# Uber/Lyft to make wage concessions to keep California drivers contractors.



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

This will be interesting.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

U/L should at very least pay whatever taxes are paid for employees plus expenses plus a profit. 

2.5 % is no where near enough. 

They'll just drop drivers pay by whatever amount they choose to offset the increased costs.

There has to be a minimum.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


it's going to have to go a lot further

u/l will try to rely, yet again, on the "work when you want" scare tactic to get drivers to rally against the measure but drivers aren't as stupid as they were in 2014/2015 since pay has been substantially lowered since then


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it's going to have to go a lot further
> 
> u/l will try to rely, yet again, on the "work when you want" scare tactic to get drivers to rally against the measure but drivers aren't as stupid as they were in 2014/2015 since pay has been substantially lowered since then


Uber has burned one too many bridges.


----------



## SLuz (Oct 20, 2016)

In Uber speak how u say - More wage and benefits for drivers means more r money for you.
Quote from article
(“Uber and Lyft haven’t presented a reason why they can’t treat workers like employees,” she said. “A flexible work schedule is not new — we have musicians, construction workers, stagehands, longshoremen up and down the state who work when they want to, and are employees with well above minimum wage and benefits.”)


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

the smoke and mirrors of Uber over the years has led to zero credibility. If they want drivers to use their own resources to earn THEM and their INVESTORS money then there needs to be some transparent reciprocity and that's not in the form of smoke and mirrors. As long as they keep paying below minimum wage (and yes the algorithm created by Uber and Lyft employees does control this), they will perpetuate this culture of unethical, illegal, and basically immoral behavior. How they have gotten away with what they have gotten away with is not beyond me in these current political times where money talks and the only law is there are no laws that cannot be broken with money and/or lobbyists. Uber is a reflection of US culture and it is not a pretty sight.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I've been thinking about this subject all day.

Why do Uber and Lyft need to negotiate anything? 

They've never wanted to negotiate before.

They can improve conditions for drivers NOW. no need to wait.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


What I get from the article is Uber and Lyft are working together.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


They use the same bs calculations to determine "minimum wage" based only on periods 2 and 3, all completely ignoring the whole time you're sitting alone in period 1 twiddling your thumbs unable to realistically do *anything *else completely "unpaid".


----------



## Toocutetofail (Sep 14, 2018)

BUSINESS
*Uber, Lyft say making drivers employees would 'pose a risk to our businesses'*

By MARGOT ROOSEVELT
JUN 12, 2019 | 4:50 PM









Lyft driver Jos Cashon, 28, left, joins fellow Uber and Lyft drivers during a one-day strike in protest for better wages and working conditions near Los Angeles International Airport in May. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Uber and Lyft launched a public campaign Wednesday to pressure California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom into exempting them from pending legislation that would force them to classify drivers as employees.
The ride-hailing giants have lobbied behind the scenes for months, arguing that their drivers should retain "independent contractor" status - even as drivers in California and across the country have mounted protests over low pay and a lack of labor protections and filed thousands of lawsuits over their treatment.
"A change to the employment classification of ride-share drivers would pose a risk to our businesses," the companies declared in an opinion article published in the San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday under the bylines of Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi, Lyft chief executive Logan Green and Lyft president John Zimmer.
The companies' stock prices have dropped since they went public this spring, as investors question whether they can ever make a profit.

In their op-ed, the executives suggested that rather than classifying drivers as employees they adopt "a system of worker-determined benefits - from paid time off to retirement planning to lifelong learning."
The vaguely-worded proposal did not seem to offer what labor laws give employees: a guaranteed minimum wage, overtime pay, and benefits such as sick leave, family leave, workers' compensation, disability and unemployment insurance.
And rather than allow drivers to unionize, which they could do if they are classified as employees, the companies suggested "forming a new driver association, in partnership with state lawmakers and labor groups, to represent drivers' interests."
A bill, AB 5, passed the California Assembly by a 59-15 vote last month to codify a 2018 California Supreme Court decision. That ruling requires classifying workers as employees if they perform work as part of a company's "usual course" of business. It is expected to begin moving through the Senate next month.
*Are you an employee or a contractor? Carpenters, strippers and dog walkers now face that question »*
In a legislature and an administration dominated by Democrats, the bill pits two powerful constituencies that have often supported Democrats against each other - labor unions and technology companies. The bill is backed by the California Labor Federation. But the Chamber of Commerce has been organizing independent contractors to lobby against AB 5, and in the coming months, Uber and Lyft may step up efforts to enlist thousands of its drivers in the effort.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), AB 5's author, called the Uber-Lyft op-ed "the same song and dance we've heard before. They know they are losing and are desperate to change the PR without offering any details that help workers."
"They say they're offering 'retirement planning,'" she added, noting that the companies don't have to pay into Medicare or Social Security for independent contractors. "What does that mean? They're going to open up a ballroom and talk about their future?"
Gonzalez has amended AB 5 to exempt professional workers such as doctors, accountants, real estate agents, insurance agents and hair dressers "who make far more than minimum wage." But she said "I'm not willing to bargain away decades of progress on wages and labor protections for Uber and Lyft. These are billion-dollar companies. They've done everything in their power to make outrageous profits for shareholders at the expense of workers."
Classifying gig-economy workers as independent contractors means "taxpayers are on the hook for providing social services for employers who don't do the right thing," she said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom did not respond to a request for comment on reports that his office has been involved in negotiations over a compromise to AB 5. But in an interview with PoliticoTuesday, he was quoted as saying "I am very encouraged by the conversations we're having."
"I don't think it's a binary question - 'it's this or that,'" he said. "I don't want to stifle innovation. At the same time, I'm concerned, as everybody should be, about people running in place, working harder but not getting any of the commensurate benefits."
The Uber-Lyft proposal was greeted with indignation by Los Angeles ride-hailing drivers who staged a strike last month seeking higher pay and benefits.
"The gig app industries are making bazillions for the few, while drivers starve," said Nicole Moore, a Lyft driver and organizer with the 5,000-member Rideshare Drivers United. "They've implemented draconian pay cuts and now they want us to form company unions without giving us the right to bargain for a real contract. It's a non-starter."
In their op-ed, the ride-share executives estimated that, globally, drivers have earned $80 billion driving for Uber and Lyft. "They are attracted to the work because of the flexibility it affords," they wrote. "Very few jobs allow you to start or stop working whenever, wherever, as often as you want."
They also acknowledged that independent work is "associated with higher levels of stress. Ride-share drivers' worries may concern earnings stability, protections on the job, and the ability to have a meaningful voice in the companies whose apps they use."
The solution: "We can make independent work better if we update century-old employment laws&#8230; we have an opportunity to work with legislators and labor groups to find a different solution that preserves drivers' ability to work independently if they choose to do so while improving the quality and security of their work."
UC Berkeley labor law professor Catherine Fisk called the Uber-Lyft proposal for a drivers association "disingenuous," noting that the companies are in court battling a Seattle ordinance to allow drivers to bargain collectively.
"Giving workers 'more of a say in the decisions affecting their lives and livelihoods,' as the companies propose, is easy: recognize the employees' choice of union," Fisk said.
By law, she said, workers classified as employees may work flexible hours and often do in such industries as retail, trucking and fast food. "One can be an employee working two hours a week or 60. There is absolutely no legal requirement that an employee be someone who works a fixed schedule."
Fisk noted that one benefit of employee classification would be to shift the cost of maintaining vehicles which is now borne by drivers. "If a driver is working 50 hours a week for Uber, it makes sense that the vehicle should be paid for by Uber, which is profiting from its use," she said.
If AB 5 fails to pass, or is vetoed by Gov. Newsom, Uber and Lyft, along with thousands of other companies, would still be subject to the standard for independent contractor classification set by the California Supreme Court. But applying it to companies one by one would require lawsuits, thus adding to the legal battles the companies are already waging.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

so they are using the two-prong strategy as usual to scare drivers...

