5 ms·

First of all, this is partially the result of clearly terrible lawmaking: > In emails to drivers, Uber and Lyft have blamed each other — and the commission — f

First of all, this is partially the result of clearly terrible lawmaking: > In emails to drivers, Uber and Lyft have blamed each other — and the commission — for lockouts. In its minimum-pay formula, the TLC calculates non-passenger time as an industry average. When Lyft drivers aren’t as busy, for example, Uber has to increase driver pay because non-passenger time is higher on average. “The city’s rule bizarrely holds Uber responsible for Lyft’s failures,” said Uber spokesperson Freddi Goldstein. “With Lyft struggling to keep drivers busy, we don’t have other options.” But secondly, genuinely what other outcome would the lawmakers have expected? Previously, drivers could drive whenever they wanted, and they'd make more money in periods of higher unmet demand, which would lead to more drivers on the road during times of peak demand (good), and then drivers could decide for themselves whether it was worth it to drive in times of slow demand -- even if this resulted in less than minimum wage. Now, if there's a requirement that all drivers must make minimum wage, then during times of low demand, Uber/Lyft/etc. are forced to simply boot off a bunch of drivers so that there are enough fares left for the remaining drivers so they will be able to make minimum wage. And there's no obvious "fair" way to do that. You can't do it with pricing like before (since that's been made illegal), so it's necessarily going to be some kind of random lottery. And since demand fluctuates in ways that aren't always predictable (like rain), you can't really plan/schedule in advance. So drivers just get randomly deactivated right now -- instead of making less than minimum wage, they make nothing. I just don't see another way -- once a period of peak demand ends (like after morning rush hour), some drivers are going to have to be booted off if you want to maintain minimum wage. Don't blame Uber. I don't see how the law could have resulted in any other outcome.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
>during times of low demand, Uber/Lyft/etc. are forced to simply boot off a bunch of drivers so that there are enough fares left for the remaining drivers so they will be able to make minimum wage. You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Or work together as an industry to make things work out, the same way they cooperate to oppose any legislation that threatens profits or promises worker rights.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Yeah, that's how it worked previously with taxi medallions. They "worked together as an industry" and medallion owners extorted drivers and it was impossible to get a cab at rush hour and taxis were dirty and reeked of cigarette smoke because there was no competition. The simple fact is, if you want enough vehicles to meet peak demand, then a lot of those drivers and vehicles aren't needed the rest of the day. That's just economics. It's not a false binary, it's simply how supply and demand works. You either kick a bunch of them off or lower the pay until they a bunch of them kick themselves off. Or you go back to not meeting demand so that all drivers can work full time, and it once again becomes impossible to get a ride during rush hour.
- gruez 2y ago
  >You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Isn't that what's essentially happening today? They're forced to "hire drivers as employees" (insofar as being guaranteed pay even if there's no work to be done), and the results were predictable: the firms simply refuse to hire all the drivers. Previously they were willing to take on anyone they can, because they didn't have to pay for them even if they didn't have work for them.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    If the company is dictating the terms of what work they take and when, that makes the workers employees. The key differentiator for an independent contractor is they choose what work to take, and when. Truly independent contractors would be able to access and accept jobs via Uber, from any client, whenever they wanted. Uber and Lyft are trying to eat their cake and have it, too: saying, "you're independent contractors [and thus have full control of what work to take and when]", but then turning around and saying, "_actually_, we need you to work only these jobs, only within these hours, for the good of only the company", which obviously makes them employees.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Okay but to be fair that wasn't the original model. Before the minimum wage law uber drivers could take rides any time they wanted. It was only due to the minimum wage law, which essentially forced uber to pay for time even if there wasn't any riders, that caused uber to restrict when drivers could take rides. Using this to claim that uber wants to "eat their cake and have it, too" therefore makes little sense.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

>during times of low demand, Uber/Lyft/etc. are forced to simply boot off a bunch of drivers so that there are enough fares left for the remaining drivers so they will be able to make minimum wage. You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Or work together as an industry to make things work out, the same way they cooperate to oppose any legislation that threatens profits or promises worker rights.

crazygringo 2y ago
Yeah, that's how it worked previously with taxi medallions. They "worked together as an industry" and medallion owners extorted drivers and it was impossible to get a cab at rush hour and taxis were dirty and reeked of cigarette smoke because there was no competition. The simple fact is, if you want enough vehicles to meet peak demand, then a lot of those drivers and vehicles aren't needed the rest of the day. That's just economics. It's not a false binary, it's simply how supply and demand works. You either kick a bunch of them off or lower the pay until they a bunch of them kick themselves off. Or you go back to not meeting demand so that all drivers can work full time, and it once again becomes impossible to get a ride during rush hour.
gruez 2y ago
>You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Isn't that what's essentially happening today? They're forced to "hire drivers as employees" (insofar as being guaranteed pay even if there's no work to be done), and the results were predictable: the firms simply refuse to hire all the drivers. Previously they were willing to take on anyone they can, because they didn't have to pay for them even if they didn't have work for them.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  If the company is dictating the terms of what work they take and when, that makes the workers employees. The key differentiator for an independent contractor is they choose what work to take, and when. Truly independent contractors would be able to access and accept jobs via Uber, from any client, whenever they wanted. Uber and Lyft are trying to eat their cake and have it, too: saying, "you're independent contractors [and thus have full control of what work to take and when]", but then turning around and saying, "_actually_, we need you to work only these jobs, only within these hours, for the good of only the company", which obviously makes them employees.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Okay but to be fair that wasn't the original model. Before the minimum wage law uber drivers could take rides any time they wanted. It was only due to the minimum wage law, which essentially forced uber to pay for time even if there wasn't any riders, that caused uber to restrict when drivers could take rides. Using this to claim that uber wants to "eat their cake and have it, too" therefore makes little sense.