
Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wage of $21 per hour - docker_up
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/28/uber-proposes-policy-that-would-pay-drivers-a-minimum-wage-of-21-per-hour/
======
duxup
>Uber is circulating a petition urging people to “protect ridesharing in
California.” In the petition, Uber advocates for a policy that would offer
drivers a minimum of $21 per hour, paid time off, sick leave and compensation
if they are injured while driving, as well as a collective voice and “the
ability to influence decisions about their work.”

Uber circulating a petition to ... urge Uber to do a thing?

Why don't they just do that thing?

~~~
oconnor663
They believe they can bear the expense of this policy better than their
competition, and in particular they don't want to compete with lower-cost-
lower-quality firms. So it's both a (presumably sincere) ethical position and
a form of anti-competitive regulatory capture. I think most minimum wage laws
have some of this Baptists-and-bootleggers effect.

~~~
amelius
So first they evade regulations, then they propose regulations?

~~~
penagwin
First they evade regulations, then they propose a new policy that is enticing
to potential employees (or whatever they call them) - but the policy is so
generous that most competitors would have issues keeping up.

How many companies can afford to pay 21$/hr minimum for example?

So somehow it's both a great step forward and terribly anti-competitive at the
same time.

~~~
peteradio
Seems very competitive, not anti-competitive.

~~~
shawnz
Uber paying their employees $21 is very competitive. Uber lobbying for their
competitors to have to pay their employees $21 is anticompetitive. The latter
is what is happening here.

~~~
peteradio
Uber paying their employees $21 doesn't make sense, they will get undercut on
pricing by race for the bottom competitors. There really isn't anyway to grant
a viable minimum wage except via legislation. Paying more to the driver isn't
the same thing as paying more for top-tier engineer. It isn't like getting a
nascar driver in the seat is going to justify higher wages. So what do you
recommend?

~~~
mamon
>> they will get undercut on pricing by race for the bottom competitors

If Uber unilaterally increased minimum salary, then those competitors would
have to do the same, otherwise they would lose all their drivers to Uber. So,
if Uber really cared about drivers they would just do it. Instead they are
making PR stunt by "demanding" government regulation.

~~~
peteradio
I don't think that is true, they'd have a bunch of drivers sitting around not
getting paid to give rides because they are being undercut by the competition.
It is not skilled work so its always going to be a race to the bottom, the
bottom has to be set by some governmental body. Without some reasonable
minimum drivers are being sucked into quicksand.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It is not skilled work so its always going to be a race to the bottom, the
> bottom has to be set by some governmental body.

It's not actually a race to the bottom because it's still a competitive
market. Even unskilled people have a choice between being Uber drivers or
janitors or stock clerks or fast food workers, or anything else that someone
will pay them to do. If Uber pays less than Walmart then people can quit Uber
and go work for Walmart. That creates a floor for the pay of Uber drivers
independent of anything the government does.

And if the government is going to do something, it's much better to raise
_that_ floor, which minimum wages can actually do the opposite of because
people have non-monetary job preferences. If a $21/hour minimum wage appears
then you have to pay Uber drivers $21/hour, but suppose they have $15/hour in
expenses (fuel, wear and tear), so that's really only $6/hour. Meanwhile a
work from home job might have paid $10/hour -- a real $10/hour -- but now
that's well below $21, so is no longer available. So now you're paying
$15/hour to make $21 instead of paying $0 to make $10, which means you make
_less_ , and Uber gets to pay $21 when they would have otherwise needed to pay
$25 to actually be competitive. And the same thing (to various degrees) with
ordinary commute-to-work jobs vs. stay at home jobs, or jobs with longer vs.
shorter commutes or in higher cost of living parts of the city or that require
some training or other expense that ultimately has to be paid for out of
wages, or the job is just downright less of a grind and people are willing to
accept less money in exchange for easier work. By removing options people used
to have, you only make them more desperate for the remaining ones and require
them to accept worse options even if they're better on paper.

------
Animats
_" while on a trip"_ \- Uber PR.

