Uber circulating a petition to ... urge Uber to do a thing?
Why don't they just do that thing?
Wal-Mart knows that hiking minimum wage would help it kill mom-and-pop stores that it competes with.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/business/walmart-shareholders...
Also, a high minimum wage for drivers really bumps the value of their self driving car arm.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20793793/uber-5-billion-qu...
If it were a sincere ethical position, once again, they would just implement it... no need to make a big deal about it
Wow...on one hand UBER is in an existential crisis regarding the status of drivers (employee vs independent contract).
On the other UBER is now passing around a petition in order to give drivers rights (which UBER controls) that are commonly understood to be inherent for contractors. Moreover, a contractor generally has complete control over their work, and UBER by passing around this petition is essentially admitting UBER controls drivers work which is typical of an employer/employee relationship.
They are petitioning to change AB5, because of claimed negative side effects of that regulation on their driver pool.
[1] - https://p2a.co/H9gttWA
But let us suppose that you have developed a reputation for not being nice, if you propose something nice people will think you are being devious, if you send a survey you won't know how many people actually want you to be nice. But if you can get a petition out there then people will think hey, I can force those not nice people to be nice by putting in my two cents. Now you find out how many people really want you to be nice, furthermore then you can market it later - we heard, we responded, and those people all think hey my voice is important and feel good about themselves and maybe feel good about you and think maybe they really are nice after all?
It is a brilliant piece of marketing really, that will of course be taken over by everyone and ran into the ground and poisoned as a method to the point where nobody will believe honest petitions anymore either - but that is years away.
See social networking, see banking, see search engines, see... well, it happens everywhere.
I woulnd't be surprised if Uber measures the attractions/reactions the same way, and in the end of the day delivers in a similar manner.
I don't see how they're going to afford their drivers if they're already blowing 2b on them
or cutting the grass before the unionizing movement gain too much steam
After all, if no one notices good deeds, they don't count, right? It's the currency liberal American runs on, Virtue Signals ... V$.
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...
This is especially damaging to drivers that desire to drive their own vehicles and choose how much they want to drive. The proposed wages are way below what you should be taking home in an area like SF, and you are depreciating your own expensive asset and paying your own fuel and maintenance, auto insurance, health insurance and so on.
The real gem however is this would force drivers to use the rental car program which doesn’t make much sense unless you are driving all week long. It is a way for Uber to control drivers making them unable to reject poor work and working conditions without actually making those drivers employees. As an independent contractor you should be able to turn off your Uber driver app when the pay starts sucking, and go work for someone else at your own discretion. There’s no freedom to do that rolling around in an Uber rental.
The "gig" economy seems to work by offering people a fairly open choice of pay and work. Though Uber could be more transparent about expected earnings.
Paid for time that you're actually online.
If you're only logged on for 20 mins (a third) of the hour - you get $7 min wage ($21 / 3).
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).
Companies in the US are utterly out of control with regards to paying a living wage.
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)".
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?
I delivered pizza's full time for 7 years of my life, so I'm well aware of the toll a job like this can take on your car, but even if we triple the high end to $7500/yr to cover the extra wear and tear, gas, and the extra miles/depreciation they are putting on their car, they are still making a little over $17/hr pre-tax. Additionally, a lot of those expenses are tax deductible which means their take home would be a lot higher that most other people making $17/hr.
There are a few major cities where that wage feels a bit light, but for the vast majority of the country, $21/hr feels like a livable wage, even paying for car expenses.
That part doesn't seem quite right. Maybe they can deduct more than they actually spend (using standard mileage rates) but they'll presumably have to pay self-employment taxes which would offset that advantage.
Right now, Uber offers a rate based on time spent per trip, and mileage per trip. Drivers do not get paid outside of trips.
For example if the trip is 10min pickup time and 10 min travel, Uber might bump up the price to make drivers be more willing to accept that trip.
