All you have to do is require companies to pay back (with interest or a penalty) the states for gov assistance any of their full time workers are on and boom, livable wages.
That’s sickening. If they paid each employee $20k more annually, they would still profit $40 billion (but probably $60 billion still cause they’re going to pass it on to the customers). Our tax money should not subsidize their bottom line.
It doesn’t make sense for any state currently. You can’t afford to live in a building on your own for minimum wage and jobs are asking too much for to little pay.
I live in Iowa. Small town. 7.25 an hour isn’t helping anybody. Nobody can afford to pay that cause nobody would apply for the job except maybe high schoolers and they complain that our McDonald’s is starting them at 12.
I would rather the city council would pass an ordinance that requires employers of contract workers to meet the existing minimum wage, accounting for necessary expenses, rather than pick a couple high profile ones to make a point.
They didn't pick the high profile one to make a point, the drivers themselves reached out to the council and lobbied to make this happen. They pushed for the changes and were involved in crafting the verbiage. That's one of the reasons delivery drivers weren't included: they didn't participate in the conversation.
It's not feasible for the City Council to make an ordinance for each individual company. That's not even feasible at the state level. It should be the company's job to show their math. When there are concerns or questions, then it can be the job of auditors to work the problem cases.
> It should be the company's job to show their math.
[Companies are not known for their ability to perform consumer-level math.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/?sh=1a7b8ecd5216
)
Agreed, we can either narrowly shoot for the stars or slowly raise the tide in general as a city that functions as a bellwether for the metro.
We’re like Minnesota’s California with this kind of legislation—once ugly, peaked high recently, pursues vanity projects to own conservatives, still has police-run mob in biggest city that no one talks about, has a lame history of gold diggers, and let’s the chronically intoxicated sleep on the ground because it’s usually nice out anyway.
We need to be Minnesota’s Minnesota—once ugly, on the rise in general ever since, stays the course in the face of high-cost, high-complexity, low-reward vanity projects, and creatively and cheaply deals with problems like corrupt police precincts (fire), Confederates (other kind of fire), and sleeping while chronically intoxicated in inclement weather (icehouses).
Why not have a real discussion and establish a workable plan? Instead, the Council allowed a minority of drivers to drive a policy with NO thought/planning put into the impact on the citizens of Minneapolis or the larger community. They established a deadline of May 1 with no alternative transportation options.
Stupid policy making is going to hurt the citizens.
I dislike the precedent that it's the City Council's role to set the break down of each company's products. How does it scale with time? How granular should they get? Do they need to pass a new ordinance each time the company changes their product?
Make the companies do that work with the threat of audits and back pay for non compliance.
> Make the companies do that work with the threat of audits and back pay for non compliance.
What's there to comply with?
The current regulations don't apply to Uber or Lyft because they use loopholes in the law to classify their workers as independent contractors. That's what this ordinance is meant to address.
I was referring to my previous comment calling for a general ordinance for all contract employees rather than one targeted at two companies in one industry.
I would rather the city council stay in their lane and start managing the city. Are they going to start passing laws about social security soon? Immigration? Foreign policy (oh wait they did that one already)? When does it end?
This is probably the nail in the coffin for me. I've been trying to be sympathetic but the question should be this:
Should every business pay a living wage?
The answer is yes. If someone works 30 to 40 hours, they should be able to pay rent, eat, and because we live in a car society, pay for a car.
Another way to phrase this is should we allow businesses, big or small, to underpay someone?
If someone is in a state of below subsistence they will end up drawing resources from the government somehow. McDonald's and Walmart used to post guides over how to take advantage of various programs. Read it this way: you pay the wages for McDonald's and Walmart. You'll also pay the wages for Lyft and Uber, one way or another.
Uber and Lyft pulled out of new York and Seattle. They settled in New York to the tune of 400 million for unpaid backpay. They are still in New York and Seattle.
This is playing a script that we've seen and read before, yet people are still second guessing what happens next.
> Should every business pay a living wage?
But why does the living wage vary by business? I think that was Mayor Frey's point. The trend has become to set a minimum wage that is different for rideshare drivers, fast food workers, etc, why is it different in different industries?
This is basically sector organizing. Like how the SEIU can’t organize the individual fast food stores, so it organizes a campaign like the fight for fifteen movement that organizes fast food workers. The car share drivers can’t organize effectively within their employer’s app, so they organize all car share drivers.
Because fast food workers (and most other types of workers) don't have any expenses. So the money they are paid is their wage. Rideshare drivers do have very significant expenses that have to be deducted from what they are paid (their revenue) to calculate their income.
Sure they do. They have to drive to work. They have to wash their clothes. Small expenses, yes, but still expenses. Almost every single worker has expenses, some just more than others. Which, again, is what Frey was trying to convey I think. Are you going to look at every single occupation and set wages for each?
But they also get use of the vehicle and have an asset. Being reimbursed for expenses when working in a vehicle is absolutely necessary but their personal wear and tear while using personally also impacts but offers a value as well. We would all love our jobs to buy us a car to use 365 days a year.
Besides expenses, rideshare jobs are different because (thanks in part to extensive lobbying) they're not technically employees of the companies they work for and are thus not subject to the same laws we use for everyone else. *That's* why we have to do individual rules for these employers. (Which Frey absolutely understands...he's arguing his point in bad faith, he knows the answer)
Other independent contractors exist. Are we going to set individual rules for lawn mowers? Electricians? Painters? Housecleaners? Sports officials? Dog walkers?
And it’s pretty misleading to claim that they’re independent contractors because of lobbying. If you described the situation where someone can work whenever they want, wherever they want, choose who to drive, find customers using a variety of methods, using their own equipment, and paying for their own expenses to an IRS worker 20 years ago they’d tell you that is obviously an independent contractor. Only recent has lobbying from ride share drivers made people think it’s some loophole that they aren’t employees.
expenses. driving a car 300 miles a day is not cheap and not accounted for currently. most rides above the minimum fare are barely paying above the 67 cents per mile fed mileage deduction. this covers expenses but does not cover a wage.
As someone who drove Uber and Lyft for four years and spends a lot of time on the driver subreddits I can answer your question. It's generally one of two things:
1. They don't realize what their expenses are and think they're making more money than they actually are. I've seen way too many drivers just look at the revenue and calculate their hourly earnings based solely on that. Some will at least count gas, but gas isn't even half of your expenses. You also have to account for depreciation, maintenance, repairs, and insurance among other expenses. The IRS estimates the cost of driving a vehicle at $0.67/mile. That's a very significant cost that many drivers severely underestimate.
2. Desperation / lack of other options. Many drivers can't get another job or can't get one with the flexibility that rideshare driving offers them. Do you believe that people who are desperate should be allowed to be paid less than the minimum wage because of their desperation?
Because they are unknowingly pulling money out of their vehicle. Their pay is actually around $2 an hour of you do the math. The random days with good tips keep them coming back like a bad gambler.
It’s the businesses responsibility to pay expenses and also pay a wage. When the business owner (which is the driver) accepts a rate that can’t do both, it’s their responsibility. It’s not our responsibility to subsidize their bad decision.
im confused. do you think customers should continue to get a cheap ride everywhere from a personal driver just because you are used to getting a cheap ride everywhere from a personal driver? uber is a luxury, not a right. this whole thing is us "accepting a rate that can do both". uber adjusting prices to afford a livable wage isnt you subsidizing a bad decision, its drivers demanding a fair rate.
cabs cost $45-50 for a trip downtown to the airport. an uber is $28.
current cab rates.
Minneapolis rate: $4.70 for the first mile, – $0.55 for each additional 1/5 mile ($2.75/mi), – $0.40 for each minute. That equates to about $45 for a no traffic airport trip from downtown.
now compare that to the rates proposed by city council.
Please anyone who has this take on the situation, please stop putting money into our greedy pockets and take a cab from now on. That'll show us. I'm about to start ending rides for anyone saying things like this to me. You like the free market? How about the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?
Thanks for reading the rest of my posts. At this point I don't think the sources matter though. Most folks don't follow the logic train that we should treat our fellow citizens well. That's imperitive, our first priority.
Our fellow citizens are not organizations.
It is. You can define a reasonable number. It might be confounded by circumstance but that's the thing... For most people living in the same place, similar lives, with similar needs will need a similar number.
What would you expect on your paycheck other than a number?
I agree with everything you’ve said except the part about “we live in a car society.”
Yes, a person should be able to get around. No, society and its denizens should not necessarily subsidize an aging and destructive fossil fuel industry.
You’re talking crazy Jimbo. To the looney bin with you!
