# A slap in the face’: California Uber and Lyft drivers criticize pay cuts under Prop 22



## PukersAreAlwaysYourFault (Mar 25, 2021)

‘A slap in the face’: California Uber and Lyft drivers criticize pay cuts under Prop 22


Drivers cite reduction in mileage rates from LAX, a major source of rides, and say company stimulus packages are ‘traps’




www.google.com





Though the multiplier option and features for drivers to turn down unwanted rides has largely been revoked, Bolainez argued passenger fees were increased by Uber and Lyft despite claims from app companies ahead of Prop 22 that such fees wouldn’t be increased, and that drivers aren’t being fairly paid proportions of fee increases. He claimed Lyft has implemented similar fee structures, charging customers prime-time surge fees while paying drivers small proportions of those additional fees.

He argued the bonuses are an attempt to flood the market with more drivers to reduce wait times, and once revoked will hurt full-time drivers without remedying many of the long sustaining issues drivers have faced while working for the apps


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

_“Both companies posted multibillion-dollar losses in 2020, as Uber and Lyft have yet to turn a profit and both apps have trouble retaining drivers.”——








_


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

This is why i want to remain
an independant contractor..


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

PukersAreAlwaysYourFault said:


> ‘A slap in the face’: California Uber and Lyft drivers criticize pay cuts under Prop 22
> 
> 
> Drivers cite reduction in mileage rates from LAX, a major source of rides, and say company stimulus packages are ‘traps’
> ...


Why doesn't the state of California just mandate taxi rates to be paid to RS drivers? This would pretty well solve the financial issues of drivers being exploited and negate the need of the employers Lyft and Uber to provide other benefits. The destination information is nice, but I don't think taxi drivers even get that. So, I don't expect RS drivers to be get that either. If you are paid market rates for your service, there is no need for any further regulation to provide prescribed benefits like health insurance and other benefits. RS is supposed to be geared toward ICs and not for drivers to become employees. Of course, Uber and Lyft will not be happy about the set rates as it will reduce the volume of the trips, but who cares? These companies just exploit ICs, so if they cannot do that , this will benefit everyone including the pax and the drivers.


----------



## radikia (Sep 15, 2018)

You asked for it and you got it CA ! 
Prop 22 
Enjoy !!!!!


----------



## PukersAreAlwaysYourFault (Mar 25, 2021)

Uber's Guber said:


> _“Both companies posted multibillion-dollar losses in 2020, as Uber and Lyft have yet to turn a profit and both apps have trouble retaining drivers.”——
> 
> View attachment 595977
> _


Exactly. They've implemented their new cuts with aim towards profiting.


----------



## PukersAreAlwaysYourFault (Mar 25, 2021)

radikia said:


> You asked for it and you got it CA !
> Prop 22
> Enjoy !!!!!


You think you're smart. Employees under their models would have to sign up for 4 or 8 hour blocks, if they were available, and be further restricted from working when they want, if they were employees. Lose lose sitch but you think you're funny if you believe the situation would be better otherwise.


----------



## radikia (Sep 15, 2018)

0.32/mile ? I know I'm smart ! You were all crowing when they were letting the drivers set prices . How you like me now driving for 1/2 base ?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> Why doesn't the state of California just mandate taxi rates to be paid to RS drivers? This would pretty well solve the financial issues of drivers being exploited and negate the need of the employers Lyft and Uber to provide other benefits. The destination information is nice, but I don't think taxi drivers even get that. So, I don't expect RS drivers to be get that either. If you are paid market rates for your service, there is no need for any further regulation to provide prescribed benefits like health insurance and other benefits. RS is supposed to be geared toward ICs and not for drivers to become employees. Of course, Uber and Lyft will not be happy about the set rates as it will reduce the volume of the trips, but who cares? These companies just exploit ICs, so if they cannot do that , this will benefit everyone including the pax and the drivers.


It would be financially disastrous for Uber and Lyft to pay taxi rates to the drivers. 

Taxi rates for the drivers would cost Uber considerably more money than all of the perks they took away.

Now that they've done their evil deed, they've made mandated taxi rates (or at the very least dramatically higher pay rates) much more likely to occur.


----------



## PukersAreAlwaysYourFault (Mar 25, 2021)

radikia said:


> You were all crowing


You mean all of those who were crowing, which does not include me. Cherry pickers ruined the perks. All take and no give. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just telling you that being an IC for these rideshare partnerships, drivers are still better off than being employees. But it'll be really funny if they're forced by the feds to change their model, and we'll see if you're willing to drive for 1/4 of the base where you are. No human is going to get the last laugh here.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

PukersAreAlwaysYourFault said:


> You mean all of those who were crowing, which does not include me. Cherry pickers ruined the perks. All take and no give. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just telling you that being an IC for these rideshare partnerships, drivers are still better off than being employees. But it'll be really funny if they're forced by the feds to change their model, and we'll see if you're willing to drive for 1/4 of the base where you are. No human is going to get the last laugh here.


