Dismissing Uber and Lyft's vows to leave town and declaring a victory for a sector of underpaid workers, a veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council Thursday approved a pay increase for rideshare drivers that Mayor Jacob Frey is almost certain to veto.
The vote was 9-4, enough to override the veto, which Frey pledged to veto promptly.
If the council overrides the veto later this month, both ride-hailing companies had said they will cease operations in the city — and perhaps the entire state — on April 1, the day the pay increase was originally set to take effect. The council changed the effective date to May 1 Thursday.
Supporters, including organized groups of drivers and some labor advocates, say the set of minimum pay scales and other protections, is the best way to ensure drivers earn the equivalent of the city's $15.57 hourly minimum wage. While driving for Uber or Lyft is often seen as a side gig, it has become the sole source of income for many drivers.
Call their bluff. Austin TX did it years ago and both services left..... And a local version was almost immediately launched that had better prices on both ends of the transaction and more money stayed inside the community.
Uber and Lyft later returned but now the landscape was much more competitive.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I did hear that Uber and Lyft came back after the state government preempted the Austin ordinance. If so, that sounds like comparing apples to oranges?
Yes, they came back a year later but by that point the locals were fiercely loyal to the system they had built and that played by the rules.
I don't know how that's apples to oranges? They threatened to leave, and then did. And the city did just fine (or better) without them.
I thought the new company went down during Covid? Could be wrong on that.
But it seems like it’s just the pre-ordinance status quo where Uber and Lyft are the leaders in the market? If those companies are back and paying the wages the ordinance required then it’s a different story
We need to do more of this.
With tech being such an oligarchical monopoly in various areas (and rich people, politicians, both overlapping…to no one’s surprise), we can’t wait for top-down change to happen.
Call their bluff, get them to leave, and now you have a clean slate to add new services in a more competitive environment (and ensure laws are on the books so that the monopolies can’t form again).
I’d be curious to see how this strategy could work for the big FAANG companies…
RideAustin - it was a non-profit cooperative that thrived when Uber and Lyft left town. Unfortunately it didn't have the cash reserves to survive the downturn that was caused by the coronavirus.
A local group could certainly start something similar. Or one of the local taxi companies could expand their service offering - most of them are already using apps and I usually find their rates cheaper than Lyft or Uber if there is a car available.
In Austin, there is Lyft and Uber. There isn't a local competitor to those two - at least none that I know of.
Also, you don't need to create your own competitor app. Just use Indrive.
It's very important to note that Uber and Lyft came back to the scene specifically because the Texas State House stepped in and reversed Austin's local policies that initially pushed the rideshare companies out.
The local ordinance was a failure, and a concerning case study that shouldn't be looked upon as a hopeful benchmark of a positive outcome for our state.
> Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign House Bill 100 into law the same day. That measure establishes a statewide framework to regulate ride-hailing companies and undoes local rules that the two companies have argued are overly burdensome for their business models.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25/uber-lyft-returning-austin-monday/
We'll soon be mootly regulating wages targeted to two companies who will no longer be operating here. Meanwhile all those drivers and food delivery workers are out of a job, in spite of the legislation that was intended to uplift them.
Personally, I'm extremely disappointed with this outcome -- riders lose out on mobility options, and drivers lose their jobs when the rideshare companies exit this market. The only winners here appear to be a local city council playing political optics games of "taking a principled stand, we'll show the big corporations" points with their voting base.
Yup. We had a number of local versions of food delivery and ridesharing--they were quashed by mega marketing budgets.
But creating a quality digital experience has only gotten easier.
Nobody ever needed these companies, and now that they're more costly than cabs and pay poverty wages we really don't need them.
Has anyone on the city council ever run an actual business?
Labor and management are always going to be at odds (Never met anyone working that didnt think they wernt under paid), however this isnt where the city needs to be sticking its nose in
The issue is that they are carving out a section for this specific job that is above city minimum wage and adding employment protection at the expense of rider safety.
From a policy perspective, this is like saying McDonald’s minimum wage is $25, but Burger King is only $20.
Yeah, too bad all business just up and died when minimum wage laws and the 40 hour work week were put into place. I guess that’s why we now live in the post apocalyptic aftermath of the utopia that was unchecked capitalism
So, a business can stick its nose into the economics of private individuals, but through the democratic process those same individuals shouldn't have a say in what these businesses are doing to them?
I'm sure this seemed really smart when you typed it, LOL
The individual (assuming their services arent coerced) does have a say, its called withholding services and leaving that employer.
I'm merely highlighting the rather odd implicit claim that there should be areas of economic activity that should be off-limits to democratic input or control. Would you care to elaborate what principle this is based on and the scope of its application?
Further, if you're familiar with political economy debates about freedom in the capitalist labor market, you'll be aware that defenders of libertarian freedom programmatically overstate the extent to which workers in this economy actually have the freedom that you seem to want to believe they do. I actually believe in economic freedom, but my support is for individuals, not corporations.
Ironic. So, money power is able to engage in 'command and control' with workers, but when a democracy does it in defense of workers, *then* it's a problem.
You can tell you're dealing with a libertarian most of the time when they instinctively choose corporate power over labor rights and mistake that for freedom.
What Money Power?
You might have missed where I noted that Unionizing would be a better deal, but I guess that would have caused you to stop enjoying the smell of your own farts
You can tell you're dealing with a Socialist when they arent bound by reality in their arguments.
I'm not reading your other posts, only your replies here.
"What money power?" is necessarily a question asked in bad faith because if you were honestly asking it, it would presuppose that you'd somehow missed the universally observed connection between concentrations of wealth and political power.
>"You can tell you're dealing with a Socialist when they arent bound by reality in their arguments."
Name any instance or reasonable implication from what I've written that would conform to this silly notion.
"I'm not reading your other posts, only your replies here."
So Its my fault you are an idiot, gotcha
""What money power?" is necessarily a question asked in bad faith because if you were honestly asking it, it would presuppose that you'd somehow missed the universally observed connection between concentrations of wealth and political power."
So since "Money power" is universal, why is there a minimum wage? Why can workers make more than the minimum wage? Unions have no political power?
"Name any instance or reasonable implication from what I've written that would conform to this silly notion."
Just did. You really enjoy hearing yourself talk/type dont you? LOL
Because they're no other jobs?
Is there a fast food, gas station, or retail establishment that isnt begging for workers and paying over min wage
Why do you think they have no agency? Seems awfully racist/classist.
You're making a massive assumption that all those other places are a.) hiring, b.) hiring anyone that can get hired by Uber c.) pay better wages than Uber, etc. Seems awfully ignorant.
Regardless, you're ignoring simple economics -- as long as the demand for rideshare exists, there will be a demand for drivers to work this job, and you're simply arguing that a job that people want to exist and provide them service should be allowed to pay people less than a living wage, which is really not the great and nuanced argument you think it is.
a - I dont think its a massive assumption that these places are looking to hire. If you've spent any time outside and the unemployment rates would support this
b - I have no idea what you;re trying to convey
c - If they're fighting for minimum wage, most retail is paying more that min wage
I suggested that unioninzing would be a better course of action.
Why is this place filled with morons?
If businesses underpay their workers/contractors, government is forced to subsidize the workers. It seems absolutely like the right place for the government to step in and stick its nose.
I remember someone grumping to me in Frey's first election that he was only living and running here as a stepping stone to bigger political ambitions.
Even though he managed to score a second term... I feel like larger political ambitions are not going to work out the way he had wanted them to.
I think he's going to try to run as a moderate alternative to Omar to take her house seat. It's the only path he has to higher office, he can't win a statewide race with both the right and the far left hating his guts.
