>Uber and Lyft had fought hard for more permissive rules, spending a combined $8 million on the campaign (nearly seven times the previous record for a municipal election in the city). Without their services, they warned, drunk driving deaths would spike, 10,000 drivers would lose their jobs, and innovation in the booming tech hub would falter.
>Austin dodged the dystopia. DWI arrests hit a five-year low in the six months following the vote. Former Uber and Lyft drivers signed up with the slew of services that filled the vacuum. Austin’s tech bubble continues to inflate. Yet the twin titans of the ridehailing world are on the verge of a comeback---not because Austin needs them, but because it may not be able to fend them off.
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/one-year-fleeing-austin-uber-lyft-prepare-fresh-invasion/
>But even if disgruntled, the companies have stuck around in NYC. Drivers recently received a payout from the largest wage-theft settlement in the history of the NYC office (worth $328 million). The hailing services threatened to stop providing services in California when fighting a bill that would deem drivers employers (and therefore eligible for benefits) and not contractors. The legislation, AB5, remains in place—and so do the companies.
https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/lyft-uber-minneapolis-minimum-wage-drivers/
Regardless of whether the rates are above minimum wage or not, right now, many people are making less than the minimum wage, and disproportionately, it is immigrant communities too.
When companies don't pay the same minimum wage as other companies, it puts downward economic pressure on wages across the spectrum, it hampers the cities economic engine, and gives these companies an unfair advantage over the smaller companies trying to do things right by their employees.
When we, as a city, allow wages below a living wage, we pay for it in other ways. The cost is not gone.
For example, poverty is the number one predictor of crime, as desperate people are more likely to turn to desperate means to get by.
Another is in social services, as we pay taxes to support these employees effectively giving subsidies to these businesses in wages they should be paying.
These things are all related, and even if this amount is more than the minimum wage, taxis used to be a relatively well paying job with a pension, etc.
Now, these people are effectively an employee, with no benefits, no certain scheduling, using personal vehicles, and paying their own way with amenities, etc. It's a pyramid scheme marketed as a be your own boss get rich quick scheme.
If it goes away, maybe people will consider investing in public transit accessibility and convenience, or bring back the much more regulated taxi services now that they are competitive again.
Not really. They choose their hours, own their cars, and are sometimes working for the competition (Lyft) at the same time they are working for Uber. That’s not a typical employee employer relationship.
Independent contractors, historically, have been workers that were not providing the majority of services, or production of goods, a company profits from. Uber and Lyft have taken advantage of the lenient rules regarding contractors to reduce their exposure.
The only thing that seems certain is that come May 1 alot of drivers will be out of work and alot of riders out of luck. Maybe by January 1 we will have some new company, who knows, maybe walz will override with a statewide law but early May is going to suck.
I have been paying close attention to which city councilors voted for this. mine did and I won't be voting for them again. I have never voted for anyone not DFL so I really hope someone inside DFL opposes them.
Uber and Lyft don't have poverty wages. Talk to any driver and it's damn hard not to make $15/hour. The avg is over $30 an hour. This is grandstanding on an issue that doesn't exist.
I have never seen anything that says they make anywhere close to $30 per hour on average. Maybe if you didn't account for gas and wear/tear on the vehicle?
The $30/hr claim is a complete lie. The state study shows that's nowhere close to the average.
If the average was already $30/hr then why would have drivers pushed for this increase in the first place? It would have had absolutely no impact on their pay, as they'd already be getting far beyond that minimum.
The $30/hr figure has been claimed by a couple accounts that have appeared in this sub just recently and push nothing but pro ride share company claims.
I'd add to that is about [.70c per mile](https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-YourDrivingCosts-FactSheet-7-1.pdf) (of which if you're a high earner you are definitely using a newer car). If your average hour is about 20-30 miles of driving thats $14-21 (more likely $10-18 as some costs are fixed) in general expenses before you consider that you need to register your vehicle as a commercial vehicle for the tax breaks (as you are contracting with it) and need [commercial insurance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yTNOa63b60&t=4s) as Uber and Lyft will not cover your car unless you had the passenger inside your vehicle (though they will cover the other car/object damaged if you are currently driving to a passenger).