Not per hour worked. Not when going to a pickup. Not when waiting for a ride.
Only "while on a trip". That alone probably means about 1/3 off. Which puts
them below SF's $15/hour minimum wage.

Then, Uber counts the entire amount paid to the driver as "wage", not
including their renting the driver's car. That takes off a substantial
amount.[1]

And if drivers were employees, Uber would have to buy the bottled water.

[1] [https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-
expenses...](https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses/)

~~~
asperous
How else could they do it though? They'd have to telling drivers they can't
work or scheduling them, otherwise there'd be a flood of people chilling in
their cars waiting on rides and being paid by uber.

The "gig" economy seems to work by offering people a fairly open choice of pay
and work. Though Uber could be more transparent about expected earnings.

~~~
lysp
Similar to cloud based server prices.

Paid for time that you're actually online.

If you're only logged on for 20 mins (a third) of the hour - you get $7 min
wage ($21 / 3).

~~~
Jommi
Are you seriously comparing a saas service to a service based on real humans?
You do realize how different turning a server on from being off vs. getting a
driver to pick you up from whatever that person was doing before?

------
danans
> our community relies on to supplement their income, _support_ _their_
> _families_

While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending
their labor practices includes supporting families.

It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of
arguments is pretty obvious.

But then again, in a society where the general populace's basic welfare is
largely left to market forces, maybe it's not a stretch for corporations to
make the claim that supporting families is among their side-effects (but not
objectives).

~~~
grecy
Just like how McDonald's actually recommends it's employees get another job.

Companies in the US are utterly out of control with regards to paying a living
wage.

~~~
kuzimoto
You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by
14 year olds, can you? There is also a greater supply of low skilled labor
available, lowering price of labor. I think you should work 1 to 2 crappy jobs
building skills until you can find a single good job. McDonald's also has
programs that offer college tuition assistance.

~~~
grecy
> _You can 't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done
> by 14 year olds, can you?_

I expect everyone to be paid a living wage at every full-time job. That's the
very _definition_.

~~~
kuzimoto
Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states
"full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of
hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees
typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance.

Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any
formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that
covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime.

It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your
argument...

~~~
atwebb
Personally, it is in the name: full-time job.

It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job
you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you
fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others)
that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so,
making it not a full-time job.

~~~
kuzimoto
The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time"
equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day?
Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line?

Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for
some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is
someone else's part-time job.

~~~
fwip
That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry.

Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still
true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours.

Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be
able to live comfortably on those wages.

~~~
kuzimoto
> Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be
> able to live comfortably on those wages.

I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there
any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?

~~~
skosch
It's great that you understand how supply and demand works, but look beyond
that.

At some point in the mid-term future, automation will take over enough labor
that a sizeable chunk of the (educated, motivated) population won't be able to
find a job at all. Supply non-zero, demand zero, ergo price zero.

In that world, should we just let people starve?

~~~
satyrnein
That seems like an argument for basic income or similar. The topic at hand is
raising minimum wage, which could only accelerate job loss due to automation.

~~~
Retric
Raising minimum wage might reduce the number of jobs, but 100% * ~0$ < 10% *
15$.

Many companies have wages low enough that people receive significant public
assistance while working full time. That’s a terrible trend, either the work
is valuable enough to pay a living wage or or does not need to be done.
Allowing companies to pay below living wages is simply an inefficient drain on
the economy.

------
us0r
>"minimum of $21 per hour while on a trip"

Am I the only who notice the last 4 words? This will effect very few drivers
as most are already making > that "while on a trip (and not stuck in complete
grid lock)".

------
alkonaut
I assume at $21/h the driver has to pay car expenses? How much does that cost
per hour assuming a driver does full time driving?

Shouldn’t Uber instead be guaranteeing how much drivers are paid _net_? If $21
really is before expenses then it’s not even $15 for most drivers after, maybe
not even $10?

Also: I was assuming the pay was while working, not while driving passengers.
Otherwise isn’t it even worse?