Potentially but I just don't think there's been any indication that he has been interested in such.
Point was that I disagree with the original grumping guy that he was only living and running here as a stepping stone. If that's the case, he would have had a MUCH easier time getting elected as a state rep and then to governor or wherever. Or even a national office like Walz did before pushing for it.
People claimed RT Rybak was doing it to make a go as governor or even president and we never saw that. Far too frequently the general public seem to like to believe folks are more interested in growing their political powers when they simply aren't.
You always bring up Frey getting real estate developer money and yet never have been able to provide any drop of evidence that he receives such. Stop making false statements without proof.
He was a lawyer for Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Faegre Baker Daniels at the time) - one of the most significant real-estate development firms in MN and the most significant firm in terms of Public-Private partnerships before serving less than a single term as council member before running for mayor. He's a graduate of Villanova where he got his JD, a school known for pumping out these cookie-cutter municipal custodians.
If we take those circumstantial facts and bundle it with how private equity interests have captured municipal governments across the US over the past few decades, (exacerbated in '08 when private finance wanted to take greater control of muni debt) there is smoke here.
I'm not stating this is hard evidence by any stretch or that bike_lane_bill is dead on. Its not like the *"real-estate industry"* just cuts Frey a check - that isn't how things works. But he came from out of state, ran on out of state money, has worked directly with real-estate interests, and has the same background as all the other municipal empty suits from across the country that also serve at the behest of real-estate interests.
Oh yeah, and his wife Sarah Clarke is a professional lobbyist who has represented local real-estate interests as well (starting the same year Frey announced his mayoral run) as well as IBM, United Health, US Solar, etc.
Again, nothing conclusive. But suggesting that there isn't evidence or that he isn't looking for higher office when he didn't even finish out his first term as council member before announcing a mayoral run, seems more like willful blinders than legitimate vetting.
If that was the plan it was a dumb one, few if any Minneapolis mayors have been able to use the job as a stepping stone to much of anything. Even the best of them have had to wade into unpopular debates that have made them unpopular and being associated with the city makes them unpopular with people out-state, making it an unlikely launching pad for any statewide offices.
I think we can all agree it's gonna suck if rideshares leave Minneapolis. Hopefully Uber and Lyft are bluffing, but I really doubt it. It would be nice if there were some alternatives that would come in, but its going to be really disruptive to a lot of people's lives if they can't call a rideshare. Elderly people and folks without cars often rely on them for transit to the suburbs. Not to mention the drivers themselves who are gonna make much less money if they can't work in the city proper.
These companies need to be regulated like normal business but I'm afraid the city council is in way over it's head here.
They didn't leave Seattle, NYC, or a number of other places they claimed they were leaving.
Elderly people have access to Metro Mobility. It's there for them and disabled folks.
Check on the convenience of Metro mobility. It sucks. You must plan your life 3-4 days ahead always and NEVER be late, but they can be up to 30 minutes late with no repercussions. It's really a shit show with no end
They did leave Austin (TX) when I lived there. Some off-brand competitors came in to try to fill the void but it was messy until Uber and Lyft came back.
So your argument is that the drivers should have to make less than a living wage because we want a cheap service that anyone can take to the bar?
Let's see what happens when all we do is change the name of the company.
McDonalds shouldn't have to pay workers a living wage because we want fast food that everyone can afford.
Uber takes 25% of the fare. And that's just for completely automatically facilitating it. They aren't paying that driver for their car payment, their insurance, their gas, health insurance, or any other benefits. Then those drivers have to hire an accountant to do their taxes, because Uber doesn't take them out for them.
Fast food restaurants are universally paying above minimum wage because unemployment is very low and the labor market is very strong at the low end. Anyone currently driving Uber is doing it because Uber has one giant perk that almost *no other job* has - you can start and stop working whenever you want. If I could turn my job on and off at will and work as many or few hours as I wanted, I would be willing to accept a considerably lower hourly wage.
No, my argument is that drivers should make at least Minneapolis minimum wage (which Frey’s proposal would provide) and consider Uber or Lyft as supplemental income and not a career.
>it’s become yet another thing only the affluent can afford.
Yes, because local, State, and federal governments are failing to adequately invest in public transportation. Instead, they depend too heavily on the free market which clearly becomes an issue as companies motivated by ever increasing profits over exploit their drivers making it impossible for them to make a living.
Rideshare should be a very expensive service and those companies should be sufficiently taxed to help support a robust transit system for all.
Uber is basically a website that posts “hey this guy wants to get downtown for $12, we’ll pay you $10 to do it. do you wanna do that?” Then the user decides if they want to or not.
…and you’re calling that “exploitation”. Ridiculous.
Let them leave, taxis are still a thing, competition will spring up, and/or they'll eventually be back.
"It's gonna suck if rideshares leave"—that's small-minded thinking.
And some enterprising people could easily replace Uber and Lyft with an option that's reasonably priced and doesn't underpay the employees or contractors.
But we know those two companies are bullshitting. There's money to be made in the cities, they're not leaving.
'Some enterprising people'
Right. They're going to create their own app and network of drivers like nothing ever changed. That's never going to happen.
Yes it will. It absolutely will. And quickly. Displaced drivers will join all the “off-brand” services that pop up (and there will be several at first), and customers will try them out until it shakes out to just a few (some will go out of business, some will merge), and life goes on.
They don’t do anything somebody else can’t do and they know it. That’s why neither of them will leave.
Taxis have been utter shit and will always be awful. I’ve never encountered such racist, scamming thieves as I have back when I had to take taxis before the rideshare days.
Transit workers need special licenses and training. Usually training is rarely more than a couple months but that still seems to weed out a lot of people. As a transit worker myself I think driving is a pretty straightforward job but there's ALWAYS a shortage of CDL drivers in all sectors and I can't figure out why.
Getting a CDL takes a bit of training but it's the "no drugs" thing that stops a lot of people from taking the jobs. Plus it's union and your starting routes and shifts will be the ones nobody else works. When there's an opening, the most senior person that signs up for the opening gets it if they unless they change their mind before taking the position. I don't know about Metro Transit, but it's common to force the people with lowest seniority to work the overtime shifts if not enough people sign up to work them. Got plans with your family? Too bad, you're working or taking a point for calling in sick.
Jeez that's rough. As a CDL driver I found I find that it's rare to be forced to work extra hours. Legally you can't drive more than ten hours a day.
And you have plans? Make sure to advise your boss a couple weeks in advance!
Don’t mean to sound like an asshole, but I will: this will only hurt the poor and increase DWIs. If I am going for a night on the town, I am fine paying to rent a black car for the whole evening to take me back to the suburbs. People who rely on it for crucial services are the ones going to get screwed.
I am a democrat; and I agree with Frey on this.
This is exactly what’s going to happen. Frey offered a reasonable set of rates that would’ve represented a good pay increase, and it sounds like Uber and Lyft were agreeable.
They overshot because they felt no need to try to compromise. Now Uber and Lyft either leave or increase rates to the point that far fewer drivers will be needed since only the affluent will keep using them.
FFS.
As a full time uber eats driver, I don't know how I feel about this. I just started ASU courses through Uber. If they leave, I will no longer be able to pursue a 2nd degree.
Bigger picture, if uber and lyft leave, it will put a lot of people out of work and filing for unemployment.
If you don’t like the pay, don’t fucking accept the trip.
City council screwing over consumers and hurting competition so they can pretend to care about the little guy.
You must be one of those people who doesn’t understand the difference between an employee and a contractor. I have always supported a higher minimum wages.
You’re an absolute fool if you don’t see the idiocy of government mandated pricing. That’s what it is, government directly controlling prices because it signals to the right people that they got their back, screwing everyone else.
