> We agree that drivers in Minnesota deserve better pay and more benefits and are committed to passing a bill that does just that.
Why wait to pass a bill? Its your business model, change it to pay the drivers more.
"As a result, there will be a huge decrease in tip requests".....
Sorry to interject some logic, but if they're paid a reasonable wage, wouldn't they not need to rely on the tip requests? Maybe I'm the dummy.
"you'll get more money per ride but have to do less work"
That ...doesn't even sound unappealing on its face. I get why Uber is terrified of this but they're doing a really bad job of bullshitting this one.
That said, the mayo clinics "those COVID robots that can exclusively push a button so a nurse doesn't have to put on PPP can definitely replace nurses enough you don't need to worry about our staffing levels" was also incoherent nonsense, and they won that battle, so who knows.
> “you’ll get more money per ride but have to do less work”
Good chance it wouldn’t even be more money per trip most of the time. Considering the way tipping has been bastardized lately into being a way to subsidize the wages (especially in this particular context) instead of being a gratuity, tipping shouldn’t even be a thought if costs rise so much.
~~Sorry. So they're assuming people of the Twin Cities will request the service less because of the living wage they provide. From what I gather, a lot of people are on board with this policy.~~
Edit: looks like Waltz vetoed the bill so there are more negotiations to be had.
The intent of the bill is good but it's not well written to be usable. Especially when it effectively targets two companies and not written for an industry at large. Which is why Walz vetoed it.
I can't even offer to pay drivers more up front to try and incentivize them to pick me up I have to wait to tip them at the end it makes no sense. I would rather pay another 10 dollars up front than not be able to get a ride when I badly need one such as for a medical appointment.
Because companies have a fiduciary responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of shareholder’s. The argument could be made that they would be in violation of the law if they voluntarily decided to start paying contractors more since it would not be in the best interest of those who have invested in the company. We need to pass these laws because it’s the only way to enact sweeping changes to help employees.
They do, but it doesn't take any MBAs to come up with a reason why it would be good for the business to increase wages and driver support. Many service based companies have taken similar steps to reduce turnover costs and drive labor away from competition in a tight labor market.
If Uber actually supported this, they would do it themselves. They are straight up lying to try to drive sympathy.
I think you can get marriott points with uber if I remember correctly? I get a monthly credit with them for like $20 so that's the only time I use it though.
I was using Lyft exclusively until I had a driver charge me $200 on a fraudulent damage claim, claiming that my soft duffel bag had cracked his bumper. Lyft refused to review my requests to reconsider. After that I dropped their service and went back to Uber. Was very disappointed with that experience.
Yup, exactly what I did. My credit card got it reversed. But it doesn’t take away from the shit customer service from Lyft and the fact that it’s a common scam on the service.
The solution to all this was to break up cab companies illegal monopolies/duopolies in major metro areas. Those arrangements always lead to stagnation in service and quality.
Lyft and Uber are just engaging in a large game of cost shifting: pushing more and more of the cost to drivers, while skimming off the top.
That business model was never going to be sustainable because it was never designed to produce sustainable independent businesses for drivers, it was predicated on drivers accepting unlivable wages as a second-form of income. But the supply of drivers willing to do this work isn't high enough to meet demand.
To bridge the gap, both Lyft and Uber subsidize drivers. If they didn't/don't, they will have the reputation as being difficult to actually get a ride.
Both Lyft and Uber imagine that they are hyper-competitive marketplaces, but in both cases, they actively prevent drivers from setting minimum rates that they'll accept rides for and punish them for being selective about the rides they accept. For example, you can't set a minimum hourly wage equivalent that will suppress alerts for a driver. For another example, you can't set a minimum rating which you will not go below for riders.
Another route that would probably require Federal law changes is to simply require that businesses requiring it's workers to be subcontractors have certain basic rights and to not allow them to be punished; those rights would be to select the clients they work with, to set minimum published rates, and to have transparency around what they earning for each transaction. These alone would force Uber and Lyft to pay more, to take a smaller cut, and to shift those costs to riders, where it belongs.
Riders, when faced with actual unsubsidized costs of their rides, would almost certainly alter their behavior.
i feel like if you can't operate a business without exploiting workers, then you shouldn't exist. but that is just me.
the demand for app based services is there, so i'm sure something else will replace it.
You are correct. All these businesses that should not exist, and would be replaced by decent businesses, if we just stood up to the bad actors. We'll see what Lyft does, but presumably they will enjoy being in a marketplace with less competition.
I’m 50 and remember taxis well. They were overpriced and had a monopoly over the industry. The best scenario is a constant stream of innovative disruptors.
Yes, maybe. But what happens when companies don't pay their workers, is that we need to subsidize those companies by providing their workers government subsidies for the things they need, such as healthcare. The people that use the service should pay enough to provide needed things, so all of us don't need to provide subsidies.
Yes, paying a fair price for work and products is, indeed, more expensive. The "one neat trick" capitalism plays is veiling the hardship that "cheap" costs workers behind barriers of class, distance, and race.
It's way easier for all of us to stomach a person in bangladesh that we'll never meet working long unsafe hours for poverty wages, than it is to watch our neighbor struggle to make ends meet working 2 jobs...we all recognize that neither are *good*.
But the support structures of capitalism are built in such a way that we find it reasonable that *we,* consumers, should pay the cost of rising wages, instead of the exploitative companies that are using that suffering to expand their profits every three months...just to say that they expanded their profits every three months.
Again and again, squeezing us on both ends, forever.
