Uber's Prop 22 Earnings Guarantee Explained By A Driver

I will crack Lyft hacks

Well-Known Member
Workman's comp and UI are state programs. The IRS is federal.

Yes, that is correct. My point stands. What’s your point. They are state programs not using the IRS 20 Factor test. Each state is different.
Post automatically merged:

They sure can. They can drive for Lyft or any other rideshare company.
It’s not running your own business if you take someone to the airport and they want you to bring them back, but you can’t because you are not legally allowed and permitted to.
 

NicFit

Well-Known Member
This is straight from the Uber app, I’m going to vote yes on Prop 22, I don’t want to be a wage slave and will take my chances on making way better money. It’s like I said all along, Uber will pay you hourly and that’s it, no more fare splitting, you work when and where they want. Prop 22 isn’t perfect but without it you might as well as work flipping burgers, no point on driving for $18 an hour

02B40BC1-484B-401F-9D11-90B412F16109.jpeg
 

I will crack Lyft hacks

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat: I offer $1 for 100 worms. If people sell me their worms for that rate, it doesn't make them my employees.
Correct, no need to repeat. I buy things off Amazon and Alibaba. That does not mean buying a item makes the buyer an employer. Amazon will not be able to win in court if they claim I am their employer because I purchased something.
Post automatically merged:

Drivers don't get a blank contract. They get a contract which, in my opinion, is missing some key data. Drivers do have a

How do you feel about existing laws though!

Are you aware Nevada uses the ABC test for UI.
69CAD6E2-F1C3-4E05-83EE-FDF8159DC0E4.jpeg
 
Last edited:

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Correct, no need to repeat. I buy things off Amazon and Alibaba. That does not mean buying a item makes the buyer an employer. Amazon will not be able to win in court if they claim I am their employer because I purchased something.
Post automatically merged:



How do you feel about existing laws though!

Are you aware Nevada uses the ABC test for UI.
View attachment 511909

The fact that Nevada requires a state business license is prima facia evidence the state believes driving for rideshare is a business.
 

I will crack Lyft hacks

Well-Known Member
The fact that Nevada requires a state business license is prima facia evidence the state believes driving for rideshare is a business.
Not for UI. For claims from drivers, like I posted but you ignored, the unemployment department In Nevada uses the full ABC test for unemployment claims.

That means if there was no PUA and you filed regular UI, you would have the RIGHT to regular UI. Its the law not what I think. It’s good to be aware of the laws regardless of our personal views.

I personally was surprised your Unemployment department has the exact same ABC test as California’s.
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Not for UI. For claims from drivers, like I posted but you ignored, the unemployment department In Nevada uses the full ABC test for unemployment claims.

That means if there was no PUA and you filed regular UI, you would have the RIGHT to regular UI. Its the law not what I think. It’s good to be aware of the laws regardless of our personal views.

I personally was surprised your Unemployment department has the exact same ABC test as California’s.
Care to provide a link?

I found, "During a virtual news conference on Thursday, interim director Heather Korbulic said the state’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program will be live starting May 16." It goes on, "Nevada was the last state to launch a portal where rideshare drivers, massage therapists and other independent contractors could receive benefits."


And from Nevada Public Radio:
Uber Drivers Are Not Employees
 

I will crack Lyft hacks

Well-Known Member
Care to provide a link?

Code NRS 612.085

A driver would have to file the MISCLASSIFIED WORKER claim. For only UI in your State you will be found an employee regardless what Uber said.
You could ask for a audit and they would change your status right now if you felt the payout is better.
My state has the exact same test and they did a audit and changed my status to employee only for UI benefits. Just saying. I know it’s hard to believe.

095EA87A-064E-4089-98F0-B96F4DEE00F8.png
D020A9D8-2A8E-4805-ACC1-FACBA325AE4B.png

Post automatically merged:

 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
I know it’s hard to believe.
It is. I sort of understand UI during the pandemic but not during normal times, especially in Nevada. Requiring a business license is the kicker. Having the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation saying, " where rideshare drivers, massage therapists and other independent contractors could receive benefits" is icing on the cake.

Here in Vegas, exotic dancers are IC's. The clubs have much more control of the dancer's activities than Uber has over its drivers.

I believe Nevada interprets the ABC test differently than California. Each of the 3 criteria could be interpreted differently for the same activity by different people.
 

Jst1dreamr

Well-Known Member
When this thread began is seemed that the OP was trying to help people understand his interpretation of Prop 22 on the California November ballot. It possibly could have been beneficial to some people struggling with their understanding, or maybe not who can say. Now because so many people on UP from other states can't get the concept that California is an independent state and they do not do things like any other state does nor do they care what the other states do, so when they just ramble a bunch of worthless information about their state it just takes away from the people that may have been able to benefit from the OP's original message.
So much worthless information on how life is in other states. Not one bit of information from any of the other 49 states makes a damn bit difference on what California prop 22 means or will mean if passed in November.