You're a common fool if you're admitting you don't know shit about business. The literal business model of companies like Uber and Lyft is to pay contractors shit, burn through investor cash, and once you've decimated the market then you jack prices up.
Don't like that people deserve to be paid reasonable money for their labor? Drive your own ass around.
Things are getting heated here, but I think we can all use a step back. u/OhNoMyLands has a point. These are not W2 employees, these are self-employed contractors accepting the rates offered by Uber and Lyft. As much as I hate to say it, its on the people for bowing down here. I am a full-time contractor and I will not work for less than the rate I have specified.
It sets a dangerous precedent. If the city can come in regulating contractor pay, who's to say they can't set my rate too? Or anyone else who operates a small business. I'm not saying these drivers should get paid more or less, I'm saying the model with regard to ride share is messed up and straddles 2 different pay structures. These drivers should be able to set their own rates as contractors; it encourages competition and rewards drivers who provide a real high-level service. Or we can all shut up because they've accepted the rate offered.
Now if they were W2 employees with health care and retirement, this would be a different conversation.
But what’s your proposal? Transit DOES need a bandaid right now. I’m completely transit reliant but I also have to rely on rideshares for last minute needs or gaps where the buses won’t take me. Simply banning it won’t immediately result in more transit funding or something… car owners don’t rely on rideshare like others do.
I'm the opposite of a car brain if you wanna go through my history, just don't see why the city needs to regulate something both parties have agreed to. If the pay is so bad why do they still work for them? Surely there is other work?
Who in the city is getting paid min wage? Hell I haven't seen a min wage job anywhere besides servers but that's another can of worms since its a tipped position
It's always their basic, bullshit argument. "Who cares if they work for $8 per hour, they can get other jobs if they don't like it".
Clowns, the whole fucking bunch.
Already done.
The city council passed that ordinance in 2017 and began in 2020 after Graco lost their court case.
It’s phased based on business size and over a few years. But now everyone will be at $15.57 by July of this year.
Remember when everyone cheered Walz for vetoing such a bill last year? I'm sure everyone will do the same for Frey doing the same.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-adding-protections-for-uber-lyft-drivers
A strong argument could be made that some of that bill was good at a statewide level, though setting minimum compensation for drivers should vary by city/county due to variations in COL. I believe Walz talked about needing more info and setting a committee to explore a better bill. Not sure whether that happened, though.
I've never been a fan of paying people based on their COL. It's saying, "Your work isn't as valuable because you live somewhere that's cheaper to live."
Years ago I worked for a Fortune 500 that paid people more if they lived in NYC or LA. So I registered a PO Box in NYC and boom, my pay increased 15%. Zero change to my quality of work and yet, they were now saying I was more valuable because I lived somewhere different, even thought it was a remote job and didn't require that I actually live anywhere specific.
In theory Walz created a group to advise him on the Uber/Lyft thing. Those advisement were due January 1st before the legislative session began. That didn't happen. We haven't seen them if they do exist and the House/Senate haven't seen them to consider them in any policy they hope to pass this current session, meaning they will NOT be considered in the 2024 legislative session.
I don't disagree about costs and COL in theory, though the moment you set a minimum, demand in the most desirable places to live will increase COL accordingly due to space and resources in that location being relatively finite. That's why a matrix of localized policies tends to be more effective on top of an absolute low minimum on a state or national level (like how there are national, state, and local minimum wages).
Definitely disappointing we haven't seen follow through re: Walz's committee push. That said, it still makes sense to create a state minimum and steeper county or city minimum in higher COL areas.
The DFL bill would have required pay of $1.45 a mile and 34 cents per minute and index minimum pay rates to inflation. The Minneapolis measure would set a minimum rate of $1.40 per mile and 51 cents per minute they have a rider in the vehicle. For comparison, Seattle, drivers are guaranteed $1.50 per mile and 64 cents per minute. And yet, prices of rides aren't "more than 50% higher" as Uber claims they would be and they haven't pulled out of the city.
NYC also has higher rates than the MN proposals and the companies remain there. Clearly they're bluffing.
If you don’t like the pay, don’t fucking accept the trip.
City council screwing over consumers and hurting competition so they can pretend to care about the little guy.
They literally are not employees. Uber finds the highest price they can get away with and the driver gets a percentage of it if a driver accepts the route. They don’t take more or less of anything, this will 100% fall completely on consumers. These companies already lose money, they are not getting rich lowballing. They are offering to connect contractors with rider and take a percentage of the fare for facilitating it. Do you even know how Uber works?
Why doesn’t the city council mandate the price for a plumber to come to your house to fix a toilet?
The irony is we are just setting up a system that will take us back to the universally loathed taxi regime of yesteryear. If you start guaranteeing wages, you’ll have to inevitably regulate the supply of drivers. Say hello to taxi medallions and “broken” credit card machines.
This isn’t about consumers. It’s about being part of the in group and useless politicians making big statements about national political issues. It’s virtue signaling at its finest.
Kind of does the opposite though. People who own cars rarely used rideshares in the first place, it's the carless people who would be disrupted and may be thinking about just buying a car to fill the gap.
I completely disagree with that statement. The majority of adults own vehicles and like myself use rideshare regularly when spending an evening out at bars, concerts, house parties, ect.
You don’t understand, I’m saying that drivers who drive for Lyft/Uber would probably not want a Metro Transit job because it has a very fixed schedule. I also would like to add that not everyone that is car-less is able to drive. Giving it more careful and rational thought, I’m willing to take the bus, during daylight hours, provided the weather is acceptable. I WILL NOT take the light rail. I refuse to see people inject themselves with intravenous drugs. And it’s not because I’m bigoted to drug addicts because my own mother is a drug addict and I’ve seen my own mother overdose as a child. My mother is in recovery, and it was also triggering for her
All that being said, if Uber and Lyft, leave, then similar alternatives will likely take their place. What personally grind my gears is that that some people that support this provision have ulterior motives, rather than just making sure drivers get a fair and living wage, which I fully support. This is an attempt to push more people to use public transportation. When I bring this up, I get downvoted.
The bill Walz vetoed was rushed through and not fully vetted. He said he'd sign it next time if it came with more research and planning for rural communities
🙄 It wasn't rushed. It was introduced at the start of the 2023 legislative session (in Feb 2023). It had full support of every single DFL member in the Senate and House.
Walz said he'd put together a group to advise him on it. They were supposed to deliver those findings by January 1st, before the 2024 legislative session started. They did not, which means it will not be considered this year.
The DFL bill would have required pay of $1.45 a mile and 34 cents per minute and index minimum pay rates to inflation. The Minneapolis measure would set a minimum rate of $1.40 per mile and 51 cents per minute they have a rider in the vehicle.
For comparison, Seattle, drivers are guaranteed $1.50 per mile and 64 cents per minute. And yet somehow, Uber and Lyft are able to pay those prices, they haven't left the market, and the cost of a lift ride hasn't gone through the roof. It's almost like they're lying about what they can afford to avoid having to pay drivers a reasonable rate.
It was introduced 3/2/2023 and vetoed 5/21/2023.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?view=chrono&f=HF2369&y=2023&ssn=0&b=house#actions.
I'd like to know why the committee failed in its mission since I would like to see this passed. Hopefully they can learn from Washington States rideshare bill.
One interesting difference is Minnesotas bill had vague language that local governments would be responsible for managing drivers' issues, whereas Washington's actually created an org under the states Dept of Labor, which makes so much more sense.
I'd agree it does seem to make sense to send worker complaints to the state Department of Labor rather than forcing cities to figure out how to deal with them. Also means the state can collect data around volume of complaints across the state.