1. they are saying drivers cant be employees and still be able to go online when they want which the state is saying is patently false

2. they are saying, "wahhhhh wahhhh, if they make drivers employees then you won't have a job anymore because we'll go out of business wahhh wahhh ??"

not gonna work this time uber


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Uber shut down they are replaced by someone else. It ain't rocket science. That replacement works within the regulations. Public pay an extra 2 dollars a ride life goes on.


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

SLuz said:


> In Uber speak how u say - More wage and benefits for drivers means more r money for you.
> Quote from article
> ("Uber and Lyft haven't presented a reason why they can't treat workers like employees," she said. "A flexible work schedule is not new - we have musicians, construction workers, stagehands, longshoremen up and down the state who work when they want to, and are employees with well above minimum wage and benefits.")


None of the examples you gave are the same. Everyone of them HAS to show up at a specific time. The turn on/turn off aspect of rideshare apps is the ONLY selling point that U/L have.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

Government regulation is going to ruin rideshare. Ask NYC how much it is to take a uber vs. cab. It is now cheaper to take a cab. 

All this regulation is going to lead to a lot of driver making a lot less money. We shouldn’t be trying to prop up crap drivers because they suck, get low ratings, and make less than minimum wage. That is on the driver for being incompetent. No sympathy from me. 

Does ubEr and Lyft need to be overhauled? I believe so. But not by making drivers employees or any of that nonsense. Those resources should be going after corporate. Uber and Lyft are a giant ponzi scheme that implements a pyramid scheme to recruit drivers. Why isn’t anyone talking about this?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it's going to have to go a lot further
> 
> u/l will try to rely, yet again, on the "work when you want" scare tactic to get drivers to rally against the measure but drivers aren't as stupid as they were in 2014/2015 since pay has been substantially lowered since then


I think you would be surprised, drivers are stupider than ever, new ones coming in all the time to work for peanut shells (not even peanuts!).


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> Government regulation is going to ruin rideshare. Ask NYC how much it is to take a uber vs. cab. It is now cheaper to take a cab.
> 
> All this regulation is going to lead to a lot of driver making a lot less money. We shouldn't be trying to prop up crap drivers because they suck, get low ratings, and make less than minimum wage. That is on the driver for being incompetent. No sympathy from me.
> 
> Does ubEr and Lyft need to be overhauled? I believe so. But not by making drivers employees or any of that nonsense. Those resources should be going after corporate. Uber and Lyft are a giant ponzi scheme that implements a pyramid scheme to recruit drivers. Why isn't anyone talking about this?


Uber and Lyft don't want to regulate themselves then the regulators will do it for them. As for the drivers how can you say it will lead to a lot less money LMFAO. FIrst of all the rates cannot go much lower and second that is what the regulations are there for to make sure that drivers are paid fairly. See NYC regulations that were just permanently put into place yesterday regarding number of drivers and their pay. While not a fan of regulation, when unethical, immoral, and lying companies take advantage of the very people making money for the company then they need to be regulated. The US is not the third world and unfortunately companies like Lyft and Uber are under some guise that it is and that laws/regulations are for the foolish and not them.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

As true independent contractors Any deal with Uber lyft must include. 1.Drivers capture 80% of total fares 2. Drivers get upfront estimate of fares & destination 3.riders get transparent receipts showing pmile, pMinute, $ paid to driver & kept by platform. Anything else worthless


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

observer said:


> They can improve conditions for drivers NOW. no need to wait.


It is the classic example of what "show me, don't tell me" how much you care. And unfortunately, despite consistently saying how valued their "partners" are, their actions repeatedly reveal little more than apathethy and tolerance to open disdain.



Disgusted Driver said:


> I think you would be surprised, drivers are stupider than ever, new ones coming in all the time to work for peanut shells (not even peanuts!).


You can't really blame them in this regard. They convince thousands to drive their own cars and do all the work for meager earnings. Surely they can get a few goobers to head up to Sacramento to lobby/protest against their own interests. The only difference is this time these bozos will be heavily outnumbered by counter protesters imho.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

mrpjfresh said:


> It is the classic example of what "show me, don't tell me" how much you care. And unfortunately, despite consistently saying how valued their "partners" are, their actions repeatedly reveal little more than apathethy and tolerance to open disdain.
> 
> You can't really blame them in this regard. They convince thousands to drive their own cars and do all the work for meager earnings. Surely they can get a few goobers to head up to Sacramento to lobby/protest against their own interests. The only difference is this time these bozos will be heavily outnumbered by counter protesters imho.


Exactly.

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

They will just raise fares and it's a win for the driver and for them and a loss for the rider.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> Ask NYC how much it is to take a uber vs. cab. It is now cheaper to take a cab.


for those of you non-shills in NYC, is this statement accurate or what ?


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


Does ANYBODY driving for Uber or Lyft believe these companies are going to do ANTHING for the drivers without being forced by legislators and the courts? Seriously!? Remember the "180 Days of Summer" last year where Uber was going to do all sorts of things to increase driver incomes and work conditions? What happened to all those great changes? I remember a handful of partial attempts (like 6 Destination uses per day) that disappeared in a few months.I remember when they increased the minimum fare in L.A. to $4.00 and the price per minute. But what happened a few months later? EVERY SINGLE STEP FORWARD was followed by several steps back!

Uber is now fighting the passage of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which has already passed the Assembly and is being considered by the State Senate. This bill does one thing only; it expands the Dynamex ruling from last year, which puts the burden on companies to prove that their workers should be considered independent contractors instead of employees. If AB5 passes (and it is expected to pass and be signed by the governor), Uber drivers will become employees of Uber and will be entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and ALL benefits normally provided to employees like healthcare, workers comp., reimbursement for work expenses, and others. Uber (and Lyft) drivers are already employees, legally, for purposes of wages and overtime, but the companies are ignoring this and counting on relief from legislators. Uber is ALSO counting on gullible drivers to oppose AB5 because they think it will end their ability to work when they want. AB5 does NO SUCH THING!

All drivers should be supporting the passage of AB5. I just sent my second email to the Governor today and you can do so at this link -

https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/

If this bill doesn't pass, drivers will be left to the will of U/L, or you will be forced to go to arbitration or sue. Do you enjoy working your ass off for the benefit of early investors? Or do you want to take back some of this power? Support the passage of AB5!