The IRS sets a standard rate of 58 cents/mile for deduction of vehicle-related expenses. There’s obviously a wide range of actual costs, but that’s in the ballpark for an all-inclusive amount. If you average 20MPH then you’ll exceed $10/hr.
Like is it really cost effective to go to the theater on the other side of town because the tickets are $1.50 cheaper? Or this grocery store versus the other?
"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.
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??)
Improving society and equalizing society can mean lifting everyone up, not keeping others down.
Is it really insane that people should get paid a living wage, regardless of whether it's a 'skilled job' or not?
If someone were to approach you on the street and ask you to do something for them that will take an hour of your time, what amount of money do you think would be a fair compensation for just the time expense? Now add to that the fact that it's not just an hour of someones time, it's also an hour of use of an expensive machine they own and maintain.
I've found that when minimum wage is thought of in this way, anything less than $20-25/hour sounds absurd.
$3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent.
That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes).
I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered.
The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5.
Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?
When I was driving, I could make abut $1000 a week when working 60 hours.
$150 of that would be gas 35 would be insurance 15 would be oil changes $50 per week should be set aside for savings to reinvest into the vehicle in the form of proper maintenance.
the final number, $750 for working 60 hours 12.5/hr
I think we need to just be smarter about helping the poor. How about we get rid of income tax for people under the poverty level (or multiple there of)? How about we give them some basic income to make up the difference? We can tax more on the high side to make up the difference. Also, giving poor people more fluid income will likely increase the velocity of money which should make rich people richer negating any increased taxation.
The fully loaded rate is potentially much lower.
In my high CoL state, EMTs make roughly $15-$18.75/hr, work multiple back-to-back shifts and often nights.
So this wording is essentially fraudulent.
If you're talking fire department-based EMTs, then yes, but these make up a significant minority of EMTs who are often running on minimum wage and often given the bare minimum of health insurance.
Work out the cost per mile, and the average miles per hour, that number comes down quite a bit. Especially in places where car insurance is higher.
If they're going to be paid less, they need to be compensated elsewhere.
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
They seem to want you to make a straight comparison to a W-2 hourly rate which isn't honest.
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.
Regarding a different, recent "olive branch" type proposal:
"The one thing they don’t want to give you is the thing that you need to get. This offer from Uber and Lyft is like a kidnapper offering you a softer blanket, as long as you agree not to ever escape. No thanks. These companies know very well that once their workers become actual employees, they will get a host of benefits automatically, and they can formally unionize to win themselves many more benefits and increased pay. These companies, which have never made a dollar even while exploiting their workers, fear this. So they offer some concessions." [1]
[1] https://splinternews.com/if-uber-wants-it-its-bad-1835514222
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.
Seems to me that's the starting point before decing whether it's a good wage or not.
It's true that nobody is forcing you to work for Uber. You can always go to one of the other companies inside the same system with the same incentives that cause them to treat their workers in the same way.
One could imagine a world where automation replaces half of the labor force and the free market would essentially allow corporations to rake in enormous profits while the unemployed class gets paid pennies and lives in poverty.
This is not a good deal.
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.
Saying "amoral corporation" is almost redundant and isn't specific to Uber--almost all corporations are fairly amoral.
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.
“drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses.”
"while on a trip", aka "not really $21/hour", because even in extremely dense areas, drivers have downtime between trips, during which they typically have to either drive around aimlessly, find a place to idle/park, or drive to their next pickup.
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.
wait, is Uber slowly becoming a taxi service?
That seems excessive. Plenty of professions require significant investment in equipment. Many truckers own their own trucks. Mechanics buy their own tools. It's just part of the equation.
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?
I guess, its the government, since people drive for both lyft and uber.
Uber is saying don't do that, instead proposing a new government policy (laws or regulation) of a minimum rate of $21/hour while providing a ride. Like minimum wage, this would be paid by the employer/client, but the government sets a price floor.
Note that how this compares to minimum wage for employees depends entirely on the occupancy rate for the vehicle: if you've only got a fare for half of the minutes in a hour, that's $10.50/hour which is under the 2019 California minimum wage of $12 or $11 for small employers.
