Uber Drivers Forum banner
  • If you have joined UberPeople.net because your Uber account was hacked, you've likely been taken in by a scam. Please read this before starting a thread on this subject.

Uber's Prop 22 Earnings Guarantee Explained By A Driver

Pay 
32K views 400 replies 49 participants last post by  Daisey77 
#1 · (Edited)
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.
 
See less See more
#7 ·
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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
👀

Trying to understand Uber math...

Eyewear Art Pattern Personal protective equipment Visual arts
 
#9 ·
It also means Uber can't lower rates any lower then this, as long as there is a ping going that means Uber can't slash rates to below minimum wage. If you aren't getting rides why should Uber pay to you sit around? I just pull over when done with one ride and wait for the next. If I don't get a ride in a short amount of time I'll drive to a busier place. During that drive I keep the app on and write it off on my taxes. I know how to make more money then this formula so it will never kick in. But the point is that while you have a request from Uber you will be guaranteed this rate and they can't make you drive for less then minimum wage ever

If this fails and they make you an employee do you really think your going to get a cut of the fares anymore? Nope, you'll get minimum wage and only minimum wage, no surge, no bonus, no fare cuts, nothing more. Take this deal, you want to be their partner and not their employee, how many other service jobs pay a cut of the service to their employees?

This is a safety net, not a money maker, vote yes on Prop 22
 
#34 · (Edited)
The alternative is been at the beck and call of uber and just been 1 fake complaint away from been deactivated forever without any kind of due process. At least with been an employee you can get some assistant for wrongful termination and they just can't press a mouse button and get rid of you.

Uber already acts like an employer but with none of the benefits of been an employee. At least with been an employee you can have some annual leave, sick leave and all the entitlements that comes with been an employee instead of some disposal cheap driver working all year round barely covering living expenses and not knowing if they are going to have a job the next day.

True IC wouldn't have ratings, wouldn't be forced to agreed to one sided employment contracts with no say apart from yes or no and if you say no you can't work. The vast majority of drivers, especially full time drivers are already employees but getting zero employment benefits.
 
#41 ·
The alternative is been at the beck and call of uber and just been 1 fake complaint away from been deactivated forever without any kind of due process. At least with been an employee you can get some assistant for wrongful termination and they just can't press a mouse button and get rid of you.
As an employee you would most likely be approved for unemployment insurance.

Under Prop 22, you get ZILCH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moJohoJo
#35 ·
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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
The problem is that the pay rate for trips is less than half what it used to be when it was still highly comoetetive with taxis.
We need to keep our eye on the ball. Doing this ubering we need to make a living wage after maintenance insueance and fuel cost. That means at keast $20.00 dollars per driving not carrying passengers per hour. Anything less is unsustainable. U/L have robbed us for too long because we had 0no negotiating power and they abused the drivers without any concern for our health and welfare. They are getting what they deserve withvAB5.
THEY COULD AND CORPORATELY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD OCCUR. These companies are run by grifters who never looked long term. They have screwed the drivers, the public and their investors.
We need to stop with the Uber math and get back to good accounting principals. The last company that strayed from this was Enron and we know where that went.

When I postedc$20.00 per hour I meant bet net net
 
#40 ·
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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
On the other hand...
Once I get my first ride of the night (admittedly, it might take up to 30 minutes), I'm going constantly. Before I drop off a pax, I have another pax waiting. It gets to where I WELCOME A slow night. I must turn off the app to take a break.

So, not a lot of down time for me.

In IE zone, San Bernardino, the numbers of Prop 22 is meaningless.
 
#80 ·
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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
please I would love to find out where you got this information because that sounds so awesome if we weren't relegated to 30 cents a mile, please show me where you got this information, thank you in advance.
 
#88 · (Edited)
please I would love to find out where you got this information
Uber.

I keep saying this over and over again -- Uber will not give or promise anything to drivers unless it benefits Uber.
There are rare cases of collateral benefit (the opposite of collateral damage). The best example of this was when Uber started charging pax wait time after 2 minutes in order to encourage them to haul their arses to the car. Uber did not do this for drivers' benefit; it did it for its own benefit - having its cars parked up with the flashers on for five minutes each ride meant a wasted driver resource and lost earnings for Uber. We drivers also happened to benefit from this change.

Such examples of collateral benefit are extremely rare, though.
 
