Good morning.
The Committee on Workforce Development will
now come to order.
Uh, today we have three agenda items.
First, the approval of the May, uh, rule 45 report.
Second, a direct introduction
of an ordinance authorizing the execution
of the collective bargain agreement between the city
of Chicago and the International
Brotherhoodhood of Teamsters.
Local Union number 700.
The third item oh 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 7 4 8.
The Chicago Ride Share Living Wage
and Safety Ordinance,
no vote will be taken today.
And we will have a subject matter matter hearing on the
updated ordinance that was sent to members last Friday.
Given that we didn't, uh,
we said there will be no vote today.
We will not accept the substitute, given
that there may be another one coming.
Uh, before we begin, I will, uh,
establish quorum via a roll call.
Alderman Yancy Present,
alderman Yancy's Present Alderman Halls on the way.
Alderman Beal Alderman Chico.
Present, alderman Chico is present. Alderwoman Ramirez.
Alderwoman Ramirez is present. Alderman Quinn. Here.
Alder Quinn is present. Alder person, Vice-Chair Gutierrez.
Here. Vice Chair Gutierrez is present. Alderman Coleman.
Alderman Curtis. Chair Rodriguez is present.
Alderman Talley Farrell. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Casada is present. Alderman Podo Next Podo. Here.
Alderman Podo is present. Alderwoman Clay is on the way.
Uh, that is eight members.
We have a quorum, uh, by Rule 59.
Alder Persons Vasquez
and Te Farrell have requested participation by remote means.
Uh, are you present? Alderman Ferrell?
Alderman Tele Farrell's Present.
Uh, also Alderman Moore.
We'll recognize you as a non committee member in attendance.
And Alderman, thank you so much. Thank you.
And Alder person, Vazquez President, chairman.
Thank you. Alderman Nugents, present as well, please.
Chairman
Alder Nugent. We will have you
on the record. Thank you.
Thank you for attending.
I will now accept the motion to, uh, allow, uh,
the aforementioned alders to participate remotely.
So moved by Vice Chair Gutierrez.
All those in favor sign Signify Fi saying Aye.
All those opposed and independent chair, the ayes have it.
We'll now, uh, allow, uh, committee member Vasquez
and non committee members, uh, committee members, Ferro
and Vasquez and non committee members more
and Nugent, to be reflected on, um, the quorum.
Um, at this time, we will begin public comment period.
The public comment period is limited to 30 minutes out
of respect for everyone's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We did have, uh, only, uh, uh, several, uh,
opponents on the bill that, that, that signed here.
I didn't, uh, let one of the rideshare companies know
that I, I do like to make sure that this is equitable.
Um, but we just do not have that many public, uh, uh,
participants that signed up in opposition.
So we will start with the first of our 10 speakers, uh,
with Ken Turner.
And Ken Turner will have three minutes
for his public comments, and the time will start shortly.
You may begin, sir.
Okay. Um, hi everyone.
My name is Kenneth Turner.
I was born and raised here in Chicago.
I work for Uber and Lyft,
almost seven years.
I have worked for Uber and Lyft.
I drive to Indiana
and in Wisconsin as well.
I have riders that don't care about my car,
and there's discrimination against deaf people.
Some people have reported this to the CEO
and have blamed me for the passengers who have drug use
and show up drunk.
And they have blamed me for this.
Now, I understand that people use,
but I myself am not.
But, but, um, my, my,
This is about my future and about my independence
and my own future.
And I need to take care of myself and fight for my rights
and not be discriminated against.
I would like to confront the CEO
because I feel that he is taking advantage of myself
and my money, and I would really love
to express this to the
CEO. And that's it.
Thank you for your time. Next up we have,
Uh, Christie Mora, uh,
approach the microphone.
Um, there after, uh, Kristi Mora will be Sandra Roscoe.
Kristi Mora. Okay.
Hello everyone. My name is Kristi Mora,
and I'm a, a driver.
I'm here looking for respect and dignity.
My case is particular case. I'm a hard worker.
Uh, I'm a driver. I, I served the passengers,
but I also, um, it's unfair that I have
to drive my own vehicle.
It's unfair that we are in this situation.
This Is a reminder for all the parents, mothers,
grandparents, and,
and parents in general in, in, in this room.
Um, this is why we do what we do.
And I just want you to, to know that
We're looking for Equity, respect, justice,
Fair Wages for hardworking people.
I'm Saying this because maybe,
or potentially in the future, we don't know if our kids
or our grandkids will be doing this industry in the future.
If This is what they're going to do, I want them to,
to have a dignified job.
Thank You. And, and have a good afternoon.
Next up is Sandra Roscoe, followed by
Terry Mitofsky.
San Sandra. Yes.
Good morning council members.
My name is Sandra Rosco
and I live in Melrose Park, Illinois.
I've been a driver on the Lyft platform since
Halloween of 2024.
I didn't enter this line of work seeking riches.