Oh I will be laughing at the "Make us employee's of Lyft and Uber" crowd if Uber and Lyft are forced to make ants employee's! You thought the Chinese Virus and mask threads were voluminous... just wait until you see thread after thread after thread complaining about the following...

Uber didn't hire me as an employee!
Lyft didn't hire me as an employee!
Uber won't let me drive for Lyft at the same time!
Lyft won't let me drive for Uber at the same time!
I used to work 80 hours a week now I only get to work 6 hours!
What's with all these deductions? I make less than minimum wage now!
My weekly 6 hour work shift is 60 miles from my home!
Every pickup dispatch I get is at Wal*Mart!
I was fired because I didn't pick up every passenger!
I was fired because I didn't work my 2AM scheduled shift!

I almost want to see this happen...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Uber didn't hire me as an employee!
> Lyft didn't ire me as an employee!


THOSE, right there. What most here 'forget' about. Right up until the moment they ain't hired and boy will the whining begin. 'I really didn't mean we needed to be real employees' <snicker>


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> THOSE, right there. What most here 'forget' about. Right up until the moment they ain't hired and boy will the whining begin. 'I really didn't mean we needed to be real employees' <snicker>


Why wouldn't they get hired?


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Why wouldn't they get hired?


You honestly believe Uber and Lyft will hire all the ants they have right now as employee's?

With all the blind hatred you have for Uber and Lyft what makes you think that all of a sudden these two scumbag companies will do something nice and hire all the ants they know who sit around for hours waiting for a ride?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

D


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> You honestly believe Uber and Lyft will hire all the ants they have right now as employee's?
> 
> With all the blind hatred you have for Uber and Lyft what makes you think that all of a sudden these two scumbag companies will do something nice and hire all the ants they know who sit around for hours waiting for a ride?


According to the all the anti-employee folks, the majority of drivers don't want to be employees.

This would mean LOTS of job openings as a result of zillions of drivers quitting.

On top of that at least three RS companies have said they will expand to CA if employee status becomes law in CA, which means even MORE job openings.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> According to the all the anti-employee folks, the majority of drivers don't want to be employees.
> 
> This would mean LOTS of job openings as a result of zillions of drivers quitting.
> 
> On top of that at least three RS companies have said they will expand to CA if employee status becomes law in CA, which means even MORE job openings.


Seeing as how you are now the Team Cheerleader for Uber and Lyft when it comes to excellent hiring practices I'll meet you half way and factor that half of the current drivers for Uber and Lyft will not even bother to apply to be an employee. That means going by your new found love for everything good Uber and Lyft the other half will be hired?

Gee, I didn't realize how great Uber and Lyft was but if they have you on their side I guess they must be great after all.

Tell me Mr. Uber Cheerleader, how many of those hired by Uber and Lyft will be full-time employee's? Let me guess, all of them right? Everyone gets hired as a full-time employee's! WOO-HOO!

I can't seem to find Delusional, California in Google Maps so I guess I'm out!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Why wouldn't they get hired?


we have danced on this before, so soon you forget.

IN Calif both Uber and Lyft said they might hire around 20% of the current active drivers. they both stated that publicly. I feel the percent would have been higher, maybe 50% or so. It was the LEADING reason Prop 22 won in a landslide. 

Not one single person here could justify AB5 with the fact that a clear minority of active drivers would be hired. Not one. You going to 'try'? 

Go ahead, playing is free.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> On top of that at least three RS companies have said they will expand to CA if employee status becomes law in CA,


ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The RS gigs companies waiting in the wings, aye? That's funny. Also is a myth and logistically not probable. Maybe Trypt?

And they would have no drivers. They would have no customers. They would have no investor backing. Which adds to the humorous part. 

final hurtle 7 out of 10 drivers don't want to be employees. That stat held true for the entire time of Prop 22 build up. 

I'm thinking you are not quite sure what being an employee entails. 🤷‍♂️ There are a lotta posts for you to review on this. Talking about beating a dead horse......


----------



## Flier5425 (Jun 2, 2016)

PukersAreAlwaysYourFault said:


> You mean all of those who were crowing, which does not include me. Cherry pickers ruined the perks. All take and no give. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just telling you that being an IC for these rideshare partnerships, drivers are still better off than being employees. But it'll be really funny if they're forced by the feds to change their model, and we'll see if you're willing to drive for 1/4 of the base where you are. No human is going to get the last laugh here.