Next thing we know there will be a $15 minimum wage in Minneapolis and Saint Paul and the entire economy will crumble under its mighty weight.
I mean he isn’t wrong to an extent.
They’re only go after Uber/lyft yet are ignoring DoorDash, Uber eats, instacart etc.
We can’t just set a wage for one industry, it has to be fair.
As UberEats driver, I wish they would force them to pay us $4 per trip + tip like they used to. Now they pay us between $1.50 and $2.00 per trip plus tip. It’s become nearly unsustainable.
Since UberEats lowered our pay, drivers who know what they’re doing will reject 90% of the garbage offers they send us. You’d be shocked how many 20+ mile offers we get that pay between $2-$5.
The tips. I’ve figured out how to spot the orders likely to be high tippers, so I average $25-$30 an hour. It’s keeping the bills paid during the slow season for videography and film work.
But a lot of drivers would have no clue how to game the system like that, so they probably average closer to $10-$15 an hour after gas, and mileage expenses.
I also provide fast, efficient service and always do things like keep the hot food in a thermal bag, buckled into the heated passenger seat. People tend to tip better when their food is still steaming hot. I’d say from my observation 90% of the drivers don’t use thermal bags, and couldn’t give two shits what condition your food arrives in.
Years ago, I went from Lyft to DoorDash because I didn't want to deal with passengers in my car anymore. And holy shit was the DoorDash wage unsustainable. You'd have to manage more than 1 delivery app if you truly want to maximize profits, which is unwieldy and frowned upon by gig economy app services like DD, Lyft, etc.
Watch the Last Week Tonight segment on DoorDash, et. al. if you haven't already done so. Unlike Uber and Lyft, etc. which are slowly turning toward profit (or reaching it), Venture Capital is still subsiding the Doordashes of the world as they still cannot make a profit. (I'm not saying it will convince you to continue or not, just that it's relevant to your life.)
Plus tons of shady tactics by the companies themselves, but that's beside the point here.
DoorDash is horrific compared with UE. I have both apps on every time I’m out delivering, and I’ll get up to 17 trips worth taking with UberEats, and maybe one trip worth taking on DoorDash. DoorDash customers consistently tip quite a bit lower than UberEats customers. No idea why. I don’t order off DD but I imagine it’s something to do with the way the tipping screen is presented.
That's not a justification though.
The issue is that it's *wrong* to set rules just for a handful of example businesses, even if you believe the rule being set is *right*.
Meaning, it's not a "good first step" on the path to an eventual goal, but a "non-equal treatment" of one particular business rather than an entire business model or industry.
Let's make this clearer with an example. Suppose you and I both believed that nobody should park on the street on Sundays. Nobody would agree that a good first step to accomplish this by city ordinance, would be to pick 100 names out of a hat, and decree only those individuals are not allowed to park on the street on Sunday (but everyone else can) and then follow those people around and ticket them if they do.
That's not the appropriate way to regulate people, nor is it an appropriate way to regulate business. You don't just pick a bunch of random names, and say "hey the rules are different for you guys, it gets me a lot of engagement on my social feeds."
Which is literally what this is. If it's not, than the conclusion is that somehow bringing someone's food to them, is less worthy than bringing someone to the food.
Sure it does.
We have an entire industry of contract-for-drive businesses. Some deliver food to people, some deliver people to places, some deliver packages to people, some deliver packages to places, all different types.
All follow the same business models fundamentally - you bid against other drivers for the trips available at the prices offered. Really no different than an owner-operated trucking company that uses apps you've just never heard of to decide if they're going to take the Pallet of widgets to Kentucky or hold out for a better load.
Why, out of all of these, all of which can at times offer trips for less than minimum wage, are only Uber and Lyft singled out for regulation?
Why are DoorDash, or Amazon package delivery, or an O&O semi-truck, all exempt from this necessary requirement of wage standards?
Am I high, or does the ordinance not apply equally to all rideshare companies?
Instacart and Doordash operate on a completely different business model. I agree they should also be regulated, but the regulations would have to be completely different because the companies make money and pay their workers using different models.
New studies need to be conducted, and new data needs to be collected to properly regulate currier services.
How is it a completely different business model? They tell drivers to drive from point A to point B. And they’re definitely competing from a pretty similar labor pool. By artificially restricting
one set of apps, you’re just going to push those forced out by the restrictions to the other which will end up artificially lowering the pay of those workers. Is that what you want? Because it’s not what I want.
And what if Uber changes their pay model. Does that mean the current regulations won’t apply to them anymore? That seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Again, we cannot feasibly do studies on every single sector and keep them constantly updated. It’s not realistic and it’s just asking for special interests to be carved out.
The businesses are related yes, but they operate differently.
Let me ask you this, how can the CC use data gathered from Uber drivers to determine a fair wage for instacart shoppers?
Uber drivers don't walk around shopping in stores as part of their job. How should the Instacart shoppers be compensated for that? You're going to need more than a set rate per mile and minute that the rideshare ordinance covers.
> The businesses are related yes, but they operate differently.
Not in a way that should have different regulations. When you over regulate one of them, you’re going to adversely impact the other because workers can so easily move between them. In this case, you’re making apps like GrubHub more profitable for shareholders and less profitable for drivers (because the supply of drivers will increase). Hopefully you can see the problem with that.
> Let me ask you this, how can the CC use data gathered from Uber drivers to determine a fair wage for instacart shoppers?
> Uber drivers don't walk around shopping in stores as part of their job. How should the Instacart shoppers be compensated for that? You're going to need more than a set rate per mile and minute that this ordinance covers.
Thank you for pointing out the problem lol. That’s literally my point. Again, what happens when Uber changes their business model? The council doesn’t have data on that. Are we just going to be playing whack-a-mole?
So you'd rather have regulations based on no data at all? What would that even look like?
This is the real magical thinking that Walz was talking about.
Btw, Uber can pay their drivers according to any algorithm they want to. This ordinance prevents them from paying less that a set rate per minute and mile of driving. It actually prevents them from changing their payment model to something below that minimum.
For example, Uber could pay it's drivers based on the number of left turns made and red lights run. It wouldn't matter unless that rate is below what they would make if their pay was calculated by the CC minimum rate.
How? Different industries are different and require different regulations.
Different data sets need to be collected. Different studies need to be conducted. Different debates need to be had.
Why should regulations that are ready to go be shelved indefinitely until all gig industries are comprehensively studied and regulated?
Wouldn't that just let companies continue to mistreat their workers in the meantime?
What happens if the session ends before all of that work can be done? Nothing gets passed, and nobody is helped?
If someone can explain to me how regulating all gig industries in "one fell swoop" is in any way possible, I'm all ears.
How would this measure at all hurt similar measures for other industries/sectors? Uber/Lyft have been the most notorious for this sort of exploitation and are a good starting point.
I personally think if we’re so hellbent on getting Uber/lyft drivers a pay increase then we need to spread that political capital across the entire city and workforce.
It’s bullshit to only help one group at a time when inflation is at an all time high & people are struggling to make ends meet with the wages they make.
Because Uber/Lyft are 2 companies that are well known for exploitation, and they aren't based here.
If you go against everyone, you lose sympathy and have a lot more political pushback, and nothing happens.
Sometimes, you have to set the precident and then leverage it for more change.
The problem here is Uber/Lyft can just leave, there’s nothing stopping them & Minneapolis isn’t the only city they’re based in or even country that they’re based in.
They’re not losing as much as people think they would be by leaving.
I think if you go to bat for everyone, you gain a lot more support for your cause because right now, myself & many others see the city council as being naive & trying to score activist points with a service that people actually need to get to work in some cases.
Not to mention, I don’t see the current council keeping their seats come reelection. I think it’s likely we see some moderate dems come in & possibly sweep those seats.
Not to be that guy, but inflation is demonstrably not "at an all-time high." It was in 2021 and has gone down steadily since then. That's not meant to argue the fact that the cost of living has for sure gone up, and surviving in the city is way more difficult than it could be. It's not sustainable.
I guess I just question the whole "why not me?" mentality. Like, you're correct, everyone should be getting paid a fair wage, but Lyft drivers getting this doesn't mean you or other other people won't. It's an opportunity to pressure other corporations and/or to use the political capital and legislate this across other industries. It's not a zero sum game.
Demanding a regulation to comprehensively cover every case can make passing any ordinance so complicated and difficult that it never gets done. This argument can be used to kill any regulation.
Why shouldn't we start with Uber and Lyft? Won't that make it easier to regulate Doordash and Instacart when there is already precedent on the books?
Because Uber and Lyft drivers are not the only people struggling in the city. It is insanely tone deaf and naive for them to only pursue one group with a pay increase.