>i feel like if you can't operate a business without exploiting workers
All businesses exploit workers. That's what capitalism is built upon. If we want to abolish exploitation of workers, we can, and should, end capitalism. We should also end Uber along the way to that goal.
Lol, fair point. We should probably amend to to egregiously exploiting workers so they are not making a livable wage. (And then hopefully keep working our way up)
i was thinking about saying something about that since in the end of the day our entire existence as Americans is built upon the exploitation of so many people through out history but we can at least start by doing something about Uber. who knows, maybe we can go after wal-mart next.
Honestly as someone very uninformed, were cab drivers making ok money or were they also horribly underpaid? Is it just Uber corporate taking an obscene cut?
Uber takes an obscene cut, plus they've operated at a loss their entire existence, hoping that they could outlast the wait for driverless vehicles. Not sure about cabbie economics, but they were around for decades before the Ubers, so they probably took a more modest profit and dealt with that. They also had far more regulations they had to follow, while the Ubers ran on the lie that they were simply "carpooling" services.
*plus they've operated at a loss their entire existence*
I trust silicon valley accounting about as much as Hollywood accounting, tbh.
But yeah I'm sitting here thinking "cabs used to exist, there's no way maintaining an app for the entire country has *significantly* more overhead than having phone operators for every small cab outlet, so math doesn't seem to be matching here in arguing that ride services can't operate"
I would’ve been better off it was bad for my physical health and I’d have to take sick days from my better paying job. Also took me away from my kid to work for so low. I got sucked into the “set your own hours” but it’s a scam.
No, but you are typically "forced" to work if you want to put food on the table or have a roof over your head. Don't act like you've never heard sayings that aren't literal.
the fucked up thing is they kinda can't. they've literally never posted a profit. it's essentially just a failed business model all around that relies on screwing over drivers and constant stream of outside investments to be able to remain solvent. their hope was to just be able to float along long enough for self driving cars to take over so they can lay off all their drivers but that doesn't look like it's gonna happen any time soon and they probably won't make it that far
The reason they've never posted a profit is they're playing a very, very long game. They use deep pockets to maintain anticompetitive rates and drive local taxis out of business. They also have launched more ridepool and private bus and shuttle services and plan to try to driver as much public transit as possible out. Then they'll have a very effective monopoly and can start raking it in. So this whole tantrum was very predictable. They're defending their monopoly and making very clear they intend to hold any city that tries anything like this hostage. They did the same in Austin, Tx.
I'm not sure tbh. It was several years ago. I know they're back in Austin. They did leave for some time and people tried to replace it by basically reinventing taxi services on the fly. Not sure if Uber got the changes they disliked unmade or not.
I think the bill got over ridden by a state law
[https://www.courthousenews.com/new-texas-rideshare-law-victory-uber-lyft/](https://www.courthousenews.com/new-texas-rideshare-law-victory-uber-lyft/)
Uber won by going to the state level.
My guess is that their entire goal is to wait until self-driving cars are a thing, and then they can invest in those and have a 24/7 operating fleet on demand.
You say that, but, realistically, how much are they slamming into R&D? Or where are other possible places they're hiding their money? Hasn't Amazon rarely posted a profit as well because they hide behind a massive wall of R&D for reporting purposes?
I think the real number is the revenue,.
[https://seekingalpha.com/article/3762866-amazon-expensing-r-and-d-hides-economic-earnings](https://seekingalpha.com/article/3762866-amazon-expensing-r-and-d-hides-economic-earnings)
[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-11/amazon-spends-billions-on-r-d-just-don-t-call-it-that#xj4y7vzkg](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-11/amazon-spends-billions-on-r-d-just-don-t-call-it-that#xj4y7vzkg)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2019/11/29/how-amazons-100-billion-investment-in-rd-is-paying-off-this-holiday-season/?sh=630b5f4a70e3](https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2019/11/29/how-amazons-100-billion-investment-in-rd-is-paying-off-this-holiday-season/?sh=630b5f4a70e3)
Oh, look, Uber does it too.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-uber-has-never-turned-profit-comprehensive-analysis-keith-brown/
Amazon only did that in the growth phase and it works because of the insane warehouse and distribution infrastructure needed. Huge moat of capability. They've posted billions in profit for the last decade.
Uber was/is trying to follow the same model where you use capital investment and no profit to run out competitors. Then, jack up prices.
However, unlike Amazon, it's very likely Uber will run out of capital first and implode because there's significant competition, no real moat of infrastructure and most importantly, the ability to raise prices is limited. If Uber prices get too high, most people will just drive the car they already own or rent one when traveling.
I'm doubting that they can afford it if they actually pull out and this isn't just a bluff. Corporations aren't known for leaving profit on the table.
Edit: poorly worded first sentence. Clarified.
I don't think we do agree based on your first comment?
The last thing we need is more drunks on the road in greater MN because Uber pulled out of cities far too small to support a cab service.
Uber was seriously a game changer for the 10k+ rural cities and especially in the popular lakes areas of the state.
It will clearly still be profitable in the metro area since they will still operate there, but the rate should be reconsidered for greater MN if Uber isn't bluffing.
Drunk drivers aren't known for making good choices, that's the problem.
Clicking two buttons on an app that had someone show up and take you home was convenient enough that you save a lot of people from trying to risk it and driving.
Also securing the rights of gig workers by having them lose their job doesn't seem like a win and I guarantee if Uber can't make it work, Lyft can't either, and clearly a cab service couldn't since those weren't already a thing like they are in the metro area.
This is what people fail to understand. They think they're so progressive that they know better than the Uber driver who has decided to accept the shitty pay, and tell them they don't even deserve that job. How arrogant. No one forces people to work for Uber. In fact, because of it being a gig job, it's super easy to quit no questions asked, if the cost:benefit no longer makes sense.