(Please note that I am NOT a lawyer and all conclusions above represent my personal opinion. I have, however, been an Uber driver since 2014, with way more than 10,000 trips completed.)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Does ANYBODY driving for Uber or Lyft believe these companies are going to do ANTHING for the drivers without being forced by legislators and the courts? Seriously!? Remember the "180 Days of Summer" last year where Uber was going to do all sorts of things to increase driver incomes and work conditions? What happened to all those great changes? I remember a handful of partial attempts (like 6 Destination uses per day) that disappeared in a few months.I remember when they increased the minimum fare in L.A. to $4.00 and the price per minute. But what happened a few months later? EVERY SINGLE STEP FORWARD was followed by several steps back!
> 
> Uber is now fighting the passage of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which has already passed the Assembly and is being considered by the State Senate. This bill does one thing only; it expands the Dynamex ruling from last year, which puts the burden on companies to prove that their workers should be considered independent contractors instead of employees. If AB5 passes (and it is expected to pass and be signed by the governor), Uber drivers will become employees of Uber and will be entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and ALL benefits normally provided to employees like healthcare, workers comp., reimbursement for work expenses, and others. Uber (and Lyft) drivers are already employees, legally, for purposes of wages and overtime, but the companies are ignoring this and counting on relief from legislators. Uber is ALSO counting on gullible drivers to oppose AB5 because they think it will end their ability to work when they want. AB5 does NO SUCH THING!
> 
> ...


Newsom signing this bill appears to be a toss up. He needs to be pressured to sign it.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> Newsom signing this bill appears to be a toss up. He needs to be pressured to sign it.


Absolutely! We need drivers from all over California lending their support to the bill. That's exactly why I provided the link.


----------



## dryverjohn (Jun 3, 2018)

If this doesn't go national, F all of you. Why should CA drivers or NYC drivers be entitled to more than the rest of us?


----------



## TPAMB (Feb 13, 2019)

Looks like what happened in NY has put a thorn in their ass.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

"musicians, construction workers, stagehands, longshoremen up and down the state who work when they want to, and are employees with well above minimum wage and benefits"

That's cute, comparing divers to union jobs.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://splinternews.com/if-uber-wants-it-its-bad-1835514222/amp


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

Becoming full-fledged employees does NOT mean U/L drivers will have to give up scheduling flexibility. That is the scare-tactic being used by U/L to fight AB5. It is the ONLY argument they have and it's about as sturdy as a plastic balloon. Becoming employees also does not mean we have to form or join a union. It's an option, but not a requirement.

Personally, I want higher pay, real benefits (overtime, paid time off, vacation time, workers comp insurance, healthcare, etc.), and business expense reimbursement. ALL of these can be ours in California if AB5 passes the State Senate and is signed by the governor. If you can have all these benefits and keep your work flexibility, don't you want it too? Then support the passing of AB5!

Once this law is passed in California, it will likely be passed in other states because California has often been the trend setter. It won't happen immediately, but it will likely happen. But if it DOESN'T happen in California, it may not happen anywhere else either.



observer said:


> https://splinternews.com/if-uber-wants-it-its-bad-1835514222/amp


This article hits the nail on the head. Uber is using the not-so-veiled threat of "drivers prefer flexible work schedules to being employees" and "our business model can't afford to make the drivers employees" to hide the fact that this business that has made BILLIONS of dollars for the founders and early investors, has no intention of paying drivers a real wage unless they are dragged kicking and screaming and FORCED to pay them. As a major Hollywood film from a few years ago was titled, there will be blood! Companies will have to raise rates and may have to actually focus on their core businesses to get in sight of profits but, in that case, EVERYONE will earn a fair share. I also predict there will be consolidation in this industry. But building a gigantic business on the backs of the drivers and not treating them fairly is NOT JUSTIFIED!

In an old Bruce Lee movie, there is a scene where the Chinese students at a school are mortified when a group of Japanese men put up a banner on their school that translates as "The Weak Men of Asia." Bruce Lee then leads his fellow students in attacks against the Japanese to prove they are NOT the weak men. In American business, as well as other countries around the world right now, U/L drivers could just as well be called the weak men of workers because many of us earn less than minimum wage, are sleeping in our cars because we can't afford a decent place to live, and have NONE of the benefits of regular workers, unionized or not. Does this make ANY sense to you?!


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

"The companies say they're willing to make significant changes for their tens of thousands of California drivers - including a *guaranteed base wage, flexible benefits and a new drivers' association..." *

We all know how this shit works

Guaranteed base wage = $15 /hr gross (3 completed runs per hour required to qualify)
Flexible benefits = Stride
New Driver's Association = Driver Advisor Council 2.0

C'mon California, don't turtle up on this!


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

Fozzie said:


> "The companies say they're willing to make significant changes for their tens of thousands of California drivers - including a *guaranteed base wage, flexible benefits and a new drivers' association..." *
> 
> We all know how this shit works
> 
> ...


Amen! Nothing on that list involves any more money being paid by Uber.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

Uber and Lyft could do a very simple tip campaign to work on changing the non-tipping mentality in the Rideshare. Cost Uber/Lyft minimal, and if successful help drivers out. With little effort from them.

Far as being an employee. Soon as that happens I'm out. Not signing a non-compete with Uber or Lyft in order to be an "employee".


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

DriverMark said:


> Uber and Lyft could do a very simple tip campaign to work on changing the non-tipping mentality in the Rideshare. Cost Uber/Lyft minimal, and if successful help drivers out. With little effort from them.
> 
> Far as being an employee. Soon as that happens I'm out. Not signing a non-compete with Uber or Lyft in order to be an "employee".


I would definitely like to see these companies raise awareness of the need to tip drivers. But I'm not sure why you'd have to sign a non-compete agreement to be an employee of U/L (lots of people work multiple jobs as employees). I suppose it might happen, though. At worst, you can be an employee of one and do something else on the side. I expect there would still be options for you. I encourage you not to make too many assumptions about things that MIGHT happen. You want to be a private limo driver; that will always be an option.

But being employees will absolutely increase our total income and benefits, possibly by 50% or more. How would an increase in tips compete with that? When some dimwit hits your car while driving, will you rely on the increase in tips to pay your bills? The same applies if you get sick or a rider files a fraudulent complaint. We are all walking a very sharp razor's edge as drivers. Only becoming employees offers safety and support in these situations.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

So bottom line, ignore both the email and the App message and keep driving til your tires fall off. I'm not signing anything. Lets all keep making lots of money, becoming independently wealthy and can claim on match.com that you own your own business. Winning.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> You can't work for many companies and their competitors at the same time. Some you can, but some you cannot. Friggin common sense.


yes you can.....next youre gonna start saying i cant work for Mcdonalds and Burger King at the same time ??


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes you can.....next youre gonna start saying i cant work for Mcdonalds and Burger King at the same time ??


