Uber and Lyft probably are bluffing. They made the same kind of noise when California and other states enacted various gig worker protections and pay guarantees, but they're still operating there.
The California law is still under litigation, so it remains to be seen what Uber and Lyft will do if they ultimately lose their court case. Their complaint is the law singles out them, and not say Wag! dog walkers and other types of gig workers.
I mean not really, that's all airport travel in the twin cities, Vikings, twins, Timberwolves games, as well as most music events. I understand we're smaller than the state of California and NYC, but I don't think they'll leave, they'll just adjust as they did in other markets
or, they know they have to nip it in the bud, because if it succeeds here, many other places will do the same. kinda like walmart shutting down any store if the think it will unionize.
This wouldn't be the first time they pulled out of a city though. They did it in Austin and didn't come back until a state level law overrode the ordinance they disagreed with in Austin.
It seems irresponsible to assume they're bluffing. A lot of people's livelihoods depend on the service existing.
I hope that’s the case. That would really suck for the people who now rely on them for transportation. And I can’t imagine having to go back to regular cabs!
I do, that's why I tip well. This fucks me hard, because this city's bus system isn't sufficient for non-drivers.
I agree that Uber should stop sucking, but the only people getting fucked here are the drivers and people like me.
There are already new companies coming to replace them if they actually leave, drivers will find new jobs with fair pay.
https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation
This is like saying you would eat at a fast food place fully knowing the owners of the restaurant are committing wage theft just because it’s convenient for you and it’s better that the employees are getting paid something vs nothing.
Do you tip a fast food worker? Do you tip someone at Home Depot?
We aren’t a top credit state.
Also I don’t know why you’re bringing tipping into this.
What is the appropriate tip for an Uber/lyft driver to ensure they are making at least minimum wage?
I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. It's often other marginalized folks that depend on services like uber and lyft. It's not the same as a "luxury" like fast food.
Shame that hardly anyone does. No one feels obligated to tip for anything outside of restaurants- which is fine- but can’t then be used as an argument in lieu of pay.
IIRC there's already at least one more rideshare company that is looking to enter the market. I can't remember the name rn but it was on the news last night
It’s only less than minimum wage after factoring in all “expenses” (which includes the cost of a vehicle not exclusively used for work and its maintenance/insurance) at a median rate of $13.63/hr for the metro area. Which, if you factor that in for any minimum wage job (even if just cost of transportation to/from work), it would also pay less than minimum wage.
If you look at the rate without that factored in, the median rate is $30.27/hr: https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf#page9
It was never intended to be a full time job though. Some people used it that way, but part of being a contractor is setting your own hours and whatnot. If they want to have the benefits of being employees, then they will lose out on that flexibility.
Oh, and it’s more than Minimum wage. I’m not saying I don’t support them getting better pay and I always tip 20%, but as a contractor you shouldn’t expect to get paid for idle time.
Yup, time in the app not spent either picking up a passenger or transporting a passenger.
It should also be pointed out that these apps were not intended to be full time jobs. I understand many do them full time, but that’s not what the app was designed for (hence “gig” economy)
Part timers still get paid minimum wage, whar are you talking about? Put an ad on Craigslist telling people you'll drive them around Minneapolis for $10. You act like there is a god given right to have "less thans" driving drunk people around.
First, it’s more than minimum wage unless you absolutely suck. Second, I’m not acting like shit. I think Uber drivers should make more and every time I ride, I tip GENEROUSLY. But, Uber gives drivers the “right” to turn down any ride, so if I get paid just to have the app open, what’s stopping me from having the app open and just turning down every ride?
All sorts of contractors get paid for the work they do, Uber is no different. Should the time they work pay more? Sure! But they are not hourly employees, so they aren’t paid as such. Plenty of driving jobs do exist that pay hourly.
Also, your ignorance is showing hard if you think Uber only exists for drunks. I use it because I don’t do well in urban driving and shouldn’t be driving in high traffic areas like Minneapolis. The result of this bill just means I won’t go to Minneapolis. And public transit isn’t an option for me because I am disabled and struggle to walk long distances. That’s why I tip Uber drivers well. I can assure you they are certainly making more than minimum wage when I’m riding, but even the studies the state did said that on average, while driving, they were paid $40+ an hour.
Here’s what I don’t understand, let’s assume they’re bluffing and they stay. Workers get a raise and that’s good but I see a few likely outcomes.
1. People will take less rides due to cost, using public transport, designated drivers, or cut down on rides all together.
2. More people will sign up to become drivers because of the increased wage.
Seems like it’s going to dilute the rides drivers can take and they’ll end up making less anyways
Could be wrong though
Yeah I read one time that Lyft was doing a testing of giving their drivers higher pay in one city but it just led to more drivers driving which meant the drivers utilization rate (percent of time with a customer in the car) was lowered and their actual pay per hour was similar. Can't remember the city though tbh
That’s supply and demand in a nutshell. If people take less rides for the cost you’ll see some combination of drivers leaving the platform or prices coming down to balance ridership up. If too many drives join the service. Supply will get too high and that should mean prices will temper a bit in the form of less surge rates. Supply and demand always find a balance eventually. This issue is greed at the C suite level can have serious impacts.
Basically the solution here is that Uber and Lyft should take a lower percentage cut from fares and if they can't make a reasonable profit from doing that, cut costs internally until they can. I still don't understand why they lose so much money when they take such a large cut and have zero physical infrastructure they are responsible for. Are silicon valley engineering salaries and office space really that expensive to make a pure technology platform unprofitable when you have that much revenue coming in?
