6 ms·

NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

51 points by kapkapkap 8y ago

ramenmeal 8y ago
Why are these industries separate from the standard minimum wage? Honest question. Is it to include the cost of business?
- obenn 8y ago
  I would assume it's exactly that. A passage from the article below: "The equivalent wage for drivers, who are considered independent contractors and have to cover their own expenses, is $17.22." It's up from 15$ baseline so I assume 2.22$/hr is what they benchmark fuel/maintenance to cost.
  - tjohns 8y ago
    I've seen some other sources mention that the new minimum wage is actually "$27.86 an hour, which translates to $17.22 after expenses". [1] What they consider "expenses" there isn't specified, but that would put their estimate for driver costs at over $10/hour. Which actually seems more reasonable, given the cost of fuel. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125818/uber-lyft-ride-share-new-york-wage-increase-minimum https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125818/uber-lyft-ride-s...
eridius 8y ago
How does an hourly minimum wage work given that Uber and Lyft drivers get paid for doing trips, not for idling in their car waiting for rides? Does this minimum wage only apply to times when I have a fare? That would mean the real hourly minimum wage is less because I wouldn't have a fare 100% of the time. If it applies when I don't have a fare too, how much idle time between fares can I have before the minimum wage stops applying? What happens if I'm driving for both Uber and Lyft, and alternate services on each ride, so my "fare density" on each service is no more than 50% of each hour? Edit: Why am I being downvoted? These are legitimate questions. I'm not criticizing the minimum wage. I'm genuinely curious as to how it actually works.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  It’s a fair question. IMHO it absolutely should include if you’re sitting idle. One of the biggest scams these companies are taking part in wrt labeling their workers as “contractors” is you have to work the worst hours to hit metrics. You can’t just go drive 40 hours a week when you want - it has to fall on busy times and nights. If this doesn’t make them responsible for all the hours they want people out and available, it doesn’t have much teeth.
  - eridius 8y ago
    If a driver accepts every ride the service offers them, then I agree they should be paid for the idle time in between being offered rides. If they don't accept every ride offered them (as is their right, as independent contractors), how do you determine how much idleness is ok? Saying "if you reject a single ride you lose your minimum wage" doesn't seem ok, because that punishes them for exercising their right as an independent contractor. This also still runs into the question of what happens if the driver is driving for multiple services? They may have relatively little idle time, but each independent service sees the driver as having a lot of idle time (any time they're on a competitor's job).
    - dx034 8y ago
      I guess most drivers would be fine accepting all offered jobs within a fixed period. For most it's a full time job anyway, the only reason they would refuse jobs in between is because they're not paying well enough or because they got one with a competitor.
    - Traster 8y ago
      I would put it this way: They must be paid for all idle time. If they're on the app they're considered to be working. It's like the person working at the McDonalds drive through - if no one pulls up to the drive through that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be paid. It's then down to Uber or Lyft or whoever to determine whether they want to engage a contractor whose previous behaviour includes spending long periods not accepting jobs.
mlindner 8y ago
This is just the process of NYC trying to drive Uber and Lyft out of the city and to force them to be expensive and bad like the taxis that existed before them. After a few years when they get bad enough they can start to blame the poor quality on "private corporations" and people will eat it up. Then they'll outright ban them and they'll be back to taxis.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Put me in the screencap, because this is how NYC rolls. If people consume it privately, regulate it until it's so unusable that the government version is adopted.
NTDF9 8y ago
Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Why should medallion owners be protected for their investment decisions? I thought that was the gripe about the banks to (albeit - the banks are far less deserving of sympathy).
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The medallion system was a bargain: we protect you from competition, and you agree to price controls and other regulations. Taxis can't do surge pricing, for example, because the rate regulations don't allow it. So if the government is going to back out of its end of the bargain, it's not unreasonable to compensate medallion owners.
    - hndamien 8y ago
      Fair.
  - NTDF9 8y ago
    Medallion owners were suckered into "investing" in them when law mandated that taxi drivers NEED to buy them. Ideally, they should just have been asked to go through a taxi training program and asked to interview at taxi commpanies and get a job. Much like airline pilots. They are innocent humans and should be reimbursed (maybe with a haircut). Banks need to suck it up. I don't care about them. They cal lay off some execs to make up that money if they want to.
- ec109685 8y ago
  There is also the congestion Uber/lyft are causing that should be factored in.
satuenpoo 8y ago
Another way to say it is: NYC is charging Uber riders more money now for what was a voluntary exchange between driver and rider. Why should I as an Uber driver AND and rider have NYC tell voluntary adults how to conduct their business?