Still struggling I see. Again, for some companies yes, and I'm sure you're busy at McDonalds tonight. But you can't work for many companies and work for the competitor at the same time. Licensed or unlicensed. Underwriters aren't licensed. Customer Service isn't licensed. Marketing isn't licensed. If you owned a financial company or defense company, you'd let your employees work for the competitor? Good grief. Something not right with you.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> Still struggling I see. Again, for some companies yes, and I'm sure you're busy at McDonalds tonight. But you can't work for many companies and work for the competitor at the same time. Licensed or unlicensed. Underwriters aren't licensed. Customer Service isn't licensed. Marketing isn't licensed. If you owned a financial company or defense company, you'd let your employees work for the competitor? Good grief. Something not right with you.


great, quote the EXACT law that bars workers from working for a competing competing....i want to see the EXACT law, not your opinion

what you are doing is confusing jobs where you have a fiduciary duty to a client with jobs where you are simply working for two competing companies

yes, you cant be a lawyer and work for two competing companies because you have a fiduciary duty in that job to a particular client


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)




----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Uber lyft blinked, because their business model can't support employee classification of drivers. As it is to break even they have to raise rider rates at least 50% and suppress driver rates further. 
Neither company is sustainable at scale without venture capital and going public was an inevitable mistake forced by their original investors who wanted to cash out. 
The only way to sustainability and eventually profitability is changing their business model to true technology platforms shifting to revenue streams inconsequential to fares. They both have the capacity and platforms to make the changes. However, neither have the experience running a for profit enterprise. Both companies based their growth on constant influx of VC capital, which they completely burned while loses increased as they scaled. That's the evidence that their business model doesn't work.
Complete overhaul of management necessary and whomever takes over has to recreate appropriate culture. 
California ab5 will accelerate the demise of both companies. Other states will eventually follow. 
Within 2 years there will be pressure from federal government to regulate uber as a utility company.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> great, quote the EXACT law that bars workers from working for a competing competing....i want to see the EXACT law, not your opinion
> 
> what you are doing is confusing jobs where you have a fiduciary duty to a client with jobs where you are simply working for two competing companies
> 
> yes, you cant be a lawyer and work for two competing companies because you have a fiduciary duty in that job to a particular client


You just contradicted yourself, twice. First, lawyers are licensed (pass the bar exam - are you familiar?) Second, you agree that some companies/industries prohibit employees from working for competitors. You're agreeing with me. Luv it. Man, it was a long journey but you made it!



uberdriverfornow said:


> great, quote the EXACT law that bars workers from working for a competing competing....i want to see the EXACT law, not your opinion
> 
> what you are doing is confusing jobs where you have a fiduciary duty to a client with jobs where you are simply working for two competing companies
> 
> yes, you cant be a lawyer and work for two competing companies because you have a fiduciary duty in that job to a particular client


Btw never said there was a law. I said many companies/industries prohibit an employee from working for a competitor. Just read, put on the thinking cap. Its not conducive and in fact would be detrimental for many businesses/industries to allow employees to work for a competitor. Not all, but many. I've said that all along. Geezus.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

EM1 said:


> Still struggling I see. Again, for some companies yes, and I'm sure you're busy at McDonalds tonight. But you can't work for many companies and work for the competitor at the same time. Licensed or unlicensed. Underwriters aren't licensed. Customer Service isn't licensed. Marketing isn't licensed. If you owned a financial company or defense company, you'd let your employees work for the competitor? Good grief. Something not right with you.


Sir no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you're talking about. You mix apples and oranges. Any attempts by uber to force non-compete will be cause for antitrust, anticompetitive, and long line of state and Federal law suits. 
AB5 would be the least of their worries.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> You just contradicted yourself, twice. First, lawyers are licensed (pass the bar exam - are you familiar?) Second, you agree that some companies/industries prohibit employees from working for competitors. You're agreeing with me. Luv it. Man, it was a long journey but you made it!
> 
> 
> Btw never said there was a law. I said many companies/industries prohibit an employee from working for a competitor. Just read, put on the thinking cap. Its not conducive and in fact would be detrimental for many businesses/industries to allow employees to work for a competitor. Not all, but many. I've said that all along. Geezus.


because in most licensed jobs you have fiduciary duty to a particular client, that's not the same as saying you can not blanket work for competing companies



EM1 said:


> You just contradicted yourself, twice. First, lawyers are licensed (pass the bar exam - are you familiar?) Second, you agree that some companies/industries prohibit employees from working for competitors. You're agreeing with me. Luv it. Man, it was a long journey but you made it!
> 
> 
> Btw never said there was a law. I said many companies/industries prohibit an employee from working for a competitor. Just read, put on the thinking cap. Its not conducive and in fact would be detrimental for many businesses/industries to allow employees to work for a competitor. Not all, but many. I've said that all along. Geezus.


and yes, you were implying it's some sort of law because you simply said you can't


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> Sir no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you're talking about. You mix apples and oranges. Any attempts by uber to force non-compete will be cause for antitrust, anticompetitive, and long line of state and Federal law suits.
> AB5 would be the least of their worries.


No disrespect taken, but if you read all my posts on this subject, I stated that Ridesharing is a new industry and there is no precedence set for it yet. My comments were general remarks about Noncompete in California, and, how some individuals believe that you can work for any company and their competitor at anytime. My intention was to clarify, that is definitely not the case, but as I've mentioned, but if not clear to you, it depends on the industry/company. Clearly, as blathered by another commentor, one can work for McDonalds and Burger King at the same time. There is low possibility of stealing customers, private information, etc. My examples were, other industries like life insurance companies, mortgage companies, accounting firms, etc. The company will fire you if you in most cases if you are working for a competitor. That's a fact. So all I ask is read, think, discern. No disrespect meant.



uberdriverfornow said:


> because in most licensed jobs you have fiduciary duty to a particular client, that's nit the same as saying you can not blanket work for competing companies
> 
> 
> and yes, you were implying it's some sort of law because you simply said you can't


You assumed. I never mentioned law. But since there is a clearly an inability to discern, then I apologize and will clarify, and repeat as I've mentioned...many companies/industries prohibit you from working for a competitor at the same time. That is just plain common sense. C'mon.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

EM1 said:


> No disrespect taken, but if you read all my posts on this subject, I stated that Ridesharing is a new industry and there is no precedence set for it yet. My comments were general remarks about Noncompete in California, and, how some individuals believe that you can work for any company and their competitor at anytime. My intention was to clarify, that is definitely not the case, but as I've mentioned, but if not clear to you, it depends on the industry/company. Clearly, as blathered by another commentor, one can work for McDonalds and Burger King at the same time. There is low possibility of stealing customers, private information, etc. My examples were, other industries like life insurance companies, mortgage companies, accounting firms, etc. The company will fire you if you in most cases if you are working for a competitor. That's a fact. So all I ask is read, think, discern. No disrespect meant.
> 
> 
> You assumed. I never mentioned law. But since there is a clearly an inability to discern, then I apologize and will clarify, and repeat as I've mentioned...many companies/industries prohibit you from working for a competitor at the same time. That is just plain common sense. C'mon.


Jobs that require a license, securities Series 7 and 63, insurance life, health, annuities, real estate, NMLS mortgage lending. Btw I'm retired from 40+ years in banking and still have my 7, 63, and NMLS which I still use in Florida. Most these licenses require a sponsor
Generally jobs that force non-compete involve some sort of sensitive position, specially in banking and securities. However, right to work states are most strict against non-compete. 
Nevertheless, this is all moot while Uber lyft prepare for a long battle and most likely already have an army of Lobbyists lined up hard at work.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> Jobs that require a license, securities Series 7 and 63, insurance life, health, annuities, real estate, NMLS mortgage lending. Btw I'm retired from 40+ years in banking and still have my 7, 63, and NMLS which I still use in Florida. Most these licenses require a sponsor
> Generally jobs that force non-compete involve some sort of sensitive position, specially in banking and securities. However, right to work states are most strict against non-compete.
> Nevertheless, this is all moot while Uber lyft prepare for a long battle and most likely already have an army of Lobbyists lined up hard at work.