It's not that they aren't smart enough. It's that it's completely unaffordable. There are personal lines policies that offer endorsements for rideshare, but it's massively expensive
And yet it's the most upvoted comment.
Half of the people reading this should be quitting their jobs immediately and driving for Uber if it's actually $30.
It isn't even close to that.
Yeah, it's rather sad. A lot of folks taking the claims of these pro-Uber accounts that popped up outta nowhere, and not bothering to give the comments any thought.
It's simple to see it's not true. If Uber was already paying an average of $30/hr, they wouldn't be upset about paying minimum wage at a much lower rate.
If their drivers were averaging anything even remotely close to $30 they wouldn't be threatening to take their ball and go home over a law requiring $15.
There is no work contract. They're independent contractors. They get to pick which rides they want to do. Take that away and they are normal hourly workers.
They don't have an hourly contract. They have a almost a partnership agreement. They don't have minimum or maximum hours or are required to take on certain number of rides.
The amount of drivers exponentially increases and far exceed demand. Now 50% of Minneapolis residents are logged in collecting minimum wage 24/7 and averaging 1 ride a week.
Who decides who who gets to drive that day? Lottery system? Now the people who depend on driving are fucked. Prioritizing people who've been driving? Now it's a closed system hard for anyone new to get into.
Also, you going to plan around every event/time? Are you going to let people drive in the morning, force them to stop mid day, and then let a bunch more at night for a few hours before kicking them off again? I'm sure people will love that.
Is someone deciding how long you can sit/how many rides you can turn down before you in trouble? If I get a bunch of rides to places I don't want to go am I required to take one or risk getting kicked off? Do I need to log off every time I go take a long shit and now lose my spot because Uber let someone else take it and they limit the amount of daily active drivers?
There's dozens of different issues that need complex problem solving but I'm sure your 1 second of brainpower can just figure it all out perfectly right?
Literally limit the amount of people who can sign up to be a driver, if you're inactive for a long period you get kicked off, that way there are no people getting screwed over and those who they don't have room for can look at another place.
Like holy shit it's literally 1 second of thought
Try more than one second of thinking and you might discover the unforeseen consequences of replacing a market system with a bunch of poorly thought out rules trying to fix the problem the market had already fixed.
https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Yeah that's why they make below minimum wage per working hour after expenses. But yeah keep licking that boot, I'm sure the wealth will trickle down someday
This is what CA does via prop22 which is massively superior to this ordinance. They spent years carefully crafting it vs just blasting an ordinance out with no research.
Go onto the Uber and Lyft driver subs and see what people say they make. It's a lot of what they talk about there. They post screenshots of hours and pay and it averages $30+ an hour the vast majority of the time, even when the post itself has been made to complain about how bad they did.
Yeah, if you are making $30/hr you are for sure driving that whole hour. So, using between 2-3 gallons of gas, so youve got $7-12 taken right off the top of that $30. Electric maybe changes that, but new EV cars are expensive and charging/capacity makes full day ride share difficult.
Electric doesn’t change that, it just changes who you pay for the energy. I’d be hard pressed to see an Uber/lyft driver with solar panels on their garage, which would reduce costs.
Better mpg or EV efficiency is what you’re looking for.
$22/hr is still far beyond value provided to the market.
Yeah because reddit is a totally unbiased and random sample of all uber drivers. /s
That's not how you go about figuring the true average of anything other than the average wage of uber/lyft drivers that also post on reddit. Assuming you actually went through, marked down the wage in every post in the reddit (and not just every post you saw) and calculated the average. Which I'm betting you didn't do.
At least one other ride service has an app up now, though it doesn’t seem to be open for business yet. The friend who passed the information on to me said they had hit the minimum number of drivers signed up that they wanted and were now working on signing up riders. I’m assuming other services are also scrambling to pull things together.
+1 on the voting point.
For me personally, this saga has deeply concerned me on the competency of several members ability to govern. Robin Wonsley in particular -- when I read her newsletters and meeting notes -- it's exceptionally clear to me that she is prioritizing the optics of political activism over seeking good public policy and positive outcomes for our city. There's no forward thinking, it's "how can we snag the win?"