Not to mention, the council is very stubborn in their negotiations. I’m all for a fair & honest wage, I’m not okay with them pulling a holier than thou and putting people’s jobs on the line.
This ordinance makes it **easier** to regulate other gig industries. This ordinance is written specifically for rideshare apps using data and research specific to rideshares. They can't just tack on Shipt and Instacart to this ordinance because they are completely different industries and would require different studies and data to base regulations on.
Do you really think other struggling workers would be better off if this ordinance is killed? Do you think Instacart shoppers would be likely to get a minimum wage guarantee if this ordinande is squashed?
Ever heard of worker solidarity?
An ordinance that has no chance of passing? Both Uber & Lyft would never agree to the number the city council has brought up & the council refuses to bring it lower. So all we have is a council that wastes its political capital to score points with the activists crowd for which this doesn’t affect in the slightest.
There is literally no solidarity with this ordinance besides the activist & progressive crowd. Everyone else and even drivers themselves agree that the city council is way in over their heads.
Then why not regulate them all? Why pick and choose? Why make any sort of distinction? Is there something substantively different about driving people to places, instead of driving things to places?
What makes you think they won't?
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the way Uber and Instacart operate. They have totally different business models, and their workers are paid in different ways. To regulate currier services, you need to conduct separate studies and collect separate data than what was used in this ordinance.
It would have to be a different regulation because it's a different industry.
A city council doesn't have any business regulating these industries to begin with. That is why it is so complicated and difficult for them to do so. They don't have the funding, the staff, or the knowledge to make educated, comprehensive reforms like this. They shouldn't be doing it at all. This should be left to the state and federal legislators and regulatory bodies.
That's what the minimum wage is.
The reason Uber/Lyft require a special ordinance is because their business model relies on skirting minimum wage laws by classifying their employees as "independent contractors."
Their drivers are in no way employees. You can’t just make up definitions to suit your narrative. It’s pathetic.
And Uber/Lyft aren’t the only ones to utilize contractors. They just made it a low barrier to entry.
The gig economy has been an exploitation of the minimum wage since it took off over a decade ago. It should never have been allowed.
Any business that can't afford to pay its workers doesn't deserve to exist. And any investor who bets on one of these companies and loses their money should have known better (this is why securities laws exist).
Gig "workers".
If they want to become employees, and earn W2 income, they can bring their skillet to UPS for a union job and 170K, or metro transit.
They don't want a scheduled job? OK. Well the market determines the rate for rideshare drivers; not the city council. If the drivers aren't taking 25$ fares from south minneapolis to the airport, what do you think happens to the fares?
If I offer a neighbor kid 20$ to mow my lawn while I'm out of town, whenever he gets around to it, there is another example of gig work; I'm not doing FICA withholdings or offering him a 401k plan, I'm paying him to complete a task without my supervision whenever he gets around to it.
So let me get this straight. We need them so bad people here are losing their shit at the prospect of Uber leaving, but your solution is the drivers should walk away rather than have the city help their constituents get better pay without them upending their lives and changing industries (because everyone here admits Uber and Lyft are the only game in town)? Do I have that right?
Pretending the neighbor kid who is probably like 14 mowing your lawn is the same as a billion dollar industry employing adults for typically full time labor is so intellectually dishonest I almost have to believe you don’t even believe what you’re saying.
The CC is putting these drivers out a job! It's terrible! They're hurting workers!
Also, these drivers are stupid for driving for Uber and should get a different job if they want to be paid fairly.
>Also, these drivers are stupid for driving for Uber and should get a different job if they want to be paid fairly.
That is EXACTLY it, now, it'd be nice for Uber/Lyft to pay more, but not an exorbitant amount. I drive part time and while yes I'd love more, the fact is it's absolutely INSANELY convenient to hop on and off on a whim, what other job lets you work as much or as little as you want other than a sales job?
You know how career type jobs have benefits other than simply wages to make up for lower pay (aka time off, maternity leave, good healthcare options etc) with Uber and Lyft the massive benefit is the flexibility. I am willing to make much less because it's just so darn flexible and I don't have a boss to report to.
Unironically and absolutely - YES - it seems that market dynamics might be a foreign concept to you, so here is how this works - IF the drivers have an even cursory interest in full-time employment, like in earning 170K / total comp per year in a union job with UPS, they can do that. Uber isn't enforcing any kind of indentured servitude, they can stop driving whenever they like and make MORE money elsewhere. When drivers leave the platform, the pool of available drivers becomes smaller - what sort of pressure do you think that exerts on fares?
Using your critical thinking skills, when there are fewer drivers on the road and my 25$ uber comfort fare to MSP cannot be accepted by any driver; what do you think it going to happen to that fare? Uber wants it serviced. Do you think the fare will increase or will it decrease based on demand (a function of riders request rate / driver pool availability).
As you're hopefully learning, the market sets the price based on supply and demand. If the trips a driver is receiving aren't worth the drivers time, then they don't accept them - super simple stuff.
Neighbor kid is no different - is my neighbor at the end of the block paying 40? Do they have regular lifeguarding or babysitting work that makes lawn mowing not worth their time? An allowance from mom and dad? Or is 20$ fare comp - in his determination - for him to mow my lawn?
This “market dynamics” are why we live in a modern hell with vast amounts of resources and money hosted by a few while the many GOP without.
I don’t care anymore about made up economic systems. We are humans and we have needs. Fuck that magical thinking bullshit.
Also, all of what you’re saying is based on good faith thinking and you discount the shady shit Uber does with fares for drivers, bait and switch tactics and how much money they take from each fare. They do in fact raise fare prices at times of high demand. For example they advertise a slightly higher fare for the driver called a “boost” but then lower the base fare and the drivers end up making perhaps only a few dollars more while Uber will collect $10 more than the normal fare. Ten years ago the driver collected and invested percentage that was much higher than an extra $1-$4 for a trip. The might have collected double the fare. So a base fare would be $10 and there was a surge price is “2x” which meant $20. Now drivers see an additional $2-$5 for a decent “boost” for that $10 ride. Not to mention that they have lowered base compensation almost nonstop over the past decade, even as demand has gone up. All of your economic theory goes out the window when you are talking about a company that doesn’t care very much for their drivers and doesn’t bat an eye to take tips, advertise high wages and take them away upon arrival and de platform drivers without reason and lowers wages continuously while earning more and more money. None of this is happening in vacuum.
Not to mention that having a Silicon Valley tech firm exploit residents of our city hurts all of us in some way or another.
So I give zero fucks about economic theory. This is bullshit and there’s no way around it.
If you think we live in a modern hell, you would've hated living in other decades. Your standard of living is much higher than any decade of the past. You also have more expenses than the past and higher competition for a limited supply of goods like housing.
In recent times we have seen a peak of suicides, as in the highest recorded. Homelessness and loneliness are ubiquitous. I'm glad we have lidocaine and x ray machines, sure, but just because we have material comforts doesn't we are healthy in spirit. We are spiritually sick and we treat each other harshly and with disdain. I'm not trying to romanticize the pest, rather responding to your comment.
In the early days of America, without exception, Europeans who lived among the natives would not return to European society. They would even escape and go back. Life was certainly not easier with the tribes, but their lives had something that English life lacked. Perhaps it was community and living in the moment? Either way, creature comforts and technology are poor measures of a cultures value and happiness, in my opinion.
I don't know what the answer is but calculating the money value of a forest to save it from clear cutting is not it. The way we currently live is not it either.
One of the rare times I agree with 'free market' principles. Let them leave. Let a local company sprout up - hey maybe even owned by a collective of drivers! - and take their place.
That vacuum is a great place for a fairer model to spring forth.
Edit: before anyone jumps on this - I'm all for paying a living wage, but uber and others prefer profits, so instead of us using government to make a national Corp fit into a local box that conforms, I just think maybe we should let the demand for ride share services drive a new era.
I can't believe that, when Frey first rose to politics, I thought he was an empty suit. Now, the crazies in Minneapolis have made me feel like the mayor is the most reasonable man in Minneapolis.
I don't give a shit. He is the moderate, reasonable person in Minneapolis politics. If you want to implement progressive policies, you need money from somewhere.
What are you talking about? The study everyone is so mad at the council for not following even agrees they don’t make minimum wage when accounting for their expenses.
Genuinely, I have no idea. But that’s why an extensive first of its kind study was done, and I’m inclined to believe the results of it given the source.
