5 ms·

> the rest would have scheduled shifts, and capped hourly earnings. I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements

by mqus 6y ago

> the rest would have scheduled shifts, and capped hourly earnings. I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements with drivers simply clocking their work and then getting some kind of salary derived from that? Can't they still get paid bonuses for driving in particularly unwanted hours? Sure, this would be a complex contract, but I don't see how this is impossible. But I'm not a USA citizen so maybe there is something I'm missing.

MAGZine 6y ago
I had the same thought. Lyft and Uber are already employers in the view of the state. No further modification is necessary. What I'm guessing is that having people waiting being paid $0 is a core principal of Uber and Lyft. They hinge on over-supply. If they have to pay minimum wage to everyone who signs on, they need to be a lot more careful about who they allow to sign on, and when. Saying it'll go to shift work though seems a bit extreme. Sounds like a tantrum to me.
LatteLazy 6y ago
No one would work when you wanted them to work unless you make them. Would you work a busy Friday night dealing with drunk people and missing your friends when you could get the same money for doing nothing on a Tuesday morning?
- mqus 6y ago
  That's why I mentioned bonuses. You are getting paid more if no one wants to drive, but there is some kind of base payment you can expect to get.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I mean, what you're describing without realizing it is just a cab company except you pay everyone a 30+ hours a week for doing nothing on top of what you pay them for actually working... This is why cab companies don't already let drivers pick their own hours (assuming they don't use the uber-lite approach of people just hiring the cab\medallion).
    - mqus 6y ago
      Whoa, uber/lyft are just cab companies with more flexible work-schemes? Tell me something new.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        The flexibility around time worked is contingent on flexibility around pay. Flexibility around pay is being banned.
        mqus 6y ago
        I get that some flexibility is lost. But I would argue that 1. It is by far not as bad as Lyft and Uber present this and 2. I think this is a good thing overall. Less payment flexibility means a more stable income. Sure, some drivers don't need that stability, but those who do need it, really need it and this is more important in my mind. The second point also fits into the narrative that this only benefits 1/5 of the drivers but that these drivers are doing a majority of the rides. I don't have a citation for that, so take it with a grain of salt :)
smallgovt 6y ago
Without scheduled shifts, drivers will purposefully all sign up for the same shift to induce supply overflow. In this situation, drivers can game the flexibility of the system to collect a paycheck while sitting in their cars doing nothing. Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).
- mqus 6y ago
  Then put some kind of system in place to have on-call duty, where you get a small share of the normal payment for being available and then getting the normal rate while you are driving to the customer and driving them to their destination. All of this is already practiced in some place in the world. Sure, it's not as easy as creating an account on the app and off you go, but the driver flexibility of choosing when to drive doesn't seem to be so hard to me.
  - smallgovt 6y ago
    Drivers will still take advantage of such a system. Whenever a market is over-supplied, drivers will sign in to collect their free "on-call duty" checks for doing nothing.
    - mqus 6y ago
      That's what contracts are for. Let's say that you can only pass on some small amount of rides or your on-call duty is terminated. Or go further and state in your contract that you have to take rides if you're on on-call duty. If you have too many drivers, don't 'hire' more. If you have too few riders on the important times, increase the bonus. There are all kinds of adjustments you can make. Another thing: you don't get paid for "doing nothing", you are getting paid for dropping everything when needed. On these conditions you're limited in all kinds of ways, e.g. Taking care of a small kid alone? - not possible. Going shopping? - not really possible.

by mqus 6y ago

MAGZine 6y ago

I had the same thought. Lyft and Uber are already employers in the view of the state. No further modification is necessary. What I'm guessing is that having people waiting being paid $0 is a core principal of Uber and Lyft. They hinge on over-supply. If they have to pay minimum wage to everyone who signs on, they need to be a lot more careful about who they allow to sign on, and when. Saying it'll go to shift work though seems a bit extreme. Sounds like a tantrum to me.

LatteLazy 6y ago

No one would work when you wanted them to work unless you make them. Would you work a busy Friday night dealing with drunk people and missing your friends when you could get the same money for doing nothing on a Tuesday morning?

mqus 6y ago
That's why I mentioned bonuses. You are getting paid more if no one wants to drive, but there is some kind of base payment you can expect to get.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I mean, what you're describing without realizing it is just a cab company except you pay everyone a 30+ hours a week for doing nothing on top of what you pay them for actually working... This is why cab companies don't already let drivers pick their own hours (assuming they don't use the uber-lite approach of people just hiring the cab\medallion).
  - mqus 6y ago
    Whoa, uber/lyft are just cab companies with more flexible work-schemes? Tell me something new.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      The flexibility around time worked is contingent on flexibility around pay. Flexibility around pay is being banned.
      - mqus 6y ago
        I get that some flexibility is lost. But I would argue that 1. It is by far not as bad as Lyft and Uber present this and 2. I think this is a good thing overall. Less payment flexibility means a more stable income. Sure, some drivers don't need that stability, but those who do need it, really need it and this is more important in my mind. The second point also fits into the narrative that this only benefits 1/5 of the drivers but that these drivers are doing a majority of the rides. I don't have a citation for that, so take it with a grain of salt :)

smallgovt 6y ago

Without scheduled shifts, drivers will purposefully all sign up for the same shift to induce supply overflow. In this situation, drivers can game the flexibility of the system to collect a paycheck while sitting in their cars doing nothing. Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).

mqus 6y ago
Then put some kind of system in place to have on-call duty, where you get a small share of the normal payment for being available and then getting the normal rate while you are driving to the customer and driving them to their destination. All of this is already practiced in some place in the world. Sure, it's not as easy as creating an account on the app and off you go, but the driver flexibility of choosing when to drive doesn't seem to be so hard to me.
- smallgovt 6y ago
  Drivers will still take advantage of such a system. Whenever a market is over-supplied, drivers will sign in to collect their free "on-call duty" checks for doing nothing.
  - mqus 6y ago
    That's what contracts are for. Let's say that you can only pass on some small amount of rides or your on-call duty is terminated. Or go further and state in your contract that you have to take rides if you're on on-call duty. If you have too many drivers, don't 'hire' more. If you have too few riders on the important times, increase the bonus. There are all kinds of adjustments you can make. Another thing: you don't get paid for "doing nothing", you are getting paid for dropping everything when needed. On these conditions you're limited in all kinds of ways, e.g. Taking care of a small kid alone? - not possible. Going shopping? - not really possible.