# Uber's Prop 22 Earnings Guarantee Explained By A Driver



## The Gift of Fish

I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:

(TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)

_What is the earnings guarantee?_

The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:

Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40

Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:

Base fare : $1.60
Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16

Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.

_Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_

No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.

_Why is this guarantee good?_

In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.

_Why is this guarantee bad?_

First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.

Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.

Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.

Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.

Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.

_Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_

Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


----------



## 1.5xorbust

Attorneys and Uber math hard at work.


----------



## TRugen

1.5xorbust said:


> Attorneys and Uber math hard at work.


Uber paying lawyers a hefty fee to screw drivers over, to save them $$$$$$$ in the long run.

Priceless.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Yes.


1.5xorbust said:


> Attorneys and Uber math hard at work.


The guarantee is designed to confuse anyone who sees it. It may seem to offer something, but it is _extremely_ cynical. Hopefully people will be able to see it for what it is.


----------



## Daisey77

TRugen said:


> Uber paying lawyers a hefty fee to screw drivers over, to save them $$$$$$$ in the long run.
> 
> Priceless.


And still not turning profit. Maybe they should look at their own spending practices instead of continuing to cut our pay


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Daisey77 said:


> And still not turning profit. Maybe they should look at their own spending practices instead of continuing to cut our pay


Yes, forgetting about flying robot cars and 100s of millions spent on trophy offices would go some way towards that.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


&#128064;

Trying to understand Uber math...


----------



## The Gift of Fish

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> &#128064;
> 
> Trying to understand Uber math...
> 
> View attachment 505365


Real math: 2 + 2 = 4
Uber math: 2 + 2 = 3000


----------



## NicFit

It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever

If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?

This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


----------



## TRugen

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


----------



## NicFit

TRugen said:


> Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


No but if this doesn't pass then I will be making considerably less, I don't want to be a wage slave again


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever


As above, the guarantee applies only to miles and time while on a trip. Miles driven while empty are not paid and, as demonstrated above, it certainly would be possible for earnings after expenses to be below minimum wage with this guarantee. It would also be possible for Uber to further lower pay rates (although to a lesser degree than previous pay drops) before they would have to pay out under the guarantee.


> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?


The purpose of this thread is only to explain and discuss Uber's guarantee offer. I won't argue the IC / employee debate here; that has already been done in many other threads.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> As above, the guarantee applies only to miles and time while on a trip. Miles driven while empty are not paid and, as demonstrated above, it certainly would be possible for earnings after expenses to be below minimum wage with this guarantee.
> The purpose of this thread is only to explain and discuss Uber's guarantee offer. I won't argue the IC / employee debate here; that has already been done in many other threads.


If your empty then why are you driving? I don't drive around empty and don't take long distant trips, that's how you lose money. Why should you be paid when your car is empty without a call, that makes no sense. You choose to drive around empty, then that's your fault for losing money


----------



## Daisey77

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, forgetting about flying robot cars and 100s of millions spent on trophy offices would go some way towards that.


Well I'm quite sure the 90 million dollars they used to fight the law in California as well as the 680 million dollars they put in politicians hands would help close the gap on their financial deficit


NicFit said:


> If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next.


Here in Colorado they have to pay you even if its waiting time or standby time.


NicFit said:


> Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more.


 minimum wage plus any expense reimbursement


NicFit said:


> . Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee


 we already are not their partners. they already made us sign an agreement saying we were not there partners



The Gift of Fish said:


> it certainly would be possible for earnings after expenses to be below minimum wage with this guarantee


This is absolutely illegal on a federal level. No Matter What expenses cannot lower an employee's pay to less than minimum wage


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> Well I'm quite sure the 90 million dollars they used to fight the law in California as well as the 680 million dollars they put in politicians hands would help close the gap on their financial deficit
> 
> Here in Colorado they have to pay you even if its waiting time or standby time.
> minimum wage plus any expense reimbursement
> we already are not their partners. they already made us sign an agreement saying we were not there partners


Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> If your empty then why are you driving? I don't drive around empty and don't take long distant trips, that's how you lose money. Why should you be paid when your car is empty without a call, that makes no sense. You choose to drive around empty, then that's your fault for losing money


Don't get hung up on driving around empty. Remember, it's not only empty miles that are not paid - empty time spent waiting for the next ping is not paid either. Unfortunately in SF, there just isn't the volume of pings to be able to get a good ride without having to wait a considerable amount of time rejecting all the bad pings. Time which, under this guarantee, is not paid.

I am a cherry picker - I only take rides that I identify as money makers. No long distance pickups, no min fare shorties, no long trips at base fare to the middle of nowhere. Doing this in SF means deprioritisation by Uber, and spending the rest of the week receiving almost no pings. This guarantee offers me nothing in these circumstances and staying out waiting for the odd ping that Uber deems fit to give me would result in earnings way below minimum wage.

Additionally, some driving empty is, obviously, indeed necessary. Not all dropoffs will be in areas where there are rides to be had and relocation is required. Drivers dropping off downtown can't just pull over after the drop, put the flashers on and block the street while they wait for the next ping - they have to keep driving. Etc etc.

You ask, "Why should you be paid when your car is empty without a call?". Well, as employees the law says that we get paid when the car is empty. Uber's offer is to not be paid when the car is empty. Based on this single factor alone, I prefer to be paid when the car is empty over not being paid when the car is empty.


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


My net business profit on my 2019 taxes is equivalent to $2.98 an hour. Either way I think I'll be ahead. And that's with surges!


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Daisey77 said:


> This is absolutely illegal on a federal level. No Matter What expenses cannot lower an employee's pay to less than minimum wage


We're talking in the context of prop 22 passing and drivers continuing to drive as pseudo ICs with Uber's guarantee. Of course it is correct that employees must be paid at least minimum wage, plus expenses.


----------



## Daisey77

The Gift of Fish said:


> We're talking in the context of prop 22 passing and drivers continuing to drive as pseudo ICs with Uber's guarantee.











&#128517;&#128517;


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.

Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.

What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.
> 
> Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.
> 
> What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?


I'm sure everyone remembers the 180 days of change, with the now-you-see-them-now-you-don't benefits. Uber could repeal the guarantee after a year or so, citing "market conditions" or some other reason.


----------



## Daisey77

Remember the winter slumps email
😅😅😅 the kickoff to their now famous line - cutting your pay will allow you to earn more


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm sure everyone remembers the 180 days of change, with the now-you-see-them-now-you-don't benefits. Uber could repeal the guarantee after a year or so, citing "market conditions" or some other reason.


I thought the 180 days of change was very lackluster from the beginning &#129335;‍♂.

There was nothing done to improve Uber's relationship with drivers nor did it addresses drivers primary concerns.

Pay, healthcare, and deactivation due process.

For example:

Instead of deactivating drivers Uber could merely suspend accounts with increasing length with each infraction.

Opt in healthcare plan for full timers.

If not a real pay floor, the app could warn drivers of

"low demand and too many drivers in area, risk of falling below minimum wage. Please sign off or move to a more in demand area."


----------



## NicFit

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.
> 
> Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.
> 
> What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?


Because they know the law is right behind them, this will be the lowest Uber can go because if they try to go lower again the law will come back down on them


----------



## TRugen

NicFit said:


> Because they know the law is right behind them, this will be the lowest Uber can go because if they try to go lower again the law will come back down on them


Right, the same "law" that they purposely broke to get Uber up and running?

what was it that Travis said. Easier to ask for forgiveness > permission.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer

NicFit said:


> Because they know the law is right behind them, this will be the lowest Uber can go because if they try to go lower again the law will come back down on them


No it will reinforce their belief that enough lawyers and money will make the law bend to their will.

UK for example has shown Uber they mean business and if Uber wish to operate there that Uber will follow their laws and guidelines.

California folded at AB5 deadline, if they fold again with pro 22 Uber will know California will whine but is willing to take every inch.


----------



## Judge and Jury

TRugen said:


> Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


How can I get that deal? Do you know someone inside?



TRugen said:


> Right, the same "law" that they purposely broke to get Uber up and running?
> 
> what was it that Travis said. Easier to ask for forgiveness > permission.


That is my philosophy. What is your philosophy.


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Because they know the law is right behind them, this will be the lowest Uber can go because if they try to go lower again the law will come back down on them


 in regards to the drivers and their relationship with the drivers, the law will only come down on them if we have the law backing us up and that's the law dimming us as employees. As independent contractors we already see what happens. They can do whatever the hell they want to us with no repercussion . we have no recourse as independent contractors


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> in regards to the drivers and their relationship with the drivers, the law will only come down on them if we have the law backing us up and that's the law dimming us as employees. As independent contractors we already see what happens. They can do whatever the hell they want to us with no repercussion . we have no recourse as independent contractors


90% of current drivers won't have a job so it doesn't matter anyway, they won't be able to hire most drivers after they shut down for months. Who cares what they do when now I have zero income


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> 90% of current drivers won't have a job so it doesn't matter anyway, they won't be able to hire most drivers after they shut down for months. Who cares what they do when now I have zero income


 that's Uber and Lyft's fault. We should not even be here to begin with. Now we're pretty much stuck choosing between a joke of guaranteed pay or employee status. Prop 22 does absolutely nothing for. It gives us absolutely no protection or recourse. we are still regular independent contractors and we have clearly seen how they handle us as independent contractors.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> that's Uber and Lyft's fault. We should not even be here to begin with. Now we're pretty much stuck choosing between a joke of guaranteed pay or employee status. Prop 22 does absolutely nothing for. It gives us absolutely no protection or recourse. we are still regular independent contractors and we have clearly seen how they handle us as independent contractors.


Yes on Prop 22 and 90% of the drivers get to keep earning, I'm looking at the lesser of two evils and your right, either way is still no good. I prefer to make ok money then to only have a 10% chance of making money


----------



## Judge and Jury

Daisey77 said:


> that's Uber and Lyft's fault. We should not even be here to begin with. Now we're pretty much stuck choosing between a joke of guaranteed pay or employee status. Prop 22 does absolutely nothing for. It gives us absolutely no protection or recourse. we are still regular independent contractors and we have clearly seen how they handle us as independent contractors.


It's Uber and Lyft's fault?


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Yes on Prop 22 and 90% of the drivers get to keep earning, I'm looking at the lesser of two evils and your right, either way is still no good. I prefer to make ok money then to only have a 10% chance of making money


 and you are the reason why these companies continue doing what they do. They know you will continue driving no matter what so they will continue with their antics &#129318;‍♀ prop 22 is the lesser of the two evils? If we're fighting this hard and causing this much of a fuss , I'm sorry but I'll be damned if we stop now. We didn't go through all of this to take a pay cut and still remain independent contractors! &#128517;Balls to the wall now. Don't worry there's plenty of gig companies. I'm sure you'll find a spot in one of them&#129335;‍♀



Judge and Jury said:


> It's Uber and Lyft's fault?


 well yeah, if they'd been treating us like true independent contractors from the beginning we wouldn't be here. If they hadn't cut wages so ridiculously low we wouldn't be here&#129335;‍♀


----------



## Immoralized

The alternative is been at the beck and call of uber and just been 1 fake complaint away from been deactivated forever without any kind of due process. At least with been an employee you can get some assistant for wrongful termination and they just can't press a mouse button and get rid of you.

Uber already acts like an employer but with none of the benefits of been an employee. At least with been an employee you can have some annual leave, sick leave and all the entitlements that comes with been an employee instead of some disposal cheap driver working all year round barely covering living expenses and not knowing if they are going to have a job the next day.

True IC wouldn't have ratings, wouldn't be forced to agreed to one sided employment contracts with no say apart from yes or no and if you say no you can't work. The vast majority of drivers, especially full time drivers are already employees but getting zero employment benefits.


----------



## Workforfood

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


The problem is that the pay rate for trips is less than half what it used to be when it was still highly comoetetive with taxis.
We need to keep our eye on the ball. Doing this ubering we need to make a living wage after maintenance insueance and fuel cost. That means at keast $20.00 dollars per driving not carrying passengers per hour. Anything less is unsustainable. U/L have robbed us for too long because we had 0no negotiating power and they abused the drivers without any concern for our health and welfare. They are getting what they deserve withvAB5. 
THEY COULD AND CORPORATELY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD OCCUR. These companies are run by grifters who never looked long term. They have screwed the drivers, the public and their investors. 
We need to stop with the Uber math and get back to good accounting principals. The last company that strayed from this was Enron and we know where that went.

When I postedc$20.00 per hour I meant bet net net


----------



## SHalester

Still better than AB5 and that is what counts.


----------



## SFTraffic

This is an easy NO on prop 22. Not giving up my rights to app based companies.


----------



## CJfrom619

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes.
> 
> The guarantee is designed to confuse anyone who sees it. It may seem to offer something, but it is _extremely_ cynical. Hopefully people will be able to see it for what it is.


You mean Uber will make it sound like one thing when your really getting something entirely different?? Sounds like what they've been doing from the beginning. There a master at word play for those who don't seem to read the fine print.


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> If your empty then why are you driving? I don't drive around empty and don't take long distant trips, that's how you lose money. Why should you be paid when your car is empty without a call, that makes no sense. You choose to drive around empty, then that's your fault for losing money


&#129300;



NicFit said:


> If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place.


So, which is it?

You drive unpaid miles or you don't drive unpaid miles?


----------



## OldUncleDave

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


On the other hand...
Once I get my first ride of the night (admittedly, it might take up to 30 minutes), I'm going constantly. Before I drop off a pax, I have another pax waiting. It gets to where I WELCOME A slow night. I must turn off the app to take a break.

So, not a lot of down time for me.

In IE zone, San Bernardino, the numbers of Prop 22 is meaningless.


----------



## observer

Immoralized said:


> The alternative is been at the beck and call of uber and just been 1 fake complaint away from been deactivated forever without any kind of due process. At least with been an employee you can get some assistant for wrongful termination and they just can't press a mouse button and get rid of you.


As an employee you would most likely be approved for unemployment insurance.

Under Prop 22, you get ZILCH.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


you have been duped and manipulated by uber to believe there are only two different possibilities when in fact there are many.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

OldUncleDave said:


> On the other hand...
> Once I get my first ride of the night (admittedly, it might take up to 30 minutes), I'm going constantly. Before I drop off a pax, I have another pax waiting. It gets to where I WELCOME A slow night. I must turn off the app to take a break.
> 
> So, not a lot of down time for me.
> 
> In IE zone, San Bernardino, the numbers of Prop 22 is meaningless.


It's actually the same hand - if you are constantly busy then the Prop 22 guarantee would add nothing to your income.


----------



## SHalester

The Gift of Fish said:


> Prop 22 guarantee would add nothing to your income.


isn't Prop 22 'guarantee' a floor not a ceiling?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> isn't Prop 22 'guarantee' a floor not a ceiling?


Correct, a floor is exactly what an earnings guarantee is. And this floor offered by Uber is one that very, very few will ever step on. Offering a guarantee that is a step down from our current position is not an attractive offer.

What would interest me, and many others here is a floor that would be a step _up_ for us, guaranteeing us a level of income closer to the level of income we had three or even two pay cuts ago.


----------



## SHalester

The Gift of Fish said:


> Offering a guarantee that is a step down from our current position is not an attractive offer.


maybe I'm slow today due to the 107 and rising temp. If one makes 'above' the guarantee why would they even care about the 'floor'?

And really we are talking about Prop 22, if it fails we are left with AB5 and some mystery hourly rate. I'm going with AB5 would be far worse. Prop 22 is the medicine that tastes horrible, but does its job.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> maybe I'm slow today due to the 107 and rising temp. If one makes 'above' the guarantee why would they even care about the 'floor'?
> 
> And really we are talking about Prop 22, if it fails we are left with AB5 and some mystery hourly rate. I'm going with AB5 would be far worse. Prop 22 is the medicine that tastes horrible, but does its job.


Because making "above" the minimum isn't guaranteed.

Uber could just say, we are now paying .26 per mile on all trips for time. Drivers would have no choice but to accept or quit.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> maybe I'm slow today due to the 107 and rising temp. If one makes 'above' the guarantee why would they even care about the 'floor'?
> 
> And really we are talking about Prop 22, if it fails we are left with AB5 and some mystery hourly rate. I'm going with AB5 would be far worse. Prop 22 is the medicine that tastes horrible, but does its job.


Lol, maybe the heat is indeed too strong over there. The point I made is, as you repeat above, that drivers should indeed not care about this earnings guarantee offer from Uber. This is because very few competent drivers would ever need it. The point is that the offer is without value. It's a bad offer. It's bad in the way that an offer of a bag of steaming dog poo would be a bad offer. It is an uninteresting offer. There are very few cases in which it would be useful.

And, as @observer points out, Uber could, in future, lower rates so much that the guarantee came into play. This would make driving for Uber a total waste of time.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Because making "above" the minimum isn't guaranteed.


I get that, common sense. BUT if nobody is at or under the floor, who really cares? To me floor and guarantee is the 'minimum'. Why worry about 'what' wild speculation might happen later? Make above the guarantee and you have no worries.

I mean, really, is AB5 better? If we have a choice of an earthquake (AB5) or a mild rain storm (Prop 22) which option would be picked by a reasonable person (who lives in Calif)?

There is no 3rd choice in Calif. It is AB5 or Prop 22.


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> Lol, maybe the heat is indeed too strong over there. The point I made is, as you repeat above, that drivers should indeed not care about this earnings guarantee offer from Uber. This is because very few competent drivers would ever need it. The point is that the offer is without value. It's a bad offer. It's bad in the way that an offer of a bag of steaming dog poo would be a bad offer. It is an uninteresting offer. There are very few cases in which it would be useful.
> 
> And, as @observer points out, Uber could, in future, lower rates so much that the guarantee came into play. This would make driving for Uber a total waste of time.


What Uber is going to do is start sending less trips to those that average too much money per fare and favor lower cost drivers.

It's the natural thing to do for a company.

All those that claim to make 40,50 a hundred bux an hour are going to quickly find themselves without a job,

Without a voice,

Without a choice.



SHalester said:


> I get that, common sense. BUT if nobody is at or under the floor, who really cares? To me floor and guarantee is the 'minimum'. Why worry about 'what' wild speculation might happen later? Make above the guarantee and you have no worries.
> 
> I mean, really, is AB5 better? If we have a choice of an earthquake (AB5) or a mild rain storm (Prop 22) which option would be picked by a reasonable person (who lives in Calif)?
> 
> There is no 3rd choice in Calif. It is AB5 or Prop 22.


Yes, AB5 is ndisputably better than Prop 22.

No doubt.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Yes, AB5 is undisputably better than Prop 22.


Really, r u sure? Did you factor in with AB5 the RS population of drivers will be severely curtailed? Isn't THAT an earthquake? Prop 22 that doesn't happen at all........ Plus, with AB5 has it really been detailed what the pay would be besides throwing out 'minimum wage'? IN fact, there are no details of what being an employee will be like. Complete unknown.

Mostly likely that is why those drivers who state a preference prefer Prop 22 > 75%. Now only if they all could vote......


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> I get that, common sense. BUT if nobody is at or under the floor, who really cares? To me floor and guarantee is the 'minimum'.


You're making this much more complicated than it is. Suppose I make you a minimum house purchase amount guarantee offer. I guarantee that the minimum amount I will offer you to purchase your house is $1,000. That's my guarantee to you. I guarantee that my offer will be at least $1,000 in your hand.

You would think, correctly, "What a crap offer! What good is that?". You would disregard my offer as totally pointless.

This is exactly what my and many other drivers' reaction is to Uber's earnings guarantee offer.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> I get that, common sense. BUT if nobody is at or under the floor, who really cares? To me floor and guarantee is the 'minimum'. Why worry about 'what' wild speculation might happen later? Make above the guarantee and you have no worries.
> 
> I mean, really, is AB5 better? If we have a choice of an earthquake (AB5) or a mild rain storm (Prop 22) which option would be picked by a reasonable person (who lives in Calif)?
> 
> There is no 3rd choice in Calif. It is AB5 or Prop 22.


"Wild speculation"?

No, it's called capitalism.

Capitalists ratchet down and ratchet down and ratchet down labor costs to keep more money for their investors.

It's their fiduciary duty to make more money for their investors.


----------



## SHalester

The Gift of Fish said:


> This is exactly what my and many other drivers' reaction is to Uber's earnings guarantee offer.


but, my point, my confusion; AB5 is not better when all factors are included. Right this second there is no 3rd option (well, one can cease RS). It is AB5 OR Prop 22. Like voting for president: you vote for the one you hold your nose the least.

It's like medicine you take that has side effects. The choices all have side effects, one must chose which side effects they are willing to risk. Not taking either drug is not an option.

Well, let's bring on Nov voting (well day after). Then the wild speculation can move on to next segment.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> "Wild speculation"?
> 
> No, it's called capitalism.


Right - Uber's history since inception has been a consistent trend of downward earnings. It would be naive to believe that Uber has now finished with its pay cuts.



SHalester said:


> but, my point, my confusion; AB5 is not better when all factors are included. Right this second there is no 3rd option (well, one can cease RS). It is AB5 OR Prop 22. Like voting for president: you vote for the one you hold your nose the least.
> 
> It's like medicine you take that has side effects. The choices all have side effects, one must chose which side effects they are willing to risk. Not taking either drug is not an option.
> 
> Well, let's bring on Nov voting (well day after). Then the wild speculation can move on to next segment.


As I stated above, my purpose with this thread was not to debate AB5, so I won't comment on that. The purpose of this thread for me was only to explain Uber's earnings guarantee offer and to critique it.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> No, it's called capitalism.


no part of this forum is 'capitalism' oh, maybe the ads that show in local forums, maybe. WE do the wild speculation over and over and over.

Keep in mind Prop 22 is NOT just Uber (seems to be the default thinking here). Prop 22 is known and AB5 is a whole big ball of unknowns.

I just hope everybody can vote, does. Please. But don't listen to dear leader President who suggested voting twice.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Uber's earnings guarantee offer


...and Lyft and DD. All 3 behind Prop 22.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> no part of this forum is 'capitalism' oh, maybe the ads that show in local forums, maybe. WE do the wild speculation over and over and over.
> 
> Keep in mind Prop 22 is NOT just Uber (seems to be the default thinking here). Prop 22 is known and AB5 is a whole big ball of unknowns.
> 
> I just hope everybody can vote, does. Please. But don't listen to dear leader President who suggested voting twice.


Uber is all about "capitalism" and 'free markets" when it benefits.

There is no doubt Uber is capitalist and will ALWAYS ratchet down labor costs.

No doubt, that is not "wild speculation".

I know Prop 22 is not just about Uber, regardless ALL those other companies are the same as Uber.

You know that I use Uber like Kleenex.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> ...and Lyft and DD. All 3 behind Prop 22.


I usually refer to them as Uberlyft because, for all intents and purposes, they are the same company. We could refer to the gaggle of gig companies as Uberlyftddpostmatesetc, but it's just easier to use "Uber" as a shorthand, placeholder, name for the miscreants concerned.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> No doubt, that is not "wild speculation".


pretty sure you missed my point on usage of wild speculation. That's ok.

Yes, I too could go without Uber; just like that. My other RS gig was not targeted by the Calif suit......yet....

My point I won't move off of is AB5 is far far worse. And each of the named have not provided any details on 'how' being an employee will work. I suspect most would not be happy with the outcome.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> pretty sure you missed my point on usage of wild speculation. That's ok.
> 
> Yes, I too could go without Uber; just like that. My other RS gig was not targeted by the Calif suit......yet....
> 
> My point I won't move off of is AB5 is far far worse. And each of the named have not provided any details on 'how' being an employee will work. I suspect most would not be happy with the outcome.


How is Prop 22 better than AB5?


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> How is Prop 22 better than AB5?


Believe I posted that upstream and many many times over the last year or so.

AB5 drivers will be hired; all those involved have clearly said the total amount of active drivers will not make the cut. AB5, nor any of the names companies have detailed what it would be like pay (besides minimum hourly rate of $13+), shifts, really anything. Yes, there a wad of active RS drivers who wouldn't care if they weren't 'hired'. Not a majority I'd speculate (oh that word again).

Prop 22 no such dangers. Some attempts at benefits for some. A floor discussed to death. And some other loosely defined benefits of Prop 22.

There is no 3rd option.

So, how is AB5 better? Your turn.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> Believe I posted that upstream and many many times over the last year or so.
> 
> AB5 drivers will be hired; all those involved have clearly said the total amount of active drivers will not make the cut. AB5, nor any of the names companies have detailed what it would be like pay (besides minimum hourly rate of $13+), shifts, really anything. Yes, there a wad of active RS drivers who wouldn't care if they weren't 'hired'. Not a majority I'd speculate (oh that word again).
> 
> Prop 22 no such dangers. Some attempts at benefits for some. A floor discussed to death. And some other loosely defined benefits of Prop 22.
> 
> There is no 3rd option.
> 
> So, how is AB5 better? Your turn.


Pretty good non answer on your part. Here's mine.

Prop 22 guarantees less in every aspect than drivers as employees.

120% of minimum wage (while engaged) is less than 100% of all time while on the app.

.30 per mile is likely less than employees would be reimbursed because .30 is a CAP on costs. Your expenses are more than .30 under Prop 22?

Too bad, your loss.

Under Uber, the employer pays ALL costs, not just thirty cents.

While Prop 22 does guarantee a floor it doesn't guarantee any higher pay either.

Under Prop 22, you get deactivated, you get diddley squat (《~~~ new favorite word). As an employee, you would likely qualify for unemployment.

Under Prop 22, no overtime. Even if you work over 8 hours a day (they limit you at 12, how convenient). As an employee you get paid breaks and overtime after 8 hours. Sorry, no paid breaks under Prop 22.

Or overtime.

Under Prop 22, you get NO SICK PAY. As an employee, you get at least 3 paid sick days.

While you don't get a guarantee of flexibility as an employee, Prop 22 also DOES NOT guarantee flexibility.

I'm sure I forgot some.

Prop 22 benefits Uber/Lyft not drivers.


----------



## SFTraffic

observer said:


> Pretty good non answer on your part. Here's mine.
> 
> Prop 22 guarantees less in every aspect than drivers as employees.
> 
> 120% of minimum wage (while engaged) is less than 100% of all time while on the app.
> 
> .30 per mile is likely less than employees would be reimbursed because .30 is a CAP on costs. Your expenses are more than .30 under Prop 22?
> 
> Too bad, your loss.
> 
> Under Uber, the employer pays ALL costs, not just thirty cents.
> 
> While Prop 22 does guarantee a floor it doesn't guarantee any higher pay either.
> 
> Under Prop 22, you get deactivated, you get diddley squat (《~~~ new favorite word). As an employee, you would likely qualify for unemployment.
> 
> Under Prop 22, no overtime. Even if you work over 8 hours a day (they limit you at 12, how convenient). As an employee you get paid breaks and overtime after 8 hours. Sorry, no paid breaks under Prop 22.
> 
> Under Prop 22, you get NO SICK PAY. As an employee, you get at least 3 paid sick days.
> 
> While you don't get a guarantee of flexibility as an employee, Prop 22 also DOES NOT guarantee flexibility.
> 
> I'm sure I forgot some.
> 
> Prop 22 benefits Uber/Lyft not drivers.


No on prop 22. Let me help you.

NO car insurance deductible for accidents on the job with AB5, coverage during all 3 periods.
Under Prop 22, currently $1000 and $2500 can be increased at anytime and collision coverage during only period 2 and 3.

Under AB5 - Disability Insurace for life if needed.
Under Prop 22 - Limited to maximum 104 weeks.

Under AB5 - Paid family leave 8 weeks.
Under Prop 22 - None

Under AB5 - "No fault" workers compensation insurance
Under Prop 22 - limited not "no fault", can be denied

Under AB5 - Protection from retaliation, termination or discipline for reporting harassment, discrimination or wage theft
Under Prop 22 - none

Under AB5 - Requirements for safe working conditions and sanitation facilities
Under Prop 22 - none

Under AB5 - Health insurance based on all hours worked
Under Prop 22 - Stipend based on hours of "engaged time" insurance period 2 and 3 only


----------



## NicFit

Disgusted Driver said:


> you have been duped and manipulated by uber to believe there are only two different possibilities when in fact there are many.


I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job. If Prop 22 fails 90% of driver won't have a job. So do I think I'll be the lucky 10% that get hired? Probably not, so I want the route that means I have a 100% job even if it's not the best deal


----------



## observer

SFTraffic said:


> No on prop 22. Let me help you.
> 
> NO car insurance deductible for accidents on the job with AB5, coverage during all 3 periods.
> Under Prop 22, currently $1000 and $2500 can be increased at anytime and collision coverage during only period 2 and 3.
> 
> Under AB5 - Disability Insurace for life if needed.
> Under Prop 22 - Limited to maximum 104 weeks.
> 
> Under AB5 - Paid family leave 8 weeks.
> Under Prop 22 - None
> 
> Under AB5 - "No fault" workers compensation insurance
> Under Prop 22 - limited not "no fault", can be denied
> 
> Under AB5 - Protection from retaliation, termination or discipline for reporting harassment, discrimination or wage theft
> Under Prop 22 - none
> 
> Under AB5 - Requirements for safe working conditions and sanitation facilities
> Under Prop 22 - none
> 
> Under AB5 - Health insurance based on all hours worked
> Under Prop 22 - Stipend based on hours of "engaged time" insurance period 2 and 3 only


I'm sure there are more but we are also forgetting that Uber would have to pay the employers share of taxes instead of the driver paying both.


----------



## NicFit

SFTraffic said:


> No on prop 22. Let me help you.
> 
> NO car insurance deductible for accidents on the job with AB5, coverage during all 3 periods.
> Under Prop 22, currently $1000 and $2500 can be increased at anytime and collision coverage during only period 2 and 3.
> 
> Under AB5 - Disability Insurace for life if needed.
> Under Prop 22 - Limited to maximum 104 weeks.
> 
> Under AB5 - Paid family leave 8 weeks.
> Under Prop 22 - None
> 
> Under AB5 - "No fault" workers compensation insurance
> Under Prop 22 - limited not "no fault", can be denied
> 
> Under AB5 - Protection from retaliation, termination or discipline for reporting harassment, discrimination or wage theft
> Under Prop 22 - none
> 
> Under AB5 - Requirements for safe working conditions and sanitation facilities
> Under Prop 22 - none
> 
> Under AB5 - Health insurance based on all hours worked
> Under Prop 22 - Stipend based on hours of "engaged time" insurance period 2 and 3 only


You forgot:
Under AB5 - 10% of drivers hired
Under Prop 22 - 100% of drivers still allowed to work

Under AB5 - Assigned shifts
Under Prop 22 - work when you want

Under AB5 - hourly wage plus tips
Under Prop 22 - 75% of fare, surge, bonuses

Under AB5 - Boss
Under Prop 22 - No evil thing telling you what to do


----------



## SFTraffic

observer said:


> I'm sure there are more but we are also forgetting that Uber would have to pay the employers share of taxes instead of the driver paying both.


Correct, thats 7.65% more of take home pay under AB5 (half) than Prop 22 which would have to pay the full 15.3%


----------



## NicFit

SFTraffic said:


> Correct, thats 7.65% more of take home pay under AB5 (half) than Prop 22 which would have to pay the full 15.3%


That's going to come from somewhere, they will increase riders rates which will mean reduced demand and will mean reduced drivers, by the time AB5 is going you really think your going to one of the lucky ones benefiting from it? They'll hire new drivers that didn't do the old system so they can't complain, at least that's what I would do. AB5 does nothing to say current drivers will have a job, oh at that's after months of no rideshare, they won't flip a switch tomorrow and say everyone is a employee, it takes time to set up a big change like that and they won't transition, you think AB5 is good but you won't ever see a dime from it



observer said:


> &#129300;
> 
> So, which is it?
> 
> You drive unpaid miles or you don't drive unpaid miles?


I try not to drive unpaid miles but if I end up somewhere that's not busy I will drive to a busier place. It depends on when and where I am, if I think I'm going to get a ride within 15 minutes I'll sit, if I don't I'll head to somewhere I can get a ride


----------



## Disgusted Driver

NicFit said:


> I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job. If Prop 22 fails 90% of driver won't have a job. So do I think I'll be the lucky 10% that get hired? Probably not, so I want the route that means I have a 100% job even if it's not the best deal


Where do you come up with 10%? You have been fed a load of crap and you are asking for seconds. Also, you don't care about anything but your poor planning. You are saying I need to make money and I don't care who gets screwed over. I smell desperation all over you, not a good place to be and certainly not a good position to make policy decisions.


----------



## Daisey77

Are you delusional? There is no way possible that you actually believe what you wrote. There can't be. Go back to Uber or Lyft headquarters and tell them no deal.



NicFit said:


> Under AB5 - 10% of drivers hired
> Under Prop 22 - 100% of drivers still allowed to work


 where did you get this number? Site your source.
90% of drivers are not losing their job, did you forget every gig company is going to have to hire their employees. Most drivers drive for more than one company. If they put a limit on us saying we can only drive for them, there's going to be plenty of openings for all the drivers who decide to still drive. One driver who drives for three companies is going to free up two spaces.



NicFit said:


> Under AB5 - Assigned shifts
> Under Prop 22 - work when you want


Assigned shifts- &#128517;&#128517;&#128517; there's nowhere anywhere that states employees have to have assigned shifts. this is all speculation. Speculation you're attempting to use as a scare tactic. Although this is a possibility, I don't see it working, not even close to how they would want the company to function. Then again this might be a good thing for you. You're 10% chance of being rehired is looking more like 80 to 90% since they won't have any drivers wanting to continue driving. So you sir should actually be voting no on proposition 22



NicFit said:


> Under AB5 - hourly wage plus tips
> Under Prop 22 - 75% of fare, surge, bonuses


Hourly wages
AB5 hourly wage plus tips Plus expenses . don't forget the expenses

Prop22- again you have nothing. We're not guaranteed surges or bonuses. You again are just making shit up



NicFit said:


> Under AB5 - Boss
> Under Prop 22 - No evil thing telling you what to do


I can't . I just can't. reeeeeally? We most definitely have a boss and we've had one the whole time. If you even try to stay we haven't, you just lost any little bit of credibility you had on this forum and after reading these posts, I am thinking you might want to gamble extremely sparingly&#129335;‍♀


----------



## NicFit

Disgusted Driver said:


> Where do you come up with 10%? You have been fed a load of crap and you are asking for seconds. Also, you don't care about anything but your poor planning. You are saying I need to make money and I don't care who gets screwed over. I smell desperation all over you, not a good place to be and certainly not a good position to make policy decisions.


So after looking seems I exaggerated but not by much, they will only keep 1/4 of the driver they have now

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/uber-lyft-california-shutdown-ab5-1234743303/
"The companies argue that complying with AB5 will force them to raise prices - in some cases doubling its rates - as well as reduce the number of drivers they can employ. (Uber has claimed it would be able to hire only one-fourth of its 200,000-plus drivers in California.) Uber and Lyft also complain the law would restrict the flexibility their drivers currently have in setting their own work schedules."

So yes I'm desperate, there is only a 25% chance I will have a job if Prop 22 fails, no I don't care about these frivolous non-tangible benefits that don't make me money like health care. People don't realize that this was you going off on your own with the risks of not being an employee. They can go back to flipping burgers if they want unions and hourly wages and all those fluffy crap things you get from being a wage slave. And your right, I don't care who gets screwed over, I only look out for myself. If you don't like the way Uber is go find something else to do and stop trying to make it like your socialist fantasy



Daisey77 said:


> Are you delusional? There is no way possible that you actually believe what you wrote. There can't be. Go back to Uber or Lyft headquarters and tell them no deal.
> 
> where did you get this number? Site your source.
> 90% of drivers are not losing their job, did you forget every gig company is going to have to hire their employees. Most drivers drive for more than one company. If they put a limit on us saying we can only drive for them, there's going to be plenty of openings for all the drivers who decide to still drive. One driver who drives for three companies is going to free up two spaces.
> 
> Assigned shifts- &#128517;&#128517;&#128517; there's nowhere anywhere that states employees have to have assigned shifts. this is all speculation. Speculation you're attempting to use as a scare tactic. Although this is a possibility, I don't see it working, not even close to how they would want the company to function. Then again this might be a good thing for you. You're 10% chance of being rehired is looking more like 80 to 90% since they won't have any drivers wanting to continue driving. So you sir should actually be voting no on proposition 22
> 
> Hourly wages
> AB5 hourly wage plus tips Plus expenses . don't forget the expenses
> 
> Prop22- again you have nothing. We're not guaranteed surges or bonuses. You again are just making shit up
> 
> I can't . I just can't. reeeeeally? We most definitely have a boss and we've had one the whole time. If you even try to stay we haven't, you just lost any little bit of credibility you had on this forum and after reading these posts, I am thinking you might want to gamble extremely sparingly&#129335;‍♀
> View attachment 505577


Yeah, so I've already said I was only slightly off, Uber has said only 1/4 of the drivers will be kept if they have to use AB5

They already said you would lose your flexibility, what do you think that means? You think you can just go onand offline when you want? No

Your really think you won't just get an hourly wage if your an employee? What other service industry job gets paid more then an hourly wage and tips?

And there is no boss that exists right now, you take a job, complete and go to the next one. There's no meeting your required to be at, no one to report to, nothing, you think an employee doesn't have some one they directly report to? Quit living in the fantasy that nothing will change except you get all these things that are AB5. You more then likely won't see a dime from AB5 since you'll never be hired in the first place


----------



## Disgusted Driver

NicFit said:


> So after looking seems I exaggerated but not by much, they will only keep 1/4 of the driver they have now
> 
> https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/uber-lyft-california-shutdown-ab5-1234743303/
> "The companies argue that complying with AB5 will force them to raise prices - in some cases doubling its rates - as well as reduce the number of drivers they can employ. (Uber has claimed it would be able to hire only one-fourth of its 200,000-plus drivers in California.) Uber and Lyft also complain the law would restrict the flexibility their drivers currently have in setting their own work schedules."
> 
> So yes I'm desperate, there is only a 25% chance I will have a job if Prop 22 fails, no I don't care about these frivolous non-tangible benefits that don't make me money like health care. People don't realize that this was you going off on your own with the risks of not being an employee. They can go back to flipping burgers if they want unions and hourly wages and all those fluffy crap things you get from being a wage slave. And your right, I don't care who gets screwed over, I only look out for myself. If you don't like the way Uber is go find something else to do and stop trying to make it like your socialist fantasy
> 
> 
> Yeah, so I've already said I was only slightly off, Uber has said only 1/4 of the drivers will be kept if they have to use AB5
> 
> They already said you would lose your flexibility, what do you think that means? You think you can just go onand offline when you want? No
> 
> Your really think you won't just get an hourly wage if your an employee? What other service industry job gets paid more then an hourly wage and tips?
> 
> And there is no boss that exists right now, you take a job, complete and go to the next one. There's no meeting your required to be at, no one to report to, nothing, you think an employee doesn't have some one they directly report to? Quit living in the fantasy that nothing will change except you get all these things that are AB5. You more then likely won't see a dime from AB5 since you'll never be hired in the first place


So, in your own words, you are a disgusting human being. You care nothing about anyone else and you are of limited imagination, believing whatever crap uber claims. 
I have no socialist dreams, I'm more of a capitalist then you'll ever be. I believe in the rule of law though and I would like uber to be held accountable for breaking the law. If the law means nothing then only the powerful get a fair shot. There are lots of options here, many ways for there to be a fair playing field. I personally would love to truly be an independent contractor. See what jobs are available, have a say in my rates, work when I want to. None of this will stick if they pass prop 22. If uber could put you out on the street to take it up the kazoo they would. Then spit you out when you are no longer fresh.


