
Drivers group plans work stoppage at Uber, Lyft in NYC - Vaslo
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/uber-lyft-drivers-work-stoppage
======
falcolas
While I think this is a good (maybe necessary) move for the drivers in the
short term, I think it's inevitably going to be perverted by the PR
departments from the companies involved into a "See?! Unions are bad! Look at
all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The
corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for
regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to
strike in the future.

Of course, if the drivers feel exploited enough to form a union in the first
place, who are we to say they're wrong? They already know going in that it's
likely to be a black mark against them, yet they're doing it anyways. I
personally don't live in or visit NY, and don't hire out Uber or Lyft
vehicles; so all I really can do is wish them the best, and hope that it turns
out in their favor.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our
> poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take
> that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract"
> employees from being able to strike in the future.

They don't actually need any of that. All they have to do is to keep using
basically the same pricing algorithm they already do.

If a bunch of drivers go on strike then any of the remaining ones
automatically get paid more because the supply is lower (surge pricing). The
higher pay attracts new drivers, or gets the ones who only drive during surge
pricing to come out and work full shifts as long as the good money is there.

This is basically the same result for the company as conceding to the drivers'
demands, except that it ends as soon as the striking drivers give up and
reenter the labor pool.

The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares
and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. In other words, some of the
drivers have to stop working. Striking is just feigning solidarity as you hope
it's somebody else who gets booted out of the job so you can earn more.

The only way drivers are going to get paid more is for enough of them to
_permanently_ stop accepting lower fares. But the trade off never actually
goes away -- do you want higher fares or more hours? It can't be both unless
some people stop driving, and if not enough _other_ people quit the person who
quits has to be you.

~~~
ameister14
>The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares
and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. In other words, some of the
drivers have to stop working. Striking is just feigning solidarity as you hope
it's somebody else who gets booted out of the job so you can earn more.

I don't agree. Start by grouping together as a collective, then lobby for
employee status instead of contractor status.

Striking isn't feigning solidarity just because there are scabs out there.
It's acting in solidarity in the hopes that everyone will do it with you, so
that you all can get better conditions.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Employee status won't do anything as long as Uber's margins are so low. Maybe
if they had a monopoly and were just raking in cash, they could pay the higher
costs out of that pile of money. But that's not what's happening. They're
losing money hand over fist. There is no margin to absorb increased labor
costs.

So, they would have to pay a much lower wage to full employees. Benefits?
Forget about it. Or they could charge a lot more, I guess. That would reduce
demand for their services, meaning they wouldn't need as many employees. They
lay off a bunch of people, and we wind up in exactly the same state as
AnthonyMouse proposed -- fewer people driving.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Or they could charge a lot more, I guess. That would reduce demand for their
> services, meaning they wouldn't need as many employees.

That's the solution they need to follow, though it's probably going to take
some badly needed regulation to get there.

~~~
bhupy
Why is passing on the cost of transportation to the consumer considered the
optimum solution? Why not instead advocate for expanding the EITC so that the
government fills in the gaps caused by lower wages?

At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of
living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other.
Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for
goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for
welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying
inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that
falls equally on the rich and the poor.

What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost
of driver labor to the minimum possible price (ignoring for a moment the need
to make sure externalities are included in the price via congestion taxes).
This is good for consumers, since the good/service is now accessible to people
lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If the problem is that some of these
drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution
be to simply give them a little bit of money?

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Why is passing on the cost of transportation [minimum wages] to the consumer
> considered the optimum solution?

I don't, but I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal
than the status quo.

> What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost
> of driver labor to the minimum possible price ....This is good for
> consumers....If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making
> enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give
> them a little bit of money?

One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being
a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of
their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that
responsibility to the government.

~~~
bhupy
> I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the
> status quo.

That's not necessarily true, EITC is an existing program. "Increase EITC"
requires just as much political will as "Increase the minimum wage".

> One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just
> being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket
> much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by
> passing that responsibility to the government.

You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Why should the
government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their
responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. At the end of the
day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that
everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there
are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to
maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> You could apply this argument against any form of welfare.

Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the
welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their
employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled
people).

> That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is
> too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare
> problem.

It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the
people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at
avoiding it.

~~~
bhupy
> Only welfare that you can collect while employed.

You're right, and I'd personally advocate for removing the employment
requirement for the EITC (closer to a negative income tax or even a UBI), but
expanding the EITC is more politically tenable in the near term, and becomes a
stepping stone to achieve the latter.

> the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated
> at avoiding it

Are you suggesting that welfare and progressive taxation don't work? Or are
you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?

We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on
prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that
private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable
standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled
(and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it
shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.

~~~
bhupy
> My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private
> employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable
> standard of living

But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in
effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and
the poor alike.

In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry
ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as
they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it
disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).

------
ma2rten
_App-based drivers in New York City are already legally entitled to a minimum
wage of about $17 an hour after expenses. The Taxi Workers Alliance says its
demands include greater job security. A Lyft spokeswoman said Lyft drivers '
hourly earnings have increased over the last two years._

I am confused by this article. Drivers already have a (relatively high)
minimum wage. Now they want job security according to the article? What would
that look like given that drivers can work anytime they want?

Also, why did Lyft comment on the wage if that is not what drivers are
demanding?

~~~
gamblor956
A) Lyft is lying, based on nearly unanimous independent reporting of driver
earnings.

B)The minimum wage is not high at all.

The minimum wage is necessary because driver's are responsible for all of the
costs of maintaining their vehicles, gas, parking etc. Imagine if your pay as
a programmer required you to also pay for your computer, the parts, the
software, the electricity, renting a cubicle/desk/office to work at, etc.

~~~
ng12
$17 is a pretty good wage for low-skill labor in NYC.

~~~
atwebb
Fast food/grocery in the midwest/south is paying $12/hr, probably bit
apples/oranges but I would've expected this to be higher.

~~~
bpicolo
NYC minimum wage only recently became 15/hr

------
pastor_elm
So about 10,000 drivers out of maybe over 70,000 total are vowing not to drive
during a small window during which many might not have driven anyway.

This is not how you send a message. If you want people to listen you have to
shut streets down!

------
caprese
and then Uber's PR machine shows how much a stay-at-home mom just made driving
someone to an NYC airport when all the other drivers dropped out

re-confirming all the stats in their prospectus about the unstoppable good
their rides to airports are, investors love it