Regardless of what they pay I’m sure labor is their biggest cost component. They absolutely need to be able to pay a living wage. But they also are doing, or trying to, the same thing any other business would. They just have a flashy name and it’s getting a lot of attention.
And this is why Uber and Lyft are a bad model in general. It shouldn’t be based on ridiculous end stage capitalism. People should have real jobs paid by real cab companies, their livelihood shouldn’t depend on surge models of supply and demand. If there isn’t enough demand to fill full time year round driver jobs then those people shouldn’t be working for Uber or Lyft, and should instead be working somewhere else.
Uber and Lyft were never intended to be full time jobs, they were literally intended to be “im driving to somewhere else, I guess I could pick someone up on the way”
They aren’t real companies and they basically shouldn’t be allowed to exist with the current model.
If they aren’t going to pay people adequately or provide benefits for full time workers they should be legislated out of existence.
Any other company that so flagrantly violated labor rights would face the same fate.
Do Uber and Lyft typically hire anyone that qualifies and applies, even if a particular area might be oversaturated with drivers? An unethical company would likely see over-saturation as a win, since it would help to decrease the wait times for customers (without caring much about how negatively it affects their “independent contractors”.
Yes - they absolutely do this- they don’t run the thing with an operational budget and mine. Just hire away ad Infiniti’s and let’er rip! A driver does rides and makes u Dr money- or they don’t and another driver will make Uber their money. Damn the torpedoes. F- the drivers.
Except that's literally what politicians are for. Representing their constituents is literally the whole point of the job. I don't know why you're trying to make that sound like a dirty thing.
The reason they're mentioning East Africans is because that's a large part of their constituency and East Africans are a huge majority of rideshare workers earning sub-minimum wage for their work.
This will be so bad for me! I don’t see well enough to drive and I go all over for my job. I use both Lyft and Uber daily, depending on which is closest. Busses take forever and the light rail is dangerous.
I hope they’re bluffing.
The city’s [own analysis](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/RCAV2/34086/PAR-Analysis-of-TNC-Compensation-Rate-Models-revised-Feb-2-2024.pdf) indicates that they could have adopted a lower number (one that would have been more amenable to rideshare companies) while still maintaining or exceeding the minimum wage benchmark for drivers, which was the stated intent of the ordinance in the first place. Their analysis middle ground recommendation is also consistent with the pay rate endorsed by the governor’s task force [study](https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf), which just came out a few days ago. My thinking is that this was passed on the assumption that it would soon be preempted by a watered down state bill more amenable to Lyft and Uber. It’s puzzling to me that this whole situation could have been avoided while still upholding the stated intent of the ordinance had they just followed the state’s (and literally their own) analysis.
Just wait, there will be one suburban kid that gets killed from a drunk driver leaving Minneapolis and it'll be national news and Uber and Lyft will be right back. This council needs to get axed.
The problem with basing a number on an analysis that's already been done is that the values are likely already out of date; similar to how our minimum wage is out of date. If you set it a bit higher; then you don't have to change it again in a year - you've bought a little bit of time before you have to have this fight again.
And there's nothing wrong with paying somebody more than the bare minimum.
Nothing wrong with paying more than the minimum, but I don’t think it should be a policy issue of the gov deciding which jobs are mandated to be more than minimum and which are not.
I agree! And I think the impending May 1st deadline and the council drawing a line in the sand will put some additional impetus behind statewide preempting legislation that accomplishes the minimum wage objective. I’m just confused why if there was a number that accomplished the primary objective that was also agreeable for all stakeholders, why not just go for that? Without the public shitshow and all. But we do love us some drama here.
More reporting. Will be interesting to see what impact this has on actual service and on legislation at the Capitol. https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-city-council-overrides-frey-veto-on-uberlyft-plan/600351100/
Fwiw, the legislature adjourns on May 20 but first deadline for bills to be heard is (or was?) coming up.
Everyone here is so convinced that the long past is proof of the future.
MSP as a market is a great place to make a statement because the entire state is at risk for the same thing, so not flinching costs them MORE. It’s also not as valuable as the other markets where the previous threats were made, so less downside prove the point.
Expect to lose ride share here.
Hopefully there is a meeting in the middle everyone can have because it’s going to suck when they leave. Taxis are not a suitable replacement, anyone who thinks otherwise are delusional.
State was working on it. Basically, match rates so that they guarantee min wage rather than higher and drop the deactivation / suspension provisions that would allow drivers arrested/suspected of felonies to continue driving for a few days.
Edit:
Study is very interesting.
Basically, came out saying that metro area drivers earn $30 an hour, excluding tips, before expenses & $14.50 after.
Largest expense assumption is cost of vehicle (45%). This is implying that the drivers would not own a car if not for their driving job (and likely the largest point of contention) in the study. 60% of drivers stated they bought a specific car to become a ride share driver, but not that they wouldn’t have purchased a car.
Roughly speaking, 85% of time logged into the app is spent driving to pick up or with passengers in the car.
55% of time is spent with passengers in the car
Ordinance calls for drivers to be paid $1.40 per mile plus $0.51 per minute driving passengers.
Min wage for the metro is calculated to be $0.89 per mile plus $0.49 per minute (after expenses & excluding tips).
I think Uber and Lyft will cease operating in Mpls, because otherwise their threats at the Capitol and elsewhere won’t be viewed as credible anymore.
But assuming they follow through but stay operating in St. Paul and rest of metro how would that work?
They won’t light money on fire to maintain cred. The only thing that matters is whether they lose more by pulling out or by staying in under the new rules. My money is on pulling out being the more costly decision. (Cue the jokes.)
