📋 NYTWA Unveils Plan to End Driver Lockouts with Clear Demands
New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) announced a set of specific demands aimed at ending driver "lockouts." They are organizing a "march by foot" from City Hall to Uber's NYC HQ on Wed, July 17th
NYTWA lists specific demands that it says will end driver lockouts
Influential driver advocacy group also announced “march by foot" from City Hall to Uber's NYC HQ on Wednesday, July 17th at 1pm
OPINION: We agree with many demands, but drivers must note NYTWA’s taxi medallion sector bias
The New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) listed specific demands in a publicly-shared flyer entitled “Stop Uber / Lyft Lockouts! Raise Our Pay!”. NYTWA also announced a second major strike action in relation to NYC TLC driver “lockouts”, or a situation where a driver cannot log into the Uber of Lyft app when and where they want.
🔍 Searchable Text Of NYTWA Flyer 👇
STOP UBER / LYFT LOCKOUTS!
RAISE OUR PAY!
Uber lockouts are costing drivers hundreds of dollars in income per week! Uber is also using lockouts to weaken TLC pay rules so Uber and Lyft can pay less to drivers for years to come! ONLY ACTION BY THOUSANDS OF DRIVERS CAN END THE CRISIS AND WIN A SOLUTION! Join on JULY 17th for UBER DRIVERS MARCH from City Hall to Uber’s NYC HQ and let Uber/Lyft/TLC know drivers are READY TO STRIKE! No cars. We march by foot to fill up the streets and be seen and heard!
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17th at 1PM
UBER & LYFT DRIVERS
READY TO STRIKE MARCH
FROM CITY HALL TO UBER HQ
Meet at 1PM at Broadway and Murray
March by foot from City Hall to Uber’s NYC Headquarters, 175 Greenwich St.
DEMANDS!
FIX UTILIZATION RULE TO STOP LOCKOUTS + RAISE OUR PAY! Uber wants to weaken the TLC rule so they can pay drivers less and are using lockouts to pressure drivers to give up this pay. THERE IS A SOLUTION: TLC uses the actual utilization rate to re-calculate our pay rates and reviews utilization every two years (not once a year.) Uber is locking out drivers now to make us look less empty when its utilization for 2024 is reviewed in Jan 2025. Our solution will stop drivers from losing income AND gives the companies an extra 12 months to improve their average. There would be no incentive for Uber / Lyft to continue lockouts.
STRENGTHEN FHV CAP. Limit new plates only to renters + only issue if utilization would not fall!
CAP FHV RENTAL AND FINANCING COSTS! TLC caps yellow cab leases, we need same protection for FHV drivers!
PASS CITY COUNCIL BILL TO STOP UNFAIR DEACTIVATIONS! Unfair deactivations and lockouts hurt drivers and let Uber/Lyft manipulate TLC pay rules!
Update TLC Pay Rule: Pay Drivers 85% of fare or 100% of TLC rates if higher + Double the rates on out-of-town trips!
****************************
Uber is blaming lockouts on TLC’s utilization rule which pays for empty time. But Uber and Lyft got the TLC utilization rule in 2023 that the companies wanted! Drivers are already been taking a loss of $5,000 - $7,000 per year because of the weaker rule. In exchange, Uber implied drivers could expect there would be no lockouts. Now, Uber is using lockouts o pressure TLC to make the rule even weaker and leave drivers with less pay! Our demands are the solution to end lockouts and raise our pay! JOIN JULY 17th!
****************************
NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE
718-706-9892
31-10 37th Avenue, Suit 300, LIC, NY 11101
Article continues after advertisement
Did you know? Drivers enrolled in Drivers Benefits can receive up to $2K in dental services1 each year, plus many other valuable Health & Wellness benefits – all at NO COST to you!
Good Ideas, But Note Yellow Cab Bias
We think some of NYTWA’s demands are well thought out, while others reveal a “yellow cab” bias. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a taxi medallion industry bias, but we believe it’s always good to be transparent about biases, especially when drivers are putting their full trust in your advocacy.
For example, as we’ve disclosed several times, we run a NYC for-hire vehicle (FHV) leasing company. Some might think we have bias that tries to promote a certain TLC “leasing company” narrative. After all, we have a direct financial incentive to do so. That being said, if we’re not thoughtful with our opinions and perspectives, then people aren’t going to subscribe to our content and that’ll hit our media business and the traction AutoMarketplace gains. So, we also have a direct financial incentive to be mindful about our biases and present balanced opinions.
What NYTWA is not addressing is why it feels the yellow cab (“medallion”) sector can accept or reject Uber “e-hails” and not be subject to utilization rate (UR) and TLC minimum driver pay rules. This, in our opinion, is why NYTWA is not asking for the TLC to abandon UR as a regulatory metric, as we’ve been calling for.