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> They already said you would lose your flexibility, what do you think that means? You think you can just go onand offline when you want? No


Because their actions match their words oh so much?!







NicFit said:


> Your really think you won't just get an hourly wage if your an employee? What other service industry job gets paid more then an hourly wage and tips?


Oh I know we'll get paid an hourly wage plus tips. Will get paid hourly wages plus tips plus expenses! I said you forgot the expenses! What other service industry job uses their vehicle? You're comparing apples to oranges


----------



## NicFit

Disgusted Driver said:


> So, in your own words, you are a disgusting human being. You care nothing about anyone else and you are off limited imagination, believing whatever crap uber claims.
> I have no socialist dreams, I'm more of a capitalist then you'll ever be. I believe in the rule of law though and I would like uber to be held accountable for breaking the law. If the law means nothing then only the powerful get a fair shot. There are lots of options here, many ways for there to be a fair playing field. I personality would love to truly be an independent contractor. See what jobs are available, have a say in my rates, work when I want to. None of this wil stock of the pass prop 22. If uber could put you out on the street to take it up the kazoo they would. Then spit you out when you are no longer fresh.


Don't drive for Uber then, you want your all these things like a socialist then go flip burgers. The law was created after Uber had been in business, they passed it without the voters backing, all because the state wants more money. You really think AB5 is about protections, why don't you see who backing no on Prop 22 and you tell me if they support capitalism?












Daisey77 said:


> Because their actions match their words oh so much?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know we'll get paid an hourly wage plus tips. Will get paid hourly wages plus tips plus expenses! I said you forgot the expenses! What other service industry job uses their vehicle? You're comparing apples to oranges


Oh, you mean if they don't have company vehicles, they are exploring that option too so they don't have to pay you expenses


----------



## Disgusted Driver

NicFit said:


> Don't drive for Uber then, you want your all these things like a socialist then go flip burgers. The law was created after Uber had been in business, they passed it without the voters backing, all because the state wants more money. You really think AB5 is about protections, why don't you see who backing no on Prop 22 and you tell me if they support capitalism?
> 
> View attachment 505589
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean if they don't have company vehicles, they are exploring that option too so they don't have to pay you expenses


I've tried to tell you with varying degrees of tact that you are too simple minded to possibly understand the issues. Let me say it again, I'm not a socialist but I also don't believe in the orange baboon. You have been lied to and you continue to be lied to. I choose to fight rather than take it up the ... I have successfully sued uber when they lied once before. Be a man and stand up for yourself instead of getting pimped out.

By the way, all those "socialist"things I want are what ic's used to get before uber mangled the law


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Oh, you mean if they don't have company vehicles, they are exploring that option too so they don't have to pay you expenses


Even better! LOL where do I sign up? I am all for company vehicles! So they can afford company vehicles for all the employees but yet they can't afford for us to be employees? Clearly if they have extra money left over to buy company vehicles they are affording employees. If you don't see the games they play with their words , then you really shouldn't probably be arguing this case


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> Even better! LOL where do I sign up? I am all for company vehicles! So they can afford company vehicles for all the employees but yet they can't afford for us to be employees? Clearly if they have extra money left over to buy company vehicles they are affording employees. If you don't see the games they play with their words , then you really shouldn't probably be arguing this case


Yeah, so you want an hourly wage, company vehicle and all those other employee things. You think you'll make more doing this? No, you will get a w-2, have no expenses to write and pay 1/3 of your income to taxes while making $18 an hour. Might as well go flip burgers for that, at least there you don't have the risk of crashing


----------



## Paul Vincent

SHalester said:


> isn't Prop 22 'guarantee' a floor not a ceiling?


It is a floor, the rate of pay for what you will be paid from accepting the trip to drop off. To go above that it will depend on tips and incentives. No more percentages of the fare. The language in prop 22 states that tips are not applied to the base guarantee but incentives can be applied to the minimum guarantee.(that would only make sense if they apply incentive and then take it away from monies paid 4 minutes driven) In San Diego we get 68.9 cents a mile, if Prop22 passes that drops to 30 cents a mile, unless there is an incentive.
Prop22, carefully crafted by rideshares finest attorney's would love you to overlook the fact that if you go to the next section they talk about incentives and tips that will get you above the guaranteed minimum.
I'm pretty sure, but it's not written, that incentives to be a combination of surge clouds, guaranteed for certain number of rides completed excetera excetera, like the old days. It's all lumped under the word incentives.
There will be nothing per mile above 30 cents untill, if when, if ever the tax write off for miles exceeds its current rate.
____________________________________

What is the earnings guarantee?

The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute.
______________________________________
I would so love to be wrong, where did you find this information?


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Yeah, so you want an hourly wage, company vehicle and all those other employee things. You think you'll make more doing this? No, you will get a w-2, have no expenses to write and pay 1/3 of your income to taxes while making $18 an hour. Might as well go flip burgers for that, at least there you don't have the risk of crashing


Hey even with a W-2, no expenses and writing off a third of my income to taxes, I can almost guarantee it would still equal more than what my net income showed on my tax return last year. So I'd be making more, would be entitled to unemployment if I was to be wrongly fired, be paid for the two-month vacation they give us when checking our background, and they can't steal our money . . . hmmm yep sounds oh so horrible &#129335;‍♀


----------



## Paul Vincent

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


please I would love to find out where you got this information because that sounds so awesome if we weren't relegated to 30 cents a mile, please show me where you got this information, thank you in advance.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> Hey even with a W-2, no expenses and writing off a third of my income to taxes, I can almost guarantee it would still equal more than what my net income showed on my tax return last year. So I'd be making more, would be entitled to unemployment if I was to be wrongly fired, be paid for the two-month vacation they give us when checking our background, and they can't steal our money . . . hmmm yep sounds oh so horrible &#129335;‍♀


And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


----------



## TRugen

Daisey77 said:


> Are you delusional? There is no way possible that you actually believe what you wrote. There can't be. Go back to Uber or Lyft headquarters and tell them no deal.
> 
> where did you get this number? Site your source.
> 90% of drivers are not losing their job, did you forget every gig company is going to have to hire their employees. Most drivers drive for more than one company. If they put a limit on us saying we can only drive for them, there's going to be plenty of openings for all the drivers who decide to still drive. One driver who drives for three companies is going to free up two spaces.
> 
> Assigned shifts- &#128517;&#128517;&#128517; there's nowhere anywhere that states employees have to have assigned shifts. this is all speculation. Speculation you're attempting to use as a scare tactic. Although this is a possibility, I don't see it working, not even close to how they would want the company to function. Then again this might be a good thing for you. You're 10% chance of being rehired is looking more like 80 to 90% since they won't have any drivers wanting to continue driving. So you sir should actually be voting no on proposition 22
> 
> Hourly wages
> AB5 hourly wage plus tips Plus expenses . don't forget the expenses
> 
> Prop22- again you have nothing. We're not guaranteed surges or bonuses. You again are just making shit up
> 
> I can't . I just can't. reeeeeally? We most definitely have a boss and we've had one the whole time. If you even try to stay we haven't, you just lost any little bit of credibility you had on this forum and after reading these posts, I am thinking you might want to gamble extremely sparingly&#129335;‍♀
> View attachment 505577


He says. He makes $100/hr. That's $2,000 for 20 hours of work. Or $800 for 8 hrs of work.

So if he works the normal 40 hours a week, 52 weeks, he makes $208,000.

Hell, even if he works just 20 hours a week he makes $104,000.

We should all just move to the Bay Area. I would love to make over $100k just working 20 hrs a week.


----------



## NicFit

TRugen said:


> He says. He makes $100/hr. That's $2,000 for 20 hours of work. Or $800 for 8 hrs of work.
> 
> So if he works the normal 40 hours a week, 52 weeks, he makes $208,000.
> 
> Hell, even if he works just 20 hours a week he makes $104,000.
> 
> We should all just move to the Bay Area. I would love to make over $100k just working 20 hrs a week.


I don't make $100 every hour but I do make it on a somewhat every few weeks basis. Point is when your an employee do you really think I can make that any more? I wish there was a third option, no on AB5 with no on Prop 22, nothing in either of these will help me make money, only take it from me


----------



## TRugen

NicFit said:


> I don't make $100 every hour but I do make it on a somewhat every few weeks basis. Point is when your an employee do you really think I can make that any more? I wish there was a third option, no on AB5 with no on Prop 22, nothing in either of these will help me make money, only take it from me


I don't know, I mean we got a copper here claiming he got offered a District Manager job just because he got a business degree.

I would think that $100/hr is more like once in a blue moon or a unicorn.


----------



## Illini

I keep saying this over and over again -- Uber will not give or promise anything to drivers unless it benefits Uber.


----------



## NicFit

TRugen said:


> I don't know, I mean we got a copper here claiming he got offered a District Manager job just because he got a business degree.
> 
> I would think that $100/hr is more like once in a blue moon or a unicorn.


It not constant but when you have an area like the bay it can be lucrative, but with covid those $100 hours are far and few, gotta have events to make good cash like that


----------



## Paul Vincent

NicFit said:


> It not constant but when you have an area like the bay it can be lucrative, but with covid those $100 hours are far and few, gotta have events to make good cash like that


Prop 22 = .30 per mile plus "incentives", in the bay area I'm sure they'll be pretty good however drivers pay decreases with the passage of prop 22. AB5, drivers are also screwed. Not good either way.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Paul Vincent said:


> please I would love to find out where you got this information


Uber.



Illini said:


> I keep saying this over and over again -- Uber will not give or promise anything to drivers unless it benefits Uber.


There are rare cases of collateral benefit (the opposite of collateral damage). The best example of this was when Uber started charging pax wait time after 2 minutes in order to encourage them to haul their arses to the car. Uber did not do this for drivers' benefit; it did it for its own benefit - having its cars parked up with the flashers on for five minutes each ride meant a wasted driver resource and lost earnings for Uber. We drivers also happened to benefit from this change.

Such examples of collateral benefit are extremely rare, though.


----------



## NicFit

Paul Vincent said:


> Prop 22 = .30 per mile plus "incentives", in the bay area I'm sure they'll be pretty good however drivers pay decreases with the passage of prop 22. AB5, drivers are also screwed. Not good either way.


Prop 22 is as low as Uber will go, I'm not happy with either also but I gotta go with Prop 22 over AB5, no way I'm going to be a wage slave again


----------



## SFTraffic

Yes prop 22 would be as low as you can go as a third class worker. Even AB5 would pay more. NO on prop 22.


----------



## NicFit

SFTraffic said:


> Yes prop 22 would be as low as you can go as a third class worker. Even AB5 would pay more. NO on prop 22.


Wrong, AB5 will be lower pay, you think employees get cuts of the fare? Ha, your dream, you'll get $18 an hour and that's it, no more, no less, go flip burgers if you want an hourly wage like that


----------



## Paul Vincent

The Gift of Fish said:


> Uber.
> 
> 
> There are rare cases of collateral benefit (the opposite of collateral damage). The best example of this was when Uber started charging pax wait time after 2 minutes in order to encourage them to haul their arses to the car. Uber did not do this for drivers' benefit; it did it for its own benefit - having its cars parked up with the flashers on for five minutes each ride meant a wasted driver resource and lost earnings for Uber. We drivers also happened to benefit from this change.
> 
> Such examples of collateral benefit are extremely rare, though.


Where from Uber so we read these words for ourselves, thanks


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Paul Vincent said:


> Where from Uber so we read these words for ourselves, thanks


They sent it to the "Inbox" in the driver app.


----------



## GT500KR

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> &#128064;
> 
> Trying to understand Uber math...
> 
> View attachment 505365


DO NOT RUN, 111 WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS!!!


----------



## OldUncleDave

The Gift of Fish said:


> Lol, maybe the heat is indeed too strong over there.


Theory of Inverse Intelligence: The higher the Temperature, the lower the Common Sense


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job.


This is the real problem. Some drivers have become so used to suckling on the Uber teat that they have become totally dependent on it. For them, Uber disappearing would turn them into the animal that freezes in the oncoming headlights, paralysed with fear and not knowing what to do. As stated in the above quote, for them no Uber = no job. The thought doesn't occur to look for alternatives, or simply to wait for the rideshare 2.0 contenders should Uber pack up and leave. It wouldn't be a long wait.

Anyway, the net effect of this submissive behaviour is that these drivers will put up with any and all mistreatment that Uber chooses for them. _Anything_ is better than the terrifying prospect of no Uber. That's really sad, and doesn't speak too highly of those afflicted by it.



OldUncleDave said:


> Theory of Inverse Intelligence: The higher the Temperature, the lower the Common Sense


Studies have shown that _a massive 50%_ of people have _below_ median IQ. &#129315;

Usually the guy is sharper than that; I think it must be the heat.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> This is the real problem. Some drivers have become so used to suckling on the Uber teat that they have become totally dependent on it. For them, Uber disappearing would turn them into the animal that freezes in the oncoming headlights, paralysed with fear and not knowing what to do. As stated in the above quote, for them no Uber = no job. The thought doesn't occur to look for alternatives, or simply to wait for the rideshare 2.0 contenders should Uber pack up and leave. It wouldn't be a long wait.
> 
> Anyway, the net effect of this submissive behaviour is that these drivers will put up with any and all mistreatment that Uber chooses for them. _Anything_ is better than the terrifying prospect of no Uber. That's really sad, and doesn't speak too highly of those afflicted by it.
> 
> 
> Studies have shown that _a massive 50%_ of people have _below_ median IQ. &#129315;
> 
> Usually the guy is sharper than that; I think it must be the heat.


If I don't have a job then what the point of all this? If Uber has to follow AB5 75% of the drivers don't have jobs, I don't want to be some wage slave for someone else again, I'd rather have zero income then be forced to work for someone's schedule and whims again


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> If I don't have a job then what the point of all this? If Uber has to follow AB5 75% of the drivers don't have jobs, I don't want to be some wage slave for someone else again, I'd rather have zero income then be forced to work for someone's schedule and whims again


In that case, you could start a genuine independent contractor business.

When I decided to quit corporate life years ago I opened a motorcycle shop. I had no boss and I set my own hours. If I wanted to work on a particular day, I did. If I wanted to take time off, I did. And the best thing was that it was true self employment - I set my own prices, nobody could deactivate me, and nobody wrote me silly emails about my "behaviour".

As the sun sets on rideshare for me, I am planning to go back into genuine self employment. I'm looking forward to it a lot. I would certainly recommend it to others.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> In that case, you could start a genuine independent contractor business.
> 
> When I decided to quit corporate life years ago I opened a motorcycle shop. I had no boss and I set my own hours. If I wanted to work on a particular day, I did. If I wanted to take time off, I did. And the best thing was that it was true self employment - I set my own prices, nobody could deactivate me, and nobody wrote me silly emails about my "behaviour".
> 
> As the sun sets on rideshare for me, I am planning to go back into genuine self employment. I'm looking forward to it a lot. I would certainly recommend it to others.


This is what I did when I started doing rideshare, it's my own business, yeah the rates were set by them but not any more, I can chose to set my rate right now, to me that's independent contractor


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> This is what I did when I started doing rideshare, it's my own business, yeah the rates were set by them but not any more, I can chose to set my rate right now, to me that's independent contractor


Rideshare was never an "own business". Businesses can be bought and sold and have value in and of themselves. However, for drivers there's no business to sell. There are no customer lists - we don't even know the customers' full names, lol. There is no brand - pax don't know who we are, either. There's nothing. Sure, you could sell your car, but that would just be like any other used car sale. Finally, you know you don't have a business when your boss (Uber) prohibits you from selling it. Rather than a business, what you actually have is an activity, working for an entity that provides you with work. This is also known as a job.

Anyway, when you joined Uber was then and this is now. California has decided that rideshare drivers are not in business; they are employees.

My recommendation stands: start your own business or become an independent contractor.


----------



## bsliv

The Gift of Fish said:


> In that case, you could start a genuine independent contractor business.
> 
> When I decided to quit corporate life years ago I opened a motorcycle shop. I had no boss and I set my own hours. If I wanted to work on a particular day, I did. If I wanted to take time off, I did. And the best thing was that it was true self employment - I set my own prices, nobody could deactivate me, and nobody wrote me silly emails about my "behaviour".
> 
> As the sun sets on rideshare for me, I am planning to go back into genuine self employment. I'm looking forward to it a lot. I would certainly recommend it to others.


I agree 100% that self employment has numerous advantages over being an employee. But it also has its disadvantages. If you set your prices above your competition's prices ($500 to fix a flat tire), you won't get business and lose money due to fixed costs. If you set your prices below your completion's prices you will get business but may lose money on each transaction ($5 to fix a flat tire).. In order to make a profit, you must set your prices close to market rates and must keep your costs to below your gross. You must be responsive to your market.

If the supply of motorcycle shops dramatically increases while demand remains stable, your profits will decrease. If the demand for motorcycle shops increases while the supply of shops remains steady, your profits should increase. No matter what happens in the market, no one will guarantee you a profit or even minimum wage.

If someone offers you $1000 to fix a flat tire and you accept, are you less of an independent contractor? No, just a good business person.

If someone offers you $1 to fix a flat tire and you accept, are you less of an independent contractor? No, just a bad business person.

If someone offers you $1 to fix a flat tire and you decline, are you less of an independent contractor? No, just a good business person.

If Uber offers you an unknown amount to drive an unknown person an unknown distance in an unknown direction, are you less of an independent contractor? No, just a bad business person.

If you choose to drive a new Hummer vs a 10 yr old Prius to deliver pax, are you less of an independent contractor? No, just a bad business person.

If you run a motorcycle repair shop and decide to have independent contractors to do the actual work, offer $1 to repair a flat tire, and have hundreds of people willing to work at that rate, are you evil or a good business person? If you're the IC and agree to the $1 fee to fix the flat, do you deserve more or are you just a bad business person?

If you run a motorcycle repair shop and the state requires you to pay IC's $1000 to fix a flat, you'll probably have a bunch of IC's willing to work for you but your ability to pay them will be nill due to the lack of business.

Independent contractors have no guarantees of profits or even a minimum wage. IC's run a business. IC's control costs, to a degree. IC's can accept or decline any assignment. IC's must determine if an assignment is acceptable. IC's must determine if sufficient information is available to accept an assignment.

If someone offered $1000 to fix a motorcycle, would you accept? I hope not. It could mean replacing the engine, transmission, electrical system, suspension, etc.

I suggest declining every assignment from Uber that doesn't present the necessary info for a good business decision. In my state, that means declining every assignment for the past 5 years. I don't expect Uber to change their structure. I expect other drivers to realize its a losing proposition.

I've run my business as an independent contract in the real estate appraisal field. Can I sell my business? Sure, but only to to a sucker. Its me that is licensed. Its me that is approved with banks, mortgage companies, appraisal management companies, etc. The market says my business is worth $0 to anyone but myself, similar to a rideshare IC.

Businesses take many forms. Some people should not attempt to run a business. Some people should only attempt to run a business they understand.

ps
I think working at a motorcycle repair shop would be great. I understand basic mechanics/electronics. I like riding. But I'm not qualified to run the shop.


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> I don't want to be some wage slave for someone else again


So being an Uber Slave for Pennies is more appealing?


NicFit said:


> I'd rather have zero income then be forced to work for someone's schedule and whims again


Ah ha now I see the problem. This statement says it all. This screams I'm a whiney, entitled millennial who always gets their way. Although I love money I really don't want to actually work for it.

You do realize you're asking every single driver to continue to endure treatment that no other company or industry is allowed to get away with simply because you don't want to possibly have to get a real job, right? You want them to continue losing their source of income due to false allegations, having their money stolen from them, losing income while being deactivated for background checks and investigations, continue having their pay decreased and given to a company that is doing absolutely nothing beneficial with it, and be constantly abused by these companies and passengers, all simply because you don't want to possibly have to work a real job! That is disgusting. I don't know how else to say it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your wants and desires in comparison to what you're asking other drivers to turn their cheek to, absolutely do not balance each other out.

I don't want to lose the flexibility and I'm not even sure I want necessarily the employee status. However I'm able to see past those things and understand on a much deeper level what needs to happen and with as many drivers as we have, I would never ever expect them to continue being treated the way we're treated simply because I did not want to lose my flexibility. The two simply are not equivalent


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> So being an Uber Slave for Pennies is more appealing?
> 
> Ah ha now I see the problem. This statement says it all. This screams I'm a whiney, entitled millennial who always gets their way. Although I love money I really don't want to actually work for it.
> 
> You do realize you're asking every single driver to continue to endure treatment that no other company or industry is allowed to get away with simply because you don't want to possibly have to get a real job, right? You want them to continue losing their source of income due to false allegations, having their money stolen from them, losing income while being deactivated for background checks and investigations, continue having their pay decreased and given to a company that is doing absolutely nothing beneficial with it, and be constantly abused by these companies and passengers, all simply because you don't want to possibly have to work a real job! That is disgusting. I don't know how else to say it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your wants and desires in comparison to what you're asking other drivers to turn their cheek to, absolutely do not balance each other out.
> 
> I don't want to lose the flexibility and I'm not even sure I want necessarily the employee status. However I'm able to see past those things and understand on a much deeper level what needs to happen and with as many drivers as we have, I would never ever expect them to continue being treated the way we're treated simply because I did not want to lose my flexibility. The two simply are not equivalent


Wrong, just wrong, I signed up for Uber as an independent contractor, I make my decisions from day to day, it's my choice when and where to work, and I make more then just pennies doing it. AB5 is going to make away my freedom of choice. Why do you want to be an employee when Uber didn't offer this? Not one driver should be expecting this, rideshare driving is like opening up a business, there no one to give you time off, no one gives you vacation pay or sick pay. Shop owners don't always have a choice at setting there prices either, that's the way this works, Uber says they have a customer base, we charge this and we pay you this, if you expect any more then that then don't drive for Uber, plenty of driving jobs out there you can get all these so called employee benefits, I don't want none of that, I want the cash, not health care, not vacation time, just want I do my ride, get paid, that's it. Any driver who expects more then this shouldn't drive for Uber, there is no safety net and if you can't figure out how to make well over $1k a week then Uber isn't for you. I talked to another person that owns a shop today and they said the same thing, you don't like the way Uber works then don't drive for them, you knew ahead of time it's not a hourly wage job, go flip burgers if you don't like the way Uber is set up

Vote Yes on Prop 22



The Gift of Fish said:


> Rideshare was never an "own business". Businesses can be bought and sold and have value in and of themselves. However, for drivers there's no business to sell. There are no customer lists - we don't even know the customers' full names, lol. There is no brand - pax don't know who we are, either. There's nothing. Sure, you could sell your car, but that would just be like any other used car sale. Finally, you know you don't have a business when your boss (Uber) prohibits you from selling it. Rather than a business, what you actually have is an activity, working for an entity that provides you with work. This is also known as a job.
> 
> Anyway, when you joined Uber was then and this is now. California has decided that rideshare drivers are not in business; they are employees.
> 
> My recommendation stands: start your own business or become an independent contractor.


I have my own LLC, I can sell it if I want, I can sell it to you now. Want to make me an offer?


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Wrong, just wrong, I signed up for Uber as an independent contractor, I make my decisions from day to day, it my choice when and where to work, and I make more then just pennies doing it. AB5 is going to make away my freedom of choice. Why do you want to be an employee when Uber didn't offer this? Not one driver should be expecting this, rideshare driving is like opening up a business, there no one to give you time off, no one gives you vacation pay or sick pay. Shop owners don't always have a choice at setting there prices either, that's the way this works, Uber says they have a customer base, we charge this and we pay you this, if you expect any more then that then don't drive for Uber, plenty of driving jobs out there you can get all these so called employee benefits, I don't want none of that, I want the cash, not health care, not vacation time, just want I do my ride, get paid, that's it. Any driver who expects more then this shouldn't drive for Uber, there is no safety net and if you can't figure out how to make well over $1k a week then Uber isn't for you. I talked to another person that owns a shop today and they said the same thing, you don't like the way Uber works then don't drive for them, you knew ahead of time it's not a hourly wage job, go flip burgers if you don't like the way Uber is set up
> 
> Vote Yes on Prop 22


 you still don't get it! It has nothing to do with a guaranteed hourly wage, vacation time, or sick time . We all knew that when we signed up. What we weren't anticipating was passengers being able to make false allegations against us with no recourse. We weren't expected to be deactivated for months or weeks while backgrounds were being ran. We weren't expecting the pay to go down by 50%. As independent contractors we weren't expecting to have no control over certain things. I could give two shits about the benefits. What I do care about is when Lyft doesn't want to pay me for a ride because they're app was not able to track the ride. What I do care about is losing income over a weekend because some cheap ass passenger wanted a free ride. What I do care about is money missing from my account because of another cheap ass passenger. What I do worry about is being deactivated for weeks on end because of a background


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> you still don't get it! It has nothing to do with a guaranteed hourly wage, vacation time, or sick time . We all knew that when we signed up. What we weren't anticipating was passengers being able to make false allegations against us with no recourse. We weren't expected to be deactivated for months or weeks while backgrounds were being ran. We weren't expecting the pay to go down by 50%. As independent contractors we weren't expecting to have no control over certain things. I could give two shits about the benefits. What I do care about is when Lyft doesn't want to pay me for a ride because they're app was not able to track the ride. What I do care about is losing income over a weekend because some cheap ass passenger wanted a free ride. What I do care about is money missing from my account because of another cheap ass passenger. What I do worry about is being deactivated for weeks on end because of a background


Sounds like you don't know how to deal with them, they've tried all that with me and I've always gotten my money that was owed to me, and your talking a handful of trips to thousands that went right. And do you think that will change on being deactivated? You think they still won't fire you over complaints? You won't be deactivated when a customer reports you drunk? That's still going to happen, I see nothing that protects you in AB5 from being fired. You think if you drive a semi truck and you were reported drunk multiple times they would keep you employed? Please tell me in AB5 how it's going to be any different when you get a customer complaint? You get reported enough and they will fire you


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> Sounds like you don't know how to deal with them, they've tried all that with me and I've always gotten my money that was owed to me, and your talking a handful of trips to thousands that went right. And do you think that will change on being deactivated? You think they still won't fire you over complaints? You won't be deactivated when a customer reports you drunk? That's still going to happen, I see nothing that protects you in AB5 from being fired. You think if you drive a semi truck and you were reported drunk multiple times they would keep you employed? Please tell me in AB5 how it's going to be any different when you get a customer complaint? You get reported enough and they will fire you


"You get reported enough and they will fire you"

And more likely than not get unemployment insurance. Under Prop 22 you get zilch.


----------



## Immoralized

This article pretty sums it up completely.

https://unherd.com/2020/09/ubers-dangerous-drive-to-serfdom/
"We can all agree that slavery is morally abhorrent. But Hawley's legislative focus, however admirable, is somewhat myopic: he and other policymakers also need to focus attention on other forms of labour exploitation occurring right under their collective noses in America's "gig economy", in which benefits and protections that were key components of our employment laws for many decades are now being rapidly unwound.

No company better exemplifies this trend than Uber. The company's exploitation of workers is symptomatic of the rise of what author Albena Azmanova has called "precarity capitalism" in her new book,_ Capitalism on Edge_, a condition that Professor James Galbraith has described as "a minority ensconced in a diminishing set of safe career paths or sufficient wealth not to bother worrying about [economic insecurity], and a majority living in persistent anxiety over the costs of health, housing, education, the quality of public services and other formerly ordinary attributes of middle-class life.

What makes this trend particularly galling is that the main economic drivers of this transition to 21st-century serfdom fancy themselves as enlightened, socially "woke" corporations, but in fact embrace employment practices worthy of the 19th century Gilded Age.

The company uses retrograde tactics to circumvent existing labour law via the "independent contractor" loophole, which allows them to deny their work force traditional employee benefits, such as healthcare, sick leave and holiday pay, themselves the products of many decades of hard-earned reform. And even with these 19th century work practices, Uber still can't generate positive cash flow, let alone sustain profitability. There's no reason why a company with this kind of business model should exist."

"


----------



## NicFit

observer said:


> "You get reported enough and they will fire you"
> 
> And more likely than not get unemployment insurance. Under Prop 22 you get zilch.


You really think you will get unemployment if they fire your from complaints that you were drunk? That's a pattern of misbehavior and they won't give you unemployment for that. What they may is for not having a good enough rating, though that's a fight to get unemployment. True you get nothing from Prop 22 but if you went and opened a store and it failed you would get nothing too. And now if I'm an employee I have to pay into unemployment, or Uber does or however it works which means that's money now taken out of my pocket, more wage slave nonsense that I have to pay for that I will never want or use. You want to be an employee, flip burgers


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> You really think you will get unemployment if they fire your from complaints that you were drunk? That's a pattern of misbehavior and they won't give you unemployment for that. What they may is for not having a good enough rating, though that's a fight to get unemployment. True you get nothing from Prop 22 but if you went and opened a store and it failed you would get nothing too. And now if I'm an employee I have to pay into unemployment, or Uber does or however it works which means that's money now taken out of my pocket, more wage slave nonsense that I have to pay for that I will never want or use. You want to be an employee, flip burgers


Yes you will.

Uber has not proved you were drunk and they HAVE TO PROVE IT.

They can't use hearsay especially when all you have to do is google "deactivated with a false drunk driving claim."

The employer pays for UI.

Ask Uber for your share of it that they are not paying.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## SHalester

SFTraffic said:


> Even AB5 would pay more


can you expand on that with some details? Also, how would you account for not all active drivers would 'become' employees? Uber over threatened 75% wouldn't be asked to join as employees.

The UI program is financed by employers who *pay unemployment* taxes on up to $7,000 in wages *paid* to each worker. The actual tax rate varies for each employer, depending in part on the amount of UI benefits *paid* to former employees. Thus, the UI tax works much like any other insurance premium.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> Wrong, just wrong, I signed up for Uber as an independent contractor


.... and yet now you're not an independent contractor. AB5 made you an employee.

My recommendation stands - start an IC business. The freedom from control from any overseers is definitely worth it!


> I make my decisions from day to day, it's my choice when and where to work, and I make more then just pennies doing it


That doesn't mean that you have your own business. I'll explain your fallacy:

A Jersey cow is brown. It has four legs. It has a tail. I have a pet, which is brown in colour, has four legs and a tail. Using your logic, my pet must therefore be a cow. However, my pet is not a cow. It is a dog. Just because my dog shares some of the attributes of the cow (colour, four legs and tail), it doesn't mean it is a cow. Do you see the breakdown in your logic? Just because your work for Uber shares _some_ of the attributes of a genuine business, it does not mean that it is a genuine business.


> Shop owners don't always have a choice at setting there prices either, that's the way this works


When I owned my shop, I always set my own prices


> Uber says they have a customer base


Exactly. Uber has the customer base. You don't.


> I have my own LLC, I can sell it if I want, I can sell it to you now. Want to make me an offer?


Hmmm.... tell me what assets it has. And how much you value it at.


----------



## LADryver

No on 22.


----------



## SHalester

The Gift of Fish said:


> AB5 made you an employee.


I'm guessing my W4 form was lost in the mail when I became an employee. Can't see to find a paystub, either. Hum.


----------



## Daisey77

Personally @NicFit I think you're taking your anger out on the wrong folks. You should be addressing this with Uber and Lyft directly. California deemed us employees. They did so because obviously Uber and Lyft couldn't prove otherwise. So you need to be mad at them. If they would pull their heads out of their asses and actually make as true independent contractors as you say we are, then they could pass the ABC test and voilà everything would be over. They are choosing to not treat us as such which in return is preventing them from being able to pass the ABC test. The law is doing as it should. Uber and Lyft are failing to do their part by not being able to pass the ABC test which would support their claim that we are independent contractors. It's rather simple make as independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with having us employees.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> I'm guessing my W4 form was lost in the mail when I became an employee. Can't see to find a paystub, either. Hum.


You're being intentionally obtuse, however I will explain for the benefit of others who are genuinely not familiar with AB5.

AB5 declared that gig workers who work for Uber, Lyft and others are employees, and set January 1, 2020 as the date by which these companies would have to treat these workers as such. However, Uber and Lyft ignored the AB5 law and continued to treat the workers as pseudo independent contractors. This is the reason why you have not received a W4 or paystubs even though, by law, you are an employee.


----------



## Daisey77

SHalester said:


> I'm guessing my W4 form was lost in the mail when I became an employee. Can't see to find a paystub, either. Hum.


Are you really starting with that again?&#128580; just because Uber and Lyft decided to ignore the law and not comply, that doesn't make the law non-existent. If a guy ignores the law and murders someone, that doesn't make the murder legal. Come on with that BS.


----------



## SHalester

Daisey77 said:


> pay the dues that come along with having us employees.


only issue with that, you know for those actually in Calif, is neither U/L will hire every single currently active driver. So the needs of the few (or the one) is more important than the needs of the many?
That is a steep hill to climb to 'become' an employee. You sure you want this in your state?



Daisey77 said:


> Are you really starting with that again?


I'm sorry, did I stop? We, those in calif, are not employees. You can jump up and down and do a dance and have a angry face all you want. The is a court order stay in place and nothing happened......yet..... Court dates set this month for next round. Until then, the judge's orders mean diddly squat.

Show me the W4 and I'll stop mentioning it. Show me a pay stub with all the wonderful deductions. I'll wait. OH, I mean I'd have to show YOU since I'm here and you ain't. So, you must wait. Might be soon, so be ready.


----------



## Daisey77

SHalester said:


> only issue with that, you know for those actually in Calif, is neither U/L will hire every single currently active driver. So the needs of the few (or the one) is more important than the needs of the many?
> That is a steep hill to climb to 'become' an employee. You sure you want this in your state?


Again it is what it is . It's up to them. We're not asking them to fight it either way. It's simple make us independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with us being an employee. We're not saying we want one or the other. We're saying treat us accordingly. Treat us the way you classify us, regardless of what that classification is.


----------



## SHalester

Daisey77 said:


> It's simple make us independent contractors


Us being? How on earth can RS drivers be IC's? Will the ABC test be thrown out or modified? I'm not aware there is a 3rd option. It is AB5 in full, or it will be Prop 22 if it passes. the probability of U/L making a deal with Calif is long over with. It's throw down time. Just have a bit more patient. Stay order expires in Sept and off to the cliff we go again.

Think drivers IN calif should be more concerned with if there will be a shutdown or not.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> only issue with that, you know for those actually in Calif, is neither U/L will hire every single currently active driver.


So what's the problem? You fellas claim that very few drivers will actually want to be hired as employees by Uber once it starts complying. If you're right then Uber will have problems finding enough drivers to work for it. A shortage of drivers would mean that Uber will have to pay significantly above minimum wage. Sounds good to me!


> So the needs of the few (or the one) is more important than the needs of the many?


Oversimplification. First, this is not just about the needs of drivers. The state of CA's requirement that Uber pay its fair share towards health care costs, unemployment etc is fair. CA has paid out hundreds of millions in unemployment to Uber drivers during the pandemic, and Uber didn't contribute a cent. Second, you have not established what the needs of many are.


> You can jump up and down and do a dance and have a angry face all you want.


Amateur dramatics. I see no evidence that any poster here has jumped up and down, done a dance or has an angry face. If you were to stick to your points instead of trying to score points, your arguments would be more effective.


> The is a court order stay in place and nothing happened......yet..... Court dates set this month for next round. Until then, the judge's orders mean diddly squat.
> 
> Show me the W4 and I'll stop mentioning it. Show me a pay stub with all the wonderful deductions. I'll wait. OH, I mean I'd have to show YOU since I'm here and you ain't. So, you must wait. Might be soon, so be ready.


Indeed, the lack of effective enforcement in California is lamentable. The state has, so far, been impotent in enforcing its own laws. I see this as being as much a failure of California as it is a failure of Uber to comply with the law.

It is possible that this battle could go either way, however it is still early for either side to be celebrating any victory.



SHalester said:


> How on earth can RS drivers be IC's?


Lol, your side is campaigning via Prop 22 for drivers to be made IC (well, pseudo IC) by law, instead of the employees that we are currently by law. This is the entire focus and raison d'etre of Prop 22.


----------



## SHalester

The Gift of Fish said:


> You fellas claim that very few drivers will actually want to be hired as employees


I said that? Must have been after I watched people jump up and down and sing 'we are employees, we are employees'. Speaking for myself (well maybe a wad of percent of other drivers) if I'm 'made' an employee via the hiring process I'd be cool with it if (big if) I got the days and times I wanted or near to it. Unlike many, I can compromise. As long as the only option isn't 8 hours a day, or being forced to work at night I'm down with trying it. 
And it seems, there are drivers who want to be employees; just check this forum. How many of those have ever been an employee and know what it is like, is an open question.



The Gift of Fish said:


> however it is still early for either side to be celebrating any victory.


Agreed. All should chill, but hey, we are talking THIS forum. Wild speculation is the engine that makes the little train go.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Second, you have not established what the needs of many are.


I didn't? The driving population that do not want to be employees equals how many? Even before AB5 was passed by either house there wasn't a ground swell of drivers pleading to be employees. A few full timers in SoCal, maybe.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence that any poster here has jumped up and down, done a dance or has an angry face.


ok, so sarcasm goes over heads at times. Noted. I was making point, that clearly missed the intended target (so far). there still is time.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Indeed, the lack of effective enforcement in California is lamentable.


You must mean every state, with the exception of NY. Are the all waiting? Hum.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Daisey77 said:


> Again it is what it is . It's up to them. We're not asking them to fight it either way. It's simple make us independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with us being an employee. We're not saying we want one or the other. We're saying treat us accordingly. Treat us the way you classify us, regardless of what that classification is.


I think that one of the issues is that there are actually three different worker classifications. There's employee, which we all understand. Then there are two types of IC, not one, which some people seem not to understand. First there is fake IC, which is the model that Uberlyft features. This is IC in name only - the controlling company (Uber, Lyft etc) retains significant control over the worker - it decides how much work each worker is given, it decides the rules all workers must follow, it decides the conditions that workers must accept etc etc. The second IC classification is genuine IC, in which the contractor is allowed to set their own prices and are free from control and supervision from a controlling organisation.

For me, valid choices would be either employee or genuine IC. I don't see fake/pseudo IC as an attractive option. It's the worst of all worlds.


----------



## TRugen

The Gift of Fish said:


> So what's the problem? You fellas claim that very few drivers will actually want to be hired as employees by Uber once it starts complying. If you're right then Uber will have problems finding enough drivers to work for it. A shortage of drivers would mean that Uber will have to pay significantly above minimum wage. Sounds good to me!
> Oversimplification. First, this is not just about the needs of drivers. The state of CA's requirement that Uber pay its fair share towards health care costs, unemployment etc is fair. CA has paid out hundreds of millions in unemployment to Uber drivers during the pandemic, and Uber didn't contribute a cent. Second, you have not established what the needs of many are.
> Amateur dramatics. I see no evidence that any poster here has jumped up and down, done a dance or has an angry face. If you were to stick to your points instead of trying to score points, your arguments would be more effective.
> Indeed, the lack of effective enforcement in California is lamentable. The state has, so far, been impotent in enforcing its own laws. I see this as being as much a failure of California as it is a failure of Uber to comply with the law.
> 
> It is possible that this battle could go either way, however it is still early for either side to be celebrating any victory.
> 
> Lol, your side is campaigning via Prop 22 for drivers to be made IC (well, pseudo IC) by law, instead of the employees that we are currently by law. This is the entire focus and raison d'etre of Prop 22.