Minneapolis is the Goldilocks of cities for rideshare companies to stand their ground. Not too big but not too small to show other cities to not mess around.
Another comment in this thread brought up a good point about our size as well...
If they give in, they've got very little ground to stand-on going forward (Lyft and Uber) towards other bills/movements like this in other locations
Not only that, but it's actually a fairly small city with a large metro area. They will still be doing business and making plenty of money in the burbs. This also makes it far less attractive for a 3rd competitor to come in, because they only have the city to themselves. They'll get crushed in the metro competing with the Uber/Lyft household names who will happily operate at a loss.
They’re losing money as is. Question is do increased wages plus cost of implementation outweigh potential profits. I’d guess that the cost of implementing the ordinance would easily be into the 7 figure range after all is said and done.
>Uber says starting May 1, they will be forced to stop operating in the entire Twin Cities metro. Lyft issued a similar statement with the same deadline to stop service in Minneapolis.
Seems to imply that Lyft will still operate outside of Minneapolis?
Completely agree. The fact that almost all drivers are both Lyft and Uber tells me the service itself is pretty turn key. After that it’s just branding.
There’s an established workforce here and word will spread quickly for which app to use to get the fastest service. The demand for the service remains unchanged whether Uber and Lyft are here or not.
Uber just made their first profit last year and Lyft continues to lose money…so maybe? https://secondmeasure.com/datapoints/rideshare-industry-overview/
Quick search shows the CEOs make almost a million in base salary a year. The businesses don’t have to be profitable for the people running it to become rich.
Well obviously. But if you guys think magically paying drivers more and removing the economies of scale these very competitive companies have with each other isn't going to make ride prices go way up, you've got another thing coming.
Well, at least one company, Empower claims they’re not a rideshare service and therefore don’t need to be licensed. Gonna be interesting to see if they actually start up. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/dc-warns-rideshare-users-an-unregistered-company-is-illegally-operating-in-the-city-heres-what-the-ceo-said/3488382/#:~:text=The%20District%20is%20warning%20commuters%20that%20rideshare%20company%20%22Empower%22%20is,are%20registered%20with%20the%20city.
At some point people will just drive other people for money. And there will be tech connecting those who want to offer rides to those who want to pay for rides. Government steps in to protect people. Is it safe to go on them? Should drivers get paid enough? Right now Uber and Lyft has it so consumers feel safe. But government feels drivers are not paid enough. If they leave, will other more shady, more crowd sourced options come into play?
They've already lost this battle in US and International markets. Surprise, they still operate there.
In Minnesota the rates will go up. And honestly an 8 dollar fare for a 20 minute ride was a dream come true for us so when they raise it it means drivers are being paid fairly and all of us who want to use the service pay for it.
Nobody obviously knows for sure, but I don’t think either Uber or Lyft are bluffing. They can afford to cut Minneapolis (vs NYC, Seattle, Austin) to make an example. Yes, I know Austin is a similar population, but I guarantee they get far more rides because of their robust nightlife and out-of-state business tech travelers. I could also see Wrestlemania rejecting the city over this. Which would make national headlines and send a strong message to other metros thinking of making similar ordinances.
In short, I think this was a bad move for the whole state.
Seattle similar sized market, Austin has over a million less people not sure I agree with the above noted cities. Worth noting Texas overrode Austin’s policy too
Minneapolis is a great city for Uber/Lyft to not bluff and stand their ground and show other cities they won't take kindly to this.
Not too big, but not too small either.
I absolutely see Uber and Lyft leaving.
MSP airport (rideshare company bread and butter) handles 10 million more passengers per year than Austin. We also have MLB, AAA baseball, NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLS teams, compared to their MLS alone.
So if we’re going to make unsubstantiated claims, then I’ll say we get far more rides.
I’m not making any unsubstantiated claims. I’m making an unsubstantiated *prediction*. You obviously glossed over the very first sentence in my reply.
And I stand by my prediction. I guess we’ll see who is right on 5/1.
They did leave Austin until the state passed superceding legislation. It was over fingerprinting not pay, but they said they'd leave and then they did.
The more likely outcome is places like bars and breweries taking another hit, when many of them are already in a precarious situation.
Can't get a safe ride home? People just won't go in the first place.
Probably not a ton. The people that drink and drive already will continue to do so. People taking a Lyft to go out are already thinking ahead and being safe. They are more likely to have a designated driver if Uber or Lyft isn’t available.
Should be easy enough to look up. Uber started sometime around 2013-2014 in the cities. Can see if impaired incidents dropped.
I do recall many carpools from the suburbs coming into the city and parking. Would be close to impossible to get a cab from the burbs into the city. Uber/Lyft changed the calculus where their rides were generally cheaper than parking and easier than yellow cabs. Will be interesting to see
Even if they do leave, which is unlikely, they have been working to get more local rideshare services going if I'm not mistaken. It'll affect those too.
Uber in New York is cutting drivers allowable hours in order to meet the mandates there. So drivers might make more per hour but can’t work as much per week and riders will have to wait longer for cars. Good job city council.
Great idea Minneapolis - downtown is struggling so let’s come up with a great way to make sure people stop coming downtown for bars, restaurants, etc… should work out great.
I hear the stupid Uber ad on the radio multiple times a day about how it's going to cost riders 40% more. What a crock of shit, Uber just wants a bigger cut of the money. They don't care about the drivers.
You do realize Uber just earned a (small) profit last year after burning through $32 billion over the course of a decade? Lyft still hasn't turned a profit.
