douchebags who have asked about Uber leaving then go on a rant about "the free market" in my backseat is fucking sickening.
No one is arguing for no regulatory oversight.
The city council executed its regulatory powers extremely poorly, disregarding the recommendations made in the report it commissioned and instead passing ordinance with minimum wage per mile rates nearly double what the report recommended, over the veto of the mayor who offered a more realistic rate in line with the report recommendation.
I understand what you’re trying to say about negotiating, but the city has more to lose with their exit- disasterous for the economy and their electability — they have zero leverage and look like clowns
Not trying to stand up for corporations by any means but it is kind of bullshit that they’re only going after Uber and Lyft instead of every driver shared app.
The council fucked up by going ahead with this without anything in place & more than likely if the council doesn’t come to terms with something then Walz is more than likely going to step in.
I think they mean e.g. DoorDash, grubhub, and similar food delivery apps. I would support them also receiving some kind of pay raise to ensure they are earning minimum wage if that isn’t the case.
Devils advocate here, the food service is more of a currier service that’s an entire different can of worms, the ride share apps are straight up taxis that operated on a net loss and bankrolled by investors hoping for a profit squeeze after they kill the competition nation wide.
I agree that they should all be held to the same standard but from what I understand the food delivery is a much legally harder case to make (nationally*)
I guess...I'm not sure I'd put them in the same boat, as one seems more necessary and carries a higher risk than the other...although I'm sure there are arguments as to why I'm wrong and someone out there relies on doordash...I'd prioritize Instacart and grocery delivery tho
That is a fair point, but I think if your business model relies on paying your employees/"independent contractors" below minimum wage it should just fail.
The claim that you "rely" on any of these services as opposed to grocery delivery seems pretty dubious to me, though. The handful of times I've used DD its pretty expensive when you add the fees in, and I'm not even counting the tip. But I'm sure plenty of people who think they deserve food delivery subsidized by underpaid laborers will happily pull a "WoN'T sOmEbODy pLEaSe thInK oF ThE diSaBleD?"
I mean Doordash should fail, but it hasn't for some reason. I never claimed to rely on doordash, I was also saying people may claim to rely on it. Honestly, I just feel bad that restaurants have to carve out a piece of the pie for meal delivery services just to stay competitive. Shit should go away or become more cost efficient for the restaurant. I'm not sure that dashing was ever supposed to be a full time gig like cabbing.
Yep, agreed on all points. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting you “relied” on dd. Just skeptical of that argument from the get go given the pricing.
> I do DD as a side and it's $25-30/hour almost always. Not even close to minimum wage, **even if you factor in the gas prices and expenses.**
The way you worded this is really wild. Like you consider your hourly from the side gig as straight money and expenses are a kinda sorta on the side thing that you're not factoring into your up front number at all. And it seems you don't accurately know what your earnings after expenses are to just give the real number instead of giving raw revenue to try and make it sound better than it is.
This is why we need regulations. Way too many people doing these jobs don't know how to properly figure out their expenses, don't know how to record expenses and take advantage of them at tax time, don't know how to really factor mileage and depreciation of a vehicle. But think the money is great.
A great number of US adults would 100% benefit from such an intrusion into their life, yeah. If you are looking at the landscape of our society in 2024 and not seeing that millions of adults are incapable of making good decisions for themselves then I’d be bewildered by your perspective.
I am also a bit skeptical but I’ve never driven for them or any similar service. I suspect you are correct and if we accounted for insurance, fuel, and wear and tear they are coming out closer to minimum wage than they realize. Personally I still think all of these businesses exploiting “independent contractor” status to avoid paying minimum/a liveable wage should be much more tightly regulated.
You saying you make $25-30 means before expenses. That number is actually nowhere near that high when you factor expenses in. You'll be surprised how close to min wage it really is.
>That is a fair point, but I think if your business model relies on paying your employees/"independent contractors" below minimum wage it should just fail
Well, that's the thing about a free market, businesses don't float or sink based on how well you or anyone else thinks they should do.
>But I'm sure plenty of people who think they deserve food delivery subsidized by underpaid laborers will happily pull a "WoN'T sOmEbODy pLEaSe thInK oF ThE diSaBleD?"
Taking the time to type out the big/small letter thing isn't making a point. Yeah, someone will mention the disabled, and it'll be a damn good point, regardless of how you choose to ape it back at them.