Daisey77 said:


> It's simple make us independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with us being an employee


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> I said that? Must have been after I watched people jump up and down and sing 'we are employees, we are employees'. Speaking for myself (well maybe a wad of percent of other drivers) if I'm 'made' an employee via the hiring process I'd be cool with it if (big if) I got the days and times I wanted or near to it. Unlike many, I can compromise. As long as the only option isn't 8 hours a day, or being forced to work at night I'm down with trying it.


So, you're railing against something that you might actually be fine with. Ok...


> And it seems, there are drivers who want to be employees; just check this forum.


Of course there are drivers who want to be employees. 


> I didn't? The driving population that do not want to be employees equals how many? Even before AB5 was passed by either house there wasn't a ground swell of drivers pleading to be employees. A few full timers in SoCal, maybe.


I have not seen any reliable driver polls that would give an accurate indication of the percentages of drivers in favour of either employee or pseudo IC status. There are Uber's figures, of course, and Rideshare Guy's polls, but nothing that I would consider reliable data.


> You must mean every state, with the exception of NY. Are the all waiting? Hum.


I am not familiar with any other states' enforcement of legislation, so I cannot comment. Also, there are no other states that I know of that have legislation similar to AB5, so their enforcement of such legislation has not been put to the test.


----------



## chiefster1953

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Spot on - "you want to be their partner and not their employee" - why some people can't understand this is beyond me. I will stop driving immediately if there is any suggestion of an employer/employee relationship - I drive Uber to avoid all of that nonsense.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

chiefster1953 said:


> Spot on - "you want to be their partner and not their employee" - why some people can't understand this is beyond me. I will stop driving immediately if there is any suggestion of an employer/employee relationship - I drive Uber to avoid all of that nonsense.


Being Uber's partner sounds like it might be good. However, such an offer is not on the table from Uber.


----------



## Ubering4Beer

NicFit said:


> You really think you will get unemployment if they fire your from complaints that you were drunk? That's a pattern of misbehavior and they won't give you unemployment for that. What they may is for not having a good enough rating, though that's a fight to get unemployment. True you get nothing from Prop 22 but if you went and opened a store and it failed you would get nothing too. And now if I'm an employee I have to pay into unemployment, or Uber does or however it works which means that's money now taken out of my pocket, more wage slave nonsense that I have to pay for that I will never want or use. You want to be an employee, flip burgers


Not to get all Negative Nancy but honestly, I think we're screwed either way. And for the record I'm 100% opposed to Prop. 22. To explain:

If Prop. 22 fails and AB5 remains law, both Uber and Lyft will only hire a small percentage of the current roster of drivers. Could be 10%, could be 25%, honestly it doesn't really matter, a very significant amount of folks currently driving for either or both companies will lose their access to the platforms. Those that do get hired will likely be paid minimum wage plus $0.58/mile and tolls, and possibly a shift differential for nights/weekends/holidays. In the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic there will be no shortage of folks willing to work for minimum wage. Don't believe me? Try searching for jobs on Indeed. Plenty of companies looking for minimum wage employees right now, with 15MM or more still out of work there's zero incentive for them to offer more than $15/hr. And you'd better believe you'd be assigned shifts. Just like in any other business, staffing levels will have to reflect periods of high demand. That means morning rush, evening rush, and of course nights and weekends. And you'd better believe there will be plenty of baiting and switching on schedules. I've been hired for jobs in healthcare that are "day shift and every other weekend" which very quickly became "night shift, some graveyard, and 3 of 4 weekends a month". Best believe Uber and Lyft will be no better.

If Prop. 22 passes Uber and Lyft celebrate by promptly removing destination information and estimated earnings from the app. With demand still low due to ongoing Covid restrictions and Millions of folks still out of work because of the pandemic Surge, Boost, Quest and all other promos vanish in all but the most rare of circumstances. Rates quickly fall to the minimum prescribed by Prop. 22, whereas drivers are paid 1.2x minimum wage and $0.30/mile FOR ENGAGED TIME ONLY. But worst of all, corporate actors far worse than Uber and Lyft (cough, Amazon, cough), emboldened by U/L's strategy, start asking for carve outs from traditional labor laws of their own. Basic labor protections like minimum wage, OT pay, sick leave, etc. become fair game for corporations demanding voters provide them an exemption from providing. The race to the bottom is complete.

This is solely on the fault of lawmakers for failing to reign in these companies early on. The situation has become SO dire that we have to choose between granting these miserable companies exemptions from any/all meaningful regulation and adherence to labor laws or accepting a future in which companies with absolutely zero shame nor sense of corporate ethics (cough, Amazon, cough) will be bankrolling annual campaigns looking to undo literally a century's worth of progress. The whole situation just sucks.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> only issue with that, you know for those actually in Calif, is neither U/L will hire every single currently active driver. So the needs of the few (or the one) is more important than the needs of the many?


Does Uber and Lyft plan on hiring "every single currently active driver" under Prop 22?

Can you show me where Uber/Lyft guarantee they will hire all drivers?

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_...tractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Ubering4Beer said:


> If Prop. 22 fails and AB5 remains law, both Uber and Lyft will only hire a small percentage of the current roster of drivers. Could be 10%, could be 25%, honestly it doesn't really matter, a very significant amount of folks currently driving for either or both companies will lose their access to the platforms.


That's the way things are in all of the employment world, though. Not everyone who wants to work for any given employer will be hired. For each job that is recruited for, some applicants will not even get an interview, and of those who do reach interview stage, some will be rejected.

Naturally, it is possible to have many more workers when the workers are exploited for the simple reason that they cost much less. I think the relevant question is whether it is better to have a situation of mass exploitation or a situation in which these companies' workforce sizes are decided by the economics of the companies' performance in the market conditions in which they operate. I prefer the latter.

I agree that this debacle is entirely the fault of government for permitting it in the first place.


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> Wrong, just wrong, I signed up for Uber as an independent contractor, I make my decisions from day to day, it's my choice when and where to work, and I make more then just pennies doing it. AB5 is going to make away my freedom of choice. Why do you want to be an employee when Uber didn't offer this? Not one driver should be expecting this, rideshare driving is like opening up a business, there no one to give you time off, no one gives you vacation pay or sick pay. Shop owners don't always have a choice at setting there prices either, that's the way this works, Uber says they have a customer base, we charge this and we pay you this, if you expect any more then that then don't drive for Uber, plenty of driving jobs out there you can get all these so called employee benefits, I don't want none of that, I want the cash, not health care, not vacation time, just want I do my ride, get paid, that's it. Any driver who expects more then this shouldn't drive for Uber, there is no safety net and if you can't figure out how to make well over $1k a week then Uber isn't for you. I talked to another person that owns a shop today and they said the same thing, you don't like the way Uber works then don't drive for them, you knew ahead of time it's not a hourly wage job, go flip burgers if you don't like the way Uber is set up
> 
> Vote Yes on Prop 22
> 
> 
> I have my own LLC, I can sell it if I want, I can sell it to you now. Want to make me an offer?


Your LLC isn't worth the paper it's written on.

On the contrary you've wasted money creating it and it gives you little to no benefit.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> Your LLC isn't worth the paper it's written on.
> 
> On the contrary you've wasted money creating it and it gives you little to no benefit.


Exactly. The only assets it could have would be perhaps the car. That could be sold with the LLC, but that would not provide the buyer with anything over and above what the buyer would get with any other used car purchase.


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> Exactly. The only assets it could have would be perhaps the car. That could be sold with the LLC, but that would not provide the buyer with anything over and above what the buyer would get with any other used car purchase.


That's because Ubering isn't a true business.

It's a job.

Having a LLC means little. It doesn't even offer protection in an accident.


----------



## NicFit

observer said:


> Your LLC isn't worth the paper it's written on.
> 
> On the contrary you've wasted money creating it and it gives you little to no benefit.





The Gift of Fish said:


> Exactly. The only assets it could have would be perhaps the car. That could be sold with the LLC, but that would not provide the buyer with anything over and above what the buyer would get with any other used car purchase.


Yeah, there's a car with it, there's bank accounts with credit history, there's all kids of other paperwork's and fees that have been paid, last LLC I saw on Craigslist all ready to go they were asking $65k for so it's worthless? I think I can get that for mine, what this now you saying I can't sell what I have again?


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> Yeah, there's a car with it, there's bank accounts with credit history, there's all kids of other paperwork's and fees that have been paid, last LLC I saw on Craigslist all ready to go they were asking $65k for so it's worthless? I think I can get that for mine, what this now you saying I can't sell what I have again?


You think your Uber LLC is worth 65K?


----------



## NicFit

observer said:


> That's because Ubering isn't a true business.
> 
> It's a job.
> 
> Having a LLC means little. It doesn't even offer protection in an accident.


The LLC protects my personal assets, though to a point, I think if I did something grossly negligent there's nothing that can protect you but an LLC means they can take your house if you get into an accident



observer said:


> You think your Uber LLC is worth 65K?


With a car and all the stuff ready to go yes, do you have any idea what an LLC for Uber takes to run?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> Yeah, there's a car with it, there's bank accounts with credit history, there's all kids of other paperwork's and fees that have been paid, last LLC I saw on Craigslist all ready to go they were asking $65k for so it's worthless? I think I can get that for mine, what this now you saying I can't sell what I have again?


Of course you can try to sell it. However, the point is that your LLC with a used car is worth no more than just buying a similar used car. I could start an LLC and put my kitchen fridge into the company as its asset. I could put the LLC on Craigslist in the appliances section, but I wouldn't be offering anything over and above anyone else's fridge listing just because it is part of an LLC. The LLC part is valueless.

Paperwork by itself has no value. That just leaves the fees you paid, but fees are not assets; they are expenses.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> Personally @NicFit I think you're taking your anger out on the wrong folks. You should be addressing this with Uber and Lyft directly. California deemed us employees. They did so because obviously Uber and Lyft couldn't prove otherwise. So you need to be mad at them. If they would pull their heads out of their asses and actually make as true independent contractors as you say we are, then they could pass the ABC test and voilà everything would be over. They are choosing to not treat us as such which in return is preventing them from being able to pass the ABC test. The law is doing as it should. Uber and Lyft are failing to do their part by not being able to pass the ABC test which would support their claim that we are independent contractors. It's rather simple make as independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with having us employees.


And who just made up new rules after Uber and Lyft have been around for years? I'm very unhappy with California for making this an issue, they just want more state taxes. They are the ones I'm pissed with, it's called government over reach and they can shove AB5 up their ass, this law shouldn't exist, I didn't vote on it and if drivers feel that Uber was mistreating them then they can go flip burgers


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> The LLC protects my personal assets, though to a point, I think if I did something grossly negligent there's nothing that can protect you but an LLC means they can take your house if you get into an accident
> 
> 
> With a car and all the stuff ready to go yes, do you have any idea what an LLC for Uber takes to run?


If you do anything remotely negligent you will be sued.

You really need to talk to a business lawyer. An LLC offers you no protection if you are the driver.

It does offer you protection if an employee has an accident, but not if YOU were driving.

I do have an idea of what running a business and LLC cost. I've sold two businesses with LLCs.

Yes your vehicle has value but it has value regardless of wether you have an LLC or not.

Other than that there is zero value to your LLC.

You really need to discuss this with a lawyer especially if you have any assets.

For your own protection spend a couple hundred dollars and go speak to a business attorney.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> Of course you can try to sell it. However, the point is that your LLC with a used car is worth no more than just buying a similar used car. I could start an LLC and put my kitchen fridge into the company as its asset. I could put the LLC on Craigslist in the appliances section, but I wouldn't be offering anything over and above anyone else's fridge listing just because it is part of an LLC. The LLC part is valueless.
> 
> Paperwork by itself has no value. That just leaves the fees you paid, but fees are not assets; they are expenses.


Yes they are expenses that you have to spend to make an LLC work with Uber and no you still have pay extra for that car to be able to be used with the LLC, credit and payment history with bank accounts is worth money too, clearly you have zero business experience otherwise you would know that. It's also time that's spent to have it done right, it's takes hours to prepare ever step and you sometimes have to wait weeks to go to the next step. The whole thing takes a couple of months to set up. I have seen on Craigslist a turn key LLC with similar car, spot and every last detail right for $65k, so yes I think I can get that for my setup


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> And who just made up new rules after Uber and Lyft have been around for years?


The government, lol. They have a habit of making up rules and calling them laws.


> I'm very unhappy with California for making this an issue, they just want more state taxes. They are the ones I'm pissed with, it's called government over reach and they can shove AB5 up their ass, this law shouldn't exist, I didn't vote on it and if drivers feel that Uber was mistreating them then they can go flip burgers


What is it with this "go flip burgers" routine? &#129315; Any time there is some disagreement about work, the suggestion from you guys is "go flip burgers". It's as if you think the choice is only between proper treatment at work or flipping burgers. There is nothing else. -o:



NicFit said:


> Yes they are expenses that you have to spend to make an LLC work with Uber and no you still have pay extra for that car to be able to be used with the LLC, credit and payment history with bank accounts is worth money too, clearly you have zero business experience otherwise you would know that. It's also time that's spent to have it done right, it's takes hours to prepare ever step and you sometimes have to wait weeks to go to the next step. The whole thing takes a couple of months to set up. I have seen on Craigslist a turn key LLC with similar car, spot and every last detail right for $65k, so yes I think I can get that for my setup


Yes, they are expenses. We agree on that. However, paying fees does not add value to a business; assets do.

I have also seen lots of bonkers ads on Craigslist. I'm currently looking for a cheap motorcycle and just last week I saw an ad for a 1991 Suzuki GS500 advertised for $6,000. Real world, non - "I'm on crack" value is around $1,000. Don't put your faith in everything you see online! It may not be realistic!


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> The government, lol. They have a habit of making up rules and calling them laws.
> What is it with this "go flip burgers" routine? &#129315; Any time there is some disagreement about work, the suggestion from you guys is "go flip burgers". It's as if you think the choice is only between proper treatment at work or flipping burgers. There is nothing else. -o:


I say go flip burgers since you socialists want all the perks of being employees while reaping the benefits of being an independent contractor. Why would you want to drive around and when you can have a nice career at McDonald's now that has all those things you think you need to have with Uber. Uber wasn't designed to be a job, it was meant to be "here's a ride, complete and goodbye, do you want to repeat?" There no set structure, no boss, no time schedules. Stop trying to make Uber into something it was never meant to be, not saying some stuff needed to be worked on but AB5 will kill rideshare, then I don't have a job because some people in the government think that they can do better then what's already running just fine



The Gift of Fish said:


> The government, lol. They have a habit of making up rules and calling them laws.
> What is it with this "go flip burgers" routine? &#129315; Any time there is some disagreement about work, the suggestion from you guys is "go flip burgers". It's as if you think the choice is only between proper treatment at work or flipping burgers. There is nothing else. -o:
> 
> 
> Yes, they are expenses. We agree on that. However, paying fees does not add value to a business; assets do.
> 
> I have also seen lots of bonkers ads on Craigslist. I'm currently looking for a cheap motorcycle and just last week I saw an ad for a 1991 Suzuki GS500 advertised for $6,000. Real world, non - "I'm on crack" value is around $1,000. Don't put your faith in everything you see online! It may not be realistic!


Yes some stuff is over price but I think it's not unreasonable for what I have, don't know what happened to that one, though the ad is gone, can't really know since I can't contact the seller and find out. Point is that's it's not worth zero like the other guy said, I'm not going to get a ton of money for it but when you sell a bunch of paper work like that it's worth something, it may not sell fast and I sure wouldn't want to try to make a living trying to flip LLCs but to say that it's worthless is false


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> I say go flip burgers since you socialists want all the perks of being employees while reaping the benefits of being an independent contractor.


A couple of inaccuracies here. I'm not a socialist. And no, being and employee/IC hybrid is not an acceptable option for me. That is the current situation with driving for Uber. Uber maintains many aspects of control over drivers as if we were their employees, but claims we are IC and thereby provide no employee benefits. This is the reason AB5 was engendered in the first place! 


> Why would you want to drive around and when you can have a nice career at McDonald's now that has all those things you think you need to have with Uber.


I have no desire to work for McDonalds. Next question.


> Uber wasn't designed to be a job, it was meant to be "here's a ride, complete and goodbye, do you want to repeat?"


Uber's founder, Travis Kalanick said exactly the opposite. He was famous for claiming that Uber drivers could make $74,000 per year driving full time for Uber. Your facts are off.


> I don't have a job because some people in the government think that they can do better then what's already running just fine


You don't know that you won't be offered a job once Uber goes employee! You're being pessimistic/defeatist.



NicFit said:


> Yes some stuff is over price but I think it's not unreasonable for what I have, don't know what happened to that one, though the ad is gone, can't really know since I can't contact the seller and find out. Point is that's it's not worth zero like the other guy said, I'm not going to get a ton of money for it but when you sell a bunch of paper work like that it's worth something, it may not sell fast and I sure wouldn't want to try to make a living trying to flip LLCs but to say that it's worthless is false


Ok, well, you don't say what kind of car you have, but you haven't provided any evidence of the value of the LLC itself over and above your car's value. If you think your LLC is worth a large premium simply because you filed the required paperwork and paid the fees on your LLC then good luck to you!


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> A couple of inaccuracies here. I'm not a socialist. And no, being and employee/IC hybrid is not an acceptable option for me. That is the current situation with driving for Uber. Uber maintains many aspects of control over drivers as if we were their employees, but claims we are IC and thereby provide no employee benefits. This is the reason AB5 was engendered in the first place!
> I have no desire to work for McDonalds. Next question.
> Uber's founder, Travis Kalanick said exactly the opposite. He was famous for claiming that Uber drivers could make $74,000 per year driving full time for Uber. Your facts are off.
> You don't know that you won't be offered a job once Uber goes employee! You're being pessimistic/defeatist.


So you want to change something that's already been working? Thanks for ruining what I like. And yes I made close to the $74k last year not even full time, I think I worked one full week. Some people know how to make Uber work for them some don't, Uber isn't made for job security, you don't like that then go drive a semi, they have what your looking for and it's not McDonald's. No one said you have to work for Uber, if you don't like the mostly independent contractor model then don't drive for Uber, no one forced you to start and forced you to keep driving. You knew what Uber was when you started and if you didn't like it or understand it then why do you continue? Uber doesn't care if you go work for someone else



The Gift of Fish said:


> A couple of inaccuracies here. I'm not a socialist. And no, being and employee/IC hybrid is not an acceptable option for me. That is the current situation with driving for Uber. Uber maintains many aspects of control over drivers as if we were their employees, but claims we are IC and thereby provide no employee benefits. This is the reason AB5 was engendered in the first place!
> I have no desire to work for McDonalds. Next question.
> Uber's founder, Travis Kalanick said exactly the opposite. He was famous for claiming that Uber drivers could make $74,000 per year driving full time for Uber. Your facts are off.
> You don't know that you won't be offered a job once Uber goes employee! You're being pessimistic/defeatist.
> 
> Ok, well, you don't say what kind of car you have, but you haven't provided any evidence of the value of the LLC itself over and above your car's value. If you think your LLC is worth a large premium simply because you filed the required paperwork and paid the fees on your LLC then good luck to you!


No I don't like saying personal details, I'm one of those paranoid people on the internet. I don't think the LLC is worth a lot over what I payed for but I put thousands into it, you want an LLC then you go form one and get it ready for Uber, once you see and pay those costs you know that it's not worthless as anyone new will have to also spend that money. Point is all of mine is transferable which means those fees I paid can be yours without paying for them, you think anyone would give that away for free?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> So you want to change something that's already been working?


Yes, I want to change the current situation. I thought that would be obvious.


> Thanks for ruining what I like.


I can't take credit for it. However, as the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want"


> you don't like that then go drive a semi, they have what your looking for and it's not McDonald's.


Well, at least you are now offering also the option now to drive a semi, and not just flipping burgers. I guess that's progess! &#129315;


> No one said you have to work for Uber, if you don't like the mostly independent contractor model then don't drive for Uber, no one forced you to start and forced you to keep driving.


True, but I am not arguing that Uber forced me to drive for them. That's not in dispute.


> You knew what Uber was when you started and if you didn't like it or understand it then why do you continue? Uber doesn't care if you go work for someone else


For the same reason that Rosa Parks continued to ride the bus. If she didn't like it, she could have just got off. The bus company wouldn't have cared if she walked. For the same reason that companies and people should not be allowed to do whatever they want.



NicFit said:


> No I don't like saying personal details, I'm one of those paranoid people on the internet.


I didn't ask for personal details. I just asked you to state the assets the company has that would give it value, which you are unable to do.


> I don't think the LLC is worth a lot over what I payed for but I put thousands into it


Ok, so apart from the fees you paid, what did you get in exchange for the thousands you put into it?


> you want an LLC then you go form one and get it ready for Uber, once you see and pay those costs you know that it's not worthless as anyone new will have to also spend that money.


No; I don't want an LLC to work for Uber.


> Point is all of mine is transferable which means those fees I paid can be yours without paying for them, you think anyone would give that away for free?


Ok, so your business has prepaid fees that could be sold on. Selling your business would just mean that you get reimbursed by the buyer for those fees that you paid. If you paid $100 for annual fee x six months ago then there would be six months remaining which would mean that you would potentially get back $50 from the buyer for it. No, a successful business is worth _more_ than the amount spent on it by the owner. Take a look at Youtube - it was seeded with $20 million and later sold for $1.65 billion. And you're boasting because you could get back some of the fees money you spent to administer it and call this value? Seriously? Not really a definition of a successful business, is it?


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, I want to change the current situation. I thought that would be obvious.
> I can't take credit for it. However, as the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want"
> Well, at least you are now offering also the option now to drive a semi, and not just flipping burgers. I guess that's progess! &#129315;
> True, but I am not arguing that Uber forced me to drive for them. That's not in dispute.
> For the same reason that Rosa Parks continued to ride the bus. If she didn't like it, she could have just got off. The bus company wouldn't have cared if she walked. For the same reason that companies and people should not be allowed to do whatever they want.


Then go away, I just said I don't want you changing what I have going, you want to gut it and destroy it just so it's slightly better maybe. How much better do you really think Uber will be if your an employee, you think you can make more money? You think when a customer claims you were drunk you won't be deactivated? No, you won't make more money as now they can pay you minimum wage and that's it, no surge, no bonus and nothing else extra. They still are required by law to suspend you over complaints that you were drunk driving and even if you have three they will still fire an employee over it false or not, nothing will change there. What will change is they will tell you when and where you drive. Want to work over time? No. Want to take time off when you want? No, you can when we say we can. Want Christmas or otheR holidays off? No, you work when we say you work. You want that then go somewhere else, semi drivers are hiring, stop driving for Uber and go apply there


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> Then go away


You go away!


> I just said I don't want you changing what I have going, you want to gut it and destroy it just so it's slightly better maybe.


Tough.


> You want that then go somewhere else, semi drivers are hiring, stop driving for Uber and go apply there


Repetition. You already recommended semi driving as an alternate occupation.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, I want to change the current situation. I thought that would be obvious.
> I can't take credit for it. However, as the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want"
> Well, at least you are now offering also the option now to drive a semi, and not just flipping burgers. I guess that's progess! &#129315;
> True, but I am not arguing that Uber forced me to drive for them. That's not in dispute.
> For the same reason that Rosa Parks continued to ride the bus. If she didn't like it, she could have just got off. The bus company wouldn't have cared if she walked. For the same reason that companies and people should not be allowed to do whatever they want.
> 
> I didn't ask for personal details. I just asked you to state the assets the company has that would give it value, which you are unable to do.
> Ok, so apart from the fees you paid, what did you get in exchange for the thousands you put into it?
> No; I don't want an LLC to work for Uber.
> Ok, so your business has prepaid fees that could be sold on. Selling your business would just mean that you get reimbursed by the buyer for those fees that you paid. If you paid $100 for annual fee x six months ago then there would be six months remaining which would mean that you would potentially get back $50 from the buyer for it. No, a successful business is worth _more_ than the amount spent on it by the owner. Take a look at Youtube - it was seeded with $20 million and later sold for $1.65 billion. And you're boasting because you could get back some of the fees money you spent to administer it and call this value? Seriously? Not really a definition of a successful business, is it?


I don't have to defend nothing to you, you just don't get it and never will, stop driving for Uber and stop trying to ruin what I have

Vote Yes on Prop 22



The Gift of Fish said:


> You go away!
> Tough.
> Repetition. You already recommended semi driving as an alternate occupation.


Because you want just won't shut up and whine about little nothing details that only suit you

Don't go driving semis, you don't have the intelligence to drive one, go flip burgers


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> I don't have to defend nothing to you,


Yet you devote so much effort to doing precisely that right here!


> you just don't get it and never will, stop driving for Uber and stop trying to ruin what I have


Sorry, request denied.


> Vote Yes on Prop 22


No thanks!


> Because you want just won't shut up and whine about little nothing details that only suit you


I'm sensing anger.

Oh, and whining is an intonation of speech. This is a written forum; whining is therefore not possible.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


I don't think your correct in your arguments and assumptions.

For example I usually worked the Friday, Saturday night 10 to 2 or more if surging.

To get me out there for this 4 hour block Uber paid me surge most the time. That is why drivers go out at these times. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Now your claiming I would be asked to do the same shift block as a employee and they magically don't have to offer surge to get my out there.

If it took surge to get my out there on a 4 hour block, regardless of what they call me I would still need surge to go out there.

Same as most other drivers that pull similar shifts. How do imagine Uber will get us out there to work. We did it for surge, so if there is no surge, no drivers will show up to those shifts and passengers will be stranded, Uber will make no money.

Regardless of what my worker status, I'm not going out at 10 to 2 Friday, Saturday without a bonus or surge.

How would Uber gets drivers to actually show up if so far we needed surge to work. Now if they just say no more surge after shows, concerts, events, busy times, and you magically think anyone would show up?

I don't understand, it's silly logic. No drivers would show up.



NicFit said:


> Yes on Prop 22 and 90% of the drivers get to keep earning, I'm looking at the lesser of two evils and your right, either way is still no good. I prefer to make ok money then to only have a 10% chance of making money


Dude, you understand that 96% of drivers Don't stay around 12 months.

So they will need more drivers than they can keep.

Dont worry about the 96% that don't stay around Anyways. The 4% that stay around, if they are ok with being employee I'm sure they will have a job.

So 96 % voluntarily leave.

Out of the remaining 4% the ones that want to stay I'm sure are needed, since you claim they need at least 10% of the drivers.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Can you show me where Uber/Lyft guarantee they will hire all drivers?


r u lost? Just up from a nap? Where did I say U/L will hire all active drivers? I've posted a zillion times the opposite. Here, I'll make it easy on YOU: https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-says...ose-work-if-theyre-reclassified-as-employees/


----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I don't think your correct in your arguments and assumptions.
> 
> For example I usually worked the Friday, Saturday night 10 to 2 or more if surging.
> 
> To get me out there for this 4 hour block Uber paid me surge most the time. That is why drivers go out at these times. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.
> 
> Now your claiming I would be asked to do the same shift block as a employee and they magically don't have to offer surge to get my out there.
> 
> If it took surge to get my out there on a 4 hour block, regardless of what they call me I would still need surge to go out there.
> 
> Same as most other drivers that pull similar shifts. How do imagine Uber will get us out there to work. We did it for surge, so if there is no surge, no drivers will show up to those shifts and passengers will be stranded, Uber will make no money.
> 
> Regardless of what my worker status, I'm not going out at 10 to 2 Friday, Saturday without a bonus or surge.
> 
> How would Uber gets drivers to actually show up if so far we needed surge to work. Now if they just say no more surge after shows, concerts, events, busy times, and you magically think anyone would show up?
> 
> I don't understand, it's silly logic. No drivers would show up.
> 
> 
> Dude, you understand that 96% of drivers Don't stay around 12 months.
> 
> So they will need more drivers than they can keep.
> 
> Dont worry about the 96% that don't stay around Anyways. The 4% that stay around, if they are ok with being employee I'm sure they will have a job.
> 
> So 96 % voluntarily leave.
> 
> Out of the remaining 4% the ones that want to stay I'm sure are needed, since you claim they need at least 10% of the drivers.


First part, you don't go out, you don't have a job any more, that's how employees work, they give you a shift and you do it or you get fired for not being at work, try that at any job, you won't be employed. So you want to cherry pick? Then vote Yes on Prop 22.

The second part my facts weren't quite correct, did some research. Right now California has 200k drivers. After they have to make them employees Uber said they would only hire 50k back. So it's 75% of driver that will lose there means of earning anything with Uber if they have to follow AB5. Uber knows how to hire, they are well aware of the turn over and can obviously handle it at the moment. If your hired as an employee and you quit a job it will reflect badly on you so maybe the high turn around might be a little lower. I feel it would be the same as any other service industry job for the turn over, some will keep working until they can't any more, others do it until they find something better. It's also easier currently to quit, you just don't go online and no one cares, I believe you have to put in a two week notice if your an employee and that's something that could deter quitting so fast. AB5 does nothing to address the high turn over and neither does Prop 22 and really does it matter? Uber finds a way to make sure it has enough drivers. It says nothing on whether they would even hire old drivers or just find all new drivers so they don't have old drivers complaining. Point is AB5 means there is a months long shut down while a chance of being rehired. Prop 22 keeps everything running and all the driver earning the entire time. Which do you think you should choose?


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> Then go away, I just said I don't want you changing what I have going


Me me me me me&#129326;&#128580;
If you're not a millennial you're definitely an only child


NicFit said:


> How much better do you really think Uber will be if your an employee, you think you can make more money?


You think you can make more money with proposition 22? &#128517;&#128517; at $0.30 a mile ? &#128517;&#129315;&#128514; sorry but now it's the lesser of the two evils


NicFit said:


> No, you won't make more money as now they can pay you minimum wage and that's it, no surge, no bonus and nothing else extra


Ummmm and why do you keep forgetting about expenses?


NicFit said:


> They still are required by law to suspend you over complaints that you were drunk driving and even if you have three they will still fire an employee over it false or not, nothing will change there


Except your time off for them to investigate will be paid. And you'll have recourse. They will have to accept any Dashcam footage you have. It'll be like a true investigation unlike now. If not, oh well you'll definitely be entitled to unemployment at that point.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

SHalester said:


> r u lost? Just up from a nap? Where did I say U/L will hire all active drivers? I've posted a zillion times the opposite. Here, I'll make it easy on YOU: https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-says...ose-work-if-theyre-reclassified-as-employees/


The article says
"For example, Central Valley would see a 110% to 120% increase."

Haha. That's higher than Taxi rates. With this rate Taxi would be 1/3 cheaper.

I bet alternative options will create better opportunity in the Transportation business.

For every 2-4 Uber drivers that used to work less than 10 hours a week, there will be 1-2 good pay, licensed Independent operator opportunity opening up.

Most drivers that will loss the opportunity to do ride-share with Uber will have other options open up.

I paid 100 for a transportation license, once Uber starts charging more and letting people go, I'll just adjust and compete head on with Uber. Many of us out there, waiting, ready to dump Uber and compete.

Alto and Taxi apps will be here also, drivers that can't get licensed on their own could find other opportunities.

Uber is like a Airline, if it leaves or goes bankrupt, or if it fires me, I will go work for another airline.

Uber will not be the only Airline in town anymore.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> r u lost? Just up from a nap? Where did I say U/L will hire all active drivers? I've posted a zillion times the opposite. Here, I'll make it easy on YOU: https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-says...ose-work-if-theyre-reclassified-as-employees/


Actually, I just did wake up from a nap.

&#129396;

You keep claiming that Uber/Lyft will only hire a small amount of drivers without Prop 22.

"Every single currently active driver".

Your words.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic

observer said:


> Actually, I just did wake up from a nap.


LOL. Based.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

NicFit said:


> First part, you don't go out, they give you a shift and you do it or you get fired for not being at work, try that at any job, you won't be employed. So you want to cherry pick? Then vote Yes on Prop 22.


Right now I work 4 hour blocks for surge and busy times.

You are asking me to commit to shifts and actually show up without any bonus or surge?

First, I am not able to commit to shifts, and have no interest to drive busy times without proper compensation.

Maybe voluntary shifts, at my preference, with bonuses here and there, but otherwise I QUIT!

Don't say Uber will fire me, I would QUIT first.

75% of drivers have other life obligations and circumstances and will not be able to commit to any shift.

So no need to fire anyone, 75% would never show up to a rigid shift, no surge.

Good luck to Uber finding supply for those 1-3 hour rush of demand times.

Dont act like you need Uber more than Uber needs you.

You can go get another situation if everything goes south.

Uber can't go get another 75 Billion.

I stand my ground and say no to a third category.

I see a 3rd category as a devastation to the ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY and a end to indipendent operators in transportation.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> Me me me me me&#129326;&#128580;
> If you're not a millennial you're definitely an only child
> 
> You think you can make more money with proposition 22? &#128517;&#128517; at $0.30 a mile ? &#128517;&#129315;&#128514; sorry but now it's the lesser of the two evils
> Ummmm and why do you keep forgetting about expenses?
> 
> Except your time off for them to investigate will be paid. And you'll have recourse. They will have to accept any Dashcam footage you have. It'll be like a true investigation unlike now. If not, oh well you'll definitely be entitled to unemployment at that point.


Ok, I'm definitely not a millennial and not an only child. I am not liking when my means of income is severely threatened. Yes I am doing the me me me thing because Uber has already said they would only hire 50k driver when there are 200k driving currently, no where does it say they have to rehire current drivers, I have zero guarantee that they would rehire me. If Prop 22 passes I have 100% chance of still being able to make money. Now which would be the one to choose? 25% or 100%. Second off .30 per mile is what the lowest they will pay you, no that's not the greatest but if you take the risk of driving a long distant pickup and it turns out to be a 3 minute ride you won't be shortchanged completely. I think it should match federal write off and I have no idea why it isn't. And I will never see this anyway as I won't take trips that are more then 10 minutes away unless it's clearly worth it, or over $50 trip and I don't drive for Uber a dollar a mile anyway so I would have to drive more then 2 miles to get there, when there drive less then a mile. I just don't care about the .30 a mile, it's just some safety net so people can't get shortchanged that I should never see. The only thing I care about is not being an employee for Uber, the rest of Prop 22 does hardly anything for me.

So you think they'll pay you when you are accused of drunk driving? Why do you think that? Where in AB5 or employee rights or whatever says they have to pay you while investigations criminal accusations. They won't, you are not going to get pay, you are going to be suspended from driving and nothing will change on how they do it now. It's the law they have to suspend you when ever you are accused. You are living in fantasy land if you think giving up all your freedom just so you think you can get an extra day or two of pay for these one time incidents is worth saying no to being an independent contractor. Why don't you figure how much pay you would gain from these so called investigations, that's how much your freedom was worth to be a wage slave again



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I dont
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Right now I work 4 hour blocks for surge and busy times.
> 
> You are asking me to commit to shifts and actually show up without any bonus or surge?
> 
> First, I am not able to commit to shifts, and have no interest to drive busy times without proper compensation.
> 
> Maybe voluntary shifts, at my preference, with bonuses here and there, but otherwise I QUIT!
> 
> Don't say Uber will fire me, I would QUIT first.
> 
> 75% of drivers have other life obligations and circumstances and will not be able to commit to any shift.
> 
> So no need to fire anyone, 75% would never show up to a rigid shift, no surge.
> 
> Good luck to Uber finding supply for those 1-3 hour rush of demand times.
> 
> Dont act like you need Uber more than Uber needs you.
> 
> You can go get another situation if everything goes south.
> 
> Uber can't go get another 75 Billion.
> 
> I stand my ground and say no to a third category.
> 
> I see a 3rd category as a devastation to the ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY and a end to indipendent operators in transportation.


So you want to stay independent contractor? Then vote yes on Prop 22 and you can do just what you are doing now, I may have crossed what your saying as someone wanting to be an employee. Oh and California is a testing ground, once they see what they can do to Uber here it will be rolled out nation wide. Think your safe in other states? Just wait until the other states get the same idea


----------



## Ubering4Beer

NicFit said:


> Ok, I'm definitely not a millennial and not an only child. I am not liking when my means of income is severely threatened. Yes I am doing the me me me thing because Uber has already said they would only hire 50k driver when there are 200k driving currently, no where does it say they have to rehire current drivers, I have zero guarantee that they would rehire me. If Prop 22 passes I have 100% chance of still being able to make money. Now which would be the one to choose? 25% or 100%. Second off .30 per mile is what the lowest they will pay you, no that's not the greatest but if you take the risk of driving a long distant pickup and it turns out to be a 3 minute ride you won't be shortchanged completely. I think it should match federal write off and I have no idea why it isn't. And I will never see this anyway as I won't take trips that are more then 10 minutes away unless it's clearly worth it, or over $50 trip and I don't drive for Uber a dollar a mile anyway so I would have to drive more then 2 miles to get there, when there drive less then a mile. I just don't care about the .30 a mile, it's just some safety net so people can't get shortchanged that I should never see. The only thing I care about is not being an employee for Uber, the rest of Prop 22 does hardly anything for me.
> 
> So you think they'll pay you when you are accused of drunk driving? Why do you think that? Where in AB5 or employee rights or whatever says they have to pay you while investigations criminal accusations. They won't, you are not going to get pay, you are going to be suspended from driving and nothing will change on how they do it now. It's the law they have to suspend you when ever you are accused. You are living in fantasy land if you think giving up all your freedom just so you think you can get an extra day or two of pay for these one time incidents is worth saying no to being an independent contractor. Why don't you figure how much pay you would gain from these so called investigations, that's how much your freedom was worth to be a wage slave again
> 
> 
> So you want to stay independent contractor? Then vote yes on Prop 22 and you can do just what you are doing now, I may have crossed what your saying as someone wanting to be an employee. Oh and California is a testing ground, once they see what they can do to Uber here it will be rolled out nation wide. Think your safe in other states? Just wait until the other states get the same idea


Just curious, do you believe that Uber is going to continue to offer destination/estimated fare information in the app and the ability to "set your own Surge" should Prop. 22 pass? Keep in mind the only reason they budged on these features to begin with was to give the impression that drivers were truly independent and free from the company's control under the 3-pronged test established by AB5. Should Prop. 22 pass and Uber no longer be subject to AB5 there would be no reason for them to continue to offer these features to drivers at all. Come Nov. 4th in a post-AB5 world I think you'd have to agree to a brand-new TOS and you'll quickly find these features to be gone completely.

I understand fully your desire to "not ever be someone's wage slave" ever again, I'm right there with you. I've turned down over a dozen jobs since the pandemic started because they weren't what I was looking for. But I'm not sure voting for Prop. 22 is going to help our cause.


----------



## observer

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> LOL. Based.
> 
> View attachment 506138


My sleep schedule for the past decade + imcludes an afternoon nap and 5-6 hours at night from midnight till just before six am.

Seems to work for me.


----------



## NicFit

Ubering4Beer said:


> Just curious, do you believe that Uber is going to continue to offer destination/estimated fare information in the app and the ability to "set your own Surge" should Prop. 22 pass? Keep in mind the only reason they budged on these features to begin with was to give the impression that drivers were truly independent and free from the company's control under the 3-pronged test established by AB5. Should Prop. 22 pass and Uber no longer be subject to AB5 there would be no reason for them to continue to offer these features to drivers at all. Come Nov. 4th in a post-AB5 world I think you'd have to agree to a brand-new TOS and you'll quickly find these features to be gone completely.
> 
> I understand fully your desire to "not ever be someone's wage slave" ever again, I'm right there with you. I've turned down over a dozen jobs since the pandemic started because they weren't what I was looking for. But I'm not sure voting for Prop. 22 is going to help our cause.