In fact, I can't earn more than modest income.
I am currently under income
and hour restrictions imposed
by the Social Security Administration
for my disability ca claim and snap
after rental costs.
I may take home a hundred dollars a week
if I'm looking before taxes.
So I wanna be very clear.
I am not asking for more than my fair share.
I'm simply asking for dignity, for basic safety,
and for an end to the wage theft practices
that gig drivers like me see every single week.
I'm not I'm, I'm here today, not just for myself,
but for every driver in this city who is working long hours
under increasing pressure and shrinking transparency.
Many of us are tired, traumatized, and afraid.
And worse. We are unheard.
We are silenced, warn and more every day.
In my first few weeks of driving, I was sexually assaulted.
This occurred only, only
because the safety features that Lyft touted
so much failed to work.
I tried pressing that button hundreds of times.
I had my emergency flashers on.
I was flashing my blink, my brights to get attention.
Nobody stopped. Nothing worked.
And that is the only reason why
that escalated to the point it did.
I reported the incident of Lyft,
and I'm still waiting to this day to hear from them,
to have them ask me if I'm okay, which I'm not.
What? There's no follow up, no justice.
That man is likely still on the platform,
assaulting other women and other drivers in other cities.
And I'm left with deeper scars,
even more severe PTSD than I had before I started.
This is not an isolated experience.
Drivers across across Chicago had been robbed, assaulted,
kidnapped, even murdered.
And what has been done for their families, for their memory,
for prevention, just about nothing.
We are contractors when it benefits the companies,
but suddenly partners when they want
to avoid responsibility.
But we are real workers.
We are constituents, we are voters, we are humans.
And many of us are also parents. Caregivers.
Thank you.
Larry Mitofsky.
Terry Mitofsky. All right.
We'll go to Reverend Charles Strait. Oh, okay.
Uh, my name is Terry Mitofsky.
I became a ride share driver 10 years ago.
Back then, they promised me I'd make 70% of the fear.
Since then, the fears have gone up many times,
and the drivers, uh, fear has stayed the same.
And back then we had a lot of incentives.
Uh, when it was busy, they, they, uh,
they gave us extra money for, uh, for rise.
When it was busy, the incentives disappeared.
And now we're lucky to get 40% of air.
And, um, I quit driving for Uber back in November
because, uh, even working part-time, I was putting a lot
of mileage on my car and things started to break down.
And between maintenance
and uh, gas, I'm, I figured I was making $5 an hour.
Like I had, uh, $8,000.
Uh, uh, I had to pay for maintenance.
And, uh, and, uh, my, my fear, uh, my fears added up
to $13,000.
So I said, this is crazy.
They're taking so much of my money and my, uh,
and they don't help with maintenance or anything.
And, uh, also there's no safety for drivers.
Uh, when I became a driver, they told me to bring my, um,
DMV record, and I was happy to do
that 'cause I'm a safe driver.
But then they didn't hire me right away.
'cause we gonna take two weeks to investigate.
You make sure I'm not a, a criminal. So I'm not a criminal.
So in two weeks, they call me back and I got the job.
Now when I pick, uh, pick up a customer, they see my face,
they see my full name, they see my car,
they see my license plate.
Not many times they'll walk to the back of car
and look at my license plate.
But when I pick up a passenger, I don't see a face.
All I see is a first name.
And, and the bad people have figured out they could go
to Best Buy or Walmart
and pick up a burner phone, call up Uber and Lyft
and give them a, a phony name
and a phone number that can't be, uh, traced.
And then we're easy victims to get robbed, carjacked, and,
and in some cases even be murdered.
And, and, uh, and Uber
and Lyft over the years have done nothing,
nothing to keep us safe.
Thank you.
Next up is Reverend Charles Strait,
and then we have, uh, online, uh,
speaker Adam, I believe it's song. Uh, Reverend
Good morning.
My name is Reverend Charles Strait,
and I am delighted to be here in support
of the Chicago Rideshare Ordinance.
You may have received a letter recently from, um, members
of the faith communities from the south
and west side, uh, who said that they are in opposition, uh,
to this ordinance because of what I believe to be lies
that Uber and Lyft have fed them.
Uh, that say things like, uh, if, uh,
the ordinance is supported, 40% of the, um, uh,
rides will go up and drivers won't benefit,
and all kinds of things that are just simply not true.
And in fact, I had the privilege of talking to a couple
of these folk who said they didn't even sign the letter.
And so this morning, I want to be here to represent
faith leaders who really do understand that drivers
deserve a living wage.
And not just drivers, but drivers this morning, everybody
deserve to make a living wage.
And so I would ask this committee, if Uber
and Lyft willing to lie about what faith leaders say
that they represent, what else are they lying about?
Are, are they truly lying about the way
that they conduct business
and the way that drivers are treated
and the safety that passengers will receive?
And I think that really comes down to you.
What will the city of Chicago do to ensure
that they're not simply taking the word of billionaires,
but that they are representing the people
of the city of Chicago?