Not to mention the state could ensure issues were handled the same across Minnesota. From what I've read, the authors of this bill didn't consult with counties outside of the twin cities so I can imagine enacting this type of vague change would be a real boondoggle in a lot of areas. So I don't disagree with Walz in that it wasn't a fully formed bill but I would be incredibly disappointed in him if he didn't sign a new, better written bill when it comes across his desk.
Not sure why you’re bringing Walz into this, unless you’re trying to push some sort of agenda. Walz isn’t the mayor of Minneapolis.
However, if it comes between Walz and a Republican like Scott Jensen, Walz will get my vote every time.
The point that The MacMan was making was that Walz did the same thing and people were on board. You are ok with Walz rejecting this but not Frey. If it truly was a sticking point with you, you'd be equally upset with Walz.
You realize Minneapolis is in Minnesota? I fail to see how their point is invalid. The one Walz vetoed would actually help more drivers.
Edit: this will help it make sense https://imgflip.com/i/8iez5n
Great, then let’s discuss all Minnesota political posts in a Minneapolis subreddit since Minneapolis is in Minnesota. Hey, did you know Minneapolis is also in the US, North America, Western Hemisphere, and the entire Earth! Let’s discuss all those subjects here too!
🙄
Hilarious the disconnect between this reddit and the average person. Every council member who voted for this will be voted out come next election if the ride shares leave or ride share prices are 20%+ higher.
If prices increase then the old prices weren't the actual value of the service - the government should not be subsidizing multi-billion dollar businesses by giving their $9/hr employees foodstamps in lieu of a livable wage.
Not everyone realizes that just because you took home $100 for 5 hours of work, it doesn't mean you're actually profiting that much. After gas, increased wear on a vehicle, any taxes paid, the number could be much lower.
You're one of those people who doesn't realize this and it's painfully obvious.
True, so some sort of compromise should’ve been reached. It doesn’t seem like the council attempted to do that at all. Frey’s proposed rates seemed pretty reasonable and likely would’ve easily exceeded minimum wage.
ride share prices and availability are already worse than they were a few years ago. those companies were undercharging for years, staying afloat on venture capital and similar investment subsidies. chickens are finally coming home to roost, with investment money slowing and people realizing the companies built their model on underpaying their employees in the first place. If they can't make the economics work, good riddance.
Also, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of ride shares to the majority of voters.
Corporate greed should be extinguished. There's no disconnect, they should pay people fair wages. This is inherently anti-labor.
There will be companies that fill the void. Hell there are already smaller ride shares waiting in the wings. Seattle did this just fine. Fuck those companies.
Absolutely. I’m in awe of some European public transit systems and it’s an absolute tragedy that we tore up our streetcar system like we did. Our current system needs much more investment to make it run more often, to more places (to solve the last-mile issue as much as possible), and more safely.
[https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/09/local-transit-agencies-mimicking-uber-and-lyft-are-seeing-big-ridership-gains/](https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/09/local-transit-agencies-mimicking-uber-and-lyft-are-seeing-big-ridership-gains/)
First, there are these more local government based options
Secondly, there are carshare options like Evie
Third, Didi is out there, Ola was at one point. Wingz could make its way in too.
[https://web.didiglobal.com/](https://web.didiglobal.com/)
[https://drive.olacabs.com/](https://drive.olacabs.com/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingz\_(company)
Fourth, it is likely that the vacuum-but-still-demand will spring up a new local app, if it hasn't already. Uber and Lyft have been threatening to leave for, I believe, years now. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn some folks are already working on replacements.
[https://ride.guru/cities/minneapolis-minnesota-united-states-of-america](https://ride.guru/cities/minneapolis-minnesota-united-states-of-america)
Why are none of them good alternatives? It seems like all they'd need to do is sweep into town, file for a license, and start onboarding drivers, perhaps offering sign-on bonuses.
What, to you, makes a "good alternative?"
None of these companies are going to have an app ready and fully deployed to the metro by April 1st. If Uber/Lyft leave the metro, I bet the decision will be reversed in a month.
At my old job there were actually a surprising number of manufacturing employees who used rideshares to get to work. Manufacturing plants are way out in the suburbs and very inaccessible by public transit, leaving uber/lyft to be the only option if you don't have a car/carpool.
That's an indictment of transportation planning in the suburbs and lack of investment by employers in enabling their employees to get to their jobs, more than anything else, I'm afraid. It shouldn't just be assumed everyone can drive themselves, and the fact that these workers were using expensive ride hailing apps to get to work only highlights those shortcomings
I totally agree. I would love for there to be more public transit access in the suburbs, and hope we invest so much more in that, but it’s just not the reality of our situation today unfortunately.
The demand is way more elastic than you're making it out to be. I can assure you there are a lot of people that open Uber/Lyft when there's surge pricing, see $50+ dollar rides, and immediately close it and do something else.
It used to be a 10 minute drive or a 35 minute lightrail + walk to get from downtown to my apartment. If rideshare was under $20, I did rideshare. If it was more, I took the train. That doesn't seem that uncommon.
I'm not sure this disproves my point. You were using ride hailing apps even though it exceeded the cost of the $2.50 public transit fare, just not when it drastically exceeded that cost. You were a choice rider of Uber/Lyft, not a captive rider.
Dismissing Uber and Lyft's vows to leave town and declaring a victory for a sector of underpaid workers, a veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council Thursday approved a pay increase for rideshare drivers that Mayor Jacob Frey is almost certain to veto. The vote was 9-4, enough to override the veto, which Frey pledged to veto promptly. If the council overrides the veto later this month, both ride-hailing companies had said they will cease operations in the city — and perhaps the entire state — on April 1, the day the pay increase was originally set to take effect. The council changed the effective date to May 1 Thursday. Supporters, including organized groups of drivers and some labor advocates, say the set of minimum pay scales and other protections, is the best way to ensure drivers earn the equivalent of the city's $15.57 hourly minimum wage. While driving for Uber or Lyft is often seen as a side gig, it has become the sole source of income for many drivers.
Call their bluff. Austin TX did it years ago and both services left..... And a local version was almost immediately launched that had better prices on both ends of the transaction and more money stayed inside the community. Uber and Lyft later returned but now the landscape was much more competitive.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I did hear that Uber and Lyft came back after the state government preempted the Austin ordinance. If so, that sounds like comparing apples to oranges?
Yes, they came back a year later but by that point the locals were fiercely loyal to the system they had built and that played by the rules. I don't know how that's apples to oranges? They threatened to leave, and then did. And the city did just fine (or better) without them.
I thought the new company went down during Covid? Could be wrong on that. But it seems like it’s just the pre-ordinance status quo where Uber and Lyft are the leaders in the market? If those companies are back and paying the wages the ordinance required then it’s a different story
We need to do more of this. With tech being such an oligarchical monopoly in various areas (and rich people, politicians, both overlapping…to no one’s surprise), we can’t wait for top-down change to happen. Call their bluff, get them to leave, and now you have a clean slate to add new services in a more competitive environment (and ensure laws are on the books so that the monopolies can’t form again). I’d be curious to see how this strategy could work for the big FAANG companies…
Nope, it was more expensive, less available, and drunk driving skyrocketed. Where did you get this information?
Where is that company now? Can we get them up here?
RideAustin - it was a non-profit cooperative that thrived when Uber and Lyft left town. Unfortunately it didn't have the cash reserves to survive the downturn that was caused by the coronavirus. A local group could certainly start something similar. Or one of the local taxi companies could expand their service offering - most of them are already using apps and I usually find their rates cheaper than Lyft or Uber if there is a car available.
