Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#11

Post by anoncoward111 »

mlindner wrote: post #8

This is just the process of NYC trying to drive Uber and Lyft out of the city and to force them to be expensive and bad like the taxis that existed before them. After a few years when they get bad enough they can start to blame the poor quality on "private corporations" and people will eat it up. Then they'll outright ban them and they'll be back to taxis.

Put me in the screencap, because this is how NYC rolls.

If people consume it privately, regulate it until it's so unusable that the government version is adopted.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#12

Post by hndamien »

NTDF9 wrote: post #10

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

Why should medallion owners be protected for their investment decisions? I thought that was the gripe about the banks to (albeit - the banks are far less deserving of sympathy).

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#13

Post by ec109685 »

NTDF9 wrote: post #10

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

There is also the congestion Uber/lyft are causing that should be factored in.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#14

Post by rayiner »

hndamien wrote: post #12
NTDF9 wrote: post #10

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

Why should medallion owners be protected for their investment decisions? I thought that was the gripe about the banks to (albeit - the banks are far less deserving of sympathy).

The medallion system was a bargain: we protect you from competition, and you agree to price controls and other regulations. Taxis can't do surge pricing, for example, because the rate regulations don't allow it. So if the government is going to back out of its end of the bargain, it's not unreasonable to compensate medallion owners.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#15

Post by NTDF9 »

hndamien wrote: post #12
NTDF9 wrote: post #10

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

Why should medallion owners be protected for their investment decisions? I thought that was the gripe about the banks to (albeit - the banks are far less deserving of sympathy).

Medallion owners were suckered into "investing" in them when law mandated that taxi drivers NEED to buy them. Ideally, they should just have been asked to go through a taxi training program and asked to interview at taxi commpanies and get a job. Much like airline pilots. They are innocent humans and should be reimbursed (maybe with a haircut).

Banks need to suck it up. I don't care about them. They cal lay off some execs to make up that money if they want to.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#16

Post by NTDF9 »

ec109685 wrote: post #13
NTDF9 wrote: post #10

Bureaucracy to solve a problem created by bureaucracy in the first place. They should really have let the free market play its hand here. To take the pressure off medallion owners, add some 0.5% tax per ride and use the collections to buy out some medallions. Setting a min wage is the wrong way to go about it. The whole point of progress is to make things cheaper.

There is also the congestion Uber/lyft are causing that should be factored in.

They are also providing employment and income to people. So, I wouldn't worry so much about the congestion impact of it. If congestion is too much, they drivers will drive slower and surge pricing will strike causing demand to drop, thus reducing congestion.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#17

Post by dx034 »

eridius wrote: post #9
thatoneuser wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fair question. IMHO it absolutely should include if you’re sitting idle. One of the biggest scams these companies are taking part in wrt labeling their workers as “contractors” is you have to work the worst hours to hit metrics. You can’t just go drive 40 hours a week when you want - it has to fall on busy times and nights. If this doesn’t make them responsible for all the hours they want people out and availa…

If a driver accepts every ride the service offers them, then I agree they should be paid for the idle time in between being offered rides. If they don't accept every ride offered them (as is their right, as independent contractors), how do you determine how much idleness is ok? Saying "if you reject a single ride you lose your minimum wage" doesn't seem ok, because that punishes them for exercising their right as an…

I guess most drivers would be fine accepting all offered jobs within a fixed period. For most it's a full time job anyway, the only reason they would refuse jobs in between is because they're not paying well enough or because they got one with a competitor.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#18

Post by Traster »

eridius wrote: post #9
thatoneuser wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fair question. IMHO it absolutely should include if you’re sitting idle. One of the biggest scams these companies are taking part in wrt labeling their workers as “contractors” is you have to work the worst hours to hit metrics. You can’t just go drive 40 hours a week when you want - it has to fall on busy times and nights. If this doesn’t make them responsible for all the hours they want people out and availa…

If a driver accepts every ride the service offers them, then I agree they should be paid for the idle time in between being offered rides. If they don't accept every ride offered them (as is their right, as independent contractors), how do you determine how much idleness is ok? Saying "if you reject a single ride you lose your minimum wage" doesn't seem ok, because that punishes them for exercising their right as an…

I would put it this way: They must be paid for all idle time. If they're on the app they're considered to be working. It's like the person working at the McDonalds drive through - if no one pulls up to the drive through that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be paid. It's then down to Uber or Lyft or whoever to determine whether they want to engage a contractor whose previous behaviour includes spending long periods not accepting jobs.

Re: NYC sets $17 an hour minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

#20

Post by eridius »

Traster wrote: post #18
eridius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a driver accepts every ride the service offers them, then I agree they should be paid for the idle time in between being offered rides. If they don't accept every ride offered them (as is their right, as independent contractors), how do you determine how much idleness is ok? Saying "if you reject a single ride you lose your minimum wage" doesn't seem ok, because that punishes them for exercising their right as an…

I would put it this way: They must be paid for all idle time. If they're on the app they're considered to be working. It's like the person working at the McDonalds drive through - if no one pulls up to the drive through that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be paid. It's then down to Uber or Lyft or whoever to determine whether they want to engage a contractor whose previous behaviour includes spending long periods…

The person at a McDonald's drive-thru is an actual employee though, they're paid for all their time on the job, and they can't just refuse to serve a given customer. A Lyft or Uber driver is a contractor, and is legally allowed to refuse any individual ride.

If they couldn't refuse rides, then saying "pay them for all the time they're in the app" makes sense, but that's not the case. Since they can refuse rides, it doesn't make sense to say "you must pay them for all the time they're in the app", especially since a single driver can be active on both Uber and Lyft at the same time.

One could argue that drivers should be turned into part-time or full-time employees, at which point yes they'd have to be paid for their idle time, but that's a different argument.

Post reply on HN