Lyft is making a threat to repeat the same action.
Ever since the beginning of this month, Uber has been preventing drivers in New York City from accessing its apps during times of low demand, and Lyft has also threatened to do the same thing. According to a report by Bloomberg, the ride-hailing companies have placed the responsibility for their actions on a law imposed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). In the event that the lockouts persist, at least one drivers’ union has indicated that it may consider going on strike.
The mid-shift lockouts are a result of a pay guideline that has been in place in New York City for six years and mandates that ride-sharing businesses compensate drivers for idle time between trips. Putting a limit on the amount of time that drivers may be paid without customers results in Uber paying them less, but it also means that drivers are bringing home a significantly lower amount of money for the same amount of time that they are working. In addition, they are unable to anticipate when they will no longer have access to the application.
There is no denying that drivers are irate. Nikoloz Tsulukidze, who works as a full-time Uber driver, made the following statement to Bloomberg: “I used to work ten hours and make $300 to $350.” The last time I worked, I put in ten hours, and I made a meager $170. This was such a letdown for me. I am still unable to make money because I am paying for my gas.
While Uber and Lyft are attempting to make drivers into lobbyists against the regulation, they are employing a method known as “Look what you made me do!” They are pointing fingers at the TLC’s pay rule (and at each other) in order to do this. Bloomberg was able to read an email that Uber sent to its drivers from the previous month. In the email, drivers were encouraged to “let the TLC know the effect their rules have had” on their financial compensation.
One more thing that plays a role in their blame games is the fact that the rule has distinct effects on each of the enterprises. The traffic volume of Uber drivers has increased this year, which means that the company’s data carry more weight on the city’s averages, which are used to calculate the minimum-pay limitations. “The city’s rule strangely holds Uber responsible for Lyft’s failures,” said Freddi Goldstein, a representative for Uber, in an interview with Bloomberg. There are no other choices available to us because Lyft is having trouble keeping its drivers engaged.
While this is going on, Lyft considers the situation to be in the opposite direction. During the month of June, the firm sent an email to drivers in which it stated, “Uber wants to change the rules so that Lyft is penalized.” Bloomberg was informed by CJ Macklin, a representative for Lyft, that the current compensation system in New York City is flawed. Ridesharing businesses are compelled to restrict the hours that drivers can work and, as a result, the amount of money that they can make.
According to a drivers’ union, the situation is a direct result of Uber’s excessive hiring practices. The president of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Bhairavi Desai, stated in an interview with Bloomberg that the firm “mismanaged” the hiring process by permitting an excessive number of drivers to join its ranks. As a result, the workers are now responsible for paying the cost. Utilizing the TLC’s rule to withhold “time that should be paid under the law and making it unpaid,” she accused Uber of “gaming the system” and accused the company of “gaming the system.” Whenever it becomes necessary, Desai said the union will consider going on strike.
Although it has not yet started locking out drivers, Lyft may do so in the near future. It was informed in an email sent in June to the firm’s drivers that the company would soon “have to” implement a technique that was comparable.
There has been a long line of ugly clashes across the country between ride-sharing businesses and city rules, and the current situation in New York City is the result of those fights. Both Uber and Lyft carried out lockouts of a similar nature in 2019, in response to a demand that drivers be paid a set minimum pay, which remained in effect until the spring of the following year. After the city of Minneapolis attempted to compel a driver pay raise that would bring their rates up to the level of minimum wage, the two firms raised the possibility of leaving the city earlier this year.