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.
You assume there are other options without barriers to entry. You’ve learned how to drive uber, you’ve got a vehicle and payments to make - now take a risk on some other gig with a million unknowns?
Now it’s possible that uber cannot shoulder this cost by lowering their margins, and it will pass directly to the consumer as you suggest - but it’s not guaranteed. The fact that uber is behind this suggests that they can shoulder the cost.
That's a bit of stretch. Also worth noting, many of the jobs did not even exist before Uber created a market for it.
> why don't they simply choose not to offer their services to Uber?
Collective bargaining, aka unionizing, does essentially just that, only with more leverage.
So, why don't they choose not to offer their services to Uber? Well, I think they mostly do, eventually.
Once VC money is no longer subsidizing rideshare businesses, I'm not convinced that they will stay in existence in any form whatsoever.
I agree, they could simply choose to starve.
> I'm not saying that in the "cruel capitalist" way
Yes you are.
> Classic minimum wage problems. Why don't we make it $30 per hour? or $50? That would be even better.
Just out of curiosity, what is your wage? Because these "the poor shouldn't get better compensation" comments tend to come from the well off.
What it says is:
"Instead, Uber is advocating for a brand-new policy that would strengthen protections for rideshare drivers by:
Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses.
Providing drivers access to robust new benefits, such as paid time off, sick leave, and compensation if they are injured while driving with Uber.
Empowering drivers to have a collective voice with rideshare companies, and the ability to influence decisions about their work."
What are they actually proposing? I see what they want their proposal to do.
This isn't actually $21/hr. It could very easily end up being under $10/hr. Just depends how lucky the driver is.
Are they doing this in only certain areas?
And it doesn't include the gas, maintenance and depreciation on your personal vehicle driven 30-50k miles per year to reach that amount. The IRS estimates those costs to be $0.58/mile, which would reduce the income by between $17,400 and $29,000.
Whatever the future union (that the drivers are asking for) can negotiate.
> Will 21/hr cover costs plus give a living wage?
No it won't, see the article.
> Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses
Compare to their blog here[1] where they are much clearer. "[T]he median driver in Seattle makes between $19 and $21 per hour before expenses. A typical expense range is between $2.94 and $6.46 per hour"
[1] https://www.uber.com/blog/seattle/a-look-at-driver-earnings-...
Insurance: 2400 / yr (guesstimate, maybe lower) Miles driven per year: 50k [1] Cost per mile (Incl depreciation) = 0.26$ [2] Cost per year to drive = 0.26 * 52k = 13520 Total = ~$16k per year in post tax earnings.
(Assuming numbers above still work ) Min 21$ / hr = 43,680 Minus taxes = 40,175 Minus driving costs = 24175
post-tax income per month ~= $2k
Assuming a single driver lives outside the immediate SF area, "commutes" to work, and shares an apartment, it's enough to survive. There's plenty of other jobs that pay less, so it seems unfair to target Uber on this number. You can expect to get by temporarily or make a bit of extra cash with Uber, but it's not a long term career for a driver - but I expect most drivers know that already.
[1] https://ride.guru/lounge/p/how-many-miles-do-uber-and-lyft-d... [2] https://bizfluent.com/how-5914430-compute-depreciation-based...
No it's not. That there are worse jobs elsewhere in no way implies these people are asking for anything unfair. Uber got where it is by greedily violating every regulation on the books and now that they are facing these "unfair" unionizers they demand regulation? Please.
[Edit]: I'll add in another source in line with the IRS rate. See AAA: https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/driving-cost-per-mile/
That has to be more expensive than maintaining sizeable taxi service fleet. No matter how you make it Uber is taking 30-40% markup and letting drivers to eat the extra cost from this business model.
> "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.'"
Maybe SF should ban single-passenger cars and solve this Uber problem once and for all.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
I've banned this account for now, but if you want to email hn@ycombinator.com with a better username, we can rename it for you and unban it.
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.