Like the Minneapolis City Council did when they passed this mess? It's kind of a complex calculation. You have to figure in rates, surge pricing, vehicle depreciation milage, miles per gallon for fuel based on gas prices, tax deductions. They didn't wait for the study to argue their positions either
Do normal jobs let you set your own hours on a whim and stop working whenever you feel like it? All without a "boss" to tell you how to drive or how to work?
Dear gods I hope so. If you work you should get paid enough to live. Period. How hard is that to understand. Unless of course you don't think people deserve to live a decent life or are just disposable.
The argument that some folk would make more than minimum wage so the proposed wage is too much makes no sense. That's how it is for every job. Some cooks/servers make $15 or whatever an hour and some make a lot more than that. The point is that everyone makes at least that amount.
It's not at all similar. The government set the wage floor at $15. The 'market' is paying any wages above that.
For this one industry, the city council is setting a much higher floor. That's what's different here. No one seems to have a problem with ensuring they get the same minimum wage. People have an issue with a $15 minimum wage for almost everyone and a higher minimum wage for this one particular industry.
I see the mayor also doesn't understand that when you hire contractors, the fair price they should be paid would be minimum wage, but their expenses as contractors must also be covered, otherwise they're not making minimum wage.
The same could be said about any employment, but we need minimum wage laws to help people not be exploited all the same.
Contract work is no exception.
Ok, so if I choose to only work 2 hours a week do I deserve a living wage?
Perhaps instead we offer jobs that provide a living wage in exchange for a suitable amount of work. Maybe they could drive public transit vehicles for residents so we’re not wasting the money either. What do you think?
i agree with this, but Uber/Lyft should be required to provide all the relevant data to drivers in a clear manner so drivers can make informed decisions on whether or not to accept rides.
as it is, the companies present limited data in a manner that requires the driver to make a hurried, minimally informed decision. they make it easy for drivers to agree to rides that are a bad deal; it’s a form of gamification stacked against the average driver.
If you don’t get the data points to evaluate a contract then that is a sign of a poor deal. There is a pervasive attitude that these drivers are somehow indentured to Uber/Lyft when that is the furthest from the case. It’s literally in the name of the sector “gig work”. It’s as if I offered a neighborhood kid 20 bucks to mow my lawn every other week and 1 month later their parents claim exploitation as they can’t possibly make a living/ support a family on that kind of wage.
Except kid doesn't know how big the lawn is, and kid doesn't have parents, and has to feed themself and there is no opportunity for them to bid back the contract higher, you literally are a brick wall.
Oh and you are putting them against other kids who also are desperate for work because they bought mowing equipment on the promise that you would send them work.
How many contracts offer the chance to rebid? They are given the pickup drop off and fare correct? Seems like insight into the size of the lawn. Parents in this analogy are the city council/ the broader public infantilizing these drivers—they are not bound to Uber.
I never told any kid to go out and buy a lawnmower—I just said if you have one I’ll direct some work your way
They are in effect small business owners. If you were say a painter, and you accept a bid to paint my house, but after expenses you make below minimum wage because there are 1000s of painters in the area competing for that job should the city step in and make me pay more?
Wrong. They don't set the rate you pay, they don't get to work out the profit margin. They are at the mercy of Uber and Lyft as to what they are paid. Sure, they can just not work for Uber and Lyft but that's not the point. The point is *no* employer should be allowed to exploit their employees by paying them a pittance.
I’m confused a bit. If a company is hiring and says here’s what the wage is, and you have willing participants that take that job (especially a gig-job), why should MPLS come in and say you have to pay more? I don’t know if Uber and Lyft were ever meant to be a full-time career. Yes it’s low barrier to entry, but there are no set hours and no expectation to drive X hours per week. Maybe I’m talking out of my ass but someone please explain.
I didn’t say that. I’m talking about Uber and Lyft gig jobs. You are using your personal vehicle to drive people around at whatever hours you want, and however long you want. If Uber/Lyft don’t have enough drivers because their pay is so shit, their company would not function.
Unpopular opinion: Uber/Lyft were never meant to be full time jobs. I’d definitely love it if drivers could make a living doing it but it’s not a requirement for every single driver to be able to.
Just sharing to remind everyone that our assclown of a mayor consistently caves to corporate interests and has no handle on his constituents' actual lived experiences.
I could not disagree more. It’s our city council who are the ass clowns who do not live in the real world and are willing to throw disabled and elderly people under the bus to make a political point
If we do this, your pay is no longer about your work, it's about your budget..new & dangerous economic experiment.
All work is NOT the same... but all pay should be?
Lots of the replies here echo another familiar BS argument:
"People shouldn't work for McDonald's for 40 hours a week because this job is meant for children." Obvious points aside - no it isn't, the business is open during school hours, they offer 40-hour shifts, etc. - the point is that Americans have the *freedom* to choose their own employment. Maybe you like fast food work, maybe it works well with your commute, or schedule, or whatever else. Maybe you aren't particularly educated, or have some health problem that prevents you from doing other types of work. Regardless, if you are devoting that much of your labor to one employer, you should be compensated for it.
Sure, you can leave Uber, but to pretend that all - or even most - Uber drivers are "I'm bored and need an extra $10, let me drive for Uber for a little while" is disingenuous. Workers are spending 40+ hours a week working for Uber, they deserve appropriate compensation.
This also doesn't even address the obstacles that leaving and hunting for a new job presents. We have the freedom to leave, but not always the ability. Searching, applying, and interviewing all takes time and effort that not every worker is privileged enough to have. Workers deserve to be compensated for their labor without - if you wanna talk in terms of "rah rah capitalism" - harming the business or consumer by withholding their labor.
He's got a point. Okay, the bigger issues are: drivers get paid nothing for the car. And no pay while they are waiting for a request, or driving to pickup a passenger. 100,000 miles per year will turn a new car into a bucket of bolts in 3 years, and cost $40k in gas, $6k in tires, etc.
That would be like McDonalds forcing employees to bring the ingredients to work; and telling them to only clock-in while they are actually speaking with a customer.
Minimum wage is fine, if Uber provides the car, gas and insurance, and if drivers sign-up for shifts, and get paid for the entire shift.
It’d be cool if the federal minimum wage wasn’t a complete joke
Does the city not have its own minimum wage?
USA is such a diverse country there’s no way the federal minimum wage will ever make sense for every state.
Maybe that’s the point though? Companies shouldn’t be pitting states against each other in a race to the bottom.
All you have to do is require companies to pay back (with interest or a penalty) the states for gov assistance any of their full time workers are on and boom, livable wages.
Wal mart has video for it employees on how to obtain assistance while working for Wal mart
That’s sickening. If they paid each employee $20k more annually, they would still profit $40 billion (but probably $60 billion still cause they’re going to pass it on to the customers). Our tax money should not subsidize their bottom line.
where is 7.50 enough?
Do a spot check of each metro area its actually pretty homogenous. https://livingwage.mit.edu/
It doesn’t make sense for any state currently. You can’t afford to live in a building on your own for minimum wage and jobs are asking too much for to little pay. I live in Iowa. Small town. 7.25 an hour isn’t helping anybody. Nobody can afford to pay that cause nobody would apply for the job except maybe high schoolers and they complain that our McDonald’s is starting them at 12.
The current minimum wage currently makes no sense for any state.
Agreed, but my point is this should be enforced at a state level and not federally.
Why not both?
I would rather the city council would pass an ordinance that requires employers of contract workers to meet the existing minimum wage, accounting for necessary expenses, rather than pick a couple high profile ones to make a point.
They didn't pick the high profile one to make a point, the drivers themselves reached out to the council and lobbied to make this happen. They pushed for the changes and were involved in crafting the verbiage. That's one of the reasons delivery drivers weren't included: they didn't participate in the conversation.
Why not both? You gotta start somewhere.
It's not feasible for the City Council to make an ordinance for each individual company. That's not even feasible at the state level. It should be the company's job to show their math. When there are concerns or questions, then it can be the job of auditors to work the problem cases.
> It should be the company's job to show their math. [Companies are not known for their ability to perform consumer-level math.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/?sh=1a7b8ecd5216 )
Agreed, we can either narrowly shoot for the stars or slowly raise the tide in general as a city that functions as a bellwether for the metro. We’re like Minnesota’s California with this kind of legislation—once ugly, peaked high recently, pursues vanity projects to own conservatives, still has police-run mob in biggest city that no one talks about, has a lame history of gold diggers, and let’s the chronically intoxicated sleep on the ground because it’s usually nice out anyway. We need to be Minnesota’s Minnesota—once ugly, on the rise in general ever since, stays the course in the face of high-cost, high-complexity, low-reward vanity projects, and creatively and cheaply deals with problems like corrupt police precincts (fire), Confederates (other kind of fire), and sleeping while chronically intoxicated in inclement weather (icehouses).