#96 · (Edited)
I'd rather be duped by Uber then not have a job.
This is the real problem. Some drivers have become so used to suckling on the Uber teat that they have become totally dependent on it. For them, Uber disappearing would turn them into the animal that freezes in the oncoming headlights, paralysed with fear and not knowing what to do. As stated in the above quote, for them no Uber = no job. The thought doesn't occur to look for alternatives, or simply to wait for the rideshare 2.0 contenders should Uber pack up and leave. It wouldn't be a long wait.

Anyway, the net effect of this submissive behaviour is that these drivers will put up with any and all mistreatment that Uber chooses for them. Anything is better than the terrifying prospect of no Uber. That's really sad, and doesn't speak too highly of those afflicted by it.

Theory of Inverse Intelligence: The higher the Temperature, the lower the Common Sense
Studies have shown that a massive 50% of people have below median IQ. 🤣

Usually the guy is sharper than that; I think it must be the heat.
 
#107 ·
This article pretty sums it up completely.


"We can all agree that slavery is morally abhorrent. But Hawley's legislative focus, however admirable, is somewhat myopic: he and other policymakers also need to focus attention on other forms of labour exploitation occurring right under their collective noses in America's "gig economy", in which benefits and protections that were key components of our employment laws for many decades are now being rapidly unwound.

No company better exemplifies this trend than Uber. The company's exploitation of workers is symptomatic of the rise of what author Albena Azmanova has called "precarity capitalism" in her new book, Capitalism on Edge, a condition that Professor James Galbraith has described as "a minority ensconced in a diminishing set of safe career paths or sufficient wealth not to bother worrying about [economic insecurity], and a majority living in persistent anxiety over the costs of health, housing, education, the quality of public services and other formerly ordinary attributes of middle-class life.

What makes this trend particularly galling is that the main economic drivers of this transition to 21st-century serfdom fancy themselves as enlightened, socially "woke" corporations, but in fact embrace employment practices worthy of the 19th century Gilded Age.

The company uses retrograde tactics to circumvent existing labour law via the "independent contractor" loophole, which allows them to deny their work force traditional employee benefits, such as healthcare, sick leave and holiday pay, themselves the products of many decades of hard-earned reform. And even with these 19th century work practices, Uber still can't generate positive cash flow, let alone sustain profitability. There's no reason why a company with this kind of business model should exist."

"
 
#110 · (Edited)
Even AB5 would pay more
can you expand on that with some details? Also, how would you account for not all active drivers would 'become' employees? Uber over threatened 75% wouldn't be asked to join as employees.

The UI program is financed by employers who pay unemployment taxes on up to $7,000 in wages paid to each worker. The actual tax rate varies for each employer, depending in part on the amount of UI benefits paid to former employees. Thus, the UI tax works much like any other insurance premium.
 
#114 ·
Personally @NicFit I think you're taking your anger out on the wrong folks. You should be addressing this with Uber and Lyft directly. California deemed us employees. They did so because obviously Uber and Lyft couldn't prove otherwise. So you need to be mad at them. If they would pull their heads out of their asses and actually make as true independent contractors as you say we are, then they could pass the ABC test and voilà everything would be over. They are choosing to not treat us as such which in return is preventing them from being able to pass the ABC test. The law is doing as it should. Uber and Lyft are failing to do their part by not being able to pass the ABC test which would support their claim that we are independent contractors. It's rather simple make as independent contractors or pay the dues that come along with having us employees.
 
#117 · (Edited)
pay the dues that come along with having us employees.
only issue with that, you know for those actually in Calif, is neither U/L will hire every single currently active driver. So the needs of the few (or the one) is more important than the needs of the many?
That is a steep hill to climb to 'become' an employee. You sure you want this in your state?

Are you really starting with that again?
I'm sorry, did I stop? We, those in calif, are not employees. You can jump up and down and do a dance and have a angry face all you want. The is a court order stay in place and nothing happened......yet..... Court dates set this month for next round. Until then, the judge's orders mean diddly squat.

Show me the W4 and I'll stop mentioning it. Show me a pay stub with all the wonderful deductions. I'll wait. OH, I mean I'd have to show YOU since I'm here and you ain't. So, you must wait. Might be soon, so be ready. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
#162 ·
So you want to stay independent contractor? Then vote yes on Prop 22
[/QUOTE]

I know the moment I am classified as a third category, I will have no rights either way.

I know it's a trick, a setup.

Using our fear and hate towards becoming employees to coral us like sheep into a trap.