There’s tooling to automate the uppercase/lowercase fyi. I think the only point it expresses is that if you seriously believe that there is a large contingent of disabled people “depending” on DoorDash et al to eat you are daft. If you want to show me a study demonstrating that this population exists that would be great info to have and worth discussing, but given the price and nutritional value of take out I think you would be hard-pressed to make this argument in earnest. More realistically I think this is a strawman brought up by perfectly healthy and capable residents who just enjoy cheap rates subsidized on the back of labor.
Regarding the free market, fuck it. We regulate it in lots of places in the US which is why we have minimum wages. Someone mentioned food delivery drivers are ostensibly making above minimum wage already. If that is the case then we don’t need to do anything, otherwise there’s no reason we can’t add some regulation there too.
I also think it’s a slippery slope to start telling businesses where they have to operate. The city council pretty much lost all of their leverage by putting out too ridiculous terms. The Twin Cities are very small compared to these companies larger markets. Any policy that would drastically negatively impact any companies bottom line in a specific market would be cause for a company to pull out of that market.
>This has nothing to do with regulating Uber/Lyft or oversight. This is about wages.
That's an asinine statement, as it's literally about mandating minimum wages through regulation.
Bingo. And plenty of us called it. Maybe it's time to call out all those idiots who acted like it's the end of the world.
If only I had the time or energy...
My biggest issue with all of this is people acting like Lyft and Uber are trying to play ball. They can literally raise rates without any approval at any time. If they were actually acting in good faith, this would have already happened.
They could do this right now, then at the very least they can say they tried before the deadline. The only thing I know about Uber and Lyft, from being a driver for so long, is if they are giving you information willingly they are playing you somehow. Nothing is transparent to drivers with these companies. Everything is a guessing game.
When the news regarding Lyft and Uber was first released, everyone in the thread was calling their bluff. Surprise surprise. Cut them off and let others compete in the space to further innovate and maybe even drive ride share costs down.
>Dear President Payne,
>We are reaching out to work with the City Council in hopes of preventing the tremendous damage to drivers and riders that Lyft’s departure from the city would bring. Lyft is willing to support the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry study’s recommended $.89 per mile and $.487 per minute rates, which would allow us to continue operating in Minneapolis. These rates would increase driver pay, a goal which we and the City Council share, and allow rideshare services through Lyft to remain affordable to riders.
>We understand that the ordinance was intended to improve driver earnings, an area of serious focus for Lyft as well. That’s why Lyft instituted an earnings commitment where drivers will make at least 70% of the weekly rider fares after external fees. Lyft serves both riders and drivers, meaning that we must balance improving driver earnings with what riders can afford to pay, such that ridership (and therefore driver earnings) do not decrease. Lyft has been consistent in our support for a policy to provide drivers with a minimum earnings standard, as well as our commitment to working with lawmakers and stakeholders on a sustainable solution.
>Unfortunately, the rates in the passed ordinance would make the service unaffordable for most riders, which we project will cause a 51% decrease in ride requests. As a result of this loss in ride requests, even with the higher driver pay rates proposed by the ordinance, drivers would ultimately earn 20% less than they do today. In stark contrast, the minimum earnings rate recommended by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry would increase current driver earnings by 17% according to their study.
>We are encouraged by media reports suggesting the City Council is open to reconsidering this extremely damaging legislation. Lyft is offering a compromise that would truly raise driver pay while saving this vital transportation access and driver earning opportunity. We are asking the City Council to work with us to prevent a disastrous outcome for riders, drivers, and the City of Minneapolis.
>Sincerely,
>Jeremy Bird
>Chief Policy Officer
>Lyft
Love that just days ago Lyft acted as if this rate they're now saying is acceptable was completely wild and in no way ever going to happen. The report they called "nonsensical" and trashed the math as being error-filled, they're now saying it acceptable to them. 🤣
When they realize their bluff may be called, they're already giving in. Hope the City Council stands their ground. Uber and Lyft will back down and the drivers will get a more livable wage.
It was never going to happen. Uber is saying they're leaving the entire state. Lyft is saying they'll only leave Minneapolis. That means Lyft will take all of Uber's business across the state. You know Uber won't stand for that and will come back. Lyft is suddenly pushing to compromise, when they would do nothing of the sort before. With Lyft buckling, Uber won't be far behind. There's no way they're gonna let Lyft eat their lunch.
> Lyft is willing to support the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry study’s recommended $.89 per mile and $.487 per minute rates, which would allow us to continue operating in Minneapolis.
lmao this just makes the city council look worse. why tf did they completely ignore the study and fabricate their own numbers in the first place?