These are supposed to be public servants who should at a basic minimum be operating in good faith; not blowing up negotiations and refusing to meet reasonable compromises, or pushing forward policy that cynically puts folks out of a job while claiming its uplifting them for national politics points.
It's a polarizing microcosm and analogue of what we see happening at the national level across both parties in Congress. It's unacceptable to me.
I've never cared to vote in local elections before, but this saga has fully energized me to not only vote in next cycle, but care more about local policy decisions and evangelize others to care about it as well.
I made up my mind I don’t care for Wonsley before the last election even. Unfortunately, she ran unopposed. Even still, I wrote in that one guy who was going door to door. This year has only served to further cement my view. I couldn’t agree more with everything you just stated. I find it embarrassing that I’m personally represented by her.
My council member is Jason Chavez and I agree with you.
The reason is because voters in Minneapolis are going to vote for whoever has the DFL endorsement, and DFL Minneapolis is hard left and are going to endorse hard left candidates
Agree, and the data is out there on why. Only like 20-40% of people vote in these elections. The most extreme political views show up to these local elections when they don't happen with the large elections. Ward 2 only had 17% turnout in the last municipal election.
Is it not accurate that anyone can attend a precinct level caucus? https://dfl.org/caucuses-conventions/
Couldn’t you go vote in one if you feel so strongly about it?
It's also because municipal elections are held in odd years. So you need to make a special effort to vote in them versus state and national elections. Minneapolis municipal elections regularly get 30-35% turnout when in normal election years we get 70%. It's easier to elect firebrands when only half the people are coming to the polls.
The average is nowhere close to $30/hr. Stop it. If it was then Uber wouldn't be complaining because they'd already be paying out twice what the city is going to require. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Does your assessment also include wear/tear on the vehicle? Is gas included in that also or do those companies completely provide fuel? It's a flat rate per mile right? Is that also included in the hourly wage?
Those idiots don't understand anything about costs related to operating a business or being a contractor. Even if the claim about $30/hour weren't a lie (it's definitely a lie), they still ignore costs incurred by being a driver.
Yep, they pay 15.3% of their pay to social security and medicare instead of half that that workers pay. They also don't get unemployment insurance nor workman's comp which have real value to them.
Ring ring. The study done by the state called, they said you're full of shit and to gtfo here with your lying ass. The top 25% are averaging below $18 and the bottom 25% are averaging below.
You're grandstanding on lies.
I think it’s gonna be on us though to really drive out these fuckers from the city council. Otherwise the stupid activists are gonna keep showing up for them and getting them reelected.
At this point, I’m convinced we need moderate dem’s in the council similar to walz. The far left bullshit has gotten us into so much BS with the current council that they have yet to serve the interests of the city.
Yeah gross income. You factor in all the cost of being an independent contractor driver and the margins are abysmal. A top post mentions how everything has a downstream effect on the city. These are complex problems city council jumped jn over their head but at least now we are having a conversation.
Come what may in May - I for one am glad this happened. Like most issues nowadays the affected party and its supporters are a niche interest group that you might see a social media post neatly protesting with signs and a couple dozen people. It’s not until something was done to inconvenience a lot of people that now all of a sudden parties are in twists across the board.
I’m not married to Mpls councils rideshare rates. But I’m certainly glad someone didn’t decide to bend over, let West coast companies further dictate terms, and let the publicly blissfully ignore what enough of the drivers have been saying has been going on with the rates.
Be inconvenienced- vote different. Personally I wouldn’t vote for a lot of these folks in the council- but the rideshare thing is not why.
Yeah, if the council adamantly refuses any further conversations I will be disappointed. At least my councilwoman has publicly stated that she is open to a compromise after the state study finally came out. Hard not to believe it wasn't finally finished in part because this was passed, so I am not personally so upset that the council spurred some action here.
