Seattle Approves Minimum Wage For Uber and Lyft Drivers (cnet.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: The Seattle City Council unanimously approved a minimum pay standard for Uber and Lyft drivers on Tuesday, the second city in the US to do so. Under the new regulation going in to effect in January, the ride-hailing services will be required to pay their drivers at least $16.39 an hour. The law, passed in a 9-to-0 vote, is modeled after one passed by New York in August 2018 that caps how many ride-hailing cars from services like Uber and Lyft can be on the street. Seattle's law will require drivers be paid at least 56 cents per minute and $1.33 per mile driven while transporting passengers. Lyft criticized the move, saying it would eliminate thousands of jobs. "The City's plan is deeply flawed and will actually destroy jobs for thousands of people -- as many as 4,000 drivers on Lyft alone -- and drive ride-share companies out of Seattle," Lyft said in a statement. "Uber may have to make changes in Seattle because of this new law, but the real harm here will not be to Uber," Uber said. "It is the drivers who cannot work and the community members unable to complete essential travel that stand to lose because of the ordinance."
The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:2, Insightful)
At least according to Uber and Lyft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats a dishonest comparison and you know it.
Correct, there is no offer of a plot of land and a mule for the Lyuber drivers.
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're seriously comparing middle class vehicle owners participating in purely voluntary gig jobs to slaves forced to work or die, you're the asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
I know plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck making an extra buck driving for Uber. For these people, jobs are only "voluntary" in the sense that eating is "voluntary".
So without Uber they wouldn't be able to eat? Are you arguing for or against?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Middle class vehicle owners"? You think anyone whose only job is driving is "middle class"?
I'd suggest you try to live as working class, but you'd starve.
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:5, Informative)
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been true of generations of jobs though. When I was a teenager jobs like fast food were mostly filled by teens who used these jobs to make spending cash and learn how to enter the job market. Now we are told they are full time jobs for adults that deserve a living wage to feed their families. Those who brought up that these were not jobs for adults and not built for living wages were called monsters.
The problem is not the jobs, it's the health of a unsustainable system that races to the bottom. A system that encourages, promotes, and supports this behavior. I've got no answers here, but this is a sign of a falling country and not a problem with Seattle or Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, no one forces Uber drivers to download an app or drive for Uber. The people who are paying the drivers are the riders, and Uber is a broker (not an employer). Or that is the way it is supposed to be. The real criticism is that they don't let the drivers set their own price and then let the riders pick based on price , thus providing a more fair situation for all involved.
Re: (Score:2)
no, no one forces Uber drivers to download an app or drive for Uber. The people who are paying the drivers are the riders, and Uber is a broker (not an employer). Or that is the way it is supposed to be. The real criticism is that they don't let the drivers set their own price and then let the riders pick based on price , thus providing a more fair situation for all involved.
If Uber was truly a broker, they wouldn't set the prices, they'd charge a fee. This follows the same fashion as a stock broker, a loan broker, an insurance broker, a real estate broker - they're hooking buyers up to sellers, but the sellers set the prices.
Re: (Score:3)
sort of in the same sense that abolitionists eliminated slavery "jobs"... tool.
Well that's a massive trivialization of slavery. Did it seem like a convenient reach at the time?
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time a minimum wage law is enacted, employers flood the press with horror stories of the coming jobpocalypse, and it keeps not happening because at the end of the day they need employees to make money and they want to make money.
No employer currently is keeping people on the payroll just because. They are there because their labor is needed.
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:4)
I think it's a true statement that if you raise minimum wages, businesses will adjust, the sky won't fall, etc. However, it's also a true statement that the net result of a minimum wage increase may not be what you think will happen, or want to happen.
Example: Target cuts hours after minimum wage increase [cnn.com].
TL;DR: Total number of jobs not reduced (in some creases increased), workers paid more per hour BUT are given fewer hours, fewer qualify for benefits, and actual payroll difference is close to net 0.
Re: (Score:3)
It is notable though that Target raised the wage voluntarily nationwide rather than being in response to a new minimum wage law. They clearly did that in a move to make a planned cut in hours more palatable and to grab some good press. The cuts were going to happen anyway and fall under my statement that no employer is keeping people on the payroll just because.
Re: (Score:2)
We agree that no business keeps overhead around just because. That said, take the Target scenario above, and make it involuntary rather than voluntary. How do you think it changes? Do you think it's more favorable to the worker? (that seems unlikely).