Agreed. I have my 6 & 63, life/health/ltc/annuity in 4 states, and mortgage license in 17 states. Noncompete is not enforceable in California. Noncompete rule/law, generally, means you cannot work for a competitor AFTER ending employment as a employee (not an IC). However, many companies & industries can and do prohibit you, successfully, from working for a competitor simultaneously (that means at the same time for those who struggle). It may not be a law per se, but they can and will fire you if they find out you work for a competitor, whether its a licensed position or not (e.g., customer service, marketing). You have no legal recourse as an employee in those certain situations. Not all situations, but certain ones. Since Rideshare is a relatively new industry, and there is somewhat, but not a huge potential for stealing clients, who knows what the regulations or how the law will be applied specifically to Rideshare. But some folks here made blanket statements that you can work for any company and their competitor, anytime, anywhere, and that is not accurate.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

The only change required is restoring rates to 2015 levels, before Luber tried to drive each other out of business. The rest is superfluous


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> Uber lyft blinked, because their business model can't support employee classification of drivers. As it is to break even they have to raise rider rates at least 50% and suppress driver rates further.
> Neither company is sustainable at scale without venture capital and going public was an inevitable mistake forced by their original investors who wanted to cash out.
> The only way to sustainability and eventually profitability is changing their business model to true technology platforms shifting to revenue streams inconsequential to fares. They both have the capacity and platforms to make the changes. However, neither have the experience running a for profit enterprise. Both companies based their growth on constant influx of VC capital, which they completely burned while loses increased as they scaled. That's the evidence that their business model doesn't work.
> Complete overhaul of management necessary and whomever takes over has to recreate appropriate culture.
> ...


One more thing. The whole gig economy is based on Permatemp labor structure which basically transfers the cost of labor to taxpayers. Proliferation of Permatemp employment is deminishing the middle class by transferring wealth from millions of workers to stock holders and insiders. 
As a lifelong conservative I regret to admit that the gig economy model based on Permatemp labor is an aberration from capitalistic democracies. If the Federal government does not act fast this will accelerate the demise of our economy and create a dystopian society. It's getting out hand.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary


Btw, you may want to rethink the McDonalds & Burger King example. They can, at each store's own discretion, prohibit you from working at the other...and fire you if you do, with no legal recourse for you. Just think about things and research a bit before you go off like that.

https://www.quora.com/Could-I-work-...re-if-I-tell-them-stuff-about-the-other-store
Cody Dostal, former Department Manager in Training at McDonald's (2013-2017)
Answered Apr 18, 2016
Answered Apr 18, 2016 · Author has 162 answers and 1.2m answer views

"While everyone is saying you can work at both, I have to stop you there. You can't always work at both.
The last McDonald's O/O I worked for had a policy that you could not work at both McDonald's and any other fast food restaurant at the same time. Was it enforced? Rarely. But it *was *a termination offense, and it was not illegal because you agreed to it when you accepted employment. Now, this policy is not at every store, so make sure it is okay according to the policies you agree to."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> Btw, you may want to rethink the McDonalds & Burger King example. They can, at each store's own discretion, prohibit you from working at the other...and fire you if you do, with no legal recourse for you. Just think about things and research a bit before you go off like that.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Could-I-work-...re-if-I-tell-them-stuff-about-the-other-store
> Cody Dostal, former Department Manager in Training at McDonald's (2013-2017)
> ...


1. who cares...the point was that there is no law preventing us from working for a competing company just because you're now considered an employee which is what this thread is all about

2. you automatically get unemployment benefits if the reason for termination is not directly related to your work


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> 1. who cares...the point was that there is no law preventing us from working for a competing company just because you're now considered an employee which is what this thread is all about
> 
> 2. you automatically get unemployment benefits if the reason for termination is not directly related to your work


The point is you're not understanding. Re-read the comments, and rethink a better analogy. Nobody said there is a law; just that employers can do what they want, and will most likely do, with their employees if they work for the competition. Its not difficult. Now you're bringing up unemployment, which is a different subtopic. But maybe you're banking on it, if so, good luck as I don't want to see anyone struggling financially.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> The point is you're not understanding. Re-read the comments, and rethink a better analogy. Nobody said there is a law; just that employers can do what they want, and will most likely do, with their employees if they work for the competition. Its not difficult. Now you're bringing up unemployment, which is a different subtopic. But maybe you're banking on it, if so, good luck as I don't want to see anyone struggling financially.


no way in hell uber or lyft will ask drivers to sign a noncompete agreement ... not going to happen...in case you didnt realize the subject matter was if something was going to automatically kick in which would prevent drivers from being able to drive for both companies once we are found legally to being employees....the answer is a resounding no

furthermore you already went on a tirade where you stated emphatically that workers absolutely positively under no conditions can they work for competing companies.....when i showed that to be absolutely false you backtracked yet again and said you weren't saying that

this is what you constantly do...then have the nerve to ask me to rethink my logic ?

lol sure, pal


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> no way in hell uber or lyft will ask drivers to sign a noncompete agreement ... not going to happen...in case you didnt realize the subject matter was if something was going to automatically kick in which would prevent drivers from being able to drive for both companies once we are found legally to being employees....the answer is a resounding no
> 
> furthermore you already went on a tirade where you stated emphatically that workers absolutely positively under no conditions can they work for competing companies.....when i showed that to be absolutely false you backtracked yet again and said you weren't saying that
> 
> ...


You are struggling again. Re-read the comments, and provide us with your updated opinion. Again, In many industries, and many companies, they will fire you if you work for a competitor simultaneously. Nobody knows whats going to happen, there is a lot of speculation. Its possible the rideshare companies will have an employee agreement that you not work for a competitor. Especially if they are paying you a minimum wage. So Uber will pay you $15 an hour while you simultaneously drive for Lyft at the very same time (literally, as in at 8pm on a Saturday night). That wouldn't make sense. You don't even know employee agreements are contracts, so its clear you don't know much and just banking on becoming an Uber employee for insurance or unemployment or whatever. But the more you write, the less credible you are becoming.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> You are struggling again. Re-read the comments, and provide us with your updated opinion. Again, In many industries, and many companies, they will fire you if you work for a competitor simultaneously. Nobody knows whats going to happen, there is a lot of speculation. Its possible the rideshare companies will have an employee agreement that you not work for a competitor. Especially if they are paying you a minimum wage. So Uber will pay you $15 an hour while you simultaneously drive for Lyft at the very same time (literally, as in at 8pm on a Saturday night). That wouldn't make sense. You don't even know employee agreements are contracts, so its clear you don't know much and just banking on becoming an Uber employee for insurance or unemployment or whatever. But the more you write, the less credible you are becoming.


lol what are talking about ? the only time a company would care if you are working for an employer enough to ask you to sign a noncompete agreement is if you are in a position to give away propietary data....mcdonalds isnt going to care if you work for burger king unless you are a higher up corporate honcho

uber and lyft couldnt care any less if drivers work for each other....only the people in the corporate offices that have access to inside information of sorts would have the potential to sell private information or sway one company versus the other


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol what are talking about ? the only time a company would care if you are working for an employer enough to ask you to sign a noncompete agreement is if you are in a position to give away propietary data....mcdonalds isnt going to care if you work for burger king unless you are a higher up corporate honcho
> 
> uber and lyft couldnt care any less if drivers work for each other....only the people in the corporate offices that have access to inside information of sorts would have the potential to sell private information or sway one company versus the other


You're still struggling. Please re-read the comments and provide us with your updated opinion. I think youre trolling here or just really slow. In fact, many fast food establishments employee agreements prohibit working for another fast food establishment. It depends on the store and the management, but this is a fact. So your argument on that is null & void. Again, depending on the industry, many companies have employee agreements (part of contract law) that prohibit employees working for the competition.