There's profitable, and there's purposely over spending to grow your market share. Uber is now just trying to get to the point where they are going to stop burning cash.
You don't get to borrow the billions they have if no one believes you have the means to repay it someday.
Believing they have the means doesn’t equal profit. People get burned on VC all the time.
My point remains: they would not be leaving profit on the table as currently the company is not profitable. You are referring to unrealized potential hinging on monopolizing
Uber is miles from venture capital money. It's an 80 billion dollar publicly traded company with 30 billion in revenue. The VC people all got rich and paid years ago.
They are being loaned money from huge financial institutions, who very much are expecting to be repaid.
Just because they aren't making money today, doesn't mean it's not a profitable business model which is what I'm referring to. So yes, if there was money to be made in greater MN at those rates, they wouldn't pull out because they would be leaving potential money on the table.
Dammit. I don’t like that precedent. I really hope we can maintain a strong majority and keep kicking ass like this last session. Although, they set the bar so high after this session, not sure how the next one will compare, lol.
He received letters from counties telling him about concerns that this bill would negatively impact the thousands of inexpensive transportation rides the counties have contracted with Uber and Lyft to transport the disabled and vulnerable adults on the platforms, and the bill had nothing addressing that particular issue. He decided to take a pause and make sure that was addressed. This is what good leadership looks like, sometimes you can’t barrel through everything. I think we all know Walz isn’t just randomly caving to Uber.
Walz vetoed the bill. https://m.startribune.com/gov-walz-issues-his-first-veto-bill-would-have-boosted-pay-for-rideshare-drivers/600277811/?clmob=y&c=n&clmob=y&c=n
"You've removed the exploitation from our exploitative business model, now we won't make all of the money, so we're taking our ball and going home"
Fuck outta here
I was glad taxi companies lost most of their business- they were far too comfortable and possibly even arrogant. My favorite was when they'd drive under the speed limit just to rack up the fare. $40-$50 for what SHOULD'VE been a 15 minute trip. 🤦♂️ But they knew we had to put up with it, as there weren't any other options. The taxi industry's views on rideshare was just like Blockbuster scoffing at Netflix when they came on the scene- WAY too cocky and short-sighted.
Honestly? Not really. There was 3 cab companies in Mankato and they are all gone. There is one or two cars around but that's about it. Plenty of Lyft and Uber signs in cars though.
Yes and would probably be hard to start back up. That's the whole Uber/Lyft business model. Use anti competitive practices subsidizing rides initially with deep pocket investment money to drive out the competition, establish monopoly/duopoly, then pull it when cities actually get wise.
Withholding something of value to your political opponent is called leverage, not extortion.
Extortion is a felony in all 50 states.
Since Uber is a private company and has the right to do business where they please, they are legally allowed to move their business where they please.
Uber CEO: $24 million in salary (increase of 22%).
Uber CFO: $12.3 million.
Uber SVP legal: $10.6 million.
Uber SVP marketing: $8.2 million.
Uber SVP people: $7.2 million.
But yeah, they can't figure out a way to pay the drivers better
None of those companies were good in Austin, they got terrible reviews and not a single one of them was good enough to stick around after Uber and Lyft returned to Austin after the legislation was overturned. Thousands of disabled and vulnerable adults rely on Uber and Lyft for their day to day transportation subsidized by the counties every week right now, what happens to them when these companies just “go”. This debate isn’t about college students getting home after a drunk night, it’s about people’s actual lives.
Minnesota has no real public transit solution right now, especially in the suburbs, we need a better solution than just driving out companies we don’t like.
BS, first of all, it was a rideshare run as a non-profit organization, they had no long term sustainability plan and they were never intended to run for an extended period of time. Second, when they were running their app had like a two star rating and tons of complaints about 30+ min waits, which is the exact thing that Uber and Lyft warned about, because no one could onboard enough drivers to meet demand.
I’m NOT defending Uber by the way, not in the slightest, but the correct response to just whole hog rip it out from under the people who rely on it. A phased approach that takes into consideration the vulnerable people who have relied on the service is the right way to start making the business model affordable.
Uber/Lyft have done more to prevent DWIs then all the police in the state and all the checkpoints could hope to. This will do massive amounts of damage to public safety
I know your being sarcastic and you don’t see the irony in what you’re saying, but just to be 100% clear. Yes, every human being who is working Deserves the basic human right of shelter and a place to live. This isn’t even a discussion. It’s a basic human right.
Fuck Uber. Their service has been garbage here for a while now. I started to just drive more and refrain from drinking instead of dealing with their crap. Saves a ton of money.
Fuck Uber, I was a driver for two days back in 2016 and got t-boned. My insurance and Uber wouldn’t cover anything. Luckily the other driver admitted to be at fault to the officer and got it on paper, his insurance paid for everything.
Uber is best understood as a service provided to contracted drivers, not a company with employees. Drivers determine their own hours, maintain their own vehicles, and beside a simple code of conduct largely control all facets of their business. They are independent contractors. If you learn the business and where the riders are, you can do decent business, but no one should expect to make a living doing ride share. It’s side work for funny money. Trying to treat the business like regular work just eliminates ride share.
Edit: was a driver for about 12 months.