One thing I know, as a third category, I will not set rates, or see the contract.

By only paying for " engaged time" that legally means my area will be flooded with drivers to no end. No car cap, no need to limit drivers, the more drivers, the faster the passenger gets a car. There will be 3/4 times more drivers since they dont have any obligation.

If I can't see rates, see contract, and the streets get flooded with drivers, then it's useless.

I see a third category as inferior to possibly getting a exemption from AB5 due to recent changes, or becoming a employee.

Rather be a real contractor by Uber making changes and giving me more control, or even a employee with flexibility, than be a third category with no rights.

Instead of a third category, I hope Dara listens to Tony West ( Lawyer) and makes the changes Tony needs to show the courts to pass ABC test.

Instead of voting yes, think what can Uber do so we can pass the real contractor test. Then pressure them to do that instead of accepting less.
 
#163 ·
I know the moment I am classified as a third category, I will have no rights either way.

I know it's a trick, a setup.

Using our fear and hate towards becoming employees to coral us like sheep into a trap.

One thing I know, as a third category, I will not set rates, or see the contract.

By only paying for " engaged time" that legally means my area will be flooded with drivers to no end. No car cap, no need to limit drivers, the more drivers, the faster the passenger gets a car. There will be 3/4 times more drivers since they dont have any obligation.

If I can't see rates, see contract, and the streets get flooded with drivers, then it's useless.

I see a third category as inferior to possibly getting a exemption from AB5 due to recent changes, or becoming a employee.

Rather be a real contractor by Uber making changes and giving me more control, or even a employee with flexibility, than be a third category with no rights.

Instead of a third category, I hope Dara listens to Tony West ( Lawyer) and makes the changes Tony needs to show the courts to pass ABC test.

Instead of voting yes, think what can Uber do so we can pass the real contractor test. Then pressure them to do that instead of accepting less.
I agree, of the three current options of employee, pseudo contractor or real contractor, real contractor is the best. But that will never happen. Giving up its control would destroy Uber's business model. And it would open the floodgates for other states to follow suit.
 
#164 ·
I agree, of the three current options of employee, pseudo contractor or real contractor, real contractor is the best. But that will never happen. Giving up its control would destroy Uber's business model. And it would open the floodgates for other states to follow suit.
I agree, but unfortunately it's too late in the game now for "true" independent contractor status. That should have been the focus of regulators early on in Rideshare's existence, enforcing that Uber and Lyft abided by existing laws pertaining to ICs vs. employees. Instead our elected officials preferred to take payola from U/L and bury their heads in the sand until they could no longer satiate their thirst for additional tax revenue. Uber, Lyft AND the drivers were all played by the corruption in Sacramento.

Of course, had Uber and Lyft been forced to treat drivers as true ICs from the very beginning there would be no need for this bitter campaign with 100 years of labor law progress hanging in the balance. But being that we're most likely screwed regardless, perhaps the best case scenario would be to have Prop. 22 go down in flames on Nov. 3rd and have Uber/Lyft pull out of California completely. Once their constituents realize how dependent folks have become on Ridesharing in California, both drivers and riders alike, hopefully lawmakers will be amenable to renegotiating the terms of AB5 to provide true IC status for drivers including cementing in law the ability to set their own rates/surge, upfront trip information, and a mechanism by which drivers are given due process against unfair deactivation.
 
#165 ·
I agree, but unfortunately it's too late in the game now for "true" independent contractor status. That should have been the focus of regulators early on in Rideshare's existence, enforcing that Uber and Lyft abided by existing laws pertaining to ICs vs. employees. Instead our elected officials preferred to take payola from U/L and bury their heads in the sand until they could no longer satiate their thirst for additional tax revenue. Uber, Lyft AND the drivers were all played by the corruption in Sacramento.
I'm convinced that California does not want true IC status for drivers. At the moment, Uberlyft acting as drivers' boss, overseer and enforcer of state rideshare regulations works out great for the state. If drivers became true IC then this supervisory buffer between state and driver would disappear and the state would find itself dealing directly with 100,000+ independent drivers. CA wouldn't have the resources to deal with this, and gearing up to deal with it would be hugely costly.