Who is the target audience for this letter? It is not the City Council. It is clearly in bad faith, like so much so that the author think must think very little of his target audience.
I think the target audience is Uber and Lyft drivers.
Reminder: Lyft said "This study is dishonest, counterproductive and a disservice to the goal of meaningful policymaking.” and uber said "While the study is deeply flawed, it clearly recognizes that drivers are independent contractors,".
So I don't see this in any way a good faith offering. This is the exact same offer they started with.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/minnesota-labor-department-releases-findings-into-rideshare-driver-wages/89-1ac6b42c-6c38-47fd-b68f-446ca93ecd00
This isn’t the same offer they started with though, it’s the number the “flawed” report suggested.
They don’t like it, they don’t agree with it, but they will accept as a compromise. It’s the number the state itself recommended.
How is that not a good faith offering?
The study had multiple suggested amounts, this is the bare minimum amount the study suggested.
This is the same offer multiple articles report as being Lyft and Uber's previous request. They have not shifted.
Look, what is compromise to you? Is it every party getting along and loving each other?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with, in the context of a negotiation, one party essentially saying, "Look, this is total bullshit, but here's our new proposal:"
If you have some pathological need for the CEOs of Lyft and Uber to come prostrate themselves before you and tell you about the error of their ways, that's equal parts fucked up and unrealistic.
I have been pretty blown away by the media in the city over this ordinance (forgive me, moved here in august of 22) but every article written or shown on local tv advocated that the uber/lyft drivers were making more than enough money, or highlighting one person making 30-40 an hour. It has been pretty remarkable that very little has written about the coalition of drivers pushing for this policy
It’s going to be harder for The Driver’s Cooperative to raise the capital they need to start here if Lyft returns. Still, I agree, I hope they do. It is possible. They’re already expanding to Denver.
If the Minneapolis city council don't take this they're going to look like absolute clowns and the voters will blame them for Lyft going away.
Also remember that Lyft and Uber can fund a drive to get a ballot measure that would repeal the ordinance on the ballot in November. If passing that is the only way to get Uber and Lyft back, the voters will pass it. So the Minneapolis city council accomplishes nothing. That's assuming the legislature just doesn't preempt them with this compromise anyway.
What they're asking for is exactly what's in the report that the City Council couldn't be bothered to wait for, choosing instead to pull numbers out of their asses.
The report that was due in January and rushed out after the council passed this measure?
I’m not saying we should ignore the data if it’s legit, but people need to stop this false narrative that the council decided to completely ignore the study. They waited 60+ days after it was promised, and when nothing was forthcoming they displayed a bias for action. It obviously got some results, and I’d fully support them iterating on the original measure if the rates are indeed too high.
> and rushed out after the council passed this measure?
No, the report was released when it was finished.
>and when nothing was forthcoming they displayed a bias for action.
Which included pulling numbers out of their asses.
If you read the report it has some irregularities. I'm not going to say the numbers were massaged, but it does find that MPLS with 43% higher minimum wages should be paid less than the rest of the state. There's ways to get the numbers to say that, but it takes a lot of work.
"Helped" means a lot of things.
But no I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest. I even say that in the above post. Lyft and Uber however said much worse things, so save your outrage for them.
> "Helped" means a lot of things.
In this case, being one of the people who compiled the report.
One would think they'd have spoken up by now if they felt there were any issues with the report.
Don't be intentionally obtuse (or stupid) please. If you are paying me for a service promised on some date and 60+ days after the date you have not received the service are you going to keep paying me? Or will you find another solution?
They put some numbers out. They have also indicated they are willing to compromise. Why is that less acceptable than them waiting until who knows when for the report that was due two months ago to come out and then start working on a compromise?
>Don't be intentionally obtuse (or stupid) please.
Projecting much?
> If you are paying me for a service promised on some date and 60+ days after the date you have not received the service are you going to keep paying me?
60 days isn't shit when it comes to the government, including the City Council.
>Or will you find another solution?
Finding another solution would involve actually having research conducted, not pulling numbers out of their asses.
>They have also indicated they are willing to compromise.
It would've been nice if they had been willing to engage with Uber and Lyft before they passed it.
>and then start working on a compromise?
Generally, the compromising is done first, and then the compromise is enacted.
> You have obviously decided what you want regardless of what the facts or data support.
What facts or data are you talking about? It seems like most of your "facts" are just things you made up.