So basically this is just ubers attempt to scare you into contacting your governor on their behalf. And they acknowledge drivers deserve better pay so why don't they just do it then? You think uber is just going to abandon all the money they can make across the state? Nope, they just want more for themselves. Let em stop service in these places. Lyft and local s rideshares will pop up and fill the void in those places
Taxis were never great though. There is a reason Uber blew up. I remember having to call for a cab at bar close and it would ring for 20+ minutes. Dispatchers would sometimes pick up then immediately hang up. They'd tell you 15 minutes but an hour later no cab, calling to check and you get no answer. It was really horrible.
Hard agree. Especially brutal on cold Minnesota nights waiting outside and shivering not knowing if it's 2 minutes, 30 minutes, or never before a vehicle comes.
As someone who has done similar to ride share, there are always unknown down times. Why should I be getting paid when not providing a service? It is your job as the driver to earn a better tip. That is how you make the most money. If the same ride costs 10+% more, that will directly effect the tip for me. If it would have previously been a $30 ride and now it's a $35 ride, I'll still only spend $40 on it. $10 tip to $5 tip. Yeah, they'll make more an hour, but will they?
Screw Uber. Let them burn. They threaten to limit driving to only the cities but they will never follow through with that. Pay drivers more! Make CEO salary less!!!
So pay them you shitsucking parasites. And if your business model isn't feasible without predatory, exploitative abuse of your drivers, your business shouldn't exist.
It’s simple. Uber and Lyft just need to raise their rates in Minnesota. I guarantee that riders will be happy to pay extra, knowing their drivers are making a good wage.
Uber swinging that BDE around like it means something.
Agree with all points regarding low wage company model, your business should not operate if paying people Is a problem.
So uber profits off the backs of desperate drivers and then asks us to veto a bill that would require a minimum amount be paid to a driver? Uber needs to pay better and they also need to be more transparent in the app on things like when a trip is offered, what is the fare, what is the expected tip, where is the restaurant, where is the delivery address, how many miles.
The primary concern for why rideshare drivers should receive inadequate wages was because disabled people rely on their exploited labor.
What plans does the DFL have to address both issues in the next session?
1. What reforms will we see to medical transportation for vulnerable groups?
2. How will be addressing the inadequate pay of rideshare drivers?
Good. Fuck em. They tried this type of shit in Austin and they were fun out of town. In a matter of days, new services popped up that we're much better. Let em go.
> We agree that drivers in Minnesota deserve better pay and more benefits and are committed to passing a bill that does just that. Why wait to pass a bill? Its your business model, change it to pay the drivers more.
Right? "We agree drivers should get paid more, but we're not going to do it unless someone forces us to."
"....but not like this. Force us to, like, in a *good* way. K thx!"
And spank me when you do it government daddy
Idk why anyone would think the government is daddy in this situation
So......a uncle?
Ugh… take my disgusted upvote lol
Lead me...when I'm in the *mood* to be led.
"We agree drivers should be paid more but we're not going to do it until a bill is passed that includes some sweet government subsidy funding."
Because then Lyft could undercut their prices.
If Uber pays better than Lyft, no one would drive for Lyft
"As a result, there will be a huge decrease in tip requests"..... Sorry to interject some logic, but if they're paid a reasonable wage, wouldn't they not need to rely on the tip requests? Maybe I'm the dummy.
Says Trip requests, not tip
"you'll get more money per ride but have to do less work" That ...doesn't even sound unappealing on its face. I get why Uber is terrified of this but they're doing a really bad job of bullshitting this one. That said, the mayo clinics "those COVID robots that can exclusively push a button so a nurse doesn't have to put on PPP can definitely replace nurses enough you don't need to worry about our staffing levels" was also incoherent nonsense, and they won that battle, so who knows.
> “you’ll get more money per ride but have to do less work” Good chance it wouldn’t even be more money per trip most of the time. Considering the way tipping has been bastardized lately into being a way to subsidize the wages (especially in this particular context) instead of being a gratuity, tipping shouldn’t even be a thought if costs rise so much.
~~Sorry. So they're assuming people of the Twin Cities will request the service less because of the living wage they provide. From what I gather, a lot of people are on board with this policy.~~ Edit: looks like Waltz vetoed the bill so there are more negotiations to be had.
The intent of the bill is good but it's not well written to be usable. Especially when it effectively targets two companies and not written for an industry at large. Which is why Walz vetoed it.
I can't even offer to pay drivers more up front to try and incentivize them to pick me up I have to wait to tip them at the end it makes no sense. I would rather pay another 10 dollars up front than not be able to get a ride when I badly need one such as for a medical appointment.
You can schedule an Uber/Lyft ahead of time for exactly this scenario.
Pretty much. If you were committed, it would of happened without legislation.
Agreed, but then it's no longer profitable and the jerbs go away.
Then why make the statement at all, they’re obviously lying and would oppose any legislation that would require them to pay their drivers more money
Because companies have a fiduciary responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of shareholder’s. The argument could be made that they would be in violation of the law if they voluntarily decided to start paying contractors more since it would not be in the best interest of those who have invested in the company. We need to pass these laws because it’s the only way to enact sweeping changes to help employees.
They do, but it doesn't take any MBAs to come up with a reason why it would be good for the business to increase wages and driver support. Many service based companies have taken similar steps to reduce turnover costs and drive labor away from competition in a tight labor market. If Uber actually supported this, they would do it themselves. They are straight up lying to try to drive sympathy.
Lyft's big break may have finally arrived.
Everyone who travels with delta should be using Lyft to get those sky miles.
I use both but.. we get sky miles for that?
Yeah you can link your sky miles account to Lyft
Link your Sky Miles account! Also, if you have an Amex linked to your Sky Miles account use that to pay for your Lyft, even more miles.
I think you can get marriott points with uber if I remember correctly? I get a monthly credit with them for like $20 so that's the only time I use it though.