Please take that very seriously, and thank you very much.
Next up, we'll go online to, I believe it's Adam Song,
online
Tech.
Do we have that online person? Yes.
Uh, Adam Song. Uh, yeah, he is, he is not.
Hello? Can you hear me? You have three minutes.
Go ahead.
Okay. My name is Adam
and I drive for Uber here in Chicago.
For years, we've been on a journey to bring this ordinance
to the floor of the city council.
It's not about asking for luxury.
It's about making sure working people, drivers
and their families can afford the basics, rents, groceries,
clothing, education, ordinance also be benefits passengers,
allowing them to keep more of their money
by introducing transparency to the company's algorithms.
This is the partnership. We believe in drivers
and rider together, but right now, Uber
and Lyft are siphoning wealth out of our city
and out of our communities.
We've come to you with facts, with real data, not theories,
not abstract formulas.
The algorithm these companies use according to them,
it glitches consequences that it underpays drivers,
overcharges riders.
And every time that happens, people in Chicago lose out.
Is it intentional? We don't know.
But how many more of these
errors are we supposed to live with?
Must we rely on media inquiries
to hold them accountable by chance?
The companies can change the algorithm whenever they want.
We have no say, no transparency.
A clear public formula like the one in this ordinance would
let us track when things go wrong.
It would hold them accountable.
We wouldn't have to rely on a reporter to dig it up.
We simply want to show you what these systems are doing.
Cheating the driver, overcharging the rider,
depriving Chicago of the full value of the work
that happens right here in our neighborhoods.
Some of you have let us
present the full picture of the facts.
We're not working in the dark.
We're working for our families and yours.
We're asking you to switch on the lights of a system
that's been allowed to operate without oversight
for far too long.
And I want to be very clear about something Uber once said,
and I quote, it is not our responsibility to reduce crime.
That's not just dismissive, it's offensive.
It reveals how they really think. We've had drivers beaten.
One is now facing thousands of dollars in dental costs.
He knocked out because of poor safety standards.
Drivers have been deactivated without investigation.
Another became homeless.
People have been rejected from rental processes
for revealing they work for Uber.
This is not partnership. It is precarity by design.
It's turn and burn every day. We wait. Families suffer.
These delays don't hurt Uber and Lyft. They hurt us.
The people who live here, your neighbors look around,
ask yourself, what's the cost of doing nothing?
Because we are paying that cost every single day.
We need you and we need action.
Bring the Fair Share ordinance to vote not in five months,
not in two, not one.
Now Chicago can set the example for the country. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Michael McNally, followed by Paul.
I believe it's Heskey. First up is Mr. Mc McNally.
Thank you. Good morning, chairman. Good morning.
Members of the committee. My name's Michael McNally.
I'm here on behalf of International Unit
of Operating Engineers, local one 50.
And first, I want to thank the committee
for taking seriously the working conditions
of ride share drivers in Chicago.
The city's commitment to fairness
and safety, something we deeply respect to Local one 50.
We support the goals of this ordinance,
ensuring drivers are safe, treated
with dignity and paid fairly.
But we have to oppose this ordinance
as it's currently written.
Local one 50 through one
of our affiliates is actively organizing
rideshare drivers here in Chicago.
Hundreds have signed up
and many more are joining every week.
They're coming to us not just for representation,
but for the experience
and long-term advocacy that we have been go showing
for more than a hundred years.
What we're hearing for drivers is clear why they want
protection from arbitrary treatment and deactivation.
They also value their flexibility. Many drive part-time.
Some are students, other retirees,
others are parents juggling other responsibilities for them.
Driving is supposed to work for their lives,
not take it over the regulatory framework of this ordinance.
Risk making that harder. What has been seen in other states
from similar framework is a reduction in overall drivers,
less flexibility when they can drive due
to lockouts and scheduling.
We are also concerned the way
that ordinance handled deactivations.
It doesn't go far enough in providing real
representation and procedural fairness.
Rules alone can't replace the power of organizing
or the benefits of trusted direct advocacy.
We're not gonna have that, sir. Please go ahead.
What we're, what we're asking for isn't to stall progress,
but to give us the option
and process to keep organizing as the time needs.
Let us continue our organizing efforts
so drivers can build a collective strength,
shape the protections they want
with a voice of their choosing.
Thank you.
Next up is Paul Heke, followed by Mara Karro.
Next up, Paul Heke.
Good morning everyone. I'm Paul from Chicago.
I drive for Uber for over 10 years, on and off.
And I'm telling you the truth. My car has 500,000 miles.
This is insane.
That's why I drive more off than on my commission.
Used to be 20% now is 45.
I don't believe in this commission takes Uber takes from me
up to 45% because they get rid of it.
Uh, real prices on driver app two or three years ago.
Digital meter per minute and per mile is gone.
And other issues. I was sexually harassed twice.
I never reported because I feel awkward as a male.