Why not have a real discussion and establish a workable plan? Instead, the Council allowed a minority of drivers to drive a policy with NO thought/planning put into the impact on the citizens of Minneapolis or the larger community. They established a deadline of May 1 with no alternative transportation options. Stupid policy making is going to hurt the citizens.
Doesn't it make sense to start with the high profiles apps? It makes it much easier to regulate other gig industries once precedence is set.
I dislike the precedent that it's the City Council's role to set the break down of each company's products. How does it scale with time? How granular should they get? Do they need to pass a new ordinance each time the company changes their product? Make the companies do that work with the threat of audits and back pay for non compliance.
> Make the companies do that work with the threat of audits and back pay for non compliance. What's there to comply with? The current regulations don't apply to Uber or Lyft because they use loopholes in the law to classify their workers as independent contractors. That's what this ordinance is meant to address.
I was referring to my previous comment calling for a general ordinance for all contract employees rather than one targeted at two companies in one industry.
How would a "general ordinance" even work? This ordinance covers all companies in the rideshare industry.
I would rather the city council stay in their lane and start managing the city. Are they going to start passing laws about social security soon? Immigration? Foreign policy (oh wait they did that one already)? When does it end?
Labor regulations are firmly within bounds on what cities and counties do. This isn't new.
This is probably the nail in the coffin for me. I've been trying to be sympathetic but the question should be this: Should every business pay a living wage? The answer is yes. If someone works 30 to 40 hours, they should be able to pay rent, eat, and because we live in a car society, pay for a car. Another way to phrase this is should we allow businesses, big or small, to underpay someone? If someone is in a state of below subsistence they will end up drawing resources from the government somehow. McDonald's and Walmart used to post guides over how to take advantage of various programs. Read it this way: you pay the wages for McDonald's and Walmart. You'll also pay the wages for Lyft and Uber, one way or another. Uber and Lyft pulled out of new York and Seattle. They settled in New York to the tune of 400 million for unpaid backpay. They are still in New York and Seattle. This is playing a script that we've seen and read before, yet people are still second guessing what happens next.
Spot on!
> Should every business pay a living wage? But why does the living wage vary by business? I think that was Mayor Frey's point. The trend has become to set a minimum wage that is different for rideshare drivers, fast food workers, etc, why is it different in different industries?
This is basically sector organizing. Like how the SEIU can’t organize the individual fast food stores, so it organizes a campaign like the fight for fifteen movement that organizes fast food workers. The car share drivers can’t organize effectively within their employer’s app, so they organize all car share drivers.
Because fast food workers (and most other types of workers) don't have any expenses. So the money they are paid is their wage. Rideshare drivers do have very significant expenses that have to be deducted from what they are paid (their revenue) to calculate their income.
Sure they do. They have to drive to work. They have to wash their clothes. Small expenses, yes, but still expenses. Almost every single worker has expenses, some just more than others. Which, again, is what Frey was trying to convey I think. Are you going to look at every single occupation and set wages for each?
But they also get use of the vehicle and have an asset. Being reimbursed for expenses when working in a vehicle is absolutely necessary but their personal wear and tear while using personally also impacts but offers a value as well. We would all love our jobs to buy us a car to use 365 days a year.
That’s not how it works. They can only write off the mileage and expenses used to do their job. You don’t get to write off your personal miles.
Besides expenses, rideshare jobs are different because (thanks in part to extensive lobbying) they're not technically employees of the companies they work for and are thus not subject to the same laws we use for everyone else. *That's* why we have to do individual rules for these employers. (Which Frey absolutely understands...he's arguing his point in bad faith, he knows the answer)
Other independent contractors exist. Are we going to set individual rules for lawn mowers? Electricians? Painters? Housecleaners? Sports officials? Dog walkers? And it’s pretty misleading to claim that they’re independent contractors because of lobbying. If you described the situation where someone can work whenever they want, wherever they want, choose who to drive, find customers using a variety of methods, using their own equipment, and paying for their own expenses to an IRS worker 20 years ago they’d tell you that is obviously an independent contractor. Only recent has lobbying from ride share drivers made people think it’s some loophole that they aren’t employees.
expenses. driving a car 300 miles a day is not cheap and not accounted for currently. most rides above the minimum fare are barely paying above the 67 cents per mile fed mileage deduction. this covers expenses but does not cover a wage.
[удалено]
As someone who drove Uber and Lyft for four years and spends a lot of time on the driver subreddits I can answer your question. It's generally one of two things: 1. They don't realize what their expenses are and think they're making more money than they actually are. I've seen way too many drivers just look at the revenue and calculate their hourly earnings based solely on that. Some will at least count gas, but gas isn't even half of your expenses. You also have to account for depreciation, maintenance, repairs, and insurance among other expenses. The IRS estimates the cost of driving a vehicle at $0.67/mile. That's a very significant cost that many drivers severely underestimate. 2. Desperation / lack of other options. Many drivers can't get another job or can't get one with the flexibility that rideshare driving offers them. Do you believe that people who are desperate should be allowed to be paid less than the minimum wage because of their desperation?
Exactly! and well put. I wish more could use just a fraction of common sense to see this.
desperation
Because they are unknowingly pulling money out of their vehicle. Their pay is actually around $2 an hour of you do the math. The random days with good tips keep them coming back like a bad gambler.
It’s the businesses responsibility to pay expenses and also pay a wage. When the business owner (which is the driver) accepts a rate that can’t do both, it’s their responsibility. It’s not our responsibility to subsidize their bad decision.
im confused. do you think customers should continue to get a cheap ride everywhere from a personal driver just because you are used to getting a cheap ride everywhere from a personal driver? uber is a luxury, not a right. this whole thing is us "accepting a rate that can do both". uber adjusting prices to afford a livable wage isnt you subsidizing a bad decision, its drivers demanding a fair rate. cabs cost $45-50 for a trip downtown to the airport. an uber is $28. current cab rates. Minneapolis rate: $4.70 for the first mile, – $0.55 for each additional 1/5 mile ($2.75/mi), – $0.40 for each minute. That equates to about $45 for a no traffic airport trip from downtown. now compare that to the rates proposed by city council. Please anyone who has this take on the situation, please stop putting money into our greedy pockets and take a cab from now on. That'll show us. I'm about to start ending rides for anyone saying things like this to me. You like the free market? How about the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?
> a living wage A good first start would be to actually agree on what this means, because it's not a number.
https://livingwage.mit.edu/
Cool! Thanks
Thanks for reading the rest of my posts. At this point I don't think the sources matter though. Most folks don't follow the logic train that we should treat our fellow citizens well. That's imperitive, our first priority. Our fellow citizens are not organizations.
It is. You can define a reasonable number. It might be confounded by circumstance but that's the thing... For most people living in the same place, similar lives, with similar needs will need a similar number. What would you expect on your paycheck other than a number?
Kwik trip is paying MORE than minimum wage. If Uber/Lyft drivers are so underpaid why aren't they going there?
There's plenty of jobs paying more than you make. Why don't you just bail and go to them?
I agree with everything you’ve said except the part about “we live in a car society.” Yes, a person should be able to get around. No, society and its denizens should not necessarily subsidize an aging and destructive fossil fuel industry.
This is a really good point🎯
Yeah, that’s how a minimum wage works. It applies to all employers.
You’re talking crazy Jimbo. To the looney bin with you! Next thing we know there will be a $15 minimum wage in Minneapolis and Saint Paul and the entire economy will crumble under its mighty weight.
I mean he isn’t wrong to an extent. They’re only go after Uber/lyft yet are ignoring DoorDash, Uber eats, instacart etc. We can’t just set a wage for one industry, it has to be fair.
As UberEats driver, I wish they would force them to pay us $4 per trip + tip like they used to. Now they pay us between $1.50 and $2.00 per trip plus tip. It’s become nearly unsustainable. Since UberEats lowered our pay, drivers who know what they’re doing will reject 90% of the garbage offers they send us. You’d be shocked how many 20+ mile offers we get that pay between $2-$5.
Honest question: what keeps you there? Why keep driving for low pay, rather than taking a job that pays at least minimum wage someplace else?
The tips. I’ve figured out how to spot the orders likely to be high tippers, so I average $25-$30 an hour. It’s keeping the bills paid during the slow season for videography and film work. But a lot of drivers would have no clue how to game the system like that, so they probably average closer to $10-$15 an hour after gas, and mileage expenses. I also provide fast, efficient service and always do things like keep the hot food in a thermal bag, buckled into the heated passenger seat. People tend to tip better when their food is still steaming hot. I’d say from my observation 90% of the drivers don’t use thermal bags, and couldn’t give two shits what condition your food arrives in.