Yes, that has crossed my mind but with AB5 I think is the same result, why would they give those kind of tools to employees, I don't think either way is a win but I think we have a better chance of keeping them with Prop 22 because taking them away would be a bad move, AB5 is less chance in keeping them. I don't think if Uber went to these lengths to show they are trying to make us a independent contractor they would take it away, probably be a huge backlash and you don't build trust by giving and taking it away. Then they would end up with someone else putting it on the voter law similar to Prop 22 if they take it. AB5 we have zero recourse, your an employee and that's the way it is now. I think we need to have more laws passed like Prop 22 and fix it better then to be neutered with AB5 and have nothing left


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Ubering4Beer said:


> Just curious, do you believe that Uber is going to continue to offer destination/estimated fare information in the app and the ability to "set your own Surge" should Prop. 22 pass? Keep in mind the only reason they budged on these features to begin with was to give the impression that drivers were truly independent and free from the company's control under the 3-pronged test established by AB5. Should Prop. 22 pass and Uber no longer be subject to AB5 there would be no reason for them to continue to offer these features to drivers at all. Come Nov. 4th in a post-AB5 world I think you'd have to agree to a brand-new TOS and you'll quickly find these features to be gone completely.
> 
> I understand fully your desire to "not ever be someone's wage slave" ever again, I'm right there with you. I've turned down over a dozen jobs since the pandemic started because they weren't what I was looking for. But I'm not sure voting for Prop. 22 is going to help our cause.


Destination and fare info at ping time would disappear faster than a fart in a hurricane if Prop 22 passes!


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

So you want to stay independent contractor? Then vote yes on Prop 22 
[/QUOTE]

I know the moment I am classified as a third category, I will have no rights either way.

I know it's a trick, a setup.

Using our fear and hate towards becoming employees to coral us like sheep into a trap.

One thing I know, as a third category, I will not set rates, or see the contract.

By only paying for " engaged time" that legally means my area will be flooded with drivers to no end. No car cap, no need to limit drivers, the more drivers, the faster the passenger gets a car. There will be 3/4 times more drivers since they dont have any obligation.

If I can't see rates, see contract, and the streets get flooded with drivers, then it's useless.

I see a third category as inferior to possibly getting a exemption from AB5 due to recent changes, or becoming a employee.

Rather be a real contractor by Uber making changes and giving me more control, or even a employee with flexibility, than be a third category with no rights.

Instead of a third category, I hope Dara listens to Tony West ( Lawyer) and makes the changes Tony needs to show the courts to pass ABC test.

Instead of voting yes, think what can Uber do so we can pass the real contractor test. Then pressure them to do that instead of accepting less.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I know the moment I am classified as a third category, I will have no rights either way.
> 
> I know it's a trick, a setup.
> 
> Using our fear and hate towards becoming employees to coral us like sheep into a trap.
> 
> One thing I know, as a third category, I will not set rates, or see the contract.
> 
> By only paying for " engaged time" that legally means my area will be flooded with drivers to no end. No car cap, no need to limit drivers, the more drivers, the faster the passenger gets a car. There will be 3/4 times more drivers since they dont have any obligation.
> 
> If I can't see rates, see contract, and the streets get flooded with drivers, then it's useless.
> 
> I see a third category as inferior to possibly getting a exemption from AB5 due to recent changes, or becoming a employee.
> 
> Rather be a real contractor by Uber making changes and giving me more control, or even a employee with flexibility, than be a third category with no rights.
> 
> Instead of a third category, I hope Dara listens to Tony West ( Lawyer) and makes the changes Tony needs to show the courts to pass ABC test.
> 
> Instead of voting yes, think what can Uber do so we can pass the real contractor test. Then pressure them to do that instead of accepting less.


I agree, of the three current options of employee, pseudo contractor or real contractor, real contractor is the best. But that will never happen. Giving up its control would destroy Uber's business model. And it would open the floodgates for other states to follow suit.


----------



## Ubering4Beer

The Gift of Fish said:


> I agree, of the three current options of employee, pseudo contractor or real contractor, real contractor is the best. But that will never happen. Giving up its control would destroy Uber's business model. And it would open the floodgates for other states to follow suit.


I agree, but unfortunately it's too late in the game now for "true" independent contractor status. That should have been the focus of regulators early on in Rideshare's existence, enforcing that Uber and Lyft abided by existing laws pertaining to ICs vs. employees. Instead our elected officials preferred to take payola from U/L and bury their heads in the sand until they could no longer satiate their thirst for additional tax revenue. Uber, Lyft AND the drivers were all played by the corruption in Sacramento.

Of course, had Uber and Lyft been forced to treat drivers as true ICs from the very beginning there would be no need for this bitter campaign with 100 years of labor law progress hanging in the balance. But being that we're most likely screwed regardless, perhaps the best case scenario would be to have Prop. 22 go down in flames on Nov. 3rd and have Uber/Lyft pull out of California completely. Once their constituents realize how dependent folks have become on Ridesharing in California, both drivers and riders alike, hopefully lawmakers will be amenable to renegotiating the terms of AB5 to provide true IC status for drivers including cementing in law the ability to set their own rates/surge, upfront trip information, and a mechanism by which drivers are given due process against unfair deactivation.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Ubering4Beer said:


> I agree, but unfortunately it's too late in the game now for "true" independent contractor status. That should have been the focus of regulators early on in Rideshare's existence, enforcing that Uber and Lyft abided by existing laws pertaining to ICs vs. employees. Instead our elected officials preferred to take payola from U/L and bury their heads in the sand until they could no longer satiate their thirst for additional tax revenue. Uber, Lyft AND the drivers were all played by the corruption in Sacramento.


I'm convinced that California does not want true IC status for drivers. At the moment, Uberlyft acting as drivers' boss, overseer and enforcer of state rideshare regulations works out great for the state. If drivers became true IC then this supervisory buffer between state and driver would disappear and the state would find itself dealing directly with 100,000+ independent drivers. CA wouldn't have the resources to deal with this, and gearing up to deal with it would be hugely costly.



> Of course, had Uber and Lyft been forced to treat drivers as true ICs from the very beginning there would be no need for this bitter campaign with 100 years of labor law progress hanging in the balance. But being that we're most likely screwed regardless, perhaps the best case scenario would be to have Prop. 22 go down in flames on Nov. 3rd and have Uber/Lyft pull out of California completely. Once their constituents realize how dependent folks have become on Ridesharing in California, both drivers and riders alike, hopefully lawmakers will be amenable to renegotiating the terms of AB5 to provide true IC status for drivers including cementing in law the ability to set their own rates/surge, upfront trip information, and a mechanism by which drivers are given due process against unfair deactivation.


I also think that the best option would be for Uber and Lyft to take a hike. Not least because it would spell it out for future employers that they must comply with labour law.


----------



## Ballard_Driver

I think both sides of this argument are not quite right on some stuff... 

For one, this will not end up being a straight up minimum wage job. Why? Because this job is simply an above minimum wage job type job. It's not a $250K a year job, but it's not washing dishes either. Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market. Total compensation will probably stay in this ballpark, but see the next bit... Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.

Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works. There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works. If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down. The only other alternative is to raise prices. Maybe they will a bit, but it is true that at a certain amount of increase there will be a decrease in the number of rides too. I think in many areas rates can go up a bit, but they can't double them and not decrease ride totals a ton. So most likely you will get lower cash pay and a few dodgy benefits which many people don't want or need to begin with. Sick days? That means less money hitting your pocket all the days you work! Etc etc etc.

Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars. The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.

Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails. Quit fooling yourself into thinking otherwise. 

As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists. The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require. We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.

Before labor laws got out of control workers and businesses just hashed out what worked for them. It got intense sometimes, but the market always worked it out. Some workers might want medical, while others might want more cash, etc. People were free to negotiate, including collectively via unions, what they wanted. Then idiot politicians declared what everybody must pay/offer, taking away the right of people and businesses to choose for themselves. Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws! And Uber could be free to refuse to hire any of those union drivers... Unless they couldn't get enough people to drive without hammering out a deal with the union. That's how freedom and the market works.

His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one. I would only use the "sick days" as it's really just a way to convert it to cash on days I wouldn't work anyway, as I don' want any stupid benefits. Some people DO want those other things though. it's the perfect way to allow everybody what they want, without what they don't want, and it even scales proportionally based on how much you work, which is a big thing for gig jobs. It's a pretty solid idea that is literally illegal because of dumb, outdated labor laws that never should have been passed in the first place.

As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are. They don't even understand how things work to begin with, but then they are willing to just throw their freedom of action away with the false promise of some free thing or benefit or whatever. I wish there was a 2nd earth where the USA had remained true to the ideals of small government which could show people how much better things would be with like 80% less government, taxes, etc. Everybody would be far wealthier and better off and more free to do as they please.


----------



## TRugen

Ballard_Driver said:


> There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION.


Did you use to run a fortune 500 company or work as head of HR or even HR of one?

The smart employees know, especially in tech start ups, that the "benefits" or the "RSU" are just frills.

Anyone whose base is $50k but total comp is $150k-it's either their first job, or they've yet to buy a house, or they really, really believe in that company.

The funny thing is, employees from what I've read, get to negotiate their pay with RSUs. For example, they can take a lower base but greater RSU shares. Or they can take a greater base but lower RSU shares.

When was the last time you negotiated with Uber regarding the rate you're paid? Unless you're in CA, and even then it's only because of AB5.


----------



## bsliv

Ballard_Driver said:


> I think both sides of this argument are not quite right on some stuff...
> 
> For one, this will not end up being a straight up minimum wage job. Why? Because this job is simply an above minimum wage job type job. It's not a $250K a year job, but it's not washing dishes either. Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market. Total compensation will probably stay in this ballpark, but see the next bit... Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.
> 
> Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works. There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works. If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down. The only other alternative is to raise prices. Maybe they will a bit, but it is true that at a certain amount of increase there will be a decrease in the number of rides too. I think in many areas rates can go up a bit, but they can't double them and not decrease ride totals a ton. So most likely you will get lower cash pay and a few dodgy benefits which many people don't want or need to begin with. Sick days? That means less money hitting your pocket all the days you work! Etc etc etc.
> 
> Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars. The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.
> 
> Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails. Quit fooling yourself into thinking otherwise.
> 
> As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists. The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require. We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.
> 
> Before labor laws got out of control workers and businesses just hashed out what worked for them. It got intense sometimes, but the market always worked it out. Some workers might want medical, while others might want more cash, etc. People were free to negotiate, including collectively via unions, what they wanted. Then idiot politicians declared what everybody must pay/offer, taking away the right of people and businesses to choose for themselves. Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws! And Uber could be free to refuse to hire any of those union drivers... Unless they couldn't get enough people to drive without hammering out a deal with the union. That's how freedom and the market works.
> 
> His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one. I would only use the "sick days" as it's really just a way to convert it to cash on days I wouldn't work anyway, as I don' want any stupid benefits. Some people DO want those other things though. it's the perfect way to allow everybody what they want, without what they don't want, and it even scales proportionally based on how much you work, which is a big thing for gig jobs. It's a pretty solid idea that is literally illegal because of dumb, outdated labor laws that never should have been passed in the first place.
> 
> As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are. They don't even understand how things work to begin with, but then they are willing to just throw their freedom of action away with the false promise of some free thing or benefit or whatever. I wish there was a 2nd earth where the USA had remained true to the ideals of small government which could show people how much better things would be with like 80% less government, taxes, etc. Everybody would be far wealthier and better off and more free to do as they please.


Holy cow. One of the best posts ever on this forum.

I'm curious where you got your econ degree from. Mine is from the University of Idaho (low rent school) but I've worked as an economist (appraiser) and independent contractor for the past 25 years.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Ballard_Driver said:


> I think both sides of this argument are not quite right on some stuff...
> 
> For one, this will not end up being a straight up minimum wage job. Why? Because this job is simply an above minimum wage job type job. It's not a $250K a year job, but it's not washing dishes either. Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market. Total compensation will probably stay in this ballpark, but see the next bit... Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.
> 
> Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works. There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works. If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down. The only other alternative is to raise prices. Maybe they will a bit, but it is true that at a certain amount of increase there will be a decrease in the number of rides too. I think in many areas rates can go up a bit, but they can't double them and not decrease ride totals a ton. So most likely you will get lower cash pay and a few dodgy benefits which many people don't want or need to begin with. Sick days? That means less money hitting your pocket all the days you work! Etc etc etc.
> 
> Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars. The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.
> 
> Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails. Quit fooling yourself into thinking otherwise.
> 
> As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists. The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require. We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.
> 
> Before labor laws got out of control workers and businesses just hashed out what worked for them. It got intense sometimes, but the market always worked it out. Some workers might want medical, while others might want more cash, etc. People were free to negotiate, including collectively via unions, what they wanted. Then idiot politicians declared what everybody must pay/offer, taking away the right of people and businesses to choose for themselves. Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws! And Uber could be free to refuse to hire any of those union drivers... Unless they couldn't get enough people to drive without hammering out a deal with the union. That's how freedom and the market works.
> 
> His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one. I would only use the "sick days" as it's really just a way to convert it to cash on days I wouldn't work anyway, as I don' want any stupid benefits. Some people DO want those other things though. it's the perfect way to allow everybody what they want, without what they don't want, and it even scales proportionally based on how much you work, which is a big thing for gig jobs. It's a pretty solid idea that is literally illegal because of dumb, outdated labor laws that never should have been passed in the first place.
> 
> As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are. They don't even understand how things work to begin with, but then they are willing to just throw their freedom of action away with the false promise of some free thing or benefit or whatever. I wish there was a 2nd earth where the USA had remained true to the ideals of small government which could show people how much better things would be with like 80% less government, taxes, etc. Everybody would be far wealthier and better off and more free to do as they please.


I see lots of insults here. Calling people idiots and ignorant. These people are idiots, those people are idiots. The impression you give is that you haven't got a lot of ammo in the box other than insult. Now, you _may_ have some valid points to make (I don't know; your post was a TL : DR), but if there are any facts in your diatribe then they are likely to get lost in the fervour.

Just a thought!



TRugen said:


> Did you use to run a fortune 500 company or work as head of HR or even HR of one?
> 
> The smart employees know, especially in tech start ups, that the "benefits" or the "RSU" are just frills.
> 
> Anyone whose base is $50k but total comp is $150k-it's either their first job, or they've yet to buy a house, or they really, really believe in that company.
> 
> The funny thing is, employees from what I've read, get to negotiate their pay with RSUs. For example, they can take a lower base but greater RSU shares. Or they can take a greater base but lower RSU shares.
> 
> When was the last time you negotiated with Uber regarding the rate you're paid? Unless you're in CA, and even then it's only because of AB5.


Yes, the notion he put forward that _"for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range"_ is not true. There is no imaginary narrow band for pay for any type of job. Back in the early 2000s I left one job as a business analyst for another because the new job paid 50% more. Same job, better paying company.


----------



## UberPete1911

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Uber, can and will, always lower rates no matter the cost, in order to attain more market share.

You and your brethren alike are nothing more then a speck on Ubers radar, no matter where you drive. You will drive for the price Uber gives you and they will deactivate you whenever they feel like it with no recorse.

They spent 183$ million dollars in order to protect their "interests" on prop22, and you just see the small picture.

You vote yes, while most if not all will vote no.


----------



## NicFit

UberPete1911 said:


> Uber, can and will, always lower rates no matter the cost, in order to attain more market share.
> 
> You and your brethren alike are nothing more then a speck on Ubers radar, no matter where you drive. You will drive for the price Uber gives you and they will deactivate you whenever they feel like it with no recorse.
> 
> They spent 183$ million dollars in order to protect their "interests" on prop22, and you just see the small picture.
> 
> You vote yes, while most if not all will vote no.


Uber allows you to set your own rate now, I knew it was not typical work when I started and I never treated as such. Because I don't want to lay off 150k drivers including myself I will vote yes on Prop 22. Why does being an employee mean that they think they won't fire you just like they do now? You can't have multiple complaints in any job


----------



## Ubering4Beer

Ballard_Driver said:


> I think both sides of this argument are not quite right on some stuff...
> 
> For one, this will not end up being a straight up minimum wage job. Why? Because this job is simply an above minimum wage job type job. It's not a $250K a year job, but it's not washing dishes either. Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market. Total compensation will probably stay in this ballpark, but see the next bit... Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.
> 
> Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works. There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works. If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down. The only other alternative is to raise prices. Maybe they will a bit, but it is true that at a certain amount of increase there will be a decrease in the number of rides too. I think in many areas rates can go up a bit, but they can't double them and not decrease ride totals a ton. So most likely you will get lower cash pay and a few dodgy benefits which many people don't want or need to begin with. Sick days? That means less money hitting your pocket all the days you work! Etc etc etc.
> 
> Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars. The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.
> 
> Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails. Quit fooling yourself into thinking otherwise.
> 
> As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists. The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require. We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.
> 
> Before labor laws got out of control workers and businesses just hashed out what worked for them. It got intense sometimes, but the market always worked it out. Some workers might want medical, while others might want more cash, etc. People were free to negotiate, including collectively via unions, what they wanted. Then idiot politicians declared what everybody must pay/offer, taking away the right of people and businesses to choose for themselves. Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws! And Uber could be free to refuse to hire any of those union drivers... Unless they couldn't get enough people to drive without hammering out a deal with the union. That's how freedom and the market works.
> 
> His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one. I would only use the "sick days" as it's really just a way to convert it to cash on days I wouldn't work anyway, as I don' want any stupid benefits. Some people DO want those other things though. it's the perfect way to allow everybody what they want, without what they don't want, and it even scales proportionally based on how much you work, which is a big thing for gig jobs. It's a pretty solid idea that is literally illegal because of dumb, outdated labor laws that never should have been passed in the first place.
> 
> As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are. They don't even understand how things work to begin with, but then they are willing to just throw their freedom of action away with the false promise of some free thing or benefit or whatever. I wish there was a 2nd earth where the USA had remained true to the ideals of small government which could show people how much better things would be with like 80% less government, taxes, etc. Everybody would be far wealthier and better off and more free to do as they please.


I think your analysis is spot-on, save for the pay range should AB5 remain the law of the land.

Honestly the timing could not have worked out any better for Uber. Whilst our useless leaders in Congress squabble about another stimulus package the fact remains the Unemployment Rate in California sits at 13.3%. There are still Millions of folks in the state looking for work and the situation will only get more dire should current eviction and foreclosure moratoriums sunset before the pandemic begins to subside. Employers are inundated with applications and there is almost unprecedented competition for jobs (every recruiter and HR person I've spoken to confirms this) and have no reason to offer more than minimum wage. Hell, there are plenty of posts on Indeed BELOW minimum wage (yes I'm aware that companies in some instances fail to account for differences in the minimum wage between municipalities, still sobering to see offers in the $12 range in San Francisco).

Should Prop. 22 fail, and I'm on the record as hoping it does so miserably, I doubt Uber/Lyft would have a difficult time finding drivers willing to work for minimum wage plus mileage reimbursement. In pre-Covid times the rates may have been in the $18-$21 range but with so many folks desperate for any kind of employment I think minimum wage plus mileage will be more than enough to get them the 50k drivers statewide that Uber is on record as stating they need to operate.



NicFit said:


> Uber allows you to set your own rate now, I knew it was not typical work when I started and I never treated as such. Because I don't want to lay off 150k drivers including myself I will vote yes on Prop 22. Why does being an employee mean that they think they won't fire you just like they do now? You can't have multiple complaints in any job


Well if it's any consolation should Prop. 22 fail you're more than welcome to have my spot if offered. I've turned down six figure jobs because I refuse to work weekends under any circumstances.


----------



## UberPete1911

NicFit said:


> Uber allows you to set your own rate now, I knew it was not typical work when I started and I never treated as such. Because I don't want to lay off 150k drivers including myself I will vote yes on Prop 22. Why does being an employee mean that they think they won't fire you just like they do now? You can't have multiple complaints in any job


You are one of few, but for many, this is a full time employment.

All these gig companies will survive the the shift from freelance to employee. If they don't want to, then others will take their place.

Don't be fooled by their hourly guarantee. The only thing they care and understand is how to exploit regular drivers and make them work for pennies.


----------



## NicFit

UberPete1911 said:


> You are one of few, but for many, this is a full time employment.
> 
> All these gig companies will survive the the shift from freelance to employee. If they don't want to, then others will take their place.
> 
> Don't be fooled by their hourly guarantee. The only thing they care and understand is how to exploit regular drivers and make them work for pennies.


I don't care for their hourly guarantee, it's crap and will never apply to me. I want something better too but this is what's on the table right now, take Prop 22 or AB5, both are terrible deals to me. Prop 22 keeps all drivers without a months long shut down, AB5 cuts 75% of drivers after months long shut down. I don't want sick pay, vacations, health care and these other worker benefits taken out of my pay. No where will Uber get more money for these besides my pockets and riders pockets. I want a third deal, Prop 22 is a bandaid, AB5 is amputation


----------



## UberPete1911

NicFit said:


> I don't care for their hourly guarantee, it's crap and will never apply to me. I want something better too but this is what's on the table right now, take Prop 22 or AB5, both are terrible deals to me. Prop 22 keeps all drivers without a months long shut down, AB5 cuts 75% of drivers after months long shut down. I don't want sick pay, vacations, health care and these other worker benefits taken out of my pay. No where will Uber get more money for these besides my pockets and riders pockets. I want a third deal, Prop 22 is a bandaid, AB5 is amputation


With Uber, the game, always has to be long-term. So even if they shut down for a bit, what will follow, will be better if not some-what better then earlier.

Based on what you wrote, your short-term approach is not in your favor and I believe you'll be better off in another field.

GL.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Ballard_Driver said:


> Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market.


Source? I have seen no reliable data on driver earnings. The studies I have seen range from MIT's sub- $4/hr estimate to Rideshare Guy's $15.68 estimate (revenue, _not_ profit; probably around $10/hr profit) to Uber's $20 / $40 / $74,000 per year pie-in-the-sky claims. The truth is nobody knows to any degree of certainty what driver earnings are now; much less what they might be with drivers as employees.


> Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.


It makes sense that pay would need to be around the same in normal circumstances, however we are in the middle of a pandemic. Oversupply of people looking for work will allow Uber to reduce its pay. Simple shift of the supply curve.


> Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works.


I have seen no evidence that people believe that they will be receiving free benefits. People are generally aware that the benefits are provided in exchange for work and that they are not free.


> There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works.


No. The way it works is that the employment market is a market, like any other. Employers shop for employees on the employment market and pay the market price for the skills they are looking for. However, the market is not what economists call a perfect market - there are very rough ballpark figures for what a given candidate profile is worth, but there are wide variations. There is not a narrow range of compensation for each job as you claim.


> If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down.


Not a revelation. It is widely expected that Uber will pay minimum wage.


> Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE.


People who do not know things are ignorant by definition, lol. Anyway, very few things in life are free. Some things are, though. Air, for example. Love. Things like that.


> Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars.


Repetition. You already said that you expect pay to go down. Again, this is hardly revelatory. This is already widely expected.


> The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.


It is questionable whether or not Uber's business model is viable with employees at minimum wage, let alone at any higher wage. Why do you think they have invested $170 million in fighting Prop 22 and are so desperate to have it pass?


> Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails.


Speculation. Nobody knows what being an employee driver would be like.


> As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists.


I see no loss of freedom. You guys make it sound like you are living in the 18th century under the rule of King George, lol.


> The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require.


There was nothing stopping Uber from offering me a stipend towards my health insurance in 2014 if they had chosen to. Or in 2015. Or in any of these years. There was nothing stopping Uber from giving me paid time off, or paying for disability insurance for me. Why should they, people will ask. Indeed, but you claim that no gig company is able to offer them, which is false. You've fallen for Dara's spiel; that of trying to blame the government for his not offering any of the benefits he claims he can't give, lol. This is clearly ridiculous.


> We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.


Again, the government has not stopped Dara from creating and paying into a benefit fund for each driver. Uber could have done this from day one, but they chose not to.


> Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws!


Those "dumb laws" are the anti-trust legislation that protects you from price fixing, anti-competitive monopolies and cartels.


> His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one.


Finally we agree on something! Pity it took being threatened with legislation for Uber to offer it.


> As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are.


You'll still have the freedom to start your own business if you don't like being an employee.


----------



## NicFit

UberPete1911 said:


> With Uber, the game, always has to be long-term. So even if they shut down for a bit, what will follow, will be better if not some-what better then earlier.
> 
> Based on what you wrote, your short-term approach is not in your favor and I believe you'll be better off in another field.
> 
> GL.


I don't want to have a shut down and then lose half my pay to employee benefits and taxes. I won't gain anything and I will refuse to be an employee to someone else again. Neither is in my favor but Prop 22 is a better deal for me then AB5. With AB5 that's it, I lose half my income if I am even still employed and there's no way of changing it. AB5 is not the long term solution, it will never work for me, with Prop 22 there's still hope for changes and my income wont be gutted like AB5

Still going to vote Yes on Prop 22, my long term depends on better cash pay then these employee benefits and being taxed over it all. AB5 will never ever be better then what Uber is currently for people wanting maximum cash and freedom. I signed up for this because I don't want my pay to cover employee benefits or work under someone else's whims. People think Uber is a job when it's not, it's a business and the ones who tried treating like it was a job are having issues and now they are the ones that complicating everything. These people need to go find something else and stop trying to make everything conform to their socialist ways


----------



## REX HAVOC

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


SF is .68 cents per mile not .72.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> _*What is the earnings guarantee?*_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _*Is this an hourly pay guarantee?*_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _*Why is this guarantee good?*_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> *Why is this guarantee bad?*
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no cost to itself.
> 
> *Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?*
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


This still allows Uber to flood the market with drivers.


----------



## Deadmiler69

The Gift of Fish said:


> Unfortunately in SF, there just isn't the volume of pings to be able to get a good ride without having to wait a considerable amount of time rejecting all the bad pings. Time which, under this guarantee, is not paid.


Do you realize what you are actually saying here?

You are upset about not getting paid for declining rides.

What job on earth pays you to say no to work?

Think about that. The reason your guarantee in for engaged time only is so that you still have the freedom to turn down any ride you want. The second we get paid for every minute online, you will have to accept 80-90% of rides. You can't have it both ways.

Also, there are plenty of pings in SF. Pre Covid I was there for almost 6 months and never had an issue getting pings. Went again for a week during Covid and same thing. Plus I chat with local drivers via text and two weeks ago one of them did over 200 rides in SF.


----------



## Jimmy44

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Well said. Your business model is perfect that's what I do. The mileage you rack up for deductions is huge when it comes to April 15th


----------



## SHalester

UberPete1911 said:


> You vote yes, while most if not all will vote no.


On Prop 22? That sounds like an opinion vs a fact. Where did you come up with it?



The Gift of Fish said:


> So, you're railing against something that you might actually be fine with.


unlike many here I have an open mind and I strive to adapt. I'm not happy with AB5 requirement we be employees and if it does happen and Prop 22 fails, then I'll try it IF I'm hired and IF I get the schedule (or near enough) I want. And if there is a supervisor I will camly explain to them (most likely a young snot) I don't need supervision, thankyouverymuch.

I always have my other RS gig that isn't under AB5 or Prop 22. Plus, being retired, I don't need any of this drama. Worse comes to worse I'll go back to being a school volunteer; less drama.


----------



## SatMan

When prop 22 fails... Uber will just have to give more leeway to the drivers for them to be considered independent contractors… California better not choke and let Uber get its way.

if Uber would have been less greedy AB5 never would have come up.


----------



## Jimmy44

SatMan said:


> When prop 22 fails... Uber will just have to give more leeway to the drivers for them to be considered independent contractors&#8230; California better not choke and let Uber get its way.
> 
> if Uber would have been less greedy AB5 never would have come up.


We can't go back in time. We deal with what is at the moment.
CA and Uber do what you have to do and see where the dust settles.


----------



## Deadmiler69

SatMan said:


> When prop 22 fails... Uber will just have to give more leeway to the drivers for them to be considered independent contractors&#8230; California better not choke and let Uber get its way.
> 
> if Uber would have been less greedy AB5 never would have come up.


You aren't understanding what happens if Prop 22 fails. There is no more independence. AB5 is written law.

This is not about what Uber paid you. This is about the state getting taxes. They get your taxes every two weeks from Uber rather than quarterly or not at all as an IC. That's all this is about. Oh and Lorena Gonzales getting a Union President gig in a few years that pays $250k a year to negotiate $17/hr salaries


----------



## Jimmy44

Deadmiler69 said:


> You aren't understanding what happens if Prop 22 fails. There is no more independence. AB5 is written law.
> 
> This is not about what Uber paid you. This is about the state getting taxes. They get your taxes every two weeks from Uber rather than quarterly or not at all as an IC. That's all this is about. Oh and Lorena Gonzales getting a Union President gig in a few years that pays $250k a year to negotiate $17/hr salaries


Follow the money. Didn't her husband get a big gig as well? 
A year ago when I saw her do a local interview I went on this forum and said she was clueless about ride-sharing.


----------



## SatMan

Jimmy44 said:


> We can't go back in time. We deal with what is at the moment.
> CA and Uber do what you have to do and see where the dust settles.


geez people&#8230; All Uber to do is to pay us better, give us our true independent contractor rights by Loosening up their restrictions...

All Uber has to do to keep us away from the ABC test is to do what needs to be done. Thereby making us true independent contractors&#8230; Not what Uber thinks independent contractors should be&#8230;



Deadmiler69 said:


> You aren't understanding what happens if Prop 22 fails. There is no more independence. AB5 is written law.
> 
> This is not about what Uber paid you. This is about the state getting taxes. They get your taxes every two weeks from Uber rather than quarterly or not at all as an IC. That's all this is about. Oh and Lorena Gonzales getting a Union President gig in a few years that pays $250k a year to negotiate $17/hr salaries


Read the above post&#8230;
*And take the damn blinders off*​


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

I wish the drivers could vote, not the general public that has no clue.

Then whatever the outcome, it would be democratic amongst us.

Too many years of law braking and now It's going to hurt drivers either way.

I wish all of us well!

Maybe if we become employees, we can collectively bargain and confront Gonzales for a exemption.

And she can tell us what changes she wants to give us a exemption.

Come on Gonzales, if I set my own rates, have contract details, get commercial insurance, Uber puts a minimum on rates above minimum wage, pays worker's compensation and unemployment. Can we get a exemption then.

Maybe that is the road we need to take if AB5 stands and we cant simply pass ABC test.


----------



## SatMan

What are you guys smoking over there… we all know what Uber has to do to keep us independent contractors… They just want to be the bullies and keep more of the money. It’s already been spell out to you people…


----------



## NicFit

SatMan said:


> What are you guys smoking over there&#8230; we all know what Uber has to do to keep us independent contractors&#8230; They just want to be the bullies and keep more of the money. It's already been spell out to you people&#8230;


If Uber has to be forced to make us employees we drivers lose money, Uber loses money, wait California gets money? Yeah vote yes on Prop 22 and stop government overreach


----------



## SatMan




----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

*The Uber/Lyft Ballot Initiative Guarantees only $5.64 an Hour*


Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have unveiled their ballot initiative to undo historic worker protections enshrined in AB5, California's new law that tightens the criteria for worker classification. The initiative claims drivers will receive a guaranteed pay equal to 120% of the minimum wage (that would be $15.60 in 2021, when the California minimum wage will be $13). Our review of the initiative leads to a very different estimate. *After considering multiple loopholes in the initiative, we estimate that the pay guarantee for Uber and Lyft drivers is actually the equivalent of a wage of $5.64 per hour. *Harry Truman was president the last time the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage was that low. Indeed, the real level of the pay guarantee is about one third of the required minimum pay for drivers under New York City's new driver pay standard.
Here are the loopholes that change the guarantee from $15.60 to $5.64 (see also the accompanying graphic):

*1. Driver waiting time is not counted as work time*
The initiative's guarantee only applies when the drivers are engaged with passengers-when they are en route to picking up a passenger and when they have a passenger in their vehicle; these engaged times amount to only 67 percent of the drivers' working time. The companies would not pay for the approximately 33 percent of the time that drivers are waiting between passengers or returning from trips to outlying areas. But such time is a necessary part of drivers' work. Whether a driver wants to work one hour, eight hours, or any amount in between, they must wait between dropping off passengers and getting their next ride. Not paying for that time would be the equivalent of a fast food restaurant or retail store saying they will only pay the cashier when a customer is at the counter. We have labor and employment laws precisely to protect workers from that kind of exploitation.
Taking into account that the drivers would be paid only for 67 percent of all the time they are working, actual earnings per working hour would be 67 percent of $15.60, or $10.45.

*2. Unreimbursed costs of driving while waiting for a ride*
Much of the drivers' waiting time is spent driving and cruising. Drivers may be heading back from a drop off to an area where they are more likely to have a pick up, or they may be circling in downtown areas where there is no place to park. Under the companies' proposal, none of the costs (gas, wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.) of driving while waiting would be covered as reimbursed employee expenses. Uber drivers average 20 miles an hour. Therefore, they drive 6.6 miles each hour (33 percent of 20) that would not be reimbursed.
Multiplying the Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate of 58 cents a mile by 6.6 miles, we obtain $3.83 of unreimbursed expenses per hour of driving while waiting for a ride. $10.45 minus $3.83 leaves $6.62.

*3. Under-reimbursed costs during drivers' engaged driving time*
The ballot initiative says the drivers' cost of driving, during the time they are engaged with passengers, will be reimbursed at 30 cents per mile. But the IRS estimates that the real per mile costs of owning and operating a vehicle are 58 cents per mile. The initiative's lower figure assumes the drivers already have a vehicle and are driving just a few hours a week; it does not include all the fixed costs of acquiring, owning and operating a vehicle. Yet a small share of drivers, who work long hours, account for the vast majority of all drivers' miles-10 percent of transportation platform drivers account for about 57 percent of driver earnings. These drivers need to cover the fixed costs of owning and operating a vehicle.
According to the ballot initiative, Uber and Lyft would purchase insurance for drivers during the time they are engaged to pick up a passenger or have a passenger in their vehicle. Since insurance costs about 20 cents a mile, and again using the IRS 58 cents per mile standard, the initiative's offer of 50 cents per mile for costs and insurance still leaves drivers eight cents per mile short in covering their driving expenses when they are engaged with passengers.
We multiply the eight cents per mile deficit by the average 13.4 miles of engaged driving miles each hour. The result is $1.07 in under-reimbursed driving costs per working hour. Subtracting $1.07 from $6.62, we obtain $5.55.

*4. Health care stipend*
The companies would also offer a health care stipend to drivers who average at least 15 engaged hours a week in a quarter and who are enrolled in a qualifying health plan. Drivers averaging at least 15 but less than 25 engaged hours in a quarter would receive a stipend equivalent to 41 percent of the average premium for a Covered California Bronze plan; those working more than 25 engaged hours would receive a stipend equal to 82 percent of the same plan. The vast majority of drivers would not qualify for this benefit. To be consistent with our treatment of expenses, we include the value of the benefit for a 30 hour a week driver. We estimate the stipend for a 30 hour a week driver would average about $1.22 an hour (details available from the authors). Adding $1.22 to $5.55, we obtain an hourly pay level of $6.77.

*5. Unpaid payroll taxes and employee benefits*
Since the drivers would be classified as independent contractors, they would be required to pay both the employer and employees share of payroll taxes. And they would not receive paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, and other benefits required to be provided employees under state and federal law. The costs of these taxes and the value of those benefits together add up to about $1.13 per hour. Subtracting $1.13 from $6.77, we arrive at an hourly pay value of only $5.64 an hour.
This estimate may be too high, as it does not take into the account the cost of worker compensation insurance. Under the ballot initiative, companies would provide some occupational accident insurance, but at levels well below the protections required by California's laws for employees.









The initiative would not only roll back the standards in AB5. It would also preclude local governments from enacting their own higher labor standards, such as those already proposed in Los Angeles and El Monte. Localities would not be permitted to set standards to govern compensation, scheduling, leave, healthcare, and termination of an app-based driver's contract. Similar policies are already in effect in New York City and under consideration in Seattle.
In addition, the initiative would require a 7/8 vote of the state legislature for future amendments. This is an unusually high requirement. Any desirable future changes in the law to respond to new technologies, or to comply with other California laws or policies, would need to be enacted by another ballot initiative.

*Caveats*
Our analysis applies only to the two transportation network companies (TNCs) - Uber and Lyft. We have not looked into what it would mean for delivery network companies like DoorDash, though many of the same considerations would apply. We have used the best available data to analyze the effects on the pay of TNC drivers. However, the companies have refused to make their own data public. For a complete analysis, the state needs much more data from the companies, including detailed data on wait times, hours worked, and earnings. The companies should provide that data in California, as they currently do in New York City, to allow for independent analysis so that voters are able to make informed choices. Finally, it is important to note that nothing in AB5 requires companies to reduce drivers' flexibility over the hours they work.