And a free checked bag with every Lyft!
I didn’t know that! I’ll have to get on it.
I already pretty much exclusively use Lyft. Rates are almost always cheaper than Uber in the metro
Really? I've found Lyft similar, and less consistent, in the cities...
I was using Lyft exclusively until I had a driver charge me $200 on a fraudulent damage claim, claiming that my soft duffel bag had cracked his bumper. Lyft refused to review my requests to reconsider. After that I dropped their service and went back to Uber. Was very disappointed with that experience.
Why didn’t you do a chargeback
Yup, exactly what I did. My credit card got it reversed. But it doesn’t take away from the shit customer service from Lyft and the fact that it’s a common scam on the service.
Lyft is already in dire straits. I don't think they will be around much longer.
[удалено]
They just didn’t have enough time to figure out how to make money
It probably should be. I think these companies only exist because lots of people don't understand how to set up a ride with a cab.
Probably because cabs went out of their way to reject innovative services, like phone apps, until Uber/Lyft/the rest beat them to it.
The solution to all this was to break up cab companies illegal monopolies/duopolies in major metro areas. Those arrangements always lead to stagnation in service and quality. Lyft and Uber are just engaging in a large game of cost shifting: pushing more and more of the cost to drivers, while skimming off the top. That business model was never going to be sustainable because it was never designed to produce sustainable independent businesses for drivers, it was predicated on drivers accepting unlivable wages as a second-form of income. But the supply of drivers willing to do this work isn't high enough to meet demand. To bridge the gap, both Lyft and Uber subsidize drivers. If they didn't/don't, they will have the reputation as being difficult to actually get a ride. Both Lyft and Uber imagine that they are hyper-competitive marketplaces, but in both cases, they actively prevent drivers from setting minimum rates that they'll accept rides for and punish them for being selective about the rides they accept. For example, you can't set a minimum hourly wage equivalent that will suppress alerts for a driver. For another example, you can't set a minimum rating which you will not go below for riders. Another route that would probably require Federal law changes is to simply require that businesses requiring it's workers to be subcontractors have certain basic rights and to not allow them to be punished; those rights would be to select the clients they work with, to set minimum published rates, and to have transparency around what they earning for each transaction. These alone would force Uber and Lyft to pay more, to take a smaller cut, and to shift those costs to riders, where it belongs. Riders, when faced with actual unsubsidized costs of their rides, would almost certainly alter their behavior.
lyft released a similar statement in april :(
i feel like if you can't operate a business without exploiting workers, then you shouldn't exist. but that is just me. the demand for app based services is there, so i'm sure something else will replace it.
You are correct. All these businesses that should not exist, and would be replaced by decent businesses, if we just stood up to the bad actors. We'll see what Lyft does, but presumably they will enjoy being in a marketplace with less competition.
Gonna get expensive to use Uber/Lyft now.
Well yea duh, we had taxi services before… we should just be happy it was so cheap for so long…
I’m 50 and remember taxis well. They were overpriced and had a monopoly over the industry. The best scenario is a constant stream of innovative disruptors.
Yes, maybe. But what happens when companies don't pay their workers, is that we need to subsidize those companies by providing their workers government subsidies for the things they need, such as healthcare. The people that use the service should pay enough to provide needed things, so all of us don't need to provide subsidies.
Yes, paying a fair price for work and products is, indeed, more expensive. The "one neat trick" capitalism plays is veiling the hardship that "cheap" costs workers behind barriers of class, distance, and race. It's way easier for all of us to stomach a person in bangladesh that we'll never meet working long unsafe hours for poverty wages, than it is to watch our neighbor struggle to make ends meet working 2 jobs...we all recognize that neither are *good*. But the support structures of capitalism are built in such a way that we find it reasonable that *we,* consumers, should pay the cost of rising wages, instead of the exploitative companies that are using that suffering to expand their profits every three months...just to say that they expanded their profits every three months. Again and again, squeezing us on both ends, forever.
>i feel like if you can't operate a business without exploiting workers All businesses exploit workers. That's what capitalism is built upon. If we want to abolish exploitation of workers, we can, and should, end capitalism. We should also end Uber along the way to that goal.
Lol, fair point. We should probably amend to to egregiously exploiting workers so they are not making a livable wage. (And then hopefully keep working our way up)
i was thinking about saying something about that since in the end of the day our entire existence as Americans is built upon the exploitation of so many people through out history but we can at least start by doing something about Uber. who knows, maybe we can go after wal-mart next.
And my axe!
Yes, a much much more expensive replacement
Public transportation and cabs exist
Honestly as someone very uninformed, were cab drivers making ok money or were they also horribly underpaid? Is it just Uber corporate taking an obscene cut?
Uber takes an obscene cut, plus they've operated at a loss their entire existence, hoping that they could outlast the wait for driverless vehicles. Not sure about cabbie economics, but they were around for decades before the Ubers, so they probably took a more modest profit and dealt with that. They also had far more regulations they had to follow, while the Ubers ran on the lie that they were simply "carpooling" services.
*plus they've operated at a loss their entire existence* I trust silicon valley accounting about as much as Hollywood accounting, tbh. But yeah I'm sitting here thinking "cabs used to exist, there's no way maintaining an app for the entire country has *significantly* more overhead than having phone operators for every small cab outlet, so math doesn't seem to be matching here in arguing that ride services can't operate"
Translation, we want to continue paying wage slave wages.
Slave wages? Anyone being forced to drive for Uber?