It was not the Cherry pickers that ruined this. It was all of the 1X surge drivers that would hang around the drivers that had high surge waiting to poach a ride. Since the minimum Fair rides for them were unprofitable they ignored them. That caused the driver's waiting around with high surge to wait longer before being offered the ride. At that point customers found alternate means to get around. If the drivers that were trying to poach rides with just increase their surge multiplier to a point where even a minimum fair ride was profitable those rides would have been taking much sooner and customers would have been happy to pay it.


----------



## SpinalCabbage (Feb 5, 2020)

SHalester said:


> ahahahahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> The RS gigs companies waiting in the wings, aye? That's funny. Also is a myth and logistically not probable. Maybe Trypt?
> 
> ...


Hurdle.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

radikia said:


> 0.32/mile ? I know I'm smart ! You were all crowing when they were letting the drivers set prices . How you like me now driving for 1/2 base ?


Experiment, learn and adapt.

Profitable contractors gonna figure it out.

Unprofitable contractors gonna clamor for protection from market forces.

It's a trope, I know, but if it don't work for you, delete the app.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

PukersAreAlwaysYourFault said:


> You mean all of those who were crowing, which does not include me. Cherry pickers ruined the perks. All take and no give. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just telling you that being an IC for these rideshare partnerships, drivers are still better off than being employees. But it'll be really funny if they're forced by the feds to change their model, and we'll see if you're willing to drive for 1/4 of the base where you are. No human is going to get the last laugh here.


Cherry pickers make profits.

That is the goal of contractors.

Prop. 22 added a hundred to two fifty a week extra to my gross earnings.

Experiment, learn and adapt or just throw in the towel.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

radikia said:


> You asked for it and you got it CA !
> Prop 22
> Enjoy !!!!!


Thank the heavens and California voters for passing prop. 22.

Part-time minimum wage status under AB5 would have been horrendous.

Are you a profitable contractor or are you one of those clamoring for government protection because you haven't figured it out?


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> Why doesn't the state of California just mandate taxi rates to be paid to RS drivers? This would pretty well solve the financial issues of drivers being exploited and negate the need of the employers Lyft and Uber to provide other benefits. The destination information is nice, but I don't think taxi drivers even get that. So, I don't expect RS drivers to be get that either. If you are paid market rates for your service, there is no need for any further regulation to provide prescribed benefits like health insurance and other benefits. RS is supposed to be geared toward ICs and not for drivers to become employees. Of course, Uber and Lyft will not be happy about the set rates as it will reduce the volume of the trips, but who cares? These companies just exploit ICs, so if they cannot do that , this will benefit everyone including the pax and the drivers.


I don't know that the state could force Uber to charge taxi rates since they claim they aren't a cab company. Ubers stock would tank because Uber wouldn't be able to charge the drivers much money except maybe a daily gate or technology fee that would compensate Uber for ride matching. If they did that the cabs could use the app too. But the public would hate it and Uber would fight against it until the bitter end.


----------



## radikia (Sep 15, 2018)

Judge and Jury said:


> Prop. 22 added a hundred to two fifty a week extra to my gross earnings.


What's it adding now ?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> final hurtle 7 out of 10 drivers don't want to be employees. That stat held true for the entire time of Prop 22 build up.


Just as before you're contradicting yourself...

You, Uber, and the rest of the Prop 22 boosters have been telling everyone over and over and over again that drivers don't want to be employees, they yearn to be FREE, free from the shackles of being an employee driver.

And now, despite ALL of the endless propaganda about drivers NOT wanting to be shackled as employees, here you are going on and on about all of the poor drivers who
won't be able to get hired by Uber as employees.

What happened to those drivers' love of freedom? You claimed they didn't want to be employees. If that's the case they should have zero interest in being hired by Uber as employees.

Another problem with the arguments of you and others is your truly dystopian portrayal of what it would be like to be an employee driver. There's no way that those freedom-loving drivers you referred to would ever want THAT job, that's for sure.

Yet you keep painting these sad portraits of hordes of these supposed freedom-loving drivers trying in vain to get hired for these dystopian jobs and having the doors closed on their faces.

The reality of course is that if these jobs are half as bad as you, Fusion, and others try to portray, Uber will be the ones who are desperate, having to deal with turnover rates exponentially higher than they are now.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

REX HAVOC said:


> I don't know that the state could force Uber to charge taxi rates since they claim they aren't a cab company. Ubers stock would tank because Uber wouldn't be able to charge the drivers much money except maybe a daily gate or technology fee that would compensate Uber for ride matching. If they did that the cabs could use the app too. But the public would hate it and Uber would fight against it until the bitter end.


The CA govt has the authority to set pay rates if they so choose. NYC has done it and so has Seattle. In fact, Seattle wants to raise them again.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> I'm thinking you are not quite sure what being an employee entails.