Subjecting non-medallion “black car” TLC-plated vehicles to UR and minimum pay rules for high-volume (Uber or Lyft) dispatches, but not yellow cabs will directly incentivize Uber (and Lyft) to dispatch to taxis. This is in direct conflict with advocating for the best solution for app-focused NYC TLC drivers. However, we do agree with NYTWA’s call to have much more stringent control over new FHV License (TLC Plate) issuance, FHV “lease caps” and the process around protecting drivers from unfair Uber/Lyft deactivations.
As mentioned above and in previous articles, we do not agree with the continued use of UR as a regulatory metric because it solidifies Uber and Lyft’s duopoly grip. UR is also overkill when you have appropriate driver and vehicle license supply controls. We do not think NYTWA is gaming this out correctly.
For example, let’s say you start a new ridehailing app, it gains traction and it passes the 10,000 daily trip “high-volume” for-hire service (HVFHS) threshold. To be clear, if a new app can get to 10,000 daily trips in NYC, it would mean it has only gained less than 1.5% market share of all NYC for-hire trips (~800,000 legal daily NYC for-hire trips).
The TLC will then group that, let’s say 1.5% to 2% market share, company with Uber and Lyft. That much smaller company will need to abide by UR metrics (i.e., 53%+ utilization) and minimum pay rules, which will quickly put it out of business. If industrywide UR metrics effectively weights market shares for HV bases to come up with the “blended” industrywide average, then a smaller HV competitor may have a chance at competing/surviving. However, it’ll become so complex to try operate in that environment that we’re not sure how a small company (again, ~1.5% market share) would manage that.
Keeping UR solidifies Uber and Lyft’s duopoly grip on the NYC for-hire transportation market. Exempting yellow cabs from UR when they are e-hailed by Uber or Lyft is, in our opinion, why NYTWA wants to keep UR as part of the driver minimum pay formula for app drivers only. The taxi medallion sector benefits from that. We’re not saying Uber or Lyft are without fault, but it’s important to note that NYTWA also has its own, unique agenda. Our goal with this publication is to inform drivers, fleets, and other industry participants about different viewpoints—some of which are very technical and not always obvious—so people can make informed decisions about where they stand and what they want to support.
To be clear, we agree with some of NYTWA’s proposals, but beware of a very obvious taxi medallion sector bias. They need to disclose this to NYC TLC drivers, who mostly work for Uber and Lyft, when presenting their demands, or it can eventually be viewed as disingenuous.
If the TLC and NYTWA want to keep a UR-based NYC driver minimum pay formula, our suggestion would be to raise the HV daily trip threshold to 100,000 trips. This will allow more competition to enter the market and give drivers hope that more options will arise.
What is the relationship between Uber and IDG?
(Based on relevant information on the Internet:)
1. Background and role of IDG
The Independent Drivers Guild (IDG) was established in 2016. Unlike traditional (formal) unions, drivers did not elect representatives through democratic voting. Instead, it was jointly established by Uber and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). Uber provides funding for IDG and directly participates in deciding which drivers can join and enjoy the benefits it provides. The main function of IDG is to provide legal assistance to drivers and regularly organize meetings between drivers and Uber officials to discuss driver-related issues. However, IDG lacks the right to collective bargaining and will not initiate strikes, which makes it unable to effectively safeguard the core interests of drivers.
The agreement between Uber and IDG stipulates that IDG will not strive for the employee status of drivers, organize strikes or promote collective bargaining during the agreement period (until 2021). This means that IDG is more of a buffer tool designed to curb the unionization trend of drivers and prevent them from fighting for greater rights and interests through collective action.
II. Functions and limitations of IDG
Although IDG has fought for some superficial rights and interests for drivers, such as promoting the addition of tipping options in the Uber app and providing arbitration and legal assistance to drivers who have been suspended from work, these improvements have not touched the fundamental needs of drivers. Drivers still face the risk of reduced income, increased working hours, arbitrary suspension or suspension, and lack of basic social security.
Most importantly, IDG has not fought for a more fundamental "employee status" for drivers. Uber classifies drivers as "independent contractors", which means that they do not enjoy the social security benefits, work injury insurance, paid vacation and other rights of traditional employees. By establishing IDG, Uber effectively avoided the pressure from drivers to request formal employee status. IDG has not raised any substantive challenges to Uber's classification of independent contractors. Instead, it has cooperated with Uber's policies to a certain extent, so that drivers continue to be excluded from the protection of labor laws.
III. How IDG weakens the collective power of drivers
The existence of IDG actually weakens the opportunity for drivers to fight for their rights in a more effective way. Uber provides drivers with a channel to express dissatisfaction through IDG, but the solutions to these problems are often only small-scale adjustments that cannot really touch the core issues that affect drivers' livelihoods, such as income security, working hours restrictions, and arbitrary work stoppages and account suspensions.