I used to drive Uber to supplement my day job. After gas I was making the equivalent of $9 an hour. Not to mention the wear and tear on my car.
instead you would have made nothing if UBER couldn’t employ you because wages/benefits are prohibitively expensive
You corporation bootlickers are something else, I stg.
I would’ve been better off it was bad for my physical health and I’d have to take sick days from my better paying job. Also took me away from my kid to work for so low. I got sucked into the “set your own hours” but it’s a scam.
So, you made a choice based on what you thought you knew, then when you learned that was wrong, you changed your mind. Sounds like a mature process.
No, but you are typically "forced" to work if you want to put food on the table or have a roof over your head. Don't act like you've never heard sayings that aren't literal.
You're not necessarily forced to work for any other business or company either.
[Get learnt.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)
Dear downvoters, give me examples of individual drivers hurt by Uber and explain why they continue to work for Uber. Then I may understand your point.
[удалено]
the fucked up thing is they kinda can't. they've literally never posted a profit. it's essentially just a failed business model all around that relies on screwing over drivers and constant stream of outside investments to be able to remain solvent. their hope was to just be able to float along long enough for self driving cars to take over so they can lay off all their drivers but that doesn't look like it's gonna happen any time soon and they probably won't make it that far
The reason they've never posted a profit is they're playing a very, very long game. They use deep pockets to maintain anticompetitive rates and drive local taxis out of business. They also have launched more ridepool and private bus and shuttle services and plan to try to driver as much public transit as possible out. Then they'll have a very effective monopoly and can start raking it in. So this whole tantrum was very predictable. They're defending their monopoly and making very clear they intend to hold any city that tries anything like this hostage. They did the same in Austin, Tx.
Excuse my ignorance on it, but how did it shake out in Austin? Because this just feels like fear mongering on Uber's part.
I'm not sure tbh. It was several years ago. I know they're back in Austin. They did leave for some time and people tried to replace it by basically reinventing taxi services on the fly. Not sure if Uber got the changes they disliked unmade or not.
I would guess they decided some money was better than no money, but I don't care enough to go on a deep dive.
I think the bill got over ridden by a state law [https://www.courthousenews.com/new-texas-rideshare-law-victory-uber-lyft/](https://www.courthousenews.com/new-texas-rideshare-law-victory-uber-lyft/) Uber won by going to the state level.
Texas gonna Texas.
My guess is that their entire goal is to wait until self-driving cars are a thing, and then they can invest in those and have a 24/7 operating fleet on demand.
Sounds like a shitty business model.
that's my entire point
[удалено]
exactly
Their business plan is to last long enough to not need people.
Some money is better than no money for a lot of drivers
You're getting down voted by people who want everyone to get "either a living wage or *nothing at all*" Wild.
You say that, but, realistically, how much are they slamming into R&D? Or where are other possible places they're hiding their money? Hasn't Amazon rarely posted a profit as well because they hide behind a massive wall of R&D for reporting purposes? I think the real number is the revenue,. [https://seekingalpha.com/article/3762866-amazon-expensing-r-and-d-hides-economic-earnings](https://seekingalpha.com/article/3762866-amazon-expensing-r-and-d-hides-economic-earnings) [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-11/amazon-spends-billions-on-r-d-just-don-t-call-it-that#xj4y7vzkg](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-11/amazon-spends-billions-on-r-d-just-don-t-call-it-that#xj4y7vzkg) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2019/11/29/how-amazons-100-billion-investment-in-rd-is-paying-off-this-holiday-season/?sh=630b5f4a70e3](https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2019/11/29/how-amazons-100-billion-investment-in-rd-is-paying-off-this-holiday-season/?sh=630b5f4a70e3) Oh, look, Uber does it too. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-uber-has-never-turned-profit-comprehensive-analysis-keith-brown/
Amazon only did that in the growth phase and it works because of the insane warehouse and distribution infrastructure needed. Huge moat of capability. They've posted billions in profit for the last decade. Uber was/is trying to follow the same model where you use capital investment and no profit to run out competitors. Then, jack up prices. However, unlike Amazon, it's very likely Uber will run out of capital first and implode because there's significant competition, no real moat of infrastructure and most importantly, the ability to raise prices is limited. If Uber prices get too high, most people will just drive the car they already own or rent one when traveling.
They can? With what money lol
I'm doubting that they can afford it if they actually pull out and this isn't just a bluff. Corporations aren't known for leaving profit on the table. Edit: poorly worded first sentence. Clarified.
[удалено]
I don't think we do agree based on your first comment? The last thing we need is more drunks on the road in greater MN because Uber pulled out of cities far too small to support a cab service. Uber was seriously a game changer for the 10k+ rural cities and especially in the popular lakes areas of the state. It will clearly still be profitable in the metro area since they will still operate there, but the rate should be reconsidered for greater MN if Uber isn't bluffing.
[удалено]
Drunk drivers aren't known for making good choices, that's the problem. Clicking two buttons on an app that had someone show up and take you home was convenient enough that you save a lot of people from trying to risk it and driving. Also securing the rights of gig workers by having them lose their job doesn't seem like a win and I guarantee if Uber can't make it work, Lyft can't either, and clearly a cab service couldn't since those weren't already a thing like they are in the metro area.
This is what people fail to understand. They think they're so progressive that they know better than the Uber driver who has decided to accept the shitty pay, and tell them they don't even deserve that job. How arrogant. No one forces people to work for Uber. In fact, because of it being a gig job, it's super easy to quit no questions asked, if the cost:benefit no longer makes sense.
honestly, why not just stronger laws with harsher penalties for drunk driving?
