But it literally is, so what's your argument against that? They'd get minimum wage at both their part-time jobs like everyone else, like contracting or temping part-time for two agencies. What warrants anything but the standard interpretation?
With Uber and Lyft, most drivers I've seen are on both apps simultaneously and choosing the best ride that pops up, which makes the standard interpretation obsolete for gig jobs like this which allow for parallelism.
While I support good wages for drivers, it is unclear who pays the good wage -- Uber, Lyft, or both, or half each, or some proportion as you clock-in-clock-out constantly. I'm sure there is a good answer that is fair to the driver, but I haven't heard it yet.
Nobody is doing two jobs at once. They can only take one ride at a time. They simply alternate ate a higher frequency than other jobs. Why would this frequency have any effect on how they are treated?
> While I support good wages for drivers, it is unclear who pays the good wage -- Uber, Lyft, or both, or half each
They get paid by the company from which they take the ride from. Whoever they're working for at a particular time, for those particular miles, is who pays the rate.
My question was -- what if you log in to Uber AND Lyft simultaneously (as most drivers do) and dont get a ride. Do you get 2x the fair wage?
Presumably this will lead to some sort of tighter geofencing, or caps on how many drivers can be active at a given time?
This is before you get into weird things around locality. If I live outside of Seattle, but drive into Seattle to do some Lyft driving, does this apply to me? What if I take a ride that starts outside of Seattle, but ends up in the city? Or if I pick up someone in Portland and drive them to Seattle?
> I think what's confusing is there's two different wages being thrown around here: Are drivers guaranteed at least $16.39/hr, in addition to $0.56/minute and $1.33/mile driven while transporting?
> The questions I think are mostly about the former, not the latter.