Of course, had Uber and Lyft been forced to treat drivers as true ICs from the very beginning there would be no need for this bitter campaign with 100 years of labor law progress hanging in the balance. But being that we're most likely screwed regardless, perhaps the best case scenario would be to have Prop. 22 go down in flames on Nov. 3rd and have Uber/Lyft pull out of California completely. Once their constituents realize how dependent folks have become on Ridesharing in California, both drivers and riders alike, hopefully lawmakers will be amenable to renegotiating the terms of AB5 to provide true IC status for drivers including cementing in law the ability to set their own rates/surge, upfront trip information, and a mechanism by which drivers are given due process against unfair deactivation.
I also think that the best option would be for Uber and Lyft to take a hike. Not least because it would spell it out for future employers that they must comply with labour law.
 
#166 ·
I think both sides of this argument are not quite right on some stuff...

For one, this will not end up being a straight up minimum wage job. Why? Because this job is simply an above minimum wage job type job. It's not a $250K a year job, but it's not washing dishes either. Supply and demand in RS seems to have dictated that in order to get enough drivers to supply the number of rides needed they need to pay $20-30 an hour, depending on market. Total compensation will probably stay in this ballpark, but see the next bit... Anyway to get enough drivers to show up to handle the rides pay will probably have to stay in this general area, or else they won't have enough drivers to meet the demand. Simple.

Second, people who want to be employees are idiots for 1,000 reasons... But the biggest one is that they think they're going to make the same CASH and ALSO receive a bunch of free benefits... That's not how reality works. There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION. At fancy jobs employers know people expect certain benefits at certain pay levels, so they figure $100K a year + X Y Z benefits, for total compensation of $135K a year. Some might offer $90K cash and more benefits by a bit, or other $115K and slightly fewer benefits, but for saaay a programmer with a certain set of skills TOTAL COMPENSATION will always be in that narrow range. That's how that works. If Uber HAS to provide a bunch of benefits, then cash pay WILL go down. The only other alternative is to raise prices. Maybe they will a bit, but it is true that at a certain amount of increase there will be a decrease in the number of rides too. I think in many areas rates can go up a bit, but they can't double them and not decrease ride totals a ton. So most likely you will get lower cash pay and a few dodgy benefits which many people don't want or need to begin with. Sick days? That means less money hitting your pocket all the days you work! Etc etc etc.

Ignorant people don't understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything has a cost. The cost of healthcare is that money not being deposited into your bank account in the form of cash every week. End of discussion. You will not get similar cash pay as now AND benefits. It's one or the other, because total compensation is limited by how much income can be generated by ferrying idiots around in cars. The reason people in RS can't make $100 an hour is because people won't pay enough for that to be possible. So don't expect $20-30 in cash AND benefits, because RS doesn't generate enough revenue to pay that much, and if they tried to raise prices to do so the market would probably collapse to half the size it is now.

Also, you are dreaming if you think you'll have any amount of freedom. As has been mentioned a million times there will be schedules, people not allowed to log on, do this day or you're fired, higher standards of behavior, etc etc etc if they have to classify you as an employee with all the BS that entails. Quit fooling yourself into thinking otherwise.

As far as things go, I was suggesting essentially Dara's "third way" years ago. All he is actually suggesting is that FREEDOM be allowed to exist without government interference, like it used to before America was ruined by idiot leftists. The reason no gig company CAN offer a lot of perks they might offer to gain workers is because it is literally illegal to do so without taking on ALL the things employees require. We have a system with 2 options, instead of a system with infinite options which could exist without government interference.

Before labor laws got out of control workers and businesses just hashed out what worked for them. It got intense sometimes, but the market always worked it out. Some workers might want medical, while others might want more cash, etc. People were free to negotiate, including collectively via unions, what they wanted. Then idiot politicians declared what everybody must pay/offer, taking away the right of people and businesses to choose for themselves. Without government interference there could be a union of IC drivers, but it can't happen because of dumb laws! And Uber could be free to refuse to hire any of those union drivers... Unless they couldn't get enough people to drive without hammering out a deal with the union. That's how freedom and the market works.

His idea of having a pool of money for the perks a person actually wants is a good one. I would only use the "sick days" as it's really just a way to convert it to cash on days I wouldn't work anyway, as I don' want any stupid benefits. Some people DO want those other things though. it's the perfect way to allow everybody what they want, without what they don't want, and it even scales proportionally based on how much you work, which is a big thing for gig jobs. It's a pretty solid idea that is literally illegal because of dumb, outdated labor laws that never should have been passed in the first place.