*Conclusions*
New York's pay standards, which went into effect in February of this year, show that drivers' earnings can be increased while preserving driver flexibility and maintaining service levels for customers. The companies have a choice over how they adjust to comply with California's laws protecting workers-or if they choose to fight those laws with a ballot initiative that would take pay standards back seventy years.
_Ken Jacobs is the Chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Michael Reich is Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley and co-chair, Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics. He is a co-author of the report that led to a driver pay standard in New York City._


----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> *The Uber/Lyft Ballot Initiative Guarantees only $5.64 an Hour*
> 
> 
> Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have unveiled their ballot initiative to undo historic worker protections enshrined in AB5, California's new law that tightens the criteria for worker classification. The initiative claims drivers will receive a guaranteed pay equal to 120% of the minimum wage (that would be $15.60 in 2021, when the California minimum wage will be $13). Our review of the initiative leads to a very different estimate. *After considering multiple loopholes in the initiative, we estimate that the pay guarantee for Uber and Lyft drivers is actually the equivalent of a wage of $5.64 per hour. *Harry Truman was president the last time the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage was that low. Indeed, the real level of the pay guarantee is about one third of the required minimum pay for drivers under New York City's new driver pay standard.
> Here are the loopholes that change the guarantee from $15.60 to $5.64 (see also the accompanying graphic):
> 
> *1. Driver waiting time is not counted as work time*
> The initiative's guarantee only applies when the drivers are engaged with passengers-when they are en route to picking up a passenger and when they have a passenger in their vehicle; these engaged times amount to only 67 percent of the drivers' working time. The companies would not pay for the approximately 33 percent of the time that drivers are waiting between passengers or returning from trips to outlying areas. But such time is a necessary part of drivers' work. Whether a driver wants to work one hour, eight hours, or any amount in between, they must wait between dropping off passengers and getting their next ride. Not paying for that time would be the equivalent of a fast food restaurant or retail store saying they will only pay the cashier when a customer is at the counter. We have labor and employment laws precisely to protect workers from that kind of exploitation.
> Taking into account that the drivers would be paid only for 67 percent of all the time they are working, actual earnings per working hour would be 67 percent of $15.60, or $10.45.
> 
> *2. Unreimbursed costs of driving while waiting for a ride*
> Much of the drivers' waiting time is spent driving and cruising. Drivers may be heading back from a drop off to an area where they are more likely to have a pick up, or they may be circling in downtown areas where there is no place to park. Under the companies' proposal, none of the costs (gas, wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.) of driving while waiting would be covered as reimbursed employee expenses. Uber drivers average 20 miles an hour. Therefore, they drive 6.6 miles each hour (33 percent of 20) that would not be reimbursed.
> Multiplying the Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate of 58 cents a mile by 6.6 miles, we obtain $3.83 of unreimbursed expenses per hour of driving while waiting for a ride. $10.45 minus $3.83 leaves $6.62.
> 
> *3. Under-reimbursed costs during drivers' engaged driving time*
> The ballot initiative says the drivers' cost of driving, during the time they are engaged with passengers, will be reimbursed at 30 cents per mile. But the IRS estimates that the real per mile costs of owning and operating a vehicle are 58 cents per mile. The initiative's lower figure assumes the drivers already have a vehicle and are driving just a few hours a week; it does not include all the fixed costs of acquiring, owning and operating a vehicle. Yet a small share of drivers, who work long hours, account for the vast majority of all drivers' miles-10 percent of transportation platform drivers account for about 57 percent of driver earnings. These drivers need to cover the fixed costs of owning and operating a vehicle.
> According to the ballot initiative, Uber and Lyft would purchase insurance for drivers during the time they are engaged to pick up a passenger or have a passenger in their vehicle. Since insurance costs about 20 cents a mile, and again using the IRS 58 cents per mile standard, the initiative's offer of 50 cents per mile for costs and insurance still leaves drivers eight cents per mile short in covering their driving expenses when they are engaged with passengers.
> We multiply the eight cents per mile deficit by the average 13.4 miles of engaged driving miles each hour. The result is $1.07 in under-reimbursed driving costs per working hour. Subtracting $1.07 from $6.62, we obtain $5.55.
> 
> *4. Health care stipend*
> The companies would also offer a health care stipend to drivers who average at least 15 engaged hours a week in a quarter and who are enrolled in a qualifying health plan. Drivers averaging at least 15 but less than 25 engaged hours in a quarter would receive a stipend equivalent to 41 percent of the average premium for a Covered California Bronze plan; those working more than 25 engaged hours would receive a stipend equal to 82 percent of the same plan. The vast majority of drivers would not qualify for this benefit. To be consistent with our treatment of expenses, we include the value of the benefit for a 30 hour a week driver. We estimate the stipend for a 30 hour a week driver would average about $1.22 an hour (details available from the authors). Adding $1.22 to $5.55, we obtain an hourly pay level of $6.77.
> 
> *5. Unpaid payroll taxes and employee benefits*
> Since the drivers would be classified as independent contractors, they would be required to pay both the employer and employees share of payroll taxes. And they would not receive paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, and other benefits required to be provided employees under state and federal law. The costs of these taxes and the value of those benefits together add up to about $1.13 per hour. Subtracting $1.13 from $6.77, we arrive at an hourly pay value of only $5.64 an hour.
> This estimate may be too high, as it does not take into the account the cost of worker compensation insurance. Under the ballot initiative, companies would provide some occupational accident insurance, but at levels well below the protections required by California's laws for employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initiative would not only roll back the standards in AB5. It would also preclude local governments from enacting their own higher labor standards, such as those already proposed in Los Angeles and El Monte. Localities would not be permitted to set standards to govern compensation, scheduling, leave, healthcare, and termination of an app-based driver's contract. Similar policies are already in effect in New York City and under consideration in Seattle.
> In addition, the initiative would require a 7/8 vote of the state legislature for future amendments. This is an unusually high requirement. Any desirable future changes in the law to respond to new technologies, or to comply with other California laws or policies, would need to be enacted by another ballot initiative.
> 
> *Caveats*
> Our analysis applies only to the two transportation network companies (TNCs) - Uber and Lyft. We have not looked into what it would mean for delivery network companies like DoorDash, though many of the same considerations would apply. We have used the best available data to analyze the effects on the pay of TNC drivers. However, the companies have refused to make their own data public. For a complete analysis, the state needs much more data from the companies, including detailed data on wait times, hours worked, and earnings. The companies should provide that data in California, as they currently do in New York City, to allow for independent analysis so that voters are able to make informed choices. Finally, it is important to note that nothing in AB5 requires companies to reduce drivers' flexibility over the hours they work.
> 
> *Conclusions*
> New York's pay standards, which went into effect in February of this year, show that drivers' earnings can be increased while preserving driver flexibility and maintaining service levels for customers. The companies have a choice over how they adjust to comply with California's laws protecting workers-or if they choose to fight those laws with a ballot initiative that would take pay standards back seventy years.
> _Ken Jacobs is the Chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Michael Reich is Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley and co-chair, Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics. He is a co-author of the report that led to a driver pay standard in New York City._


When you take a trip make sure it covers your time and earnings until the next trip. Some people just don't know what they are doing and they are the ones crying that they can't make money. Long pickup? Nope, long trip? Nope. I made almost $2k my first week and sure as hell didn't make a loss. I took some long trips and did end up with an empty ride home but now I know which trips to take and which not, only takes once to figure it out, after that the driver is dumb for taking trips that don't make profits. Stupid peole can't make money on their own, they have to be employees, so they made AB5. Uber isn't for people that can't figure it out, don't be forcing your socialist employee crap on me so I lose money while they pay the dumb drivers more. You don't know how to take trips that make profit then you deserve to fail and go find another job


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks




----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> View attachment 506372


So full time 40 hours a week at $15 an hour is $600. I don't normally work 30 hours a week and after expenses I take home over $1k. Doesn't that qualify as a living wage? It's not under $15 an hour and I get to own a nice car (which those expenses paid for and is not included in the $1k), choose my hours and decide where I work. If I'm being taken advantage then I like it. &#128405;


----------



## SatMan

NicFit said:


> So full time 40 hours a week at $15 an hour is $600. I don't normally work 30 hours a week and after expenses I take home over $1k. Doesn't that qualify as a living wage? It's not under $15 an hour and I get to own a nice car (which those expenses paid for and is not included in the $1k), choose my hours and decide where I work. If I'm being taken advantage then I like it. &#128405;


What you don't understand is that laws are not made for smart people&#8230;And if Uber is your only source of income...You're not that smart either.


----------



## TRugen

He doesn't care. He's stated many times he's for himself which is fine.

However what he doesn't seem to see is that he only gets that many rides because there is that much demand and there is that much demand because Uber is convenient given with so many drivers, one doesn't have to wait long for an Uber. It's what gives them an edge over Lyft, primarily.

Sooner or later that type of grind is going to have drivers doing exactly what he's suggesting, and drop out for other jobs.

the problem is that will lead to less drivers, leaving the "smart" ones without the ability to cover, and the people will find it's not as convenient and they have to wait longer and it's not like it's black (from the good old days) but a *gasp* Prius. Might as well bum a ride from a friend or find alternatives like taxi.

And then he's going to realize his earnings dip and then I suppose he'll dip out and magically pick up a job as a cop or a DM of some retail chain.

.
.
.
.
.
.

If, AB5 stands, why can't Uber adjust the way they do business so they're not treating us drivers as if we are employees but true contractors? Wouldn't that be an easier path then spending $180mm plus on an initiative to skirt around AB5?


----------



## NicFit

SatMan said:


> What you don't understand is that laws are not made for smart people&#8230;And if Uber is your only source of income...You're not that smart either.


Before I started Uber I had a $1500 car while having times where I had to borrow $20 to eat. Now I have a nice car, worth more then 20 times that car and a bank account with 5 figures in it, my bills are all easily paid on time and I'm not the smart one?


----------



## Immoralized

NicFit said:


> Before I started Uber I had a $1500 car while having times where I had to borrow $20 to eat. Now I have a nice car, worth more then 20 times that car and a bank account with 5 figures in it, my bills are all easily paid on time and I'm not the smart one?


Didn't you say you were retired and only driving uber some 30 hours and not a 60-100 hour driver?


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks




----------



## NicFit

Immoralized said:


> Didn't you say you were retired and only driving uber some 30 hours and not a 60-100 hour driver?


Never said I was retired, was doing around 30 hours though lately

I've never gone over 60 hours, never had to


----------



## Immoralized

NicFit said:


> Never said I was retired, was doing around 30 hours though lately
> 
> I've never gone over 60 hours, never had to


Uber will never make drivers employee so your safe in that regard. It'll set a precedent around America and bankrupt them as they'll have to back pay all of the entitlements that they owed and they don't have the $$$ to cover that. That'll be billions upon billions of dollars over the years.

What is more likely to happen is they'll remove the restrictions to meet Independent Contractor status if they were to continue to operate.
You thinking that you'll be forced to be an employee I don't think will ever happen because Uber just doesn't have the money to cover it.
They'll disappear inside of a year sometime in 2021 if that were to happen.

The likely thing to happen after Uber realize they can't move on the status quo is give drivers more controls and freedoms to actually turn into an IC and starts generating more $$$ for themselves instead of for Uber. In which case Uber will be what it always said it is but is not. An app that connects the rider to the driver and empowers the driver.


----------



## SatMan

NicFit said:


> Before I started Uber I had a $1500 car while having times where I had to borrow $20 to eat. Now I have a nice car, worth more then 20 times that car and a bank account with 5 figures in it, my bills are all easily paid on time and I'm not the smart one?


so what's your excuse that put you in the position to have to borrow money to eat&#8230; Enlighten us all please...


----------



## NicFit

TRugen said:


> He doesn't care. He's stated many times he's for himself which is fine.
> 
> However what he doesn't seem to see is that he only gets that many rides because there is that much demand and there is that much demand because Uber is convenient given with so many drivers, one doesn't have to wait long for an Uber. It's what gives them an edge over Lyft, primarily.
> 
> Sooner or later that type of grind is going to have drivers doing exactly what he's suggesting, and drop out for other jobs.
> 
> the problem is that will lead to less drivers, leaving the "smart" ones without the ability to cover, and the people will find it's not as convenient and they have to wait longer and it's not like it's black (from the good old days) but a *gasp* Prius. Might as well bum a ride from a friend or find alternatives like taxi.
> 
> And then he's going to realize his earnings dip and then I suppose he'll dip out and magically pick up a job as a cop or a DM of some retail chain.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> If, AB5 stands, why can't Uber adjust the way they do business so they're not treating us drivers as if we are employees but true contractors? Wouldn't that be an easier path then spending $180mm plus on an initiative to skirt around AB5?


Yes I've thought of what will happen if Uber is just a passing trend. The Bay Area is unique and until covid hit it was a great market and I don't see it passing anytime soon. Taxis here never made it great since it was so spread out and people here embrace Uber and Lyft. If Uber fails I do have other plans, if it doesn't I still have other plans, for the moment I'm doing Uber, I have been thinking about starting my next business the last week or so, been doing research and thinking of starting it soon, might be able to do Uber during the day and work on the other when the drunks are out and I'm trying to avoid them



SatMan said:


> so what's your excuse that put you in the position to have to borrow money to eat&#8230; Enlighten us all please...


I didn't have enough income to make ends meet, I don't really want to go into details on what I was doing before Uber


----------



## observer

Immoralized said:


> Uber will never make drivers employee so your safe in that regard. It'll set a precedent around America and bankrupt them as they'll have to back pay all of the entitlements that they owed and they don't have the $$$ to cover that. That'll be billions upon billions of dollars over the years.
> 
> What is more likely to happen is they'll remove the restrictions to meet Independent Contractor status if they were to continue to operate.
> You thinking that you'll be forced to be an employee I don't think will ever happen because Uber just doesn't have the money to cover it.
> They'll disappear inside of a year sometime in 2021 if that were to happen.
> 
> The likely thing to happen after Uber realize they can't move on the status quo is give drivers more controls and freedoms to actually turn into an IC and starts generating more $$$ for themselves instead of for Uber. In which case Uber will be what it always said it is but is not. An app that connects the rider to the driver and empowers the driver.


There are some markets where ubering is well paid. He just happens to be in one of those markets.

The problem is the thousands of other drivers in markets that are not so good.

If Prop 22 passes Uber wil have free rein to do whatever it wants.

Whatever it wants.

Once it has Prop 22 in its pocket, Uber will start ratcheting down driver pay in markets that pay drivers more.

Then the drivers that made more money will quit.

And, it will be too late for drivers left behind.


----------



## Immoralized

observer said:


> There are some markets where ubering is well paid. He just happens to be in one of those markets.
> 
> The problem is the thousands of other drivers in markets that are not so good.
> 
> If Prop 22 passes Uber wil have free rein to do whatever it wants.
> 
> Whatever it wants.
> 
> Once it has Prop 22 in its pocket, Uber will start ratcheting down driver pay in markets that pay drivers more.
> 
> Then the drivers that made more money will quit.
> 
> And, it will be too late for drivers left behind.


Have to see what happens in the future. It really up to the public to decide on what they are going to be voting for.
Uber is going to be spinning it like it the best thing since slice bread and it PR machine going to be in full force.
I don't think prop22 will pass but really it the public vote so anything could happen.


----------



## SatMan

NicFit said:


> Yes I've thought of what will happen if Uber is just a passing trend. The Bay Area is unique and until covid hit it was a great market and I don't see it passing anytime soon. Taxis here never made it great since it was so spread out and people here embrace Uber and Lyft. If Uber fails I do have other plans, if it doesn't I still have other plans, for the moment I'm doing Uber, I have been thinking about starting my next business the last week or so, been doing research and thinking of starting it soon, might be able to do Uber during the day and work on the other when the drunks are out and I'm trying to avoid them
> 
> 
> I didn't have enough income to make ends meet, I don't really want to go into details on what I was doing before Uber


Uber has helped a lot of people to get back on their feet&#8230; But the majority of people don't know crap about Finances. That's why we have laws so that they are not taking advantage of. Uber has been skirting the laws since day one. I'm sure they were hoping to get the Autonomous vehicles up and running before everything hit the fan.


----------



## NicFit

SatMan said:


> Uber has helped a lot of people to get back on their feet&#8230; But the majority of people don't know crap about Finances. That's why we have laws so that they are not taking advantage of. Uber has been skirting the laws since day one. I'm sure they were hoping to get the Autonomous vehicles up and running before everything hit the fan.


Yeah, stupid people ruin it, there's nothing that can be done about that because we have an endless supply of stupid people. Sucks that because they couldn't figure it out that I have to make less money. I think Prop 22 has me making more then AB5, what I want is zero change, just go away and pay me the most in cash that you can, I want no benefits what so ever if it means coming out of my cash or increasing the price for riders, either way means less money since higher prices means less rides means less money. But now we are stuck with a choice and we have to choose. Uber already said 75% of current drivers won't be rehired if they followed AB5 so there's that too. Whole thing is a mess and I hate all of it. Tired of this whole situation and not happy I'm forced to choose and there's no way I can just keep it the way it is now


----------



## SatMan

No, stupid people didn’t ruin it… Greedy people did... And that includes a lot of drivers too!


----------



## Deadmiler69

NicFit said:


> Tired of this whole situation and not happy I'm forced to choose and there's no way I can just keep it the way it is now


Nailed it. Blame is everywhere. We can't have nice things in this world.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

REX HAVOC said:


> SF is .68 cents per mile not .72.


As I stated in the post,


> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute.


I am a 20 percenter. Uber takes only a 20% cut from my fares.



Deadmiler69 said:


> Do you realize what you are actually saying here?


Yes, why would I waste time on the long pickup/min fare shorties that I won't make money on? You can do those, if you like. Be my guest!


> You are upset about not getting paid for declining rides.


No. At no time have I expressed upset at not being paid for declining rides.


> Think about that. The reason your guarantee in for engaged time only is so that you still have the freedom to turn down any ride you want.


Think about this - a driver could be a dedicated Uber-only driver who accepts all pings. He is on standby, if you like, ready and waiting for Uber to send him a ping. He is still "at work". Yet he gets zero pay from Uber for this time. He will also sometimes have to deadhead back from dropoff zones where there are no pings. He gets zero pay from Uber for this time, either. No, the reason your guarantee is for drive time only is because it is cheaper for Uber.

However, I understand what you are saying. And it is why trying to have an earnings guarantee when the workers are free agents is unworkable. Why do you think that Uberlyft ended the hourly guarantee promotions? Because drivers would just go downtown to knock out the minimum required number of rides as fast as possible and then drive over to a quiet no-pings neighbourhood and hide for the rest of the guarantee period.

It's either guaranteed pay and assigned work, or no guarantee (which is effectively what this offer is from Uber) and independence. You can't have it both ways.


> The second we get paid for every minute online, you will have to accept 80-90% of rides.


Yes, employees have to do the work assigned to them


> You can't have it both ways.


I don't want it both ways. I want Prop 22 to fail and AB5 to remain.


> Also, there are plenty of pings in SF. Pre Covid I was there for almost 6 months and never had an issue getting pings.


As above, there will always be deadhead driving, which under the pseudo IC model is unpaid. And there will always be times when there will be a wait for pings. SF Bay area is not back to back pings 24/7.


----------



## Deadmiler69

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, the reason your guarantee is for drive time only is because it is cheaper for Uber.


This is based purely on your misunderstanding of how Uber has always worked. You'd think a lot more clearly if you didn't spend all your time thinking about how Uber is trying to screw you. Just go make some ****ing money.
If you need lessons, PM me, I'm happy to teach you how to make more money doing this!!!! If I can make $35/hr in California, you surely could learn enough to come close to it!


----------



## Kurt Halfyard

The Gift of Fish said:


> Real math: 2 + 2 = 4
> Uber math: 2 + 2 = 3000


LYFT math: 2 - 1 = 5000 (for the community...)


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> This is based purely on your misunderstanding of how Uber has always worked. You'd think a lot more clearly if you didn't spend all your time thinking about how Uber is trying to screw you. Just go make some @@@@ing money.
> If you need lessons, PM me, I'm happy to teach you how to make more money doing this!!!! If I can make $35/hr in California, you surely could learn enough to come close to it!


Lol, I'm not interested in your snide points-scoring attempts with your childish little zingers such as, "if you need lessons...", "you could learn to come close to me" etc etc. All too many posters start out with competent discussion but then they drop down to insults and zingers; a sure sign they've run out of ideas and have nothing left in the box. You certainly do demonstrate that you're one of those.

Anyway, the idea of this thread is for mature people to have a mature discussion based on the facts of the issue at hand. There are many threads suitable for Romper Room antics, but I'm not interested in that here, thanks.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel

SHalester said:


> but, my point, my confusion; AB5 is not better when all factors are included. Right this second there is no 3rd option (well, one can cease RS). It is AB5 OR Prop 22. Like voting for president: you vote for the one you hold your nose the least.
> 
> It's like medicine you take that has side effects. The choices all have side effects, one must chose which side effects they are willing to risk. Not taking either drug is not an option.
> 
> Well, let's bring on Nov voting (well day after). Then the wild speculation can move on to next segment.


I have to say that I kind of agree with some of your logic. Both laws do suck and on paper Prop 22 does slightly appear to be the lesser of the two evils.

However, I feel both laws could of been avoided if they would of just did the right thing. Since both laws technically hurt drivers to some extent, I favor the law that hurts Uber/Lyft the most. AB5.

These companies can not be trusted and this may be a once in a lifetime chance to finally hold their feet to the fire. If that means the risk of losing ride-share as we know it, then so be it.



observer said:


> I'm sure there are more but we are also forgetting that Uber would have to pay the employers share of taxes instead of the driver paying both.


Is there any documented evidence of what the flexibility in schedules is going to be like for each law? I personally am in favor of AB5 but if Prop 22 guarantees drivers maintain flexibility, just to be fair, that does make the argument much stronger. For many drivers giving up that flexibility for miniscule benefits will be difficult.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> For many drivers giving up that flexibility for miniscule benefits will be difficult.


I think that the error that Prop 22 supporters make is that they are only looking at Uber rates and the working conditions as they are now, in September 2020. We need to remember that the only thing that doesn't change for drivers with Uber is that things always change, and not for the better. When has Uber ever given drivers anything for nothing? Never. If Prop 22 passes, then Uber will have to pay a small amount (a few bucks per week per driver) into a benefits stipend for us. Naturally, it's not a lot of money that Uber has promised with its benefit fund, but you'd better believe that it will be looking to get that money back from drivers.

The way that they will do this is most likely going to be through another pay cut. Because they set the earnings guarantee so low, they have left themselves with a lot of room to maneuver on this. I calculated that they could further reduce pay rates in San Francisco by 20% before they hit the bump stop of the earnings guarantee.

AB5, on the other hand, seals in an earnings minimum that can't go down and can't be whittled away, as Uber has liked to do throughout its existence. On the contrary, minimum wage sees yearly increases. Minimum wage plus expenses plus benefits may not be great, but it will stop further abuses and cuts from Uber.


----------



## observer

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> I have to say that I kind of agree with some of your logic. Both laws do suck and on paper Prop 22 does slightly appear to be the lesser of the two evils.
> 
> However, I feel both laws could of been avoided if they would of just did the right thing. Since both laws technically hurt drivers to some extent, I favor the law that hurts Uber/Lyft the most. AB5.
> 
> These companies can not be trusted and this may be a once in a lifetime chance to finally hold their feet to the fire. If that means the risk of losing ride-share as we know it, then so be it.
> 
> 
> Is there any documented evidence of what the flexibility in schedules is going to be like for each law? I personally am in favor of AB5 but if Prop 22 guarantees drivers maintain flexibility, just to be fair, that does make the argument much stronger. For many drivers giving up that flexibility for miniscule benefits will be difficult.


Nope.

No guarantee of flexibility in AB5 OR Prop 22

None at all.


----------



## TRugen

observer said:


> Nope.
> 
> No guarantee of flexibility in AB5 OR Prop 22
> 
> None at all.


Very unlikely indeed.

Uber to everyone: our drivers are ICs!
Lawmakers to Uber: passes AB5, "prove it Uber!" with the "contracting" of their drivers, are they really adhering to IC? If not, convert to employees.
Uber: fails the IC test, puts an initiative on the ballot to fight AB5 to not comply because they are not willing to change their business model so that AB5 is not applicable.

&#128515;


----------



## SFTraffic

NO guaranteed flexibility. It's not in the prop. #NoOnProp22


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

SFTraffic said:


> NO guaranteed flexibility. It's not in the prop. #NoOnProp22


Neither is the clause that says rates can't be cut or the Clause that creates a cap.

When the rates will make it so you need a bonus to do decent, then they will give you a extra 15-20 during the hours they need you. Training monkeys is harder.

Like now with Lyft I can make 5$ per hour above minimum wage if I do "streaks" at 7 am or 3 pm.

If I just go work after 9 am to 3 pm, I for sure can't make minimum wage after expenses, before tips.

They will bring your rates SO low, then set the times they disperse bonuses, get you by the balls.

Im telling you it's happening to my area on Lyft. If you think your safe because your location is better, or Uber hasn't showed it's colors to your area Yet, don't say I didn't try to explain it and inform you guys.


----------



## simont23

Uber's problem, is, and always has been their business model. Old fashioned taxi companies made, and still make a profit. Uber's cost structure doesn't let them make a profit, and never did. If they jacked up their fares to give drivers a decent amount, to give staff and executives a decent amount, and to give shareholders a decent amount, nobody would use them. They would use the competitors who charge less, give their drivers more, and still seem to make a profit for the owners. Right from the start, Travis et al spread the bullshit that it wasn't the business model, it was not having the market share they needed to make their business model turn a profit etc. Now their market share is shrinking because they are not actually cheaper than traditional taxis, they have new bullshit about delivering food and gouging restaurants to try to stave off their future collapse. I have said it before, and my prediction still stands. Uber will start offering drivers shares in part payment of their fares. These will be being sold by their executives as they prepare to leave the sinking ship. The jobless drivers will be left holding their share certificates instead of being paid.


----------



## moJohoJo

1.5xorbust said:


> Attorneys and Uber math hard at work.


I just heard my first pro proposition 22 ad yesterday . The wordings that are used is nothing else but deceptive advertising to make you think the World will end for drivers and passengers . Drivers won't be able to have the freedom they have had as a so called contractor when in fact nothing will change . Drivers can still work when they want . Prop 22 is about Lyft and Uber reeling in as much money as they can get away with from drivers . Prop 22 will treat us like humans with benefits and guaranteed at least minimum wage . Uber and Lyft want us to vote in favor of this proposition which is like stabbing ourselves in the back then get run over by Lyft / Uber . Prop 22 is all about Uber and Lyft's profitability and will make conditions for drivers worse . Don't be fooled by their massive deceptiveness .



simont23 said:


> Uber's problem, is, and always has been their business model. Old fashioned taxi companies made, and still make a profit. Uber's cost structure doesn't let them make a profit, and never did. If they jacked up their fares to give drivers a decent amount, to give staff and executives a decent amount, and to give shareholders a decent amount, nobody would use them. They would use the competitors who charge less, give their drivers more, and still seem to make a profit for the owners. Right from the start, Travis et al spread the bullshit that it wasn't the business model, it was not having the market share they needed to make their business model turn a profit etc. Now their market share is shrinking because they are not actually cheaper than traditional taxis, they have new bullshit about delivering food and gouging restaurants to try to stave off their future collapse. I have said it before, and my prediction still stands. Uber will start offering drivers shares in part payment of their fares. These will be being sold by their executives as they prepare to leave the sinking ship. The jobless drivers will be left holding their share certificates instead of being paid.


Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !



simont23 said:


> Uber's problem, is, and always has been their business model. Old fashioned taxi companies made, and still make a profit. Uber's cost structure doesn't let them make a profit, and never did. If they jacked up their fares to give drivers a decent amount, to give staff and executives a decent amount, and to give shareholders a decent amount, nobody would use them. They would use the competitors who charge less, give their drivers more, and still seem to make a profit for the owners. Right from the start, Travis et al spread the bullshit that it wasn't the business model, it was not having the market share they needed to make their business model turn a profit etc. Now their market share is shrinking because they are not actually cheaper than traditional taxis, they have new bullshit about delivering food and gouging restaurants to try to stave off their future collapse. I have said it before, and my prediction still stands. Uber will start offering drivers shares in part payment of their fares. These will be being sold by their executives as they prepare to leave the sinking ship. The jobless drivers will be left holding their share certificates instead of being paid.


Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !


NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


Nice try Uber Corporate employee



simont23 said:


> Uber's problem, is, and always has been their business model. Old fashioned taxi companies made, and still make a profit. Uber's cost structure doesn't let them make a profit, and never did. If they jacked up their fares to give drivers a decent amount, to give staff and executives a decent amount, and to give shareholders a decent amount, nobody would use them. They would use the competitors who charge less, give their drivers more, and still seem to make a profit for the owners. Right from the start, Travis et al spread the bullshit that it wasn't the business model, it was not having the market share they needed to make their business model turn a profit etc. Now their market share is shrinking because they are not actually cheaper than traditional taxis, they have new bullshit about delivering food and gouging restaurants to try to stave off their future collapse. I have said it before, and my prediction still stands. Uber will start offering drivers shares in part payment of their fares. These will be being sold by their executives as they prepare to leave the sinking ship. The jobless drivers will be left holding their share certificates instead of being paid.


Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !


NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


Nice try Uber Corporate employee


NicFit said:


> No but if this doesn't pass then I will be making considerably less, I don't want to be a wage slave again


Nice try, liar . I can see who your working for at Corporate .



NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


The real question is............as an Uber Attorney how much are you getting paid by Uber to back up a bill that will screw drivers ?



NicFit said:


> And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your a fool to think we are falling for your complete rubbish


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> I just heard my first pro proposition 22 ad yesterday . The wordings that are used is nothing else but deceptive advertising to make you think the World will end for drivers and passengers . Drivers won't be able to have the freedom they have had as a so called contractor when in fact nothing will change . Drivers can still work when they want . Prop 22 is about Lyft and Uber reeling in as much money as they can get away with from drivers . Prop 22 will treat us like humans with benefits and guaranteed at least minimum wage . Uber and Lyft want us to vote in favor of this proposition which is like stabbing ourselves in the back then get run over by Lyft / Uber . Prop 22 is all about Uber and Lyft's profitability and will make conditions for drivers worse . Don't be fooled by their massive deceptiveness .
> 
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !
> 
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee
> 
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your full of it !
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee
> 
> Nice try, liar . I can see who your working for at Corporate .
> 
> 
> The real question is............as an Uber Attorney how much are you getting paid by Uber to back up a bill that will screw drivers ?
> 
> 
> Nice try Uber Corporate employee but your a fool to think we are falling for your complete rubbish


You are so delusional, thinking that I'm a corporate employee, maybe I'm a driver that wants to keep working. If AB5 is enforced 150k of the 200k drivers will no longer have a job, this has already been said by Uber. And you know they will make you a wage slave once they make you an employee, why would call you an employee and keep everything the same? If I am really working for corporate you should be really scared as this means the stuff I said is going to be true, though it's not, I'm just speculating on most of it. No one know what an employee will look like but have you ever heard of an employee that gets the majority of the service fee? No, better figure it out before it's too late


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


Nice try Uber Corporate but this bill is not about drivers . This bill is for you Corporates .


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

The problem with Uber’s math is Their assumption that X=0

Where zero is your expenses.

this simple assumption is the problem with Uber/lyft.

All these idiots think that X = 0 or X = gas costs.

Reality is that X = about 40v a mile.

Truth of the matter is that working a vehicle as a taxi it’s lifespan is measured in miles.

All those miles have a cost and after 3 years of full time work that car is trashed.

but if you properly maintain it and don’t use it in the hardest way imaginable (as a taxi) you should be able to get 25 years out of it.

As such, the entire cost of a vehicle purchase has to be accounted for in the per mile cost.

If you keep a $15,000 car for 100,000 miles that cost is 15c a mile.

a $30,000 car for 200,000 miles is still 15c.

a 5,000 car for 50,000 miles is 10c... a little better but not my huge amounts.

This isn’t any expense other then the purchase price of a car.

Now add 10c for gas... and we are at 25c a mile.

These 2 very non debatable expenses already wipe out 100% of my cities earning potential.


I don’t even have to calculate the per mile costs for oil, tires, ect or even the much harder to calculate things like engine repairs...

my markets profit is gone with just vehicle purchase price /depreciation (two sides of the same coin) and gasoline.

At 25c a mile in costs you’ll never break even with 33% paid mileage and 60ish centa paid mile,

I can go on and add more expenses but I don’t neeed to,

Yet people keep driving for these companies because they don’t understand what their expenses really are.

Until they really understand their expenses if they are getting paid $16-17 an hour they think they are doing well compared to min wage.

Truth is... to hit $13 an hour you need to be paid closer to $27 an hour.


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> You are so delusional, thinking that I'm a corporate employee, maybe I'm a driver that wants to keep working. If AB5 is enforced 150k of the 200k drivers will no longer have a job, this has already been said by Uber. And you know they will make you a wage slave once they make you an employee, why would call you an employee and keep everything the same? If I am really working for corporate you should be really scared as this means the stuff I said is going to be true, though it's not, I'm just speculating on most of it. No one know what an employee will look like but have you ever heard of an employee that gets the majority of the service fee? No, better figure it out before it's too late


You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .


Ha, put down the weed and realize I'm not corporate, I average $30 an hour so if that's slave wages then call me a slave, learn to make money or find another job, you want to be an employee with all those benefits then go flip burgers and let me make my money without government over regulation


----------



## moJohoJo

The fake driver or really Lyft Corporate employee says he makes $30 an hour . At least now we know how much his Corp. is paying him . Well after his prop 22 gets defeated he'll be making $ 15 an hour resulting in us drivers being treated better .



The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


I get your point .
So, the bottom line is drivers net an average of $7.20 per hour which is why the reason you did not mention net pay because to say a driver nets $7 an hour after all is said is unbelievable and you didn't want to say this because then people would say your lying but this is the truth and you wouldn't be lying for telling the truth .



NicFit said:


> Ha, put down the weed and realize I'm not corporate, I average $30 an hour so if that's slave wages then call me a slave, learn to make money or find another job, you want to be an employee with all those benefits then go flip burgers and let me make my money without government over regulation


Put your Beer and Bourbon down Corporate man . Averaging $30 an hour ? LOL . Real drivers don't make even close to that amount / After your prop 22 is defeated you'll be making $15 an hour . Sounds more and more like your a fake driver with every statement you make ( $30 an hour Ha ha ha ha ) . What your really afraid of, Corporate man is having your pay slashed after your prop 22 is defeated with drivers being treated fairly and paid a decent wage .


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


NICE TRY FROM A CORPORATE EMPLOYEE WHO DOESN'T WANT HIS PAY CUT SO DRIVERS CAN BE TREATED FAIRLY . VOTE NO on Proposition 22 SO DRIVERS CAN BE TREATED BETTER WITH BETTER WAGES . DO NOT LET THE CORPORATES FOOL, TRICK AND DECIEVE YOU


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Another Corporate employee afraid of getting his pay cut after Proposition 22 is defeated . How many other service jobs take a majority cut of their payouts from their employees? Uber / Lyft does, that's who . Vote NO on prop 22 or you'll continue to be treated like a slave with more & more pay cuts . Don't let the Corporates trick, lie and decieve you .



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.
> 
> Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.
> 
> What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?


Exactly right . Proposition 22 has one thing in mind . To increase their profitability & not only decrease the driver's pay but continue to mistreat their drivers to the fullest extent possible . Prop 22 was created by Uber & Lyft . Don't let the fake drivers fool you pretending to be in support of proposition 22 / They pretend to be drivers to fool, trick and decieve you so they'll get their way leading to more and higher profits . A quote from the Bible : " One of satan's biggest tools is deception . Revelation speaks of the great Dragon who decieves the whole World " and this is happening before our eyes .


----------



## The Gift of Fish

moJohoJo said:


> So, the bottom line is drivers net an average of $7.20 per hour which is why the reason you did not mention net pay


I didn't mention net pay because everyone has very different costs. Nobody knows what drivers' average gross revenue is, let alone what average net is. Because Uber has such a long history of lying and deceit, their data is unreliable. And the so-called economists at the various universities that have done "studies" on earnings don't understand the business and calculate earnings incorrectly, which is why their figures vary wildly and are also untrustworthy.


----------



## SHalester

moJohoJo said:


> VOTE NO on Proposition 22


...I wonder. Would you hold that opinion if you were an 'active' driver and weren't selected to be hired (under AB5)? Hum.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

NicFit said:


> Yes I've thought of what will happen if Uber is just a passing trend.


Great job figuring out your situation and using ride-share to improve your financial situation.

I love the idea of looking into having your own business. Since everything is so in the air, you should really try the your own business idea if possible.

This job was always very insecure with uncertain future.

It's frustrating on both sides. I know your not a corporate employee, lol.

The people that got the most out of rideshare are people who used it during gaps and found other ways.

The reason some drivers are against a third category is not the fear of today, it is the fear of what the details in prop 22 do and what it would look like when they have the law off their back in a year or two.

Most of us against prop 22, are against it knowing that with a third category, it's a matter of time until having rights as a worker becomes a advance to a carved out third category.

I read every month about drivers getting shot, robbed, attacked, their cars vandalized, and they have to start go fund me pages because there is no workplace injury. Their families collapse when a driver dies on the job or gets crippled.

Just by reading about a few a month, in good faith, I can not go against worker rights that provide workplace injury, even if that means I'll loss this gig.

If the next time someone with a family gets crippled, if they are protected as a rideshare driver, I'm ok with being sacrificed In the process of getting that protection.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Immoralized said:


> The likely thing to happen after Uber realize they can't move on the status quo is give drivers more controls and freedoms to actually turn into an IC and starts generating more $$$ for themselves instead of for Uber. In which case Uber will be what it always said it is but is not. An app that connects the rider to the driver and empowers the driver.


I personally don't believe that Uber or its drivers will be able to function as a all employees Model Under wage laws.

Lets say as a strategic move we all go against Ubers first offer with the goal of forcing Uber to negotiate.

Lets leave them no option but to make structural changes that will be sufficient to have actual IC's.

The option is to settle now With prop 22, or go for a better deal or take Uber down.

If Uber offered, worker compensation, UI, SSI contribution, healthcare and vacation pay, then there would be no point to classify us as employees. Dara says the state does not allow them to do this. ITS A LIE.

Imagine a 10% surcharge on rides that says " Driver Benefit", and that goes to pay for the benefits mentioned above.

If Uber does this, then it makes it pointless to classify drivers as employees.

But what about wage laws?

If the driver sets rates, with a minimum floor, and there is a cap on drivers, then wage laws become irrelevant.

Why should we take Ubers offer, force them to take our offer, or let them go down.


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> The  fake driver or really Lyft Corporate employee says he makes $30 an hour . At least now we know how much his Corp. is paying him . Well after his prop 22 gets defeated he'll be making $ 15 an hour resulting in us drivers being treated better .
> 
> 
> I get your point .
> So, the bottom line is drivers net an average of $7.20 per hour which is why the reason you did not mention net pay because to say a driver nets $7 an hour after all is said is unbelievable and you didn't want to say this because then people would say your lying but this is the truth and you wouldn't be lying for telling the truth .
> 
> 
> Put your Beer and Bourbon down Corporate man . Averaging $30 an hour ? LOL . Real drivers don't make even close to that amount / After your prop 22 is defeated you'll be making $15 an hour . Sounds more and more like your a fake driver with every statement you make ( $30 an hour Ha ha ha ha ) . What your really afraid of, Corporate man is having your pay slashed after your prop 22 is defeated with drivers being treated fairly and paid a decent wage .


Not my fault you can't figure out how to make money, maybe you should go flip burgers since you can't figure out how rideshare works


----------



## moJohoJo

TRugen said:


> Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


Another fake driver pretending to be a real driver but their true colors show loud and clear every time they post their nonsense



NicFit said:


> 90% of current drivers won't have a job so it doesn't matter anyway, they won't be able to hire most drivers after they shut down for months. Who cares what they do when now I have zero income


Nice try, Corporate employee but your true colors are showing us who you really are



NicFit said:


> I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job. If Prop 22 fails 90% of driver won't have a job. So do I think I'll be the lucky 10% that get hired? Probably not, so I want the route that means I have a 100% job even if it's not the best deal


NICE TRY CORPORATE EMPLOYEE

As usual my post that explains how bad Prop 22 is and that it was made by Uber and Lyft has been deleted . Now you know who really owns this site .



TRugen said:


> Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .



The Gift of Fish said:


> I agree, of the three current options of employee, pseudo contractor or real contractor, real contractor is the best. But that will never happen. Giving up its control would destroy Uber's business model. And it would open the floodgates for other states to follow suit.


You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> Another fake driver pretending to be a real driver but their true colors show loud and clear every time they post their nonsense
> 
> 
> Nice try, Corporate employee but your true colors are showing us who you really are
> 
> 
> NICE TRY CORPORATE EMPLOYEE
> 
> As usual my post that explains how bad Prop 22 is and that it was made by Uber and Lyft has been deleted . Now you know who really owns this site .
> 
> 
> You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .
> 
> 
> You think you are fooling drivers but you do not fool the majority of drivers . IF you were a driver like many of us are here then you would know we already do make slave wages and are treated as employees dictating to us drivers what we can or cannot do along with demands and threats . Furthermore you and your Corporation already gets the majority of the fees so your statement is deceptive and false . You have just shown us your true colors . You better quit while your ahead, Lyft Corporate because it's obvious whose side your on and it's again obviously............. not the drivers .


Ok troll, you clearly don't know what is going on, if AB5 is enforced Uber has already said 75% of the driver will not have jobs (I said 90% but then I looked it up) why do you think I support Prop 22, it's 100% that I have a job and 25% if it fails. I don't want these employee benefits and rather have more cash in my pocket then cash in the states pocket. If you feel like you want to be an employee then Uber isn't for you, you can go flip burgers so you can have all those employee benefits. Quit trying to screw up what I have going because you think it should be different and go find something else to do


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> Yes on Prop 22 and 90% of the drivers get to keep earning, I'm looking at the lesser of two evils and your right, either way is still no good. I prefer to make ok money then to only have a 10% chance of making money


Oh, look............another Corporate troll that's trying to get us to vote yes so we can screw ourselves regarding Prop 22 . We aren't that stupid . We know prop 22 is all about Uber / Lyft's keeping as much profit as possible by screwing the drivers as much as possible . It does nothing for the drivers . Prop 22 is for Uber / Lyft profitability . It will diminish wages for drivers . Want protection from these thugs ? Vote NO on prop 22 .