I think that this thread should be renamed to "RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT NOBODY IN CALIFORNIA CARES TO KNOW"
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
I think that this thread should be renamed to "RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT NOBODY IN CALIFORNIA CARES TO KNOW"
Perhaps you'd rather only the OP post in this thread. Let all his thoughts go unchallenged. Alternate ideas should be banned. After all, only the OP's ideas matter. Right? Maybe we should have 370 threads instead of 370 posts in this thread?
 

Jst1dreamr

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you'd rather only the OP post in this thread. Let all his thoughts go unchallenged. Alternate ideas should be banned. After all, only the OP's ideas matter. Right? Maybe we should have 370 threads instead of 370 posts in this thread?
No, I would rather people don't mix their state rules in with California. True that someone like you in Las Vegas can read the text of prop 22 online but you should not try to insert your state laws because they do not make a bit of difference. You argue for nothing. If you worried about Nevada and not California maybe everybody would better off.
For the record I don't agree with a lot of the OP's interpretation but at least I respect that he has at least made an attempt to put out info that is pertinent to the issue. What I am saying is your states law has no place in California. Other states people have no need to worry about what California does. You should just stay out of it all together.
Maybe we would not need 370 threads if you minded you own problems and no body else's.
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
No, I would rather people don't mix their state rules in with California. True that someone like you in Las Vegas can read the text of prop 22 online but you should not try to insert your state laws because they do not make a bit of difference. You argue for nothing. If you worried about Nevada and not California maybe everybody would better off.
For the record I don't agree with a lot of the OP's interpretation but at least I respect that he has at least made an attempt to put out info that is pertinent to the issue. What I am saying is your states law has no place in California. Other states people have no need to worry about what California does. You should just stay out of it all together.
Maybe we would not need 370 threads if you minded you own problems and no body else's.
Putting my head in the sand is not my modus operandi. What have your 2 posts contributed?

My state uses the same ABC test for independent contractors as kalifornia. Think there might be other similarities? Think garbage from one state might travel to other states? Think those in other states might learn from one state's mistakes? If someone from one state calls the sky's color purple someone might correct them? Which sub-forum are we in?
 

Jim1234

Member
I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:

(TL : DR - With its clever mentions of "minimum wage + 20%" and "mileage allowance", the Uber earnings guarantee offer intends to convince drivers and others voting on Prop 22 that it features a robust job-like earnings protection for drivers. However, a closer look reveals that it is, in reality, simply a per-trip earnings guarantee that covers only part of drivers' total work time and mileage expense. It is a woefully inadequate offer which falls way short of the minimum wage + all expenses earnings floor set by AB5)

What is the earnings guarantee?

The earnings guarantee does not replace current rates per mile or rates per minute. What it does is guarantee that drivers will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile but only from ping acceptance until pax dropoff. So, using SF rates, let's say that you get a ping that is one mile away and the trip length is 5 miles; total distance driven is 6 miles. It takes you 4 minutes to drive to the pax, 3 minutes for the pax to get to the car and 15 minutes to drive the pax to their destination; total time = 22 minutes. Uber would guarantee that the driver would make on this trip:

Mileage: 6 x $0.30 = $1.80
Minimum wage x 1.2 for those 22 minutes: $15 x 1.2 x (22/60) = $6.60
Total guaranteed earnings: $8.40

Now let's see what the trip earnings would be for this trip:

Base fare : $1.60
Miles: 5 x $0.72 (the app only calculates miles with pax on board) = $3.60
Time: 1 minute wait time + 15 minutes' drive = 16 minutes. 16 x $0.31 = $4.96
Total: $1.60 + $3.60 + $4.96 = $10.16

Because $10.16 actual earnings is $1.76 above the $8.40 guarantee, no guarantee payment would be made.

Is this an hourly pay guarantee?

No, it is not. Although the guarantee mentions 1.2 times minimum wage, it only applies while the driver is on route to pick up a pax or has pax on board. This is crucial - because it only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is nothing more than an individual trip earnings guarantee, not a guarantee of hourly earnings for the total time spent working rideshare on a given day.

Why is this guarantee good?

In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute. The guarantee's rates per mile are $0.30 per mile and ($15 x (1.2 / 60)) = $0.30 per minute. So it's fairly easy to see that the app rates will almost always beat the guarantee - 72 cents per mile is way higher than the 30 cent per mile of the guarantee and $0.31 beats $0.30 per mile. However, the app only pays when the pax is in the car, whereas the guarantee also applies during the drive to the pickup. So, there are situations in which the guarantee would actually pay out, that is, when the drive to the pickup is exceptionally long and the trip length with pax on board is short. However, experienced drivers know that doing these trips (i.e. a 10 mile drive to pickup in order to drive a pax 2 miles) is a total waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. So, for experienced drivers who know what they are doing, this potential benefit of the guarantee would not apply.

Why is this guarantee bad?

First, as already mentioned, this is a trip earnings guarantee; it is not a "shift" earnings guarantee. It does not apply to all of the time worked and it does not apply to all of the miles driven on a shift.