And enough is enough. Thank you.
Uh, Mata followed by Reverend Jovan Moore. Go ahead.
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.
Um, my name is Mara.
I am a born and raised Chicagoan citizen.
And, um, I've driven for Uber
and Lyft for over 10 years now.
Um, at first it was more of a part-time thing,
and over the last three to four years,
it's become full-time.
And the more that I investigate my earnings, I realized
that this business is more of a wash.
Um, there's really no profitability in it.
Uh, just over the past month, I have spent close
to a thousand dollars just in maintenance on my car.
Um, between brakes, rotors, a new battery, oil changes,
um, and
Various other expenses.
Um, Uber.
And, and so after I look at my expenses, um, I see
that I'm actually making less than minimum wage
between the expenses versus what I'm receiving.
Um, Uber and Lyft are technology companies, um,
but the drivers are the brunt of the workforce.
You know, we're the ones that are taking on, um, the time
and the energy to transport the passengers
and to pay for all the expenses to maintain our vehicles.
Um, the other thing is
that there's really no transparency in the pricing.
I've had a trip where I was, there's a $5 surge
and it's turns out to be for 30 minutes, $10.
They're gonna gimme $10.
The next trip is $9 for a 10 minute trip.
How does that make any sense?
There's literally no rhyme
or reason to how the algorithm is going about this.
And that's really not fair
for the passengers or for the drivers.
You know, passengers are paying more
and the drivers are receiving less,
and it's just really not a livable wage
for rideshare drivers anymore.
After all the expenses.
Um, you know, back when I started,
the Rideshare companies did take 20%,
but now they're taking more like 40, 40%
or more, um, or more.
So, you know, for them to say that, you know, the wages are,
uh, for them, for the Uber
and Lyft to say, well now if we pass this ordinance
that the weight, the prices are gonna go up for customers,
and the city of Chicago is gonna lose
out on a lot more money.
I mean, the reality is the passengers are already paying a
ton of money and, and they don't know
what the price is gonna be from day to day.
And es essentially, if the drivers were making more money,
there'd be more economy here in Chicago
because we'd have more money to spend here at home.
And I mean, let's be honest, Uber and Lyft are billionaires.
They're billionaire companies.
They're not concerned with the drivers,
they're just concerned with making their profit.
So please consider really passing this ordinance.
Um, we appreciate you, uh, thank you
And Reverend Jevon d Moore.
Good morning everyone.
My name is Reverend Jevon Moore,
and I'm the proud pastor
of Bryn Maw Community Church in
the South Shore neighborhood.
I stand here today to speak both prophetically
and plainly that it is time to vote yes on the city
of Chicago's ride share living wage ordinance, also known as
the Fair Share Ordinance.
And that's what this is all about.
That key word of fairness.
I know this firsthand because about eight years ago
before I started pastoring, I was once a driver
for both Uber and Lyft.
And while driving, I know firsthand about the price
that you receive as a driver does not add up to
what you once hoped that it would.
Right now, Uber and Lyft drivers in our city are making less
than minimum wage, as many of them have already articulated
during public comment.
After they get done with their expenses like gas
and insurance and the wear
and tear on their cars, they wait, they drive, they hustle.
And so many of them still come up short at the end
of the day or at the end of the week.
Meanwhile, Uber, CEO got a $39 million raise
For those of y'all that didn't hear me.
And those online, they got a, he got a $39 million raise.
Meanwhile, drivers are making less than minimum wage.
That's not right. It's not just unjust,
but it's also immoral.
The word of God reminds us as a prophet.
Jeremiah once said, from the message, translation doomed
to him who cheats his workers
and won't pay them for their work.
So with this, I'm asking the city council,
I'm asking you to bless drivers and workers
and not side with the bullies
because it's clear
that these companies are not just robbing their drivers.
They're running scare tactics.
They're threatening to raise brightness prices,
they're putting threats out to fire drivers.
They're threatening this very council.
But the truth, the truth is, is
that the sky does not fall when justice rises.
As we look at the city of New York
as they've passed a ordinance similar to this in 2019,
fares rose modestly, 6% in the first year,
36% over four years.
But here in Chicago, we didn't pass an ordinance like
that in our fares rose, 54%.
That's not just the invisible hand of the market.
That's a slap in the face.
And so, council members, I'm asking you now is the time not
to cower, but to stand up.
It's the time to lead and to lean in.
The workers are watching, your constituents are watching,
we're asking that you say yes to Fairness, yes to dignity,
and yes to the ride Share living wage ordinance.
Thank you.
I wanna thank those who have shared their opinion today.
There were about, uh, 24 others who weren't able to
thank, please quiet.
Thank you.
All right.
Uh, thank You for the, for the, those public comments.
Our first, um, before I begin, I'd like
to recognize non committee members, Alder Women Mana Hop,
Penworth, uh, alderman, the spot.
You're out of order, sir. Uh,
and then the, uh, committee member Alderwoman Clay.