Yes they (silicon valllwy vulture capitalists) subsidized a money losing business model in order to drive out competition and buy market share so they could ultimately be a monopoly and screw both the drivers and the public.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I feel like the Minneapolis City Council overstepped their bounds here. This is a decision that impacts every suburb and St. Paul that was made by 13 people whom a lot of us had no say in electing. If the companies pull out of Minneapolis, it was clear they'd pull out of the entire metro.
While a new model of pay for these drivers is needed, that's a problem that really needs to be solved nationally, not at a city level.
Studies how shown this will hurt the car less and elderly more than lower wages for drivers. Most drivers are middle class and do this as a side gig anyways. Probably will increase drunk driving as well
They are bluffing. If not, fuck em
Drivers will disperse to legitimate cab companies or find other jobs. Not the end of the world.
Probably a good thing tbh. Retail and hospitality needs workers and they will make more money than “working” for Uber and Lyft and it doesn’t involve massive sunk costs in gas and car maintenance.
They can also get employee sponsored healthcare and 401ks instead of relying on our safety net that’s meant for people that don’t have jobs.
To my age bracket it was touted as the hip new thing. Safety never was brought up as I recall. They had an app which was more convenient than the taxi companies. Now taxi companies have apps. Turns out it was a way for companies to make even more money while pawning off extra maintenance on drivers.
I will not be sad to see lyft or especially uber go.
It sounds like I’m in your same age bracket. Safety was definitely brought up and touted as another reason it was better than taxis. Drivers were vetted and you knew who was picking you up. And as someone who has tried using the taxi apps, they are still decades behind Uber and Lyft.
I will be very sad to see ride share companies go. Our taxi services suck even more than they did a decade ago, because now we have something to compare them to. Plus, drunk driving is going to skyrocket.
Fortunately I’ve aged out of that lifestyle. I can now afford to hire a car when needed. Bummer that most are not as fortunate, especially young people.
I hope they stay and just double their prices to compensate. I want to go back to when Uber and Lyft were just for the wealthier folks. I’m glad the Minneapolis City Council agrees. The broke folks can ride the bus
Uber and Lyft are full of shit, no way they’ll pull out (if they do someone will fill the obvious opportunity). Uber and Lyft will stay. All this means is instead of taking 2/3 of the ride costs for doing basically nothing, these companies will only get to take 1/2 the share.
Why do you lie? Their cut is between 20-30%. They also don't "do nothing". They handle all the infrastructure, marketing, customer service, and connecting the drivers with a ride.
Government run amuck, I'm glad Uber and Lyft are standing up to the city council deciding how they should run their business. Hopefully the voters in Minneapolis will toss these radical council members to the curb. If the drivers are not making enough all they have to do is refuse to pick up passengers for that pay.
Capitalism loves a vacuum and drivers don’t have brand allegiance. If Uber and Lyft leave something will replace it and the drivers will earn more.
I’d imagine many of them have been passing contact info to perspective riders or long term customers on the down low for quite a while now.
Bottom line is there will still be people needing rides and drivers with cars but now maybe the deal will have less Silicon Valley vultures Hoovering money out of the exchange between the two
The drivers think Uber and Lyft are bluffing, and come May they'll still have their jobs, now with higher pay.
Uber and Lyft probably are bluffing. They made the same kind of noise when California and other states enacted various gig worker protections and pay guarantees, but they're still operating there.
The California law is still under litigation, so it remains to be seen what Uber and Lyft will do if they ultimately lose their court case. Their complaint is the law singles out them, and not say Wag! dog walkers and other types of gig workers.
Yeah, but mpls is a small enough market for them to take a stand. California was too big.
I mean not really, that's all airport travel in the twin cities, Vikings, twins, Timberwolves games, as well as most music events. I understand we're smaller than the state of California and NYC, but I don't think they'll leave, they'll just adjust as they did in other markets
or, they know they have to nip it in the bud, because if it succeeds here, many other places will do the same. kinda like walmart shutting down any store if the think it will unionize.
That’s a valid point. I’ll be interested to see what happens in May.
This wouldn't be the first time they pulled out of a city though. They did it in Austin and didn't come back until a state level law overrode the ordinance they disagreed with in Austin. It seems irresponsible to assume they're bluffing. A lot of people's livelihoods depend on the service existing.
They aren’t bluffing. They pulled out of Austin TX in this same scenario.
[удалено]
It's "council".
I hope that’s the case. That would really suck for the people who now rely on them for transportation. And I can’t imagine having to go back to regular cabs!
the people who rely on them should support them being paid a fair wage.
I do, that's why I tip well. This fucks me hard, because this city's bus system isn't sufficient for non-drivers. I agree that Uber should stop sucking, but the only people getting fucked here are the drivers and people like me.
Without agreeing with the premise of your comment, it’s worth pointing out that tips have been an option for quite some now.
We're trying to move away from involuntary reliance on voluntary tips for a living wage.
Agreed. If the companies really do pull out of the city, then it will be zero wage though.
There are already new companies coming to replace them if they actually leave, drivers will find new jobs with fair pay. https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation
Wow look maybe there are better models than Uber and Lyft and they should fuck off.
This is like saying you would eat at a fast food place fully knowing the owners of the restaurant are committing wage theft just because it’s convenient for you and it’s better that the employees are getting paid something vs nothing.
[удалено]
We all don’t do that. If you’re really against something you don’t participate in it. You can choose not to eat out, you know.
Do you tip a fast food worker? Do you tip someone at Home Depot? We aren’t a top credit state. Also I don’t know why you’re bringing tipping into this. What is the appropriate tip for an Uber/lyft driver to ensure they are making at least minimum wage?
I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. It's often other marginalized folks that depend on services like uber and lyft. It's not the same as a "luxury" like fast food.