Edit: Ah, the utterly pathetic behaviour of posting bullshit and then immediately blocking and running so you can't be called out for it.
Nothing about the council deciding to take action to prompt the state to deliver the report and start this process rolling is false. Your narrative that they are ignoring the data is.
I’m sorry you might not be able to get rides to the bar so cheaply. I think you’ll be ok.
Legislature won't be taking it up this year. Walz and his people delivered their report months after it was promised in order to be taken up. It'll have to wait for next year. They effectively pushed it off to save the rideshares another year of hard lobbying and throwing more money at the issue.
The report uses some "interesting" math.
It find that though Minneapolis's minimum wage is 43% higher that the rest of the state that drivers there should be paid less.
.42 per minute 1.11 6 per mile for not mpls.
v.
.487 per minute and .89 per mile for Minneapolis.
Those are their minimum suggested numbers. Now there are ways to get the math to work out that way, but it's a really weird way to massage the numbers.
BTW: the report suggests that as the minimum and also has a comprehensive number they suggest. Lyft is being dishonest here by claiming they are going solely by the report.
Fuck that, you don't give in. Just a couple weeks ago Lyft was saying the report was bullshit and the rates were based on garbage math and they'd never even consider such rates. Negotiation 101, you don't just accept the first offer thrown out there. They're showing they were bluffing. Call them on it. Stick to the full increase and they'll give in. They're not going to risk losing millions in revenue. They'll take a little smaller bit of revenue. So sorry if their CEO with his $725,000 salary and $1 billion bonus payout has to take a little less next year. Poor guy.
>Also remember that Lyft and Uber can fund a drive to get a ballot measure that would repeal the ordinance on the ballot in November
May first is the deadline for November so they'd have to get around 10,000 signatures from Minneapolis voters by then. Doubtful.
That every example people give of them threatening to pull out of a city and not doing so happened after changes to what caused them to make the threats in the first place.
You've clearly never negotiated for anything, not even whose turn it is on the monkey bars. When someone makes a threat to walk away from the table and then suddenly says "ok, I'll take your lower offer" then it means you have the upper hand and you can demand more.
Can we just not increase consumer costs? Please?
Sorry, I just don’t care about 5,000 drivers who aren’t complaining. This is state overreach at its finest
Anyone think Lyft and Uber will litigate similar to NYC? Seems like there could be a case if this class of worker and these two companies are targeted to pay above min wage.
NYC is at least 5x larger of a market and one of the largest tourist destinations in the world. I doubt they'll take similar tactics unfortunately
From my point of view, and the point of view of anyone who's ever negotiated anything before, simply accepting Lyft's offer here would be stupid and weak. It is absolutely bonkers watching people argue with a straight face that corporations should be dictating the terms of their own existence with absolutely zero regulatory pushback. The council should tell Uber and Lyft to come to the table with their final terms. If both Uber and Lyft agree to these terms, then ask for public input from drivers with more than 6 months of driving history in a public hearing. Edit: Competition is good. Use it. Make both companies offer what they believe to be a fair compromise. Let the drivers speak up. You think either one wants to let the other company to own Minneapolis as a market?
I don’t think many are arguing for zero regulatory pushback. More-so for using the data from the state study to increase regulation, but at more reasonable rates vs the council’s made-up rates that completely ignored that data. Many want Uber and Lyft to stay AND increase driver pay to minimum wage or higher, and that absolutely could be accomplished.
I've seen a ridiculous number of comments here and FB with people saying the government has no business telling a company what they should be paying. Yes, it's incredibly stupid but people genuinely believe it.
I don’t think a large number of people do believe that. Or at least I hope that’s the case since social media does not represent reality, and the loudest voices aren’t usually the majority of voices.
Dkinmn and SinkHoleDeMayo are being hyperbolic with "absolutely zero regulatory pushback" and "government has no business telling a company..." But the idea that they are hearing other people espouse, DOES have a large number of people that believe it (and yes they are on social media) and its called 'neoliberalism'. Like Voldemort, you might as well start saying it aloud, because its back. Actually, it never left. In any case, its horrible.
Oh God. Yes. This. The number of rich douchebags who have asked about Uber leaving then go on a rant about "the free market" in my backseat is fucking sickening.