Uh, at this time we will move on to, uh,
the first agenda item approval
of the Rule 45 report from May, 2025.
Every member of the committee should have
received that in their email.
Can I have a motion to approve the Rule 45 report?
Alder Alder Ramirez.
So moves all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Any opposed any opinion of the chair? The ayes have it.
The second item before the committee today is a direct
introduction authorizing the execution of the CBA
between the City of Chicago
and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters local Union number 700.
Today we have, uh, commissioner Blakemore possibly, uh,
but definitely we have, uh,
DHR on hand to answer any questions.
Um, I'll give the floor to Cicely Porter if you'd be so kind
to introduce yourself.
Good morning, chairman Rodriguez, vice Chair Gutierrez
and members of this committee.
My name is Cecily Porter Adams,
and I am the city's chief labor negotiator
in the law department.
And we appreciate the opportunity
to discuss the proposed collective bargaining agreement
between the City of Chicago
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700.
This group of teamsters represents approximately 17
employees in two different job classifications.
The first job classification is the shift supervisors
of security communication centers.
He that, excuse me, that this gentleman will be removed
from the, from the chambers.
Please. He'll be removed from the chambers. Thank you.
You're Out of order, sir.
He will be removed from the chambers, please.
I have zero tolerance for this
Say that and still being
pushed around and pushed out.
But don't, don't look at it as disruptive Chairman.
I just said he wants to speak also.
You come on the record Disruptive officer.
I can't talk about right. I did respect all allow.
Go ahead Ms. Porter. Thank you.
There are are two job classifications as I mentioned.
One is known as the SS SCCs
and there are approximately 12 employees in this title.
And the other job classification is the Airport Operations
Center coordinators known as the A occs.
And there are approximately five employees in this title,
comprising 17 employees in the unit.
Both titles are employed in the
city's Department of Aviation.
The SS SCCs are primarily responsible
for supervising the aviation communication operators,
who are the call takers and dispatchers for CDA
and the other title titled accs are responsible
for monitoring incidents at the airport
and coordinating information between airport leadership, TSA
and other agencies that interact with the airport.
We believe that this agreement represents the best deal
possible for the taxpayers of the city of Chicago, as well
as those in the bargaining unit
for the reasons set forth below.
First. The term of this agreement is from July 1st, 2022
through June 30th, 2027,
to be effective upon final ratification by city council,
the bargaining unit, the Teamsters,
they have already ratified the agreement
with respect to wages.
They are virtually identical to the wages
that were passed along to our civilian workforce
and approved by this council.
And they are effective 7 1 20 22 a 3% wage increase
effective 1 1 23 a 3% wage increase effective 1 1 24.
The wage increase ranges between three
and five, depending on CPIU.
And we already know that the CPIU indicated
that the raise will be 3%
and the same is true for 1 1 20 25.
Effective 1 1 26, there would be a three
to 5% wage increase depending on CPIU.
And finally, 1 1 27, a 3.25% wage increase.
Other terms and compensations include that the city,
the employees will receive a lump sum signing pandemic paid
bonus for $3,000 effective 1 1 24.
The city will do matching for deferred comp,
contributing a dollar 50 for each dollar contributed
by each employee up to a maximum of $750 each year.
And similarly, in 1 1 27,
the city will contribute a dollar 75 for each dollar up
to $875 30 days after ratification.
There will be adjustments to the salary schedule
to provide parity over the life of the agreement
for same graded titles.
And finally, we extended some benefits to this group,
including the paid parental leave and the Juneteenth holiday
and vacation carry over.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this,
and I thank you again for your time.
Thank you. Any questions on the matter?
Seeing none, I'll take a motion to recommend approval
of item two Alder, uh, Casada.
So moves all those in favor signify by saying aye.
The, uh, any opposed, any, the opinion of the chair?
The ayes have it. Um, we're gonna take a 32nd break here
to allow Cly
and our guests, um, to relocate themselves from the box.
Um, our, our, uh, you guys are okay back there, Citi.
And then I'll ask our expert panelists to please join us,
uh, in the box there.
Rodriguez. Go ahead.
Chairman. I'm sorry. I thought I had my hand up
and I was trying to, um, get through it,
but I'm at a another meeting and so, um, I was still on mute
and I didn't realize when, did anybody have any questions
about the, um, um, last item?
Alderman? I'm, I'm not,
we're you're not coming through clear.
We can't hear you in here.
Well, you, um, I, I'm sorry.
I was at an, in a, um, I'm going to meetings at once.
Um, and I did, I I was, I think I was still on mute
or you couldn't hear me when you said,
were there any questions on the last item
and I was trying to get through.
Oh, my apologies, sir. We did pass that item.
Oh, okay. Very well.
For the quorum, I'd like to also, uh, recognize Alders,
Cardona and Conway as non committee members.
So not for the quorum necessarily,
both for meeting attendance.
Thank you for joining us.