Hey Buddy, are you kidding me? I've been a W2 since I was 16 years old washing dishes.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

PukersAreAlwaysYourFault said:


> You mean all of those who were crowing, which does not include me. Cherry pickers ruined the perks. All take and no give. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just telling you that being an IC for these rideshare partnerships, drivers are still better off than being employees. But it'll be really funny if they're forced by the feds to change their model, and we'll see if you're willing to drive for 1/4 of the base where you are. No human is going to get the last laugh here.


Put down the Uber Kool-Aid. Wow. Did Dara tell you to say that?

Cherry pickers "ruined" the perks? Says who? Uber? If Uber said so it must be true because Uber would never lie.

"All take and no give"? Elaborate what you mean.

You've got things totally backwards Mr.Puker.

For 8 years, there have been TWO groups of cherrypickers, Uber and the pax.

The party you attacked for cherrypicking, the drivers, have spent more than 8 years being required to blindly accept whatever slop Uber threw their way, and in the process of doing so lost more than $15 BILLION in earnings due to not being able see the destinations in advance.

After all those years of having to blindly accept trips at artificially low pay rates, the drivers of just one state, CA, finally were allowed to see destinations and could also set multipliers.

For the very first time, the DRIVERS were finally allowed to get a seat at the cherrypicking table that Uber and the pax have been sitting at for years and finally get their share of the loot. And for that you blame them for "ruining" things.

It would be bad enough if you're saying these things because you're a shill.

It's even worse and truly pathetic if you're not a shill and you actually believe what you posted.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

This person can not get a ride because we can not make an informed decision this was like the 5th ping in 30 minutes from that location.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Good, it's what you get for trusting Uber.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

radikia said:


> What's it adding now ?


Same.


----------



## radikia (Sep 15, 2018)

Judge and Jury said:


> Same.


Not !


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Hey Buddy, are you kidding me? I


sorry, I no longer track member's back stories since they tend to change here.

So, then you have an idea of what being an employee is, right? but it seems you are in the 'we can be employees and keep every single freedom we have' club. Both can't be true, since you know what is like to be an employee. 

Recent stats released show Prop 22, right now, has > 80% positive view. Just dropping that here.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> here you are going on and on about all of the poor drivers who
> won't be able to get hired by Uber as employees.


....you don't recall very well, do you? It's ok, nobody expects YOU to read all the posts here. However, if you are going to try and state an opinion on past posts, you should do a much much better job at getting it right. Epic fail here.

From day one of the AB5 discussions here (long before the vote) I posted the single biggest negative was Uber and Lyft said they wouldn't hire every single active driver. With that FACT not one single member here could really justify AB5. A few said 'so what' and even stuck with that silly statement when asked if THEY weren't hired would their opinion change.

No, try again; it's free. But do get it right this time. Very disappointing.


----------



## Flier5425 (Jun 2, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Put down the Uber Kool-Aid. Wow. Did Dara tell you to say that?
> 
> Cherry pickers "ruined" the perks? Says who? Uber? If Uber said so it must be true because Uber would never lie.
> 
> ...


I have to agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments! The Cherry pickers were not the problem with destination and drivers having the ability to set their own multiplier. It was the poachers that set their multiplier somewhere between 0.5 and 1.8 x then weighted around near another driver that was set at two and a half up to five times multiplier. As offers would come in the poachers would ignore the unprofitable rides and poach the long distance profitable offers that were above there 1.8 x but often times below the 2.5 x to five x surge another nearby driver might have. The drivers with high multiplier search set would take all rides because all rides were profitable. If the poachers wanted profitable rides they should have set their multiplier to a point where even a minimum fair ride was profitable for them. That would have eliminated many of these so-called missed opportunities by multiple drivers. Just so we are clear, it was the drivers with low or no surge that ignored unprofitable offers causing the problem with pax finding a ride especially when it was a short or minimum fare ride.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Cherry pickers "ruined" the perks? Says who? Uber?


was that sarcasm? Uber did say that exactly. Customers were leaving the platform, or not booking with Uber due to 'set your own surge'. Was right in the announcement. Unless we are splitting hair and 'set your own surge' isn't called a 'perk'. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Flier5425 said:


> customers would have been happy to pay it.


yeah, no. Customers weren't just complaining they were booking less or leaving the platform all together. Uber doesn't like that, so BAM option pulled back. Just like 'drive pass' was yanked when Uber found drivers actually buying them and making more $$$ at Uber's expense.


----------



## Flier5425 (Jun 2, 2016)

SHalester said:


> yeah, no. Customers weren't just complaining they were booking less or leaving the platform all together. Uber doesn't like that, so BAM option pulled back. Just like 'drive pass' was yanked when Uber found drivers actually buying them and making more $$$ at Uber's expense.


