Submitted 8 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/tech/minneapolis-rideshare-minimum-wage/index.html
Lyft and Uber say they will leave Minneapolis if the mayor signs a minimum wage bill for drivers::Lyft and Uber threatened to stop doing business in Minneapolis after the city council adopted a new rule Thursday that would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
If your business can’t afford to pay a living wage it shouldn’t exist.
Uber was notorious for moving into and operating in certain cities illegally.
*all cities
Not all, they were kicked out from Hungary - although that was less a victory of workers’ rights rather than that of the taxi driver union.
Yup. And now the founder is rich when he really should be in jail.
Good.
How to know if a company is predatory and exploitative: They argue about minimum wages.
Bye bye Lyft. Bye bye Uber.
I think we should seize all of Lyft and Ubers assets and use them to construct actual public transportation in USA
love this idea. Wish I knew how to do that lol
Better off seizing taxis and the cars they own, but ultimately, why would we do that? Pass legislation to make them comply
This is old news, and unfortunately the threat worked. The governor vetoed this bill due to handicapped transportation services in MN having partnerships with Uber. I wrote to the governor about it, this is going to a committee to quote “find the best solution”. Unfortunately I don’t have high hopes to see it reintroduced. Gig workers need a minimum standard of labor protections
Hold out a little hope. Democrats have both houses and the governor. And uncharacteristically they’re actually moving some shit though. We got weed legalization, a huge investment in housing, and some good public transit is in the works.
Oh no… Anyway…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lyft and Uber threatened to stop doing business in Minneapolis after the city council adopted a new rule Thursday that would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.
In recent years, states and cities have attempted to pass legislation regarding the growing “gig economy,” or freelance work through apps like Uber and Grubhub, but have generally met with fierce opposition.
Lyft, according to a statement sent to CNN Thursday, said the bill would be detrimental to drivers, who would ultimately earn less, “because prices could double and only the most wealthy could still afford a ride.”
“This ordinance stands to significantly impact our city in terms of worker protections, public safety, disability rights, and transportation mode shift goals,” he said.
In recent years, states have attempted to pass legislation regarding the growing “gig economy,” or freelance work through apps like Uber and Grubhub.
In June, New York City announced a new minimum pay-rate for app food delivery workers amid the rise in use of services like Uber Eats and DoorDash since the pandemic.
The original article contains 587 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Would hurt drivers and only the wealthy could drive… let me fix that too it will cut into all my profits and I won’t be able to overcharge common people as easily and simultaneously commit wage theft against the driver.
Bye Felipe
Probably a very unpopular thing to say: It would be interesting to see a middleman-free, decentralized version of Lyft/Uber where payments and ride-hailing are done with crypto and blockchain/smart contracts, driver ID’s using using DID’s, anonymized on-chain using homomorphic encryption. The hardest problem that I forsee with that tech is with dispute resolution. We need some way to cut out the middleman on the gig economy and to me, this seems like the best way.
I’d be curious to see which would be more practical: a decentralized version of Lyft/Uber powered by blockchain, or an employee-owned version of Lyft/Uber where workers keep all their earnings and pay a small portion for administrative fees to keep the app running.
Admittedly I’m always skeptical of blockchain’s ability to actually solve problems. But maybe it would have fewer infrastructural costs? Who knows
Great points!
The reason I jump to recommending crypto rather than a co-op (I’m actually a libertarian-socialist and am a big fan of co-ops) is that, unless you make it impossible for people to be corrupt through public ledgers and DAO’s, they eventually WILL take the opportunity to be corrupt.
If implemented correctly, crypto can be harnessed as a technology that makes corruption IMPOSSIBLE.
IMO, it gets a bad rap because of bad actors and the public’s misinterpretation of the power structures of sketchy, centralized implementations of the tech (like Luna and FTX). However, a truly decentralized, open source chain could definitely be the backbone to a truly trust-less, truly decentralized version of this. If you really look into it, the more decentralized a crypto project, the more it can be trusted.
For me, the best trust metric that seems to hold strong over the years is initial token allocation.
This is just a cab, with extra steps. You get a cab, you pay the driver no middle man.
Not really! What about reputation score, etc?
You could actually say that about any business that accepts credit cards or digital payment at the point of sale. Try it.
Two points: cash-on-hand is a huge security vulnerability and reputation is something that needs a network and some sort of identity.
Bye! If you can’t pay a living wage you can’t afford to be in business.
Good riddance
Good. Leave.
Bye have a beautiful time! 👋
sup Security Officer Peña
Oh no, there will be small local taxi companies instead of some random multi-million dollar corporations, how bad! And people won’t have to download their trashy apps that are filled with trackers.
So the law works.
Uber prices in some cities are absolutely insane. Seattle for example: Right now a ride to the airport from where I am is 13 miles / 25 minute drive. Uber is quoting $51 at 10am on a Friday. Minneapolis’ new minimum wage would only be $20.47. Even if the driver came all the way from the airport, that would still only be $41. Somehow I doubt all that money is going to the drivers right now.
This mindset of catering to companies is infuriating. They took the risk creating the business, if they are no longer able to afford to pay wages or have competitive prices they don’t deserve to remain open. That’s the whole fucking point of the free market. Let these companies fail, the country and the economy will recover and new companies that fill current niches and needs will pop up.
