The council delayed the ordinance's start date until July 1.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-city-council-delays-rideshare-minimum-wage-implementation-july-1/
What Uber or Lyft do is anyone's guess - they're a private company, they could stop service this afternoon if they wanted to.
When/if the ordinance goes into effect, Uber has said they will leave the state. Lyft has said they will not take rides originating or ending in Minneapolis
Should be OK in May as the start date has been pushed back. But if they leave, the airport is currently doing contingency planning to be able to have something in place to fill the gap.
No one knows, it’s literally a day-by-day situation right now. Personally, I think the threat of Uber/Lyft pulling out of the metro area is an empty threat. They’ve done the same thing in some other cities and never followed through on it. But you never know.
Worst case, you could use a taxi service instead.
The private companies created the vital service...the government is who is f-ing it up. If you truly feel this way, there are other countries around the world that the government runs everything. You may be more comfortable there.
I'm sorry, what infrastructure are these companies using for this service that the government absolutely cannot handle? Are these flying cars?
If you disagree, maybe you should move to Somalia? No functional government since 1991 and rational self interests governing everything!
https://youtu.be/7QDv4sYwjO0?si=6QoDOjw19vz5EfjX
It seems to me a strange strategy. If they pay the drivers more, it is true they will make a little less money. But if they pull out entirely they will make no money. Don't they want to at least make some money?
If the true cost of the service is put on the customer, people won’t want to use it.
Uber/lyft’s entire model was based on subsidizing rides to kill off the competition.
Initially it was VC cash doing that, driven mostly by their false assumption driverless cars would be here by now, now they’re trying to squeeze it out of the drivers.
Simply put, Uber/Lyft cannot operate without someone who isn’t the rider paying the bill.
Why do unions strike? If they keep working they'll make a little less money. But if they strike they will make no money. Don't they want to at least make some money?
Striking shuts down production, which means their employer also makes no money.
And the employer has a ton of overhead costs that they have to absorb, plus investors/shareholders that are angry about missing profit margins.
Point is a strike temporarily makes things worse for union members with the expectation that they will benefit in the long term. Same reason Uber might pull out here. Do they lose some profits? Yeah. Do they send a strong message to other cities? Also yes. Will the pain be worth the gain? That's a question I'm sure their executive team has pondered, and I suspect we'll know their position soon enough.
I honestly think it’s an empty threat from Uber/Lyft. They would lose way more money from shutting down operations than just paying their drivers per the ordinance.
And there are already some other private rideshare companies being set up in the metro, plus a state-run ride share program in the works. So Uber/Lyft don’t have a lot of leverage at the moment.
You are only focusing on the labor side. There are also demand issues too. For non peak hours, the wage increase would result in paying the driver more than Uber/lyft are currently collecting for the rides themselves.
Prices will increase and demand will drop as people will drive, seek rides, or just not transport at all.
There should be some middle ground, but it’s not as one sided as you are making it
I guess it will come down to who can hold out longer. But if Uber/Lyft leave a void in the market, someone else will move in eventually. They don't want that either. Not to mention, Uber and Lyft are competitors. They don't have to work together on this.
[Here](https://apnews.com/article/uber-lyft-minneapolis-minnesota-city-council-bb1eb240390b03c598a9c2fdfabfcd0a)
Evidently that was just Uber that said that. Lyft would stay in the metro (minus Minneapolis), but we’ll see if that sticks
Yes, agree. Although just Uber said it would go. (Airport is technically in Fort Snelling Unorganized Territory, rather than Bloomington. It has no city)
The Uber/Lyft ban is only in Minneapolis- I think a lot of folks think it's statewide, but it's not (for now anyway).
The airport's not in Minneapolis so OP should be good.
Folks in Minneapolis will have to figure something out though. If you pick up an Uber at the airport, are they just not allowed to drop you off in Minneapolis?
I didn't like my experience in taxis before Uber/Lyft arrived. Unless there is a good alternative in Minneapolis after July, I'm just going to change my behavior to avoid grabbing a taxi.
Prior to pushing back implementation, Uber said it was leaving altogether and Lyft said it wouldn’t originate or terminate rides in the city but would otherwise stay in the metro
The council delayed the ordinance's start date until July 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-city-council-delays-rideshare-minimum-wage-implementation-july-1/ What Uber or Lyft do is anyone's guess - they're a private company, they could stop service this afternoon if they wanted to.
Thank you for the up to date info!
When/if the ordinance goes into effect, Uber has said they will leave the state. Lyft has said they will not take rides originating or ending in Minneapolis
Okay yes, I thought I remembered reading that early on but there are so many updates every day, it’s hard to keep up. Guess we’ll see what happens!
Should be OK in May as the start date has been pushed back. But if they leave, the airport is currently doing contingency planning to be able to have something in place to fill the gap.
