by docker_up on 8/29/19, 4:00 PM with 506 comments
by duxup on 8/29/19, 4:37 PM
Uber circulating a petition to ... urge Uber to do a thing?
Why don't they just do that thing?
by Animats on 8/29/19, 10:23 PM
Not per hour worked. Not when going to a pickup. Not when waiting for a ride. Only "while on a trip". That alone probably means about 1/3 off. Which puts them below SF's $15/hour minimum wage.
Then, Uber counts the entire amount paid to the driver as "wage", not including their renting the driver's car. That takes off a substantial amount.[1]
And if drivers were employees, Uber would have to buy the bottled water.
[1] https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses...
by danans on 8/29/19, 4:44 PM
While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their labor practices includes supporting families.
It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of arguments is pretty obvious.
But then again, in a society where the general populace's basic welfare is largely left to market forces, maybe it's not a stretch for corporations to make the claim that supporting families is among their side-effects (but not objectives).
by us0r on 8/29/19, 9:20 PM
Am I the only who notice the last 4 words? This will effect very few drivers as most are already making > that "while on a trip (and not stuck in complete grid lock)".
by alkonaut on 8/29/19, 5:05 PM
Shouldn’t Uber instead be guaranteeing how much drivers are paid net? If $21 really is before expenses then it’s not even $15 for most drivers after, maybe not even $10?
Also: I was assuming the pay was while working, not while driving passengers. Otherwise isn’t it even worse?
What if Uber instead just guaranteed drivers a living wage plus benefits net?
by devoply on 8/29/19, 4:27 PM
"California drivers deserve access to flexible work." https://www.independentdriver.org/
I wish rent was flexible. How about food prices, they should be flexible. Car repair costs. Flexible. Gas prices should be flexible. In general life should be flexible. Everyone should negotiate. Things should not be that predictable. It's better for everyone.
by s3r3nity on 8/29/19, 5:16 PM
I don't know how to interpret this in that context: is this proposal absurd, or is the medical / labor system in the US absurd? (or both??)
by jankassens on 8/29/19, 5:20 PM
A joint letter by Uber and Lyft CEOs: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-F...
Lyft email campaign advocating minimum earnings: https://p2a.co/xcA3Bg3
by tyingq on 8/29/19, 7:05 PM
They seem to want you to make a straight comparison to a W-2 hourly rate which isn't honest.
by pythonwutang on 8/29/19, 7:47 PM
And of course once they get their monopoly they will raise prices further to get profits and at that point I’d guess they would only be slightly less expensive then Taxis were before all this gig economy craziness.
by JustSomeNobody on 8/29/19, 4:46 PM
This simultaneously reduces the race to the bottom of pricing for ride sharing while capping what Uber will pay at $21/hour[0].
[0] "While on a trip". Gotta love that.
by WheelsAtLarge on 8/29/19, 4:53 PM
Seems to me that's the starting point before decing whether it's a good wage or not.
by kemiller2002 on 8/29/19, 5:18 PM
by kerkeslager on 8/29/19, 5:32 PM
People who claim that regulation only makes things worse should take note of this: even the threat of regulation can be enough to get corporations to at least try to appear to do the right thing.
That said, I think there are two problems with this:
1. Long-term results of this will just be Uber trying to avoid regulation for as long as possible, while figuring out more and more clever ways to maximize profit at the expense of both drivers and passengers.
2. Any payment agreement which doesn't include health insurance in the US needs to be considered as significantly reduced. Back of napkin math ahead: Health insurance can run as high as $700/month and after taxes someone getting paid $21/hour takes home closer to $10.50, meaning some drivers will have to work ~65 hours/month just to pay for health insurance. Assuming Uber drivers drive 160 hours/month (which is conservative), paying for their own health insurance is a ~40% reduction in pay. This means that, pre-tax, that $21/hour looks a lot more like $12.60/hour would in a country with a reasonable healthcare system. Of course, there are some worst-case scenario numbers included here (most people's health insurance isn't that expensive) but at least some Uber drivers, particularly with expensive-to-treat preexisting conditions, are going to be receiving a much lower wage if health insurance isn't included. I suspect this singlehandedly is why Uber is even making the $21/hour offer: as a way to avoid regulation that would require them to pay for health insurance.
by jrochkind1 on 8/29/19, 6:55 PM
It seems to really be, Uber responds to proposed legislation in CA, by asking for it to be changed to allow uber drivers to remain 'independent contrators' -- but they're willing to take legislation, apparently, that would guarantee a $21/hour guarantee, along with paid sick leave and vacation?
