32 Comments

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

Expand full comment

Thank you for this very detailed comment. Went through all the article as well. Did you get to chance to see our podcast with IDG yesterday? Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Expand full comment

"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

Expand full comment

Your accusations of NYTWA’s motives are simply wrong; and so is the position that utilization rate is not important for Uber and Lyft drivers. Your wrong position seems to stem from you evaluating the utilization rate from a business (anti-competitive) point of view – and not from the point of what is in the interest of Uber and Lyft drivers and their right to a dignified income.

1. Counting yellow cab trips as part of Uber’s utilization would artificially bring up the utilization rate for Uber - allowing Uber and Lyft to pay less to Uber and Lyft drivers, even though Uber and Lyft drivers were not getting more trips.   

Yellow cab trips are dispatched via Curb and Arro. Drivers are not on the Uber app, so right now their "empty" time is not counted and does not bring down or up the Utilization Rate in the driver pay rules.  Counting those trips would mean a credit for Uber’s utilization.

It is in Uber's interest to have yellow cab trips be credited for utilization. It would let Uber increase the amount of time Uber and Lyft drivers are considered occupied without adding to the time drivers are considered empty. 

In other words - like lockouts - it would be another way for Uber and Lyft to have Uber and Lyft drivers appear less empty than they actually are.

Uber would get credit for when it dispatches to taxis and that would mean Uber could pay it's majority workforce (Uber and Lyft drivers)  - to whom it dispatches 99% of the trips to and the drivers who are dependent wholly on Uber/Lyft trips  - less income on each trip.

Meanwhile, as you reported yourself from the flex fare TLC hearing – Uber and other e-hail providers pay yellow cab drivers rates far below the meter on e-hail trips, making the trips poverty rates. NYTWA has called repeatedly for the regulation of e-hail trips, both before City Council and the TLC--most recently at the May 8th TLC hearing.

Letting Uber get credit for these low-paid trips would injure Uber and Lyft drivers and is an insult to yellow cab drivers.  

2. Automarketplace's argument against Utilization is that a requirement to pay drivers for empty time is hard to do for a small company and so no new company will be able to compete against Uber.  

That is an argument invested in protecting businesses -  not protecting drivers and their right to a dignified income.

3. NYTWA is a labor organization. We answer only to the interests of the drivers.  We have built a genuine platform of unity among drivers because that is the only way drivers can build real power and improve their lives. 

The companies pitting drivers against each other is what lead to devastation.  Uber  starved the Uber driver to starve the yellow cab driver – flooding the streets with cars and then cutting rates.  Drivers do not win when they are divided against each other. In this case, counting yellow cab trips so Uber can pay Uber drivers less, would mean letting Uber pay yellow cab drivers less than what they deserve and then use those trips to pay Uber drivers less than what they deserve. Those games are tired. Drivers have come too far to be divided or be left in poverty. 

Maybe Automarketplace would be ok with Uber drivers taking the loss because you are fundamentally against the utilization rate since you see it as a burden for new companies.  That’s the wrong position.  Taking on Uber’s monopolization should not involve cheating Uber drivers out of income they deserve.

Expand full comment

We'll I write opening , I am pro yellow , so all of my comments should be taken as such !

I agree with Desai on most points and as an old timer I am proud of her

Non the less there would be no

drivers if there were no

owners. Owners have a legitimate right to a valued franchise because ultimately politics was the reason, NYC turned its back on yellow , THE MEDALLION WAS CREATED TO LIMIT CONGESTION AND TO HAVE A GOOD PAYING WORKING JOB , APP BASED CARS ARE JUST WHAT THE MEDALLION SYSTEM WAS SUPPOSE TO STOP- YOU NEED A MEDALLION TO EHAIL

Expand full comment

Firstly, thank you for this very detailed response. Great to directly hear from you.

Some follow-up comments and questions related to what you've written above.

1. "Counting yellow cab trips as part of Uber’s utilization would artificially bring up the utilization rate for Uber"

This might need some technical clarification. The other day we used the Uber app and selected the UberX option. A prompt came up essentially asking "Do you mind a yellow taxi?". We accepted it and an UberX trip became yellow cab trip.

Now, if a yellow taxi is e-hailed this way, clearly via the Uber app on the passenger side, you are saying this is not being counted as an Uber dispatch, but rather a Curb / Arro dispatch? That seems odd, as clearly this is an Uber-originated dispatch? However, let's say our understanding is incorrect. What will then happen is Curb / Arro will cross the HVFHS threshold shortly? As you know, Uber (on the passenger side) has only just launched the offering we described above (i.e., UberX = yellow cab).