SHalester said:


> I get that, common sense. BUT if nobody is at or under the floor, who really cares? To me floor and guarantee is the 'minimum'. Why worry about 'what' wild speculation might happen later? Make above the guarantee and you have no worries.
> 
> I mean, really, is AB5 better? If we have a choice of an earthquake (AB5) or a mild rain storm (Prop 22) which option would be picked by a reasonable person (who lives in Calif)?
> 
> There is no 3rd choice in Calif. It is AB5 or Prop 22.


AB5 is pro drivers . Prop 22 is not about drivers . It's about Corporate profits or making as much money off the backs of drivers . Don't be fooled by the Corporates posting here pretending to be drivers . They want to screw you as much as they can . After prop 22 is defeated they'll be forced to give us benefits with better pay reducing their profits . VOTE NO ON PROP 22 .





NicFit said:


> 90% of current drivers won't have a job so it doesn't matter anyway, they won't be able to hire most drivers after they shut down for months. Who cares what they do when now I have zero income


Nice try, Corporate troll .


----------



## moJohoJo

SHalester said:


> Still better than AB5 and that is what counts.


Oh, i see the Corporate troll is back pretending to be a driver making $30 an hour . He's gotten all riled up because he knows his Proposition 22 is in for defeat . Don't let these fake drivers decieve you . Vote NO on Prop 22 .


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> Oh, look............another Corporate troll that's trying to get us to vote yes so we can screw ourselves regarding Prop 22 . We aren't that stupid . We know prop 22 is all about Uber / Lyft's keeping as much profit as possible by screwing the drivers as much as possible . It does nothing for the drivers . Prop 22 is for Uber / Lyft profitability . It will diminish wages for drivers . Want protection from these thugs ? Vote NO on prop 22 .
> 
> 
> AB5 is pro drivers . Prop 22 is not about drivers . It's about Corporate profits or making as much money off the backs of drivers . Don't be fooled by the Corporates posting here pretending to be drivers . They want to screw you as much as they can . After prop 22 is defeated they'll be forced to give us benefits with better pay reducing their profits . VOTE NO ON PROP 22 .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, Corporate troll .


You are a piece of work, you don't say anything but the same garbage, go crawl back into whatever cave you came from. Clearly you don't care about anyone else but your thinking about benefits of being an employee, go flip burgers. I don't care what you think but the fact is most drivers won't have a job if they follow AB5. Do some research and quit bugging me troll

https://www.morningstar.com/news/do...fornia-order-to-reclassify-drivers-2nd-update
"Uber, for instance, said it would be able *to hire just a quarter of its more than 200,000 drivers in California* and raise prices for rides as much as 120% to account for the millions of dollars it would need to invest to manage drivers as employees."


----------



## moJohoJo

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


Uber / Lyft made up Prop 22 to maintain their profitability at the drivers expense . California originally enacted proposition AB5 because it guaranteed minimum wages, health benefits, unemployment and because it keeps drivers from being fired on the spot without explanation or justifications but Uber / Lyft didn't comply with AB5 and so they made up Prop 22 to overthrow AB5 so they could keep screwing their drivers without any benefits . VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 22 , don't let the deceptive ads or fake drivers who post here decieve you otherwise . Nothing will change once its defeated except better working conditions for drivers


----------



## SHalester

moJohoJo said:


> Oh, i see the Corporate troll is back pretending to be a driver making $30 an hour


are you confused on who you are replying to? Can you point me to a note I posted that quoted ANY hourly rate near $30? You must be new here, yea? At best I post about cash flow, rarely on per hour, per day, per week earnings.

As to being an employee of Uber? I'm ok if you think that, really. It is possible as the Uber HQ campus is about an hour away from me. So, if if makes your day to feel anybody who isn't full time angry with Uber is an Uber employee......ok, whatever makes you happy.

Prop 22 is in for defeat? Do you have something to back up that opinion? Like a poll of likely voters? If just drivers vote for it, it will be a landslide win. The open question is how non-drivers will vote. Can you provide, or is that yet another hot air opinion based on.....(wait for it)....hot air? It's ok if your opinion is based only on hot air; most opinions are. Just own it and acknowledge it isn't a fact.

How is AB5 better than Prop 22? How do you reconcile AB5 will result in a huge reduction of active drivers? Or is that too much for you to discuss?

Consider your purpose here.


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> You are a piece of work, you don't say anything but the same garbage, go crawl back into whatever cave you came from. Clearly you don't care about anyone else but your thinking about benefits of being an employee, go flip burgers you wacko. I don't care what you think but the fact is most drivers won't have a job if they follow AB5. Do some research and quit bugging me troll
> 
> https://www.morningstar.com/news/do...fornia-order-to-reclassify-drivers-2nd-update
> "Uber, for instance, said it would be able *to hire just a quarter of its more than 200,000 drivers in California* and raise prices for rides as much as 120% to account for the millions of dollars it would need to invest to manage drivers as employees."


The Corporated troll who claims he makes $30 an hour as a driver is back again and he says that we'll be treated as slaves if Prop 22 is defeated is nothing but a Corporate employee and fake driver because we are already slaves to your Corporation and nobody makes $30 an hour all day long . Better keep your mouth shut because your true colors are showing once again . You keep digging yourself into a bigger hole . Pretty soon you won't be able to crawl out of your hole because it'll be too deep . VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 22 . Protect drivers rights . This is a bill made by the Corporations to protect their profits at the expense of drivers .



moJohoJo said:


> The Corporated troll who claims he makes $30 an hour as a driver is back again and he says that we'll be treated as slaves if Prop 22 is defeated is nothing but a Corporate employee and fake driver because we are already slaves to your Corporation and nobody makes $30 an hour all day long . Better keep your mouth shut because your true colors are showing once again . The more you open your mouth the more you dig yourself into a bigger hole . Pretty soon you won't be able to crawl out of your hole because it'll be too deep . VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 22 . Protect drivers rights . This is a bill made by the Corporations to protect their profits at the expense of drivers .





SHalester said:


> are you confused on who you are replying to? Can you point me to a note I posted that quoted ANY hourly rate near $30? You must be new here, yea? At best I post about cash flow, rarely on per hour, per day, per week earnings.
> 
> As to being an employee of Uber? I'm ok if you think that, really. It is possible as the Uber HQ campus is about an hour away from me. So, if if makes your day to feel anybody who isn't full time angry with Uber is an Uber employee......ok, whatever makes you happy.
> 
> Prop 22 is in for defeat? Do you have something to back up that opinion? Like a poll of likely voters? If just drivers vote for it, it will be a landslide win. The open question is how non-drivers will vote. Can you provide, or is that yet another hot air opinion based on.....(wait for it)....hot air? It's ok if your opinion is based only on hot air; most opinions are. Just own it and acknowledge it isn't a fact.
> 
> How is AB5 better than Prop 22? How do you reconcile AB5 will result in a huge reduction of active drivers? Or is that too much for you to discuss?
> 
> Consider your purpose here.


The Corporate troll is back i see . Vote NO on proposition 22 .


----------



## SHalester

moJohoJo said:


> The Corporate troll is back i see . Vote NO on proposition 22 .


I see each of your posts you accuse the author of being a corporate shill/employee. Does that really work for you?

Anyway, I'm still waiting on how you feel AB5 is better when the population of drivers will be sliced at least in half. How do you account for that? For those who are not hired? We await.


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> No but if this doesn't pass then I will be making considerably less, I don't want to be a wage slave again


Wrong, Corporate employee . Your a fake driver because all drivers know we already are making considerably less and less and are already slaves to your Corporation so your lies don't fool us . Vote .........No on proposition 22 . Protect drivers rights and a no vote will provide drivers with a guaranteed minimum wage with an endless amount of benefits . Don't be tricked, fooled or decieved by any of these ( fake ) posters that claim to be supportive of Proposition 22 . It's all lies to increase their profits .


----------



## SHalester

moJohoJo said:


> endless amount of benefits .


ah, troll bait post. I see now. :thumbup: Sign me up for 'endless amount of benefits' sounds really cool.


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> The Corporated troll who claims he makes $30 an hour as a driver is back again and he says that we'll be treated as slaves if Prop 22 is defeated is nothing but a Corporate employee and fake driver because we are already slaves to your Corporation and nobody makes $30 an hour all day long . Better keep your mouth shut because your true colors are showing once again . You keep digging yourself into a bigger hole . Pretty soon you won't be able to crawl out of your hole because it'll be too deep . VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 22 . Protect drivers rights . This is a bill made by the Corporations to protect their profits at the expense of drivers .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Corporate troll is back i see . Vote NO on proposition 22 .


Here you go, suck on this troll


----------



## Judge and Jury

moJohoJo said:


> Wrong, Corporate employee . Your a fake driver because all drivers know we already are making considerably less and less and are already slaves to your Corporation so your lies don't fool us . Vote .........No on proposition 22 . Protect drivers rights and a no vote will provide drivers with a guaranteed minimum wage with an endless amount of benefits . Don't be tricked, fooled or decieved by any of these ( fake ) posters that claim to be supportive of Proposition 22 . It's all lies to increase their profits .


You are missing the point.
I am looking forward to wearing the spiffy uniforms I will be required to wear if prop 22 fails and AB5 is successfully enforced.
Can I deduct the depreciation on my washer and dryer from my tax liability?


----------



## NicFit

Judge and Jury said:


> You are missing the point.
> I am looking forward to wearing the spiffy uniforms I will be required to wear if prop 22 fails and AB5 is successfully enforced.
> Can I deduct the depreciation on my washer and dryer from my tax liability?


Isn't that the laundry mat owners deduction?


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever
> 
> If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?
> 
> This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22


Nice try Corporate troll . A yes vote is like stabbing ourselves in the back . Nice try fake driver . Vote NO on Proposition 22 . Don't let those who post here pretending to be drivers decieve you .



Judge and Jury said:


> You are missing the point.
> I am looking forward to wearing the spiffy uniforms I will be required to wear if prop 22 fails and AB5 is successfully enforced.
> Can I deduct the depreciation on my washer and dryer from my tax liability?


Nice try fake driver . Vote NO on prop 22 . Don't let the fake drivers fool you .



NicFit said:


> Here you go, suck on this troll
> 
> View attachment 507587
> View attachment 507586
> View attachment 507588


OH Oh the phony driver sure likes to make up payment statements . Nice try Troll but that's easy to do . Vote NO on prop 22 . Nothing will change except more benefits with guaranteed wages for drivers . Don't let the fake drivers fool you . Vote NO on Prop 22 .



SHalester said:


> I see each of your posts you accuse the author of being a corporate shill/employee. Does that really work for you?
> 
> Anyway, I'm still waiting on how you feel AB5 is better when the population of drivers will be sliced at least in half. How do you account for that? For those who are not hired? We await.


They'd be doing drivers a favor . Drivers are tired of being treated like a slaves with no benefits . Vote NO on prop 22 .



NicFit said:


> 90% of current drivers won't have a job so it doesn't matter anyway, they won't be able to hire most drivers after they shut down for months. Who cares what they do when now I have zero income


Nice try fake driver .



The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm sure everyone remembers the 180 days of change, with the now-you-see-them-now-you-don't benefits. Uber could repeal the guarantee after a year or so, citing "market conditions" or some other reason.


Do you think they're spending 90 million on prop 22 to benefit the drivers ? No, they're spending it to get the law off their back so they can continue to mistreat drivers and increase their profits . Vote NO on Prop 22 .



NicFit said:


> Yes on Prop 22 and 90% of the drivers get to keep earning, I'm looking at the lesser of two evils and your right, either way is still no good. I prefer to make ok money then to only have a 10% chance of making money


Your pretending to be a driver, Corporate troll . Vote NO on prop 22 . We are already making slave wages . Nothing will change except improve driving conditions with better pay . Vote NO . Don't let these fake drivers fool you otherwise . We know how horrible working conditions are for drivers . That has to change . A yes vote on Prop 22 equals less pay for drivers and more profits for the Corporations .


----------



## Deadmiler69

moJohoJo said:


> We are already making slave wages . Nothing will change except improve driving conditions with better pay .


Those darn slave wages of only $58/hr!!!!!


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


Too bad your pretending to be a driver . Uber didn't spend 90 million on Prop 22 for the drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to follow the law which would eventually benefit drivers with better pay . Prop 22 was initiated to overturn the law and increase Uber profits for Uber/ Lyft. Vote NO on Prop 22



Deadmiler69 said:


> Those darn slave wages of only $58/hr!!!!!
> View attachment 507799
> View attachment 507800


Anybody can make up phony payment statements . It;s especially easy to do when your behind a desk at your Corporate headquarters . Besides they always show you worked 5 times less hours on your payment statement then the actual amount of hours you worked so you think your making good money .That's called deception and a lie .


----------



## Deadmiler69

moJohoJo said:


> Too bad your pretending to be a driver . Uber didn't spend 90 million on Prop 22 for the drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to follow the law which would eventually benefit drivers with better pay . Prop 22 was initiated to overturn the law and increase Uber profits for Uber/ Lyft. Vote NO on Prop 22





moJohoJo said:


> Too bad your pretending to be a driver . Uber didn't spend 90 million on Prop 22 for the drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to follow the law which would eventually benefit drivers with better pay . Prop 22 was initiated to overturn the law and increase Uber profits for Uber/ Lyft. Vote NO on Prop 22
> 
> 
> Anybody can make up phony payment statements . It;s especially easy to do when your behind a desk at your Corporate headquarters . Besides they always show you worked 5 times less hours on your payment statement then the actual amount of hours you worked so you think your making good money .That's called deception and a lie .


So the only person telling the truth is the crazy person that's accusing anyone who is good at this job of being a fake corporate shill? Got it!


----------



## moJohoJo

SHalester said:


> are you confused on who you are replying to? Can you point me to a note I posted that quoted ANY hourly rate near $30? You must be new here, yea? At best I post about cash flow, rarely on per hour, per day, per week earnings.
> 
> As to being an employee of Uber? I'm ok if you think that, really. It is possible as the Uber HQ campus is about an hour away from me. So, if if makes your day to feel anybody who isn't full time angry with Uber is an Uber employee......ok, whatever makes you happy.
> 
> Prop 22 is in for defeat? Do you have something to back up that opinion? Like a poll of likely voters? If just drivers vote for it, it will be a landslide win. The open question is how non-drivers will vote. Can you provide, or is that yet another hot air opinion based on.....(wait for it)....hot air? It's ok if your opinion is based only on hot air; most opinions are. Just own it and acknowledge it isn't a fact.
> 
> How is AB5 better than Prop 22? How do you reconcile AB5 will result in a huge reduction of active drivers? Or is that too much for you to discuss?
> 
> Consider your purpose here.


Your previous post was deleted by this Corporate owned web site and you know it was . NO on prop 22 . Prop 22 was not made for drivers . It's too get the law off their back to increase profits and for continued mistreatment of drivers with more continued pay cuts to increase profits for Uber .



NicFit said:


> No but if this doesn't pass then I will be making considerably less, I don't want to be a wage slave again


Drivers are already making slave wages . Prop 22 was made to overrthrow laws made to benefit drivers with guaranteed wages and to increase profits . Is the prop 22 proposition made to help drivers ? LOL . No, it's to increase profitability for Corporations . Vote NO on 22 .



SHalester said:


> maybe I'm slow today due to the 107 and rising temp. If one makes 'above' the guarantee why would they even care about the 'floor'?
> 
> And really we are talking about Prop 22, if it fails we are left with AB5 and some mystery hourly rate. I'm going with AB5 would be far worse. Prop 22 is the medicine that tastes horrible, but does its job.


The Corporations are spending 90 million on the Prop 22 campaign to overthrow the laws that States want so drivers can be treated fairly with unemployment income, guarateed wages for drivers and other benefits . Prop 22 was implemented by the Corporations to increase their profits and so they can continue to cut pay and mistreat drivers . Don't be mislead by Corporate employees pretending to be drivers . Vote NO on 22 .



observer said:


> Pretty good non answer on your part. Here's mine.
> 
> Prop 22 guarantees less in every aspect than drivers as employees.
> 
> 120% of minimum wage (while engaged) is less than 100% of all time while on the app.
> 
> .30 per mile is likely less than employees would be reimbursed because .30 is a CAP on costs. Your expenses are more than .30 under Prop 22?
> 
> Too bad, your loss.
> 
> Under Uber, the employer pays ALL costs, not just thirty cents.
> 
> While Prop 22 does guarantee a floor it doesn't guarantee any higher pay either.
> 
> Under Prop 22, you get deactivated, you get diddley squat (《~~~ new favorite word). As an employee, you would likely qualify for unemployment.
> 
> Under Prop 22, no overtime. Even if you work over 8 hours a day (they limit you at 12, how convenient). As an employee you get paid breaks and overtime after 8 hours. Sorry, no paid breaks under Prop 22.
> 
> Or overtime.
> 
> Under Prop 22, you get NO SICK PAY. As an employee, you get at least 3 paid sick days.
> 
> While you don't get a guarantee of flexibility as an employee, Prop 22 also DOES NOT guarantee flexibility.
> 
> I'm sure I forgot some.
> 
> Prop 22 benefits Uber/Lyft not drivers.


Their 90 campaign is to overthrow the States laws which were made to benefit drivers and to increase profits for themselves the Corporations . Do you think they would spend 90 million on proposition 22 to benefit drivers ? VOTE NO on 22



NicFit said:


> And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


Nice try Corporate employee pretending to be a driver .



NicFit said:


> It not constant but when you have an area like the bay it can be lucrative, but with covid those $100 hours are far and few, gotta have events to make good cash like that


You'd have to driver 100 Miles an hour for one straight hour to make $100 per hour which isn't going to happen ever . Another Corporate employee pretending to be a driver . NO on 22 .



NicFit said:


> This is what I did when I started doing rideshare, it's my own business, yeah the rates were set by them but not any more, I can chose to set my rate right now, to me that's independent contractor


They didn't spend 90 million on prop 22 for drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to comply with laws made to benefit drivers and to increase their profits . Vote No on 22 .


----------



## SHalester

moJohoJo said:


> Your previous post was deleted


One of my posts was deleted? did I miss the notice? Did I get a mod point? Can you get a point if you don't get the notice? You know, like if a tree falls in a forest, but nobody is there did it really fall? Huh.

This site is owned by a 'corporation'? Really? Can you provide any evidence of that?

Smells like a troll/sock, acts like a troll/sock, sounds like a troll/sock. Must be a troll/sock.

Do try and be more entertaining, ok? Thanks.


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> No but if this doesn't pass then I will be making considerably less, I don't want to be a wage slave again


Nice try fake driver . Do you think Uber implemented Prop 22 for drivers ? It was put in place over bill AB5 which would of benefited drivers but that would of cost Uber money and increased drivers pay . Add to that benefits for drivers so they made up their prop 22 so they wouldn't have to comply with all State and Governmental laws but it was mainly done to increase their profits and mistreat their drivers with lower pay without laws to stop them from doing so . Vote NO on 22 .



NicFit said:


> And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


That post is guaranteed to be from an Uber ( driver pretending to be a driver ) Shrill to deceive you . Prop 22 was made to overthrow laws that would benefit drivers with a guaranteed wage plus benefits and to increase profits . VOTE NO on 22



NicFit said:


> Wrong, AB5 will be lower pay, you think employees get cuts of the fare? Ha, your dream, you'll get $18 an hour and that's it, no more, no less, go flip burgers if you want an hourly wage like that


Nice try . By the way........how much are they paying you in an attempt to persuade drivers to take your side for such silliness ?


----------



## Boston Bill

Daisey77 said:


> My net business profit on my 2019 taxes is equivalent to $2.98 an hour. Either way I think I'll be ahead. And that's with surges!


My net business profit on my 2019 taxes is equivalent to $2.98 an hour. It's worth driving for Uber for that rate?



SHalester said:


> One of my posts was deleted? did I miss the notice? Did I get a mod point? Can you get a point if you don't get the notice? You know, like if a tree falls in a forest, but nobody is there did it really fall? Huh.
> 
> This site is owned by a 'corporation'? Really? Can you provide any evidence of that?
> 
> Smells like a troll/sock, acts like a troll/sock, sounds like a troll/sock. Must be a troll/sock.
> 
> Do try and be more entertaining, ok? Thanks.


I don't know if this site is owned by a corporation but they usually are. I wouldn't be surprised if it is.


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> So you want to change something that's already been working? Thanks for ruining what I like. And yes I made close to the $74k last year not even full time, I think I worked one full week. Some people know how to make Uber work for them some don't, Uber isn't made for job security, you don't like that then go drive a semi, they have what your looking for and it's not McDonald's. No one said you have to work for Uber, if you don't like the mostly independent contractor model then don't drive for Uber, no one forced you to start and forced you to keep driving. You knew what Uber was when you started and if you didn't like it or understand it then why do you continue? Uber doesn't care if you go work for someone else
> 
> 
> No I don't like saying personal details, I'm one of those paranoid people on the internet. I don't think the LLC is worth a lot over what I payed for but I put thousands into it, you want an LLC then you go form one and get it ready for Uber, once you see and pay those costs you know that it's not worthless as anyone new will have to also spend that money. Point is all of mine is transferable which means those fees I paid can be yours without paying for them, you think anyone would give that away for free?


Nice try Corporate employee pretending to be a driver .


*Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80), legislative author of AB 5:* "These billion-dollar corporations still refuse to offer their workers what every other employee in California is entitled to: earning the minimum wage for all hours worked, social security, normal reimbursements for their costs, overtime pay, and the right to organize." [Source]
*Art Pulaski, chief officer of the California Labor Federation:* "This measure is another brazen attempt by some of the richest corporations in California to avoid playing by the same rules as all other law-abiding companies in our state. ... These CEOs spin this ballot measure as a benefit to workers, but their corporate Hail Mary falls short. It steals protections and pay their employees are entitled to under current law." [Source]
*Rebecca Smith, the director of the Work Structures Portfolio at the National Employment Law Project:* "These companies have lost in the legislative process, they've lost in court. Now this is a last-ditch but well-funded effort to permanently take control of all terms and conditions of employment of their workers. If it's successful, corporations in any industry would know that with enough cash and enough spin, you can buy your way to deregulation."


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> Nice try Corporate employee pretending to be a driver .
> 
> 
> *Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80), legislative author of AB 5:* "These billion-dollar corporations still refuse to offer their workers what every other employee in California is entitled to: earning the minimum wage for all hours worked, social security, normal reimbursements for their costs, overtime pay, and the right to organize." [Source]
> *Art Pulaski, chief officer of the California Labor Federation:* "This measure is another brazen attempt by some of the richest corporations in California to avoid playing by the same rules as all other law-abiding companies in our state. ... These CEOs spin this ballot measure as a benefit to workers, but their corporate Hail Mary falls short. It steals protections and pay their employees are entitled to under current law." [Source]
> *Rebecca Smith, the director of the Work Structures Portfolio at the National Employment Law Project:* "These companies have lost in the legislative process, they've lost in court. Now this is a last-ditch but well-funded effort to permanently take control of all terms and conditions of employment of their workers. If it's successful, corporations in any industry would know that with enough cash and enough spin, you can buy your way to deregulation."





moJohoJo said:


> Nice try fake driver . Do you think Uber implemented Prop 22 for drivers ? It was put in place over bill AB5 which would of benefited drivers but that would of cost Uber money and increased drivers pay . Add to that benefits for drivers so they made up their prop 22 so they wouldn't have to comply with all State and Governmental laws but it was mainly done to increase their profits and mistreat their drivers with lower pay without laws to stop them from doing so . Vote NO on 22 .
> 
> 
> That post is guaranteed to be from an Uber ( driver pretending to be a driver ) Shrill to deceive you . Prop 22 was made to overthrow laws that would benefit drivers with a guaranteed wage plus benefits and to increase profits . VOTE NO on 22
> 
> 
> Nice try . By the way........how much are they paying you in an attempt to persuade drivers to take your side for such silliness ?





moJohoJo said:


> Your previous post was deleted by this Corporate owned web site and you know it was . NO on prop 22 . Prop 22 was not made for drivers . It's too get the law off their back to increase profits and for continued mistreatment of drivers with more continued pay cuts to increase profits for Uber .
> 
> 
> Drivers are already making slave wages . Prop 22 was made to overrthrow laws made to benefit drivers with guaranteed wages and to increase profits . Is the prop 22 proposition made to help drivers ? LOL . No, it's to increase profitability for Corporations . Vote NO on 22 .
> 
> 
> The Corporations are spending 90 million on the Prop 22 campaign to overthrow the laws that States want so drivers can be treated fairly with unemployment income, guarateed wages for drivers and other benefits . Prop 22 was implemented by the Corporations to increase their profits and so they can continue to cut pay and mistreat drivers . Don't be mislead by Corporate employees pretending to be drivers . Vote NO on 22 .
> 
> 
> Their 90 campaign is to overthrow the States laws which were made to benefit drivers and to increase profits for themselves the Corporations . Do you think they would spend 90 million on proposition 22 to benefit drivers ? VOTE NO on 22
> 
> 
> Nice try Corporate employee pretending to be a driver .
> 
> 
> You'd have to driver 100 Miles an hour for one straight hour to make $100 per hour which isn't going to happen ever . Another Corporate employee pretending to be a driver . NO on 22 .
> 
> 
> They didn't spend 90 million on prop 22 for drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to comply with laws made to benefit drivers and to increase their profits . Vote No on 22 .





moJohoJo said:


> Too bad your pretending to be a driver . Uber didn't spend 90 million on Prop 22 for the drivers . It was spent so they wouldn't have to follow the law which would eventually benefit drivers with better pay . Prop 22 was initiated to overturn the law and increase Uber profits for Uber/ Lyft. Vote NO on Prop 22
> 
> 
> Anybody can make up phony payment statements . It;s especially easy to do when your behind a desk at your Corporate headquarters . Besides they always show you worked 5 times less hours on your payment statement then the actual amount of hours you worked so you think your making good money .That's called deception and a lie .





moJohoJo said:


> Nice try Corporate troll . A yes vote is like stabbing ourselves in the back . Nice try fake driver . Vote NO on Proposition 22 . Don't let those who post here pretending to be drivers decieve you .
> 
> 
> Nice try fake driver . Vote NO on prop 22 . Don't let the fake drivers fool you .
> 
> 
> OH Oh the phony driver sure likes to make up payment statements . Nice try Troll but that's easy to do . Vote NO on prop 22 . Nothing will change except more benefits with guaranteed wages for drivers . Don't let the fake drivers fool you . Vote NO on Prop 22 .
> 
> 
> They'd be doing drivers a favor . Drivers are tired of being treated like a slaves with no benefits . Vote NO on prop 22 .
> 
> 
> Nice try fake driver .
> 
> 
> Do you think they're spending 90 million on prop 22 to benefit the drivers ? No, they're spending it to get the law off their back so they can continue to mistreat drivers and increase their profits . Vote NO on Prop 22 .
> 
> 
> Your pretending to be a driver, Corporate troll . Vote NO on prop 22 . We are already making slave wages . Nothing will change except improve driving conditions with better pay . Vote NO . Don't let these fake drivers fool you otherwise . We know how horrible working conditions are for drivers . That has to change . A yes vote on Prop 22 equals less pay for drivers and more profits for the Corporations .


What the hell are you smoking? I think someone is paying you to do this, your just trolling me and won't stop. Stop trolling me with the same "your just corporate" line of garbage.

Vote Yes on Prop 22 &#128405;


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

This thread is officially dead!

Im closing this thread, sorry guys.


----------



## NicFit

moJohoJo said:


> Nit Fit is also known as a Nit Wit and also known as a fake driver attempting to deceive you . NO on 22 . Don't be deceived by, Nit Wit.
> 
> 
> NIT WIT IS AN UBER SHRILL . NO on 22 .


Childish troll, now your resorting to name calling? Ok, I've told you I'm a driver, posted some of my earnings and you still don't believe me? You want me to show up in San Diego and pick your troll ass up? You still wouldn't believe it as you rode in my car. What the hell are you smoking troll? You just can't figure out why people don't want to be employees so you resort to childish tantrums and name calling. Just because I do some research and have knowledge of how companies work doesn't mean I'm working for corporate, though if your so scared of me maybe I should go apply and really make sure everything I've posted here comes true. Do yourself a favor and vote Yes on Prop 22


----------



## moJohoJo

Don't listen to Nic Fit who resorts to name calling because he has been hired by Uber to post his propanganda . Prop 22 was made to overthrow laws that were made to benefit drivers with guaranteed wages, protections, paid sick pay, unemployment . Prop 22 was made to overturn these laws and protections that are pro drivers increasing their pay and decreases profits for Uber Lyft . I'd like to see Nic Fit come up here to Portland and meet me face to face but Nic Fit is shaking in his shoes at the thought . This site is owned by the Corps and everytime someone publishes the truth on Prop 22 it get's deleted . Oh, they leave in a few posts to make you think all posts remain but for the most part negative or truthful posts against Prop 22 are deleted as all of mine has been . Vote NO on prop22 .



TRugen said:


> Does Uber pay you per post or per word?


Like his name says = Nic Fit and yes, he's paid to post every word .



NicFit said:


> And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


Just the opposite, Nic Fit . Drivers will have their pay reduced by 50 % if prop 22 passes . Uber / Lyft didn't spend 90 million on this bill for the drivers . They spent this money in advertising to increase their profits and decrease profits for drivers because passing prop 22 will make them excempt, at least temporarily from complying with guaranteed wages and benefits for all drivers . Vote NO on 22 . Don't listen to those like Nic Fit pretending their drivers because they are not actual drivers .



NicFit said:


> And I will make significantly less if I get a hourly wage and a w-2, probably half if AB5 is enforced. Even with your paid vacations and company car it's a pay cut for me. And I can't work when I want, work for who I want (think you can be full time employee to more then one company?). Want to work overtime? Sorry there's no overtime available for you this week. Want to take a vacation? No we need you to work then. Want thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years off? Ha, your an employee, you work when we tell you. Honestly Prop 22 is a bandaid and AB5 is amputation, I prefer the bandaid we can still work on, AB5 makes it final, no more nothing, no negations, no more 1099, no freedom


Just the opposite, Nic Fit . Drivers will have their pay reduced by 50 % if prop 22 passes . Uber / Lyft didn't spend 90 million on this bill for the drivers . They spent this money in advertising to increase their profits and decrease profits for drivers because passing prop 22 will make them excempt, at least temporarily from complying with guaranteed wages and benefits for all drivers . Vote NO on 22 . Don't listen to those like Nic Fit pretending their drivers because they are not drivers .


TRugen said:


> He says. He makes $100/hr. That's $2,000 for 20 hours of work. Or $800 for 8 hrs of work.
> 
> So if he works the normal 40 hours a week, 52 weeks, he makes $208,000.
> 
> Hell, even if he works just 20 hours a week he makes $104,000.
> 
> We should all just move to the Bay Area. I would love to make over $100k just working 20 hrs a week.


That's right . It's another fake driver attempting to decieve you . VOTE NO on 22


----------



## Deadmiler69

Are there any moderators that can make this @moJohoJo character chill out? It's becoming abusive and extremely overly repetitive. I think we understand he's not voting for Prop 22 &#128514;&#128514;


----------



## moJohoJo

NicFit said:


> Childish troll, now your resorting to name calling? Ok moJohnsonsucker, I've told you I'm a driver, posted some of my earnings and you still don't believe me? You want me to show up in San Diego and pick your troll ass up? You still wouldn't believe it as you rode in my car. What the hell are you smoking troll? You just can't figure out why people don't want to be employees so you resort to childish tantrums and name calling. Just because I do some research and have knowledge of how companies work doesn't mean I'm working for corporate, though if your so scared of me maybe I should go apply and really make sure everything I've posted here comes true. Do yourself a favor and vote Yes on Prop 22 &#128405;


You want to show up in, Portland and pick your troll ass up ? I Uber in the SF bay area and Portland and drivers are treated like slaves and why is Uber Lyft spending millions in advertising to get yes votes for this proposition ? Do you think it's for the drivers . It's to increase their profits at the expense of drivers . Vote NO on 22 . Nothing will change for drivers except guaranteed wages and benefits . NO on 22 . Voting Yes is a vote to increase profits by Uber / Lyft at the expense of drivers .



Deadmiler69 said:


> Are there any moderators that can make this @moJohoJo character chill out? It's becoming abusive and extremely overly repetitive. I think we understand he's not voting for Prop 22 &#128514;&#128514;


You fake drivers are abusive and deceptive with all your lies . NO on 22 . Put the booze down . Drivers know the truth .




NicFit said:


> Yeah, wait until your their employee, no more surge, no bonuses, no fare cuts, nothing more then minimum wage plus reimbursements. Uber will charge what they want for a ride and throw you a wage and Uber won't care


*What is Prop 22, the Uber/Lyft Ballot Measure?*

Uber, Lyft, Instacart and Doordash wrote Proposition 22 to create a special exemption for themselves from California law that requires app-based companies to provide basic protections to their workers. Now they're spending more than $100 million on Prop 22 to boost their profits by denying their drivers' right to a minimum wage, paid sick leave and safety protections.

*BACKGROUND:*

• Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash paid to put Proposition 22 on the ballot. They hired lawyers to write a misleading initiative and paid political operatives millions to collect the voter signatures they needed.

• Prop 22 is a carve out in law that allows Uber and app companies to deny their drivers rights and protections like paid sick leave, workers compensation or unemployment benefits.

• Prop 22 exempts these multi-billion-dollar gig corporations from contributing to safety net programs we all need like Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance

• Prop 22 makes us all less safe by eliminating safety protections for riders and drivers and any liability these wealthy companies have to consumers.



observer said:


> As an employee you would most likely be approved for unemployment insurance.
> 
> Under Prop 22, you get ZILCH.


----------



## Deadmiler69

moJohoJo said:


> You fake drivers are abusive and deceptive with all your lies . NO on 22 . Put the booze down . Drivers know the truth .


Real driver here. If you need lessons on how to make more $, I'm happy to help. I'm averaging over $50/hr on weekends w breaks and dead miles included. Don't feel like a slave at all!


----------



## Gigworker

observer said:


> Because making "above" the minimum isn't guaranteed.
> 
> Uber could just say, we are now paying .26 per mile on all trips for time. Drivers would have no choice but to accept or quit.


If enough people quit, Uber would be forced to raise the pay, or give us bonuses. Nobody is going to work for peanuts.



NicFit said:


> I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job. If Prop 22 fails 90% of driver won't have a job. So do I think I'll be the lucky 10% that get hired? Probably not, so I want the route that means I have a 100% job even if it's not the best deal


My guess is that 80% of the drivers would not even apply for the job. The 20% that remained would get .58 , or so mileage reimbursement on all miles, plus minimum wage. If a driver works 8 hours a day, they could make $200 per day. But the downside is that we will lose our freedom to work when and where we want to. We would likely have to accept every request that came our way, or we would get a call from our Manager. How much is freedom worth ?


----------



## SHalester

Gigworker said:


> If enough people quit,


...that is never going to happen. Most drivers are not quite as 'upset' as the filtered few who post here.


----------



## Gigworker

We are all kinda just speculating on what Uber would look like if prop 22 passes, or fails. As an employee, we would get reimbursed the irs mileage rate, which I think is .58 cents, and if you work 8 hours a day, you could drive around 200 miles per day, which would be $116 per day just for mileage reimbursement. If Uber pays $13 per hour, or whatever the minimum wage Is where you live, that would be $104 for an 8 hour day. Since around 80% of the drivers are part timers, they will probably vote yes on prop 22 , thinking only about their own self interest, which is understandable.


----------



## SHalester

Gigworker said:


> thinking only about their own self interest,


sorry, why would a PT'mer care about the full timers? Specially those who 'try' to make RS into an actual 'career'? kinda confusing why they would vote based on anything but how it effects them, not a 2nd party.


----------



## NicFit

Gigworker said:


> If enough people quit, Uber would be forced to raise the pay, or give us bonuses. Nobody is going to work for peanuts.
> 
> 
> My guess is that 80% of the drivers would not even apply for the job. The 20% that remained would get .58 , or so mileage reimbursement on all miles, plus minimum wage. If a driver works 8 hours a day, they could make $200 per day. But the downside is that we will lose our freedom to work when and where we want to. We would likely have to accept every request that came our way, or we would get a call from our Manager. How much is freedom worth ?


That's what I don't get, if the drivers say they are being mistreated then why do they continue to do rideshare? I work in an area that is better then most but if I made less I wouldn't work for rideshare. My ok days are $200 for an 8 hour day, I make that when it's slow and there's no events, making less then that to me isn't worth it. Yet other areas can't make that and I wonder why they would continue to work like that. The drivers continue to drive for pay that isn't worth it and I don't know why, at what point does it take for a driver to stop driving?

I also value my freedom and don't think it's worth any of these worker benefits they are trying to give us, I'd rather not work then have them. On top of that you just know our loss of freedom will result in lower pay, it's a lose lose situation, the riders will pay more and the drivers will be payed less

There something wrong with rideshare outside of my area, the fix isn't AB5 or Prop 22, but no one wants to address the complete issue, AB5 wants to gut rideshare to fix it and in the end drivers will have nothing but low pay consistently, Prop 22 barely addresses the issue and just kinda of does nothing. There needs to be a third solution but we only got the two, I'm not doing the slave wage thing as an employee again so that leaves me with Prop 22, I hope after it passes and next election there's another Prop the fixes some of the other short comings


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> the riders will pay more and the drivers will be payed less


But at least there will be a floor with AB5


----------



## SHalester

Daisey77 said:


> But at least there will be a floor with AB5


both AB5 and Prop 22 have floors. for TBA.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> But at least there will be a floor with AB5


But that is, it will be the floor and ceiling, once your an employee I highly doubt they will give a cut of the earning that they do now, never seen it in the service industry, you'll get an hourly wage, no surge, no bonus, nothing from the rides, Uber will collect what they want from riders and then they'll pay you 1.2 of minimum wage. It'll be flat and nothing more then that. Why would you want to drive like that, here's your $18 an hour, for 8 hours you made $144. Now you pay standard w-2 deductions and your net pay for the day is $96 after we take 1/3 of that. I would have to be really dumb in my area to take home $96 for an 8 hour day in my area, it's not even possible to make that low of money without intentionally ignoring multiple pings per hour. The $96 is cutting my pay in half for what on benefits amount you receive? Your not going to get a sick day for everyday you work, your floor with AB5 is all you'll have and it's unacceptable


----------



## Deadmiler69

NicFit said:


> But that is, it will be the floor and ceiling, once your an employee I highly doubt they will give a cut of the earning that they do now, never seen it in the service industry, you'll get an hourly wage, no surge, no bonus, nothing from the rides, Uber will collect what they want from riders and then they'll pay you 1.2 of minimum wage. It'll be flat and nothing more then that. Why would you want to drive like that, here's your $18 an hour, for 8 hours you made $144. Now you pay standard w-2 deductions and your net pay for the day is $96 after we take 1/3 of that. I would have to be really dumb in my area to take home $96 for an 8 hour day in my area, it's not even possible to make that low of money without intentionally ignoring multiple pings per hour. The $96 is cutting my pay in half for what on benefits amount you receive? Your not going to get a sick day for everyday you work, your floor with AB5 is all you'll have and it's unacceptable


Don't forget the unions dues! Remember they are going to negotiate a better deal than:

No interview
No boss
No reports
No drug test 
No schedule
Unlimited hours (anyone with a brain can figure out how to manipulate the system to work beyond 12 hours)
Unlimited time off with no prior need for approval
Unlimited marketing 
Unlimited customer referrals 
Money collection (imagine having to get paid by a college kid before they leave the car) 
100% distribution of earning upon demand
Very affordable rental programs for those without cars

Can't wait to see what it is!