Or maybe they're saying if they don't pass any legislation at all, they're willing to do those things voluntarily... presumably just in CA? I'm a bit confused, the article is poorly written.
This is a lot more than many Uber drivers currently get.
There are people quoted in the article saying $21/hour still isn't a living wage in the bay area.
But if Uber is suggesting that $21/guarantee with paid leave is only fair, presumably they'd be willing to commit to that nationwide, not just in CA where they are threatened by legislation? (Just kidding, I obviously don't presume that).
I know many people who do or have driven for Uber in other parts of the country who would find it quite an improvement to get a guarantee of $21/hour and paid leave.
by cookie_monsta on 8/29/19, 11:33 PM
by jdsully on 8/29/19, 4:30 PM
by gandalfian on 8/29/19, 5:41 PM
by habosa on 8/29/19, 9:03 PM
As many have pointed out, this is the key. Not possible to have 100% utilization, so most drivers would probably earn 50-75% of this number.
by torgian on 8/30/19, 1:45 AM
wait, is Uber slowly becoming a taxi service?
by SomeOldThrow on 8/29/19, 4:41 PM
by munherty on 8/29/19, 6:31 PM
by mrnobody_67 on 8/29/19, 4:44 PM
by phjesusthatguy3 on 8/29/19, 8:11 PM
I understand that they're "advocating for a brand-new policy that would strengthen protections for drivers" but what is that policy? What policy are they suggesting be put in place to make sure protections for drivers are strengthened?
by mkagenius on 8/29/19, 4:32 PM
I guess, its the government, since people drive for both lyft and uber.
by supernova87a on 8/29/19, 4:53 PM
Seems to me we have an oversupply of labor of people willing (or needing) to work for pennies. Having a minimum wage isn't going to improve that. It's going to lead to fewer people taking rides, and fewer people being able to become Uber drivers, but slightly better for the ones that can remain drivers. Classic minimum wage problems.
Why don't we make it $30 per hour? or $50? That would be even better.
by not2b on 8/29/19, 5:27 PM
by phjesusthatguy3 on 8/29/19, 4:57 PM
by Bud on 8/30/19, 12:49 AM
This isn't actually $21/hr. It could very easily end up being under $10/hr. Just depends how lucky the driver is.
by lewaldman on 8/29/19, 11:23 PM
by chasd00 on 8/29/19, 5:17 PM
by samstave on 8/29/19, 5:08 PM
Are they doing this in only certain areas?
by WheelsAtLarge on 8/29/19, 4:50 PM
by Endy on 8/29/19, 4:54 PM
by ceejayoz on 8/29/19, 4:27 PM
by smt88 on 8/29/19, 4:28 PM
> "These petitions are clearly Hail Marys by Lyft and Uber to try to prevent the passage of AB-5, which seeks to codify the ruling established in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v Superior Court of Los Angeles. In that case, the court applied the ABC test and decided Dynamex wrongfully classified its workers as independent contractors based on the presumption that 'a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits…'"
Uber's proposed policy is somewhere between what those drivers get now (no guaranteed wages, no benefits, no protection from unfair labor practices) and what they'd get as employees under California law.
Their response:
> "'$21 isn’t a living wage for any category of worker in the San Francisco metro area except a single adult or two adults living together,' Gig Workers Rising tweeted. 'What they’re offering is the floor, while hoping to kneecap any efforts to raise wages down the line & create a real union.'"
by SubiculumCode on 8/29/19, 4:29 PM
by c9c9c9c9 on 8/29/19, 5:57 PM
by brexiteer on 8/29/19, 4:27 PM
by WKH on 8/29/19, 7:19 PM
by SN76477 on 8/29/19, 5:51 PM
by Brushfire on 8/29/19, 4:44 PM
by danenania on 8/29/19, 5:20 PM
I started using Uber and Lyft several years ago in NYC because the taxis were horrible. More than half the rides would feature a driver on the phone, severe road rage, and reckless driving.
Now it seems to have come full circle. Ridesharing is almost as bad as taxis used to be. Some drivers are great, but many are rude and seem to use the roads as an outlet for pent up aggression. In SF, around 1 in 10 are obviously stoned. More are overtired and easily distracted.
So I'm back to driving or public transit. I love ridesharing and would use it all the time if it was safe, but I'm not putting my life or a family member's life in the hands of companies that can't guarantee a competent driver.