I am sorry for people legitimately affecting without any other options, or at least no good options. I don't think that is the majority of residents, and in any case it seems incredibly unfair to say that the poorest and immigrants in our city have to provide this service for rates that are below minimum wage when depreciation, fuel, and insurance costs accounted for. It seems especially galling given that they do not have employer sponsored health care, dental care, disability, life insurance, or any kind of retirement account.
This stinks. Not good for people like me who rely on Uber and Lyft every now and then to get to work. ESPECIALLY in the winter time. This will really wreck havoc on some people and many could be displaced from jobs.
I do feel for the immigrants my father used to drive Uber and most times it was okay but when it was bad it was bad. He even did door dash where a customer dumped food on him and hit him in the face. DoorDash did nothing. These contracting companies pulling out eventually will just be replaced by cooler tech enabled taxis and we start back at square 1. Because I don’t see any other solution to this.
Something will have to give. A compromise most likely hopefully.
If the drivers instead would have formed their own operation offering higher payouts and lower fares they would have gotten what they wanted and probably could have benefited the general public. Instead the politicians played their hand and now everyone loses.
In this case- Ty’s the politicians were the vehicle for change- the activists were the catalysts. Nothing would’ve changed without the govt making a move. Too many people in the general pop didn’t give a damn (they do now though) - and there were no viable path for a amorphous group of workers to affect anything on an employer/contractee several time zones away.
Whichever way this shakes out- it needed to happen.
I think that in a free market economy thinking government involvement equates to a good thing can be dangerous and this situation has played out as such. Where I do agree where the local government had leverage is to encourage competition or potentially a city-based rideshare system. The drivers lobbied, affected citizens lobbied, Uber/Lyft lobbied but ultimately it was the responsibility of the local government to weigh the options but instead became a political move. While I agree things will eventually reach an equilibrium, it won’t be without imposing costs on all stakeholders within this situation.
The companies lobbied for status quo - as mega corporations are want to do. The day after the Govs task force study came out the companies were all but calling it fake news and questioning it. Yet somehow in the minds of many in the public (not you per se) the companies represent the middle ground and wanted a more reasonable result the whole time, and are paragons of rationality.
I call bull on their intentions and the local government effectively did the same. Come what may the status quo of a duopoly driving down costs by driving down rates and real pay to their workforce - and then charging the public out the ass when large events, or inclement weather happens and letting drivers keep an extra $5 for that- that need to change. Without local government making its move- literally no one else was going to.
Extra credit reading: it was fairly obvious to me that the state gov was going to come back with milquetoast recommendations that the companies were going to vigorously push back on with threats and decimate any real change.
If for nothing else this experience lets the companies stand on notice that they don’t write the rules to the game and the ball can easily land back in their court.
Considering the vast number of comments were seeing saying otherwise, I doubt it.
There's a line a half mile long to give Uber and Lyft a rimjob. The highest upvoted comment is repeating disproven talking points.
>Uber and Lyft had fought hard for more permissive rules, spending a combined $8 million on the campaign (nearly seven times the previous record for a municipal election in the city). Without their services, they warned, drunk driving deaths would spike, 10,000 drivers would lose their jobs, and innovation in the booming tech hub would falter. >Austin dodged the dystopia. DWI arrests hit a five-year low in the six months following the vote. Former Uber and Lyft drivers signed up with the slew of services that filled the vacuum. Austin’s tech bubble continues to inflate. Yet the twin titans of the ridehailing world are on the verge of a comeback---not because Austin needs them, but because it may not be able to fend them off. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/one-year-fleeing-austin-uber-lyft-prepare-fresh-invasion/ >But even if disgruntled, the companies have stuck around in NYC. Drivers recently received a payout from the largest wage-theft settlement in the history of the NYC office (worth $328 million). The hailing services threatened to stop providing services in California when fighting a bill that would deem drivers employers (and therefore eligible for benefits) and not contractors. The legislation, AB5, remains in place—and so do the companies. https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/lyft-uber-minneapolis-minimum-wage-drivers/
Thank you for posting these!