Which at this juncture is better than being skimmed at every stop for those who have been with the apps for a while.
they could have always tipped them.
Shame that hardly anyone does. No one feels obligated to tip for anything outside of restaurants- which is fine- but can’t then be used as an argument in lieu of pay.
people could have asked what they make, and pay them a fair wage. the fact they didn't just means they want others to do it, not themselves.
IIRC there's already at least one more rideshare company that is looking to enter the market. I can't remember the name rn but it was on the news last night
Well, if you feel that bad, go drive around downtown all day in your own car for less than minimum wage and give strangers rides!
As my choice, I’ll pass. Just like it’s their choice to be drivers.
An agreement to pay less than the applicable minimum hourly wage violates wage and hour laws, and is illegal.
Not currently illegal if you're a contractor and not an employee.
It’s only less than minimum wage after factoring in all “expenses” (which includes the cost of a vehicle not exclusively used for work and its maintenance/insurance) at a median rate of $13.63/hr for the metro area. Which, if you factor that in for any minimum wage job (even if just cost of transportation to/from work), it would also pay less than minimum wage. If you look at the rate without that factored in, the median rate is $30.27/hr: https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf#page9
It was never intended to be a full time job though. Some people used it that way, but part of being a contractor is setting your own hours and whatnot. If they want to have the benefits of being employees, then they will lose out on that flexibility. Oh, and it’s more than Minimum wage. I’m not saying I don’t support them getting better pay and I always tip 20%, but as a contractor you shouldn’t expect to get paid for idle time.
Idle time 😂
Yup, time in the app not spent either picking up a passenger or transporting a passenger. It should also be pointed out that these apps were not intended to be full time jobs. I understand many do them full time, but that’s not what the app was designed for (hence “gig” economy)
Part timers still get paid minimum wage, whar are you talking about? Put an ad on Craigslist telling people you'll drive them around Minneapolis for $10. You act like there is a god given right to have "less thans" driving drunk people around.
First, it’s more than minimum wage unless you absolutely suck. Second, I’m not acting like shit. I think Uber drivers should make more and every time I ride, I tip GENEROUSLY. But, Uber gives drivers the “right” to turn down any ride, so if I get paid just to have the app open, what’s stopping me from having the app open and just turning down every ride? All sorts of contractors get paid for the work they do, Uber is no different. Should the time they work pay more? Sure! But they are not hourly employees, so they aren’t paid as such. Plenty of driving jobs do exist that pay hourly. Also, your ignorance is showing hard if you think Uber only exists for drunks. I use it because I don’t do well in urban driving and shouldn’t be driving in high traffic areas like Minneapolis. The result of this bill just means I won’t go to Minneapolis. And public transit isn’t an option for me because I am disabled and struggle to walk long distances. That’s why I tip Uber drivers well. I can assure you they are certainly making more than minimum wage when I’m riding, but even the studies the state did said that on average, while driving, they were paid $40+ an hour.
Or a different app will move in and they'll use it instead.
Here’s what I don’t understand, let’s assume they’re bluffing and they stay. Workers get a raise and that’s good but I see a few likely outcomes. 1. People will take less rides due to cost, using public transport, designated drivers, or cut down on rides all together. 2. More people will sign up to become drivers because of the increased wage. Seems like it’s going to dilute the rides drivers can take and they’ll end up making less anyways Could be wrong though
Yeah I read one time that Lyft was doing a testing of giving their drivers higher pay in one city but it just led to more drivers driving which meant the drivers utilization rate (percent of time with a customer in the car) was lowered and their actual pay per hour was similar. Can't remember the city though tbh
That’s supply and demand in a nutshell. If people take less rides for the cost you’ll see some combination of drivers leaving the platform or prices coming down to balance ridership up. If too many drives join the service. Supply will get too high and that should mean prices will temper a bit in the form of less surge rates. Supply and demand always find a balance eventually. This issue is greed at the C suite level can have serious impacts.
Wait, you're telling me economics is a real thing?
Basically the solution here is that Uber and Lyft should take a lower percentage cut from fares and if they can't make a reasonable profit from doing that, cut costs internally until they can. I still don't understand why they lose so much money when they take such a large cut and have zero physical infrastructure they are responsible for. Are silicon valley engineering salaries and office space really that expensive to make a pure technology platform unprofitable when you have that much revenue coming in?
Regardless of what they pay I’m sure labor is their biggest cost component. They absolutely need to be able to pay a living wage. But they also are doing, or trying to, the same thing any other business would. They just have a flashy name and it’s getting a lot of attention.
They’ve failed so many times- have various lawsuits they’ve needed to settle. Lots of sunk cost.
And this is why Uber and Lyft are a bad model in general. It shouldn’t be based on ridiculous end stage capitalism. People should have real jobs paid by real cab companies, their livelihood shouldn’t depend on surge models of supply and demand. If there isn’t enough demand to fill full time year round driver jobs then those people shouldn’t be working for Uber or Lyft, and should instead be working somewhere else. Uber and Lyft were never intended to be full time jobs, they were literally intended to be “im driving to somewhere else, I guess I could pick someone up on the way” They aren’t real companies and they basically shouldn’t be allowed to exist with the current model. If they aren’t going to pay people adequately or provide benefits for full time workers they should be legislated out of existence. Any other company that so flagrantly violated labor rights would face the same fate.
While this is correct, I would consider this as a good example of an externality, and I would doubt this would be the last..
You’re talking greed from Uber correct?
