But … I don’t think the cities are properly accounting for the ease of using multiple apps? If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that time. But it sounds like they might be able to under this new law.
Why not? The entire shtick of Uber et al is that employees choose their hours and gain "freedom" from employees. This is what freedom looks like. Employers can't tell freelance contractors how they should behave. They decide a contract, they get a service and get their job done.
The contract can absolutely require exclusivity if paying by time.
See: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762
It's mostly not whether they can contractually demand any one particular thing. It's the sum total of behavioral and financial control they exert. Exclusivity would be a pretty big ticked box.
If Uber/Doordash tick enough of those questions, then they are at risk of having to treat their drivers as employees. Which is more expensive.
You're saying that they should get both the benefits of freelancers (pick work) and employees (minimum wage).
Other than the obvious authoritarianism, that would also harm the environment with people driving a lot more.
Funny I have the exact opposite opinion. I think it's good for all parties involved. Restaurants get a bigger market. Delivery people get more freedom at work. Eaters get convenience. Delivery apps get a piece of the revenue for efficiently routing drivers and customer service.
If it's truly bad for all parties, there'd be no Uber Eats, no one would order from Uber Eats, no restaurant would sign up, and no one would deliver.
What a strange take.
If I take 3 billion dollars and setup a company that flies in people from other parts of the country at a loss to do your job for half the money you get for it, and have everyone compete for it, then when you lose your job and the business you worked for gets dependent on a business model requiring cheap disposable labor and I own the market I then I jack up prices to more than you were being paid but take the difference as profit, would you consider that a win for all parties?
* https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/uber/company-pro...
- Drivers: clearly unhappy with their pay at least in NYC and other major markets.
- Restaurants: have been quite vocal about how they are in a lose-lose situation because they can’t afford to not participate but also have to give a massive cut to Uber.
- Customers: probably the happiest group but in general there’s a rising tide of complaints about the massive fees.
- Uber/Doordash: losing money despite everyone else thinking they’re taking absurdly high cuts.
The entire model is unsustainable if everyone thinks their cut is too low. Regulation will probably fix it for one or two parties which will cause the others to opt out.
But people are still ordering. Drivers are still driving. Restaurants are still on the apps.
So clearly, some people still find value in all of this.
Getting paid 7 bucks an hour in NYC: that's freedom, baby!
At the core of the problem is the concept if a contractor. These cities are trying to go around a federally defiend concept of contracting. You agree, as a self-employed business operator to provide services and get paid for it. Employees on the other hand provide labour which means performing assigned tasks under a specific job title, typically under some sort of management with performance reviews and accomodations provided. Anyone from IT workers to general contractors contract out services as a business, not labour as an employee.
When you hire a general contractor to fix your roofing for example, they are not your employee, you don't have to pay them minimum wage, withold taxes or provide medical care and paid vacation to them. I have been a contractor and hated it but I know people who love it.
The scale and nature of Uber's business is no reason to treat them differently when everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Taxii drivers were typically independent contractors as well unless they had their own medallion back in the day.
I have not read any argument so far as to why Uber and friends should be treated differently.
I would hate to pay more for their services just because a bunch of people who can't ger a job elsewhere want to force uber into employing them when it wants to contract them. Most people I have met who do this work have another day job and uber is extra income. If you wanna do it full time, you can pick locations like airports for uber and downtown areas for doordash and ubereats, especially in places like manhattan or miami and make much more than minimum wage.
To be clear, under this law, the guy who hustles and makes $25/hr will get paid minimum wage just like the guy who takes a nap in his car near his house until he gets an order/ride. Essentially, in addition to other burdens, they want drivers to be paid for being available but also drivers would have to be told where to work and how to work, for example you can't park in the middle of nowhere, where you know you won't get any orders and get paid for it.
If the apps are idiots, perhaps. In practice, this law basically all but these companies to employ a fleet of drivers.
You can already see this at work as Uber tries to become profitable - ride availability, cost, and quality are getting worse but people continue to use them out of habit or because regional alternatives have been weakened by years of subsidies.
The competition ceases to exist and the requirements to re-enter the market once the dumper is a monopoly (usually with the politics power that entails) is beyond the scope for damn near anyone to achieve.