What if Uber instead just guaranteed drivers a living wage plus benefits
_net_?

~~~
fromthestart
I don't think it costs anywhere near $10/hour to operate a passenger vehicle,
even after insurance and maintenance.

~~~
mikeash
Depreciation is a large cost as well.

The IRS sets a standard rate of 58 cents/mile for deduction of vehicle-related
expenses. There’s obviously a wide range of actual costs, but that’s in the
ballpark for an all-inclusive amount. If you average 20MPH then you’ll exceed
$10/hr.

~~~
acchow
The IRS numbers are very generous.

~~~
mikeash
They almost perfectly match the TCO numbers from AAA. They show an average of
$8,849/year at 15,000 miles/year, which is 59 cents/mile. The cheapest vehicle
type they list is small sedans, which are $6,777/year or 45 cents/mile.
[https://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-
costs/](https://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/)

It seems large because we aren’t used to looking at TCO per mile, and only
think about the cost of fuel.

~~~
acchow
I meant 59 cents/mile is generous for estimating your Uber driving costs.

The AAA average includes pickup trucks, which hopefully you wouldn't be using
for Uber.

Edmunds puts the TCO for 5 years (includes insurance and gas) for a Prius
@15,000 miles/year at $30,600. That is 40.8 cents/mile. 59c is 45% higher.

(This assumes you start with a brand new Prius; you may optimize better as an
Uber driver)

------
devoply
Let's not leave the rest of it, threatened with its drivers unionizing Uber
tries to play the individualism card to dissuade collective action.

"California drivers deserve access to flexible work."
[https://www.independentdriver.org/](https://www.independentdriver.org/)

I wish rent was flexible. How about food prices, they should be flexible. Car
repair costs. Flexible. Gas prices should be flexible. In general life should
be flexible. Everyone should negotiate. Things should not be that predictable.
It's better for everyone.

~~~
xapata
Prices are indeed flexible.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
Prices are mostly driven by market forces. That leaves little room for
flexibility.

~~~
bdcravens
Everything in that list involves choice: where you want to live is a choice.
(based on family size, crime rates, school quality, access to transportation,
whether you have pets, etc, but still a choice) Even the things that have
static prices involve consumption choices (ie, how much gas you consume)

~~~
devoply
Living wage covers the floor of these things. Even that is not being offered.

------
s3r3nity
I hate to be _that_ person, but $21 / hr minimum is more than EMTs, and even
most surgical Residents make (at least in the US).

I don't know how to interpret this in that context: is this proposal absurd,
or is the medical / labor system in the US absurd? (or both??)

~~~
strig
I would argue that EMTs and surgical residents are ludicrously underpaid if
that's the current reality.

~~~
kolbe
Surgical residents are being apprenticed for their expected $400k-$1m job
later in life. They are far from being impoverished, and if they need more
than $50k/year, any bank will gladly lend to them at a low rate.

~~~
jcranberry
They get paid 50-60k a year to work absolutely ridiculous hours. I had a
surgical resident for a roommate. He'd get home and if he went from the door
to the bed without showering or relaxing he might be able to catch 5 hours of
sleep before he had to get up and be off for another shift. We'd buy protein
bars so he could eat something on the run otherwise he'd never have anything
to eat on a full 24 hour shift. That goes on for 5+ years after already having
been in school for 8 years. And it's not like they're just sitting around all
day watching real doctors work or something. And the average pay for a general
surgeon as of 2017 is 350k (before malpractice insurance).