This must be some special area that you're talking about where customers were booking less and leaving the platform. My busiest has been the previous eight months, that is prior to the multiplier surge being taken away. Not only was it my busiest but I was taking many repeat customers over and over and over again within those 8 months. I have driven more miles, more hours, and all profitable rides. In that time frame I had a total of five customers upset with pricing. With that my rating is still 4.99. I accepted 98% of the rides that were offered to me and declined less than 1%. My customers were not leaving in droves.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Flier5425 said:


> This must be some special area that you're talking about where customers were booking less and leaving the platform.


yeah, the Uber database that spits out all these facts to the 'suits'. But yes drivers were making great bank with it; however customers were doing more than just complaining to Uber, they were using their 'feet' and walking away. So, blame Uber or stats, take your pick.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> ....you don't recall very well, do you? It's ok, nobody expects YOU to read all the posts here. However, if you are going to try and state an opinion on past posts, you should do a much much better job at getting it right. Epic fail here.


A paragraph of pure babble. I stated you opinion accurately.



SHalester said:


> From day one of the AB5 discussions here (long before the vote) I posted the single biggest negative was Uber and Lyft said they wouldn't hire every single active driver. With that FACT not one single member here could really justify AB5. A few said 'so what' and even stuck with that silly statement when asked if THEY weren't hired would their opinion change.


Again, you're contradicting yourself.

I'm gonna have to repeat myself from my previous post because as usual, when you don't want to address points I make, you bypass them...

According to Uber, you, and the rest of the Prop 22 folks, the vast majority of drivers don't want to be employees, which means that whether or not Uber offers them an employee job wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't be interested in those jobs.

So the only downside would be losing their "IC" jobs. Not being hired by Uber as an employee would NOT be a downside.

At least try to be slightly honest here. Halester , Fusion, and the rest of the brand new driver "advocates" are 1000% about looking out for your own best interests, period. If you thought employee status was in your best interests you'd be 1000% in favor of it, REGARDLESS of whether or not a billion drivers lost their jobs. So cut the bull about the poor drivers being hurt by AB5, because you don't give a fig. 

Lots of derisive comments about "culling the hurd" of drivers have been made by these very same folks who are now going on and on about how bad it would be for drivers to be laid off and not able to get hired as employees.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> yeah, the Uber database that spits out all these facts to the 'suits'. But yes drivers were making great bank with it; however customers were doing more than just complaining to Uber, they were using their 'feet' and walking away. So, blame Uber or stats, take your pick.


The funny thing about Uber's "facts" is how they strategically use them.

An example of that is the other 49 states of the USA in which Uber and Lyft have been charging astronomical surges and putting the money in THEIR pockets while paying the drivers base rates. 

I've yet to see any "data" from Uber and Lyft about pax "walking away" in the other 49 states where pax are paying very high prices, often times HIGHER than what the CA drivers were charging.

No sir. If we're to believe Uber, pax are willing to pay skyhigh prices when all the loot is going to Uber, but they are not willing to pay extra when the drivers are getting their share.

I apologize for being a skeptic, but I ain't buying it.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> Why doesn't the state of California just mandate taxi rates to be paid to RS drivers? This would pretty well solve the financial issues of drivers being exploited and negate the need of the employers Lyft and Uber to provide other benefits. The destination information is nice, but I don't think taxi drivers even get that. So, I don't expect RS drivers to be get that either. If you are paid market rates for your service, there is no need for any further regulation to provide prescribed benefits like health insurance and other benefits. RS is supposed to be geared toward ICs and not for drivers to become employees. Of course, Uber and Lyft will not be happy about the set rates as it will reduce the volume of the trips, but who cares? These companies just exploit ICs, so if they cannot do that , this will benefit everyone including the pax and the drivers.


They already can't make money when they don't pay for the cars. Bet that when they don't pay for the drivers they still won't make money.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> was that sarcasm? Uber did say that exactly. Customers were leaving the platform, or not booking with Uber due to 'set your own surge'. Was right in the announcement. Unless we are splitting hair and 'set your own surge' isn't called a 'perk'. 🤷‍♂️


As I stated in another post, I've yet to see Uber talk about the pax in the other 49 states "walking away" in response to the astronomical prices that UBER themselves are charging, in many cases HIGHER than the prices CA drivers were charging.

If we're to believe Uber, THEY can jack up their prices skyhigh and pax are cool with it, but if the DRIVERS charge extra, pax revolt.

I'm not buying it.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Oh I will be laughing at the "Make us employee's of Lyft and Uber" crowd if Uber and Lyft are forced to make ants employee's! You thought the Chinese Virus and mask threads were voluminous... just wait until you see thread after thread after thread complaining about the following...
> 
> Uber didn't hire me as an employee!
> Lyft didn't hire me as an employee!
> ...