----------



## NicFit

Deadmiler69 said:


> Don't forget the unions dues! Remember they are going to negotiate a better deal than:
> 
> No interview
> No boss
> No reports
> No drug test
> No schedule
> Unlimited hours (anyone with a brain can figure out how to manipulate the system to work beyond 12 hours)
> Unlimited time off with no prior need for approval
> Unlimited marketing
> Unlimited customer referrals
> Money collection (imagine having to get paid by a college kid before they leave the car)
> 100% distribution of earning upon demand
> Very affordable rental programs for those without cars
> 
> Can't wait to see what it is!


This is why I oppose AB5, this is what we will give up for less money, zero chance of anything like this again if your an employee


----------



## Deadmiler69

NicFit said:


> This is why I oppose AB5, this is what we will give up for less money, zero chance of anything like this again if your an employee


I made $868 on Saturday. That will be my whole two week paycheck if Prop 22 fails. So crazy people can't understand this.


----------



## NicFit

Deadmiler69 said:


> I made $868 on Saturday. That will be my whole two week paycheck if Prop 22 fails. So crazy people can't understand this.


These people opposing prop 22 think they'll see anything like that are nuts, if you can't figure out how to manage some sick days or vacation with the amount on Saturday then you don't deserve to be an independent contractor, people think they'll make what you made and get all these benefits. This isn't the way reality works and they will never have a clue

Reality is some of us know how to make serious cash and some of us make peanuts, the peanut people need to go find work elsewhere instead of ruining it for the breadwinners. Uber was never meant to be a job and if you think that it should change because these peanut people don't get it then it's wrong. Uber is meant to be a start into running your own business, kind of like a franchise thing, if you can't make it work then this isn't for you and stop trying to conform it to your socialist ways


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> you'll get an hourly wage, no surge, no bonus, nothing from the rides, Uber will collect what they want from riders


And you're guaranteed you'll get these with Prop 22? Come on guy! Give all the info. Don't conveniently leave out info that goes against your view


NicFit said:


> $18 an hour, for 8 hours you made $144.


Again, conveniently leaving out info. &#128517; why do you always forget about expenses? Hello. . .+ mileage reimbursement!


NicFit said:


> your net pay for the day is $96 after we take 1/3 of that


Damn your state has crazy taxes! Perhaps you should think about moving?? But not here. We're full in Denver


----------



## Deadmiler69

Daisey77 said:


> Again, conveniently leaving out info. &#128517; why do you always forget about expenses? Hello. . .+ mileage reimbursement!


Reimbursement is not considered income. We won't get 57.5 cents per mile. There is a second option for employers that is a more fair reimbursement when you have employees doing very high mileage since in real life it doesn't actually cost 57.5 cents per mile to own and operate a vehicle in this gig.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Deadmiler69 said:


> I made $868 on Saturday. That will be my whole two week paycheck if Prop 22 fails. So crazy people can't understand this.


You mean just your mileage compensation would be $868.
Your crazy if you can't understand this and ad it in your decision making.

whow, 900$ in one day? On X? Uber? 1000 miles?

How many times has a X driver experienced 900$ in one day 14 hours.

Your right, drivers don't understand because they are not calculating based on 900$ days. Your right it's crazy, nobody would understand counting based on 900$ days.



Deadmiler69 said:


> We won't get 57.5 cents per mile. .


*California mileage reimbursement law *
As an employer, if you choose to pay employees less than what the IRS suggests, you need to support these claims. Employers must prove that the employee's actual cost and vehicle wear-and-tear are less than the national average.

The same rule applies to employees. If employees feel that their expenses are higher than the IRS rate, they also need to prove their vehicle operating costs are higher.

The mileage reimbursement method is most popular because it protects both employers and their employees. It's in your best interest to pay employees the IRS rate or higher. Failing to do so could result in an unwanted lawsuit that could be difficult to win.

For example, if you pay your employees 50 cents per mile instead of the recommended 58 cents and your employee files a claim, it's now your job to prove their costs were less than the national average. This would be nearly impossible to do - and not worth your time, effort, or the 8 cent saving.


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> You mean just your mileage compensation would be $868.
> Your crazy if you can't understand this and ad it in your decision making.


Could you put this into a complete sentence that makes sense? I made $868 in gross fares and tips. I drove about 450 miles. What are you try to get at?

PS I'm not crazy, YOU'RE just not getting it.


----------



## NicFit

Daisey77 said:


> And you're guaranteed you'll get these with Prop 22? Come on guy! Give all the info. Don't conveniently leave out info that goes against your view
> 
> Again, conveniently leaving out info. &#128517; why do you always forget about expenses? Hello. . .+ mileage reimbursement!
> 
> Damn your state has crazy taxes! Perhaps you should think about moving?? But not here. We're full in Denver
> View attachment 508197


Prop 22 was meant to make sure you earned 1.2 of minimum wage while on call, and only if the trip didn't already cover it. You earn more and you won't have to worry about Prop 22, I never will see a dime from Prop 22, you want to be paid while you don't have calls then your in the wrong industry, Uber was never meant to be an hourly wage thing.

I didn't include expenses because they aren't income, and you really think a car takes .57 a mile to run? No, and you'll never get that, you'll be lucky to get expenses paid. Right now they give .84 a mile for Uber X where I am, you think you'll see anything close to that as an employee? So yes you will make significantly less for using your car since you say you'll get paid .57 for every mile. You think I'm driving 10 miles in between trips? No, only someone without common sense will do that, I reject and wait for one under 2 miles. In fact it should be used as a income loss, you won't get more if they use a flat rate of .57, anytime a surge comes Uber will pocket the difference if your an employee

As for taxes you do realize it's not a state thing, when was the last time you've gotten an hourly pay check from Colorado and gotten 100% of it? Never is my guess, they take all kinds of federal and state deductions, your naive to think a third of that doesn't go to taxes

Lastly your not in California then what the hell are you doing meddling in our affairs? You won't be voting on it so why are you trying to influence others to your socialist way of thinking? Mind your own business


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> How many times has a X driver experienced 900$ in one day 14 hours.


I've done $800 twice in the last 10 days between Lyft, Uber and cash tips. Haven't had a Saturday all year that I didn't make $400 when working a full 8-12 shift.

Fare multiplier and Drive pass is a winner for us just as much as it is for Uber.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Gigworker said:


> If enough people quit, Uber would be forced to raise the pay, or give us bonuses. Nobody is going to work for peanuts.


Work flexibility is a benefit companies are providing to attract workers. Same as bonuses.
Alto the only model using employee model gives out 150-200 bonus per week to keep drivers and lower turnover cost.

Anyone thinking Uber does not have to entice and attract us to even fill out the form to become employee is fooling themself.

Sign here, you will have no flexibility and no more bonus.

Would you really sign?
I wouldn't. Not every single driver would be interested. I say maybe 20% at best would actually sign the forms if the job had no weekly bonus and was a rigid shift.

*Uber creates policies to protect parents, caregivers stuck at home during COVID-19*

Exclusive: The tech giant is solidifying rules put in place for employees during the pandemic, allowing them flexible work hours and shift changes.

The new policy, announced internally Tuesday, will allow Uber employees to skip low-priority meetings as needed and modify their work hours throughout the week. Uber also said people who need to shift their workday, for example if they're managing homeschooling for their children, will be able to do that too.

https://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-cre...-caregivers-stuck-at-home-during-coronavirus/


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Anyone thinking Uber does not have to entice and attract us to even fill out the form to become employee is fooling themself.


I wouldn't sit by your phone waiting for Über to call with a list of "extras" they'll offer you to come work for them.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Deadmiler69 said:


> PS I'm not crazy, YOU'RE just not getting it.


Thanks for explaining.

Ok, so using set your own rates and being treated more like a contractor and seeing the contract almost doubled your income.

I get it now. Ok.

Now the key question is will prop 22 allow that.

Hunestly I'm totally against prop 22 Because I know they will take away set your surge and see full contract.

How could that stay? 
If Uber wins the appeal specifically because they gave drivers more control, then we are set. It would stay.
If AB5 was modified through gig worker pressure, then we could also pass contractor status and it would be a condition of our status.

Under both prop 22 and employee status there is no see contract and set your own surge.



Deadmiler69 said:


> I wouldn't sit by your phone waiting for Über to call with a list of "extras" they'll offer you to come work for them.


Exactly, so they can go figure it out, not my issue.

Would you sit by the phone?

So thats their issue if it becomes not worth it for drivers, then drivers move on.

Its not our issue, they will have to figure it out and find and keep workers.


----------



## NicFit

So it was mentioned that $800 was made in an eight hour shift, let's look at that under both Prop 22 and AB5. So I'm just going to make some rough assumptions, not everything will be 100% correct. As we know $800 wasn't all fares so let's say $200 was tips, we discard that number as I can't see any difference between AB5 and Prop 22 in that area. Now we have $600, also that was the drivers cut so Uber took $150 in rider fees, that leaves $750 on the table at the start. Also let's say he drove 150 miles total for the night, that included everything. So as far as Prop 22 goes it goes down just like it did tonight, Uber gets their $150 and the driver gets $600. Clearly the driver didn't make enough for Prop 22 to kick in so nothing gained from that. Now let's put it through the AB5 scenario. Riders payed $750 for 8 hours, driver gets $144, driver drive 150 miles, driver gets $85.50 for .57 a mile for a grand total of 229.50. That's what an hourly wage looks like. So Uber now has $520.50 they pocket and pay your benefits with. If this sounds ok to you be all means go ahead and vote no on Prop 22. Instead of Uber making $150 they made $520.50, now you see why losing independent contractor will hurt drivers?

$370 more would have been in Uber's pocket if they make us employees with hourly benefits, that's why you should vote Yes on Prop 22


----------



## Daisey77

NicFit said:


> So it was mentioned that $800 was made in an eight hour shift, let's look at that under both Prop 22 and AB5. So I'm just going to make some rough assumptions, not everything will be 100% correct. As we know $800 wasn't all fares so let's say $200 was tips, we discard that number as I can't see any difference between AB5 and Prop 22 in that area. Now we have $600, also that was the drivers cut so Uber took $150 in rider fees, that leaves $750 on the table at the start. Also let's say he drove 150 miles total for the night, that included everything. So as far as Prop 22 goes it goes down just like it did tonight, Uber gets their $150 and the driver gets $600. Clearly the driver didn't make enough for Prop 22 to kick in so nothing gained from that. Now let's put it through the AB5 scenario. Riders payed $750 for 8 hours, driver gets $144, driver drive 150 miles, driver gets $85.50 for .57 a mile for a grand total of 229.50. That's what an hourly wage looks like Uber now has $520.50 they pocket and pay your benefits with. If this sounds ok to you be all means go ahead and vote no on Prop 22. Instead of Uber making $150 they made $520.50, now you see why losing independent contractor will hurt drivers?
> 
> $370 more would have been in Uber's pocket if they make us employees with hourly benefits, that's why you should vote Yes on Prop 22


&#128517;&#128517;&#128517;&#128517; actually . . .
$750- 40% (that's uber's typical cut) =$450.

150 miles?? where the hell do you drive where they pay you $4 a mile? You would have to be Drive 700 miles to make that 450 here. 
700 X $0.575 = $402.50
$402.50+$144= $546.50

$546.50 ➡&#128587;‍♀
$203.59 ➡&#128013;

Thats 27% to Uber!! 13% less then they're taking now!

PLUS they can't steal our money, PLUS they can't unfairly deactivated us, PLUS if we are deactivated we get unemployment, PLUS we can't be on hold for two months for a background, without pay


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Hunestly I'm totally against prop 22 Because I know they will take away set your surge and see full contract.


You don't know that. You ASSume that because individually you have a negative opinion of Uber. When in actuality it makes perfect sense to keep Fare multiplier. It raises the fares and multiplies the commission all without the bad press of having to announce a pax fare raise. Prop 22 doesn't specifically state what features of Uber will or won't be available because it is not an Uber specific bill. It's designed for all sorts of app based service companies. Therefore the language needs to be focused of general points that encompass the entire industry not one individual company.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

NicFit said:


> $370 more would have been in Uber's pocket if they make us employees with hourly benefits, that's why you should vote Yes on Prop 22


Ok! Now your going off the deep end.

The argument is not who votes what way, but how do the different possibilities play out, more importantly what would be the pay under prop 22.

You are now claiming Uber makes much less under prop 22 and thus creating and funding it.

Your whole argument is Uber would have made whoppingly more under AB5 and less under prop 22.



Deadmiler69 said:


> You don't know that.


I do, it is not a condition in prop 22.

Prop 22 would be what Lyft is doing now, or how Uber is in the rest of the country.

The only reason Uber is trying out set your rate and see contract is to Try to pass the ABC test.
Maybe they can win the appleal based on some further structural changes agreed in the appeal.
Or maybe part B of the ABC test might get modified. Either way they are trying to pass the ABC test, that's why they did it.

But it is here for the court argument, not because it's the right thing to do with contractors.

If there is no ABC test, then there will be no set your rate and see contract.

Prop 22 would be like how it was last year. Or how it is in the rest of the country.

If Uber said in prop 22 drivers can set their own rates, and see full contract details, and we will not saturate the market.
Then we would not be arguing about what to vote for, or what might happen under what senerio.


----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Ok! Now your going off the deep end.
> 
> The argument is not who votes what way, but how do the different possibilities play out, more importantly what would be the pay under prop 22.
> 
> You are now claiming Uber makes much less under prop 22 and thus creating and funding it.
> 
> Your whole argument is Uber would have made whoppingly more under AB5 and less under prop 22.


This has been what I've been saying all along, Uber will profit more under AB5 then Prop 22. Under AB5 if your an employee you don't get all those surges and bonuses and fare cuts that you have now. Prop 22 Uber still has to face voters if they get out of line, they don't have anything to face if they follow AB5, everyone will say that's how business works. Uber never wanted the employee thing mainly because it's a lot of work, they rather take their 25%, give you 75% and let you deal with the actual ride part. This includes you maintaining a vehicle which is expensive, Uber can't cut corners, you can shop around and find a good deal, Uber doesn't have time for that so it cost more money to maintain a car, you can do the work, Uber has to pay someone trained and approved. There's more reasons that I don't have offhand but Uber wants to be the app maker and that's it, this is why Uber works. Bottom line is you think AB5 is better pay but when you start looking at what they can do and who's going to make what you see real fast that Uber shouldn't be trusted as an employer


----------



## The Gift of Fish

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Hunestly I'm totally against prop 22 Because I know they will take away set your surge and see full contract.


If Prop 22 passes, Uber will be looking at little Lyft and seeing how it made absolutely no concessions to drivers (no set your own surge, no surge multiplier, no return to percentage split share of revenue, no destination showed at ping, no trip length showed at ping) and it will withdraw _all_ of those freebies as quick as a flash.

It'll be like those times when you were a mischievous teenager - as long as you stayed out of the house, you were ok. But once you returned home and your father walked over to the door, locked it and turned around to face you, you knew you were up shit creek. That's going to be Dara turning around to face the drivers, and once he's got drivers where he wants them, he will be definitely taking his pound of flesh from them. All of the goodies will be instantly gone, followed up with a fresh round of pay cuts to pay for the driver benefits funds. He's set the new trip revenue guarantee plenty low enough to give himself lots of maneuver room to do this.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> If Prop 22 passes, Uber will be looking at little Lyft and seeing how it made absolutely no concessions to drivers (no set your own surge, no surge multiplier, no return to percentage split share of revenue, no destination showed at ping, no trip length showed at ping) and it will withdraw _all_ of those freebies as quick as a flash.
> 
> It'll be like those times when you were a mischievous teenager - as long as you stayed out of the house, you were ok. But once you returned home and your father walked over to the door, locked it and turned around to face you, you knew you were up shit creek. That's going to be Dara turning around to face the drivers, and once he's got drivers where he wants them, he will be definitely taking his pound of flesh from them. All of the goodies will be instantly gone, followed up with a fresh round of pay cuts to pay for the driver benefits funds. He's set the new trip revenue guarantee plenty low enough to give himself lots of maneuver room to do this.


Then they put a ballot on the vote to repeal Prop 22 or have it amended, Uber has probably already looked at Lyft and if they try they know they won't get away with rolling back stuff. Lyft on the other hand may face AB5, Uber has tried repeatedly to be separated from Lyft in lawsuits. It isn't a good move to rollback what they used to get where Prop 22 is at. For the amount of money being spent it tells me they don't want to be in this situation again. But if Prop 22 fails it will be certain that they don't need all this stuff so they will cut everything and anything they can, you don't like it then you can give your two week notice, oh here's minimum wage, that's what the law says for AB5, you want it higher? No, there's nothing that says we have to, we have labor laws saying minimum wage is acceptable


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> Then they put a ballot on the vote to repeal Prop 22 or have it amended, Uber has probably already looked at Lyft and if they try they know they won't get away with rolling back stuff. Lyft on the other hand may face AB5, Uber has tried repeatedly to be separated from Lyft in lawsuits. It isn't a good move to rollback what they used to get where Prop 22 is at. For the amount of money being spent it tells me they don't want to be in this situation again. But if Prop 22 fails it will be certain that they don't need all this stuff so they will cut everything and anything they can, you don't like it then you can give your two week notice, oh here's minimum wage, that's what the law says for AB5, you want it higher? No, there's nothing that says we have to, we have labor laws saying minimum wage is acceptable


Only time would tell whether or not Uber withdraws the freebies if Prop 22 passes. However, as I stated, if it does pass then Uber will have no reason to keep them.

As I have also stated, I believe that Prop 22 will pass, for several reasons. If so, then drivers will have sowed the wind and they will reap the whirlwind. There will be very little to stop Dara and Logan from doing whatever they want.


----------



## NicFit

The Gift of Fish said:


> Only time would tell whether or not Uber withdraws the freebies if Prop 22 passes. However, as I stated, if it does pass then Uber will have no reason to keep them.
> 
> As I have also stated, I believe that Prop 22 will pass, for several reasons. If so, then drivers will have sowed the wind and they will reap the whirlwind. There will be very little to stop Dara and Logan from doing whatever they want.


But if you noticed Uber done nothing in changes that affects their money, you want to set your surge high, Uber makes more money, you set it normal Uber makes the same money, you don't want that ride, there's another driver that will accept it eventually. Why roll back stuff that cost Uber very little and keeps the drivers happy. I really don't want to drive for Lyft, they haven't changed a bit and it's stale to me now. If Uber keeps the stuff more drivers will be using Uber and Lyft will have to start making changes or they will fade out. This is how business works, Uber and Lyft are still competitors, right now it's a circus but eventually Lyft will have to change if Uber doesn't roll back everything once Prop 22 passes. If Uber rolls stuff back then they'll lose confidence and Prop 22 will end up being repealed or amended or a new Prop. This is probably Uber's last chance at staying the way they are, they lose the independent contractor here then the rest of the US will soon follow. The whole thing is on a teeter totter, one wrong move and it's over. It would be counterproductive to spend all this money trying to keep what they got and then remove everything without expecting a backlash. Backtracking after would be image suicide, I can't see them taking stuff away when there's no other reason to. None of their changes have made issues, riders are getting rides, drivers aren't complaining. For a company to do what you think and lose trust after a battle like this just indescribable, can't say it's zero chance, people do make bad decisions but the roll back wild be a horrible decision


----------



## The Gift of Fish

NicFit said:


> But if you noticed Uber done nothing in changes that affects their money, you want to set your surge high, Uber makes more money, you set it normal Uber makes the same money, you don't want that ride, there's another driver that will accept it eventually. Why roll back stuff that cost Uber very little and keeps the drivers happy. I really don't want to drive for Lyft, they haven't changed a bit and it's stale to me now. If Uber keeps the stuff more drivers will be using Uber and Lyft will have to start making changes or they will fade out. This is how business works, Uber and Lyft are still competitors, right now it's a circus but eventually Lyft will have to change if Uber doesn't roll back everything once Prop 22 passes. If Uber rolls stuff back then they'll lose confidence and Prop 22 will end up being repealed or amended or a new Prop. This is probably Uber's last chance at staying the way they are, they lose the independent contractor here then the rest of the US will soon follow. The whole thing is on a teeter totter, one wrong move and it's over. It would be counterproductive to spend all this money trying to keep what they got and then remove everything without expecting a backlash. Backtracking after would be image suicide, I can't see them taking stuff away when there's no other reason to. None of their changes have made issues, riders are getting rides, drivers aren't complaining. For a company to do what you think and lose trust after a battle like this just indescribable, can't say it's zero chance, people do make bad decisions but the roll back wild be a horrible decision


As I say, time will tell.


----------



## simont23

NicFit said:


> You are a piece of work, you don't say anything but the same garbage, go crawl back into whatever cave you came from. Clearly you don't care about anyone else but your thinking about benefits of being an employee, go flip burgers. I don't care what you think but the fact is most drivers won't have a job if they follow AB5. Do some research and quit bugging me troll
> 
> https://www.morningstar.com/news/do...fornia-order-to-reclassify-drivers-2nd-update
> "Uber, for instance, said it would be able *to hire just a quarter of its more than 200,000 drivers in California* and raise prices for rides as much as 120% to account for the millions of dollars it would need to invest to manage drivers as employees."


If it will cost Uber what they say it will cost them in California, then that tells us a bit about how much they are underpaying their drivers at present.


----------



## NicFit

simont23 said:


> If it will cost Uber what they say it will cost them in California, then that tells us a bit about how much they are underpaying their drivers at present.


The money will never reach drivers, the underpaid drivers are clueless on how to make good money, the good drivers are going to end up suffering because the bad ones can't figure it out. AB5 will cut the underperforming ones and keep the money makers, Prop 22 does very little to address the situation though does make it so they don't lose money on some rides. The solution hasn't been found and probably never will be


----------



## Deadmiler69

.


The Gift of Fish said:


> If Prop 22 passes, Uber will be looking at little Lyft and seeing how it made absolutely no concessions to drivers (no set your own surge, no surge multiplier, no return to percentage split share of revenue, no destination showed at ping, no trip length showed at ping) and it will withdraw _all_ of those freebies as quick as a flash.


Except for the fact that Lyft is quoting people 30-45 minute pick up times because everyone is driving for Uber because of those features. Why would you give Lyft all their drivers back and make it a competition again?


----------



## observer

NicFit said:


> This has been what I've been saying all along, Uber will profit more under AB5 then Prop 22. Under AB5 if your an employee you don't get all those surges and bonuses and fare cuts that you have now. Prop 22 Uber still has to face voters if they get out of line, they don't have anything to face if they follow AB5, everyone will say that's how business works. Uber never wanted the employee thing mainly because it's a lot of work, they rather take their 25%, give you 75% and let you deal with the actual ride part. This includes you maintaining a vehicle which is expensive, Uber can't cut corners, you can shop around and find a good deal, Uber doesn't have time for that so it cost more money to maintain a car, you can do the work, Uber has to pay someone trained and approved. There's more reasons that I don't have offhand but Uber wants to be the app maker and that's it, this is why Uber works. Bottom line is you think AB5 is better pay but when you start looking at what they can do and who's going to make what you see real fast that Uber shouldn't be trusted as an employer


"Uber will profit more"

I think you finally understand.

Uber will always profit more at the expense of drivers, regardless of any law.

That is the way corporations work.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> Except for the fact that Lyft is quoting people 30-45 minute pick up times because everyone is driving for Uber because of those features. Why would you give Lyft all their drivers back and make it a competition again?


I see no evidence for your claim.










What I do see is Lyft charging $14.54 for a trip that would pay me $8.84, netting Lyft a healthy $5.70; 39% of the fare! Lyft is demonstrating that it can take 39% of the fare _and_ have ants lined up, ready to pick up its pax within 1 minute of being summoned. So no, your claim holds no water whatsoever.


----------



## Deadmiler69

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence for your claim.
> 
> View attachment 508417
> 
> 
> What I do see is Lyft charging $14.54 for a trip that would pay me $8.84, netting Lyft a healthy $5.70; 39% of the fare! Lyft is demonstrating that it can take 39% of the fare _and_ have ants lined up, ready to pick up its pax within 1 minute of being summoned. So no, your claim holds no water whatsoever.


Yeah that math is exactly what you signed up for. You've never ever ever gotten a portion of a booking fee. It is a separate fee that shouldn't be included in calculating rideshare companies cut.

14.54-3= 11.54 x .75=8.65. 25% cut.


----------



## Daisey77

Deadmiler69 said:


> Yeah that math is exactly what you signed up for. You've never ever ever gotten a portion of a booking fee. It is a separate fee that shouldn't be included in calculating rideshare companies cut.
> 
> 14.54-3= 11.54 x .75=8.65. 25% cut.


Well I can promise you I didn't sign up when there was a variable platform fee and there definitely was not a fee that varied from $2 to $30 or even higher, all going to our "fee collection company"


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> Yeah that math is exactly what you signed up for. You've never ever ever gotten a portion of a booking fee. It is a separate fee that shouldn't be included in calculating rideshare companies cut.
> 
> 14.54-3= 11.54 x .75=8.65. 25% cut.


No. I'm a 20 percenter. 25 percent is not what I signed up for, and the booking fee didn't even exist when I signed up. I signed up for a straight 80% cut, not for there to be some extra revenue for Uberlyft that I would never share in. It would be better if you checked your facts _before_ you post about what I allegedly signed up for.

Anyway, the fact remains - there is no extended wait time on Lyft or lack of Lyft drivers as you claim.



Daisey77 said:


> Well I can promise you I didn't sign up when there was a variable platform fee and there definitely was not a fee that varied from $2 to $30 or even higher, all going to our "fee collection company"


Facts are not a part of Uber's repertoire, and they don't seem to feature in Uber the apologists' content either!

Did you see Dara's interview with The Rideshare Guy in which he claimed that "over the years, it's clear that the trend for driver rates has been in the upwards direction" &#128517;&#129315;:roflmao: The best part was that he delivered that line deadpan with a completely straight face!

I suppose that the "say something that isn't true; see if it sticks" _is_ an approach, but in my book it's not a valid one. Why people use it, I have no idea. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## Deadmiler69

Daisey77 said:


> Well I can promise you I didn't sign up when there was a variable platform fee and there definitely was not a fee that varied from $2 to $30 or even higher, all going to our "fee collection company"


Yes you did. You just didn't read your TOS. When you are running your own business you should read want you are signing up for. You don't get to make the rules when someone else is paying for everything but your physical labor.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Anyway, the fact remains - there is no extended wait time on Lyft or lack of Lyft drivers as you claim.


In your corner of SF the busiest Uber place in the country for both pax and drivers. California is slightly biggger than just your city. Of course you'll have shorter wait times there



The Gift of Fish said:


> Did you see Dara's interview with The Rideshare Guy in which he claimed that "over the years, it's clear that the trend for driver rates has been in the upwards direction" &#128517;&#129315;:roflmao: The best part was that he delivered that line deadpan with a completely straight face!


Yup. I made more in 2018 than 2017. Made more in 2019 than 2018 and I'm gonna probably crush 2019 in 2020. Most good smart drivers have done the same.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> In your corner of SF the busiest Uber place in the country for both pax and drivers. California is slightly biggger than just your city. Of course you'll have shorter wait times


I knew you'd say that. So I took a screenshot of the wait time a few minutes later over in leafy suburban San Rafael. The wait time there? 5 minutes, lol. Still you provide no evidence of your claim, while I provide ample that your claim is false.












> Yup. I made more in 2018 than 2017. Made more in 2019 than 2018 and I'm gonna probably crush 2019 in 2020. Most good smart drivers have done the same.


*Reading comprehension. Dara said in his interview that rates (the amount of money earned for the same unit of work) had gone up over the years, which was a lie. Please take more care when reading posts.

Also, and don't take this the wrong way, but I place no value on your earnings claims.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

The Gift of Fish said:


> Did you see Dara's interview with The Rideshare Guy in which he claimed that "over the years, it's clear that the trend for driver rates has been in the upwards direction" &#128517;&#129315;:roflmao: The best part was that he delivered that line deadpan with a completely straight face!


Haha, I saw Dara say on Camera that over the years, drivers make more, with a poker face.

The interviewer said " I know for a fact my pay has gone down, but let's not argue".

Dara tried to recover and started spinning another point knowing he got caught live. But he doesn't care.

Uber supporters are claiming drivers signed up to be contractors on blank contracts.

I have all kinds of emails with Uber/Lyft constantly over violations of my contractor status.

You have the right to accept or decline any ride, but we will punish you secretly through toggling, time outs, and algo.

You have the right to cancel rides, but if you get multiple underaged orders and have a bunch of cancels we will send warning, or even suspend, deactivate.

I defenetly did not sign to any of that, as it is not in the contract.



Deadmiler69 said:


> You don't get to make the rules when someone else is paying for everything but your physical labor.


Paying for everything but my physical labor?

They are paying the 2,500 deductible for you?

They are paying for car expenses for you?

You only provide the labor?

We are not talking about the same Uber then.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Haha, I saw Dara say on Camera that over the years, drivers make more, with a poker face.
> 
> The interviewer said " I know for a fact my pay has gone down, but let's not argue".


Yes, that blogger/interviewer is not impartial:










Back in 2015 he said that he was making $10,000+ per month from referring drivers to Uber. He's no longer a driver. He's got a great business, though:

1) Offer free content to build up a large reader base
2) Once the reader base is large enough, spam the crap out of them and make bank selling them stuff and referring them to the gig companies

A very simple idea, really.


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Paying for everything but my physical labor?


How many rides would you give per day if there was no app, no marketing, no money collector? You are running your own business on someone else's dime and you can't see it.



The Gift of Fish said:


> *Reading comprehension. Dara said in his interview that rates (the amount of money earned for the same unit of work) had gone up over the years, which was a lie. Please take more care when reading posts.
> 
> Also, and don't take this the wrong way, but I place no value on your earnings claims.


The actual mileage/time rates did go down. Yes. If that's all you are arguing and if that's all you care about, then you are correct. Dara did say the rates have gone up. They have not. The number of rides you give and are offered has gone up. I'd guess there was probably even more surge and/or incentives offered each year.

This is independent contractor work. There is no guarantee EVER in that kind of work that rates will never go down or that they will go up the longer you are there. In fact by logical thinking it makes sense that as time goes on and something gets more popular that it will become cheaper because of this thing called supply and demand.

You were overpaid with VC funds in order to establish faith in the supply. Once that happened and there became a more steady balance between the two, there is less of a need to take losses and pay out unrealistic rates. So they come back down to earth.

Did you really think this gig was gonna pay that much for all time? As they say on ESPN C'mon man!!!! &#128514;&#128514;


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> The actual mileage/time rates did go down. Yes. If that's all you are arguing and if that's all you care about, then you are correct. Dara did say the rates have gone up. They have not.


Yes, I know I am correct. I was talking to another poster about Dara's lie when you chimed in with an unrelated comment about your earnings.


> The number of rides you give and are offered has gone up. I'd guess there was probably even more surge and/or incentives offered each year.
> 
> This is independent contractor work. There is no guarantee EVER in that kind of work that rates will never go down or that they will go up the longer you are there. In fact by logical thinking it makes sense that as time goes on and something gets more popular that it will become cheaper because of this thing called supply and demand.
> 
> You were overpaid with VC funds in order to establish faith in the supply. Once that happened and there became a more steady balance between the two, there is less of a need to take losses and pay out unrealistic rates. So they come back down to earth.
> 
> Did you really think this gig was gonna pay that much for all time? As they say on ESPN C'mon man!!!! &#128514;&#128514;


You add no new argument here. Everything you say above has been said before by you and/or others, ad nauseum, and contributes nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Deadmiler69

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, I know I am correct. I was talking to another poster about Dara's lie when you chimed in with an unrelated comment about your earnings.
> You add no new argument here. Everything you say above has been said before by you and/or others, ad nauseum, and contributes nothing to the discussion.


So it's more important to you that you are tight about one word Dara said than about your future earnings? Says a lot about you. Congratulations on your soon to be $16/hr bus driver job. All cuz you weren't given astronomically high rates for doing almost nothing.

The reason it seems ad nauseam to you is probably because people need to keep explaining it to you since you aren't getting it.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> So it's more important to you that you are tight about one word Dara said than about your future earnings? Says a lot about you. Congratulations on your soon to be $16/hr bus driver job. All cuz you weren't given astronomically high rates for doing almost nothing.
> 
> The reason it seems ad nauseam to you is probably because people need to keep explaining it to you since you aren't getting it.


As I said, I was talking to a different poster when you interjected. There will be no further discussion from me with you on this; I am not prepared to entertain your ramblings and meanderings and this matter is now closed.


----------



## Deadmiler69

The Gift of Fish said:


> As I said, I was talking to a different poster when you interjected. There will be no further discussion from me with you on this; it is now closed.


You are in a public forum. If you wanna have a private conversation use the DM's or get their number. You don't get to decide what I reply to there fella!!!! &#128536;


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Deadmiler69 said:


> You are in a public forum. If you wanna have a private conversation use the DM's or get their number. You don't get to decide what I reply to there fella!!!! &#128536;


Lol. Reply to whatever you want - people will decide if your response is worthy of discussion or, as in this case, not.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Deadmiler69 said:


> You are running your own business on someone else's dime and you can't see it.


First you say I am only providing the labor not the machinery.

Now your saying I am running an actual business on someone else's dime.

You do make it a dead end to even respond or discuss the matter.

Running a business on someone else's dime would be if they provided the gas, maintenance, and machinery, and I was the one pocketing the money that should have rightfully gone to them for expenses.

We are abviously not talking about the same company or gig.

In my gig I provide the machinery my partner affiliate makes money on my dime. I could brake negative on a order while my partner makes money.

A driver working for Lyft Does not see the contract details when he accepts a job, have no say over rates, and can not even see the final invoice to see how much his client was charged.

So a Lyft driver running around playing a gambling game on each order is not making profit and loss decisions.

If you get 5 non profitable orders on Lyft in a day, and you cancel them once you are given contract details, you will get " at risk of suspension or deactivation messages."

Any attempt to make best decisions for myself vs Lyft is faced with some form of punishment and harassment.

You claiming I am running an actual business non the less on Lyft's dime is way out of the ballpark of reality.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> First you say I am only providing the labor not the machinery.
> 
> Now your saying I am running an actual business on someone else's dime.
> 
> You do make it a dead end to even respond or discuss the matter.
> 
> Running a business on someone else's dime would be if they provided the gas, maintenance, and machinery, and I was the one pocketing the money that should have rightfully gone to them for expenses.
> 
> We are abviously not talking about the same company or gig.
> 
> In my gig I provide the machinery my partner affiliate makes money on my dime. I could brake negative on a order while my partner makes money.
> 
> A driver working for Lyft Does not see the contract details when he accepts a job, have no say over rates, and can not even see the final invoice to see how much his client was charged.
> 
> So a Lyft driver running around playing a gambling game on each order is not making profit and loss decisions.
> 
> If you get 5 non profitable orders on Lyft in a day, and you cancel them once you are given contract details, you will get " at risk of suspension or deactivation messages."
> 
> Any attempt to make best decisions for myself vs Lyft is faced with some form of punishment and harassment.
> 
> You claiming I am running an actual business non the less on Lyft's dime is way out of the ballpark of reality.


You're wasting your time with this person. He just likes being argumentative and will try to argue about anything, independently of whether what he says is true or even makes sense. He reminds me _very_ much of John Cleese in this sketch:


----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> First you say I am only providing the labor not the machinery.
> 
> Now your saying I am running an actual business on someone else's dime.
> 
> You do make it a dead end to even respond or discuss the matter.
> 
> Running a business on someone else's dime would be if they provided the gas, maintenance, and machinery, and I was the one pocketing the money that should have rightfully gone to them for expenses.
> 
> We are abviously not talking about the same company or gig.
> 
> In my gig I provide the machinery my partner affiliate makes money on my dime. I could brake negative on a order while my partner makes money.
> 
> A driver working for Lyft Does not see the contract details when he accepts a job, have no say over rates, and can not even see the final invoice to see how much his client was charged.
> 
> So a Lyft driver running around playing a gambling game on each order is not making profit and loss decisions.
> 
> If you get 5 non profitable orders on Lyft in a day, and you cancel them once you are given contract details, you will get " at risk of suspension or deactivation messages."
> 
> Any attempt to make best decisions for myself vs Lyft is faced with some form of punishment and harassment.
> 
> You claiming I am running an actual business non the less on Lyft's dime is way out of the ballpark of reality.


Yeah I'm not happy with Lyft either for these reasons, Uber went and added those things you don't like. They give you the entire job up front with the pickup and drop off with zero impact on declining (though I hear of you get under 30% acceptance they don't like that but I never seen it). Second they let you set your surge, you want to sit and wait for a 5x surge that's on you, some drivers are making good cash off of it. They also made a point of showing after the ride the totals the rider payed and what you got and it's suppose to be 75%/25%, Lyft has been feeling stale for a while and I think I'm just going to cherry-pick from them and use them as supplement to Uber


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> First you say I am only providing the labor not the machinery.
> 
> Now your saying I am running an actual business on someone else's dime.
> 
> You do make it a dead end to even respond or discuss the matter.


Nope. Both are actually true. Uber and Lyft are essentially a CRM system with lead generation and payment collection. That's what you need for this business to work. Someone else to find the customers, track their information, collect the payment and pay you. Someone else borrowed the money to build the app, someone else hired the lawyers to figure out how to push the boundaries of the law to get us on the road, someone else paid for all the marketing to get the word out. Someone else paid you and me a ton of money to sit by on call and service the demand that they created.

All you did was show up with or without a car (cuz you haven't needed your own car to do this since 2015) and they were willing to give you most of the money.

The business could've been created without your machinery. It could not have been created without all the things I previously mentioned.

If they shut off the app, less than 1% of drivers would have a useable and profitable client list.

As far as risk goes, yeah we are taking risks, but that's why we get the larger share of the fare in all but the shortest of the trips. I will side with the haters though, I think all minimum fare trips should have a $5 short trip bonus attached during rush hours weekend and overnights.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I knew you'd say that. So I took a screenshot of the wait time a few minutes later over in leafy suburban San Rafael. The wait time there? 5 minutes, lol. Still you provide no evidence of your claim, while I provide ample that your claim is false.


Carlsbad and Oceanside are Both over 100k in population along the coast so we aren't talking bum**** no name town. Dinner time "limited drivers available". 11pm 15-30 minute wait.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Deadmiler69 said:


> Uber and Lyft are essentially a CRM system with lead generation and payment collection.


You are obviously here Posting with your own intentions.

I see that your either not a driver, or a clueless driver.

(When arguing for independent contractor status, part B is the hardest part of the test to meet. The defendants in _California v. Uber_ maintain that they are technology companies and driving is "outside the usual course" of their business. But their arguments in support of part B were not to be.

Because failing just one part of the test makes a worker an employee, Judge Ethan Schulman focused solely on part B. He concluded, "It's this simple: Defendants' drivers do not perform work that is 'outside the usual course' of their businesses." There's the rub.)



NicFit said:


> Uber went and added those things you don't like.


Yea, as Uber took steps to help us pass the ABC test, Lyft did the exact opposite.