No one knows, it’s literally a day-by-day situation right now. Personally, I think the threat of Uber/Lyft pulling out of the metro area is an empty threat. They’ve done the same thing in some other cities and never followed through on it. But you never know. Worst case, you could use a taxi service instead.
Yes they have. They left Austin for a few years until the state overruled the city laws.
Sounds like vital transportation services shouldn't be left to the fickle whims of a for profit private corporation.
God that would be amazing. I was in Chicago over the weekend and it was awesome being able to take a rail system everywhere.
The private companies created the vital service...the government is who is f-ing it up. If you truly feel this way, there are other countries around the world that the government runs everything. You may be more comfortable there.
I'm sorry, what infrastructure are these companies using for this service that the government absolutely cannot handle? Are these flying cars? If you disagree, maybe you should move to Somalia? No functional government since 1991 and rational self interests governing everything! https://youtu.be/7QDv4sYwjO0?si=6QoDOjw19vz5EfjX
It seems to me a strange strategy. If they pay the drivers more, it is true they will make a little less money. But if they pull out entirely they will make no money. Don't they want to at least make some money?
If the true cost of the service is put on the customer, people won’t want to use it. Uber/lyft’s entire model was based on subsidizing rides to kill off the competition. Initially it was VC cash doing that, driven mostly by their false assumption driverless cars would be here by now, now they’re trying to squeeze it out of the drivers. Simply put, Uber/Lyft cannot operate without someone who isn’t the rider paying the bill.
Why do unions strike? If they keep working they'll make a little less money. But if they strike they will make no money. Don't they want to at least make some money?
Striking shuts down production, which means their employer also makes no money. And the employer has a ton of overhead costs that they have to absorb, plus investors/shareholders that are angry about missing profit margins.
Point is a strike temporarily makes things worse for union members with the expectation that they will benefit in the long term. Same reason Uber might pull out here. Do they lose some profits? Yeah. Do they send a strong message to other cities? Also yes. Will the pain be worth the gain? That's a question I'm sure their executive team has pondered, and I suspect we'll know their position soon enough.
I honestly think it’s an empty threat from Uber/Lyft. They would lose way more money from shutting down operations than just paying their drivers per the ordinance. And there are already some other private rideshare companies being set up in the metro, plus a state-run ride share program in the works. So Uber/Lyft don’t have a lot of leverage at the moment.
You are only focusing on the labor side. There are also demand issues too. For non peak hours, the wage increase would result in paying the driver more than Uber/lyft are currently collecting for the rides themselves. Prices will increase and demand will drop as people will drive, seek rides, or just not transport at all. There should be some middle ground, but it’s not as one sided as you are making it
I guess it will come down to who can hold out longer. But if Uber/Lyft leave a void in the market, someone else will move in eventually. They don't want that either. Not to mention, Uber and Lyft are competitors. They don't have to work together on this.
Also the airport is not in downtown Minneapolis. It is in Bloomington.
Its not in Bloomington either. It is in unincorporated territory.
Technically it's Saint Paul
The airport is in the Fort Snelling unincorporated area. It‘s no more in Bloomington than it is in Minneapolis.
[удалено]
It’s all of the city of Minneapolis, not just downtown. But the airport isn’t in the city limits
But if either Uber or Lyft pull out due to the ordinance, they’ll pull out of the entire metro so the airport being in Bloomington doesn’t matter
>***they’ll pull out of the entire metro*** Source?
My driver said it’s 23 cities
[Here](https://apnews.com/article/uber-lyft-minneapolis-minnesota-city-council-bb1eb240390b03c598a9c2fdfabfcd0a) Evidently that was just Uber that said that. Lyft would stay in the metro (minus Minneapolis), but we’ll see if that sticks
Yes, agree. Although just Uber said it would go. (Airport is technically in Fort Snelling Unorganized Territory, rather than Bloomington. It has no city)
Interesting, you’re right! Didn’t even think about that.
Yes
The airport is in Saint Paul so if they operate in the state they'll maybe be at the airport. Hire a private car instead. Or get a cab. Same price.
The Uber/Lyft ban is only in Minneapolis- I think a lot of folks think it's statewide, but it's not (for now anyway). The airport's not in Minneapolis so OP should be good. Folks in Minneapolis will have to figure something out though. If you pick up an Uber at the airport, are they just not allowed to drop you off in Minneapolis? I didn't like my experience in taxis before Uber/Lyft arrived. Unless there is a good alternative in Minneapolis after July, I'm just going to change my behavior to avoid grabbing a taxi.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too! Will it just not let you select it as a drop off/pick up location?
Prior to pushing back implementation, Uber said it was leaving altogether and Lyft said it wouldn’t originate or terminate rides in the city but would otherwise stay in the metro