Skip to main content

Los Angeles Uber & Lyft Drivers Held a One Day Strike...What Happens Now?


Yesterday, hundreds of Uber and Lyft drivers in Los Angeles held a one day strike in which they refused to pick up riders.  The strike, organized by RideShare Drivers United, was intended to bring attention to a recent wage cut that Uber put in place that Uber drivers strongly disfavor.  (RideShare Drivers United is a nonprofit that was started to help drivers for ridesharing companies organize across the world.  The group reported it has gone from a membership of about 300 drivers to about 3,000 in the course of two years.)  Uber's wage cut will see its drivers earn 25% less, earning 60 cents per mile driven now rather than 80 cents.  (The Lyft drivers went on strike as a show of solidarity for Uber drivers.  Although for those that have used Uber, Lyft, or another ridesharing app previously, many drivers drive for more than just one company.  As a result, it is likely that a majority of the drivers that went on strike yesterday drive for Uber and Lyft.)  For those drivers that say they are struggling to make ends meet at their current wage rate, this wage cut creates a significant financial shortfall that many cannot afford to absorb.

As some observers have noted, this one day strike comes at a somewhat tenuous time for Uber.  Both Uber and Lyft are reportedly taking steps to become publicly traded companies.  In doing so, early investors could realize a potentially big return on their initial investments, should the IPO launch be favorably received.  However, if that IPO launch comes at a time when drivers are striking, making their discontent known, and generally creating an air of uncertainty about the financial future of ridesharing companies, that could depress the initial IPO launch (and consequently decrease a potential financial windfall for many.)

Of course, many readers are likely wondering what happens now.  Keep in mind that Uber and Lyft drivers are independent contractors.  As a result, they do not receive the traditional benefits that an actual employee would receive.  Therefore, Uber and Lyft drivers are not eligible for a minimum wage rate, overtime, nor do they have the ability to unionize.  With that being said, as yesterday's strike shows, even though these drivers do not have the ability to unionize, they have still managed to organize and make their dissatisfaction known.  As for what the drivers want, namely they are looking for Uber to do away with the pay cut.  Going one step further, the drivers also want pay raises by having drivers be given a guaranteed $28/hour minimum wage rate.

At this point, neither Uber nor Lyft appear willing to bump up the pay rate for their drivers.  As they have stated, they believe their pay rate is reasonable and set at a rate that enables drivers to earn a good deal of money.  With the current labor market favoring workers, however, it is possible that neither Uber nor Lyft have the ability to play hardball over the long term.  However, it was reported that while yesterday's strike was ongoing, the average wait time for an Uber in the Los Angeles area was still under 5 minutes.  Perhaps Uber and Lyft can weather the storm?


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more