5 ms·

It's a bit of a misleading headline: they weren't offering a bailout, they were offering to exchange money for services from the city. In any other world that w

It's a bit of a misleading headline: they weren't offering a bailout, they were offering to exchange money for services from the city. In any other world that would be a bribe. Lyft said "it's a bit astonishing to us" because I guess they're used to their bribes being accepted. If anyone thinks "bribe" is too strong of a word, they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers. Again, in any other world this would be called a bribe in exchange for making favorable laws. In this world I guess it would be called lobbying.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers The purported problem is taxi drivers bought medallions. The medallions then dropped in value. (Put aside, for a moment, that most NYC medallions are owned by large corporations.) Uber and Lyft are saying "instead of capping our numbers to help the taxis, we'll help you buy back the taxis from underwater medallion owners." That is good policy. Extending the medallion system to ride sharing freezes market shares. That's a handout to Uber, who have recently been bleeding share to Lyft and Juno. It's also stupid in the midst of a broken subway system and ahead of the L train shutdown. Of course, none of this matters. This bill's purpose is to hand out cash. Our mayor is in the medallion owners' pockets [1]. And apparently they've also been doling out money to this bill's sponsors on the City Council. The hope is this passes in August while nobody is looking. From ground level, it seems they're right. [1] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-over-550000-for-campaign/ https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o...
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  The wage issue is a bigger problem. If Uber and Lyft control the taxi industry in NYC, and it's impossible for their drivers to earn minimum wage, that's something the government needs to fix.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > The wage issue is a bigger problem It's a huge problem. And the minimum-wage proposal is a good idea. (I'd go further and extend it to taxi drivers.) There is no need--apart from paying off the mayor and Speaker's cronies--for it to be tied to the cap. (I even believe they're presented as separate bills, though someone might have later combined them.)
    - pteredactyl 8y ago
      Why is the minimum-wage proposal a good idea?
Spivak 8y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted. This is absolutely right. The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term. I don't think the right call is to cap the number of people who can work in a given industry but that doesn't make this move any less of a PR move to make it slightly more palatable to lawmakers that these companies are slowly killing their more regulated counterpart by mostly ignoring the law. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about what is effectively a peaceful demonstration that the current body of regulation needs revamped when it comes to hired cars but trying to buy your employees into poverty is inexcusable. The money quote: "Lyft and other high-volume for hire vehicle companies are welcome to establish such a fund with a non-profit and assist drivers who are experiencing serious financial difficulties,” he added. “They don’t need any Council authority to do that."
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term There is popular support for the minimum-wage bill. The opposition is to the cap. Note, too, that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down. > by mostly ignoring the law Cab drivers still refuse drop-offs in Brooklyn (last week), are on their phone for the entirety of the ride (Monday evening) and refuse to pick up my black friend (two weeks ago). I'm not sure either side can claim strict adherence to the law.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > It's also noteworthy that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down. Of course it was, because it's a law bought and paid for by the big taxi corporations. It's not for the benefit of the drivers, or NYC residents. It's for the sole benefit of these corporations, who "donated" millions of dollars to the mayor and other politicians enacting this law. Did someone say "bribe"?
  - Spivak 8y ago
    I agree with you about not having a cap, especially when a minimum wage will effectively create one that scales with demand. And it's terrible that cabs do that but this is really about ride sharing services in a vacuum. Just because cabs can be terrible doesn't give others a pass. Assuming that ride sharing companies can provide for their employees and serve the public good I have no problem with them putting taxis out of business.
manigandham 8y ago
What? How many worlds are you living in? This isn't a bribe. It's a fair deal which offered the money to medallion owners who lost value, not politicians. If you want to see bribes, you should look at all the money the taxi companies have spent on politicians over decades to create the (now broken) monopoly in the first place, bribes which are still continuing to affect policy despite immense public support for ride-sharing against taxis.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Gov't: "We established the medallion system to stabilize the cost of transportation and ensure that drivers would be able to make a living wage." The companies who tanked the value of medallions by ignoring the law and are now facing regulation similar to the medallion system: "What if we bought current medallion holders out of their medallions in exchange for you looking the other way and letting us not pay drivers a living wage." They're not literally bribing the politicans but they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest If your gripe is with money in politics, the taxi industry is the greater and more-persistent evil [1][2][3]. [1] https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/31/will-big-taxis-massive-political-spending-advantage-leave-ride-sharing-groups-stranded/ https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/31/will-big-taxis-mas... [2] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-over-550000-for-campaign/ https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o... [3] https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousands-in-donations-from-cab-industry/ https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousa...
  - CPLX 8y ago
    This is a common misconception but in NYC, somewhat uniquely, Uber and Lyft did not break the law. They stayed within the existing system of TLC licensed livery cars. It's a fundamentally different story than the Uber vs. Taxis stories that played out elsewhere.
wuliwong 8y ago
> exchange money for services from the city I do not consider not making a law a "service."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers The purported problem is taxi drivers bought medallions. The medallions then dropped in value. (Put aside, for a moment, that most NYC medallions are owned by large corporations.) Uber and Lyft are saying "instead of capping our numbers to help the taxis, we'll help you buy back the taxis from underwater medallion owners." That is good policy. Extending the medallion system to ride sharing freezes market shares. That's a handout to Uber, who have recently been bleeding share to Lyft and Juno. It's also stupid in the midst of a broken subway system and ahead of the L train shutdown. Of course, none of this matters. This bill's purpose is to hand out cash. Our mayor is in the medallion owners' pockets [1]. And apparently they've also been doling out money to this bill's sponsors on the City Council. The hope is this passes in August while nobody is looking. From ground level, it seems they're right. [1] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-over-550000-for-campaign/ https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o...