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it would be. In what actually happened, Target identified a situation where they had excess hours they could cut, so they cut them. They also identified a PR problem that could cause, so they softened it by re-arranging the deck chairs and throwing a higher (but not too much higher) hourly rate in. Had it not been for the PR concerns, they'd have just cut hours.
OTOH, had the hike to minimum been mandated while they did not have an identified surplus of hours, they'd have just had to up the pay and
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you want to look at Target as a special case, fair enough--I certainly cannot disprove what you're saying, and it's not an outlandish claim. On the other hand, here's a more general case [cnn.com] that ties directly to our friends in Seattle. The story bills this as "controversial" so I'm willing to take it with a grain of salt, but most of the criticism in the story are anecdotal or assertions that simply are not backed up. It does also suggest that additional regulations went into effect around the same time w
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the referenced CNN article, there were significant criticisms of that study. In in, they quote a minimum wage employee that definitely benefited ("I can pay my bills now without working 55 hours"), an employer that reports no reduction of hours, and an employer that cites other new regulations causing him headaches, but shows no sign of complaining about the minimum wage itself.
The linked criticism of the study points out some significant flaws in methodology and analysis. Either the study is fatall
Re: (Score:3)
I saw the criticisms in the linked story (and mentioned them) but as I noted, they appear anecdotal or bald statements not backed by any actual data. What I found most interesting about that study is who commissioned it. The city of Seattle likely did not set out to prove their actions were counter productive.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. We know people will often lie with data to prove their points. That’s why I tend to weight heavily those studies that undermine the positions of those that comm
Re: (Score:3)
It is good to have actual civil discourse. It seems that a defining characteristic of this era is forgetting how to respectfully disagree.
As to the study, Shame on CNN for not even referencing the paper by title! I found the link to the study in the rebuttal page linked from CNN. I can't say I thoroughly studied each line (more like I skimmed it), but there are significant confounding factors that should be studied in more depth. For example, if your hourly is increased but your hours are reduced, you may t
Re: (Score:3)
I really STILL don't get this. Are Uber and Lyft lying to people about what they are? I thought the WHOLE point of the service was something you could do in your 'spare' time to supplement your income from your real job. ( That is supposed to be the definition of a GIG). Maybe they should simply limit all drivers to under 4 hours a week to ensure no one is attempting to use this as a primary source of income. The whole idea that 'I work for someone' because I downloaded an app and have no formal agree
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Virtually 100% of the drivers you will meet during the day are working on this full time. In the evenings the percentage goes down some, since that is when people who actually have another job can drive.
Re: The Sky WIll Fall on Our Heads (Score:1, Insightful)
Mr Sophisticated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"promote the general welfare". You and I might argue what the scope of that statement means, but I know I'm happier without the Cuyahoga river burning or having to guess which advertised remedies don't contain poison or devolving into feudalism due to asymmetric contracts constructed by the extremely wealthy to their advantage.
It's been pretty well demonstrated that promoting the general welfare yields more wealth and better living for everyone instead of an Ayn Randian dystopia. Was history taught at wha
Re: (Score:2)
It means promote.
Should the Legislative Branch criminalize such pollution, it would be Ok for the Executive to prosecute it — this is covered by the item two on my (very short) list of government's jobs.
You're implying, only the government can relieve you from such guessing. That's demonstrably not true — you're presenting a fa
Re: (Score:2)
Organizations like Consumer Reports, would happily do this — competing with each other both for consumers' trust and manufacturer's certification monies.
You do know that Consumer Reports explicity does not accept money as this would make their results questionable.
Considering you got such basic facts wrong makes me kind of doubt anything you say is truthful or accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
The scope of the preamble
is not open to argument. It is a preamble that merely introduces the Constitution and provides a rationale for its existence. It, like preambles to statutes pas
Re: (Score:3)
But the question at hand is what the government's purpose is. That is, what is the rationale for it's existence. As the preamble to the Constitution is effectively our mission statement, and since it is through the Constitution that the government exists it is very much relevant to that question.
Re: (Score:2)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There it is, right at the top.
Your first item clearly falls under "provide for the common defense"
Your second item derives from "promote the general welfare", "insure domestic tranquility", and "establish Justice".