The point we're making is Uber is incentivized to dispatch to yellow cabs vs. non-medallion Uber drivers because they don't have to abide by UR rules when they dispatch to yellow cabs (the technical point you're making that an Uber dispatch to a yellow cab is classified as a Curb / Arro dispatch is a loophole that we didn't appreciate before). As soon as Curb / Arro pass the 10,000 HVFHS threshold, given the market is measured on industrywide UR, UR would actually *decrease* significantly when that happens, not increase. The loophole you're describing cannot exist forever, if the data is reported honestly.

In other words, in our view, yellow cabs will be taking e-hail trips that non-medallion Uber and Lyft drivers would have otherwise gotten. Therefore, impacting those app driver earnings and leading to more lockouts (less trips to go around for those drivers as you expand the avaible FHV supply Uber has access to by 10,000+ taxis).

The only reason a yellow cab driver is accepting, and we agree with your characterization, uneconomical e-hail trips is because they can't find street hails and are more idle than they should be.

"2. Automarketplace's argument against Utilization is that a requirement to pay drivers for empty time is hard to do for a small company and so no new company will be able to compete against Uber.

That is an argument invested in protecting businesses - not protecting drivers and their right to a dignified income."

Quite the opposite, we do not like the duopoly market share of Uber and Lyft that defines the TLC market. We are solving for drivers to have more options to earn income from multiple companies. Respectfully, UR rules will deepen the duopoly grip of Uber / Lyft. In fact, if Uber gets its way with standalone UR, it will lead to an Uber monopoly. Why do you think Uber is asking to be judged on standalone UR? That ask, in of itself, is making our point.

The position of this publication is, and there will be alignment on this, if FHV supply is controlled, utilization will inherently be controlled via FHV supply being limited. This is, and you know this better than most, how the taxi medallion industry worked for decades. Yellow cabs, which pre-Uber and Lyft, had the majority market share did not have to abide by any utilization rate requirement? FHV supply limits, ensured utilization would inherently remain high? Think one simple point we're making, is if the TLC simply just stuck to limiting FHV supply (instead of adding 10,000+ FHVs in a year), the utilization rate (UR) will take care of itself. To be clear, we are for a minimum pay rate but the adding the UR (and the loopholes described above) becomes overkill if the TLC did/does its job and controlled FHV supply appropriately.

We are for a strong taxi medallion industry, but trips that once went to Uber / Lyft drivers are now going to yellow cabs because of the UR loophole you described above. Where an Uber dispatch is classified as an non-HVFHS dispatch. However, this loophole will close when Curb / Arro pass the 10,000 trip HVFHS threshold.

Finally, we respect what NYTWA has done and continues to do. We just think there are sometimes inherent conflicts (in certain circumstances) when you're trying to represent yellow cab drivers and app drivers at the same time. A taxi medallion owner has different incentives than many Uber / Lyft NYC drivers might have. That's the nature of the marketplace.

Expand full comment

Thank you.

No, there is a misunderstanding: By Curb/Arro, I mean Uber trips are dispatched via the DIM (Driver Information Monitor) as part of the TPEP which are operated in a duopoly by Curb and Arro. The driver sees the dispatch on the DIM. The dispatches are not on their phones on the Uber app.

Yellow cab driver empty time cannot be measured in the same way since not all of their trips are from Uber - unlike of course Uber and Lyft drivers - and also, the drivers do not need to even be on the app to be dispatched. If the trips were counted, it would just be a credit to Uber - without a calculation of the empty time.

In short: allowing Uber to count taxi dispatches toward its utilization benefits Uber (the corporation) and directly hurts Uber and Lyft drivers because Uber would appear to leave drivers less empty even though the drivers are not getting the trips. It's a way of gaming the rules, in the same was as lockouts.

Further - if Uber dispatches to yellow cab drivers, then a utilization rule which uncompromisingly reflects the reality of empty time for Uber/Lyft drivers is even more critical for Uber drivers. It is how Uber drivers can still be paid for all of their work time. If you allow Uber's dispatches to yellow cabs to be counted as a credit, then you shortchange Uber and Lyft drivers while the companies get their way. And that (such a credit) is what would actually incentivize the companies to dispatch more of their trips to non-HVFHV drivers.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be very simple about this. If Uber (i.e, the passenger is calling UberX on their app and gets a yellow cab) dispatches 15,000 e-hail trips per day via Curb to yellow cabs, does Curb need to apply for a HVFHS base license?