I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see it happen. The flames would be visible from space. There would be congressional hearings. Executives would go to jail.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Just as before you're contradicting yourself...
> 
> You, Uber, and the rest of the Prop 22 boosters have been telling everyone over and over and over again that drivers don't want to be employees, they yearn to be FREE, free from the shackles of being an employee driver.
> 
> ...


Both situations are true, UBER will hire none of the drivers and simultaneously force all of them to work Compton from 2 am to 6 am every night.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> At least try to be slightly honest here. Halester , Fusion, and the rest of the brand new driver "advocates" are 1000% about looking out for your own best interests, period. If you thought employee status was in your best interests you'd be 1000% in favor of it, REGARDLESS of whether or not a billion drivers lost their jobs. So cut the bull about the poor drivers being hurt by AB5, because you don't give a fig.


I've been consistent about Prop-22 since it first came out. Prop-22 was and still is the lessor of two evils. And your hypocrisy about "caring" for others is 2nd to none. If you were not so hard-up to be an employee of two of the worst companies out there you yourself would be against AB5. See how that works? You advocate for what YOU want then have a hissy fit and scream shill to those who don't agree with you.

You hate Uber and Lyft yet dream of being an employee of the two as if being an employee will solve all your complaints. Your claims that everyone will be hired as an employee and everyone will be able to drive the hours they want are delusional and you do so with hopes that maybe others will agree with you because that helps you with your cause. I don't recall you saying everyone will still be able to drive who they want, where they want and do so on multiple platforms but even if you have not said so yourself the rest your "make me an employee" crew claim that will happen as well and I know you haven't corrected them on that.

Be careful what you wish for. But then again who cares, right? The second you find out being an employee was a huge mistake you will be one of the first creating thread after thread about how bad it is being an employee. And then anyone who reminds you have they said all along being an employee will suck you will just call them a shill.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Mole said:


> This person can not get a ride because we can not make an informed decision this was like the 5th ping in 30 minutes from that location.
> 
> View attachment 596559


There is also now no "negotiation"


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Fusion_LUser said:


> I've been consistent about Prop-22 since it first came out. Prop-22 was and still is the lessor of two evils. And your hypocrisy about "caring" for others is 2nd to none. If you were not so hard-up to be an employee of two of the worst companies out there you yourself would be against AB5. See how that works? You advocate for what YOU want then you a hissy fit and scream shill with those who don't agree with you.
> 
> You hate Uber and Lyft yet dream of being an employee of the two as if being an employee will solve all your complaints. Your claims that everyone will be hired as an employee and everyone will be able to drive the hours they want are delusional and you do so with hopes that maybe others will agree with you because that helps you with your cause. I don't recall you saying everyone will still be able to drive who they want, where they want and do so on multiple platforms but even if you have not said so yourself the rest your "make me an employee" crew claim that will happen as well and I know you haven't corrected them on that.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. But then again who cares, right? The second you find out being an employee was a huge mistake you will be one of the first creating thread after thread about how bad it is being an employee and then just call anyone who points out how being an employee will suck a shill.


What you have been 100% consistent on is that you don't understand what an independent contractor is or why the government would allow a company to use one.

Any form of "do this or else" makes you an employee, meaning the company hiring you has to pay taxes and fees for hiring you.

A company offering a job with a completion state and time without ordering you how to do it otherwise is hiring an independent contractor, no taxes or fees required.

Do this job or else we won't tell you how much you are being paid is an employee.

We're taking your money away because the customer wants a free ride is an employee.

You did something naughty but we won't tell you what, when, where, or who with is an employee. And if you do it again we'll fire you is definitely an employee.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

somedriverguy said:


> What you have been 100% consistent on is that you don't understand what an independent contractor is or why the government would allow a company to use one.


And you are wrong about that as well. I am fully aware of what a independent contractor is and I fully agree that even now with Prop-22 we are not true independent contractors. There is no alternative to Prop-22. Had Prop-22 failed Uber and Lyft would have followed up on their bluff and left CA or they would have caved in and made some part-time employee's.

And I don't really disagree with anything else you said. Up until Uber took away the fare multiplier and lets just all agree they took away the destination mode that was more than enough for most drivers to make a good go at rideshare. I know with that I did very well in 2020 even when you consider I didn't drive at all between March and June and again in December.