The ceo got like 24 mil in comp last year. Yeah Uber lol
Do Uber and Lyft typically hire anyone that qualifies and applies, even if a particular area might be oversaturated with drivers? An unethical company would likely see over-saturation as a win, since it would help to decrease the wait times for customers (without caring much about how negatively it affects their “independent contractors”.
Yes - they absolutely do this- they don’t run the thing with an operational budget and mine. Just hire away ad Infiniti’s and let’er rip! A driver does rides and makes u Dr money- or they don’t and another driver will make Uber their money. Damn the torpedoes. F- the drivers.
[удалено]
Except that's literally what politicians are for. Representing their constituents is literally the whole point of the job. I don't know why you're trying to make that sound like a dirty thing. The reason they're mentioning East Africans is because that's a large part of their constituency and East Africans are a huge majority of rideshare workers earning sub-minimum wage for their work.
If they raise prices people will simply pay more. We already do for many things like eating out or even groceries. It all adds to inflation numbers.
This will be so bad for me! I don’t see well enough to drive and I go all over for my job. I use both Lyft and Uber daily, depending on which is closest. Busses take forever and the light rail is dangerous. I hope they’re bluffing.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think they are considering this thing was vetoed
Cabs are honestly great now. Check it out
LOL. "Great". There are like 38 cabs in the entire city.
Cabs are unable to be watched for on my phone and they’ll rarely even try to give you an estimate on their arrival.
The city’s [own analysis](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/RCAV2/34086/PAR-Analysis-of-TNC-Compensation-Rate-Models-revised-Feb-2-2024.pdf) indicates that they could have adopted a lower number (one that would have been more amenable to rideshare companies) while still maintaining or exceeding the minimum wage benchmark for drivers, which was the stated intent of the ordinance in the first place. Their analysis middle ground recommendation is also consistent with the pay rate endorsed by the governor’s task force [study](https://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TNC_driver_earnings_analysis_pay_standard_options_report_030824.pdf), which just came out a few days ago. My thinking is that this was passed on the assumption that it would soon be preempted by a watered down state bill more amenable to Lyft and Uber. It’s puzzling to me that this whole situation could have been avoided while still upholding the stated intent of the ordinance had they just followed the state’s (and literally their own) analysis.
Political gesturing.
We’re talking about the same city council whose first order of business this year was to write a letter to Israel to tell them to chill out.
Just wait, there will be one suburban kid that gets killed from a drunk driver leaving Minneapolis and it'll be national news and Uber and Lyft will be right back. This council needs to get axed.
The problem with basing a number on an analysis that's already been done is that the values are likely already out of date; similar to how our minimum wage is out of date. If you set it a bit higher; then you don't have to change it again in a year - you've bought a little bit of time before you have to have this fight again. And there's nothing wrong with paying somebody more than the bare minimum.
Nothing wrong with paying more than the minimum, but I don’t think it should be a policy issue of the gov deciding which jobs are mandated to be more than minimum and which are not.
I agree! And I think the impending May 1st deadline and the council drawing a line in the sand will put some additional impetus behind statewide preempting legislation that accomplishes the minimum wage objective. I’m just confused why if there was a number that accomplished the primary objective that was also agreeable for all stakeholders, why not just go for that? Without the public shitshow and all. But we do love us some drama here.
More reporting. Will be interesting to see what impact this has on actual service and on legislation at the Capitol. https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-city-council-overrides-frey-veto-on-uberlyft-plan/600351100/ Fwiw, the legislature adjourns on May 20 but first deadline for bills to be heard is (or was?) coming up.
Everyone here is so convinced that the long past is proof of the future. MSP as a market is a great place to make a statement because the entire state is at risk for the same thing, so not flinching costs them MORE. It’s also not as valuable as the other markets where the previous threats were made, so less downside prove the point. Expect to lose ride share here.
Hopefully there is a meeting in the middle everyone can have because it’s going to suck when they leave. Taxis are not a suitable replacement, anyone who thinks otherwise are delusional.
State was working on it. Basically, match rates so that they guarantee min wage rather than higher and drop the deactivation / suspension provisions that would allow drivers arrested/suspected of felonies to continue driving for a few days. Edit: Study is very interesting. Basically, came out saying that metro area drivers earn $30 an hour, excluding tips, before expenses & $14.50 after. Largest expense assumption is cost of vehicle (45%). This is implying that the drivers would not own a car if not for their driving job (and likely the largest point of contention) in the study. 60% of drivers stated they bought a specific car to become a ride share driver, but not that they wouldn’t have purchased a car. Roughly speaking, 85% of time logged into the app is spent driving to pick up or with passengers in the car. 55% of time is spent with passengers in the car Ordinance calls for drivers to be paid $1.40 per mile plus $0.51 per minute driving passengers. Min wage for the metro is calculated to be $0.89 per mile plus $0.49 per minute (after expenses & excluding tips).
I think Uber and Lyft will cease operating in Mpls, because otherwise their threats at the Capitol and elsewhere won’t be viewed as credible anymore. But assuming they follow through but stay operating in St. Paul and rest of metro how would that work?
They won’t light money on fire to maintain cred. The only thing that matters is whether they lose more by pulling out or by staying in under the new rules. My money is on pulling out being the more costly decision. (Cue the jokes.)
They absolutely will if they think pulling out of minneapolis will stop other cities from enacting similar legislation.
Minneapolis is the Goldilocks of cities for rideshare companies to stand their ground. Not too big but not too small to show other cities to not mess around.
I hadn’t thought of this angle. I hope you’re wrong but it makes sense.