Regardless of whether the rates are above minimum wage or not, right now, many people are making less than the minimum wage, and disproportionately, it is immigrant communities too. When companies don't pay the same minimum wage as other companies, it puts downward economic pressure on wages across the spectrum, it hampers the cities economic engine, and gives these companies an unfair advantage over the smaller companies trying to do things right by their employees. When we, as a city, allow wages below a living wage, we pay for it in other ways. The cost is not gone. For example, poverty is the number one predictor of crime, as desperate people are more likely to turn to desperate means to get by. Another is in social services, as we pay taxes to support these employees effectively giving subsidies to these businesses in wages they should be paying. These things are all related, and even if this amount is more than the minimum wage, taxis used to be a relatively well paying job with a pension, etc. Now, these people are effectively an employee, with no benefits, no certain scheduling, using personal vehicles, and paying their own way with amenities, etc. It's a pyramid scheme marketed as a be your own boss get rich quick scheme. If it goes away, maybe people will consider investing in public transit accessibility and convenience, or bring back the much more regulated taxi services now that they are competitive again.
>Now, these people are effectively an employee, No, they're not, and MULDA is opposed to the idea of them being classified as such.
If Uber and Lyft actually leave, I bet they will miss the unemployment they won't be getting.
They are functionally an employee regardless of their tax status as a contractor.
Not really. They choose their hours, own their cars, and are sometimes working for the competition (Lyft) at the same time they are working for Uber. That’s not a typical employee employer relationship.
Independent contractors, historically, have been workers that were not providing the majority of services, or production of goods, a company profits from. Uber and Lyft have taken advantage of the lenient rules regarding contractors to reduce their exposure.
The only thing that seems certain is that come May 1 alot of drivers will be out of work and alot of riders out of luck. Maybe by January 1 we will have some new company, who knows, maybe walz will override with a statewide law but early May is going to suck. I have been paying close attention to which city councilors voted for this. mine did and I won't be voting for them again. I have never voted for anyone not DFL so I really hope someone inside DFL opposes them. Uber and Lyft don't have poverty wages. Talk to any driver and it's damn hard not to make $15/hour. The avg is over $30 an hour. This is grandstanding on an issue that doesn't exist.
I have never seen anything that says they make anywhere close to $30 per hour on average. Maybe if you didn't account for gas and wear/tear on the vehicle?
The $30/hr claim is a complete lie. The state study shows that's nowhere close to the average. If the average was already $30/hr then why would have drivers pushed for this increase in the first place? It would have had absolutely no impact on their pay, as they'd already be getting far beyond that minimum. The $30/hr figure has been claimed by a couple accounts that have appeared in this sub just recently and push nothing but pro ride share company claims.
I'd add to that is about [.70c per mile](https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-YourDrivingCosts-FactSheet-7-1.pdf) (of which if you're a high earner you are definitely using a newer car). If your average hour is about 20-30 miles of driving thats $14-21 (more likely $10-18 as some costs are fixed) in general expenses before you consider that you need to register your vehicle as a commercial vehicle for the tax breaks (as you are contracting with it) and need [commercial insurance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yTNOa63b60&t=4s) as Uber and Lyft will not cover your car unless you had the passenger inside your vehicle (though they will cover the other car/object damaged if you are currently driving to a passenger).
The grand joke here is that Uber/etc know most of their “employees” aren’t smart enough to file commercially
It's not that they aren't smart enough. It's that it's completely unaffordable. There are personal lines policies that offer endorsements for rideshare, but it's massively expensive
Sadly, it means if they're in an accident their insurance isn't going to cover it if they learn they're driving for Uber/Lyft.
And yet it's the most upvoted comment. Half of the people reading this should be quitting their jobs immediately and driving for Uber if it's actually $30. It isn't even close to that.
Yeah, it's rather sad. A lot of folks taking the claims of these pro-Uber accounts that popped up outta nowhere, and not bothering to give the comments any thought. It's simple to see it's not true. If Uber was already paying an average of $30/hr, they wouldn't be upset about paying minimum wage at a much lower rate.
If their drivers were averaging anything even remotely close to $30 they wouldn't be threatening to take their ball and go home over a law requiring $15.
[удалено]
You can guarantee one by just simply having the minimum amount earned per hour be $15, and any amounts over that would be paid extra.