Prop-22 continues to be the lessor of two evils for those who want to work when they want, where they want and drive who they want. There is no disputing that. The alternative is you are nothing because Uber/Lyft left the state or you are a part-time employee of Uber OR Lyft, not both, making minimum wage before deductions.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> I've been consistent about Prop-22 since it first came out. Prop-22 was and still is the lessor of two evils. And your hypocrisy about "caring" for others is 2nd to none. If you were not so hard-up to be an employee of two of the worst companies out there you yourself would be against AB5. See how that works? You advocate for what YOU want then you a hissy fit and scream shill with those who don't agree with you.
> 
> You hate Uber and Lyft yet dream of being an employee of the two as if being an employee will solve all your complaints. Your claims that everyone will be hired as an employee and everyone will be able to drive the hours they want are delusional and you do so with hopes that maybe others will agree with you because that helps you with your cause. I don't recall you saying everyone will still be able to drive who they want, where they want and do so on multiple platforms but even if you have not said so yourself the rest your "make me an employee" crew claim that will happen as well and I know you haven't corrected them on that.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. But then again who cares, right? The second you find out being an employee was a huge mistake you will be one of the first creating thread after thread about how bad it is being an employee and then just call anyone who points out how being an employee will suck a shill.


You're wrong on multiple accounts.

First of all, with all of the control Uber has over the way I do my job, I'm already an employee for all intents and purposes. In some ways I had more control over my job when I delivered pizza as a W2. My managers trusted my judgement and allowed me to pick any additional orders that went with the oldest order (when the shop was busy enough to take more than one). I decided which order would be delivered first, second, third, etc. As "my own boss" driving for Uber Eats, I'm not allowed to do any of those things. And unlike Eats, dispatch was transparent at the pizza shops.

For someone who claims to read my posts, you get lots of my views wrong.

I've stated on many occasions that I want MORE freedom not less. This means I want to keep my current status but with much more control over my job. This means I want ALL of the CA perks and more.

I've also stated on multiple occasions that I don't want to be a W2 Uber driver.

But what I personally prefer doesn't prevent me from viewing the AB5 vs Prop 22 fight objectively.

Despite what many posters claim, there would be important POSITIVES in CA if drivers were W2. Of course there would be negatives as well, but not nearly as terrible as you and others have said. Some of you have painted a portrait of W2 drivers in virtual slavery. And EVERY ride is going to the "ghetto".

Despite my opposition to being a W2 driver, if I lived in CA and W2 became the law, I'd give it try and see how it worked out. Maybe I'd be pleasantly surprised or maybe it wouldn't work out and I'd quit.

Without a template to use as an example, no one can really have a true idea of how it would work out for most drivers.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> I've stated on many occasions that I want MORE freedom not less. This means I want to keep my current status but with much more control over my job. This means I want ALL of the CA perks and more.
> 
> Despite what many posters claim, there would be important POSITIVES in CA if drivers were W2. Of course there would be negatives as well, but not nearly as terrible as you and others have said. Some of you have painted a portrait of W2 drivers in virtual slavery. And EVERY ride is going to the "ghetto".


You can't have a W2 job AND freedom with a horrible company such as Uber or Lyft. I'm not sure where this fascination with W2's started but I guess I'll go along with it. I have a regular "W2" job that pays well and as middle management I get a lot of freedom to do my job the way I want. I work for a good company though, not a scumbag company like Uber or Lyft and that makes all the difference in the world.

Being an employee of a good company is a great. Being an employee of a scumbag company is not!

UP is a place for a fraction of the drivers out there come to vent but for most in the real world ridesharing is workable if you have the skills to make it work for you. Like any business/job/gig some succeed, some fail. Why should ridesharing be any different or immune to success and failure? 

There is nothing positive about being a "W2" employee of Uber or Lyft and I just can't fathom why anyone would want to be an employee. It doesn't matter if you are basically one now even though you are supposedly a independent contractor. What we have right now sucks and there really is no solution because the only solutions we keep hearing from people like you and the government is "make us all employee's" and everything will be OK.

As I said above, be careful what you wish for. The idea that the only way to get more freedoms with Uber and Lyft is to become an employee will be a real shocker if that idea comes true.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> I've yet to see Uber talk about the pax in the other 49 states "walking away"


you're right; Uber spoke of a single state, Calif. AND a single option: set your own surge.

Oh, but Calif IS their biggest market. Imagine if 'set your own surge' was a national option. The response would have been much worse. Even Uber can correct shooting itself in the foot.....sometimes.


----------



## PukersAreAlwaysYourFault (Mar 25, 2021)

Nats121 said:


> For the very first time, the DRIVERS were finally allowed to get a seat at the cherrypicking table


And they took what they wanted instead of playing a balancing act. Merry Christmas.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> I'm not sure where this fascination with W2's started but I guess I'll go along with it. I have a regular "W2" job that pays well and as middle management I get a lot of freedom to do my job the way I want. I work for a good company though, not a scumbag company like Uber or Lyft and that makes all the difference in the world.
> 
> Being an employee of a good company is a great. Being an employee of a scumbag company is not!
> 
> ...


