05-13-2019, 08:24 AM
(05-10-2019, 08:26 PM)Benton Wrote: It's basic commission.
You agree to your percentage/fee/rate (in this case, it's based off a fluctuating regional scale), and that's the base. If there adjustments based off increased costs or tine, that gets factored in (in this case, in the form of a formula of time/distance).
The driver's took the job based off the payout as it was. Lyft and Uber changed that to pay out less. And they told consumers there was a change, but it wouldn't impact driver pay (which was incorrect).
Let's me pivot for a second and I'll go down a different path than I have been because something interesting is happening. Everyone here caught up with the "they changed the pay" argument let me ask a you a question. Have you ever worked somewhere where they have changed commission rates? I have, and so has probably anyone who has ever worked on commission for long periods of time. Why is this some moral injustice? They didn't change the rate on any services already rendered, so how was I or anyone else wronged? I CHOSE to continue to work at the adjusted rate.
Now back to the post here, no see they didn't actually take the job based on the payout because signing up for the app isn't taking a job (As the courts have agreed with). The app is a platform for finding work, think of it as an Angie's list type site that handymen use. They are contractors on a platform looking for work and each time they turn on their app and accept a ride they have taken a "job" like a contracted brick layer accepting a new job on a construction site. After they drop off their rider they are now out looking for a new job as a contractor. The rate could change at that moment as they look for a new job and then they must decide if they want to take anymore jobs on this platform, or they can go choose to work on another platform that may offer jobs that are more lucrative.
The funny thing in all of this is there is a national taxi driver union. Isn't that kind of ironic?