I kept emailing Lyft and warning them that they are making it harder to pass as contractors when they stop showing drivers the recipe as well as contract details under ABC test.
I was kinda shocked with their complete lack of effort to even try.

Uber made moves, they asked to be separated from Lyft in the lawsuit for miss-classification.
I'd take how Uber is now over prop 22 or employee status. Would love it if it stayed just as is, with some added minimum floor for price setting.


----------



## Deadmiler69

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> You are obviously here Posting with your own intentions.
> 
> I see that your either not a driver, or a clueless driver.


No I'm posting stuff that is just apparently over your head. All you can focus on is your hatred for rideshare. There is a bigger picture beyond mileage and time rates. Those of you who don't understand that are talking and suing your way out of the easiest $$ you'll ever make.

As far as me being a driver..........I'm a great ****ing driver. In fact today before the night rush even begins I've made over $300 and have over 6hours left of drive time. Come on down to San Diego, I'll teach you how to make your business more profitable, since you mentioned you lose money on rides. I've had 2 $800 plus days in the last two weeks and I average over $50/hr online time on weekends. Maybe it'll make you not want to be an employee when you see how great this gig is!


----------



## NicFit

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> You are obviously here Posting with your own intentions.
> 
> I see that your either not a driver, or a clueless driver.
> 
> (When arguing for independent contractor status, part B is the hardest part of the test to meet. The defendants in _California v. Uber_ maintain that they are technology companies and driving is "outside the usual course" of their business. But their arguments in support of part B were not to be.
> 
> Because failing just one part of the test makes a worker an employee, Judge Ethan Schulman focused solely on part B. He concluded, "It's this simple: Defendants' drivers do not perform work that is 'outside the usual course' of their businesses." There's the rub.)
> 
> 
> Yea, as Uber took steps to help us pass the ABC test, Lyft did the exact opposite.
> 
> I kept emailing Lyft and warning them that they are making it harder to pass as contractors when they stop showing drivers the recipe as well as contract details under ABC test.
> I was kinda shocked with their complete lack of effort to even try.
> 
> Uber made moves, they asked to be separated from Lyft in the lawsuit for miss-classification.
> I'd take how Uber is now over prop 22 or employee status. Would love it if it stayed just as is, with some added minimum floor for price setting.


Good effort but a waste of time with Lyft, they are so dense and won't change. They have a committee of drivers pushing for stuff like this and they say sure and never implement it. I would like to see Lyft be separated from Uber. Uber has tried, they are trying to make it so no one doubts drivers are independent contractors but Lyft won't lift a finger towards it

Prop 22 should keep it like it is, there's hardly any changes, I wish Lyft couldn't benefit from it though


----------



## Nats121

Daisey77 said:


> And still not turning profit.


Uber makes a profit in the US, don't fall for their lies.


----------



## Jarhead2077

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


Why in the world would you want a "Guarantee " Income/wage? I have never known an independent worker/business person who ever received a guaranteed wage or income or insurance. If you want that you should quit the platform and go to work for someone else. Don't screw up this platform where you can work when you wish for an long as you wish or not as you wish. I personally find this Platform to have excellent Earning capabilities and I have been in business for myself for over 35 Years. The only problem is with the software determining directions for a trip and that is usually because of local growth and updating the gps system.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jarhead2077 said:


> I have never known an independent worker/business person who ever received a guaranteed wage or income or insurance.


Agreed; business people should not get a guaranteed wage or income or insurance. However, as rideshare drivers we are employees; we are not in business.


----------



## AB5

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


No on Prop 22



The Gift of Fish said:


> Agreed; business people should not get a guaranteed wage or income or insurance. However, as rideshare drivers we are employees; we are not in business.


Y22 We are Employees


----------



## BoboBig

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


I don't think Uber is providing the guarantee to somehow substantially increase our pay it's more of showing the California Government and Boards this safety net so that Uber will not have to proceed with having to classify drivers as employees and have to restructure their entire business model.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

BoboBig said:


> I don't think Uber is providing the guarantee to somehow substantially increase our pay it's more of showing the California Government and Boards this safety net so that Uber will not have to proceed with having to classify drivers as employees and have to restructure their entire business model.


That is an accurate summary of Prop22.


----------



## Nats121

BoboBig said:


> I don't think Uber is providing the guarantee to somehow substantially increase our pay it's more of showing the California Government and Boards this safety net so that Uber will not have to proceed with having to classify drivers as employees and have to restructure their entire business model.


Prop 22 has no safety net.

A safety net would provide a guaranteed wage whether or not there were any trips.

With Prop 22, no trips = no pay.


----------



## SHalester

Nats121 said:


> A safety net would provide a guaranteed wage minimum whether or not their were any trips.


ack, like being an employee you mean? Pass. :confusion: :vomit:


----------



## Deadmiler69

Nats121 said:


> Prop 22 has no safety net.
> 
> A safety net would provide a guaranteed wage whether or not there were any trips.
> 
> With Prop 22, no trips = no pay.


That is so that you can maintain the freedom of declining any and all trips offered to you. If you want 90-95% acceptance rates to return, I'm sure Uber will gladly pay you for the whole hour. Enjoy your 20 mile pickups!!!!


----------



## Nats121

Deadmiler69 said:


> That is so that you can maintain the freedom of declining any and all trips offered to you. If you want 90-95% acceptance rates to return, I'm sure Uber will gladly pay you for the whole hour. Enjoy your 20 mile pickups!!!!


My post wasn't a statement of what I want, it's a statement of fact.


----------



## Deadmiler69

Nats121 said:


> My post wasn't a statement of what I want, it's a statement of fact.


My statement of fact was just providing the reasoning behind your system of fact so people reading can see both sides!


----------



## SHalester

Deadmiler69 said:


> so people reading can see both sides!


I'm sorry, what is your 'side'? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Nats121

Deadmiler69 said:


> That is so that you can maintain the freedom of declining any and all trips offered to you.


Uber undermines that "freedom" via time-outs and/or "deprioritization". Both of those measures penalize the drivers by cutting their earnings.


----------



## Deadmiler69

Nats121 said:


> Uber undermines that "freedom" via time-outs and/or "deprioritization". Both of those measures penalize the drivers by cutting their earnings.


Cuts into their earnings? What earnings if they are declining any ride not within 5 minutes that isn't going too long or too far and has the appropriate amount of surge?


----------



## Nats121

Deadmiler69 said:


> Cuts into their earnings? What earnings if they are declining any ride not within 5 minutes that isn't going too long or too far and has the appropriate amount of surge?


A driver has to be online to make money, so any form of timeout means zero chance of making money.

Uber has the power to starve or feed any driver they choose, which means they can punish "choosy" drivers by sending the short pickup rides to the "cooperative" drivers (ants).


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Deadmiler69 said:


> That is so that you can maintain the freedom of declining any and all trips offered to you. If you want 90-95% acceptance rates to return, I'm sure Uber will gladly pay you for the whole hour. Enjoy your 20 mile pickups!!!!


If Uber paid me 57.5c a mile to drive out to a passenger plus min wage for all time logged on I would gladly sit out in the hood and chase min trips from 6 miles 15 minutes away all day long.


----------



## Deadmiler69

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> If Uber paid me 57.5c a mile to drive out to a passenger plus min wage for all time logged on I would gladly sit out in the hood and chase min trips from 6 miles 15 minutes away all day long.


You won't get 57.5 cents per mile and you won't get to "chase" anything. You would need to take 90-95% of the rides offered to you in order to keep your job.


----------



## SHalester

Deadmiler69 said:


> You would need to take 90-95% of the rides offered


sorry, as an employee or an IC? As an employee the whole concept of 'pings' goes away. They become dispatch orders: you get, you go. No go, you fired.


----------



## Deadmiler69

SHalester said:


> sorry, as an employee or an IC? As an employee the whole concept of 'pings' goes away. They become dispatch orders: you get, you go. No go, you fired.


As an employee. I was being generous by assuming that there would be a couple exceptions to accepting 100%. I fully expect it to be as you say. If you don't accept you don't work.


----------



## SHalester

Deadmiler69 said:


> would be a couple exceptions to accepting 100%.


I'm guessing the reasons to 'cancel' are going to shrink to maybe a couple if we are made to be employees. Unsafe pickup, no show....

Pings, tho, we'd have to accept every single one, because (wait for it) we'd be employees with no options to decline.


----------



## Deadmiler69

SHalester said:


> I'm guessing the reasons to 'cancel' are going to shrink to maybe a couple if we are made to be employees. Unsafe pickup, no show....
> 
> Pings, tho, we'd have to accept every single one, because (wait for it) we'd be employees with no options to decline.


But you'll get 3 sick days a year!!


----------



## Fusion_LUser

SHalester said:


> Pings, tho, we'd have to accept every single one, because (wait for it) we'd be employees with no options to decline.


I am looking forward to reading these types of comments in February 2021 if Prop 22 fails.

<new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber fired me because I didn't accept a ride from Wal*Mart.
<new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber and Lyft will not let me work for both companies at the same time.
<new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Lyft fired me because they found out I was driving for Uber.
<new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber says I am required to work 11:17AM to 3:23PM on Tuesday 40 miles from my home.
<new pissed off UP member> - My minimum wage paycheck is full of deductions!


----------



## SHalester

Fusion_LUser said:


> <new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber fired me because I didn't accept a ride from Wal*Mart.
> <new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber and Lyft will not let me work for both companies at the same time.
> <new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Lyft fired me because they found out I was driving for Uber.
> <new pissed off UP member> - Stupid Uber says I am required to work 11:17AM to 3:23PM on Tuesday 40 miles from my home.
> <new pissed off UP member> - My minimum wage paycheck is full of deductions!


All that & more. Should be a song. 
<new pissed off UP member> - Won't let me work over 8 hours in any day and won't let me work 7 days a week!!!!!


----------



## Judge and Jury

moJohoJo said:


> Don't listen to Nic Fit who resorts to name calling because he has been hired by Uber to post his propanganda . Prop 22 was made to overthrow laws that were made to benefit drivers with guaranteed wages, protections, paid sick pay, unemployment . Prop 22 was made to overturn these laws and protections that are pro drivers increasing their pay and decreases profits for Uber Lyft . I'd like to see Nic Fit come up here to Portland and meet me face to face but Nic Fit is shaking in his shoes at the thought . This site is owned by the Corps and everytime someone publishes the truth on Prop 22 it get's deleted . Oh, they leave in a few posts to make you think all posts remain but for the most part negative or truthful posts against Prop 22 are deleted as all of mine has been . Vote NO on prop22 .
> 
> 
> Like his name says = Nic Fit and yes, he's paid to post every word .
> 
> 
> Just the opposite, Nic Fit . Drivers will have their pay reduced by 50 % if prop 22 passes . Uber / Lyft didn't spend 90 million on this bill for the drivers . They spent this money in advertising to increase their profits and decrease profits for drivers because passing prop 22 will make them excempt, at least temporarily from complying with guaranteed wages and benefits for all drivers . Vote NO on 22 . Don't listen to those like Nic Fit pretending their drivers because they are not actual drivers .
> 
> 
> Just the opposite, Nic Fit . Drivers will have their pay reduced by 50 % if prop 22 passes . Uber / Lyft didn't spend 90 million on this bill for the drivers . They spent this money in advertising to increase their profits and decrease profits for drivers because passing prop 22 will make them excempt, at least temporarily from complying with guaranteed wages and benefits for all drivers . Vote NO on 22 . Don't listen to those like Nic Fit pretending their drivers because they are not drivers .
> 
> That's right . It's another fake driver attempting to decieve you . VOTE NO on 22


If prop 22 fails, AB5 will be the law of the land.
Do you realize you will be treated exactly as an employee. A minimum wage, part time employee.
That's if you are even offered a job.
Who in their right mind would want to be an employee of any these manipulative gig app companies?


----------



## Deadmiler69

SHalester said:


> All that & more. Should be a song.
> <new pissed off UP member> - Won't let me work over 8 hours in any day and won't let me work 7 days a week!!!!!


Let's not forget an 8 hour day as employee is actually 8 hours and 45 due to mandatory unpaid 30 minutes meal break and 15 minute paid rest period also mandated by law that must occur in your first 6 hours of being on clock.

Imagine that as the spoken rap verse of this awesome new song


----------



## Judge and Jury

Deadmiler69 said:


> Let's not forget an 8 hour day as employee is actually 8 hours and 45 due to mandatory unpaid 30 minutes meal break and 15 minute paid rest period also mandated by law that must occur in your first 6 hours of being on clock.
> 
> Imagine that as the spoken rap verse of this awesome new song


Breaks may not come into play as we will be part time, minimum wage employees if AB5 is enforced.


----------



## SHalester

Judge and Jury said:


> Breaks may not come into play as we will be part time


4 hour shift = a break of 15 minutes.

15 minute break for 4-6 consecutive hours or a *30* minute break for more than 6 consecutive hours. If an employee works 8 or more consecutive hours, the employer must provide a *30*-minute break and an additional 15 minute break for every additional 4 consecutive hours worked.


----------



## Judge and Jury

SHalester said:


> 4 hour shift = a break of 15 minutes.
> 
> 15 minute break for 4-6 consecutive hours or a *30* minute break for more than 6 consecutive hours. If an employee works 8 or more consecutive hours, the employer must provide a *30*-minute break and an additional 15 minute break for every additional 4 consecutive hours worked.


Ok. 15 minute break for four hours. I understand.


----------



## Paul Vincent

Deadmiler69 said:


> Let's not forget an 8 hour day as employee is actually 8 hours and 45 due to mandatory unpaid 30 minutes meal break and 15 minute paid rest period also mandated by law that must occur in your first 6 hours of being on clock.
> 
> Imagine that as the spoken rap verse of this awesome new song


You don't know very much about the law, 15 minute breaks are paid by the company included in your shift, meal breaks or not. Stop spreading misinformation information


----------



## Deadmiler69

Paul Vincent said:


> You don't know very much about the law, 15 minute breaks are paid by the company included in your shift, meal breaks or not. Stop spreading misinformation information


Then why did I have to clock out every single shift I've ever worked as a part time server in California restaurants? Ask anyone with a part time job if they have to clock out for meal breaks. 30 minutes unpaid meal period. My rest periods were on the clock but not allowed to leave property.
GFY


----------



## Paul Vincent

Deadmiler69 said:


> Then why did I have to clock out every single shift I've ever worked as a part time server in California restaurants? Ask anyone with a part time job if they have to clock out for meal breaks. 30 minutes unpaid meal period. My rest periods were on the clock but not allowed to leave property.
> GFY


That's what I wrote "meal breaks are not" paid for by the company. Your petty anger is unbecoming.


----------



## Deadmiler69

Paul Vincent said:


> That's what I wrote "meal breaks are not" paid for by the company. Your petty anger is unbecoming.


WTF are you talking about? Read my post. It says my "UNPAID" 30 minute meal break. Then says my PAID rest period. What am I missing?


----------



## Paul Vincent

Deadmiler69 said:


> WTF are you talking about? Read my post. It says my "UNPAID" 30 minute meal break. Then says my PAID rest period. What am I missing?


The 15 minutes are not added to the 8-hour shift it's within the 8-hour shift. I see you did an edit on your post. Tricky.


----------



## Deadmiler69

Paul Vincent said:


> The 15 minutes are not added to the 8-hour shift it's within the 8-hour shift. I see you did an edit on your post. Tricky.


No edit. In fact you are right my math would be off. It'd be 8.5 hours (plus commute to work). I was off by 15 minutes on my math. Point still remains the same. Way to pick something that really doesn't matter. Grasping at straws much?


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

Jarhead2077 said:


> I have never known an independent worker/business person who ever received a guaranteed wage or income or insurance.


Define a business person?

You surely are not talking about Rideshare drivers.
At best we are some hybrid but not actual business people running our own business.

If you think working with blank contract offers pass as IC, you are alone.



Deadmiler69 said:


> You won't get 57.5 cents per mile .


What do you mean?
I don't get it!



Deadmiler69 said:


> My rest periods were on the clock but not allowed to leave property.


Are you saying if prop 22 fails, we will get paid brakes, but we can not leave our cars during said brake?

I don't get it!&#129300;


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Define a business person?


One criteria of a business person is they won't receive a guaranteed wage or income.



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> If you think working with blank contract offers pass as IC, you are alone.


It sure could be. One who accepts a blank contract is not very smart. If one is a bad business person doesn't take away from the fact they are a business person. For example, if I offer the local mechanic $100 to fix my car and he accepts, he is a bad business person. The mechanic doesn't know if I need my windshield wipers or transmission replaced. Some who accepts a contract like my offer should not be in business.

If someone accepts a contract to deliver a person to an unknown location for an unknown amount, that's on them. Is it smart? Is it dumb? What do we call people who continue to do dumb things? I know we don't call them smart business people. The fact that there are unknowns doesn't mean they aren't in business.

Is someone who drills for oil using his own equipment and own knowledge of where to drill, and always sells their oil to Shell at an previously agreed upon price, an employee of Shell? What if the price varied, based on current market value of oil? The driller may drill 20 holes and find no oil and lose big money. Should they be guaranteed an income? If Shell keeps offering less and less per barrel, does that make the driller an employee? If the driller can't make a profit, does that make the driller an employee or a bad business person?


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> Is someone who drills for oil using his own equipment and own knowledge of where to drill, and always sells their oil to Shell at an previously agreed upon price, an employee of Shell?


Lets examine.

Driller A
Employee or IC

Let's say he has a previously agreed upon price with order details.

He also set his own rate and wins the drilling job bid.

He can sell his oil to other than Shell if he chooses too.

He has a trade and has a business card and can practice his trade without restriction from Shell or State/Federal law.

Driller A is not an employee of Shell.

Driller B

Does not get to previously agree to the price and get order details. ( Does not have the same ability like Driller A to make business decisions)

He does not set his own rates, nor does he negotiate the rates. Rates are set by Shell and contract is hidden till job is done.

He does not have the permit or license to drill for oil, nor sell oil. He can only do it under Shells license. He has no business card and can not drill for oil legally on his own.

He only drills for Shell And has no drilling work on his own or outside Shell.

Then realistically, logically, and even legally Driller B would be found an employee under The law in most Western countries.


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> is not an employee


Driller uses his own equipment. Driller decides where, when and how long to drill. Driller can sell his product to a number of companies. Driller has state authorization to drill and sell. Driller can lose money by making bad decisions. Driller's income is only limited by market rates. Shell has set up a system that makes it the easiest to sell to. Driller negotiated with shell for a higher price but Shell has enough supply of other drillers that they don't need to raise their price paid.

Now substitute drive for drill and Uber for Shell.

I offer $1 for 100 worms. If people sell me their worms for that rate, it doesn't make them my employees. They have their own business. They may try to negotiate with me but I have enough other suppliers that I don't need to offer more. If I offer $0.01 and they still sell to me, it doesn't change anyone's ic status. The amount is irrelevant. Who offers the amount is irrelevant.

The federal Internal Revenue Service classifies Uber drivers as independent contractors. At least 47 states consider drivers as IC's.

Did the 5 workers for Premiere Directional Driller have the ability to sell their product to Shell, Exxon, Standard Oil, etc? Did they use their own equipment? Could they have lost money during the time they worked there?


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> Driller uses his own equipment. Driller decides where, when and how long to drill. Driller can sell his product to a number of companies. Driller has state authorization to drill and sell. Driller can lose money by making bad decisions. Driller's income is only limited by market rates. Shell has set up a system that makes it the easiest to sell to. Driller negotiated with shell for a higher price but Shell has enough supply of other drillers that they don't need to raise their price paid.


So based on that Drillers are Independent contractors. I don't know the details of the drilling industry set up. Based on what you explain there is no Driller B (misclassified). All Drillers are treated as Driller A.



bsliv said:


> The federal Internal Revenue Service classifies Uber drivers as independent contractors. At least 47 states consider drivers as IC's.


Correct, for IRS purpose Uber drivers are considered IC's. IRS uses what's called the 20 Factor test.

The problem is other departments do not use the 20 Factor test. For Workers comp board, there Is a test, for UI there is a test, as well as for wage theft, back pay there is a test under Labor department.

A worker could win Worker comp, UI, and back pay. Be considered an Employee for those purposes. Yet be an IC under IRS.

If you want to start a business you should know your states different classification tests.

47 states do not Consider Uber drivers as IC's. Drivers have won arbitration all over the states.

Mostly if the driver gets blank contracts, has no say over rates, does not have commercial insurance and can not legally operate without Uber, then Uber would lose arbitration case in most States.


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> 47 states do not Consider Uber drivers as IC's. Drivers have won arbitration all over the states.


So, which states issue a W2 to drivers? I've only received 1099's. If one wants to drive rideshare in Nevada, they need a state business license. If one wants to drive in Clark County Nevada, they also need a county business license.



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> The problem is other departments do not use the 20 Factor test. For Workers comp board, there Is a test, for UI there is a test, as well as for wage theft, back pay there is a test under Labor department.


Workman's comp and UI are state programs. The IRS is federal.



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Mostly if the driver gets blank contracts, has no say over rates, does not have commercial insurance and can not legally operate without Uber, then Uber would lose arbitration case in most States.


Drivers don't get a blank contract. They get a contract which, in my opinion, is missing some key data. Drivers do have a say over rates. They can negotiate with Uber. Don't be surprised if Uber refuses to negotiate. They have plenty of drivers that will drive for their offered rates. Drivers also have the option to refuse Uber's offer.

I'll repeat: I offer $1 for 100 worms. If people sell me their worms for that rate, it doesn't make them my employees. They have their own business. They may try to negotiate with me but I have enough other suppliers that I don't need to offer more. If I offer $0.01 and they still sell to me, it doesn't change anyone's ic status. The amount is irrelevant. Who offers the amount is irrelevant.



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> can not legally operate without Uber


They sure can. They can drive for Lyft or any other rideshare company.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> Workman's comp and UI are state programs. The IRS is federal.


Yes, that is correct. My point stands. What's your point. They are state programs not using the IRS 20 Factor test. Each state is different.



bsliv said:


> They sure can. They can drive for Lyft or any other rideshare company.


It's not running your own business if you take someone to the airport and they want you to bring them back, but you can't because you are not legally allowed and permitted to.


----------



## NicFit

This is straight from the Uber app, I'm going to vote yes on Prop 22, I don't want to be a wage slave and will take my chances on making way better money. It's like I said all along, Uber will pay you hourly and that's it, no more fare splitting, you work when and where they want. Prop 22 isn't perfect but without it you might as well as work flipping burgers, no point on driving for $18 an hour


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> I'll repeat: I offer $1 for 100 worms. If people sell me their worms for that rate, it doesn't make them my employees.


Correct, no need to repeat. I buy things off Amazon and Alibaba. That does not mean buying a item makes the buyer an employer. Amazon will not be able to win in court if they claim I am their employer because I purchased something.



bsliv said:


> Drivers don't get a blank contract. They get a contract which, in my opinion, is missing some key data. Drivers do have a


How do you feel about existing laws though!

Are you aware Nevada uses the ABC test for UI.


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Correct, no need to repeat. I buy things off Amazon and Alibaba. That does not mean buying a item makes the buyer an employer. Amazon will not be able to win in court if they claim I am their employer because I purchased something.
> 
> 
> How do you feel about existing laws though!
> 
> Are you aware Nevada uses the ABC test for UI.
> View attachment 511909


The fact that Nevada requires a state business license is prima facia evidence the state believes driving for rideshare is a business.


----------



## Judge and Jury

bsliv said:


> The fact that Nevada requires a state business license is prima facia evidence the state believes driving for rideshare is a business.


IRS and California State Franchise Board are currently of the same opinion.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> The fact that Nevada requires a state business license is prima facia evidence the state believes driving for rideshare is a business.


Not for UI. For claims from drivers, like I posted but you ignored, the unemployment department In Nevada uses the full ABC test for unemployment claims.

That means if there was no PUA and you filed regular UI, you would have the RIGHT to regular UI. Its the law not what I think. It's good to be aware of the laws regardless of our personal views.

I personally was surprised your Unemployment department has the exact same ABC test as California's.


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Not for UI. For claims from drivers, like I posted but you ignored, the unemployment department In Nevada uses the full ABC test for unemployment claims.
> 
> That means if there was no PUA and you filed regular UI, you would have the RIGHT to regular UI. Its the law not what I think. It's good to be aware of the laws regardless of our personal views.
> 
> I personally was surprised your Unemployment department has the exact same ABC test as California's.


Care to provide a link?

I found, "During a virtual news conference on Thursday, interim director Heather Korbulic said the state's *Pandemic* Unemployment Assistance Program will be live starting May 16." It goes on, "Nevada was the last state to launch a portal where rideshare drivers, massage therapists and other *independent contractors* could receive benefits."

https://uberlyftdrivers.com/2020/05...-can-file-for-unemployment-starting-saturday/
And from Nevada Public Radio: 
*Uber Drivers Are Not Employees*
https://knpr.org/npr/2019-05/uber-d...l-relations-board-rules-drivers-saw-it-coming


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks

bsliv said:


> Care to provide a link?


Code NRS 612.085

A driver would have to file the MISCLASSIFIED WORKER claim. For only UI in your State you will be found an employee regardless what Uber said. 
You could ask for a audit and they would change your status right now if you felt the payout is better.
My state has the exact same test and they did a audit and changed my status to employee only for UI benefits. Just saying. I know it's hard to believe.

















http://dir.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dir...ingDocs/Misclassification of Workers-DETR.pdf


----------



## bsliv

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I know it's hard to believe.


It is. I sort of understand UI during the pandemic but not during normal times, especially in Nevada. Requiring a business license is the kicker. Having the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation saying, " where rideshare drivers, massage therapists and other *independent contractors* could receive benefits" is icing on the cake.

Here in Vegas, exotic dancers are IC's. The clubs have much more control of the dancer's activities than Uber has over its drivers.

I believe Nevada interprets the ABC test differently than California. Each of the 3 criteria could be interpreted differently for the same activity by different people.


----------



## Jst1dreamr

When this thread began is seemed that the OP was trying to help people understand his interpretation of Prop 22 on the California November ballot. It possibly could have been beneficial to some people struggling with their understanding, or maybe not who can say. Now because so many people on UP from other states can't get the concept that California is an independent state and they do not do things like any other state does nor do they care what the other states do, so when they just ramble a bunch of worthless information about their state it just takes away from the people that may have been able to benefit from the OP's original message.
So much worthless information on how life is in other states. Not one bit of information from any of the other 49 states makes a damn bit difference on what California prop 22 means or will mean if passed in November.

I think that this thread should be renamed to "RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT NOBODY IN CALIFORNIA CARES TO KNOW"


----------



## bsliv

Jst1dreamr said:


> I think that this thread should be renamed to "RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT NOBODY IN CALIFORNIA CARES TO KNOW"


Perhaps you'd rather only the OP post in this thread. Let all his thoughts go unchallenged. Alternate ideas should be banned. After all, only the OP's ideas matter. Right? Maybe we should have 370 threads instead of 370 posts in this thread?


----------



## Jst1dreamr

bsliv said:


> Perhaps you'd rather only the OP post in this thread. Let all his thoughts go unchallenged. Alternate ideas should be banned. After all, only the OP's ideas matter. Right? Maybe we should have 370 threads instead of 370 posts in this thread?


No, I would rather people don't mix their state rules in with California. True that someone like you in Las Vegas can read the text of prop 22 online but you should not try to insert your state laws because they do not make a bit of difference. You argue for nothing. If you worried about Nevada and not California maybe everybody would better off. 
For the record I don't agree with a lot of the OP's interpretation but at least I respect that he has at least made an attempt to put out info that is pertinent to the issue. What I am saying is your states law has no place in California. Other states people have no need to worry about what California does. You should just stay out of it all together. 
Maybe we would not need 370 threads if you minded you own problems and no body else's.


----------



## bsliv

Jst1dreamr said:


> No, I would rather people don't mix their state rules in with California. True that someone like you in Las Vegas can read the text of prop 22 online but you should not try to insert your state laws because they do not make a bit of difference. You argue for nothing. If you worried about Nevada and not California maybe everybody would better off.
> For the record I don't agree with a lot of the OP's interpretation but at least I respect that he has at least made an attempt to put out info that is pertinent to the issue. What I am saying is your states law has no place in California. Other states people have no need to worry about what California does. You should just stay out of it all together.
> Maybe we would not need 370 threads if you minded you own problems and no body else's.


Putting my head in the sand is not my modus operandi. What have your 2 posts contributed?

My state uses the same ABC test for independent contractors as kalifornia. Think there might be other similarities? Think garbage from one state might travel to other states? Think those in other states might learn from one state's mistakes? If someone from one state calls the sky's color purple someone might correct them? Which sub-forum are we in?


----------



## Jim1234

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


That was a great explanation. Uber just won't pay or recognize our professionalism. Sad.


----------



## Jst1dreamr

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.
> 
> Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.
> 
> What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?


He is an all seeing, all knowing uber shill. He has been around since the middle of January 2020 and in that time he has acquired vast amounts of knowledge into how uber operates. Nothing any of us seasoned drivers say will matter to this type of know it all. Uber methodology is the only thing he believes.



bsliv said:


> Putting my head in the sand is not my modus operandi.


No, but it would benefit the world if you did.


----------



## bsliv

Jst1dreamr said:


> No, but it would benefit the world if you did.


Seems that being exposed to economic realities offends some. I suggest opening your eyes and maybe a bit of education to some.


----------



## _Tron_

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:


Thank you kindly for the post. Now, all things considered, are you voting yeah or nay on 22?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

_Tron_ said:


> Thank you kindly for the post. Now, all things considered, are you voting yeah or nay on 22?


It's a no from me. It would set a precedent that says that it's ok if your company can only exist if it operates a business model that does not cover all of its employee expenses and depends on the State for subsidisation of public benefits.

Labour protection laws were hard fought for, and I don't think we want to step back decades and just give that up.


----------



## AB5

SHalester said:


> sorry, as an employee or an IC? As an employee the whole concept of 'pings' goes away. They become dispatch orders: you get, you go. No go, you fired.


Wrong. For 30 years before these stupid Apps you could be dispatched and say yes or no. Ask a California courier



Judge and Jury said:


> If prop 22 fails, AB5 will be the law of the land.
> Do you realize you will be treated exactly as an employee. A minimum wage, part time employee.
> That's if you are even offered a job.
> Who in their right mind would want to be an employee of any these manipulative gig app companies?


Who in there right mind would want to be slave to Ubers App?? People wanting Food Stamps SSI owning back Taxes owning child support defaulted student loans felonies or high on drugs. That is who would not like being a employee.


----------



## Judge and Jury

AB5 said:


> Wrong. For 30 years before these stupid Apps you could be dispatched and say yes or no. Ask a California courier
> 
> 
> Who in there right mind would want to be slave to Ubers App?? People wanting Food Stamps SSI owning back Taxes owning child support defaulted student loans felonies or high on drugs. That is who would not like being a employee.


So, we are in agreement. Being a wage slave to Uber's algorithm as an employee is bad, right?


----------



## eugpolo

The Gift of Fish said:


> Real math: 2 + 2 = 4
> Uber math: 2 + 2 = 3000


I would say Mileage+Time=ScrewTheDriver

Prop 22 a big scam with regard to long rides. Let's say I have a 60 miles ride and it takes an hour to complete without traffic. Before guarantee I get paid 60c/mile plus 21c per minute. Total earnings $48.60. With Prop.22 guarantee I get paid $15.60/hour plus 30c/mile, total earning for the same trip $33.60. Plus maybe a few pennies for the pickup. This is total BS.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

eugpolo said:


> I would say Mileage+Time=ScrewTheDriver
> 
> Prop 22 a big scam with regard to long rides. Let's say I have a 60 miles ride and it takes an hour to complete without traffic. Before guarantee I get paid 60c/mile plus 21c per minute. Total earnings $48.60. With Prop.22 guarantee I get paid $15.60/hour plus 30c/mile, total earning for the same trip $33.60. Plus maybe a few pennies for the pickup. This is total BS.


Yes, the earnings guarantee has no value for drivers.

It is meaningless to try to apply an hourly guarantee to workers who do not get paid hourly, but "minimum wage + 20% plus 30c per mile" evidently sounded great to voters.


----------



## eugpolo

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, the earnings guarantee has no value for drivers.
> 
> It is meaningless to try to apply an hourly guarantee to workers who do not get paid hourly, but "minimum wage + 20% plus 30c per mile" evidently sounded great to voters.


However, it works for short rides with heavy traffic, I was in a situation many times making $10-12/hr being busy.


----------



## Jim1234

Anyone who supports being an independent contractor is a slave to the company store. You might not feel it now, you will as time goes on. This is a long end game by corporations to go back to the time when there were no worker rights. It started with President Reagan with his anti labor rights (even though he started his career as a union member at union wages). Workers have now lost many benefits such as company retirement plans, matching 401K plans, medical insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, paid vacations, perform bonuses, company provided computers and cell phones, etc, etc, etc. 
If you think you won’t ever get really sick, if you think you won’t ever have a serious accident, if you think you can continue to drive after 65 years old, if you think the company will never “phase” you out, you are naive and foolish. But you won’t know it until you can’t drive those hours anymore and no one cares.


----------



## SHalester

eugpolo said:


> With Prop.22 guarantee I get paid $15.60/hour plus 30c/mile, total earning for the same trip $33.60. Plus maybe a few pennies for the pickup. This is total BS.


think you that totally wrong. Your time/mileage pay rate will not change; not sure where you got you will be paid 'by the hour' at the Prop 22 floor rate.
My airport trips are an hour: after Jan 1st I'll get paid the same; which is higher than Prop 22 minimum, which is figured at the end of a period, not each drive.


----------



## Jimmy44

eugpolo said:


> I would say Mileage+Time=ScrewTheDriver
> 
> Prop 22 a big scam with regard to long rides. Let's say I have a 60 miles ride and it takes an hour to complete without traffic. Before guarantee I get paid 60c/mile plus 21c per minute. Total earnings $48.60. With Prop.22 guarantee I get paid $15.60/hour plus 30c/mile, total earning for the same trip $33.60. Plus maybe a few pennies for the pickup. This is total BS.


Plus I am sure it effects the use of your mileage as a deduction if your getting paid by the hour.


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds

Jimmy44 said:


> Plus I am sure it effects the use of your mileage as a deduction if your getting paid by the hour.


What about your dead head fare back to where ever you live or started from? As an employee you would be better to be paid hourly to be compensated for the deadhead mileage returning.


----------



## Daisey77

Jimmy44 said:


> Plus I am sure it effects the use of your mileage as a deduction if your getting paid by the hour.


I believe They have to reimburse mileage and expenses. So no, they won't have the mileage to claim at tax time but Uber also can't tax the reimbursement they pay out to you


----------



## Jimmy44

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> What about your dead head fare back to where ever you live or started from? As an employee you would be better to be paid hourly to be compensated for the deadhead mileage returning.


I have not driven since March after 5 years of full time driving. 
With my Prius high gas mileage and the low payouts from UL I was actually looking for ways to avoid deductions so as I could show the IRS more profit.
Thus the dead miles back to my home area gave me to many deductions ie mileage as to make to that trip practically small or no profit.


----------



## Jimmy44

Daisey77 said:


> I believe They have to reimburse mileage and expenses. So no, they won't have the mileage to claim at tax time but Uber also can't tax the reimbursement they pay out to you


In my five years of driving my mileage deduction was crucial to my business model.
When they start handing out the vaccines I will return and tweek my business model to adapt to the current situation.


----------



## SHalester

Daisey77 said:


> They have to reimburse mileage and expenses


under Prop 22? No to the expenses, yes to portion of the IRS mileage deduct. Net effect one doesn't get to use the full IRS amount as an expense, which could suck. And getting paid for some mileage is kinda a nit.

Best part: not an employee.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> under Prop 22? No to the expenses, yes to portion of the IRS mileage deduct. Net effect one doesn't get to use the full IRS amount as an expense, which could suck. And getting paid for some mileage is kinda a nit.
> 
> Best part: not an employee.


Sounds like a hybrid job


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> Sounds like a hybrid job


not sure what that even means. RS is a job, but it ain't an employee/employer job. For me it is the absolute best part-time job. And now it will stay that way for a while.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> not sure what that even means. RS is a job, but it ain't an employee/employer job. For me it is the absolute best part-time job. And now it will stay that way for a while.


The bottom line is you are happy because you accept ride-sharing for what it is.
I am glad it's working for you.
Be safe


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> The bottom line is you are happy because you accept ride-sharing for what it is.


well, of course. When I started and when I didn't see the destination until I started the ride THAT made my OCD unhappy. But then we got it 'free' and it was full info. In fact, more info than one could really digest in a short period of time (when it was new). That made for less unhappiness. Setting your own surge is kinda nice as well. Drive pass seems it could work as well. All things for Calif, so far.

As a pt gig, it works. As a full time, I need the income, it would epically suck.


----------



## Crosbyandstarsky

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


Ya it sucks..fast food pays better


----------



## Kilroy4303

The Gift of Fish said:


> I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:
> 
> (TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)
> 
> _What is the earnings guarantee?_
> 
> The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile _but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. _So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:
> 
> Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
> Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
> Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40
> 
> Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:
> 
> Base fare : $1.60
> Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
> Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
> Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16
> 
> Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.
> 
> _Is this an hourly pay guarantee?_
> 
> No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, _it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board._ This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee good?_
> 
> In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.
> 
> _Why is this guarantee bad?_
> 
> First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.
> 
> Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.
> 
> Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.
> 
> Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.
> 
> Overall, this guarantee is stacked _heavily_ in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.
> 
> _Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?_
> 
> Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's _before_ the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.


Welllllllllllll damn. . .. .

I hate when some big time egg head explains all the nuances of what I think may be a good deal, tears apart what I think is a good choice and makes me realize I just got screwed without benefit of a date and dinner first. . ..

Thanks a lot. .. sheesh

( I read about prop 22. .. and didn't quite get the gist. . .. . read like stereo instructions .. . . you know. . . ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)

changing vote from yes to not a no. . but a HELL NO


----------



## Daisey77

Kilroy4303 said:


> Welllllllllllll damn. . .. .
> 
> I hate when some big time egg head explains all the nuances of what I think may be a good deal, tears apart what I think is a good choice and makes me realize I just got screwed without benefit of a date and dinner first. . ..
> 
> Thanks a lot. .. sheesh
> 
> ( I read about prop 22. .. and didn't quite get the gist. . .. . read like stereo instructions .. . . you know. . . ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)
> 
> changing vote from yes to not a no. . but a HELL NO


A little too late for that but thanks for demonstrating the exact issue. People are too lazy to actually read up on something yet they March their butts to the pole and vote on things without being fully educated. And we wonder why America is so screwed up


----------



## Paul Vincent

We find out for sure tomorrow


----------



## Kilroy4303

Daisey77 said:


> A little too late for that but thanks for demonstrating the exact issue. People are too lazy to actually read up on something yet they March their butts to the pole and vote on things without being fully educated. And we wonder why America is so screwed up


It hasn't been put to a vote here in WA yet, when it does I will vote no. Hadn't read into it yet, but was planning to when it became an issue.

Thanks for assuming


----------



## Daisey77

Kilroy4303 said:


> It hasn't been put to a vote here in WA yet, when it does I will vote no. Hadn't read into it yet, but was planning to when it became an issue.
> 
> Thanks for assuming


Is prop22 even a thing in WA? I thought it was California specific. Washington would have to introduce their own bill/prop to be voted on. So yeah . . . prop 22 has already been voted . . . making it too late to vote or change your vote&#129335;‍♀


----------