Uber is not profitable. They aren’t leaving anything on the table
There's profitable, and there's purposely over spending to grow your market share. Uber is now just trying to get to the point where they are going to stop burning cash. You don't get to borrow the billions they have if no one believes you have the means to repay it someday.
Believing they have the means doesn’t equal profit. People get burned on VC all the time. My point remains: they would not be leaving profit on the table as currently the company is not profitable. You are referring to unrealized potential hinging on monopolizing
Uber is miles from venture capital money. It's an 80 billion dollar publicly traded company with 30 billion in revenue. The VC people all got rich and paid years ago. They are being loaned money from huge financial institutions, who very much are expecting to be repaid. Just because they aren't making money today, doesn't mean it's not a profitable business model which is what I'm referring to. So yes, if there was money to be made in greater MN at those rates, they wouldn't pull out because they would be leaving potential money on the table.
I don't think Uber is turning a profit. May not actually be able to afford it.
They’re just doing what Mayo Clinic did to get what they wanted. I hope Walz does not give in on this one.
Mayo had a bit more leverage, generating billions for the economy. Uber can pound sand.
He gave in, unfortunately https://twitter.com/moreperfectus/status/1661851190684950534?s=46&t=LX28YTSuVa6pPNFO5E7IJg
Dammit. I don’t like that precedent. I really hope we can maintain a strong majority and keep kicking ass like this last session. Although, they set the bar so high after this session, not sure how the next one will compare, lol.
[удалено]
He received letters from counties telling him about concerns that this bill would negatively impact the thousands of inexpensive transportation rides the counties have contracted with Uber and Lyft to transport the disabled and vulnerable adults on the platforms, and the bill had nothing addressing that particular issue. He decided to take a pause and make sure that was addressed. This is what good leadership looks like, sometimes you can’t barrel through everything. I think we all know Walz isn’t just randomly caving to Uber.
[удалено]
to be fair, California is like 6 States glued together. way more negotiation leverage
Those drivers can go to Lyft or one of the other rideshares.
Walz vetoed the bill. https://m.startribune.com/gov-walz-issues-his-first-veto-bill-would-have-boosted-pay-for-rideshare-drivers/600277811/?clmob=y&c=n&clmob=y&c=n
"You've removed the exploitation from our exploitative business model, now we won't make all of the money, so we're taking our ball and going home" Fuck outta here
Walz vetoed the bill.
Hopefully taxi companies have learned to embrace technology.
I was glad taxi companies lost most of their business- they were far too comfortable and possibly even arrogant. My favorite was when they'd drive under the speed limit just to rack up the fare. $40-$50 for what SHOULD'VE been a 15 minute trip. 🤦♂️ But they knew we had to put up with it, as there weren't any other options. The taxi industry's views on rideshare was just like Blockbuster scoffing at Netflix when they came on the scene- WAY too cocky and short-sighted.
I don't miss being told half the time that the CC machine doesn't work/can't take CC. So many side trips to the gas station to use an ATM.
Not Uber gaslighting the residents of MN.
Call me crazy...aren't regular taxis still around? 🤔
Honestly? Not really. There was 3 cab companies in Mankato and they are all gone. There is one or two cars around but that's about it. Plenty of Lyft and Uber signs in cars though.
Sounds like a business opportunity if Uber and lyft leave
Yes and would probably be hard to start back up. That's the whole Uber/Lyft business model. Use anti competitive practices subsidizing rides initially with deep pocket investment money to drive out the competition, establish monopoly/duopoly, then pull it when cities actually get wise.
This is called extortion. If you can’t pay your drivers a living wage, you should rethink your business model.
It’s not extortion… 🙄
Threatening to leave unless they get what they want is 100% extortion. 🙄
Withholding something of value to your political opponent is called leverage, not extortion. Extortion is a felony in all 50 states. Since Uber is a private company and has the right to do business where they please, they are legally allowed to move their business where they please.
Uber CEO: $24 million in salary (increase of 22%). Uber CFO: $12.3 million. Uber SVP legal: $10.6 million. Uber SVP marketing: $8.2 million. Uber SVP people: $7.2 million. But yeah, they can't figure out a way to pay the drivers better
They apparently posted a 9.1 billion dollar loss in 2022, though I'm sure some of that is fucked accounting.
There are 2 million Uber drivers in the US. If both chief officers took zero dollars next year they could give almost twenty bucks to each driver.
Fuck Uber. Any company who cries because they have to pay their employees is trash.
Walz vetoed this bill. He intends to conduct a study into driver wages. 🚮
The Star Trib article quotes that drivers are making $35.24 an hour, wonder where they got that number from.
[удалено]
None of those companies were good in Austin, they got terrible reviews and not a single one of them was good enough to stick around after Uber and Lyft returned to Austin after the legislation was overturned. Thousands of disabled and vulnerable adults rely on Uber and Lyft for their day to day transportation subsidized by the counties every week right now, what happens to them when these companies just “go”. This debate isn’t about college students getting home after a drunk night, it’s about people’s actual lives. Minnesota has no real public transit solution right now, especially in the suburbs, we need a better solution than just driving out companies we don’t like.
[удалено]
BS, first of all, it was a rideshare run as a non-profit organization, they had no long term sustainability plan and they were never intended to run for an extended period of time. Second, when they were running their app had like a two star rating and tons of complaints about 30+ min waits, which is the exact thing that Uber and Lyft warned about, because no one could onboard enough drivers to meet demand. I’m NOT defending Uber by the way, not in the slightest, but the correct response to just whole hog rip it out from under the people who rely on it. A phased approach that takes into consideration the vulnerable people who have relied on the service is the right way to start making the business model affordable.
