15 ms·

Drivers group plans work stoppage at Uber, Lyft in NYC

57 points by Vaslo 8y ago

falcolas 8y ago
While I think this is a good (maybe necessary) move for the drivers in the short term, I think it's inevitably going to be perverted by the PR departments from the companies involved into a "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to strike in the future. Of course, if the drivers feel exploited enough to form a union in the first place, who are we to say they're wrong? They already know going in that it's likely to be a black mark against them, yet they're doing it anyways. I personally don't live in or visit NY, and don't hire out Uber or Lyft vehicles; so all I really can do is wish them the best, and hope that it turns out in their favor.
- esotericn 8y ago
  > Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers Does anyone actually fall for this other than those who are paid to? I have no expectation that a low paid worker will exist at any time for me. As far as I'm concerned the fact the local supermarket, uber, takeaway, etc keep running is magic. It's thoroughly in the realm of a 'bonus', it's something I don't expect to be able to rely on (even if historically I've always been able to).
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    You are the exception. Normal people freak out and become helpless (often showing as anger) if some systems they assume to work suddenly stop. Everything from plumbing to supermarkets to taxis. And in my experience, there isn't enough space for nuance in the public consciousness for most people to not blame the actual service workers.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to strike in the future. They don't actually need any of that. All they have to do is to keep using basically the same pricing algorithm they already do. If a bunch of drivers go on strike then any of the remaining ones automatically get paid more because the supply is lower (surge pricing). The higher pay attracts new drivers, or gets the ones who only drive during surge pricing to come out and work full shifts as long as the good money is there. This is basically the same result for the company as conceding to the drivers' demands, except that it ends as soon as the striking drivers give up and reenter the labor pool. The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. In other words, some of the drivers have to stop working. Striking is just feigning solidarity as you hope it's somebody else who gets booted out of the job so you can earn more. The only way drivers are going to get paid more is for enough of them to permanently stop accepting lower fares. But the trade off never actually goes away -- do you want higher fares or more hours? It can't be both unless some people stop driving, and if not enough other people quit the person who quits has to be you.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? > The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law. Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that.
- randyrand 8y ago
  None of that is necessary to know unions/monopolies are bad (for some definition of bad). Their impact is well understood. Economics textbooks usually have at least one chapter devoted to monopolies - which unions fall under. Whether monopolies are bad or not is somewhat subjective, but the impact of them is not. Most basically, monopolies lead to price increases.
caprese 8y ago
and then Uber's PR machine shows how much a stay-at-home mom just made driving someone to an NYC airport when all the other drivers dropped out re-confirming all the stats in their prospectus about the unstoppable good their rides to airports are, investors love it
ma2rten 8y ago
App-based drivers in New York City are already legally entitled to a minimum wage of about $17 an hour after expenses. The Taxi Workers Alliance says its demands include greater job security. A Lyft spokeswoman said Lyft drivers' hourly earnings have increased over the last two years. I am confused by this article. Drivers already have a (relatively high) minimum wage. Now they want job security according to the article? What would that look like given that drivers can work anytime they want? Also, why did Lyft comment on the wage if that is not what drivers are demanding?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  A) Lyft is lying, based on nearly unanimous independent reporting of driver earnings. B)The minimum wage is not high at all. The minimum wage is necessary because driver's are responsible for all of the costs of maintaining their vehicles, gas, parking etc. Imagine if your pay as a programmer required you to also pay for your computer, the parts, the software, the electricity, renting a cubicle/desk/office to work at, etc.
  - ma2rten 8y ago
    The article said the minimum wage is after expenses. I think the minimum wage is high compared to other ride share wages in other areas. It also above the minimum wage in New York, despite being more flexible than other jobs. My wife is a driver for doordash in the Bay Area. She willingly takes compensation below minimum wage (if you take into account expenses), because she can drive any time she wants.
  - ng12 8y ago
    $17 is a pretty good wage for low-skill labor in NYC.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - atwebb 8y ago
      Fast food/grocery in the midwest/south is paying $12/hr, probably bit apples/oranges but I would've expected this to be higher.
pastor_elm 8y ago
So about 10,000 drivers out of maybe over 70,000 total are vowing not to drive during a small window during which many might not have driven anyway. This is not how you send a message. If you want people to listen you have to shut streets down!