Second, it allows Uber to continue its deprioritisation practice, whereby it sends vastly fewer pings to drivers who it considers aren't accepting enough pings. That would be you, all you cherry pickers out there. If Uber chooses not to give a driver any trips or very few trips then the driver will earn very little and the guarantee will not pay.

Third, the guarantee mentions that it is calculated over a two week basis. This means that if your earnings were to exceed the guarantee on one trip, as in the above example where the actual earnings exceeded the guarantee by $1.76, but on the next trip the actual earnings were, for example, $1.50 below the earnings guarantee, the driver wouldn't get any guarantee payment for the second trip! The reason is that $1.76 - $1.50 = $0.26. The total earnings of the driver for both trips would still be 26 cents above the guarantee amount, meaning no extra pay, even though the second trip was below guarantee. It's easy to see that, over all of the trips done by a driver in a two week period, the trips in which the driver did not beat the earnings guarantee will be "compensated for" by the higher paying trips that the driver did within the period. This means, in effect, that the driver's own earnings from those higher paying trips will be used to cover the earnings guarantee for the lower paying trips, instead of it being paid by Uber.

Why does Uber choose a two week period over which to evaluate drivers' earnings for the guarantee instead of just using the normal one week pay period? Because the longer the period, the more it benefits Uber and the more it detriments drivers - a two week trip analysis period means a higher chance that a driver will accrue higher paying trips which would raise his/her average while-on-trip earnings, and therefore a lower chance that Uber will have to actually pay the guarantee. Uber now trumpets that it wants to do right by drivers. If it wanted to, it could calculate the earnings guarantee after the completion of each trip. This would give drivers maximum earnings protection under it. But evidently Uber does not want to do that, preferring to build the minimum payment possible into the design of the guarantee.

Overall, this guarantee is stacked heavily in Uber's favour and gives drivers virtually nothing while allowing Uber to maintain its control over drivers at almost no additional cost to itself.

Uber's offer in the driver app mentions an hourly guarantee example of $23.10/hr in Los Angeles. Is this smoke and mirrors?

Yes. Uber's example covers only the hours spent driving to the pax and with pax on board. We generally are on a trip about 50% of the total time we drive rideshare. This means that, in order to drive the 20 hours on-trip time in Uber's example, we would have been in the car for around 40 hours total, meaning that Uber's guarantee is actually worth $11.55 per hour, which is less that the $13/hr minimum wage in Los Angeles. And that's before the driver pays for gas, car maintenance and all the other expenses.
That was a great explanation. Uber just won’t pay or recognize our professionalism. Sad.
 

Jst1dreamr

Well-Known Member
Actually once Uber has the law off their back they will continue to lower wages and mistreat drivers.

Uber has a global track record of lying, skirting the law, and obstructing justice.

What makes you think Uber will not do the same once AB5 is off their back?
He is an all seeing, all knowing uber shill. He has been around since the middle of January 2020 and in that time he has acquired vast amounts of knowledge into how uber operates. Nothing any of us seasoned drivers say will matter to this type of know it all. Uber methodology is the only thing he believes.
Post automatically merged:

Putting my head in the sand is not my modus operandi.
No, but it would benefit the world if you did.
 

_Tron_

Well-Known Member
I have seen a couple of threads here in which posters have said that they don't understand Uber's earnings guarantee. So, here it is:

Thank you kindly for the post. Now, all things considered, are you voting yeah or nay on 22?
 
Last edited:

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Thank you kindly for the post. Now, all things considered, are you voting yeah or nay on 22?
It's a no from me. It would set a precedent that says that it's ok if your company can only exist if it operates a business model that does not cover all of its employee expenses and depends on the State for subsidisation of public benefits.

Labour protection laws were hard fought for, and I don't think we want to step back decades and just give that up.
 

AB5

Active Member
sorry, as an employee or an IC? As an employee the whole concept of 'pings' goes away. They become dispatch orders: you get, you go. No go, you fired.
Wrong. For 30 years before these stupid Apps you could be dispatched and say yes or no. Ask a California courier
Post automatically merged:

If prop 22 fails, AB5 will be the law of the land.
Do you realize you will be treated exactly as an employee. A minimum wage, part time employee.
That's if you are even offered a job.
Who in their right mind would want to be an employee of any these manipulative gig app companies?
Who in there right mind would want to be slave to Ubers App?? People wanting Food Stamps SSI owning back Taxes owning child support defaulted student loans felonies or high on drugs. That is who would not like being a employee.
 

Judge and Jury

Well-Known Member
Wrong. For 30 years before these stupid Apps you could be dispatched and say yes or no. Ask a California courier
Post automatically merged:


Who in there right mind would want to be slave to Ubers App?? People wanting Food Stamps SSI owning back Taxes owning child support defaulted student loans felonies or high on drugs. That is who would not like being a employee.
So, we are in agreement. Being a wage slave to Uber's algorithm as an employee is bad, right?
 
Top