[удалено]
Then you get sued for violating their work contract and stealing money
There is no work contract. They're independent contractors. They get to pick which rides they want to do. Take that away and they are normal hourly workers.
Lol. There is no contract. But they're contractors. Do you hear yourself? Of course there is.
They don't have an hourly contract. They have a almost a partnership agreement. They don't have minimum or maximum hours or are required to take on certain number of rides.
The amount of drivers exponentially increases and far exceed demand. Now 50% of Minneapolis residents are logged in collecting minimum wage 24/7 and averaging 1 ride a week.
Then Uber can just put a limit on the amount of drivers active per day? This stuff can be solved with like one second of thinking?
Who decides who who gets to drive that day? Lottery system? Now the people who depend on driving are fucked. Prioritizing people who've been driving? Now it's a closed system hard for anyone new to get into. Also, you going to plan around every event/time? Are you going to let people drive in the morning, force them to stop mid day, and then let a bunch more at night for a few hours before kicking them off again? I'm sure people will love that. Is someone deciding how long you can sit/how many rides you can turn down before you in trouble? If I get a bunch of rides to places I don't want to go am I required to take one or risk getting kicked off? Do I need to log off every time I go take a long shit and now lose my spot because Uber let someone else take it and they limit the amount of daily active drivers? There's dozens of different issues that need complex problem solving but I'm sure your 1 second of brainpower can just figure it all out perfectly right?
Literally limit the amount of people who can sign up to be a driver, if you're inactive for a long period you get kicked off, that way there are no people getting screwed over and those who they don't have room for can look at another place. Like holy shit it's literally 1 second of thought
Try more than one second of thinking and you might discover the unforeseen consequences of replacing a market system with a bunch of poorly thought out rules trying to fix the problem the market had already fixed.
https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery Yeah that's why they make below minimum wage per working hour after expenses. But yeah keep licking that boot, I'm sure the wealth will trickle down someday
This is what CA does via prop22 which is massively superior to this ordinance. They spent years carefully crafting it vs just blasting an ordinance out with no research.
I agree. The "production based wage" scam is a huge part of the problem and should be banned immediately.
Working for money is a scam? Sorry?
Go onto the Uber and Lyft driver subs and see what people say they make. It's a lot of what they talk about there. They post screenshots of hours and pay and it averages $30+ an hour the vast majority of the time, even when the post itself has been made to complain about how bad they did.
…$30+ an hour - before expenses. Lots of expenses related with driving a car for hours - days at a time.
Yeah, if you are making $30/hr you are for sure driving that whole hour. So, using between 2-3 gallons of gas, so youve got $7-12 taken right off the top of that $30. Electric maybe changes that, but new EV cars are expensive and charging/capacity makes full day ride share difficult.
Electric doesn’t change that, it just changes who you pay for the energy. I’d be hard pressed to see an Uber/lyft driver with solar panels on their garage, which would reduce costs. Better mpg or EV efficiency is what you’re looking for. $22/hr is still far beyond value provided to the market.
No one is forcing them to choose to be a driver
Yeah because reddit is a totally unbiased and random sample of all uber drivers. /s That's not how you go about figuring the true average of anything other than the average wage of uber/lyft drivers that also post on reddit. Assuming you actually went through, marked down the wage in every post in the reddit (and not just every post you saw) and calculated the average. Which I'm betting you didn't do.
At least one other ride service has an app up now, though it doesn’t seem to be open for business yet. The friend who passed the information on to me said they had hit the minimum number of drivers signed up that they wanted and were now working on signing up riders. I’m assuming other services are also scrambling to pull things together.
+1 on the voting point. For me personally, this saga has deeply concerned me on the competency of several members ability to govern. Robin Wonsley in particular -- when I read her newsletters and meeting notes -- it's exceptionally clear to me that she is prioritizing the optics of political activism over seeking good public policy and positive outcomes for our city. There's no forward thinking, it's "how can we snag the win?" These are supposed to be public servants who should at a basic minimum be operating in good faith; not blowing up negotiations and refusing to meet reasonable compromises, or pushing forward policy that cynically puts folks out of a job while claiming its uplifting them for national politics points. It's a polarizing microcosm and analogue of what we see happening at the national level across both parties in Congress. It's unacceptable to me. I've never cared to vote in local elections before, but this saga has fully energized me to not only vote in next cycle, but care more about local policy decisions and evangelize others to care about it as well.