Note there's a lot of other stuff in there. Making sure people are paid a fair wage also falls under "promote the general welfare" and "establish Justice". It might also fall under "insure domestic tranquility" if you consider what happens when too many people have too much trouble finding an hone
Re: (Score:2)
Making sure people are paid a fair wage also falls under "promote the general welfare" and "establish Justice". It might also fall under "insure domestic tranquility" if you consider what happens when too many people have too much trouble finding an honest day's pay for their honest day's work.
That is a fast and loose interpretation of the preamble for convenience's sake. Promoting the general welfare might also include forced dietary restrictions for all American Hambeasts. Insuring domestic tranquility could include helping incels get laid. Where o where does it end? Establishing justice? Are these drivers entrapped in some way; is this an involuntary arrangement?
Re: (Score:2)
There are some dietary restrictions, perhaps you've heard of the FDA and USDA?
Establishing justice? Are these drivers entrapped in some way;
Unless or until we have UBI, many lower wage workers are constructively entrapped. It even made it into a country song "I'm taking what they're giving 'cause I'm workin' for a living". The job market is all too often like the old joke about the prisoners getting the choice of "death or bungee". So, in fact employment laws (and there are many) may very well fall under "e
Re: (Score:2)
We are all "constructively entrapped" by our mortal requirements. If I offer you 10 bucks to shovel my driveway I haven't entrapped you.
Workin' for a Livin' is by Huey Lewis and the News, you philistine. Garth Brooks/Chris Gaines doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Try violating the FDA's "guidelines" on dietary supplements vs. drug and see how it goes. Adulterate food with the wrong 'additives' and you will find that the rules against that are a lot more than 'guidelines'. If you REALLY want to have some fun, bottle up some marijuana and sell it as a flavorful seasoning for baked goods.
If I offer you 10 bucks to shovel my driveway I haven't entrapped you.
OTOH, if the only offer of employment is a few dozen people offering $1.00 to shovel a driveway, the unemployed are constructively entrapped. If the situation continues long enough, t
Re: (Score:2)
Try violating the FDA's "guidelines" on dietary supplements vs. drug and see how it goes. Adulterate food with the wrong 'additives' and you will find that the rules against that are a lot more than 'guidelines'. If you REALLY want to have some fun, bottle up some marijuana and sell it as a flavorful seasoning for baked goods.
The FDA has no control over individual Americans overeating. That is the worst strawman I have ever seen.
OTOH, if the only offer of employment is a few dozen people offering $1.00 to shovel a driveway, the unemployed are constructively entrapped. If the situation continues long enough, there will NOT be domestic tranquility.
That is a dark dystopia. When that happens we should definitely tune the engine, I'm right there with ya.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the FDA controlled over-eating. I said there were "some" restrictions.
That is a dark dystopia. When that happens we should definitely tune the engine, I'm right there with ya.
That Dark Dystopia is also known as "today" for many people earning minimum wage (and in some cases effectively less). That's why there are a bunch of people calling for UBI or at least an increased minimum wage. They are "tuning the engine".
Re: (Score:2)
X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.
All the powers the federal government has are delegated in articles I, II, and III, along with the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments. That is the sum total of all things the federal government is allowed to do. EVERYTHING else is a state function, unless it is a right reserved to the People.
Re: (Score:2)
And in the case of minumum wage in Seattle, those reserved powers fell to the City of Seattle and it used them.
Re: (Score:2)
And in the case of minumum wage in Seattle, those reserved powers fell to the City of Seattle and it used them.
I don't disagree. If Seattle wants to have a higher minimum wage (and the state of Washington does not prohibit them from doing so) good for them. We can let decisions like that succeed or fail on their merits (success in this case being defined as "businesses don't close/reduce staff and staff are happy with outcome" and failure being defined as "business close/move to other jurisdictions/staff unhappy, etc.").
However, that is neither here nor there given that I'm responding to your quoting the preamble o
Re: (Score:2)
Mi was speaking of "The Government" and claiming "it" had only two purposes. He then issued a challenge to point out anything in the Constitution that would contradict his statement. "The Government" flows downhill. The Constitution grants the federal government existence, the Feds recognize the states. The States recognize counties, parishes, cities, and towns. The Constitution speaks to all levels of government in the U.S., so it is applicable all the way down to the City of Seattle.
If anything, you moved
Re: (Score:2)
If I've misunderstood you, you have my apologies, but it doesn't appear you entered this thread until after the conversation was about the federal government (and I did not enter it until after you quoted the preamble). I'd argue that the GGP(GGGP?) has been talking about the federal government for the entire time, given his insistence that "the government's" two jobs were "protect the borders from foreign invasion" and "enforce contracts" but I'm willing to concede that we're simply arguing AT each other
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I am arguing about the City of Seattle and that it's actions are entirely permissible and very much the job of Government.