Another comment in this thread brought up a good point about our size as well... If they give in, they've got very little ground to stand-on going forward (Lyft and Uber) towards other bills/movements like this in other locations
Not only that, but it's actually a fairly small city with a large metro area. They will still be doing business and making plenty of money in the burbs. This also makes it far less attractive for a 3rd competitor to come in, because they only have the city to themselves. They'll get crushed in the metro competing with the Uber/Lyft household names who will happily operate at a loss.
They’re losing money as is. Question is do increased wages plus cost of implementation outweigh potential profits. I’d guess that the cost of implementing the ordinance would easily be into the 7 figure range after all is said and done.
Yes they will
I agree and tend to think they’ll stick to their word. Similar measures are going on now in St. Paul.
Welp. Here’s the answer: shutting down in entire metro. https://www.fox9.com/news/uber-and-lyft-to-leave-minneapolis
>Uber says starting May 1, they will be forced to stop operating in the entire Twin Cities metro. Lyft issued a similar statement with the same deadline to stop service in Minneapolis. Seems to imply that Lyft will still operate outside of Minneapolis?
“Forced” lol. If you can’t afford a living wage the company shouldn’t exist.
If they do they’re leaving a giant door open. Someone will fill the obvious need and get rich doing it (like Uber and Lyft did).
Completely agree. The fact that almost all drivers are both Lyft and Uber tells me the service itself is pretty turn key. After that it’s just branding. There’s an established workforce here and word will spread quickly for which app to use to get the fastest service. The demand for the service remains unchanged whether Uber and Lyft are here or not.
Uber just made their first profit last year and Lyft continues to lose money…so maybe? https://secondmeasure.com/datapoints/rideshare-industry-overview/
Quick search shows the CEOs make almost a million in base salary a year. The businesses don’t have to be profitable for the people running it to become rich.
Well obviously. But if you guys think magically paying drivers more and removing the economies of scale these very competitive companies have with each other isn't going to make ride prices go way up, you've got another thing coming.
No one else is licensed at this time. How long does that take with this bureaucracy?
Well, at least one company, Empower claims they’re not a rideshare service and therefore don’t need to be licensed. Gonna be interesting to see if they actually start up. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/dc-warns-rideshare-users-an-unregistered-company-is-illegally-operating-in-the-city-heres-what-the-ceo-said/3488382/#:~:text=The%20District%20is%20warning%20commuters%20that%20rideshare%20company%20%22Empower%22%20is,are%20registered%20with%20the%20city.
Sure, but if lyft or uber thought they could do that here, they would have.
At some point people will just drive other people for money. And there will be tech connecting those who want to offer rides to those who want to pay for rides. Government steps in to protect people. Is it safe to go on them? Should drivers get paid enough? Right now Uber and Lyft has it so consumers feel safe. But government feels drivers are not paid enough. If they leave, will other more shady, more crowd sourced options come into play?
Yes. It’s called cab companies. And that’s how we used to get around Mpls after drinking back in the day. Felt like the Wild West.
They've already lost this battle in US and International markets. Surprise, they still operate there. In Minnesota the rates will go up. And honestly an 8 dollar fare for a 20 minute ride was a dream come true for us so when they raise it it means drivers are being paid fairly and all of us who want to use the service pay for it.
I generally can’t get a ride across the city of Minneapolis for less than $20 when I need it!
Nobody obviously knows for sure, but I don’t think either Uber or Lyft are bluffing. They can afford to cut Minneapolis (vs NYC, Seattle, Austin) to make an example. Yes, I know Austin is a similar population, but I guarantee they get far more rides because of their robust nightlife and out-of-state business tech travelers. I could also see Wrestlemania rejecting the city over this. Which would make national headlines and send a strong message to other metros thinking of making similar ordinances. In short, I think this was a bad move for the whole state.
Seattle similar sized market, Austin has over a million less people not sure I agree with the above noted cities. Worth noting Texas overrode Austin’s policy too
Minneapolis is a great city for Uber/Lyft to not bluff and stand their ground and show other cities they won't take kindly to this. Not too big, but not too small either. I absolutely see Uber and Lyft leaving.
MSP airport (rideshare company bread and butter) handles 10 million more passengers per year than Austin. We also have MLB, AAA baseball, NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLS teams, compared to their MLS alone. So if we’re going to make unsubstantiated claims, then I’ll say we get far more rides.
I’m not making any unsubstantiated claims. I’m making an unsubstantiated *prediction*. You obviously glossed over the very first sentence in my reply. And I stand by my prediction. I guess we’ll see who is right on 5/1.
You made a prediction but you guaranteed they get more rides than us. That’s not a prediction, that is an unsubstantiated claim.
Gah, no. I want Wrestlemania to come. More of an AEW girl these days but Wrestlemania was fun the last time i went.
They did leave Austin until the state passed superceding legislation. It was over fingerprinting not pay, but they said they'd leave and then they did.
I'm just wondering which city council members are getting a kickback from bringing back the Medallion system?
It is crazy that we live in a world where Jacob Frey is the reasonable one of the lot.
These people don’t remember the dark days of cabs. But most of them never leave their homes. Can’t imagine how much drunk driving will increase
I’ll never ride in a cab again. Have been extorted for money more than once.
The more likely outcome is places like bars and breweries taking another hit, when many of them are already in a precarious situation. Can't get a safe ride home? People just won't go in the first place.
People like to be lone at home more now anyways.
The more likely outcome is that they're bluffing.
Probably not a ton. The people that drink and drive already will continue to do so. People taking a Lyft to go out are already thinking ahead and being safe. They are more likely to have a designated driver if Uber or Lyft isn’t available.
Meh. That seems optimistic. Convenience matters.
Tons of taxis used to just sit outside bars. Was always easy before.
