>Uber is circulating a petition urging people to “protect ridesharing in California.” In the petition, Uber advocates for a policy that would offer drivers a minimum of $21 per hour, paid time off, sick leave and compensation if they are injured while driving, as well as a collective voice and “the ability to influence decisions about their work.”<p>Uber circulating a petition to ... urge Uber to do a thing?<p>Why don't they just do that thing?
<i>"while on a trip"</i> - Uber PR.<p>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.<p>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]<p>And if drivers were employees, Uber would have to buy the bottled water.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses...</a>
> our community relies on to supplement their income, <i>support</i> <i>their</i> <i>families</i><p>While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their labor practices includes supporting families.<p>It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of arguments is pretty obvious.<p>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).
>"minimum of $21 per hour while on a trip"<p>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)".
I assume at $21/h the driver has to pay car expenses? How much does that cost per hour assuming a driver does full time driving?<p>Shouldn’t Uber instead be guaranteeing how much drivers are paid <i>net</i>? If $21 really is before expenses then it’s not even $15 for most drivers after, maybe not even $10?<p>Also: I was assuming the pay was while working, not while driving passengers. Otherwise isn’t it even worse?<p>What if Uber instead just guaranteed drivers a living wage plus benefits <i>net</i>?
Let's not leave the rest of it, threatened with its drivers unionizing Uber tries to play the individualism card to dissuade collective action.<p>"California drivers deserve access to flexible work."
<a href="https://www.independentdriver.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.independentdriver.org/</a><p>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 hate to be _that_ person, but $21 / hr minimum is more than EMTs, and even most surgical Residents make (at least in the US).<p>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??)
This appears to be a joint effort with Lyft.<p>A joint letter by Uber and Lyft CEOs: <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-Forum-Uber-Lyft-ready-to-do-our-part-for-13969843.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-F...</a><p>Lyft email campaign advocating minimum earnings: <a href="https://p2a.co/xcA3Bg3" rel="nofollow">https://p2a.co/xcA3Bg3</a>
"wage" is a confusing term to use in this context if they aren't very specific about what things the driver has to pay out of that $21/hr. Self employment tax, employers share of FICA, vehicle wear/tear/depreciation, fuel, health insurance, commercial vehicle insurance, benefits, etc.<p>They seem to want you to make a straight comparison to a W-2 hourly rate which isn't honest.
This is an attempt to push Lyft out of CA by raising the cost side of the equation but that cost will eventually have to be passed to riders, which will dramatically drop demand. If the minimum wage law passes and they subsidize rides long enough to edge out Lyft then they finally get the monopoly they’ve been promising investors for the last decade but they also lose a huge amount of their TAM. The laws of supply and demand will eventually come into play.<p>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.
> Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses.<p>This simultaneously reduces the race to the bottom of pricing for ride sharing while capping what Uber will pay at $21/hour[0].<p>[0] "While on a trip". Gotta love that.
What is the right payment for Uber drivers? Will 21/hr really cover costs plus give a living wage?<p>Seems to me that's the starting point before decing whether it's a good wage or not.
Call me a cynic, but I don't see how this doesn't hurt drivers. It sounds good, but it's too good to be true. I'm wondering if they are factoring in only the amount of time actually driving. So if you have a 5 minute drive in 60 minutes, at 21.00 per hour you only make 1.75. I'm guessing their hourly wage doesn't include reimbursement for car mileage, gas etc. too. That seems like a raw deal to me. Am I missing something?
It's wise to look a gift horse in the mouth when it comes from an amoral corporation, but I suspect this is fairly honest, not because Uber is doing it out of the kindness of their own hearts, but because Uber wants to avoid regulation.<p>People who claim that regulation only makes things worse should take note of this: even the <i>threat</i> of regulation can be enough to get corporations to at least try to appear to do the right thing.<p>That said, I think there are two problems with this:<p>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.<p>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 <i>isn't</i> that expensive) but at least some Uber drivers, particularly with expensive-to-treat preexisting conditions, are going to be receiving a <i>much</i> 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.
The article is written confusingly.<p>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?<p>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.<p>This is a lot more than many Uber drivers currently get.<p>There are people quoted in the article saying $21/hour still isn't a living wage in the bay area.<p>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).<p>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.
The article was updated and the headline changed to "Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wage of $21 per hour while on a trip" to clarify the misconception that drivers would actually receive $21/hr. I think the headline should be changed here to avoid similar misunderstandings
Is this really a wage or do you have to deduct your petrol and motoring costs from it? Are you working when waiting for a customer Or only when actually driving?
"$21 per hour while on a trip"<p>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.
So... it sounds more and more like Uber is going to need to provide drivers insurance, etc... which means they will probably need higher requirements from their drivers at some point. Maybe even licensing and...<p>wait, is Uber slowly becoming a taxi service?
Anything short of employment with the health insurance and no personal investment in the car it seems like it's going to be bad for drivers in the long term.
What is it that Uber is proposing?<p>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?
Not entirely clear what _policy_ exactly means, does it mean Uber will pay the minimum wage or it wants the government to pay that? (I am not from U.S. so its unclear how it works)<p>I guess, its the government, since people drive for both lyft and uber.
Maybe I'm dense but if drivers aren't finding the expected wage acceptable then why don't they simply choose not to offer their services to Uber? I'm not saying that in the "cruel capitalist" way, I'm observing -- they still choose to work, so there must be demand for it at a low wage level.<p>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.<p>Why don't we make it $30 per hour? or $50? That would be even better.
Presumably the $21 per hour is before driver expenses (gas, depreciation etc: drivers often ignore that their shiny new Prius loses about $0.10 in value per mile driven).
Does anyone have a link to the actual policy Uber is advocating? It doesn't appear to be linked from the TC article or the independentdriver site linked from there.
Key words in this story: "while on a trip".<p>This isn't actually $21/hr. It could very easily end up being under $10/hr. Just depends how lucky the driver is.
is there an interview process to be an Uber driver? Or do you just download the app and turn it on? If it's just the app then why wouldn't everyone just download the app and start making $21/hr
What is the right payment for Uber drivers? Will 21/hr cover costs plus give a living wage?
That's the starting point before decing if it's good or bad.
And what will this do to fares? If they stop being the cheapest fast option between two points, I don't feel like I'd be alone in going another way.
tl;dr Uber/Lyft/gig workers are organizing to get themselves recognized as employees (rather than contractors).<p>> "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…'"<p>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.<p>Their response:<p>> "'$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.'"
This makes sense, Uber should be a premium service, back in my day having a private driver on call was expensive as it should be, the wear and tear om the vehicle is ridiculous, the vehicles are nice. You want a cheap ride, get a cab that someone may have shit in OR innovate in your life and buy your own vehicle.
Minimum wage policies in this sector are such a boon to self driving car companies. It will accelerate the end of uber and lyft using human drivers dramatically. I hope these unions realize what they're doing.
Ok, now how about a sincere focus on safety and driver accountability?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.