W2 is shorthand for employee.


Fusion_LUser said:


> You can't have a W2 job AND freedom with a horrible company such as Uber or Lyft.


You can if Uber and Lyft's survival necessitates it. It's entirely possible that even W2 drivers would have demanded some degree of flexibility and freedom and Uber would have been forced to compromise or face a driver shortage that could endanger their very existence. No one knows for sure because employee status didn't happen.

I believe there's a few W2 rideshare companies out there and I'm curious to know how much freedom and flexibility they give the drivers. I'd like to know what kind of punishment if any drivers get for refusing rides. Are they fired? Suspended? Sent to bed without supper? 

There's certainly positives for being a W2 driver. Workers comp is a big one. Look at all the drivers who have been assaulted or in accidents. In most cases they're on their own.
As W2 they'd collect comp. And Uber would be required to pay their medical bills. There's also minimum wage, vehicle reimbursement, unemployment insurance, and FICA.

There's negatives too, but it's rediculous to say there's no positives.

The terrible pay rates these companies pay means that very few are able to succeed at it. There's lots of drivers working 80 hour work weeks who qualify for public assistance. I've talked to many of them over the years and they're not clueless ants, they know what they're doing but the pay is just too low.

The govt is gonna have to step in like Seattle did and mandate they pay the drivers better. A couple of years ago Seattle ordered Uber and Lyft to pay the drivers $1.17 per mile. Seattle is in the process of mandating another pay increase to $2.00 per mile.

I never said employee status was the path to freedom because obviously it isn't.

I've posted several times what I want and I'll post it again. I want MORE freedom, which means I want a lot MORE control over my job than I have now. I want ALL of the previous California perks to be implemented nationwide as a start. 

More improvements beyond the California perks are needed, and most importantly all of
the perks must be IRREVOCABLE. These companies should never again be allowed to take away or alter improvements made for the drivers.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> W2 is shorthand for employee.
> 
> You can if Uber and Lyft's survival necessitates it. It's entirely possible that even W2 drivers would have demanded some degree of flexibility and freedom and Uber would have been forced to compromise or face a driver shortage that could endanger their very existence. No one knows for sure because employee status didn't happen.
> 
> ...


The "set your own rate" should be nation wide because that is the definition of Independent Contractor. The trip info should be nation wide because that is the definition of independent contractor. The only thing missing was "set your own minimum". I would have set my rates much lower but I just wasnt going to go pick up scum for $5. My rate was set as high as it was to weed out the garbage riders who couldn't be trusted to meet my minimum. Competition amongst drivers would keep the rates reasonable.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

somedriverguy said:


> The "set your own rate" should be nation wide because that is the definition of Independent Contractor. The trip info should be nation wide because that is the definition of independent contractor. The only thing missing was "set your own minimum". I would have set my rates much lower but I just wasnt going to go pick up scum for $5. My rate was set as high as it was to weed out the garbage riders who couldn't be trusted to meet my minimum. Competition amongst drivers would keep the rates reasonable.


In my previous post I said ALL of the California perks should be adopted nationwide as a start and that more improvements beyond those are needed. One of those improvements is storing full pickup and destination info in the app after accepting the ping in case the driver needs to refer back to it.

It truly sucks when somehow an Eats order gets accepted "accidentally" by my app and I have no idea where it's going. Tech support says they're not allowed to tell me the destination. That shows you that Uber truly hates showing destinations and tries to sleaze their way out of showing it if they can.

That BS needs to end, and the way to end it is that ALL rideshare and delivery companies should be required to display complete pickup and destination info in text and map forms during ping for at least 30 seconds, and after accepting the ping both addresses should be stored in the app in case the driver needs to refer back to it.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> There's certainly positives for being a W2 driver. Workers comp is a big one. Look at all the drivers who have been assaulted or in accidents. In most cases they're on their own.
> As W2 they'd collect comp. And Uber would be required to pay their medical bills. There's also minimum wage, vehicle reimbursement, unemployment insurance, and FICA.


You are right about that. As someone who has never had to use workers comp you do have a point about those who do need it and get screwed by Uber/Lyft. The negatives still outweigh the positives by far but I will no longer say there are no positives at all with being an employee of Uber/Lyft.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> The negatives still outweigh the positives by far


amen.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> You are right about that. As someone who has never had to use workers comp you do have a point about those who do need it and get screwed by Uber/Lyft. The negatives still outweigh the positives by far but I will no longer say there are no positives at all with being an employee of Uber/Lyft.


Whether one or the other is better depends on several factors or combinations of factors...

Uber's pay rates in his market, his state's minimum wage, full or part time, whether or not he has health insurance, whether or not rideshare is his primary source of income, etc, etc.

There's no one-size-fits-all.


----------