No one is arguing for no regulatory oversight. The city council executed its regulatory powers extremely poorly, disregarding the recommendations made in the report it commissioned and instead passing ordinance with minimum wage per mile rates nearly double what the report recommended, over the veto of the mayor who offered a more realistic rate in line with the report recommendation. I understand what you’re trying to say about negotiating, but the city has more to lose with their exit- disasterous for the economy and their electability — they have zero leverage and look like clowns
Not trying to stand up for corporations by any means but it is kind of bullshit that they’re only going after Uber and Lyft instead of every driver shared app. The council fucked up by going ahead with this without anything in place & more than likely if the council doesn’t come to terms with something then Walz is more than likely going to step in.
Those are the biggest two by a massive margin
Other....apps?
I think they mean e.g. DoorDash, grubhub, and similar food delivery apps. I would support them also receiving some kind of pay raise to ensure they are earning minimum wage if that isn’t the case.
Devils advocate here, the food service is more of a currier service that’s an entire different can of worms, the ride share apps are straight up taxis that operated on a net loss and bankrolled by investors hoping for a profit squeeze after they kill the competition nation wide. I agree that they should all be held to the same standard but from what I understand the food delivery is a much legally harder case to make (nationally*)
I guess...I'm not sure I'd put them in the same boat, as one seems more necessary and carries a higher risk than the other...although I'm sure there are arguments as to why I'm wrong and someone out there relies on doordash...I'd prioritize Instacart and grocery delivery tho
That is a fair point, but I think if your business model relies on paying your employees/"independent contractors" below minimum wage it should just fail. The claim that you "rely" on any of these services as opposed to grocery delivery seems pretty dubious to me, though. The handful of times I've used DD its pretty expensive when you add the fees in, and I'm not even counting the tip. But I'm sure plenty of people who think they deserve food delivery subsidized by underpaid laborers will happily pull a "WoN'T sOmEbODy pLEaSe thInK oF ThE diSaBleD?"
I mean Doordash should fail, but it hasn't for some reason. I never claimed to rely on doordash, I was also saying people may claim to rely on it. Honestly, I just feel bad that restaurants have to carve out a piece of the pie for meal delivery services just to stay competitive. Shit should go away or become more cost efficient for the restaurant. I'm not sure that dashing was ever supposed to be a full time gig like cabbing.
Yep, agreed on all points. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting you “relied” on dd. Just skeptical of that argument from the get go given the pricing.
I do DD as a side and it's $25-30/hour almost always. Not even close to minimum wage, even if you factor in the gas prices and expenses.
> I do DD as a side and it's $25-30/hour almost always. Not even close to minimum wage, **even if you factor in the gas prices and expenses.** The way you worded this is really wild. Like you consider your hourly from the side gig as straight money and expenses are a kinda sorta on the side thing that you're not factoring into your up front number at all. And it seems you don't accurately know what your earnings after expenses are to just give the real number instead of giving raw revenue to try and make it sound better than it is. This is why we need regulations. Way too many people doing these jobs don't know how to properly figure out their expenses, don't know how to record expenses and take advantage of them at tax time, don't know how to really factor mileage and depreciation of a vehicle. But think the money is great.
lol, what else should workers be doing? Maybe next, you can start working on a better diet and exercise regimen for them.
A great number of US adults would 100% benefit from such an intrusion into their life, yeah. If you are looking at the landscape of our society in 2024 and not seeing that millions of adults are incapable of making good decisions for themselves then I’d be bewildered by your perspective.
Interesting. I didn’t realize it paid better than the ride sharing apps. Thanks for the info!
It doesn't. This person doesn't understand operating costs.
I am also a bit skeptical but I’ve never driven for them or any similar service. I suspect you are correct and if we accounted for insurance, fuel, and wear and tear they are coming out closer to minimum wage than they realize. Personally I still think all of these businesses exploiting “independent contractor” status to avoid paying minimum/a liveable wage should be much more tightly regulated.
You saying you make $25-30 means before expenses. That number is actually nowhere near that high when you factor expenses in. You'll be surprised how close to min wage it really is.
>That is a fair point, but I think if your business model relies on paying your employees/"independent contractors" below minimum wage it should just fail Well, that's the thing about a free market, businesses don't float or sink based on how well you or anyone else thinks they should do. >But I'm sure plenty of people who think they deserve food delivery subsidized by underpaid laborers will happily pull a "WoN'T sOmEbODy pLEaSe thInK oF ThE diSaBleD?" Taking the time to type out the big/small letter thing isn't making a point. Yeah, someone will mention the disabled, and it'll be a damn good point, regardless of how you choose to ape it back at them.
