4 ms·

It appears the drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase. If you believe the boundaries of political power for labor do not extend p

It appears the drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase. If you believe the boundaries of political power for labor do not extend past slavery you're overlooking a large and incredibly important part of American history.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> appears the drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase Not challenging you, but do you have evidence? I remember in California drivers being famously against reform.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  One person's reform is another person's job loss.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Sure, but if the drivers are lobbying for it that risk is their right.
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      I don't really agree with that, because it is exceedingly unlikely that all drivers are lobbying for it or agree with it, even if a majority do so (which is not at all certain).
Manuel_D 3y ago
I'm very interested in sources indicating that this legislation is supported by the majority of ride share drivers. Though, to be fair, if 10 out of 1,000 ride share drivers are supporting this legislation it's technically honest to "[an unspecified proportion of] drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase."
- coldpie 3y ago
  It's impossible to know how much support it has from Uber/Lyft employees, but there has been a sustained effort for this kind of legislation for a long time, both here & elsewhere (e.g. Austin, TX). Last summer the legislature passed a statewide law enforcing a minimum wage for drivers, but the governor vetoed it[1]. So it least has enough support to get it through the state House & Senate, which isn't nothing. [1] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-adding-protections-for-uber-lyft-drivers https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-ad...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    So for all we know, 1% or less actually support it. Nebulous statements like "drivers support..." don't actually specific a proportion.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      Yeah, of course. Lacking any direct measurement, I'm using support from elected legislators as a proxy for support from people who live here. It's an imperfect metric, obviously, but better than nothing. Presumably if they were getting 99-to-1 comments against the policy from drivers, it wouldn't have passed all of the state House, Senate, and Minneapolis city council.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Except the electorate is comprised overwhelmingly of people who aren't ride share drivers. They could easily be passing laws opposed by the majority of drivers because it's supported mostly by people who aren't ride share drivers.
        coldpie 3y ago
        I agree that option is in the possibility space. However, I don't think it is likely that a wide majority of drivers oppose it, given the support from so many legislators & the lack of that opposition being voiced in local news articles. Given this evidence and the lack of any opposing evidence (but feel free to present some!), I feel comfortable saying the ordinance is at least not wildly unpopular among drivers.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> appears the drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase Not challenging you, but do you have evidence? I remember in California drivers being famously against reform.

baggy_trough 3y ago
One person's reform is another person's job loss.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Sure, but if the drivers are lobbying for it that risk is their right.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    I don't really agree with that, because it is exceedingly unlikely that all drivers are lobbying for it or agree with it, even if a majority do so (which is not at all certain).

Manuel_D 3y ago

I'm very interested in sources indicating that this legislation is supported by the majority of ride share drivers. Though, to be fair, if 10 out of 1,000 ride share drivers are supporting this legislation it's technically honest to "[an unspecified proportion of] drivers are choosing to lobby their city government for this increase."

coldpie 3y ago
It's impossible to know how much support it has from Uber/Lyft employees, but there has been a sustained effort for this kind of legislation for a long time, both here & elsewhere (e.g. Austin, TX). Last summer the legislature passed a statewide law enforcing a minimum wage for drivers, but the governor vetoed it[1]. So it least has enough support to get it through the state House & Senate, which isn't nothing. [1] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-adding-protections-for-uber-lyft-drivers https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-ad...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  So for all we know, 1% or less actually support it. Nebulous statements like "drivers support..." don't actually specific a proportion.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Yeah, of course. Lacking any direct measurement, I'm using support from elected legislators as a proxy for support from people who live here. It's an imperfect metric, obviously, but better than nothing. Presumably if they were getting 99-to-1 comments against the policy from drivers, it wouldn't have passed all of the state House, Senate, and Minneapolis city council.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Except the electorate is comprised overwhelmingly of people who aren't ride share drivers. They could easily be passing laws opposed by the majority of drivers because it's supported mostly by people who aren't ride share drivers.
      - coldpie 3y ago
        I agree that option is in the possibility space. However, I don't think it is likely that a wide majority of drivers oppose it, given the support from so many legislators & the lack of that opposition being voiced in local news articles. Given this evidence and the lack of any opposing evidence (but feel free to present some!), I feel comfortable saying the ordinance is at least not wildly unpopular among drivers.