Again, you can't work for McDonalds and BK at the very same time (as in 8pm tomorrow night). For Uber & Lyft, you can obviously. The key word is simultaneous working hours. IF uber drivers become employees entitled to a $15/hr minimum wage, its possible, and would make sense, to have an employee agreement prohibiting driving for a competitor. Otherwise, a driver could literally be paid $15/hr from Uber AND making $15/hr or more driving for Lyft tomorrow night at 8pm.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

⚠WHY WAIT for a low skill Entry level Ground Transportation gig to pay u more⚠

Quote:

"we have

musicians
construction workers
stagehands
longshoremen
up and down the state who work when they want to, and are employees with ? *well above minimum wage and benefits*."

End Quote



mrpjfresh said:


> It is the classic example of what "show me, don't tell me" how much you care. And unfortunately, despite consistently saying how valued their "partners" are, their actions repeatedly reveal little more than apathethy and tolerance to open disdain.
> 
> You can't really blame them in this regard. They convince thousands to drive their own cars and do all the work for meager earnings. Surely they can get a few goobers to head up to Sacramento to lobby/protest against their own interests. The only difference is this time these bozos will be heavily outnumbered by counter protesters imho.


⚠"_They convince thousands to drive their own cars and do all the work for meager earnings"_

? Dude, if true I doubt that ⬆ group could even Find Sacramento on a cartoon map.

Additionally, politicians know the Working Poor Rarely Vote ? and certainly don't contribute to campaign coffers. Big companies Do ?????


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> You're still struggling. Please re-read the comments and provide us with your updated opinion. I think youre trolling here or just really slow. In fact, many fast food establishments employee agreements prohibit working for another fast food establishment. It depends on the store and the management, but this is a fact. So your argument on that is null & void. Again, depending on the industry, many companies have employee agreements (part of contract law) that prohibit employees working for the competition.
> 
> Again, you can't work for McDonalds and BK at the very same time (as in 8pm tomorrow night). For Uber & Lyft, you can obviously. The key word is simultaneous working hours. IF uber drivers become employees entitled to a $15/hr minimum wage, its possible, and would make sense, to have an employee agreement prohibiting driving for a competitor. Otherwise, a driver could literally be paid $15/hr from Uber AND making $15/hr or more driving for Lyft tomorrow night at 8pm.


lol get real, minimim wage computation goes strictly by time on trip...for example

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/new-york-uber-lyft-minimum-wage/amp/


> (the average percentage of time drivers have passengers in their cars).


so unless drivers can have different pax for both apps in the car at the same time then you cant be getting minimum wage for both apps at the same time


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

nouberipo said:


> the smoke and mirrors of Uber over the years has led to zero credibility. If they want drivers to use their own resources to earn THEM and their INVESTORS money then there needs to be some transparent reciprocity and that's not in the form of smoke and mirrors. As long as they keep paying below minimum wage (and yes the algorithm created by Uber and Lyft employees does control this), they will perpetuate this culture of unethical, illegal, and basically immoral behavior. How they have gotten away with what they have gotten away with is not beyond me in these current political times where money talks and the only law is there are no laws that cannot be broken with money and/or lobbyists. Uber is a reflection of US culture and it is not a pretty sight.


Well said!


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol get real, minimim wage computation goes strictly by time on trip...for example
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/new-york-uber-lyft-minimum-wage/amp/
> so unless drivers can have different pax for both apps in the car at the same time then you cant be getting minimum wage for both apps at the same time


The NYC situation is not an employee-employer relationship, so not the same thing.

If it passes in CA, there will be a lot of details to work out.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol what are talking about ? the only time a company would care if you are working for an employer enough to ask you to sign a noncompete agreement is if you are in a position to give away propietary data...


What about industries like transportation, where some government entities limit how many TOTAL hours you can drive per week? If statute limits you to 40 hrs per week and you work 20 of those hours at your competitor, that leaves a company shorthanded.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

They created the problem by playing underhanded games .


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Another thing,

Due to the nature of expenses and what employees are ENTITLED to when using their own vehicle...

Taxis and traditional tow car services will have an advantage over Uber in lyft jn costs. (Namely they don’t have to pay their drivers 53c a mile they can instead employee a shop mechanic and so they work in-house for a greatly reduced cost.

I’ve seen the cab company swap an alternator in 10 minutes and I was back on the road in 20.

Heck I’ve seen them swap out the upholstery in the sets to clean it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

observer said:


> Why do Uber and Lyft need to negotiate anything?
> They've never wanted to negotiate before.
> They can improve conditions for drivers NOW. no need to wait.


That is an exceptionally good point, and every time they suggest they could make those changes for concessions they should be asked why exactly have they not done so already since it's clear since they're offering to do it, that they can do it.

The fact they haven't already implemented those changes shows they're not negotiating in good faith and that they'll never do anything in the favor of drivers unless they're forced to do it. For that reason alone legeslators should pass those independent contractor reforms into law.



Lee239 said:


> They will just raise fares and it's a win for the driver and for them and a loss for the rider.


It's not so much a loss for riders as it is a loss of a winfall for riders. By that I mean riders won for years via subsidized rides, and for many of them the chance to avoid tipping which they would never do with cab driver, that combined with the addition of the incredible convenience involved with ordering, and how quickly their drivers arrive at their pickup location, not to mention how simple it is to initiation communication if there's a pickup issue.

All they lose is the subsidized ride, they still get the convenience. They're still ahead. Not really feeling all that badly for them since they're still getting a good deal.


----------



## BobMarley (Feb 12, 2019)

Fozzie said:


> Btw never said there was a law. I said many companies/industries prohibit an employee from working for a competitor. Just read, put on the thinking cap.  Its not conducive and in fact would be detrimental for many businesses/industries to allow employees to work for a competitor. Not all, but many. I've said that all along. Geezus.


Just to chime in, you are very much correct. Most states are "at will" employment states. That means an employer can fire their employees for ANY reason that is not specifically prohibited, ie because of gender, race, religion. Literally someone lost their job for showing up to work with a vote for Hillary Clinton bumper sticker on their car in Texas. And they lost in an unfair termination lawsuit. In fact, its in our employee handbook, you must notify HR if you accept another employment position, and they have to approve it (or you can be fired). It does not apply to 1099 work, I actually checked.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Does ANYBODY driving for Uber or Lyft believe these companies are going to do ANTHING for the drivers without being forced by legislators and the courts? Seriously!?