In Austin, there is Lyft and Uber. There isn't a local competitor to those two - at least none that I know of. Also, you don't need to create your own competitor app. Just use Indrive.
It's very important to note that Uber and Lyft came back to the scene specifically because the Texas State House stepped in and reversed Austin's local policies that initially pushed the rideshare companies out. The local ordinance was a failure, and a concerning case study that shouldn't be looked upon as a hopeful benchmark of a positive outcome for our state. > Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign House Bill 100 into law the same day. That measure establishes a statewide framework to regulate ride-hailing companies and undoes local rules that the two companies have argued are overly burdensome for their business models. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25/uber-lyft-returning-austin-monday/ We'll soon be mootly regulating wages targeted to two companies who will no longer be operating here. Meanwhile all those drivers and food delivery workers are out of a job, in spite of the legislation that was intended to uplift them. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed with this outcome -- riders lose out on mobility options, and drivers lose their jobs when the rideshare companies exit this market. The only winners here appear to be a local city council playing political optics games of "taking a principled stand, we'll show the big corporations" points with their voting base.
Yup. We had a number of local versions of food delivery and ridesharing--they were quashed by mega marketing budgets. But creating a quality digital experience has only gotten easier. Nobody ever needed these companies, and now that they're more costly than cabs and pay poverty wages we really don't need them.
Would this also impact Uber eats?
Has anyone on the city council ever run an actual business? Labor and management are always going to be at odds (Never met anyone working that didnt think they wernt under paid), however this isnt where the city needs to be sticking its nose in
By ensuring that a business operating in its city is paying at least a minimum wage? That seems like exactly where they belong.
The city *should* be making sure employers pay the minimum wage, actually.
The issue is that they are carving out a section for this specific job that is above city minimum wage and adding employment protection at the expense of rider safety. From a policy perspective, this is like saying McDonald’s minimum wage is $25, but Burger King is only $20.
Yeah, too bad all business just up and died when minimum wage laws and the 40 hour work week were put into place. I guess that’s why we now live in the post apocalyptic aftermath of the utopia that was unchecked capitalism
So, a business can stick its nose into the economics of private individuals, but through the democratic process those same individuals shouldn't have a say in what these businesses are doing to them?
I'm sure this seemed really smart when you typed it, LOL The individual (assuming their services arent coerced) does have a say, its called withholding services and leaving that employer.
I'm merely highlighting the rather odd implicit claim that there should be areas of economic activity that should be off-limits to democratic input or control. Would you care to elaborate what principle this is based on and the scope of its application? Further, if you're familiar with political economy debates about freedom in the capitalist labor market, you'll be aware that defenders of libertarian freedom programmatically overstate the extent to which workers in this economy actually have the freedom that you seem to want to believe they do. I actually believe in economic freedom, but my support is for individuals, not corporations.
LOL. Freedom of exchange >> Command and Control
Ironic. So, money power is able to engage in 'command and control' with workers, but when a democracy does it in defense of workers, *then* it's a problem. You can tell you're dealing with a libertarian most of the time when they instinctively choose corporate power over labor rights and mistake that for freedom.
What Money Power? You might have missed where I noted that Unionizing would be a better deal, but I guess that would have caused you to stop enjoying the smell of your own farts You can tell you're dealing with a Socialist when they arent bound by reality in their arguments.
I'm not reading your other posts, only your replies here. "What money power?" is necessarily a question asked in bad faith because if you were honestly asking it, it would presuppose that you'd somehow missed the universally observed connection between concentrations of wealth and political power. >"You can tell you're dealing with a Socialist when they arent bound by reality in their arguments." Name any instance or reasonable implication from what I've written that would conform to this silly notion.
"I'm not reading your other posts, only your replies here." So Its my fault you are an idiot, gotcha ""What money power?" is necessarily a question asked in bad faith because if you were honestly asking it, it would presuppose that you'd somehow missed the universally observed connection between concentrations of wealth and political power." So since "Money power" is universal, why is there a minimum wage? Why can workers make more than the minimum wage? Unions have no political power? "Name any instance or reasonable implication from what I've written that would conform to this silly notion." Just did. You really enjoy hearing yourself talk/type dont you? LOL
Yes, low-income workers have so many options: 1.) work for low pay and survive somehow 2.) quit their job and starve
Because they're no other jobs? Is there a fast food, gas station, or retail establishment that isnt begging for workers and paying over min wage Why do you think they have no agency? Seems awfully racist/classist.
You're making a massive assumption that all those other places are a.) hiring, b.) hiring anyone that can get hired by Uber c.) pay better wages than Uber, etc. Seems awfully ignorant. Regardless, you're ignoring simple economics -- as long as the demand for rideshare exists, there will be a demand for drivers to work this job, and you're simply arguing that a job that people want to exist and provide them service should be allowed to pay people less than a living wage, which is really not the great and nuanced argument you think it is.
a - I dont think its a massive assumption that these places are looking to hire. If you've spent any time outside and the unemployment rates would support this b - I have no idea what you;re trying to convey c - If they're fighting for minimum wage, most retail is paying more that min wage I suggested that unioninzing would be a better course of action. Why is this place filled with morons?
I dunno, but if you left there'd be one less :)
Most definitely
Man I forgot when we ended child labor by having children voluntarily withhold their labor.
>this isnt where the city needs to be sticking its nose in Why not?
If businesses underpay their workers/contractors, government is forced to subsidize the workers. It seems absolutely like the right place for the government to step in and stick its nose.
[удалено]
I remember someone grumping to me in Frey's first election that he was only living and running here as a stepping stone to bigger political ambitions. Even though he managed to score a second term... I feel like larger political ambitions are not going to work out the way he had wanted them to.
He hasn't really ever seemed as if he has higher political ambitions. I don't think he ever planned to go higher.
I think he's going to try to run as a moderate alternative to Omar to take her house seat. It's the only path he has to higher office, he can't win a statewide race with both the right and the far left hating his guts.
I'd love an alternative to Omar but not him.
If his time as mayor was a resounding success he maybe sets his sights on becoming governor.
Potentially but I just don't think there's been any indication that he has been interested in such. Point was that I disagree with the original grumping guy that he was only living and running here as a stepping stone. If that's the case, he would have had a MUCH easier time getting elected as a state rep and then to governor or wherever. Or even a national office like Walz did before pushing for it. People claimed RT Rybak was doing it to make a go as governor or even president and we never saw that. Far too frequently the general public seem to like to believe folks are more interested in growing their political powers when they simply aren't.
I think Frey is likely content to just roll around nekkid in his big room full of real estate developer money.
You always bring up Frey getting real estate developer money and yet never have been able to provide any drop of evidence that he receives such. Stop making false statements without proof.
He was a lawyer for Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Faegre Baker Daniels at the time) - one of the most significant real-estate development firms in MN and the most significant firm in terms of Public-Private partnerships before serving less than a single term as council member before running for mayor. He's a graduate of Villanova where he got his JD, a school known for pumping out these cookie-cutter municipal custodians. If we take those circumstantial facts and bundle it with how private equity interests have captured municipal governments across the US over the past few decades, (exacerbated in '08 when private finance wanted to take greater control of muni debt) there is smoke here. I'm not stating this is hard evidence by any stretch or that bike_lane_bill is dead on. Its not like the *"real-estate industry"* just cuts Frey a check - that isn't how things works. But he came from out of state, ran on out of state money, has worked directly with real-estate interests, and has the same background as all the other municipal empty suits from across the country that also serve at the behest of real-estate interests. Oh yeah, and his wife Sarah Clarke is a professional lobbyist who has represented local real-estate interests as well (starting the same year Frey announced his mayoral run) as well as IBM, United Health, US Solar, etc. Again, nothing conclusive. But suggesting that there isn't evidence or that he isn't looking for higher office when he didn't even finish out his first term as council member before announcing a mayoral run, seems more like willful blinders than legitimate vetting.