All right. Um, I'll report, uh, item two
as a do pass recommendation at the next city council meeting
on June, uh, 18th.
Uh, the third item on the agenda, oh two two, uh,
0 2 3 dash 0 7 4 8.
Chicago rides Share Living Wage and Safety Ordinance.
Today, uh, we'll be holding a hearing on the matter.
Uh, we have several experts that I will introduce shortly,
but first, I will allow, uh, my director of policy,
basil Sem, to provide a short overview
of the ride share ordinance that was shared on Friday
of last week that we held on briefings
on, uh, earlier this week.
Uh, basil, go right ahead.
Good morning, council members. Uh, my name is Basil Sem.
I'm the policy Director for the Chairman, um,
and the Committee on Workforce Development.
Today's presentation provides a overview of the, uh,
proposed rideshare ordinance.
The legislation addresses several longstanding concerns
raised by rideshare drivers, particularly around safety,
income, stability, transparency, and due process.
Um, so just to, again, overview of the ordinance, um, it's
around organized around four primary areas, uh,
safety deactivation, uh, transparency and compensation.
Each of these areas addresses structural gaps in the current
ride share model, uh, that negatively impact drivers.
The safety portion of this ordinance focuses on improving
the working conditions and reducing risk for drivers
and passengers alike.
The ordinance requires annual driver safety training,
ensuring that drivers are informed about safe procedures
for picking up and dropping off passengers, conflict,
deescalation, defensive driving, pedestrian safety,
and how to share the road safely with cyclists.
The old, the ordinance also mandates
that ride share companies implement a rider identity
or passenger identity verification process
to discourage fraudulent accounts.
Um, the ordinance also establishes penalties
for assaulting drivers modeled
after protections, uh,
for EMT workers in the city of Chicago.
Moving on to deactivation, uh,
deactivation essentially means, uh,
being fired from the uh, platform.
Uh, today, drivers can be removed from the platform,
effectively fired with no advanced notice, no explanation,
and no opportunity to respond.
This often happens suddenly drivers report being locked out
of the app based on a single complaint, a flag
by the algorithm, or vague allegations from passengers.
For workers who depend on this income,
this practice creates deep financial instability.
The ordinance addresses these concerns as follows.
It requires companies
to publish clear plain language deactivation policies.
It requires at least seven days notice
for most deactivations,
and it mandates that an appeals process
that includes the right to a timely review
and objective investigation
On transparency.
The lack of transparency that drivers face
with deactivations, as discussed above,
also extends to compensation.
Drivers have no way of knowing what percentage
of the fair they are receiving, why they are paid less
for certain trips, how, uh, their earnings are,
are calculated, leaving them vulnerable
and undermining public trust in the system.
In addition, the lack
of clear policies makes it very difficult for drivers
to plan financially or challenge unfair practices.
This ordinance therefore requires an itemized breakdown
of driver earnings for each trip sent to the driver, um,
an itemized breakdown
of the customer fare sent to the customer.
And, um, on deactivation, again,
rideshare companies must also submit deactivation data
to the city, disaggregated by race
and gender to allow monitoring of patterns
that may indicate discrimination or bias.
Driver, driver compensation, um, continued.
Uh, the, so the compensation is perhaps the most urgent
and visible area of concern
for Chicago's ride share drivers.
Despite working long hours
and providing a critical transportation service,
many drivers are earning well below the city's minimum wage.
In many cases, drivers report earning as little
as $10 an hour or less after expenses.
Uh, the, this ordinance, as you see on the slide,
proposes a shift to a time
and distance based space structure, a model
that's already widely used across the
transportation industry.
This will ensure that drivers are, this will ensure
that drivers are paid for the full scope of their labor.
As you see on this slide, on average,
drivers are only paid 56% of the time they're working.
This means that in, in an average hour,
in a driver's workday, 20 minutes, uh, are waiting,
are, uh, spent waiting for a ride.
Un this is unpaid time, six minutes driving to a passenger,
this is unpaid time
and 34 minutes, uh, driving the passenger.
And this would be the paid time.
Now, this 56% number, um, is important
because, um, we're gonna be calling it the utilization rate.
But really what it means is this is the percent of the time,
uh, that the drivers are being paid
out of their working time.
The pay structure in the ordinance, uh,
is based on the following numbers.
Uh, we are proposing,
or the ordinance proposes a 35 cents, uh, per minute, uh,
rate, and a 84 cents per mile.
Um, and this will be adjusted for that same number
that we just talked about, the 56% utilization rate.
Here's a example, um, to, to plug in numbers into.
So a driver waits for 10 minutes to be connected to a rider.
She then drives for three minutes to pick up the rider.
That's about 13 minutes, um, of unpaid time.
Uh, the driver then gives the rider the passenger a 17
minute ride for five miles.
So the total spent, uh,
total time working would be 30 minutes.
How are we calculating this?
The per minute calculation would simply be
to plug in the minutes, um, uh, and the per and the miles.