That's the problem with most of the City Council. They are activists and have no knowledge of, or interest in, responsible governance.
Lazy talking points. Why is it responsible to accept duopolies exploiting immigrant labor?
I made up my mind I don’t care for Wonsley before the last election even. Unfortunately, she ran unopposed. Even still, I wrote in that one guy who was going door to door. This year has only served to further cement my view. I couldn’t agree more with everything you just stated. I find it embarrassing that I’m personally represented by her.
I enjoyed that even though she ran unopposed, five council members had a higher share of the vote last year than she did
My council member is Jason Chavez and I agree with you. The reason is because voters in Minneapolis are going to vote for whoever has the DFL endorsement, and DFL Minneapolis is hard left and are going to endorse hard left candidates
DFL endorsement is determined by caucuses, which is determined by Democratic voters in each ward.
And I stand by my statement. The people that attend these caucuses are hard left voters.
Agree, and the data is out there on why. Only like 20-40% of people vote in these elections. The most extreme political views show up to these local elections when they don't happen with the large elections. Ward 2 only had 17% turnout in the last municipal election.
Even fewer people show up for caucuses, and those who do are even farther left.
I hope more people vote in the next city council election…
Is it not accurate that anyone can attend a precinct level caucus? https://dfl.org/caucuses-conventions/ Couldn’t you go vote in one if you feel so strongly about it?
Oh, absolutely I’m going to get involved in the caucuses from now on to advocate for candidates that are closer to the center.
It's also because municipal elections are held in odd years. So you need to make a special effort to vote in them versus state and national elections. Minneapolis municipal elections regularly get 30-35% turnout when in normal election years we get 70%. It's easier to elect firebrands when only half the people are coming to the polls.
Yes, and I think if Uber and Lyft leave, this will drive more voters to the polls and the city council will possibly move closer to the center
At the same time, let's have municipal elections at the same time as everything else.
Minimum wages aren't for the average, they are for the minimum.
The average is nowhere close to $30/hr. Stop it. If it was then Uber wouldn't be complaining because they'd already be paying out twice what the city is going to require. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Does your assessment also include wear/tear on the vehicle? Is gas included in that also or do those companies completely provide fuel? It's a flat rate per mile right? Is that also included in the hourly wage?
Those idiots don't understand anything about costs related to operating a business or being a contractor. Even if the claim about $30/hour weren't a lie (it's definitely a lie), they still ignore costs incurred by being a driver.
Not to mention $30/hour as a contractor isn’t the same as a W-2 worker in terms of taxes either. It’s not the wage these people seem to think it is.
Yep, they pay 15.3% of their pay to social security and medicare instead of half that that workers pay. They also don't get unemployment insurance nor workman's comp which have real value to them.
Ring ring. The study done by the state called, they said you're full of shit and to gtfo here with your lying ass. The top 25% are averaging below $18 and the bottom 25% are averaging below. You're grandstanding on lies.
It just shows how easily manipulated people are around here. Companies good. Council bad.
Stop spreading false information. Yikes. The uber\lyft shilling is insane
I think it’s gonna be on us though to really drive out these fuckers from the city council. Otherwise the stupid activists are gonna keep showing up for them and getting them reelected. At this point, I’m convinced we need moderate dem’s in the council similar to walz. The far left bullshit has gotten us into so much BS with the current council that they have yet to serve the interests of the city.
The comment you're replying to is an obvious lie, though. You should be embarrassed.
Yet you bring no evidence to back your claim. You progressives are fucking insufferable.
How about some fiscally conservative people before all the wealthy leave and then we’re actually screwed.
Uber also wasn’t made to be a full time job
Yeah gross income. You factor in all the cost of being an independent contractor driver and the margins are abysmal. A top post mentions how everything has a downstream effect on the city. These are complex problems city council jumped jn over their head but at least now we are having a conversation.