lukeschlather 8y ago
The wage issue is a bigger problem. If Uber and Lyft control the taxi industry in NYC, and it's impossible for their drivers to earn minimum wage, that's something the government needs to fix.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The wage issue is a bigger problem It's a huge problem. And the minimum-wage proposal is a good idea. (I'd go further and extend it to taxi drivers.) There is no need--apart from paying off the mayor and Speaker's cronies--for it to be tied to the cap. (I even believe they're presented as separate bills, though someone might have later combined them.)
  - pteredactyl 8y ago
    Why is the minimum-wage proposal a good idea?

Spivak 8y ago

Not sure why you were downvoted. This is absolutely right. The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term. I don't think the right call is to cap the number of people who can work in a given industry but that doesn't make this move any less of a PR move to make it slightly more palatable to lawmakers that these companies are slowly killing their more regulated counterpart by mostly ignoring the law. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about what is effectively a peaceful demonstration that the current body of regulation needs revamped when it comes to hired cars but trying to buy your employees into poverty is inexcusable. The money quote: "Lyft and other high-volume for hire vehicle companies are welcome to establish such a fund with a non-profit and assist drivers who are experiencing serious financial difficulties,” he added. “They don’t need any Council authority to do that."

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term There is popular support for the minimum-wage bill. The opposition is to the cap. Note, too, that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down. > by mostly ignoring the law Cab drivers still refuse drop-offs in Brooklyn (last week), are on their phone for the entirety of the ride (Monday evening) and refuse to pick up my black friend (two weeks ago). I'm not sure either side can claim strict adherence to the law.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > It's also noteworthy that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down. Of course it was, because it's a law bought and paid for by the big taxi corporations. It's not for the benefit of the drivers, or NYC residents. It's for the sole benefit of these corporations, who "donated" millions of dollars to the mayor and other politicians enacting this law. Did someone say "bribe"?
- Spivak 8y ago
  I agree with you about not having a cap, especially when a minimum wage will effectively create one that scales with demand. And it's terrible that cabs do that but this is really about ride sharing services in a vacuum. Just because cabs can be terrible doesn't give others a pass. Assuming that ride sharing companies can provide for their employees and serve the public good I have no problem with them putting taxis out of business.

manigandham 8y ago

What? How many worlds are you living in? This isn't a bribe. It's a fair deal which offered the money to medallion owners who lost value, not politicians. If you want to see bribes, you should look at all the money the taxi companies have spent on politicians over decades to create the (now broken) monopoly in the first place, bribes which are still continuing to affect policy despite immense public support for ride-sharing against taxis.

Spivak 8y ago
Gov't: "We established the medallion system to stabilize the cost of transportation and ensure that drivers would be able to make a living wage." The companies who tanked the value of medallions by ignoring the law and are now facing regulation similar to the medallion system: "What if we bought current medallion holders out of their medallions in exchange for you looking the other way and letting us not pay drivers a living wage." They're not literally bribing the politicans but they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest If your gripe is with money in politics, the taxi industry is the greater and more-persistent evil [1][2][3]. [1] https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/31/will-big-taxis-massive-political-spending-advantage-leave-ride-sharing-groups-stranded/ https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/31/will-big-taxis-mas... [2] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-over-550000-for-campaign/ https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o... [3] https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousands-in-donations-from-cab-industry/ https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousa...
- CPLX 8y ago
  This is a common misconception but in NYC, somewhat uniquely, Uber and Lyft did not break the law. They stayed within the existing system of TLC licensed livery cars. It's a fundamentally different story than the Uber vs. Taxis stories that played out elsewhere.

wuliwong 8y ago

> exchange money for services from the city I do not consider not making a law a "service."