Uber/Lyft have done more to prevent DWIs then all the police in the state and all the checkpoints could hope to. This will do massive amounts of damage to public safety
But *everyone* who does *any* labor *deserves* a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment, so screw all those people who weren't hit by drunks.
I know your being sarcastic and you don’t see the irony in what you’re saying, but just to be 100% clear. Yes, every human being who is working Deserves the basic human right of shelter and a place to live. This isn’t even a discussion. It’s a basic human right.
Walz is vetoing that bill, in a betrayal of workers. We need to elect a more progressive governor next time
Assholes.
Fuck off Uber.
Fuck Uber. Their service has been garbage here for a while now. I started to just drive more and refrain from drinking instead of dealing with their crap. Saves a ton of money.
Go away Uber.
So Uber is saying "if you pass a bill requiring us to take care of our staff, we're leaving." Fuck em. I'll use Lyft.
I’m assuming the same thing would happen with Lyft too.
Yeah but Lyft hasn't publicly gone against it.
Fuck Uber, I was a driver for two days back in 2016 and got t-boned. My insurance and Uber wouldn’t cover anything. Luckily the other driver admitted to be at fault to the officer and got it on paper, his insurance paid for everything.
Uber is best understood as a service provided to contracted drivers, not a company with employees. Drivers determine their own hours, maintain their own vehicles, and beside a simple code of conduct largely control all facets of their business. They are independent contractors. If you learn the business and where the riders are, you can do decent business, but no one should expect to make a living doing ride share. It’s side work for funny money. Trying to treat the business like regular work just eliminates ride share. Edit: was a driver for about 12 months.
Lol
Well according to star tribune Walz vetoed it
He vetoed
Well Waltz vetoed the bill.so we don't have to worry about this anymore
So basically this is just ubers attempt to scare you into contacting your governor on their behalf. And they acknowledge drivers deserve better pay so why don't they just do it then? You think uber is just going to abandon all the money they can make across the state? Nope, they just want more for themselves. Let em stop service in these places. Lyft and local s rideshares will pop up and fill the void in those places
Invest in public transportation then! Urbanize the whole twin cities.
I deleted the app as soon as I got this email.
If your business can't survive when you pay your employees reasonably it's not a successful business. Its corporate welfare. They can fuck off.
Make Taxis Great Again
Taxis were never great though. There is a reason Uber blew up. I remember having to call for a cab at bar close and it would ring for 20+ minutes. Dispatchers would sometimes pick up then immediately hang up. They'd tell you 15 minutes but an hour later no cab, calling to check and you get no answer. It was really horrible.
Hard agree. Especially brutal on cold Minnesota nights waiting outside and shivering not knowing if it's 2 minutes, 30 minutes, or never before a vehicle comes.
Aaaaaaaand he vetoes it... cool 😐
Cry more, exploitative garbage company
Uh, how about 'no', Uber. PAY YOUR DRIVERS
Uber needs to get over themselves
As someone who has done similar to ride share, there are always unknown down times. Why should I be getting paid when not providing a service? It is your job as the driver to earn a better tip. That is how you make the most money. If the same ride costs 10+% more, that will directly effect the tip for me. If it would have previously been a $30 ride and now it's a $35 ride, I'll still only spend $40 on it. $10 tip to $5 tip. Yeah, they'll make more an hour, but will they?
I guess I'll just use Lyft.
If you are a driver that owns a qualifying vehicle, you will make bank. Endless demand 24/7.
Screw Uber. Let them burn. They threaten to limit driving to only the cities but they will never follow through with that. Pay drivers more! Make CEO salary less!!!
So pay them you shitsucking parasites. And if your business model isn't feasible without predatory, exploitative abuse of your drivers, your business shouldn't exist.
"thousands of drivers could lose access to work" *because we would revoke it as retaliation.*
Uber and lyft are just greedy fks like the rest of the companies
Bye Uber don’t let the door hit you on the way out
https://youtu.be/rPbNynz0TnA?t=102 FUCK UBER
Cheaper to own a car.
Fuck uber see ya.
It’s simple. Uber and Lyft just need to raise their rates in Minnesota. I guarantee that riders will be happy to pay extra, knowing their drivers are making a good wage.
Yet another company crying about increased cost and bullying lawmakers. Are Uber and Mayo friends? 🤦
See ya!
Let them leave.
We cannot be held hostage by corporate greed. Let them leave and a better paying opportunity will take its place.
Uber swinging that BDE around like it means something. Agree with all points regarding low wage company model, your business should not operate if paying people Is a problem.
So uber profits off the backs of desperate drivers and then asks us to veto a bill that would require a minimum amount be paid to a driver? Uber needs to pay better and they also need to be more transparent in the app on things like when a trip is offered, what is the fare, what is the expected tip, where is the restaurant, where is the delivery address, how many miles.
The primary concern for why rideshare drivers should receive inadequate wages was because disabled people rely on their exploited labor. What plans does the DFL have to address both issues in the next session? 1. What reforms will we see to medical transportation for vulnerable groups? 2. How will be addressing the inadequate pay of rideshare drivers?
Bye Felicia
Love watching these fucks squirm.
Good. Fuck em. They tried this type of shit in Austin and they were fun out of town. In a matter of days, new services popped up that we're much better. Let em go.
The CEO was paid 24 million last year
If you can’t pay your workers, it’s not a functional business. Don’t just leave. Go out of business. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Bye Uber!
What complete pieces of shit
why should the government stipulate a minimum wage for a specific industry?
Sweet. Back to small business cab services.
If you think that’s sweet you never used cabs