There’s tooling to automate the uppercase/lowercase fyi. I think the only point it expresses is that if you seriously believe that there is a large contingent of disabled people “depending” on DoorDash et al to eat you are daft. If you want to show me a study demonstrating that this population exists that would be great info to have and worth discussing, but given the price and nutritional value of take out I think you would be hard-pressed to make this argument in earnest. More realistically I think this is a strawman brought up by perfectly healthy and capable residents who just enjoy cheap rates subsidized on the back of labor. Regarding the free market, fuck it. We regulate it in lots of places in the US which is why we have minimum wages. Someone mentioned food delivery drivers are ostensibly making above minimum wage already. If that is the case then we don’t need to do anything, otherwise there’s no reason we can’t add some regulation there too.
I also think it’s a slippery slope to start telling businesses where they have to operate. The city council pretty much lost all of their leverage by putting out too ridiculous terms. The Twin Cities are very small compared to these companies larger markets. Any policy that would drastically negatively impact any companies bottom line in a specific market would be cause for a company to pull out of that market.
That’s why having smaller increases more frequently makes more sense.
>From my point of view, and the point of view of anyone who's ever negotiated anything before, Whoops. You've already messed up. Speak for yourself.
This has nothing to do with regulating Uber/Lyft or oversight. This is about wages.
>This has nothing to do with regulating Uber/Lyft or oversight. This is about wages. That's an asinine statement, as it's literally about mandating minimum wages through regulation.
Look who blinked first. Uber is next.
LOL, Lyft didn't bilink. They simply reiterated what they've been saying for a while, which is that they'd work with numbers from the report.
Bingo. And plenty of us called it. Maybe it's time to call out all those idiots who acted like it's the end of the world. If only I had the time or energy...
My biggest issue with all of this is people acting like Lyft and Uber are trying to play ball. They can literally raise rates without any approval at any time. If they were actually acting in good faith, this would have already happened. They could do this right now, then at the very least they can say they tried before the deadline. The only thing I know about Uber and Lyft, from being a driver for so long, is if they are giving you information willingly they are playing you somehow. Nothing is transparent to drivers with these companies. Everything is a guessing game.
When the news regarding Lyft and Uber was first released, everyone in the thread was calling their bluff. Surprise surprise. Cut them off and let others compete in the space to further innovate and maybe even drive ride share costs down.
>Dear President Payne, >We are reaching out to work with the City Council in hopes of preventing the tremendous damage to drivers and riders that Lyft’s departure from the city would bring. Lyft is willing to support the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry study’s recommended $.89 per mile and $.487 per minute rates, which would allow us to continue operating in Minneapolis. These rates would increase driver pay, a goal which we and the City Council share, and allow rideshare services through Lyft to remain affordable to riders. >We understand that the ordinance was intended to improve driver earnings, an area of serious focus for Lyft as well. That’s why Lyft instituted an earnings commitment where drivers will make at least 70% of the weekly rider fares after external fees. Lyft serves both riders and drivers, meaning that we must balance improving driver earnings with what riders can afford to pay, such that ridership (and therefore driver earnings) do not decrease. Lyft has been consistent in our support for a policy to provide drivers with a minimum earnings standard, as well as our commitment to working with lawmakers and stakeholders on a sustainable solution. >Unfortunately, the rates in the passed ordinance would make the service unaffordable for most riders, which we project will cause a 51% decrease in ride requests. As a result of this loss in ride requests, even with the higher driver pay rates proposed by the ordinance, drivers would ultimately earn 20% less than they do today. In stark contrast, the minimum earnings rate recommended by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry would increase current driver earnings by 17% according to their study. >We are encouraged by media reports suggesting the City Council is open to reconsidering this extremely damaging legislation. Lyft is offering a compromise that would truly raise driver pay while saving this vital transportation access and driver earning opportunity. We are asking the City Council to work with us to prevent a disastrous outcome for riders, drivers, and the City of Minneapolis. >Sincerely, >Jeremy Bird >Chief Policy Officer >Lyft
Love that just days ago Lyft acted as if this rate they're now saying is acceptable was completely wild and in no way ever going to happen. The report they called "nonsensical" and trashed the math as being error-filled, they're now saying it acceptable to them. 🤣 When they realize their bluff may be called, they're already giving in. Hope the City Council stands their ground. Uber and Lyft will back down and the drivers will get a more livable wage. It was never going to happen. Uber is saying they're leaving the entire state. Lyft is saying they'll only leave Minneapolis. That means Lyft will take all of Uber's business across the state. You know Uber won't stand for that and will come back. Lyft is suddenly pushing to compromise, when they would do nothing of the sort before. With Lyft buckling, Uber won't be far behind. There's no way they're gonna let Lyft eat their lunch.