Expand full comment

1. No becasuse HVFHV licenses are for FHV bases dispatching to FHVs. Ehails to yellow cabs are under e-hail rules.

2. Further - the utilization rule for Uber/Lyft is what controls against Uber deciding to dispatch more trips to for example yellow (or green) cabs and leave Uber drivers more empty.

Expand full comment

So, this is clearly a rule (a loophole for Uber) that does not benefit non-medallion app drivers. It does benefit yellow cab drivers, which is great for them.

Yellow cab drivers can access Uber dispatches and Uber doesn't have to worry about utilization when it dispatches to taxis. Basically, what's happening is you're expanding the FHV supply Uber has access to by 10,000+ active yellow cabs for trips that non-medallion TLC plates only used to be able to access. This is a loophole that benefits Uber and the taxi medallion sector. 10,000+ yellow cabs ae now competing for UberX dispatches, when they are not doing street hails. It would be different if you're just referring to someone e-hailing a taxi on the Curb or Arro app, but the passenger is often calling an UberX and getting a yellow cab for a lot of these trips.

Simple example, going back to our original response. We called an UberX on the Uber app, but instead of getting a non-medallion FHV we get a yellow cab. This is clearly a trip taken away from an app driver.

Expand full comment

The very measure that protects Uber drivers against the loss is the utilization rule. That's why Uber should not be "credited" for yellow cab trips. If Uber is, then it can leave Uber drivers empty for longer and still would not have to compensate them. The utilization rule is what protects trips and income for Uber drivers.

Expand full comment

Don't think you're understanding the point we're making. Let's say, 6 months ago there were 400,000 UberX trips per day. These trips *only* went to non-medallion TLC-plated vehicles. Now, these UberX trips can also go to any yellow cab that's signed up for Curb or Arro. Uber is dispatching a lot of UberX trips to yellow cabs but can follow different "e-hail" medallion rules. The FHV supply competing for UberX NYC trips just went up by 10,000+ taxis which will hit non-medallion UR. That's just supply and demand. Yes, you could blame Uber for over hiring, but Uber drivers will also be upset yellow cabs can now easily access their trips. You'll eventually need to address that with them.

This is obviously setting aside the disastrous TLC decision that allowed 10,000+ new FHVs to come online in 2023 alone (which your advocacy thankfully stopped, could have been much worse).

Think, where we can agree is if the TLC properly regulates total for-hire vehicle supply these technical details matter less. If we were advising you, think you're underestimating what you might view as a win, will actually end up with Uber controlling more and more of the total market - from yellow cab dispatches to non-medallion FHV dispatches. This is why Uber is arguing for standalone UR?

Imagine if Lyft left the marketplace, Uber could easily meet the UR thresholds, but they would have a monopoly (ex-street hails). If you push the UR metrics too hard, you might cause Lyft to fail or lose a lot of market share (unintentionally of course). If you game this out, FHV supply controls are what really need to be the focus (this empowers all TLC drivers and taxi medallion owners). Sticking with UR, can lead to unexpected games - you're already seeing it with lockouts. For example, if you force Uber to abide by 58%, they'll take aggressive action to put inactive drivers on the waitlist (then you'll find yourself in another crisis).

Still feel strongly that UR should be dropped. Really game this all out.

Expand full comment

They are very understanding of what you guys are saying, they know directly or “indirectly” it does affect the utilization rule because those rides could’ve been dispached to App drivers, them hitting you guys with “The very measure that protects Uber drivers against the loss is the utilization rule.” without any other valid argument towards the specific example you brought up simply explains their agenda, and me saying this it doesn’t take away the fact they pulled some bold moves in this industry (lawsuits, pay raises, medallion debt forgiveness, etc) but definitely their efforts are not solely in the benefit of the few drivers (former yellow drivers) on their advocacy group that were forced to do the crossover when Uber came into the game if there wasn’t something to benefit their agenda.

Expand full comment

Your right as to why I'm

here,, I guess its because I get upset when I see others so disparage against yellows , thats means an insinuation that app cars have the equal rights to yellows , you talk about here about yellow so that's why I'm here , I wouldn't be here if you just spoke about yourself , I guess that your bias is expressed by your equalization of app cars and yellow

Expand full comment

We've made this platform so everyone can express their opinions and not be censored (we have never deleted a comment since we started this). However, and respectfully, the topics you speak about have different viewpoints, you know this. To view your perspective as the only legitimate one will make you hard to engage with. In reality, who you are upset with are the judges and the courts, we're more a referee here. The courts made the determinations related to e-hails vs. street hails, not us.