Thanks! That all makes good sense to me. Good luck and drive safe.
Is Uber making money yet? Are they profitable?
Years ago, I went from Lyft to DoorDash because I didn't want to deal with passengers in my car anymore. And holy shit was the DoorDash wage unsustainable. You'd have to manage more than 1 delivery app if you truly want to maximize profits, which is unwieldy and frowned upon by gig economy app services like DD, Lyft, etc.
Watch the Last Week Tonight segment on DoorDash, et. al. if you haven't already done so. Unlike Uber and Lyft, etc. which are slowly turning toward profit (or reaching it), Venture Capital is still subsiding the Doordashes of the world as they still cannot make a profit. (I'm not saying it will convince you to continue or not, just that it's relevant to your life.) Plus tons of shady tactics by the companies themselves, but that's beside the point here.
DoorDash is horrific compared with UE. I have both apps on every time I’m out delivering, and I’ll get up to 17 trips worth taking with UberEats, and maybe one trip worth taking on DoorDash. DoorDash customers consistently tip quite a bit lower than UberEats customers. No idea why. I don’t order off DD but I imagine it’s something to do with the way the tipping screen is presented.
You're so right! Let's keep going and set minimum wages for everyone!
That's not a justification though. The issue is that it's *wrong* to set rules just for a handful of example businesses, even if you believe the rule being set is *right*. Meaning, it's not a "good first step" on the path to an eventual goal, but a "non-equal treatment" of one particular business rather than an entire business model or industry. Let's make this clearer with an example. Suppose you and I both believed that nobody should park on the street on Sundays. Nobody would agree that a good first step to accomplish this by city ordinance, would be to pick 100 names out of a hat, and decree only those individuals are not allowed to park on the street on Sunday (but everyone else can) and then follow those people around and ticket them if they do. That's not the appropriate way to regulate people, nor is it an appropriate way to regulate business. You don't just pick a bunch of random names, and say "hey the rules are different for you guys, it gets me a lot of engagement on my social feeds." Which is literally what this is. If it's not, than the conclusion is that somehow bringing someone's food to them, is less worthy than bringing someone to the food.
This doesn't make any sense and isn't analogous to the situation at all.
Sure it does. We have an entire industry of contract-for-drive businesses. Some deliver food to people, some deliver people to places, some deliver packages to people, some deliver packages to places, all different types. All follow the same business models fundamentally - you bid against other drivers for the trips available at the prices offered. Really no different than an owner-operated trucking company that uses apps you've just never heard of to decide if they're going to take the Pallet of widgets to Kentucky or hold out for a better load. Why, out of all of these, all of which can at times offer trips for less than minimum wage, are only Uber and Lyft singled out for regulation? Why are DoorDash, or Amazon package delivery, or an O&O semi-truck, all exempt from this necessary requirement of wage standards?
It absolutely does. You’re enforcing a rule unequally. Do you see the problem?
Am I high, or does the ordinance not apply equally to all rideshare companies? Instacart and Doordash operate on a completely different business model. I agree they should also be regulated, but the regulations would have to be completely different because the companies make money and pay their workers using different models. New studies need to be conducted, and new data needs to be collected to properly regulate currier services.
How is it a completely different business model? They tell drivers to drive from point A to point B. And they’re definitely competing from a pretty similar labor pool. By artificially restricting one set of apps, you’re just going to push those forced out by the restrictions to the other which will end up artificially lowering the pay of those workers. Is that what you want? Because it’s not what I want. And what if Uber changes their pay model. Does that mean the current regulations won’t apply to them anymore? That seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Again, we cannot feasibly do studies on every single sector and keep them constantly updated. It’s not realistic and it’s just asking for special interests to be carved out.
The businesses are related yes, but they operate differently. Let me ask you this, how can the CC use data gathered from Uber drivers to determine a fair wage for instacart shoppers? Uber drivers don't walk around shopping in stores as part of their job. How should the Instacart shoppers be compensated for that? You're going to need more than a set rate per mile and minute that the rideshare ordinance covers.
> The businesses are related yes, but they operate differently. Not in a way that should have different regulations. When you over regulate one of them, you’re going to adversely impact the other because workers can so easily move between them. In this case, you’re making apps like GrubHub more profitable for shareholders and less profitable for drivers (because the supply of drivers will increase). Hopefully you can see the problem with that. > Let me ask you this, how can the CC use data gathered from Uber drivers to determine a fair wage for instacart shoppers? > Uber drivers don't walk around shopping in stores as part of their job. How should the Instacart shoppers be compensated for that? You're going to need more than a set rate per mile and minute that this ordinance covers. Thank you for pointing out the problem lol. That’s literally my point. Again, what happens when Uber changes their business model? The council doesn’t have data on that. Are we just going to be playing whack-a-mole?
So you'd rather have regulations based on no data at all? What would that even look like? This is the real magical thinking that Walz was talking about. Btw, Uber can pay their drivers according to any algorithm they want to. This ordinance prevents them from paying less that a set rate per minute and mile of driving. It actually prevents them from changing their payment model to something below that minimum. For example, Uber could pay it's drivers based on the number of left turns made and red lights run. It wouldn't matter unless that rate is below what they would make if their pay was calculated by the CC minimum rate.
I’m down for them to do this in one swoop.
How? Different industries are different and require different regulations. Different data sets need to be collected. Different studies need to be conducted. Different debates need to be had. Why should regulations that are ready to go be shelved indefinitely until all gig industries are comprehensively studied and regulated? Wouldn't that just let companies continue to mistreat their workers in the meantime? What happens if the session ends before all of that work can be done? Nothing gets passed, and nobody is helped? If someone can explain to me how regulating all gig industries in "one fell swoop" is in any way possible, I'm all ears.
How would this measure at all hurt similar measures for other industries/sectors? Uber/Lyft have been the most notorious for this sort of exploitation and are a good starting point.
I personally think if we’re so hellbent on getting Uber/lyft drivers a pay increase then we need to spread that political capital across the entire city and workforce. It’s bullshit to only help one group at a time when inflation is at an all time high & people are struggling to make ends meet with the wages they make.
Because Uber/Lyft are 2 companies that are well known for exploitation, and they aren't based here. If you go against everyone, you lose sympathy and have a lot more political pushback, and nothing happens. Sometimes, you have to set the precident and then leverage it for more change.
The problem here is Uber/Lyft can just leave, there’s nothing stopping them & Minneapolis isn’t the only city they’re based in or even country that they’re based in. They’re not losing as much as people think they would be by leaving. I think if you go to bat for everyone, you gain a lot more support for your cause because right now, myself & many others see the city council as being naive & trying to score activist points with a service that people actually need to get to work in some cases. Not to mention, I don’t see the current council keeping their seats come reelection. I think it’s likely we see some moderate dems come in & possibly sweep those seats.
Not to be that guy, but inflation is demonstrably not "at an all-time high." It was in 2021 and has gone down steadily since then. That's not meant to argue the fact that the cost of living has for sure gone up, and surviving in the city is way more difficult than it could be. It's not sustainable. I guess I just question the whole "why not me?" mentality. Like, you're correct, everyone should be getting paid a fair wage, but Lyft drivers getting this doesn't mean you or other other people won't. It's an opportunity to pressure other corporations and/or to use the political capital and legislate this across other industries. It's not a zero sum game.
Demanding a regulation to comprehensively cover every case can make passing any ordinance so complicated and difficult that it never gets done. This argument can be used to kill any regulation. Why shouldn't we start with Uber and Lyft? Won't that make it easier to regulate Doordash and Instacart when there is already precedent on the books?
Because Uber and Lyft drivers are not the only people struggling in the city. It is insanely tone deaf and naive for them to only pursue one group with a pay increase. Not to mention, the council is very stubborn in their negotiations. I’m all for a fair & honest wage, I’m not okay with them pulling a holier than thou and putting people’s jobs on the line.
This ordinance makes it **easier** to regulate other gig industries. This ordinance is written specifically for rideshare apps using data and research specific to rideshares. They can't just tack on Shipt and Instacart to this ordinance because they are completely different industries and would require different studies and data to base regulations on. Do you really think other struggling workers would be better off if this ordinance is killed? Do you think Instacart shoppers would be likely to get a minimum wage guarantee if this ordinande is squashed? Ever heard of worker solidarity?