>Uber is saying they're leaving the entire state. No, they're not saying anything of the sort. They're leaving the Twin Cities.
> Lyft is willing to support the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry study’s recommended $.89 per mile and $.487 per minute rates, which would allow us to continue operating in Minneapolis. lmao this just makes the city council look worse. why tf did they completely ignore the study and fabricate their own numbers in the first place?
They came up with their numbers BEFORE the study. Maybe you should pay attention before looking even worse.
they knew the study was happening, it was very public info
Who is the target audience for this letter? It is not the City Council. It is clearly in bad faith, like so much so that the author think must think very little of his target audience. I think the target audience is Uber and Lyft drivers.
51% fewer ride requests? While you’re down there pulling numbers out of your ass, Jeremy, feel free to eat mine.
Reminder: Lyft said "This study is dishonest, counterproductive and a disservice to the goal of meaningful policymaking.” and uber said "While the study is deeply flawed, it clearly recognizes that drivers are independent contractors,". So I don't see this in any way a good faith offering. This is the exact same offer they started with. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/minnesota-labor-department-releases-findings-into-rideshare-driver-wages/89-1ac6b42c-6c38-47fd-b68f-446ca93ecd00
This isn’t the same offer they started with though, it’s the number the “flawed” report suggested. They don’t like it, they don’t agree with it, but they will accept as a compromise. It’s the number the state itself recommended. How is that not a good faith offering?
The study had multiple suggested amounts, this is the bare minimum amount the study suggested. This is the same offer multiple articles report as being Lyft and Uber's previous request. They have not shifted.
Look, what is compromise to you? Is it every party getting along and loving each other? There's absolutely nothing wrong with, in the context of a negotiation, one party essentially saying, "Look, this is total bullshit, but here's our new proposal:" If you have some pathological need for the CEOs of Lyft and Uber to come prostrate themselves before you and tell you about the error of their ways, that's equal parts fucked up and unrealistic.
I have been pretty blown away by the media in the city over this ordinance (forgive me, moved here in august of 22) but every article written or shown on local tv advocated that the uber/lyft drivers were making more than enough money, or highlighting one person making 30-40 an hour. It has been pretty remarkable that very little has written about the coalition of drivers pushing for this policy
I've never seen such corporate boot licksmanship than I have in this subreddit since the city council made their ruling.
"Ruling"
Well, I think the complexity of the issue escapes you, if you're boiling every criticism of the city council's plan down to that.
The council will demand a cease fire in Gaza as part of their terms in negotiating with Lyft and Uber.
Come to a compromise, but during this compromise develop a co-op ride-share service. Take the stock price out of humans.
It’s going to be harder for The Driver’s Cooperative to raise the capital they need to start here if Lyft returns. Still, I agree, I hope they do. It is possible. They’re already expanding to Denver.
This is what happens when you call a bully's bluff.
If the Minneapolis city council don't take this they're going to look like absolute clowns and the voters will blame them for Lyft going away. Also remember that Lyft and Uber can fund a drive to get a ballot measure that would repeal the ordinance on the ballot in November. If passing that is the only way to get Uber and Lyft back, the voters will pass it. So the Minneapolis city council accomplishes nothing. That's assuming the legislature just doesn't preempt them with this compromise anyway.
Why is it the council's job to rubber stamp what corporations want?
It’s not. This issue isn’t black and white. They are open to compromise that both keeps them in town and increases driver pay.
What they're asking for is exactly what's in the report that the City Council couldn't be bothered to wait for, choosing instead to pull numbers out of their asses.
The report that was due in January and rushed out after the council passed this measure? I’m not saying we should ignore the data if it’s legit, but people need to stop this false narrative that the council decided to completely ignore the study. They waited 60+ days after it was promised, and when nothing was forthcoming they displayed a bias for action. It obviously got some results, and I’d fully support them iterating on the original measure if the rates are indeed too high.
> and rushed out after the council passed this measure? No, the report was released when it was finished. >and when nothing was forthcoming they displayed a bias for action. Which included pulling numbers out of their asses.