I do happen to believe that it would be within the powers of the federal government as well, certainly in the case of national or international corporations plus those who do business only in one state but are incorporated in Delaware for legal reasons, but that's a separate discussion.
Waiting around (Score:2)
Be careful. (Score:3)
Seriously though I could afford cabs before this and I'll be able to afford them after. This just restores balance to the employee/employer relationship.
Re:Waiting around (Score:5, Insightful)
So when drivers are waiting around for work, they are paid per hour?
What do you mean, waiting around for work? These are part time jobs to be done at one's leisure. If you just happen to be going to your local Walmart you let other people know you can take them for a small fee. If you just happen to be going to the airport, even though you're not going on a flight, you can take someone there for a small fee. You work when you want to.
The way you're presenting it makes it sound like these people are cab drivers on the clock, driving around looking for people or waiting for a call to pick someone up at a specific location and take them someplace you weren't going to. You know, employees.
Re:Waiting around (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, waiting around for work? These are part time jobs to be done at one's leisure. If you just happen to be going to your local Walmart you let other people know you can take them for a small fee. If you just happen to be going to the airport, even though you're not going on a flight, you can take someone there for a small fee. You work when you want to.
The way you're presenting it makes it sound like these people are cab drivers on the clock, driving around looking for people or waiting for a call to pick someone up at a specific location and take them someplace you weren't going to. You know, employees.
An excellent illustration of the difference between theory and practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, just as soon as they pull out of California, New York, and London.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Haven't read the law... (Score:3)
But if they restrict how many drivers can be on the road at once, this will definitely cause a loss of "gigs". As far as fixing the price of labor goes, I doubt this will change much. Uber just burns venture capital money. I don't think they have actually made a profit and the pandemic has made things worse since travel across the board as dropped. This will cause them to lose even more money.
I suppose if all these "gig jobs" go away, then people may have to settle for actual jobs and not "gigs".
It may help someone drivers that are trying to do this full time but will likely push out the people just doing it casually.
jurisdiction question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that in effect when the ride originates from Seattle or ends in Seattle? Or one that cuts through Seattle? Or drivers whose residence is in Seattle?
I suspect that the Seattle city council can only specify how drivers are paid only when driving in Seattle city limits. Sounds like a nightmare to apportion and audit. And how is some schmoe who drives for them supposed to verify the resulting paycheck?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:jurisdiction question... (Score:4, Insightful)
How dare they require businesses to properly compensate their workers. How DARE they!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, except no one who drives for Uber or Lyft is a WORKER or an employee who is being compensated. They are individuals who are using an app on THIER phone that helps them find clients who are interested in paying them to for ride sharing, IF they were employees they would be taxi drivers and would need special license, proper meters and certified cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Except...that's bullshit. Of course they're workers. Don't be dense.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Seattle and the states of California and Alaska disagree with you. Uber controls what they can charge, can discipline them, and exerts significant control over a driver's daily activity -- all aspects that apply to workers, not independent contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
>Well Seattle and the states of
>California and Alaska disagree with you.
that usually means that one is right . . . regardless of the topic at hand . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, paying a living wage is insane. Up with slavery!
If you can't pay a living wage, your business plan is unsustainable, and you can keester it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is big enough , it should IMMEDIATE ternate all services that have a geography within settle so as not to have the problem, because the city has basically outlawed their entire business model. Then all the people who would like to use those services can talk to their representatives about it. That is the way things like this get fixed.
Real minimum working wage much higher (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the minimum wage, is just for the time drivers sit around waiting for a ride...
So then on top of that, with the per minute and per mile fees, you get a payment to a driver for a 20 minute 10 mile ride of:
(.56 * 20) + (10 * 1.33) = 24.50.
I guess that is also on top of the hourly fee?
No turn around, and realize that is now the minimum possible amount that someone can be charged for a ride. How does it help the poor people in the area that a ride to work, at minimum, would have to cost them 24.50 + the minimum wage for that hour?
That totally stinks for everyone. Lyft and Uber if they continue, will be charging a minimum of $50/ride just to make money, turning Uber and Lyft into another thing only the elite get to benefit from, taking it away from the many people that used and relied on it to get around.