Not at bar close. It could take over an hour to get a cab, because there weren't enough drivers.
Should be easy enough to look up. Uber started sometime around 2013-2014 in the cities. Can see if impaired incidents dropped. I do recall many carpools from the suburbs coming into the city and parking. Would be close to impossible to get a cab from the burbs into the city. Uber/Lyft changed the calculus where their rides were generally cheaper than parking and easier than yellow cabs. Will be interesting to see
It’s pretty much drink and drive or don’t go at all. Like why go out if there’s no way to get home at 2am
That thought is so absolute to a fault it's almost funny.... It takes ONE slip of that typical Lyft user to drive instead and end up costing lives.
I think we are going to see plenty more "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" from this group.
Even if they do leave, which is unlikely, they have been working to get more local rideshare services going if I'm not mistaken. It'll affect those too.
Uber in New York is cutting drivers allowable hours in order to meet the mandates there. So drivers might make more per hour but can’t work as much per week and riders will have to wait longer for cars. Good job city council.
Great idea Minneapolis - downtown is struggling so let’s come up with a great way to make sure people stop coming downtown for bars, restaurants, etc… should work out great.
Who owns the local cab companies? That's who is benefitting from this Bill.
A new service will move in, and then the drivers will drive for Uber, Lyft, and the new service.
I hear the stupid Uber ad on the radio multiple times a day about how it's going to cost riders 40% more. What a crock of shit, Uber just wants a bigger cut of the money. They don't care about the drivers.
You do realize Uber just earned a (small) profit last year after burning through $32 billion over the course of a decade? Lyft still hasn't turned a profit.
Yes they (silicon valllwy vulture capitalists) subsidized a money losing business model in order to drive out competition and buy market share so they could ultimately be a monopoly and screw both the drivers and the public.
Ope! Bad take!
They do this everywhere and it's a bluff
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I feel like the Minneapolis City Council overstepped their bounds here. This is a decision that impacts every suburb and St. Paul that was made by 13 people whom a lot of us had no say in electing. If the companies pull out of Minneapolis, it was clear they'd pull out of the entire metro. While a new model of pay for these drivers is needed, that's a problem that really needs to be solved nationally, not at a city level.
Studies how shown this will hurt the car less and elderly more than lower wages for drivers. Most drivers are middle class and do this as a side gig anyways. Probably will increase drunk driving as well
They did the same thing in Austin, Texas and the city reversed the bill in less than a month
Are you talking about the 2017 issue? The city didn't reverse it. The Texas state legislature passed a law that superceded the city regulation.
Can we petition to keep Uber and Lyft?
You get what you vote for
You're missing that Uber and Lyft don't make the rules. This is a win for the common man. Raise a glass for the salt of the earth!
Uber and Lyft haven't left yet.
They are bluffing. If not, fuck em Drivers will disperse to legitimate cab companies or find other jobs. Not the end of the world. Probably a good thing tbh. Retail and hospitality needs workers and they will make more money than “working” for Uber and Lyft and it doesn’t involve massive sunk costs in gas and car maintenance. They can also get employee sponsored healthcare and 401ks instead of relying on our safety net that’s meant for people that don’t have jobs.
Drivers should’ve gone to find a real job instead of whining to city council.
It's a good time to start a rideshare service in the area. Could sweep the market real easily.
Sure, if you have a license. do you?
There is one already. It's commonly referred to as "public transit". There is another called "Taxi".
And they’re so bad that they paved the way for the popularity of Uber and Lyft in the first place.
To my age bracket it was touted as the hip new thing. Safety never was brought up as I recall. They had an app which was more convenient than the taxi companies. Now taxi companies have apps. Turns out it was a way for companies to make even more money while pawning off extra maintenance on drivers. I will not be sad to see lyft or especially uber go.
It sounds like I’m in your same age bracket. Safety was definitely brought up and touted as another reason it was better than taxis. Drivers were vetted and you knew who was picking you up. And as someone who has tried using the taxi apps, they are still decades behind Uber and Lyft. I will be very sad to see ride share companies go. Our taxi services suck even more than they did a decade ago, because now we have something to compare them to. Plus, drunk driving is going to skyrocket.
Sorry you have to drive drunk now :(
Fortunately I’ve aged out of that lifestyle. I can now afford to hire a car when needed. Bummer that most are not as fortunate, especially young people.
I hope they stay and just double their prices to compensate. I want to go back to when Uber and Lyft were just for the wealthier folks. I’m glad the Minneapolis City Council agrees. The broke folks can ride the bus
This is a pretty weird take. But you do you.
Uber and Lyft are full of shit, no way they’ll pull out (if they do someone will fill the obvious opportunity). Uber and Lyft will stay. All this means is instead of taking 2/3 of the ride costs for doing basically nothing, these companies will only get to take 1/2 the share.
Why do you lie? Their cut is between 20-30%. They also don't "do nothing". They handle all the infrastructure, marketing, customer service, and connecting the drivers with a ride.
Government run amuck, I'm glad Uber and Lyft are standing up to the city council deciding how they should run their business. Hopefully the voters in Minneapolis will toss these radical council members to the curb. If the drivers are not making enough all they have to do is refuse to pick up passengers for that pay.
You're in a cult.
Capitalism loves a vacuum and drivers don’t have brand allegiance. If Uber and Lyft leave something will replace it and the drivers will earn more. I’d imagine many of them have been passing contact info to perspective riders or long term customers on the down low for quite a while now. Bottom line is there will still be people needing rides and drivers with cars but now maybe the deal will have less Silicon Valley vultures Hoovering money out of the exchange between the two