57 points by Vaslo 8y ago

While I think this is a good (maybe necessary) move for the drivers in the short term, I think it's inevitably going to be perverted by the PR departments from the companies involved into a "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to strike in the future. Of course, if the drivers feel exploited enough to form a union in the first place, who are we to say they're wrong? They already know going in that it's likely to be a black mark against them, yet they're doing it anyways. I personally don't live in or visit NY, and don't hire out Uber or Lyft vehicles; so all I really can do is wish them the best, and hope that it turns out in their favor.

esotericn 8y ago
> Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers Does anyone actually fall for this other than those who are paid to? I have no expectation that a low paid worker will exist at any time for me. As far as I'm concerned the fact the local supermarket, uber, takeaway, etc keep running is magic. It's thoroughly in the realm of a 'bonus', it's something I don't expect to be able to rely on (even if historically I've always been able to).
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  You are the exception. Normal people freak out and become helpless (often showing as anger) if some systems they assume to work suddenly stop. Everything from plumbing to supermarkets to taxis. And in my experience, there isn't enough space for nuance in the public consciousness for most people to not blame the actual service workers.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to strike in the future. They don't actually need any of that. All they have to do is to keep using basically the same pricing algorithm they already do. If a bunch of drivers go on strike then any of the remaining ones automatically get paid more because the supply is lower (surge pricing). The higher pay attracts new drivers, or gets the ones who only drive during surge pricing to come out and work full shifts as long as the good money is there. This is basically the same result for the company as conceding to the drivers' demands, except that it ends as soon as the striking drivers give up and reenter the labor pool. The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. In other words, some of the drivers have to stop working. Striking is just feigning solidarity as you hope it's somebody else who gets booted out of the job so you can earn more. The only way drivers are going to get paid more is for enough of them to permanently stop accepting lower fares. But the trade off never actually goes away -- do you want higher fares or more hours? It can't be both unless some people stop driving, and if not enough other people quit the person who quits has to be you.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? > The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law. Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that.
randyrand 8y ago
None of that is necessary to know unions/monopolies are bad (for some definition of bad). Their impact is well understood. Economics textbooks usually have at least one chapter devoted to monopolies - which unions fall under. Whether monopolies are bad or not is somewhat subjective, but the impact of them is not. Most basically, monopolies lead to price increases.

caprese 8y ago

and then Uber's PR machine shows how much a stay-at-home mom just made driving someone to an NYC airport when all the other drivers dropped out re-confirming all the stats in their prospectus about the unstoppable good their rides to airports are, investors love it

ma2rten 8y ago

App-based drivers in New York City are already legally entitled to a minimum wage of about $17 an hour after expenses. The Taxi Workers Alliance says its demands include greater job security. A Lyft spokeswoman said Lyft drivers' hourly earnings have increased over the last two years. I am confused by this article. Drivers already have a (relatively high) minimum wage. Now they want job security according to the article? What would that look like given that drivers can work anytime they want? Also, why did Lyft comment on the wage if that is not what drivers are demanding?

gamblor956 8y ago
A) Lyft is lying, based on nearly unanimous independent reporting of driver earnings. B)The minimum wage is not high at all. The minimum wage is necessary because driver's are responsible for all of the costs of maintaining their vehicles, gas, parking etc. Imagine if your pay as a programmer required you to also pay for your computer, the parts, the software, the electricity, renting a cubicle/desk/office to work at, etc.
- ma2rten 8y ago
  The article said the minimum wage is after expenses. I think the minimum wage is high compared to other ride share wages in other areas. It also above the minimum wage in New York, despite being more flexible than other jobs. My wife is a driver for doordash in the Bay Area. She willingly takes compensation below minimum wage (if you take into account expenses), because she can drive any time she wants.
- ng12 8y ago
  $17 is a pretty good wage for low-skill labor in NYC.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - atwebb 8y ago
    Fast food/grocery in the midwest/south is paying $12/hr, probably bit apples/oranges but I would've expected this to be higher.

pastor_elm 8y ago

So about 10,000 drivers out of maybe over 70,000 total are vowing not to drive during a small window during which many might not have driven anyway. This is not how you send a message. If you want people to listen you have to shut streets down!