This publication has been one of the only ones in the last years that have pretty aggressively defended the taxi medallion sector, several times. We've actually help facilitate the sale of taxi medallions with our content, as people got interested in our coverage and reached out to us to find out more. Now, sometimes medallions owners and us won't see eye to eye, but that's fine, that's the marketplace of ideas and opinions.

Expand full comment

You don't get it , we ( taxis) bought rights that you use without paying us, or buying , you don't have equal rights in regards to street hail and an ehail is a street hail

you are using psychological games which include arguments on your forum between app cars and yellows as a means of relating to your readers that app cars and yellows have equal rights to do what they are doing

Expand full comment

"An ehail is a street hail" - please point us to the law that confirms this? Please point us to a legal decision / court case that affirms this understanding? Respectfully, you are upset that the court(s) and judge(s), do not view the world as you do. This is not an us problem. Your issue is with judges and courts. You have an issue with how the law has been interpreted and how this country's legal system works. Do we sympathize, to an extent? Yes, 100%..

We're going in circles here, where you're presenting your opinion as the law. We *do* understand why you're upset and we would be upset too if we were in your shoes. However, you must differentiate between your *opinion* and what the law says and the courts have decided.

Expand full comment

There have been countless instantances in America whereby the law was wrong and I've said this before this is one of them , you are not responding to views as are the right or wrong , you need to THINK ( sorry for the caps but I wanted to stress it ) what was the purchaser of the medallion promised when they bought , what was the right that the medallion buyers agreed to in exchange for money and a regulatory structure that couldn't fight against private business ( I.e. a variable fare rate against a fixed one )

Try to understand what was given to yellows , it was an exclusive right to streethail , you think of ehail as what?

Expand full comment

You're not investing (invested) in the Declaration of Independence, it's a taxi medallion. If someone calls us up and says what do we believe the value of a taxi medallion is, they don't want a speech about what is "fair" or "unfair", they want probabilities. A part of that valuation process will be understanding the risk of regulations on the value of a taxi medallion. There was/is always a risk. When the taxi medallion was $1 million+ , no owner was complaining. No one likes to be on the wrong side of a bet. Different Admins, City Councils, Mayors, Governors, etc. influence regulatory outcomes / probabilities.

They should have capped the number of FHVs much earlier than August 2018. De Blasio went too early (misstep) when he tried to cap FHVs in 2015. If he did it in 2016 or 2017, probably would have got it through. The main reason the *underlying* medallion valuation went down was too many vehicles being on the road and *DEBT*. The $1 million valuation was created via financial engineering, complete debt-fueled bubble.

Much of the *old* taxi medallion industry got lazy, greedy and were high on debt, creating a fake $1 million+ valuation. The taxi medallion industry got flat-footed by technology. Yes, bad regulatory decisions were made. Yes, Uber basically bribed politicians (so did the taxi medallion owners in a way, but got outspent by Uber). The taxi medallion industry also needs to reflect and stop deflecting criticism. Drivers fled to Uber because many weren't happy with garages and their treatment.

Investing in a taxi medallion carries risks. Sometimes unexpected things can happen, just like any investment.

That all being said, there is a recovery now but if medallion owners don't learn from past mistakes, excusing clear mismanagement and financial speculation, then medallion owners will face the same post-Uber rising fate.

Expand full comment

The medallion was worth a million and rightfully so because it was an exclusive right to do a service in NYC. That's a valuable right. It didn't matter if there were Different Admins, City Councils, Mayors, Governors, cultures or ethnicities or political parties or methods , you can't take away something that was bought because you made up a reason such as an ehail, because it's private it's not a streethail , did you answer my question

What is your idea of what a ehail is ?

Expand full comment

An e-hail is not a street hail. 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). If you hire a vehicle, when you cannot see it and the driver cannot see you, and it comes 5 to 10+ minutes later, this is fundamentally different than a traditional street hail, but (yes) also different than a traditional pre-arranged service.

Furthermore, what you're also missing is yellow cabs are busy doing street hails to this day, so there aren't enough taxi medallions to service the demand of all hails (however you want do define that)...which would have led to the release of more taxi medallions and also cheaper green cab SHL licenses. So, either way the medallion value was heading down.