~~~
kolbe
I got paid even less (around negative $40k) to spend every waking hour 4th
year of college to complete coursework, do varsity athletics, search for a
job, and do an honors thesis. But these were investments in human capital.

~~~
jcranberry
I'm not sure I understand your point. They have already gone through 8 years
of school which they definitely didn't get for free. Surgical residents then
work for 5 more years working 100+ hours a week.

------
jankassens
This appears to be a joint effort with Lyft.

A joint letter by Uber and Lyft CEOs:
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-F...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-
Forum-Uber-Lyft-ready-to-do-our-part-for-13969843.php)

Lyft email campaign advocating minimum earnings:
[https://p2a.co/xcA3Bg3](https://p2a.co/xcA3Bg3)

------
tyingq
"wage" is a confusing term to use in this context if they aren't very specific
about what things the driver has to pay out of that $21/hr. Self employment
tax, employers share of FICA, vehicle wear/tear/depreciation, fuel, health
insurance, commercial vehicle insurance, benefits, etc.

They seem to want you to make a straight comparison to a W-2 hourly rate which
isn't honest.

------
pythonwutang
This is an attempt to push Lyft out of CA by raising the cost side of the
equation but that cost will eventually have to be passed to riders, which will
dramatically drop demand. If the minimum wage law passes and they subsidize
rides long enough to edge out Lyft then they finally get the monopoly they’ve
been promising investors for the last decade but they also lose a huge amount
of their TAM. The laws of supply and demand will eventually come into play.

And of course once they get their monopoly they will raise prices further to
get profits and at that point I’d guess they would only be slightly less
expensive then Taxis were before all this gig economy craziness.

~~~
cdmcmahon
I also think it's an attempt to ward off a nascent unionization push.

Regarding a different, recent "olive branch" type proposal:

"The one thing they don’t want to give you is the thing that you need to get.
This offer from Uber and Lyft is like a kidnapper offering you a softer
blanket, as long as you agree not to ever escape. No thanks. These companies
know very well that once their workers become actual employees, they will get
a host of benefits automatically, and they can formally unionize to win
themselves many more benefits and increased pay. These companies, which have
never made a dollar even while exploiting their workers, fear this. So they
offer some concessions." [1]

[1] [https://splinternews.com/if-uber-wants-it-its-
bad-1835514222](https://splinternews.com/if-uber-wants-it-its-bad-1835514222)

------
JustSomeNobody
> Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on
> a trip, including the costs of their average expenses.

This simultaneously reduces the race to the bottom of pricing for ride sharing
while capping what Uber will pay at $21/hour[0].

[0] "While on a trip". Gotta love that.

------
WheelsAtLarge
What is the right payment for Uber drivers? Will 21/hr really cover costs plus
give a living wage?

Seems to me that's the starting point before decing whether it's a good wage
or not.

~~~
jumbopapa
The right amount is the amount set by the market. I don't understand these
people protesting... no one is forcing you to work for Uber.

~~~
kerkeslager
The market is to a large extent set by those at the top of it--who
unsurprisingly decide that they are worth the most, and pay themselves
billions of dollars.

It's true that nobody is forcing you to work for Uber. You can always go to
one of the other companies inside the same system with the same incentives
that cause them to treat their workers in the same way.

~~~
dymk
The market is certainly not set by the “people on top” and this weird FUDy
argument about some elite ruling class only hurts peoples ability to find
better paying careers (a gig economy job is not a career)

------
kemiller2002
Call me a cynic, but I don't see how this doesn't hurt drivers. It sounds
good, but it's too good to be true. I'm wondering if they are factoring in
only the amount of time actually driving. So if you have a 5 minute drive in
60 minutes, at 21.00 per hour you only make 1.75. I'm guessing their hourly
wage doesn't include reimbursement for car mileage, gas etc. too. That seems
like a raw deal to me. Am I missing something?

~~~
davinic
The IRS vehicle mileage rate for 2018 is 54.5 cents per mile. If a driver
averages 20 miles per hour, then their effective hourly rate is cut in half
from depreciation/fuel/maintenance/etc.

~~~
kemiller2002
That is true, and the company doesn't have to reimburse you for that. They can
leave that to you to factor in your yearly taxes, effectively putting the
burden on you to track and submit all of that.

~~~
davinic
yes, but it's on your taxes because it's an actual unreimbursed expense you've
undertaken. It factors into your net income, not just a tax savings.

------
kerkeslager
It's wise to look a gift horse in the mouth when it comes from an amoral
corporation, but I suspect this is fairly honest, not because Uber is doing it
out of the kindness of their own hearts, but because Uber wants to avoid
regulation.