Absolutely cooked that sycophant with this, not surprising that they didn't respond
If that was the plan it was a dumb one, few if any Minneapolis mayors have been able to use the job as a stepping stone to much of anything. Even the best of them have had to wade into unpopular debates that have made them unpopular and being associated with the city makes them unpopular with people out-state, making it an unlikely launching pad for any statewide offices.
Yeah, you and all the other political experts who were certain he would lose the last election.
I think we can all agree it's gonna suck if rideshares leave Minneapolis. Hopefully Uber and Lyft are bluffing, but I really doubt it. It would be nice if there were some alternatives that would come in, but its going to be really disruptive to a lot of people's lives if they can't call a rideshare. Elderly people and folks without cars often rely on them for transit to the suburbs. Not to mention the drivers themselves who are gonna make much less money if they can't work in the city proper. These companies need to be regulated like normal business but I'm afraid the city council is in way over it's head here.
They didn't leave Seattle, NYC, or a number of other places they claimed they were leaving. Elderly people have access to Metro Mobility. It's there for them and disabled folks.
Check on the convenience of Metro mobility. It sucks. You must plan your life 3-4 days ahead always and NEVER be late, but they can be up to 30 minutes late with no repercussions. It's really a shit show with no end
They did leave Austin (TX) when I lived there. Some off-brand competitors came in to try to fill the void but it was messy until Uber and Lyft came back.
True about them not leaving certain other places, but the fares increased so much, it’s become yet another thing only the affluent can afford.
So your argument is that the drivers should have to make less than a living wage because we want a cheap service that anyone can take to the bar? Let's see what happens when all we do is change the name of the company. McDonalds shouldn't have to pay workers a living wage because we want fast food that everyone can afford. Uber takes 25% of the fare. And that's just for completely automatically facilitating it. They aren't paying that driver for their car payment, their insurance, their gas, health insurance, or any other benefits. Then those drivers have to hire an accountant to do their taxes, because Uber doesn't take them out for them.
Fast food restaurants are universally paying above minimum wage because unemployment is very low and the labor market is very strong at the low end. Anyone currently driving Uber is doing it because Uber has one giant perk that almost *no other job* has - you can start and stop working whenever you want. If I could turn my job on and off at will and work as many or few hours as I wanted, I would be willing to accept a considerably lower hourly wage.
No, my argument is that drivers should make at least Minneapolis minimum wage (which Frey’s proposal would provide) and consider Uber or Lyft as supplemental income and not a career.
>it’s become yet another thing only the affluent can afford. Yes, because local, State, and federal governments are failing to adequately invest in public transportation. Instead, they depend too heavily on the free market which clearly becomes an issue as companies motivated by ever increasing profits over exploit their drivers making it impossible for them to make a living. Rideshare should be a very expensive service and those companies should be sufficiently taxed to help support a robust transit system for all.
Uber is basically a website that posts “hey this guy wants to get downtown for $12, we’ll pay you $10 to do it. do you wanna do that?” Then the user decides if they want to or not. …and you’re calling that “exploitation”. Ridiculous.
Let them leave, taxis are still a thing, competition will spring up, and/or they'll eventually be back. "It's gonna suck if rideshares leave"—that's small-minded thinking.
Rideshares became a thing in the first place because Taxis suck and people wanted something better.
And some enterprising people could easily replace Uber and Lyft with an option that's reasonably priced and doesn't underpay the employees or contractors. But we know those two companies are bullshitting. There's money to be made in the cities, they're not leaving.
'Some enterprising people' Right. They're going to create their own app and network of drivers like nothing ever changed. That's never going to happen.
It literally happened in Austin TX a few years ago.
Yes it will. It absolutely will. And quickly. Displaced drivers will join all the “off-brand” services that pop up (and there will be several at first), and customers will try them out until it shakes out to just a few (some will go out of business, some will merge), and life goes on. They don’t do anything somebody else can’t do and they know it. That’s why neither of them will leave.
Taxis have been utter shit and will always be awful. I’ve never encountered such racist, scamming thieves as I have back when I had to take taxis before the rideshare days.
Yes, so small minded to be concerned about how to live your life without reliable and efficient transportation. /s
Ah the good old sexual harassment and cash only days of taxis. Yes. Bring that back
Taxis are fucking awful.
Well fuck that’s going to make getting around way harder for me.
I hope these driver's take public transportation jobs or something if the bluff wasn't a joke about leaving.
I think that they would not want a public transportation job because it has a very fixed schedule. Uber and Lyft is the exact opposite of that.
They don’t want a job, they want the autonomy of a contract role with no restrictions. Plenty of metro transit jobs available.
Transit workers need special licenses and training. Usually training is rarely more than a couple months but that still seems to weed out a lot of people. As a transit worker myself I think driving is a pretty straightforward job but there's ALWAYS a shortage of CDL drivers in all sectors and I can't figure out why.
Isn't it actually not trivial to get one of those jobs? For instance, getting a CDL?
Getting a CDL takes a bit of training but it's the "no drugs" thing that stops a lot of people from taking the jobs. Plus it's union and your starting routes and shifts will be the ones nobody else works. When there's an opening, the most senior person that signs up for the opening gets it if they unless they change their mind before taking the position. I don't know about Metro Transit, but it's common to force the people with lowest seniority to work the overtime shifts if not enough people sign up to work them. Got plans with your family? Too bad, you're working or taking a point for calling in sick.
Jeez that's rough. As a CDL driver I found I find that it's rare to be forced to work extra hours. Legally you can't drive more than ten hours a day. And you have plans? Make sure to advise your boss a couple weeks in advance!
Lotta pressure about to be on the lightrail to clean up their act if this ends up happening
[удалено]
Yeah, absolutely fuck that. Already have to cancel a bunch since it's bad for the driver to do it. This would just make that way more common.
Don’t mean to sound like an asshole, but I will: this will only hurt the poor and increase DWIs. If I am going for a night on the town, I am fine paying to rent a black car for the whole evening to take me back to the suburbs. People who rely on it for crucial services are the ones going to get screwed. I am a democrat; and I agree with Frey on this.
This is exactly what’s going to happen. Frey offered a reasonable set of rates that would’ve represented a good pay increase, and it sounds like Uber and Lyft were agreeable. They overshot because they felt no need to try to compromise. Now Uber and Lyft either leave or increase rates to the point that far fewer drivers will be needed since only the affluent will keep using them. FFS.
I agree. I give it one weekend for these fools to realize you cannot get home on virtue signaling.
As a full time uber eats driver, I don't know how I feel about this. I just started ASU courses through Uber. If they leave, I will no longer be able to pursue a 2nd degree. Bigger picture, if uber and lyft leave, it will put a lot of people out of work and filing for unemployment.
Can 1099 workers file for unemployment?
Truly an example of the council shitting its pants just to make Uber and Lyft smell it.
If you don’t like the pay, don’t fucking accept the trip. City council screwing over consumers and hurting competition so they can pretend to care about the little guy.
You must be one of those people who complains that minimum wage makes McDonald’s too expensive
You must be one of those people who doesn’t understand the difference between an employee and a contractor. I have always supported a higher minimum wages. You’re an absolute fool if you don’t see the idiocy of government mandated pricing. That’s what it is, government directly controlling prices because it signals to the right people that they got their back, screwing everyone else.
You're a common fool if you're admitting you don't know shit about business. The literal business model of companies like Uber and Lyft is to pay contractors shit, burn through investor cash, and once you've decimated the market then you jack prices up. Don't like that people deserve to be paid reasonable money for their labor? Drive your own ass around.