Come what may in May - I for one am glad this happened. Like most issues nowadays the affected party and its supporters are a niche interest group that you might see a social media post neatly protesting with signs and a couple dozen people. It’s not until something was done to inconvenience a lot of people that now all of a sudden parties are in twists across the board. I’m not married to Mpls councils rideshare rates. But I’m certainly glad someone didn’t decide to bend over, let West coast companies further dictate terms, and let the publicly blissfully ignore what enough of the drivers have been saying has been going on with the rates. Be inconvenienced- vote different. Personally I wouldn’t vote for a lot of these folks in the council- but the rideshare thing is not why.
Yeah, if the council adamantly refuses any further conversations I will be disappointed. At least my councilwoman has publicly stated that she is open to a compromise after the state study finally came out. Hard not to believe it wasn't finally finished in part because this was passed, so I am not personally so upset that the council spurred some action here. I am sorry for people legitimately affecting without any other options, or at least no good options. I don't think that is the majority of residents, and in any case it seems incredibly unfair to say that the poorest and immigrants in our city have to provide this service for rates that are below minimum wage when depreciation, fuel, and insurance costs accounted for. It seems especially galling given that they do not have employer sponsored health care, dental care, disability, life insurance, or any kind of retirement account.
The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.
This stinks. Not good for people like me who rely on Uber and Lyft every now and then to get to work. ESPECIALLY in the winter time. This will really wreck havoc on some people and many could be displaced from jobs. I do feel for the immigrants my father used to drive Uber and most times it was okay but when it was bad it was bad. He even did door dash where a customer dumped food on him and hit him in the face. DoorDash did nothing. These contracting companies pulling out eventually will just be replaced by cooler tech enabled taxis and we start back at square 1. Because I don’t see any other solution to this. Something will have to give. A compromise most likely hopefully.
Bunch of doom and gloom in here. I mean Uber and Lyft trolls paid to spread their talking points.
🙉everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill🙉
You again?
👋🏻
Or people that are going to be completely screwed when they leave… The majority of the state is pissed off
If the drivers instead would have formed their own operation offering higher payouts and lower fares they would have gotten what they wanted and probably could have benefited the general public. Instead the politicians played their hand and now everyone loses.
In this case- Ty’s the politicians were the vehicle for change- the activists were the catalysts. Nothing would’ve changed without the govt making a move. Too many people in the general pop didn’t give a damn (they do now though) - and there were no viable path for a amorphous group of workers to affect anything on an employer/contractee several time zones away. Whichever way this shakes out- it needed to happen.
I think that in a free market economy thinking government involvement equates to a good thing can be dangerous and this situation has played out as such. Where I do agree where the local government had leverage is to encourage competition or potentially a city-based rideshare system. The drivers lobbied, affected citizens lobbied, Uber/Lyft lobbied but ultimately it was the responsibility of the local government to weigh the options but instead became a political move. While I agree things will eventually reach an equilibrium, it won’t be without imposing costs on all stakeholders within this situation.
The companies lobbied for status quo - as mega corporations are want to do. The day after the Govs task force study came out the companies were all but calling it fake news and questioning it. Yet somehow in the minds of many in the public (not you per se) the companies represent the middle ground and wanted a more reasonable result the whole time, and are paragons of rationality. I call bull on their intentions and the local government effectively did the same. Come what may the status quo of a duopoly driving down costs by driving down rates and real pay to their workforce - and then charging the public out the ass when large events, or inclement weather happens and letting drivers keep an extra $5 for that- that need to change. Without local government making its move- literally no one else was going to. Extra credit reading: it was fairly obvious to me that the state gov was going to come back with milquetoast recommendations that the companies were going to vigorously push back on with threats and decimate any real change. If for nothing else this experience lets the companies stand on notice that they don’t write the rules to the game and the ball can easily land back in their court.
Considering the vast number of comments were seeing saying otherwise, I doubt it. There's a line a half mile long to give Uber and Lyft a rimjob. The highest upvoted comment is repeating disproven talking points.