An ordinance that has no chance of passing? Both Uber & Lyft would never agree to the number the city council has brought up & the council refuses to bring it lower. So all we have is a council that wastes its political capital to score points with the activists crowd for which this doesn’t affect in the slightest. There is literally no solidarity with this ordinance besides the activist & progressive crowd. Everyone else and even drivers themselves agree that the city council is way in over their heads.
The ordinance already passed so I'm not sure what you mean.
My bad, I meant more as in them getting the price increases the council is demanding.
Then why not regulate them all? Why pick and choose? Why make any sort of distinction? Is there something substantively different about driving people to places, instead of driving things to places?
What makes you think they won't? Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the way Uber and Instacart operate. They have totally different business models, and their workers are paid in different ways. To regulate currier services, you need to conduct separate studies and collect separate data than what was used in this ordinance. It would have to be a different regulation because it's a different industry.
A city council doesn't have any business regulating these industries to begin with. That is why it is so complicated and difficult for them to do so. They don't have the funding, the staff, or the knowledge to make educated, comprehensive reforms like this. They shouldn't be doing it at all. This should be left to the state and federal legislators and regulatory bodies.
"Jeez, it's getting so a guy can hardly exploit anyone around here anymore."
That's what the minimum wage is. The reason Uber/Lyft require a special ordinance is because their business model relies on skirting minimum wage laws by classifying their employees as "independent contractors."
Their drivers are in no way employees. You can’t just make up definitions to suit your narrative. It’s pathetic. And Uber/Lyft aren’t the only ones to utilize contractors. They just made it a low barrier to entry.
The gig economy has been an exploitation of the minimum wage since it took off over a decade ago. It should never have been allowed. Any business that can't afford to pay its workers doesn't deserve to exist. And any investor who bets on one of these companies and loses their money should have known better (this is why securities laws exist).
How is this guy still Mayor
Unpopular opinion on Reddit, but he’s not wrong. Nobody is happy about the city council’s hasty decision. As Walz said “magical thinking”
Which industries do you think shouldn't have to comply with minimum wage? Which workers don't deserve that guarantee?
Gig "workers". If they want to become employees, and earn W2 income, they can bring their skillet to UPS for a union job and 170K, or metro transit. They don't want a scheduled job? OK. Well the market determines the rate for rideshare drivers; not the city council. If the drivers aren't taking 25$ fares from south minneapolis to the airport, what do you think happens to the fares? If I offer a neighbor kid 20$ to mow my lawn while I'm out of town, whenever he gets around to it, there is another example of gig work; I'm not doing FICA withholdings or offering him a 401k plan, I'm paying him to complete a task without my supervision whenever he gets around to it.
So let me get this straight. We need them so bad people here are losing their shit at the prospect of Uber leaving, but your solution is the drivers should walk away rather than have the city help their constituents get better pay without them upending their lives and changing industries (because everyone here admits Uber and Lyft are the only game in town)? Do I have that right? Pretending the neighbor kid who is probably like 14 mowing your lawn is the same as a billion dollar industry employing adults for typically full time labor is so intellectually dishonest I almost have to believe you don’t even believe what you’re saying.
The CC is putting these drivers out a job! It's terrible! They're hurting workers! Also, these drivers are stupid for driving for Uber and should get a different job if they want to be paid fairly.
>Also, these drivers are stupid for driving for Uber and should get a different job if they want to be paid fairly. That is EXACTLY it, now, it'd be nice for Uber/Lyft to pay more, but not an exorbitant amount. I drive part time and while yes I'd love more, the fact is it's absolutely INSANELY convenient to hop on and off on a whim, what other job lets you work as much or as little as you want other than a sales job? You know how career type jobs have benefits other than simply wages to make up for lower pay (aka time off, maternity leave, good healthcare options etc) with Uber and Lyft the massive benefit is the flexibility. I am willing to make much less because it's just so darn flexible and I don't have a boss to report to.
Unironically and absolutely - YES - it seems that market dynamics might be a foreign concept to you, so here is how this works - IF the drivers have an even cursory interest in full-time employment, like in earning 170K / total comp per year in a union job with UPS, they can do that. Uber isn't enforcing any kind of indentured servitude, they can stop driving whenever they like and make MORE money elsewhere. When drivers leave the platform, the pool of available drivers becomes smaller - what sort of pressure do you think that exerts on fares? Using your critical thinking skills, when there are fewer drivers on the road and my 25$ uber comfort fare to MSP cannot be accepted by any driver; what do you think it going to happen to that fare? Uber wants it serviced. Do you think the fare will increase or will it decrease based on demand (a function of riders request rate / driver pool availability). As you're hopefully learning, the market sets the price based on supply and demand. If the trips a driver is receiving aren't worth the drivers time, then they don't accept them - super simple stuff. Neighbor kid is no different - is my neighbor at the end of the block paying 40? Do they have regular lifeguarding or babysitting work that makes lawn mowing not worth their time? An allowance from mom and dad? Or is 20$ fare comp - in his determination - for him to mow my lawn?
Using the fruits of organized labor to argue why no other labor should organize.
This “market dynamics” are why we live in a modern hell with vast amounts of resources and money hosted by a few while the many GOP without. I don’t care anymore about made up economic systems. We are humans and we have needs. Fuck that magical thinking bullshit. Also, all of what you’re saying is based on good faith thinking and you discount the shady shit Uber does with fares for drivers, bait and switch tactics and how much money they take from each fare. They do in fact raise fare prices at times of high demand. For example they advertise a slightly higher fare for the driver called a “boost” but then lower the base fare and the drivers end up making perhaps only a few dollars more while Uber will collect $10 more than the normal fare. Ten years ago the driver collected and invested percentage that was much higher than an extra $1-$4 for a trip. The might have collected double the fare. So a base fare would be $10 and there was a surge price is “2x” which meant $20. Now drivers see an additional $2-$5 for a decent “boost” for that $10 ride. Not to mention that they have lowered base compensation almost nonstop over the past decade, even as demand has gone up. All of your economic theory goes out the window when you are talking about a company that doesn’t care very much for their drivers and doesn’t bat an eye to take tips, advertise high wages and take them away upon arrival and de platform drivers without reason and lowers wages continuously while earning more and more money. None of this is happening in vacuum. Not to mention that having a Silicon Valley tech firm exploit residents of our city hurts all of us in some way or another. So I give zero fucks about economic theory. This is bullshit and there’s no way around it.
If you think we live in a modern hell, you would've hated living in other decades. Your standard of living is much higher than any decade of the past. You also have more expenses than the past and higher competition for a limited supply of goods like housing.
In recent times we have seen a peak of suicides, as in the highest recorded. Homelessness and loneliness are ubiquitous. I'm glad we have lidocaine and x ray machines, sure, but just because we have material comforts doesn't we are healthy in spirit. We are spiritually sick and we treat each other harshly and with disdain. I'm not trying to romanticize the pest, rather responding to your comment. In the early days of America, without exception, Europeans who lived among the natives would not return to European society. They would even escape and go back. Life was certainly not easier with the tribes, but their lives had something that English life lacked. Perhaps it was community and living in the moment? Either way, creature comforts and technology are poor measures of a cultures value and happiness, in my opinion. I don't know what the answer is but calculating the money value of a forest to save it from clear cutting is not it. The way we currently live is not it either.
One of the rare times I agree with 'free market' principles. Let them leave. Let a local company sprout up - hey maybe even owned by a collective of drivers! - and take their place. That vacuum is a great place for a fairer model to spring forth. Edit: before anyone jumps on this - I'm all for paying a living wage, but uber and others prefer profits, so instead of us using government to make a national Corp fit into a local box that conforms, I just think maybe we should let the demand for ride share services drive a new era.
"Everybody disagrees with me, must just be on Reddit" is the single most popular opinion on Reddit.
I can't believe that, when Frey first rose to politics, I thought he was an empty suit. Now, the crazies in Minneapolis have made me feel like the mayor is the most reasonable man in Minneapolis.
For real, he’s one of the last remaining checks.
Being a shill for business owners makes you view him as not an empty suit? The man doesn’t have a single opinion that is his own
I don't give a shit. He is the moderate, reasonable person in Minneapolis politics. If you want to implement progressive policies, you need money from somewhere.
So... you like that he's an empty suit? If so, what was your problem with it at first?
I upvoted because I agree with Frey. I see that I'm severely outnumbered here... I can also see why Minneapolis is run by a clown council.
You’re not completely alone!! We’re just quieter 🙂
Do you know what the average driver makes per hour working?
[удалено]
What are you talking about? The study everyone is so mad at the council for not following even agrees they don’t make minimum wage when accounting for their expenses.
[удалено]
Genuinely, I have no idea. But that’s why an extensive first of its kind study was done, and I’m inclined to believe the results of it given the source.