People who claim that regulation only makes things worse should take note of
this: even the _threat_ of regulation can be enough to get corporations to at
least try to appear to do the right thing.

That said, I think there are two problems with this:

1\. Long-term results of this will just be Uber trying to avoid regulation for
as long as possible, while figuring out more and more clever ways to maximize
profit at the expense of both drivers and passengers.

2\. Any payment agreement which doesn't include health insurance in the US
needs to be considered as significantly reduced. Back of napkin math ahead:
Health insurance can run as high as $700/month and after taxes someone getting
paid $21/hour takes home closer to $10.50, meaning some drivers will have to
work ~65 hours/month just to pay for health insurance. Assuming Uber drivers
drive 160 hours/month (which is conservative), paying for their own health
insurance is a ~40% reduction in pay. This means that, pre-tax, that $21/hour
looks a lot more like $12.60/hour would in a country with a reasonable
healthcare system. Of course, there are some worst-case scenario numbers
included here (most people's health insurance _isn 't_ that expensive) but at
least some Uber drivers, particularly with expensive-to-treat preexisting
conditions, are going to be receiving a _much_ lower wage if health insurance
isn't included. I suspect this singlehandedly is why Uber is even making the
$21/hour offer: as a way to avoid regulation that would require them to pay
for health insurance.

~~~
smallbigfish
What's so amoral about it?

~~~
kerkeslager
Are you asking what's amoral about Uber?

Saying "amoral corporation" is almost redundant and isn't specific to Uber--
almost all corporations are fairly amoral.

------
jrochkind1
The article is written confusingly.

It seems to really be, Uber responds to proposed legislation in CA, by asking
for it to be changed to allow uber drivers to remain 'independent contrators'
\-- but they're willing to take legislation, apparently, that would guarantee
a $21/hour guarantee, along with paid sick leave and vacation?

Or maybe they're saying if they don't pass any legislation at all, they're
willing to do those things voluntarily... presumably just in CA? I'm a bit
confused, the article is poorly written.

This is a lot more than many Uber drivers currently get.

There are people quoted in the article saying $21/hour still isn't a living
wage in the bay area.

But if Uber is suggesting that $21/guarantee with paid leave is only fair,
presumably they'd be willing to commit to that nationwide, not just in CA
where they are threatened by legislation? (Just kidding, I obviously don't
presume that).

I know many people who do or have driven for Uber in other parts of the
country who would find it quite an improvement to get a guarantee of $21/hour
and paid leave.

------
cookie_monsta
The article was updated and the headline changed to "Uber proposes policy that
would pay drivers a minimum wage of $21 per hour while on a trip" to clarify
the misconception that drivers would actually receive $21/hr. I think the
headline should be changed here to avoid similar misunderstandings

------
jdsully
Is this after accounting for gas and insurance? Or are they just hoping
everyone confuses them with employees?

~~~
dpiers
From the proposal:

“drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip,
including the costs of their average expenses.”

~~~
chimeracoder
> “drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip,
> including the costs of their average expenses.”

"while on a trip", aka "not really $21/hour", because even in extremely dense
areas, drivers have downtime between trips, during which they typically have
to either drive around aimlessly, find a place to idle/park, or drive to their
next pickup.

~~~
pkaye
Is that different from how normal taxi drivers get paid?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Is that different from how normal taxi drivers get paid?

Yes, but it's not the point - it's misleading to talk about a minimum wage
that excludes some time on the job from the denominator.

------
gandalfian
Is this really a wage or do you have to deduct your petrol and motoring costs
from it? Are you working when waiting for a customer Or only when actually
driving?

------
habosa
"$21 per hour while on a trip"

As many have pointed out, this is the key. Not possible to have 100%
utilization, so most drivers would probably earn 50-75% of this number.

------
torgian
So... it sounds more and more like Uber is going to need to provide drivers
insurance, etc... which means they will probably need higher requirements from
their drivers at some point. Maybe even licensing and...

wait, is Uber slowly becoming a taxi service?

------
SomeOldThrow
Anything short of employment with the health insurance and no personal
investment in the car it seems like it's going to be bad for drivers in the
long term.