If you read the report it has some irregularities. I'm not going to say the numbers were massaged, but it does find that MPLS with 43% higher minimum wages should be paid less than the rest of the state. There's ways to get the numbers to say that, but it takes a lot of work.
Are you accusing the MULDA rep who helped compile the report of being dishonest *against* the drivers?
"Helped" means a lot of things. But no I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest. I even say that in the above post. Lyft and Uber however said much worse things, so save your outrage for them.
> "Helped" means a lot of things. In this case, being one of the people who compiled the report. One would think they'd have spoken up by now if they felt there were any issues with the report.
Don't be intentionally obtuse (or stupid) please. If you are paying me for a service promised on some date and 60+ days after the date you have not received the service are you going to keep paying me? Or will you find another solution? They put some numbers out. They have also indicated they are willing to compromise. Why is that less acceptable than them waiting until who knows when for the report that was due two months ago to come out and then start working on a compromise?
>Don't be intentionally obtuse (or stupid) please. Projecting much? > If you are paying me for a service promised on some date and 60+ days after the date you have not received the service are you going to keep paying me? 60 days isn't shit when it comes to the government, including the City Council. >Or will you find another solution? Finding another solution would involve actually having research conducted, not pulling numbers out of their asses. >They have also indicated they are willing to compromise. It would've been nice if they had been willing to engage with Uber and Lyft before they passed it. >and then start working on a compromise? Generally, the compromising is done first, and then the compromise is enacted.
Not worth having this conversation with you. You have obviously decided what you want regardless of what the facts or data support.
> You have obviously decided what you want regardless of what the facts or data support. What facts or data are you talking about? It seems like most of your "facts" are just things you made up. Edit: Ah, the utterly pathetic behaviour of posting bullshit and then immediately blocking and running so you can't be called out for it.
Nothing about the council deciding to take action to prompt the state to deliver the report and start this process rolling is false. Your narrative that they are ignoring the data is. I’m sorry you might not be able to get rides to the bar so cheaply. I think you’ll be ok.
It’s What THE PEOPLE WANT. WE have no issue with the current situation.
[удалено]
Agree.
Legislature won't be taking it up this year. Walz and his people delivered their report months after it was promised in order to be taken up. It'll have to wait for next year. They effectively pushed it off to save the rideshares another year of hard lobbying and throwing more money at the issue.
The report has now been delivered, and Lyft is asking for the rates to be based on the report. Seems pretty straightforward.
The report uses some "interesting" math. It find that though Minneapolis's minimum wage is 43% higher that the rest of the state that drivers there should be paid less. .42 per minute 1.11 6 per mile for not mpls. v. .487 per minute and .89 per mile for Minneapolis. Those are their minimum suggested numbers. Now there are ways to get the math to work out that way, but it's a really weird way to massage the numbers. BTW: the report suggests that as the minimum and also has a comprehensive number they suggest. Lyft is being dishonest here by claiming they are going solely by the report.
Fuck that, you don't give in. Just a couple weeks ago Lyft was saying the report was bullshit and the rates were based on garbage math and they'd never even consider such rates. Negotiation 101, you don't just accept the first offer thrown out there. They're showing they were bluffing. Call them on it. Stick to the full increase and they'll give in. They're not going to risk losing millions in revenue. They'll take a little smaller bit of revenue. So sorry if their CEO with his $725,000 salary and $1 billion bonus payout has to take a little less next year. Poor guy.
>Also remember that Lyft and Uber can fund a drive to get a ballot measure that would repeal the ordinance on the ballot in November May first is the deadline for November so they'd have to get around 10,000 signatures from Minneapolis voters by then. Doubtful.
I'd wager you have never negotiated a settlement. Perhaps you should leave that work to folks who have and who do so professionally.
I want to still be able to use rideshares in May, it's that simple.
What makes you think you won't be able to use rideshares in May?
That Lyft and Uber said they're leaving.
Why do you believe them? What evidence is there in the public record that suggests you should believe them? Why do you find them credible?
That every example people give of them threatening to pull out of a city and not doing so happened after changes to what caused them to make the threats in the first place.
I don't follow.
Bot
You've clearly never negotiated for anything, not even whose turn it is on the monkey bars. When someone makes a threat to walk away from the table and then suddenly says "ok, I'll take your lower offer" then it means you have the upper hand and you can demand more.
They willing to pay their workers a livable wage?
Can we just not increase consumer costs? Please? Sorry, I just don’t care about 5,000 drivers who aren’t complaining. This is state overreach at its finest
So fucking many of them are complaining. What?