In contrast, real unions such as the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) actively promote drivers to fight for formal employee status and try to fight for drivers' rights through class action lawsuits.
IDG's existence and actual role have helped Uber avoid more regulation and stronger unionization trends.
Although IDG has provided some help in dealing with certain specific issues, such as complaints about Uber's account suspension, it has been powerless when it comes to issues such as income cuts and deteriorating working conditions.
4. Misleading drivers to oppose Intro 276
IDG not only failed to fight for substantive rights for drivers, but even influenced drivers' attitudes towards favorable bills through misleading information.
Take the New York City Council's Intro 276 as an example. The bill aims to enhance drivers' rights when facing online ride-hailing companies such as Uber, especially the right to appeal against account deactivation. However, IDG sent misleading emails and messages to drivers, opposing the bill, claiming that the bill had a "loophole" that would allow Uber and Lyft to deactivate driver accounts without appeal, and even said that the bill would force drivers into a more complicated appeal process.
In fact, the purpose of Intro 276 is to provide drivers with more protection, allowing drivers to appeal through a more transparent and fair process when their accounts are deactivated. The bill will also give drivers more rights and provide them with broader legal protection.
IDG's opposition is to maintain its existing arbitration process (Uber has the final say, and is the judge, jury, and prosecutor) to prevent drivers from getting stronger legal support. This shows that IDG did not stand on the side of drivers at a critical moment, but catered to Uber's interests.
V. Uber's hidden strategy: differentiation and control? !
Uber successfully created a division among the driver group through the establishment of IDG. Some drivers support the organization because of the small benefits provided by IDG, but others believe that IDG is a pseudo-union controlled by Uber. IDG's main activities focus on handling some specific complaints, such as account suspension issues, but when faced with core issues such as fare cuts, working hours, and arbitrary account suspensions, IDG's performance is obviously insufficient.
IDG also cooperates with Uber to lobby the government for more favorable tax and regulatory policies. This further shows that IDG is not a union independent of Uber, but a tool to help Uber gain more benefits. Through IDG, Uber not only maintains a favorable position in regulations, but also can continue to claim that it cares about the rights of drivers, but in fact it is to consolidate its control over drivers.
VI. Future prediction: Uber's long-term plan
Uber's cooperation with IDG is not limited to New York City. In the future, this model may be extended to other regions to prevent more Uber drivers from fighting for their rights by forming unions. In other states such as California, similar driver associations are also being established, and Uber is likely to adopt similar strategies to avoid the rise of collective actions by drivers.
By meeting some superficial needs, Uber has successfully avoided the threat of unionization to the company. The establishment of IDG ensures that Uber can continue to treat drivers as "independent contractors" and evade the legal responsibility to provide them with broader benefits. As IDG expands, this strategy could have a profound impact on Uber drivers across the United States and around the world, further weakening the power of unions.
VII. Conclusion
The establishment of IDG is a key means for Uber to protect the interests of the company by dividing and controlling drivers. By funding IDG, Uber prevents drivers from fighting for greater rights through strikes and unionization, while preventing drivers from obtaining employee status and circumventing the obligation to provide drivers with benefits and legal protections.
Although IDG has won some superficial benefits for drivers, it cannot solve the real problems faced by drivers. Uber has successfully weakened the collective action capacity of drivers through IDG and ensured the company's continued control over drivers. This strategy not only makes it difficult for drivers to fight for better working conditions, but may also have a long-term negative impact on future unionization movements.
IDG's opposition to the Intro 276 bill further shows that it has failed to stand on the side of drivers on key issues, but instead has influenced drivers and protected Uber's core interests through misleading information. Uber controls drivers through IDG, suppresses real unionization trends, and ensures that the company continues to dominate the relationship between drivers and companies.
Related information network URL:
https://nycbiznews.journalism.cuny.edu/2019/10/idg-leader-brendon-sexton-says-hes-fighting-for-ride-hail-drivers-right-to-collectively-bargain/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/uber-found-an-unlikely-friend-in-organized-labor?embedded-checkout=true
https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/24/9/28/n14340026.htm
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6557685&GUID=B1AD10BE-3B1B-4782-8AE8-65B9C1E20563
"A street hail is when you put your hand up on the street and a driver can see your physical hand (the pickup is instantaneous)" is your idea . an ehail is a street hail , the streethail it is a right , which includes the ehail , to pick up passengers that need a cab and go from point a to point b in NYC. thats the right , whats the difference between pressing a button on your phone to get a car or putting up your hand , its hailing a car in the city of NY to go from point a to point b , putting up your hand has nothing to do with it, its the right to transport passengers looking for a cab, taxi ,ride , it doesn't matter how you call it
an example , growing up in Brooklyn we had all kinds of franchises by neighborhood , if you bought the right to sell a product as an exclusive it didn't matter how that product was distributed, it wasnt even asked , it was your exclusive to sell that product , its the same here