So the per minute calculation would be 17 minutes, uh,
multiplied by 35 cents divided by 0.56,
which is the percentage.
Um, and then the per mile calculation, which, which is going
to be to account for expenses, would be five miles, uh,
multiplied by 84 cents, divided by 56% or 0.56.
The total received by the driver for this example,
or sample trip that we have would be $18 13 cents.
But that is just the receive number, uh,
not the total take home number, which would be $8 52 cents.
And we'll explain why in the next slide
Here.
Here's how we are, um, breaking down the expenses.
The total, um, uh, received for mileage
goes towards expenses.
Um, so this is based on the IRS rate of 70 cents per mile.
Um, but, uh, ride share drivers also incur additional costs,
uh, per mile, like vehicle cleaning supplies,
uncompensated time for repairs, car cleaning and fueling.
So that $7 50, uh, that she received, uh,
goes towards expenses, not towards her take home.
Um, the $10 that she received
for the per minute calculation, um, $2 11 cents of
that will go towards also expenses, um, 19
or 19.83%.
Um, these are independent contractor expenses, um,
like additional social security that they have
to pay sick leave, PTO, et cetera.
Um, so the take home, um, is $8 52 cents
for 30 minutes of work, which of course accounts, uh,
or, uh, results in $17 0.04 per hour,
which is slightly above the minimum wage.
Um, but this is an average.
So it can be in some,
in some ride it would be a little
bit less than the minimum wage.
And some rise will be a little bit o over.
The proposed per minute
and per mile rates in Chicago are broadly consistent
with standards adopted in other major cities.
With strong ride share regulations, including New York City
and Seattle, these cities have implemented similar rate
structures to ensure drivers are fairly compensated
for both time and distance.
And Chicago's ordinance follows
that same evidence-based approach.
Um, as you see here, um, the Chicago permanent
and per mile numbers, um, are right in the middle between
what New York and Seattle pay their drivers.
Finally, to prevent drivers from being underpaid
for short distance trips
or canceled drives,
the ordinance establishes a per trip floor of $7.
In,
in, in closing, the ordinance is a data-driven approach
to regulating a complex and fast evolving sector.
It offers basic labor protection, increases transparency
and formalizes processes
that have long been arbitrary and opaque. Thank you.
Alright, thank you so much.
I want acknowledge we have from, uh, the city's Department
of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection Commissioner,
Ivan Capelli, deputy Commissioner Rupo,
BPA Assistant Commissioner Chris Jessup
and Miguel Campos of the Office, office of Labor Standards.
In the interest of time, I will be s spearing them
from opening statements.
Uh, we do have with us expert panelists, um, from, uh,
Lyft, Ariel mfe, and Megan Sir Jane Samples that good.
Uh, from Uber, Josh Gold.
We also have from IDG, Steven Jarrett from, uh,
the People's Lobby, JC Mohammed, um, Andrew Greenblatt,
also from IDG and Laurie Simmons from the People's Lobby.
Each speaker is going to be given two minutes
to provide a brief presentation.
We're gonna open it up for questions first from committee
members and then, uh, from non committee members.
I'm gonna try and limit it to 10 minutes each.
Um, I would also like
to recognize non committee members being in attendance,
alders, um, Lee and Ko Lopez.
And from the committee adding to our quorum Alderman Hall.
I gotcha. Before. Wonderful.
All right, we're gonna start
with opening comments from Ariel Mafei.
Take it away.
Good morning, chairman, uh,
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony today.
My name is Ariel Rodriguez Mafei,
and I'm here on behalf of Lyft.
Rideshare in Chicago is more than a convenience.
It's an integral part of our city's
transportation infrastructure.
Every day, tens of thousands of Chicagoans depend on Lyft
to get to work, school, medical appointments,
and essential services, especially in communities
where public transit often fall short.
In fact, nearly one third of Lyft rides in this city starter
and in low income neighborhoods, these aren't luxury trips.
These are people getting to dialysis, to night shifts,
to job interviews, to childcare.
The ordinance before you today would raise the cost of rides
by more than 50%.
That means only Chicago's wealthiest
residents could still afford a ride.
And families already struggling to afford groceries
and rent will have to choose
between transportation and other basic needs.
It means fewer rides
and less service, more isolation for seniors,
more missed appointments for the sick,
and fewer opportunities for workers
just trying to make ends meet.
And the impact doesn't stop with riders.
Tens of thousands of Chicagoans drive with Lyft
to supplement their income.
When prices go up
and ride volume goes down, drivers earn less.
We've seen this happen in other markets,
and the hardest hit tend
to be those most in need of rideshare.
Lyft is proud of the role we play in supporting city
services, improving transportation access,
and investing in local mobility infrastructure.
In fact, today, rideshare fees help subsidize the city's
wheelchair accessible vehicle program,
which provides independence
and bilities for riders with disabilities across the city.
