They've copied this idea from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association[0][1], the company-controlled union of the Coles-Woolworths supermarket duopoly, whose egregiousness motivated the formation of a second, competing union[2].
Seeing as attempts to mandate better wages and benefits for gig workers usually wind up throwing large numbers of them out of work (see Minneapolis just now) while making life more expensive for consumers, this is a positive.
Uber and Lyft decided to leave rather than prove that it's possible for them to pay better wages. They did not say they left because it would be unprofitable, they left because they said it would make rides unaffordable for riders.
> The companies argued that they would be forced to pass the increased cost on to riders, which would result in drivers eventually earning less. In a statement, Lyft called the bill “deeply flawed,” adding, “this ordinance would make rides unaffordable for the majority of Minneapolis residents.”|
It sounds like they made the right decision. Who are they supposed to prove that to? If they thought they could remain in business there profitably, they would.
[0] https://national.sda.com.au/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shop,_Distributive_and_Allied_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_and_Fast_Food_Workers_U...