Charging that much also means they cannot support nearly so many drivers, so as Lyft said, many thousands of people who used Lyft to earn extra money will be out of work or at least left with reduced incomes.
Not sure exactly what the future holds there beyond it making Seattle a much less desirable city to live in or visit. Even with a nice market and good food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They have to earn at least minimum wage. So if the driver works X hours a
Re: (Score:2)
That totally stinks for everyone. Lyft and Uber if they continue, will be charging a minimum of $50/ride just to make money, turning Uber and Lyft into another thing only the elite get to benefit from
So you want the people in the middle to also be able to prey on the people at the bottom, it should not be a thing just for the people at the top?
Am I the only one uninterested? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://notslashdot.org/ [notslashdot.org] seems to be available.
Re:Am I the only one uninterested? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are free to submit stories that are better.
See that big GREEN button at top of page that says 'SUBMIT"?
That isn't there to impose Slashdot's will over you ya know.
It is actually there for us registered folks to submit tech stories. So how about you stop posting about the problem and start submitting some worthy news for nerds as a solution.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SoylentNews spun off after the slashdot acquisition-and-redesign-one-two-punch. It is better, but more quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are any of these stories ever about the tech anymore, versus legality or profitability?
If I'm starting a tech company, I might find it somewhat interesting to know if that company will be legal or profitable.
Optimizing for the bottom-quantile (Score:5, Insightful)
Like everything else in life User drivers have ones that make good money, and they have ones that struggle. Uber actually helped many of my friends who were in-between jobs, and gave them a steady enough income to pay for rent and necessities (the alternatives were much worse).
However if you want to do Uber as your primary full-time job, you need to go big. You need to have a fleet, get a commercial license, get airport permits, and move on to the larger cars. You need to put in the effort yourself. Then, you start talking six digits.
You cannot expect to continue driving your beat up Honda and still earn a lot.
But like every other "job", the city want to make those who should have Uber as a temporary side job into a "good paying one". Cannot imagine in how many ways this will backfire.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't the point of Lyft/Uber as a second or part-time job? Meaning there was no pressure to pay health insurance or rent. Then it became 'lease a car and work full-time'. That big-investment model doesn't work so well for sole traders.
No, the city wants to prevent a corporation demanding 10 people turn-up for work when there are 4 customers. Which Uber has done because 'contractor' means they don't have to pay the 6 people missing-out.
Re: (Score:2)
the city wants to prevent a corporation demanding 10 people turn-up for work
"Demanding"? What coercive action is Uber taking here?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the point of Lyft/Uber as a second or part-time job? Meaning there was no pressure to pay health insurance or rent. Then it became 'lease a car and work full-time'.
In our system, you have to work to have the basics. Businesses which pay less than a living wage can outcompete those which do pay a living wage. This results in a race to the bottom that only the already-wealthy can "win", and that only temporarily as what lies at the bottom of that bucket is torches and pitchforks. This is why the federal minimum wage was explicitly intended to be and was initially implemented as a living wage. Unfortunately, it was not tied to inflation, and politicians are frequently co
The solution is a driver's co-op (Score:2)
Uber should buy an airline (Score:1)
will they pay time to the pickup? return time? (Score:2)
will they pay time to the pickup? return time?
To save taxis and licensing commissions (Score:1, Interesting)
This is simply a thinly-disguised attempt to save the traditional taxis — and the governmental "commissions" regulating them.
Decades ago, before the Internet, the justification for these bureaucracies was that, most riders hailing the first cab available — often far from home — the usual market forces do not work: however poor was the service, you will not be able to punish the driver by not using him again. It works with retailers and many other businesses, but not with cabs. So someone
Minimal wage for Taxi drivers (Score:2)
Does the minimum wage also apply to taxi drivers? (Not taxi owners, the drivers.)
Re: To save taxis and licensing commissions (Score:2)
Re: Only to the top (Score:2)
history repeats (Score:3)
we can not free the slaves because then they would starve to death! who would feed them if they are free? nobody. That's why they should remain slaves, for their own good.
Can someone define "essential" for me? (Score:2)
more than taxis (Score:2)
Taxi drivers are already highly exploited even without being gig workers. At the same time, taxis are too expensive for most people.
All these laws can be expected to do is make gig transport as expensive as taxis, and consequently essentially a luxury item.
Those who lose their livelihood will do just fine under the new UBI laws that are coming in Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are describing the excuse Uber made for their business model when they started up. "Ride Sharing" was what they called themselves. See how well that worked out?