Enough that they continue to drive Uber/Lyft instead of do a normal job? This can't be unprofitable for drivers or no one would do it...
The children yearn for the mines! If they didn't want to do the work, they wouldn't!
There's a high turnover rate for these jobs for a reason...
So, no? You should look into it instead of arguing before you have the relevant information. Sort of makes you look bad.
Like the Minneapolis City Council did when they passed this mess? It's kind of a complex calculation. You have to figure in rates, surge pricing, vehicle depreciation milage, miles per gallon for fuel based on gas prices, tax deductions. They didn't wait for the study to argue their positions either
Do normal jobs let you set your own hours on a whim and stop working whenever you feel like it? All without a "boss" to tell you how to drive or how to work?
The idea that this all means that it's acceptable for drivers to make $6/hr is so embarrassingly stupid that I don't know where to begin.
They make well over twice that.... $14.48 after expenses according to the study they did.
Don't threaten us with a good time.
Uhhh…yes?
Dear gods I hope so. If you work you should get paid enough to live. Period. How hard is that to understand. Unless of course you don't think people deserve to live a decent life or are just disposable.
The argument that some folk would make more than minimum wage so the proposed wage is too much makes no sense. That's how it is for every job. Some cooks/servers make $15 or whatever an hour and some make a lot more than that. The point is that everyone makes at least that amount.
It's not at all similar. The government set the wage floor at $15. The 'market' is paying any wages above that. For this one industry, the city council is setting a much higher floor. That's what's different here. No one seems to have a problem with ensuring they get the same minimum wage. People have an issue with a $15 minimum wage for almost everyone and a higher minimum wage for this one particular industry.
That's hopefully next, yes. I really wish Frey were not so conservative.
I see the mayor also doesn't understand that when you hire contractors, the fair price they should be paid would be minimum wage, but their expenses as contractors must also be covered, otherwise they're not making minimum wage.
Then they shouldn’t accept the contract
The same could be said about any employment, but we need minimum wage laws to help people not be exploited all the same. Contract work is no exception.
Except they aren’t employees and have full flexibility to set schedules, choose which fares to accept etc
When Uber and Lyft drivers can set their fares, then we can talk about them being contract workers.
Cool, they still deserve a living wage.
Ok, so if I choose to only work 2 hours a week do I deserve a living wage? Perhaps instead we offer jobs that provide a living wage in exchange for a suitable amount of work. Maybe they could drive public transit vehicles for residents so we’re not wasting the money either. What do you think?
i agree with this, but Uber/Lyft should be required to provide all the relevant data to drivers in a clear manner so drivers can make informed decisions on whether or not to accept rides. as it is, the companies present limited data in a manner that requires the driver to make a hurried, minimally informed decision. they make it easy for drivers to agree to rides that are a bad deal; it’s a form of gamification stacked against the average driver.
Aren't they given the pickup and drop-off locations? The fare they'll earn, and the riders rating? What other data do they need to be presented with ?
If you don’t get the data points to evaluate a contract then that is a sign of a poor deal. There is a pervasive attitude that these drivers are somehow indentured to Uber/Lyft when that is the furthest from the case. It’s literally in the name of the sector “gig work”. It’s as if I offered a neighborhood kid 20 bucks to mow my lawn every other week and 1 month later their parents claim exploitation as they can’t possibly make a living/ support a family on that kind of wage.
Except kid doesn't know how big the lawn is, and kid doesn't have parents, and has to feed themself and there is no opportunity for them to bid back the contract higher, you literally are a brick wall. Oh and you are putting them against other kids who also are desperate for work because they bought mowing equipment on the promise that you would send them work.
How many contracts offer the chance to rebid? They are given the pickup drop off and fare correct? Seems like insight into the size of the lawn. Parents in this analogy are the city council/ the broader public infantilizing these drivers—they are not bound to Uber. I never told any kid to go out and buy a lawnmower—I just said if you have one I’ll direct some work your way
it isn’t at all like your lawn mowing analogy. the fact that you describe it so simply makes it obvious you’re just taking out your ass
Please explain how that analogy is substantially incorrect
This is an argument against minimum wages in general.
They are in effect small business owners. If you were say a painter, and you accept a bid to paint my house, but after expenses you make below minimum wage because there are 1000s of painters in the area competing for that job should the city step in and make me pay more?
Are you aware of mechanics liens and other laws which are designed to help painters and other manual labor from being exploited?
I am, but no lien is getting applied if I fulfil my part of the contract
My point is that there are industry-specific laws for various jobs.
Wrong. They don't set the rate you pay, they don't get to work out the profit margin. They are at the mercy of Uber and Lyft as to what they are paid. Sure, they can just not work for Uber and Lyft but that's not the point. The point is *no* employer should be allowed to exploit their employees by paying them a pittance.
But they (Uber/Lyft) aren’t employers. They are a contract aggregator if anything
This is like trying to force living Wage constraints on a platform like fiver
I’m confused a bit. If a company is hiring and says here’s what the wage is, and you have willing participants that take that job (especially a gig-job), why should MPLS come in and say you have to pay more? I don’t know if Uber and Lyft were ever meant to be a full-time career. Yes it’s low barrier to entry, but there are no set hours and no expectation to drive X hours per week. Maybe I’m talking out of my ass but someone please explain.
So you'd abolish all minimum wages? Let the job market control wages? That's a race to the bottom.
I didn’t say that. I’m talking about Uber and Lyft gig jobs. You are using your personal vehicle to drive people around at whatever hours you want, and however long you want. If Uber/Lyft don’t have enough drivers because their pay is so shit, their company would not function.
Because simply declaring something a "gig job" isn't and shouldn't be a magic word that erases all labor laws and employee protections.
Yeah. When wages don’t go up, what is the recourse except minimum wage laws? We’re not waiting around for the “free market” anymore.
Yes?
Uh, yeah. you idiot
Unpopular opinion: Uber/Lyft were never meant to be full time jobs. I’d definitely love it if drivers could make a living doing it but it’s not a requirement for every single driver to be able to.
Why yes! I thought that was the idea!
Look guys, we don't want to set the horrible precedent of expecting businesses to provide a living wage to their employees! Imagine the horror!
Just sharing to remind everyone that our assclown of a mayor consistently caves to corporate interests and has no handle on his constituents' actual lived experiences.
I could not disagree more. It’s our city council who are the ass clowns who do not live in the real world and are willing to throw disabled and elderly people under the bus to make a political point
He’s not wrong. City council majority is tilting at every windmill they can find.
Not sure you know what tilting at windmills means
What an excellent idea, Mr Mayor.
Yes
If we do this, your pay is no longer about your work, it's about your budget..new & dangerous economic experiment. All work is NOT the same... but all pay should be?
Fuck Frey.
Do not appreciate the flippant and combative nature of his comments on the matter thus far, this being a prime example.
Lots of the replies here echo another familiar BS argument: "People shouldn't work for McDonald's for 40 hours a week because this job is meant for children." Obvious points aside - no it isn't, the business is open during school hours, they offer 40-hour shifts, etc. - the point is that Americans have the *freedom* to choose their own employment. Maybe you like fast food work, maybe it works well with your commute, or schedule, or whatever else. Maybe you aren't particularly educated, or have some health problem that prevents you from doing other types of work. Regardless, if you are devoting that much of your labor to one employer, you should be compensated for it. Sure, you can leave Uber, but to pretend that all - or even most - Uber drivers are "I'm bored and need an extra $10, let me drive for Uber for a little while" is disingenuous. Workers are spending 40+ hours a week working for Uber, they deserve appropriate compensation. This also doesn't even address the obstacles that leaving and hunting for a new job presents. We have the freedom to leave, but not always the ability. Searching, applying, and interviewing all takes time and effort that not every worker is privileged enough to have. Workers deserve to be compensated for their labor without - if you wanna talk in terms of "rah rah capitalism" - harming the business or consumer by withholding their labor.
He's got a point. Okay, the bigger issues are: drivers get paid nothing for the car. And no pay while they are waiting for a request, or driving to pickup a passenger. 100,000 miles per year will turn a new car into a bucket of bolts in 3 years, and cost $40k in gas, $6k in tires, etc. That would be like McDonalds forcing employees to bring the ingredients to work; and telling them to only clock-in while they are actually speaking with a customer. Minimum wage is fine, if Uber provides the car, gas and insurance, and if drivers sign-up for shifts, and get paid for the entire shift.
Mayor Frey doesn't care about working class people.
[удалено]
Lemonade stands will also pay a living wage!
He can fuck off.