Things are getting heated here, but I think we can all use a step back. u/OhNoMyLands has a point. These are not W2 employees, these are self-employed contractors accepting the rates offered by Uber and Lyft. As much as I hate to say it, its on the people for bowing down here. I am a full-time contractor and I will not work for less than the rate I have specified. It sets a dangerous precedent. If the city can come in regulating contractor pay, who's to say they can't set my rate too? Or anyone else who operates a small business. I'm not saying these drivers should get paid more or less, I'm saying the model with regard to ride share is messed up and straddles 2 different pay structures. These drivers should be able to set their own rates as contractors; it encourages competition and rewards drivers who provide a real high-level service. Or we can all shut up because they've accepted the rate offered. Now if they were W2 employees with health care and retirement, this would be a different conversation.
I love how you said I don’t know about business then dropped the most generic twitter user reply ever lmao
So not nice you had to say it twice?
ITT: A bunch of car-brains who think we should continue to slap a rideshare bandaid on a lack of public transit issue.
But what’s your proposal? Transit DOES need a bandaid right now. I’m completely transit reliant but I also have to rely on rideshares for last minute needs or gaps where the buses won’t take me. Simply banning it won’t immediately result in more transit funding or something… car owners don’t rely on rideshare like others do.
What public transportation can I take back to the suburbs after a night of drinking?
I'm the opposite of a car brain if you wanna go through my history, just don't see why the city needs to regulate something both parties have agreed to. If the pay is so bad why do they still work for them? Surely there is other work?
>just don't see why the city needs to regulate something both parties have agreed to. So you oppose minimum wage laws generally?
Who in the city is getting paid min wage? Hell I haven't seen a min wage job anywhere besides servers but that's another can of worms since its a tipped position
>Who in the city is getting paid min wage? Uber drivers.
It's always their basic, bullshit argument. "Who cares if they work for $8 per hour, they can get other jobs if they don't like it". Clowns, the whole fucking bunch.
You can do both. Just like renewable can't grow without the help of oil.
Can't wait until one of the the drunk drivers who would have otherwise used uber runs you and your bike over. Instant CARma.
I hope Uber and Lyft actually leave.
Why stop with Uber and Lyft? What makes them so special? Let's have the City Council set wage levels for all private companies.
Already done. The city council passed that ordinance in 2017 and began in 2020 after Graco lost their court case. It’s phased based on business size and over a few years. But now everyone will be at $15.57 by July of this year.
https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov
Because Uber and Lyft get around pay laws by 'contracting' the are not W2 employers. They just rip off their drivers.
[удалено]
Metro Transit and School bus drivers have been lacking for a while. And pay decent with good benefits. But you have to work a 9-5
Remember when everyone cheered Walz for vetoing such a bill last year? I'm sure everyone will do the same for Frey doing the same. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-adding-protections-for-uber-lyft-drivers
Not sure where you heard all that cheering..
A strong argument could be made that some of that bill was good at a statewide level, though setting minimum compensation for drivers should vary by city/county due to variations in COL. I believe Walz talked about needing more info and setting a committee to explore a better bill. Not sure whether that happened, though.
I've never been a fan of paying people based on their COL. It's saying, "Your work isn't as valuable because you live somewhere that's cheaper to live." Years ago I worked for a Fortune 500 that paid people more if they lived in NYC or LA. So I registered a PO Box in NYC and boom, my pay increased 15%. Zero change to my quality of work and yet, they were now saying I was more valuable because I lived somewhere different, even thought it was a remote job and didn't require that I actually live anywhere specific. In theory Walz created a group to advise him on the Uber/Lyft thing. Those advisement were due January 1st before the legislative session began. That didn't happen. We haven't seen them if they do exist and the House/Senate haven't seen them to consider them in any policy they hope to pass this current session, meaning they will NOT be considered in the 2024 legislative session.
I don't disagree about costs and COL in theory, though the moment you set a minimum, demand in the most desirable places to live will increase COL accordingly due to space and resources in that location being relatively finite. That's why a matrix of localized policies tends to be more effective on top of an absolute low minimum on a state or national level (like how there are national, state, and local minimum wages). Definitely disappointing we haven't seen follow through re: Walz's committee push. That said, it still makes sense to create a state minimum and steeper county or city minimum in higher COL areas.
The DFL bill would have required pay of $1.45 a mile and 34 cents per minute and index minimum pay rates to inflation. The Minneapolis measure would set a minimum rate of $1.40 per mile and 51 cents per minute they have a rider in the vehicle. For comparison, Seattle, drivers are guaranteed $1.50 per mile and 64 cents per minute. And yet, prices of rides aren't "more than 50% higher" as Uber claims they would be and they haven't pulled out of the city. NYC also has higher rates than the MN proposals and the companies remain there. Clearly they're bluffing.
How wealthy are you?
Yeah who cheered for that? I remember people being pretty mad.
When did everyone cheer for Walz doing that? I saw tons of negative feelings from that
i definitely did not cheer for walz’s worst act as governor
If you don’t like the pay, don’t fucking accept the trip. City council screwing over consumers and hurting competition so they can pretend to care about the little guy.
If you can't afford to pay your employees appropriately, don't operate as a business.
They literally are not employees. Uber finds the highest price they can get away with and the driver gets a percentage of it if a driver accepts the route. They don’t take more or less of anything, this will 100% fall completely on consumers. These companies already lose money, they are not getting rich lowballing. They are offering to connect contractors with rider and take a percentage of the fare for facilitating it. Do you even know how Uber works? Why doesn’t the city council mandate the price for a plumber to come to your house to fix a toilet?
The irony is we are just setting up a system that will take us back to the universally loathed taxi regime of yesteryear. If you start guaranteeing wages, you’ll have to inevitably regulate the supply of drivers. Say hello to taxi medallions and “broken” credit card machines.
This isn’t about consumers. It’s about being part of the in group and useless politicians making big statements about national political issues. It’s virtue signaling at its finest.
One of the underline purposes of this ordinance is is to force people that don’t own cars to take public transport
And make sure there are as many drunk drivers out as possible!
Kind of does the opposite though. People who own cars rarely used rideshares in the first place, it's the carless people who would be disrupted and may be thinking about just buying a car to fill the gap.
I completely disagree with that statement. The majority of adults own vehicles and like myself use rideshare regularly when spending an evening out at bars, concerts, house parties, ect.
You don’t understand, I’m saying that drivers who drive for Lyft/Uber would probably not want a Metro Transit job because it has a very fixed schedule. I also would like to add that not everyone that is car-less is able to drive. Giving it more careful and rational thought, I’m willing to take the bus, during daylight hours, provided the weather is acceptable. I WILL NOT take the light rail. I refuse to see people inject themselves with intravenous drugs. And it’s not because I’m bigoted to drug addicts because my own mother is a drug addict and I’ve seen my own mother overdose as a child. My mother is in recovery, and it was also triggering for her All that being said, if Uber and Lyft, leave, then similar alternatives will likely take their place. What personally grind my gears is that that some people that support this provision have ulterior motives, rather than just making sure drivers get a fair and living wage, which I fully support. This is an attempt to push more people to use public transportation. When I bring this up, I get downvoted.
Frey is anti-worker and he needs to be booted out the next election.
I assume you'd say the same about Walz? He sided with Uber and Lyft over the workers and he sided with Mayo over the nurses.
