New York Passes Minumum Wage Law for Uber and Lyft Drivers

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission has reportedly passed a law designed to enforce a minimum hourly wage for app-based driving services, like Uber and Lyft. The formula proposed in the document guarantees $27.86 per hour, but that actually works out to about $17.22 per hour after "expenses." As expected, the The New York Taxi Workers Alliance praised the decision, while Uber and Lyft aren't particularly happy about it. Thanks to cageymaru for the tip.

Lyft believes all drivers should earn a livable wage and we are committed to helping drivers reach their goals. Unfortunately, the TLC’s proposed pay rules will undermine competition by allowing certain companies to pay drivers lower wages, and disincentive drivers from giving rides to and from areas outside Manhattan. These rules would be a step backward for New Yorkers, and we urge the TLC to reconsider them.
 
But at the end of the day, Lyft and Uber *are* bypassing laws for minimum wage and benefits by classifying their workers as "independent contractors". All this is really doing is enforcing minimum wage on Uber and Lyft.

Then we should abolish "independent contractors" all together and force all jobs to have a minimum wage because both groups "the business" and the "employee" are trying to bypass something to their benefit.
 
I guess I didn't realize that Taxi drivers were paid by the hour.....I always thought it was based on the fare they charged per ride. Basically a "tip" so to speak. So the more passengers picked up and dropped off + the travel distance for each ride given, the more money they make.

To be honest this sounds like they want to force uber and lyft out of the city, and possibly out of business. "protecting" their business.
 
But at the end of the day, Lyft and Uber *are* bypassing laws for minimum wage and benefits by classifying their workers as "independent contractors". All this is really doing is enforcing minimum wage on Uber and Lyft.

Same here in the UK, its a good thing that New York City have done. The taxi drivers work for a living, so a minimum wage is essential to them.
 
Seems like you would have too many ubers in the city and not enough outside of it.
 
Then we should abolish "independent contractors" all together and force all jobs to have a minimum wage because both groups "the business" and the "employee" are trying to bypass something to their benefit.
What's after that? Abolish the unpaid intern and force companies to pay people who do work?
 
But at the end of the day, Lyft and Uber *are* bypassing laws for minimum wage and benefits by classifying their workers as "independent contractors". All this is really doing is enforcing minimum wage on Uber and Lyft.
Except they aren't. What they are doing is making it uneconomical for Uber and Lyft to do business in New York. This is protectionism pure and simple.
 
Now if they would only limit the number of them, it would be perfect. Perhaps some type of token system?
 
The problem started when these companies skirted the laws that force the taxi companies to pay huge fees to run their businesses. I don't think it's fair they had to endure this either. Just as hotels which again pay a lot to be listed as a hotelier and follow regulation had to endure AirBnB. They knew they were breaking the laws, but they didn't care...just call it a market disruptor and not a law break and it's all good apparently. The stupid thing is now that AirBnB's are being banned or being placed on restrictive practices, hotels that should have been built to handle the actual demand never got built so now these cities are going to have a tourist crisis as no one will be able to find a unit and those that do will pay more. Getting back to the Uber/Lyft issue. Unfortunately the cities collecting those silly fees from the cab companies didn't want to lose the revenue but somehow couldn't enforce their fees due to enforcement being a nightmare, so the other way to attack was to force the companies to list their drivers as employees and pay them as such.
 
But at the end of the day, Lyft and Uber *are* bypassing laws for minimum wage and benefits by classifying their workers as "independent contractors". All this is really doing is enforcing minimum wage on Uber and Lyft.


Do you know what a contractor is? A contractor means you can work as you please. You can work 10 hours. You can work 10 minutes. You can work 10 days - it's entirely up to you. Your pay is determined by how many hours choose to work (and that the client agrees for you to work)

Contract means you are expected to work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week between the hours of 8:00 - 5:00 with little to no room for exceptions.

Which one does an Uber/Lyft driver sound more like to you?
 
No one should be driving in NYC anyway, fuck that, the subway is good enough.
 
First, let me explain where I'm coming from. I chose to drive for Lyft in my spare time instead of taking out a bank loan to expand my business last year. It was awesome. I raised the $20k I needed in about 4 months, got to know every part of the metropolis I live in, and performed market research while driving (people are willing to share a lot of personal info on a car ride). On average, I netted $30/hour, about $40 gross. In short, it was a fantastic opportunity that served my purposes.

Until there is a federal ruling on what constitutes an independent contractor, nothing is going to get fixed. Every state, even cities within state, have different rules regarding what is and isn't independent contractors. I had a visit from our state tax agents informing me my independent contractors were employees. Converting from ICs to employees was a significant cost, which resulted in significantly lower wages for my employees. I'm not arguing my employees shouldn't be treated as such by my state's definition. I'm saying there are so many different definitions that it's insane. Further, big businesses like Lyft still get away with calling their employees ICs in my state because they can afford lawyers to fight the state, while as a small business owner fighting the state would close my business. Having driven for Lyft and Uber both, I will say unequivocally that their drivers are employees by many state's definitions, including mine.

However, setting aside the argument of IC vs. employee, ride-sharing services can be good for people. No one forces drivers to drive. Yes, some of the BS rules are a defacto forcing to drive certain hours if you want to make good money driving, but you aren't technically required to drive those hours.