No. Not if they have any sense they don't. The fact they're trying to "negotiate" a deal to make changes they can already make whenever they like tells you everything you need to know along those lines. What they're saying loud and clear when they do that is that they won't make changes that benefit drivers unless they're forced into making them.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

ValleyAntMan said:


> I would definitely like to see these companies raise awareness of the need to tip drivers. But I'm not sure why you'd have to sign a non-compete agreement to be an employee of U/L (lots of people work multiple jobs as employees). I suppose it might happen, though. At worst, you can be an employee of one and do something else on the side. I expect there would still be options for you. I encourage you not to make too many assumptions about things that MIGHT happen. You want to be a private limo driver; that will always be an option.
> 
> But being employees will absolutely increase our total income and benefits, possibly by 50% or more. How would an increase in tips compete with that? When some dimwit hits your car while driving, will you rely on the increase in tips to pay your bills? The same applies if you get sick or a rider files a fraudulent complaint. We are all walking a very sharp razor's edge as drivers. Only becoming employees offers safety and support in these situations.


Or.... U/L can limit driver hours to under 30 as to to avoid them being considered full time employees.

Granted there might not be a non-compete if drivers are made employees. Will see what happens. And who knows how it would pan out until it happens. Will see and then roll from there. But this is just a side gig for me, I have a very good day job. Those that do do this full time, I don't blame them for fighting for better conditions. And I'll take better and fight as well if the opportunity arises. Even if it helps the full timers more than me.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

No Prisoners said:


> Uber lyft blinked, because their business model can't support employee classification of drivers. As it is to break even they have to raise rider rates at least 50% and suppress driver rates further.
> ...
> The only way to sustainability and eventually profitability is changing their business model to true technology platforms shifting to revenue streams inconsequential to fares.


I agree that their current business model can not, and never could support employee classification of drivers; however, I disagree with your assessment of what's necessary to rectify the issue.

Uber/Lyft can become sustainable by focusing exclusively on the core automobile transportation business. Dump autonomous vehicles, dump scooters, dump bikes, dump 3/4s of their full time employees, bring the benefits and bonus packages for the remaining employees online with comparably sized companies, dump their high cost HQ and administrative offices, remove all rider fare subsidies, reduce advertising, 80% of the total fare to drivers they get 20 and they would be profitable.

Frankly I think they should be capped at no more than 10% of the total fare.

In any case driver, and uber/lyft's take should be tied to a percent of the total fare so that if uber and lyft want more they have to increase rider fares which would financially benefit drivers as well, not this one way hit show they've been playing at at driver's expense for far too long now.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Wonkytonk said:


> I agree that their current business model can not, and never could support employee classification of drivers; however, I disagree with your assessment of what's necessary to rectify the issue.
> 
> Uber/Lyft can become sustainable by focusing exclusively on the core automobile transportation business. Dump autonomous vehicles, dump scooters, dump bikes, dump 3/4s of their full time employees, bring the benefits and bonus packages for the remaining employees online with comparably sized companies, dump their high cost HQ and administrative offices, remove all rider fare subsidies, reduce advertising, 80% of the total fare to drivers they get 20 and they would be profitable.
> 
> ...


The model not sustainable as long as income streams from fares. There are other ways to generate income inconsequential to fares hence allow drivers to capture 100 %


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> No. Not if they have any sense they don't. The fact they're trying to "negotiate" a deal to make changes they can already make whenever they like tells you everything you need to know along those lines. What they're saying loud and clear when they do that is that they won't make changes that benefit drivers unless they're forced into making them.


hence the reason why regulators are at the doorstep of these ponzi schemed ride-share companies. they have shown year after year and action after action that they cannot regulate themselves thus now I hope they are regulated in every aspect of their operations. Of course, as we know, their word means nothing and their blatant disregard for current regulations shows the need for constant supervision by the regulators. Imagine if all of society operated under the same unethical, immoral, and illegal rules Uber and Lyft operate under? I lived in the third world (Philippines and Lebanon) where the only laws is there were no laws was the mantra. The US is on a race to the bottom and by letting companies like Uber/Lyft dictate the new way of playing "business" in the US they are forging a path for many other companies to just do as the please without obligations to society or to the rules/laws that govern society.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

No Prisoners said:


> The model not sustainable as long as income streams from fares. There are other ways to generate income inconsequential to fares hence allow drivers to capture 100 %


I agree, if they make no changes to their current business model. If they make the ones I outlined above it would be sustainable through fares. It won't generate the kind of income they want, but, you know, who cares. Drivers don't owe them the fabulous level of wealth they've been extracting from drivers.



nouberipo said:


> hence the reason why regulators are at the doorstep of these ponzi schemed ride-share companies. they have shown year after year and action after action that they cannot regulate themselves thus now I hope they are regulated in every aspect of their operations.


I hope they're forced to sever the autonomous vehicles, the bikes, the scooters, the planes, and automobiles, basically all of the different schemes they've got going into separate companies. Everything but the automobile portion would go bankrupt quickly once the auto portion wasn't stuck financing the rest of their turd offerings.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> All they lose is the subsidized ride, they still get the convenience. They're still ahead. Not really feeling all that badly for them since they're still getting a good deal.


the pax don't necessarily need subsidized rides to keep paying what they are paying. excluding the 20% up to $6 or w/e that uber/lyft offer riders from time to time. that comes out of their pocket if they decide to give that to certain pax to keep them from the competitor.

the only difference that needs to be made to keep this rolling is for them to quit cutting driver pay to subsidize their research and development into automated self driving taxis.

we didn't sign up to pay for their research into automation. if they scrap the automation the numbers work out just fine and the industry continues with the same cost to pax.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Restore 2015 fares.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

WAHN said:


> The NYC situation is not an employee-employer relationship, so not the same thing.
> 
> If it passes in CA, there will be a lot of details to work out.


i was only referring to minimum wage computation....i wasn't referring to ny drivers being employees at all



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Another thing,
> 
> Due to the nature of expenses and what employees are ENTITLED to when using their own vehicle...
> 
> ...


cab companies only take a flat amount for the car and medallion lease each day or week, right ?


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> i was only referring to minimum wage computation....i wasn't referring to ny drivers being employees at all


Doesn't seem to make much sense comparing the two.

Employees aren't going to accept not being reimbursed while waiting for a ping. They're now "on the clock".

As illustrated in RDWRER's post earlier in this thread.. https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...ornia-drivers-contractors.333747/post-5094034


> They use the same bs calculations to determine "minimum wage" based only on periods 2 and 3, all completely ignoring the whole time you're sitting alone in period 1 twiddling your thumbs unable to realistically do *anything *else completely "unpaid".


The minimum wage computation won't be the same as it is in NYC.

As for pay, if U/L are forced to pay minimum wage, what is your opinion on how that would work?

I can't see why the formula wouldn't be pretty simple. $.20/minute + $0.58/mile while the app is on.

It will be interesting to watch it all unfold.


----------



## Just Chillin (Apr 22, 2019)

Hoping they pass the bill, as I believe Uber and Lyft would soon stop operating in California.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Just Chillin said:


> Hoping they pass the bill, as I believe Uber and Lyft would soon stop operating in California.


lol ya like that'll happen


----------



## Just Chillin (Apr 22, 2019)

DriverMark said:


> Or.... U/L can limit driver hours to under 30 as to to avoid them being considered full time employees.
> 
> Granted there might not be a non-compete if drivers are made employees. Will see what happens. And who knows how it would pan out until it happens. Will see and then roll from there. But this is just a side gig for me, I have a very good day job. Those that do do this full time, I don't blame them for fighting for better conditions. And I'll take better and fight as well if the opportunity arises. Even if it helps the full timers more than me.


