5 ms·

>- I don't want each company to be forced to pay a minimum wage per hour that then means a driver loses the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once.

>- I don't want each company to be forced to pay a minimum wage per hour that then means a driver loses the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once. Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? I can hold two jobs now if I wanted (even though I'm being paid way more than minimum wage), and that's as long as I honor the contract I have with my current employer. >- I don't want drivers to lose the flexibility to do this on a casual or flexible basis. Quotas and the like will mean the only option is to drive full-time. I'm all for people being able to supplement income. I feel like this is useful to a lot of people. This one too. I get that companies will start to prefer full time drivers, but just like in other industries, there will be temp workers and part time workers. And depending on how the laws are written, there will also be "contracting" companies that lyft and uber could use to fill up their drivers. Kind of like how Via is doing in NYC - from what I can tell very few drivers actually work for Via, instead they work for all these other car companies, and Via delegates rides down to those companies who then dispatch the vehicle. These regulations will cause a sea change in how this industry works. Whether it is for the better or not is something time will tell.

NikolaNovak 7y ago
>>Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? For most other jobs, you do two jobs sequentially. So I'm paid minimum wage working 4 hours for Home Depot, then minimum wage working 2 hours for Home Hardware. But drivers will be logged in to Uber & Lyft etc in parallel. How do you count, calculate, and enforce minimum wage? There's potential for double-dipping here. Or, if you only calculate minimum wage based on actual driving times, I think that's basically already effectively the case.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  I don't see how this is a problem unique to uber or lyft. employees can game the system of any employer. This is an employer problem, not a legislation problem.
- jawns 7y ago
  Is there really much potential for double-dipping? If you pick up a passenger, you're picking up an Uber customer and getting paid for that, or picking up a Lyft customer and getting paid for that. You can't pick up someone and get paid by Uber and Lyft for the same fare.
  - toast0 7y ago
    If Uber and Lyft have to pay you minimum wage while you're 'available' for rides, you can (and drivers often are) be available in one while taking a fare in the other. If they only have to pay while you have a fare or are driving to pick up a fare, a driver may accept a fare on one app while finishing up the other.
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      I don't see a problem with the last point actually -- as a taxi service company you need to pay for the car to go to the customer, then to go where customer wants. If the car is doing something else (delivering a package, driving another customer) while on the first leg of that, why would you expect not to pay for that leg? (assuming the car arrived within acceptable timeframe) Problem of idling on multiple accounts can be solved by only paying out idle time by the company the driver ends up picking up a customer for or when the 2 or 4 hour shift ends. If you see driver idling on your time a lot and never picking up rides even though they are available, fire them like you would do with any employee.
      - toast0 7y ago
        As the second customer/employer, I wouldn't expect to pay time for the first leg while someone else was paying for it because routing may not be most beneficial to me/my customer. For example, the dropoff may be in the wrong direction -- I shouldn't pay for that, or the resulting extra time to doubleback. Paying out idle time by the company that provides a fare makes sense, but requires cooperation between the employers.
        7y ago
- callmeal 7y ago
  The same way it currently works. You don't get paid while you're logged into the app. You start getting paid once you accept the ride and stop getting paid once you've dropped off the rider.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? If I can collect 8 minimum wages concurrently from 8 gig companies by being logged to their 8 apps, their business models become unsustainable, and the gig economy dies. I guess this is the intention of this legislation, but I can't rule out the proponents simply not understanding what they're doing.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Their business model already is unsustainable. As for driving for multiple companies, under conditions devoid of government interference, you being able to "life hack" your way around low pay in either of the companies you drive for means there's no pressure preventing them from lowering the pay even further.

NikolaNovak 7y ago

>>Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? For most other jobs, you do two jobs sequentially. So I'm paid minimum wage working 4 hours for Home Depot, then minimum wage working 2 hours for Home Hardware. But drivers will be logged in to Uber & Lyft etc in parallel. How do you count, calculate, and enforce minimum wage? There's potential for double-dipping here. Or, if you only calculate minimum wage based on actual driving times, I think that's basically already effectively the case.

bluntfang 7y ago
I don't see how this is a problem unique to uber or lyft. employees can game the system of any employer. This is an employer problem, not a legislation problem.
jawns 7y ago
Is there really much potential for double-dipping? If you pick up a passenger, you're picking up an Uber customer and getting paid for that, or picking up a Lyft customer and getting paid for that. You can't pick up someone and get paid by Uber and Lyft for the same fare.
- toast0 7y ago
  If Uber and Lyft have to pay you minimum wage while you're 'available' for rides, you can (and drivers often are) be available in one while taking a fare in the other. If they only have to pay while you have a fare or are driving to pick up a fare, a driver may accept a fare on one app while finishing up the other.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    I don't see a problem with the last point actually -- as a taxi service company you need to pay for the car to go to the customer, then to go where customer wants. If the car is doing something else (delivering a package, driving another customer) while on the first leg of that, why would you expect not to pay for that leg? (assuming the car arrived within acceptable timeframe) Problem of idling on multiple accounts can be solved by only paying out idle time by the company the driver ends up picking up a customer for or when the 2 or 4 hour shift ends. If you see driver idling on your time a lot and never picking up rides even though they are available, fire them like you would do with any employee.
    - toast0 7y ago
      As the second customer/employer, I wouldn't expect to pay time for the first leg while someone else was paying for it because routing may not be most beneficial to me/my customer. For example, the dropoff may be in the wrong direction -- I shouldn't pay for that, or the resulting extra time to doubleback. Paying out idle time by the company that provides a fare makes sense, but requires cooperation between the employers.
      - 7y ago
callmeal 7y ago
The same way it currently works. You don't get paid while you're logged into the app. You start getting paid once you accept the ride and stop getting paid once you've dropped off the rider.

BurningFrog 7y ago

> Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? If I can collect 8 minimum wages concurrently from 8 gig companies by being logged to their 8 apps, their business models become unsustainable, and the gig economy dies. I guess this is the intention of this legislation, but I can't rule out the proponents simply not understanding what they're doing.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Their business model already is unsustainable. As for driving for multiple companies, under conditions devoid of government interference, you being able to "life hack" your way around low pay in either of the companies you drive for means there's no pressure preventing them from lowering the pay even further.