Anyone who doesn't do the math and figure out whether or not it's profitable for them to drive, that's their own fault for being poor business people. If you aren't making enough money for it to be worth driving, then you don't drive, plain and simple. I stopped driving because I made my goal, but also because I stopped making enough money for it to be with it. If I can net $20/hour, I still drive because I enjoy driving and meeting people. Less than $20/hour isn't worth it. There are plenty of jobs that pay that which don't require education and don't trash your car. The only time I still drive is when it snows, because I typically make $40-$50/hour when it snows and people don't want to drive.

The gig economy can be a great opportunity if used as intended. But if people want to treat gigs as full time jobs, they'll be disappointed and are better off working at McDonald's.
 
Being paid minimum wage while you incur expensive for providing the vehicle, insurance, and gas, buy a cell phone to conduct business from and pay for the cell phone plan is literally Criminal
 
Ah yes the NY coins. You mortgage your house to get one so you can be a taxi. You then work for 35 years, and hope to retire by selling the coin to someone else. The new problem is the coins are only worth 1/2-1/3 of what they used to.
 
If they want to call their drivers "Independent Contractors" than those contractors should have the ability to negotiate their own wages and bid on the positions just like any other contractor out there. Not just Uber and Lift but also any other company out there that wants to skirt around employment laws by reclassifying its work force from Employee to Contractor.
 
This is unfortunate from the perspective of someone who just wants a cheap ride. If someone is willing to take me somewhere for the amount I am willing to pay them, why is that not good enough? Why is it even any of anyone else's business?

It's not, until the driver is contracted through a company and you're using that company's resources to arrange the ride ;)
 
About time! This is going to help the drivers save up to retain when Waymo and other automation takes their jobs! Yay!
 
If they want to call their drivers "Independent Contractors" than those contractors should have the ability to negotiate their own wages and bid on the positions just like any other contractor out there. Not just Uber and Lift but also any other company out there that wants to skirt around employment laws by reclassifying its work force from Employee to Contractor.

They can negotiate all they want. Uber/Lyft gave them their offer. They had no obligation to accept it.

They can still shove their head out the window and yell "HEY BUDDY! WANT A RIDE FOR $20?" all they want.

You guys really have your heads up your ass if you think these aren't independent contractors. Maybe it's because I work in business though, so I have more understanding than a 2 year old.
 
Did you read it, it mostly talks about their upcoming IPO valuation and their use of money from private investors to undercut their competition and operate at a loss.

You mean... you know... like Amazon did for many many many years straight? Yeah, it's kind of a successful model these days.

Price out the competition until they are gone (or reduced) then raise rates until profitable.
 
You mean... you know... like Amazon did for many many many years straight? Yeah, it's kind of a successful model these days.

Price out the competition until they are gone (or reduced) then raise rates until profitable.
Yes but Amazon only had to do that for 2 years and only lost them 8 Million, Uber has been doing it for this whole time and is still not in a position where they can change from that as they are currently only charging between 56% and 78% of their costs in some areas, they have also taken in over $20 Billion in private funds to facilitate this and are looking for another $4 Billion to just keep going, hence their IPO which they are valuing themselves at being worth upwards of 120 Billion for the initial buy in while banks are evaluating them in the high 30 to low 40's and even they think that is an over estimate, but Uber is not so great about posting their live financial data so this is all running off last years data. So the two strategies while comparable were executed with wildly different results, now Uber is claiming that much of its costs are related to its development of its driver-less technologies, but if they ever did this it goes completely contrary to their business venture to date and would require them to purchase their own fleet vehicles which then turns them into a cab company or would pit them against Waymo One which is already running and backed by Google.
 
You mean... you know... like Amazon did for many many many years straight? Yeah, it's kind of a successful model these days.

Price out the competition until they are gone (or reduced) then raise rates until profitable.


Yeah, that's an old business strategy.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...-kill-local-small-businesses-article-1.140129

https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefe...i-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/

Regarding Standard Oil’s chief executive, one noted historian writes, “He (Rockefeller) iron-handedly ruined competitors by cutting prices until his victim went bankrupt or sold out, whereupon higher prices would be likely to return.”
 
Yep, it's merely a divide and conquer tactic.

Divide the portfolio (and slash where necessary) then conquer the competition. Then create a monopoly/oligopoly and charge whatever desired.

Right, which might work for some time, but eventually it gets conquered by superior development (new tech, etc.).

Taxi's were a perfect monopoly example. They had zero drive to be innovative. Prior to uber you always had to call the night before to schedule fo the cab to come - or call them on the fly. Now it's more realistic and allows you to do it on your phone isntantly. Cabs were fucking assholes anytime you wanted to use a credit card. Now it's more realistic and up-to-date with what society expects.

The same will happen when automation conquers uber

Someone will eventually conquer Amazon with drone delivery or something.
 
Ok I'm on my phone here so didnt feel like reading the article but...... how the fuck is 27.86 an hour classified as minimum wage?

Also how is your hourly rate determined? Only from the minute you pick up a fare? Or can I drive are with the app going and make that whether I get a fare or not?
 
Back
Top