~~~
standardUser
"no personal investment in the car"

That seems excessive. Plenty of professions require significant investment in
equipment. Many truckers own their own trucks. Mechanics buy their own tools.
It's just part of the equation.

------
munherty
This from the same company that hasnt turned a profit..

------
mrnobody_67
What do driver expenses look like on a per-hour of driving basis? Gas, oil
change, tire wear, etc. on a modest Honda/Toyota type car?

~~~
criddell
$0.58 / mile according to the IRS.

~~~
Railsify
Is that based on total cost of ownership? AAA claims to have some info on
that: [https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/driving-cost-per-
mile/](https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/driving-cost-per-mile/)

~~~
bdcravens
Then the IRS is being generous, as most of the vehicles in that linked page
cost less than $0.58/mile.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
They're including depreciation which makes sense for small businesses that
turn over their fleet every X years.

If you're not swapping cars ever few years depreciation per mile is basically
irrelevant because age and what you use the vehicle for will dominate
depreciation.

~~~
lonelappde
You can't drive Uber in an old car, can you?

Edit: apparently you can, and drivers leasing new cars to drive are getting
creamed.

~~~
bdcravens
In many markets, the car can be up to 15 years old.

[https://www.uber.com/drive/houston/vehicle-
requirements/](https://www.uber.com/drive/houston/vehicle-requirements/)

------
phjesusthatguy3
What is it that Uber is proposing?

I understand that they're "advocating for a brand-new policy that would
strengthen protections for drivers" but what is that policy? What policy are
they suggesting be put in place to make sure protections for drivers are
strengthened?

------
mkagenius
Not entirely clear what _policy_ exactly means, does it mean Uber will pay the
minimum wage or it wants the government to pay that? (I am not from U.S. so
its unclear how it works)

I guess, its the government, since people drive for both lyft and uber.

~~~
toast0
(Some of) the drivers are advocating for a (California) government policy
(law) that would make drivers be treated as employees and therefore require
their employers to pay minimum wage while on duty, have regulated minimum and
maximum shifts with regulated breaks, etc etc.

Uber is saying don't do that, instead proposing a new government policy (laws
or regulation) of a minimum rate of $21/hour while providing a ride. Like
minimum wage, this would be paid by the employer/client, but the government
sets a price floor.

Note that how this compares to minimum wage for employees depends entirely on
the occupancy rate for the vehicle: if you've only got a fare for half of the
minutes in a hour, that's $10.50/hour which is under the 2019 California
minimum wage of $12 or $11 for small employers.

~~~
mkagenius
Thanks. I get it now. The amount seems on the lower end then since it is
against the actual time spent driving and not the time you are online?

~~~
toast0
Yes, but the headline rate of $21/hr sounds better than minimum wage.

------
supernova87a
Maybe I'm dense but if drivers aren't finding the expected wage acceptable
then why don't they simply choose not to offer their services to Uber? I'm not
saying that in the "cruel capitalist" way, I'm observing -- they still choose
to work, so there must be demand for it at a low wage level.

Seems to me we have an oversupply of labor of people willing (or needing) to
work for pennies. Having a minimum wage isn't going to improve that. It's
going to lead to fewer people taking rides, and fewer people being able to
become Uber drivers, but slightly better for the ones that can remain drivers.
Classic minimum wage problems.

Why don't we make it $30 per hour? or $50? That would be even better.

~~~
kennywinker
> why don't they simply choose not to offer their services to Uber?

You assume there are other options without barriers to entry. You’ve learned
how to drive uber, you’ve got a vehicle and payments to make - now take a risk
on some other gig with a million unknowns?

Now it’s possible that uber cannot shoulder this cost by lowering their
margins, and it will pass directly to the consumer as you suggest - but it’s
not guaranteed. The fact that uber is behind this suggests that they can
shoulder the cost.