51 points by kapkapkap 8y ago

Why are these industries separate from the standard minimum wage? Honest question. Is it to include the cost of business?

obenn 8y ago
I would assume it's exactly that. A passage from the article below: "The equivalent wage for drivers, who are considered independent contractors and have to cover their own expenses, is $17.22." It's up from 15$ baseline so I assume 2.22$/hr is what they benchmark fuel/maintenance to cost.
- tjohns 8y ago
  I've seen some other sources mention that the new minimum wage is actually "$27.86 an hour, which translates to $17.22 after expenses". [1] What they consider "expenses" there isn't specified, but that would put their estimate for driver costs at over $10/hour. Which actually seems more reasonable, given the cost of fuel. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125818/uber-lyft-ride-share-new-york-wage-increase-minimum https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125818/uber-lyft-ride-s...

eridius 8y ago

How does an hourly minimum wage work given that Uber and Lyft drivers get paid for doing trips, not for idling in their car waiting for rides? Does this minimum wage only apply to times when I have a fare? That would mean the real hourly minimum wage is less because I wouldn't have a fare 100% of the time. If it applies when I don't have a fare too, how much idle time between fares can I have before the minimum wage stops applying? What happens if I'm driving for both Uber and Lyft, and alternate services on each ride, so my "fare density" on each service is no more than 50% of each hour? Edit: Why am I being downvoted? These are legitimate questions. I'm not criticizing the minimum wage. I'm genuinely curious as to how it actually works.

thatoneuser 8y ago
It’s a fair question. IMHO it absolutely should include if you’re sitting idle. One of the biggest scams these companies are taking part in wrt labeling their workers as “contractors” is you have to work the worst hours to hit metrics. You can’t just go drive 40 hours a week when you want - it has to fall on busy times and nights. If this doesn’t make them responsible for all the hours they want people out and available, it doesn’t have much teeth.
- eridius 8y ago
  If a driver accepts every ride the service offers them, then I agree they should be paid for the idle time in between being offered rides. If they don't accept every ride offered them (as is their right, as independent contractors), how do you determine how much idleness is ok? Saying "if you reject a single ride you lose your minimum wage" doesn't seem ok, because that punishes them for exercising their right as an independent contractor. This also still runs into the question of what happens if the driver is driving for multiple services? They may have relatively little idle time, but each independent service sees the driver as having a lot of idle time (any time they're on a competitor's job).
  - dx034 8y ago
    I guess most drivers would be fine accepting all offered jobs within a fixed period. For most it's a full time job anyway, the only reason they would refuse jobs in between is because they're not paying well enough or because they got one with a competitor.
  - Traster 8y ago
    I would put it this way: They must be paid for all idle time. If they're on the app they're considered to be working. It's like the person working at the McDonalds drive through - if no one pulls up to the drive through that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be paid. It's then down to Uber or Lyft or whoever to determine whether they want to engage a contractor whose previous behaviour includes spending long periods not accepting jobs.

mlindner 8y ago

This is just the process of NYC trying to drive Uber and Lyft out of the city and to force them to be expensive and bad like the taxis that existed before them. After a few years when they get bad enough they can start to blame the poor quality on "private corporations" and people will eat it up. Then they'll outright ban them and they'll be back to taxis.

anoncoward111 8y ago
Put me in the screencap, because this is how NYC rolls. If people consume it privately, regulate it until it's so unusable that the government version is adopted.

NTDF9 8y ago

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

hndamien 8y ago
Why should medallion owners be protected for their investment decisions? I thought that was the gripe about the banks to (albeit - the banks are far less deserving of sympathy).
- rayiner 8y ago
  The medallion system was a bargain: we protect you from competition, and you agree to price controls and other regulations. Taxis can't do surge pricing, for example, because the rate regulations don't allow it. So if the government is going to back out of its end of the bargain, it's not unreasonable to compensate medallion owners.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    Fair.
- NTDF9 8y ago
  Medallion owners were suckered into "investing" in them when law mandated that taxi drivers NEED to buy them. Ideally, they should just have been asked to go through a taxi training program and asked to interview at taxi commpanies and get a job. Much like airline pilots. They are innocent humans and should be reimbursed (maybe with a haircut). Banks need to suck it up. I don't care about them. They cal lay off some execs to make up that money if they want to.
ec109685 8y ago
There is also the congestion Uber/lyft are causing that should be factored in.

satuenpoo 8y ago

Another way to say it is: NYC is charging Uber riders more money now for what was a voluntary exchange between driver and rider. Why should I as an Uber driver AND and rider have NYC tell voluntary adults how to conduct their business?