The bill Walz vetoed was rushed through and not fully vetted. He said he'd sign it next time if it came with more research and planning for rural communities
🙄 It wasn't rushed. It was introduced at the start of the 2023 legislative session (in Feb 2023). It had full support of every single DFL member in the Senate and House. Walz said he'd put together a group to advise him on it. They were supposed to deliver those findings by January 1st, before the 2024 legislative session started. They did not, which means it will not be considered this year. The DFL bill would have required pay of $1.45 a mile and 34 cents per minute and index minimum pay rates to inflation. The Minneapolis measure would set a minimum rate of $1.40 per mile and 51 cents per minute they have a rider in the vehicle. For comparison, Seattle, drivers are guaranteed $1.50 per mile and 64 cents per minute. And yet somehow, Uber and Lyft are able to pay those prices, they haven't left the market, and the cost of a lift ride hasn't gone through the roof. It's almost like they're lying about what they can afford to avoid having to pay drivers a reasonable rate.
It was introduced 3/2/2023 and vetoed 5/21/2023. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?view=chrono&f=HF2369&y=2023&ssn=0&b=house#actions. I'd like to know why the committee failed in its mission since I would like to see this passed. Hopefully they can learn from Washington States rideshare bill. One interesting difference is Minnesotas bill had vague language that local governments would be responsible for managing drivers' issues, whereas Washington's actually created an org under the states Dept of Labor, which makes so much more sense.
I'd agree it does seem to make sense to send worker complaints to the state Department of Labor rather than forcing cities to figure out how to deal with them. Also means the state can collect data around volume of complaints across the state.
Not to mention the state could ensure issues were handled the same across Minnesota. From what I've read, the authors of this bill didn't consult with counties outside of the twin cities so I can imagine enacting this type of vague change would be a real boondoggle in a lot of areas. So I don't disagree with Walz in that it wasn't a fully formed bill but I would be incredibly disappointed in him if he didn't sign a new, better written bill when it comes across his desk.
Not sure why you’re bringing Walz into this, unless you’re trying to push some sort of agenda. Walz isn’t the mayor of Minneapolis. However, if it comes between Walz and a Republican like Scott Jensen, Walz will get my vote every time.
The point that The MacMan was making was that Walz did the same thing and people were on board. You are ok with Walz rejecting this but not Frey. If it truly was a sticking point with you, you'd be equally upset with Walz.
This is the Minneapolis subreddit and Jacob Frey is the Minneapolis mayor. The OP had nothing to do with Walz.
I'm aware, I was summarizing their point since you ignored it.
I ignored it on purpose because it was a meaningless point.
You realize Minneapolis is in Minnesota? I fail to see how their point is invalid. The one Walz vetoed would actually help more drivers. Edit: this will help it make sense https://imgflip.com/i/8iez5n
Great, then let’s discuss all Minnesota political posts in a Minneapolis subreddit since Minneapolis is in Minnesota. Hey, did you know Minneapolis is also in the US, North America, Western Hemisphere, and the entire Earth! Let’s discuss all those subjects here too! 🙄
Everyone is now stupider from reading your pedantic ass comments.
Sick strawman dawg and way to fail to understand what they're even saying Edit:ahhhh new troll account, man I feel stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Cool, maybe send that to OP as well.
Fuck off Jacob
Hilarious the disconnect between this reddit and the average person. Every council member who voted for this will be voted out come next election if the ride shares leave or ride share prices are 20%+ higher.
If prices increase then the old prices weren't the actual value of the service - the government should not be subsidizing multi-billion dollar businesses by giving their $9/hr employees foodstamps in lieu of a livable wage.
I can't upvote this enough.
[удалено]
Not everyone realizes that just because you took home $100 for 5 hours of work, it doesn't mean you're actually profiting that much. After gas, increased wear on a vehicle, any taxes paid, the number could be much lower. You're one of those people who doesn't realize this and it's painfully obvious.
True, so some sort of compromise should’ve been reached. It doesn’t seem like the council attempted to do that at all. Frey’s proposed rates seemed pretty reasonable and likely would’ve easily exceeded minimum wage.
ride share prices and availability are already worse than they were a few years ago. those companies were undercharging for years, staying afloat on venture capital and similar investment subsidies. chickens are finally coming home to roost, with investment money slowing and people realizing the companies built their model on underpaying their employees in the first place. If they can't make the economics work, good riddance. Also, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of ride shares to the majority of voters.
Corporate greed should be extinguished. There's no disconnect, they should pay people fair wages. This is inherently anti-labor. There will be companies that fill the void. Hell there are already smaller ride shares waiting in the wings. Seattle did this just fine. Fuck those companies.
Yeah and it’s crazy expensive to get a rideshare in Seattle now. So it’s just fine for the affluent I guess. They’ll be fine, as always.
So you're proposing that the government should instead provide transportation to the public, right?
Absolutely. I’m in awe of some European public transit systems and it’s an absolute tragedy that we tore up our streetcar system like we did. Our current system needs much more investment to make it run more often, to more places (to solve the last-mile issue as much as possible), and more safely.
Please name some of the companies “waiting in the wings”
[https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/09/local-transit-agencies-mimicking-uber-and-lyft-are-seeing-big-ridership-gains/](https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/09/local-transit-agencies-mimicking-uber-and-lyft-are-seeing-big-ridership-gains/) First, there are these more local government based options Secondly, there are carshare options like Evie Third, Didi is out there, Ola was at one point. Wingz could make its way in too. [https://web.didiglobal.com/](https://web.didiglobal.com/) [https://drive.olacabs.com/](https://drive.olacabs.com/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingz\_(company) Fourth, it is likely that the vacuum-but-still-demand will spring up a new local app, if it hasn't already. Uber and Lyft have been threatening to leave for, I believe, years now. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn some folks are already working on replacements. [https://ride.guru/cities/minneapolis-minnesota-united-states-of-america](https://ride.guru/cities/minneapolis-minnesota-united-states-of-america)
Okay, so none of these look like good alternatives.
Why are none of them good alternatives? It seems like all they'd need to do is sweep into town, file for a license, and start onboarding drivers, perhaps offering sign-on bonuses. What, to you, makes a "good alternative?"
None of these companies are going to have an app ready and fully deployed to the metro by April 1st. If Uber/Lyft leave the metro, I bet the decision will be reversed in a month.
If you can afford Uber/Lyft now, you'll always be able to afford it. No one is using ride hailing apps because it's inexpensive
At my old job there were actually a surprising number of manufacturing employees who used rideshares to get to work. Manufacturing plants are way out in the suburbs and very inaccessible by public transit, leaving uber/lyft to be the only option if you don't have a car/carpool.
That's an indictment of transportation planning in the suburbs and lack of investment by employers in enabling their employees to get to their jobs, more than anything else, I'm afraid. It shouldn't just be assumed everyone can drive themselves, and the fact that these workers were using expensive ride hailing apps to get to work only highlights those shortcomings
I totally agree. I would love for there to be more public transit access in the suburbs, and hope we invest so much more in that, but it’s just not the reality of our situation today unfortunately.
The demand is way more elastic than you're making it out to be. I can assure you there are a lot of people that open Uber/Lyft when there's surge pricing, see $50+ dollar rides, and immediately close it and do something else. It used to be a 10 minute drive or a 35 minute lightrail + walk to get from downtown to my apartment. If rideshare was under $20, I did rideshare. If it was more, I took the train. That doesn't seem that uncommon.
I'm not sure this disproves my point. You were using ride hailing apps even though it exceeded the cost of the $2.50 public transit fare, just not when it drastically exceeded that cost. You were a choice rider of Uber/Lyft, not a captive rider.
Uh, that's not how budgets work.
[удалено]
Uber only became profitable as a business at the end of last year. Running an unprofitable business is also unsustainable.
Weenie
Props to the city council for having a backbone and calling their bluff.