Fuckity bye then.
Good.
The mayor will unfortunately veto this legislation.
I’ve never used or worked for either so legitimate question for anyone who has worked with such, what’s the split on a ride between the app owners and the drivers? I should hope that the driver takes the majority since they’re the one taking the risk, time, maintinance, stress and all that. My general understanding is that these services tend to be cheaper than a traditional taxi but less regulated so I get there’s contention there.
Basically I’m hoping that the drivers aren’t in one of those ‘living off the tips’ situations like servers in resturaunts while the companies vacume up all the fees.
In the beginning when Uber moves into a new region, they pay drivers well to get drivers onboard, and charge riders little to get riders onboard. This also makes competitors like taxis less attractive and makes Uber really popular, making it hard for the city to push back.
So drivers might be getting more than riders are paying, with Uber subsidizing the entire thing! If your city is in this phase, it’s great for riders and drivers.
Once they’re established though, and the competitors have been pushed out, and people learned that Uber is awesome and cheap compared to taxis, they start raising prices and reducing driver pay. To keep enough availability they need to hire new drivers, which means their quality standards drop, and they use increasingly creative strategies down to debt slavery (desperate drivers lease/rent their car - which can be their only vehicle and which they may need to get to work or exist in general in a car centric area - from Uber, at “very favorable” rates. But then they have to keep driving for Uber or lose the car.)
www.theguardian.com/…/uber-loan-program-debt
They also exploit that most people don’t realize the true cost of a car. They only look at gas, not the wear and maintenance of the car. And if you look at what Uber pays, deduct only gas, and consider the rest income, it looks like a good deal, while in reality they might be selling their car to Uber one kilometer at a time and working effectively for free.
As I understand it there isn’t a direct share of the ride price or anything like that. The amounts Uber pays to drivers and charges from riders are decoupled to the point where even way it’s calculated (e.g. actual distance vs. scheduled distance) could differ between driver and rider. The driver side fare system is different per city/region.
I’ve told two friends who were considering driving for Uber that it’s sort of like taking equity out of your vehicle (yes I know vehicles aren’t an asset really but for the purpose of this example it helps to think about their value as equity) in the form of lifespan and maintenance and putting it in to your pocket.
Everyone I know personally that worked for Uber as their primary income had serious financial problems. The arrangement should not be legal. One of our friends vehicles was mechanically junk after a few years of Uber. Another couldn’t pay her regular bills. They also don’t hold taxes for you and most drivers struggle to prepare for that hitting them with unexpected tax bills. The app creates misleading incentives to keep you on the road during times when it is unsafe to do so. I’m not positive but it sounds like you’re not making much more than minimum wage after you factor in vehicle depreciation and fuel. Gig jobs needed to be regulated a decade ago. Let them leave and make bigger investments in public transit.
Generally the driver gets the majority of the ride cost, but their earnings vary a lot by region/time. If you’re just asking if it’s a good job, then the answer is a resounding no. I did it for a few months a couple years ago, and I have a friend who has done it as his full time job for the past 6 years or so. No change that Uber/Lyft makes is ever designed around benefiting the driver. You can safely assume that any new policy is going to make you earn less than you were before.
At the end of the day, you are not fairly compensated for vehicle wear and tear, fuel consumption is not factored properly for all rides, certain arbitrary locations pay more or less and require unpaid relocating to actually land rides, etc. The best is when you take a 2 hour trip only to find out after drop off that you aren’t allowed to pick up new rides in that area and that you need to spend nearly the same amount of time getting back to an area you’re qualified to drive in. I think that one at least has been mostly resolved since I drove years ago, but you get the idea…
it’s time for a decentralized unionized taxi app
The joy of the big company moving into a limited matked, subsidise the loss until the competition leaves/folds and the people are left with the only game in town. Unfortunatly nothing new there, that’s pretty well the M/O of every big chain. In my state it seems there has been a Dollar General popping up in every other small town doing the same thing.
They won’t, unfortunately.
grte@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Oh no! Businesses who’s ‘innovation’ is doing end runs around labour law leaving? How sad.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 months ago
And whose business plan is to use VC money to undercut existing taxi services and drive them out of business so that they can increase prices to a profitable point (and beyond!).
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I have little sympathy for the taxi companies. They were terrible at what they did for so long. I can still remember the last two taxi rides I had in my life.
Me stuck a 5 minute drive from work. Every cab company I call wants 40 dollars and only in cash. Why? Because it crossed a town and county line. It took 4 calls before I found one that would take plastic.
A year later going to the airport and I am fighting a migraine. No AC, cab was filthy, ads are blasting, and smelled. Hey can you turn off the advertisements? I can’t. Buddy I have a really bad headache can you please turn it off? I can’t do that. I will give you five dollars to turn it off. It goes off.
SCB@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The “labor laws” you reference only exist to give taxi companies monopolies and provide worse experiences for everyone involved
CustodialTeapot@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You mean exist to ensure the underpaid actually get the legal minimum wage and to stop exploitive rich people from exploiting poor people?
grte@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Still better than the ‘gig economy’.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
There’s nothing preventing Uber, Lyft, or any other company from charging realistic rates to pay drivers a minimum wage. But if Uber or Lyft do this, their rates end up being more than traditional taxis, so the question is why