~~~
stri8ed
> You’ve learned how to drive uber

That's a bit of stretch. Also worth noting, many of the jobs did not even
exist before Uber created a market for it.

> why don't they simply choose not to offer their services to Uber?

Collective bargaining, aka unionizing, does essentially just that, only with
more leverage.

~~~
kennywinker
ok...?

I'm sure driving for uber is not difficult, but making money driving for uber
is 100% a skill. When to go out, where to be, how long your shift should be,
what rides to skip, etc. That's all invested learning.

> Also worth noting, many of the jobs did not even exist before Uber created a
> market for it.

Their trophey is in the mail. Just because you create a new job, does not mean
it's a good job.

> Collective bargaining, aka unionizing, does essentially just that, only with
> more leverage.

yes! it seems clear to me that uber drivers would benefit from unionizing.

------
not2b
Presumably the $21 per hour is before driver expenses (gas, depreciation etc:
drivers often ignore that their shiny new Prius loses about $0.10 in value per
mile driven).

------
phjesusthatguy3
Does anyone have a link to the actual policy Uber is advocating? It doesn't
appear to be linked from the TC article or the independentdriver site linked
from there.

~~~
floppydiskette
[https://p2a.co/H9gttWA](https://p2a.co/H9gttWA)

~~~
phjesusthatguy3
Yes, that's the link from the TC article.

What it says is:

"Instead, Uber is advocating for a brand-new policy that would strengthen
protections for rideshare drivers by:

Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a
trip, including the costs of their average expenses.

Providing drivers access to robust new benefits, such as paid time off, sick
leave, and compensation if they are injured while driving with Uber.

Empowering drivers to have a collective voice with rideshare companies, and
the ability to influence decisions about their work."

What are they actually proposing? I see what they want their proposal to do.

------
Bud
Key words in this story: "while on a trip".

This isn't actually $21/hr. It could very easily end up being under $10/hr.
Just depends how lucky the driver is.

------
lewaldman
In Brazil the drivers would get better salaries than our doctors... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
chasd00
is there an interview process to be an Uber driver? Or do you just download
the app and turn it on? If it's just the app then why wouldn't everyone just
download the app and start making $21/hr

~~~
Ancalagon
I have the same question. I'm guessing its $21/hr of driving time?

------
samstave
Thats $42,000 a year.

Are they doing this in only certain areas?

~~~
davinic
$21/hour only includes time when you're on a fare, not time when you're logged
in and available.

And it doesn't include the gas, maintenance and depreciation on your personal
vehicle driven 30-50k miles per year to reach that amount. The IRS estimates
those costs to be $0.58/mile, which would reduce the income by between $17,400
and $29,000.

------
WheelsAtLarge
What is the right payment for Uber drivers? Will 21/hr cover costs plus give a
living wage? That's the starting point before decing if it's good or bad.

~~~
calcifer
> What is the right payment for Uber drivers?

Whatever the future union (that the drivers are asking for) can negotiate.

> Will 21/hr cover costs plus give a living wage?

No it won't, see the article.

------
Endy
And what will this do to fares? If they stop being the cheapest fast option
between two points, I don't feel like I'd be alone in going another way.

~~~
jchallis
Raise them to the point to create an entitled taxi monopoly ripe for
disruption by an aggressive industry defining competitor.

------
ceejayoz
I presume they'll talk up the $21/hour price point in PR while pretending gas,
insurance, maintenance, etc. don't cost anything.

~~~
timdorr
I'm not defending Uber here and it is very likely they are spinning this in
their favor, but they claim that rate does include expenses:

> Ensuring drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on
> a trip, including the costs of their average expenses

[https://p2a.co/H9gttWA](https://p2a.co/H9gttWA)

~~~
ceejayoz
"While on a trip" is very slippery here.