However, let me give you a real life example. Used to work at a financial firm and everyone working late (after 9/10pm) would have access to a black car service. How it would often work, is we called a number and because the drivers knew there were many people working late (customers) there was a line of Town Cars waiting outside. The black car base / dispatcher would pickup my call and often say a car should be there shortly (usually 5 to 15 mins wait, sometimes shorter). This is not a street hail and if I did this via a computer, it still wouldn't be a street hail. The e-hail is a more efficient way of executing this same process. The oversupply of vehicles and debt were the bigger issues.

Think you're set in your way of thinking (fair enough), so I'll let you have the last word as this discussion is not really going anywhere.. You're upset, we get it. We're genuinely sorry your investment went bad. However, we have nothing to do with that. Nothing.

Expand full comment

You cannot compared yellows to app cars with utilization rates . It's not proper to equalized the purchase of a right , to a rate given a certain fluctuation benefits you. That's like saying a tenant owns the property instead of leases it

Expand full comment

That's the yellow cab argument and do understand it. A point of this article is more disclosure from NYTWA that it is clearly a taxi medallion-focused advocacy group. Nothing wrong with that, except some of their proposals (keeping UR), is not the ideal solution for non-taxi FHV drivers. It's very hard, in some instances, for NYTWA to be the best advocate for both yellow cab drivers and other NYC FHV drivers. Direct conflict of interest is influencing their UR suggestions, in our opinion.

Expand full comment

I circle around to the same conversation , that revolves around legitimacy , if drivers leave you maybe they'll buy a medallion , that becomes the best choice, that doesn't hurt yellow , so to me it's proper to limit Uber asap anyway possible and. Increase their passenger rates as compared to taxis, you need to think back , it's sort of a constitutional issue, what were the medallion promised . The streethail exclusive in NYC which includes ehail

Expand full comment

You had the right to be upset (for nothing because it will never be the same ever again, Apps are not going anywhere, at most PEOPLE will choose a different one to use for a reliable service, definitely not the one that can drive you outside of Manhattan but not back to it) there is reasons beyond fairness when it comes to certain rulings in courts, not moving on and realizing things are what they are nowadays is called being resentful, if you are still on the game that’s great it means Yellow and Apps can coexist it could’ve been worst than what it is now.

Expand full comment

Definitely hear your points and not anti-taxi medallion, far from it.

Some points to consider. Remember 40% to 50%+ of Uber / Lyft NYC trips are happening outside of core Manhattan. Pre-Uber believe there were something like 500k to 600k total trips per day, now that figure is 750k to 800k+. One part of the Uber and Lyft story is that they grew the size of the market that yellow cabs weren't servicing (as you might know this is also the background to green SHL taxis). So, that dynamic is not Uber / Lyft necessarily taking away share from yellow cabs.

Think NYC needs a strong yellow cab industry and the City definitely needs to protect medallion valuations. We've been very consistent about this. Where the taxi medallion sector is having a really hard time adjusting, is self reflection vs. just focusing on the impact Uber and Lyft had. Why aren't more drivers buying taxi medallions today? Is it just an Uber or Lyft thing? Why don't they find buying a medallion attractive at current "distressed" prices?

Courts have ruled on the past history you mention. Whether that's fair or not fair, it is, what it is at this point. The courts have made their decision. Uber isn't going anywhere and in fact will likely help the yellow cab market long term. There is a recovery for yellow cabs, it's quietly happening already in fact.

Expand full comment

I'm sorry it's hard to have a discussion because of your legitimacy

Expand full comment

By making this comment you demonstrate what most people think about yellow cab drivers, just another resentful driver that unfortunately courts did not rule in their favor and that TECHNOLOGY blew up in their face just like it did and continues to do across the globe and different industries.

Expand full comment

You mean I shouldn't be upset as to what was done to yellow ? The city promised us an exclusive as well as a good living , my rights were taken away by tech and it shouldn't have, tech created a new way to street-hailing , so instead of it being part of the taxi street-hail exclusive , the city gave it away to the app companies , after the app companies blinded the population into believing that the new tech was more of a new invention instead of it being what it is , a new way of street-hailing

The ehail is just a new way to street-hail , people will realize this eventually that why I stayed in business

Expand full comment

You are a taxi medallion owner, correct? If you think we are not legitimate, and you're 100% entitled to that opinion (free country), only thing that is confusing is why you are choosing to decide to comment on this platform then? You are not engaging in a good faith discussion, so you're basically wasting our time.

Expand full comment

The only thing that Uber have to do is pay a little more

Expand full comment

You still don’t get it? You can’t get online, no matter how much higher Uber pays, you aren’t able to make that money.

Expand full comment
Error