You can guarantee they will limit


uberdriverfornow said:


> lol ya like that'll happen


The only way they would be profitable if Lyft and Uber drivers become employees is to triple or quadruple the fares and if they did that, Bob's cab service would be back in business.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol get real, minimim wage computation goes strictly by time on trip...for example
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/new-york-uber-lyft-minimum-wage/amp/
> so unless drivers can have different pax for both apps in the car at the same time then you cant be getting minimum wage for both apps at the same time


as usual, you didn't address the question. minimum wage is paid regardless of whether you're providing a ride or sitting in the drive thru at taco hell. uber probably won't pay you minimum wage if there is a possibility you're providing a ride for a lyft passenger. redunkulous. next.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Does ANYBODY driving for Uber or Lyft believe these companies are going to do ANTHING for the drivers without being forced by legislators and the courts? Seriously!? Remember the "180 Days of Summer" last year where Uber was going to do all sorts of things to increase driver incomes and work conditions? What happened to all those great changes? I remember a handful of partial attempts (like 6 Destination uses per day) that disappeared in a few months.I remember when they increased the minimum fare in L.A. to $4.00 and the price per minute. But what happened a few months later? EVERY SINGLE STEP FORWARD was followed by several steps back!
> 
> Uber is now fighting the passage of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which has already passed the Assembly and is being considered by the State Senate. This bill does one thing only; it expands the Dynamex ruling from last year, which puts the burden on companies to prove that their workers should be considered independent contractors instead of employees. If AB5 passes (and it is expected to pass and be signed by the governor), Uber drivers will become employees of Uber and will be entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and ALL benefits normally provided to employees like healthcare, workers comp., reimbursement for work expenses, and others. Uber (and Lyft) drivers are already employees, legally, for purposes of wages and overtime, but the companies are ignoring this and counting on relief from legislators. Uber is ALSO counting on gullible drivers to oppose AB5 because they think it will end their ability to work when they want. AB5 does NO SUCH THING!
> 
> ...


I will never support more government oversight. This has ruined the country and created a society of people who do not take responsibility and assign blame. Now you want to blame UBER for you not making what you want. It is easy to solve your issue....go earn money another way! Ive never heard so much complaining about something that is YOUR CHOICE! I had a sucky minimum wage job once with a nasty boss. Want to know what I did? I FOUND A BETTER JOB! if this is ruining your car, ruining your relationship, costing you more then FIND ANOTHER WAY TO EARN MONEY! You are not a hostage in a communist country forced to drive for UBER.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

EM1 said:


> as usual, you didn't address the question. minimum wage is paid regardless of whether you're providing a ride or sitting in the drive thru at taco hell. uber probably won't pay you minimum wage if there is a possibility you're providing a ride for a lyft passenger. redunkulous. next.


nobody knows how it's going to work yet but they'll find a way to make it work just like nyc did...it's not hard at all


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


 too little too late Uber I hope California approves ab5. and no that does not mean your flexibility will be a eliminated. no one is forcing Uber and lyft to make you work 40 hour weeks if they want to keep the same scheduling they could keep it if they put their mind to it .


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> nobody knows how it's going to work yet but they'll find a way to make it work just like nyc did...it's not hard at all


NYC drivers are still independent contractors.

This company appears to have already figured it out.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...Subsidiary-Hires-Drivers-Employees-California


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> NYC drivers are still independent contractors.
> 
> This company appears to have already figured it out.
> 
> https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...Subsidiary-Hires-Drivers-Employees-California


i'm obviously referring strictly to minimum wage calculations


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

i would love this thread to be merged with the thread about the strikes from pre-ipo.

1 - put the strike thread first, with all the uber troll employees (including the one who's name rhymes with shedempalm) saying don't strike you get less rides or strikes won't do anything!!! over and over... :woot:

2-put up this thread right after. indeed the strikes caught more press than the ipo, and liberal california lawmakers took note and put on their big girl pants! :woot::woot:

3-read from beginning to end and laugh at how scared uber/lyft were to send their trolls to our community to try and threaten us and dissuade us from striking :woot::woot::woot:

4-wonder if there would have even been any strikes, which led them to the situation they are in now, if they hadn't introduced paycuts. then laugh grab a beer and laugh some more. laughter is good for the soul :woot: :woot::woot::woot:


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

No Prisoners said:


> Sir no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you're talking about. You mix apples and oranges. Any attempts by uber to force non-compete will be cause for antitrust, anticompetitive, and long line of state and Federal law suits.
> AB5 would be the least of their worries.


Not if you're an employee. A clause in the employment contract reading something along the lines of "While online as an Uber driver-employee, employee is prohibited from going online with other ridesharing or delivery driver apps" would very likely hold up as they would defend it by claiming that it's necessary to ensure that you aren't rejecting Uber ride/delivery requests while being paid by them.

Edit: it is however likely that if a minimum wage is forced, the need to drive multiple apps will dissipate as it generally is only done by drivers to maximise loaded time with acceptable pax anyway. Though the "acceptable" thing might have to go away as they may try to prohibit you from declining jobs like Lyft has done in NYC.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

dryverjohn said:


> If this doesn't go national, F all of you. Why should CA drivers or NYC drivers be entitled to more than the rest of us?


If they have to give us minimum wage that's all we will get. I make way more than that and I work 75 hours a week...


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Kyanar said:


> Not if you're an employee. A clause in the employment contract reading something along the lines of "While online as an Uber driver-employee, employee is prohibited from going online with other ridesharing or delivery driver apps" would very likely hold up as they would defend it by claiming that it's necessary to ensure that you aren't rejecting Uber ride/delivery requests while being paid by them.
> 
> Edit: it is however likely that if a minimum wage is forced, the need to drive multiple apps will dissipate as it generally is only done by drivers to maximise loaded time with acceptable pax anyway. Though the "acceptable" thing might have to go away as they may try to prohibit you from declining jobs like Lyft has done in NYC.


I understand your point. However, doubt uber lyft willing to be immersed in never ending litigations from drivers and government. Neither company can afford to waste whatever capital they captured from IPO while maintaining their current burn rate. As it is IPO capital won't last 2.5 years and no path to profitability.


----------



## UberSnitch (Jun 17, 2019)

observer said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Uber-Lyft-to-make-wage-concessions-to-keep-13969745.php
> All U/L "concessions" appear to be more smoke and mirrors.


No matter how the game pans out, the drivers will never get a fair deal out of Uber. WHY?

The entire Uber business model is flawed. Uber can only share a certain percentage of the artificially low fees charged to riders. As it stands, Uber is loosing approximately 12% on an average UberX trip. Better than two years ago, but still a negative.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

UberSnitch said:


> No matter how the game pans out, the drivers will never get a fair deal out of Uber. WHY?
> 
> The entire Uber business model is flawed. Uber can only share a certain percentage of the artificially low fees charged to riders. As it stands, Uber is loosing approximately 12% on an average UberX trip. Better than two years ago, but still a negative.


That's what the companies get for selling five dollar hamburgers at $.50 each


----------