~~~
dymk
It's actually very well defined, so I have no idea how it's a "slippery slope"

~~~
michaelt
ceejayoz didn't say _slippery slope_ \- they mean slippery as a synonym for
"tricky" or "furtive"

For example, "$21 per hour while on a trip" could mean that, if a driver takes
a fare 30 minutes out of town then returns empty, they are only paid $10.50
for the hour's work because returning empty was not "on a trip"

~~~
lonelappde
It's not "could" it's clearly the meaning. Out of town drives have surplus
charge for this reason.

------
smt88
tl;dr Uber/Lyft/gig workers are organizing to get themselves recognized as
employees (rather than contractors).

> "These petitions are clearly Hail Marys by Lyft and Uber to try to prevent
> the passage of AB-5, which seeks to codify the ruling established in Dynamex
> Operations West, Inc. v Superior Court of Los Angeles. In that case, the
> court applied the ABC test and decided Dynamex wrongfully classified its
> workers as independent contractors based on the presumption that 'a worker
> who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for
> wages and benefits…'"

Uber's proposed policy is somewhere between what those drivers get now (no
guaranteed wages, no benefits, no protection from unfair labor practices) and
what they'd get as employees under California law.

Their response:

> "'$21 isn’t a living wage for any category of worker in the San Francisco
> metro area except a single adult or two adults living together,' Gig Workers
> Rising tweeted. 'What they’re offering is the floor, while hoping to kneecap
> any efforts to raise wages down the line & create a real union.'"

~~~
lonelappde
Is there a reason you can't commute from Oakland to a SF job?

Maybe SF should ban single-passenger cars and solve this Uber problem once and
for all.

------
SubiculumCode
And they arent employees?

~~~
bdcravens
You can guarantee a contractor an hourly wage.

~~~
stri8ed
How does that account for time waiting between rides? With increased wages, we
can expect increased supply of drivers, leading to more drivers waiting. That
is unless they apply a cap to the amount of active drivers, which would cause
its own issues.

------
c9c9c9c9
It's not clear from the article, is it a flat fee of $21/hr? Or is it only
$21/hr of passenger time?

------
brexiteer
This makes sense, Uber should be a premium service, back in my day having a
private driver on call was expensive as it should be, the wear and tear om the
vehicle is ridiculous, the vehicles are nice. You want a cheap ride, get a cab
that someone may have shit in OR innovate in your life and buy your own
vehicle.

~~~
Milner08
This is absolutely the WRONG message. Everyone should not have their own
vehicle. That is insane. Especially in big cities.

------
WKH
Kicking away the ladder.

------
SN76477
$21 is not enough once you add in operating costs that the drivers must
swallow.

------
Brushfire
Minimum wage policies in this sector are such a boon to self driving car
companies. It will accelerate the end of uber and lyft using human drivers
dramatically. I hope these unions realize what they're doing.

~~~
ProAm
Unions or not that change is coming.

------
danenania
Ok, now how about a sincere focus on safety and driver accountability?

I started using Uber and Lyft several years ago in NYC because the taxis were
horrible. More than half the rides would feature a driver on the phone, severe
road rage, and reckless driving.

Now it seems to have come full circle. Ridesharing is almost as bad as taxis
used to be. Some drivers are great, but many are rude and seem to use the
roads as an outlet for pent up aggression. In SF, around 1 in 10 are obviously
stoned. More are overtired and easily distracted.

So I'm back to driving or public transit. I love ridesharing and would use it
all the time if it was safe, but I'm not putting my life or a family member's
life in the hands of companies that can't guarantee a competent driver.

~~~
my_username_is_
At least with ridehailing apps you have a feedback mechanism to flag these
drivers. If enough people have negative experiences, they won't be able to
drive for that platform.

~~~
astura
I don't use that feature unless the infraction is very major (like the guy who
swerved into incoming traffic while texting). The reason being is I don't want
to look like I'm complaining for the sake of complaining or trying to get free
rides/Uber credit.

~~~
phil248
It's important to rate poor drivers with low scores because a) you won't be
matched with them again and b) you're potentially helping remove them as a
driver to the benefit of other riders.

If they want to give you credits as well, so be it.