As somebody who actually understand economics and knows history it always blows my mind how AGAINST FREEDOM many people are. They don't even understand how things work to begin with, but then they are willing to just throw their freedom of action away with the false promise of some free thing or benefit or whatever. I wish there was a 2nd earth where the USA had remained true to the ideals of small government which could show people how much better things would be with like 80% less government, taxes, etc. Everybody would be far wealthier and better off and more free to do as they please.
 
#167 ·
There's only so much for TOTAL COMPENSATION.
Did you use to run a fortune 500 company or work as head of HR or even HR of one?

The smart employees know, especially in tech start ups, that the "benefits" or the "RSU" are just frills.

Anyone whose base is $50k but total comp is $150k-it's either their first job, or they've yet to buy a house, or they really, really believe in that company.

The funny thing is, employees from what I've read, get to negotiate their pay with RSUs. For example, they can take a lower base but greater RSU shares. Or they can take a greater base but lower RSU shares.

When was the last time you negotiated with Uber regarding the rate you're paid? Unless you're in CA, and even then it's only because of AB5.
 
#178 ·
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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
SF is .68 cents per mile not .72.

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:

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 the guarantee only applies when the driver is on a trip, it is a guarantee of trip earnings only, not 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.

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 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.
This still allows Uber to flood the market with drivers.
 
#210 · (Edited)
SF is .68 cents per mile not .72.
As I stated in the post,
In SF, the app pay rates are (for a 20 percenter) $0.72 per mile and $.31 per minute.
I am a 20 percenter. Uber takes only a 20% cut from my fares.

Do you realize what you are actually saying here?
Yes, why would I waste time on the long pickup/min fare shorties that I won't make money on? You can do those, if you like. Be my guest!
You are upset about not getting paid for declining rides.
No. At no time have I expressed upset at not being paid for declining rides.
Think about that. The reason your guarantee in for engaged time only is so that you still have the freedom to turn down any ride you want.
Think about this - a driver could be a dedicated Uber-only driver who accepts all pings. He is on standby, if you like, ready and waiting for Uber to send him a ping. He is still "at work". Yet he gets zero pay from Uber for this time. He will also sometimes have to deadhead back from dropoff zones where there are no pings. He gets zero pay from Uber for this time, either. No, the reason your guarantee is for drive time only is because it is cheaper for Uber.

However, I understand what you are saying. And it is why trying to have an earnings guarantee when the workers are free agents is unworkable. Why do you think that Uberlyft ended the hourly guarantee promotions? Because drivers would just go downtown to knock out the minimum required number of rides as fast as possible and then drive over to a quiet no-pings neighbourhood and hide for the rest of the guarantee period.

It's either guaranteed pay and assigned work, or no guarantee (which is effectively what this offer is from Uber) and independence. You can't have it both ways.
The second we get paid for every minute online, you will have to accept 80-90% of rides.
Yes, employees have to do the work assigned to them
You can't have it both ways.
I don't want it both ways. I want Prop 22 to fail and AB5 to remain.
Also, there are plenty of pings in SF. Pre Covid I was there for almost 6 months and never had an issue getting pings.
As above, there will always be deadhead driving, which under the pseudo IC model is unpaid. And there will always be times when there will be a wait for pings. SF Bay area is not back to back pings 24/7.
 
#183 ·
When prop 22 fails... Uber will just have to give more leeway to the drivers for them to be considered independent contractors… California better not choke and let Uber get its way.

if Uber would have been less greedy AB5 never would have come up.
We can't go back in time. We deal with what is at the moment.
CA and Uber do what you have to do and see where the dust settles.
 
#187 · (Edited)
I wish the drivers could vote, not the general public that has no clue.

Then whatever the outcome, it would be democratic amongst us.

Too many years of law braking and now It's going to hurt drivers either way.

I wish all of us well!

Maybe if we become employees, we can collectively bargain and confront Gonzales for a exemption.

And she can tell us what changes she wants to give us a exemption.

Come on Gonzales, if I set my own rates, have contract details, get commercial insurance, Uber puts a minimum on rates above minimum wage, pays worker's compensation and unemployment. Can we get a exemption then.

Maybe that is the road we need to take if AB5 stands and we cant simply pass ABC test.
 
#189 ·
What are you guys smoking over there… we all know what Uber has to do to keep us independent contractors… They just want to be the bullies and keep more of the money. It's already been spell out to you people…
If Uber has to be forced to make us employees we drivers lose money, Uber loses money, wait California gets money? Yeah vote yes on Prop 22 and stop government overreach
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top