Right? Share also generates over 200 million in annual tax
revenue for the city of Chicago.
We understand that this ordinance was intended
to improve driver earnings,
and this is an area of serious focus for Lyft as well.
That's why Lyft Institute an earnings commitment
where drivers make at least 70% of the weekly right or fair
after external fees.
We share your goals of improving driver pay
and supporting working families,
but this ordinance doesn't do that.
It risk doing real harm to the very people
who can least afford it.
Fewer rides will mean fewer opportunities for drivers, even
with higher pay rates, ultimately shrinking the very income
this ordinance seeks to improve.
Do not let Chicago become a city
where only the wealthy can afford to move freely.
Let's find a better way together. Thank you.
Next? No, uh, no. You know what?
We're not gonna have that. Sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me.
We're not gonna have that. Um, next up is Megan.
Sir Jane Samples.
Um, in the interest of time, I'll, I'll yield over
to my counterpart at Uber.
Pardon me? I'll yield to my final part at Uber.
Oh, sure.
So this is, uh, next up is Josh
Gold from Uber. Go ahead, Josh.
Thank you. Thank you Chair and members of the committee.
We appreciate the opportunity to engage today,
but I wanna be clear, Uber strongly opposes the
legislation that's currently drafted.
Our opposition is rooted in three key concerns,
affordable access, operational instability,
and compromise safety.
First, the impact on affordable access.
This legislation risks putting, reliable,
affordable transportation out of the reach
for the very Chicagoans who depend on it.
Most Uber isn't into luxury.
It's a lifeline for many, especially in neighborhoods.
The transit system doesn't effectively serve
as serve in these neighborhoods.
Uber often fills the gap between where people live
and where jobs, healthcare and childcare are located.
If enacted, this bill could drive a 40% increase in rider
fares, pricing out many of those same riders.
The average pair in New York is $31 and 40 cents.
The average bear in Chicago is $22. It's a 43% difference.
Second, operational instability.
Elements of this proposal mirror a failed regulatory
model from New York City.
One that even the New York City Taxing Limousine Commission
is now backing away from New York.
City's most recent rule proposal exp
explicitly states they no longer use auto.
They no longer will use automatic utilization formulas
to set, pay, acknowledging the destabilizing effects those
rules had on drivers and rider alike.
If Chicago enacts this approach, um, with the comp with, uh,
not Chicago in access approach, we project we need
to reduce our workforce by at least 10,000
drivers to stabilize pricing.
And finally, safety proposals like this,
that weaken Uber's ability to swiftly deactivate drivers
after complaints would make the platform less safe.
We support transparency, we support fair pay
and deactivations, and we're ready to collaborate,
but we cannot support legislation that raises prices,
shrinks access, threatens public safety,
and breaks what works for Chicago's rider and drivers
Alike. Thank
you for your time, and we hope to work
with the council on a smarter path forward.
Next up is Steven Everett.
Hello. How you doing? Um, council,
thank you for having me today. Second,
There's really no reason, so please don't
go ahead Mr. Everett.
Sure. Thank you, sir. Um, my name is Steven Everett.
I've been a ride share driver for, uh, 10 years.
I'm one of the veterans who started, uh,
way back in the beginning.
Um, simply what, um, Uber
and Lyft representatives are saying is prices will raise,
but prices has already raised.
They're just taking the 50% that they're saying that, uh,
what's gonna raise, um, as a driver
from the beginning, to be honest with you,
Uber was the best thing since sliced bread.
Um, you know, we, we were
actually making money in the beginning,
but now they have taken so much.
And the safety, the safety it is, is nonexistent.
Um, they, so, listen, the truth is this,
drivers have to drive.
We used to be able to drive just like, I mean, uh,
work like regular people, you know, 40 hours a week.
Now we have to drive 70 hours a week to make the same thing
that we were making back in 20 14, 20 15.
And as far as the Deactivations, uh, um, my fellow, um,
Uber representative just said that they'll have to cut, uh,
drivers by 10,000.
They already do that.
They already deactivate us by, by that number already.
Um, because there's so many drivers that signing up.
Here's the truth here, guys.
They're simply taking advantage of the people of Chicago.
Um, we, we need this ordinance to go into place
to protect us and protect them.
Um, this will be fair for both of us.
Uh, drivers won't be making a million dollars a year, um,
and they still get a chance to buy a extra boat.
Um, so the, the, the thing is this,
we are here for fairness.
We're not trying to get rich off of this.
We understand that this is a gig, but we have expenses.
We have things that we have to pay here.
So, um, this is from the heart.
I have no written script or anything like that.
Um, but we, we, we have to,
um, create something here.
This ordinance, this thing works in other cities.
Um, and it's gonna work here in Chicago.
And, um, us as drivers, we won't stop
until we get some fairness. So thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Everett. Up next
is JJC Mohamed from the People Lobby.
I've been a driver for the company since 2017,
and I came before this committee to call attention to
the problem of Deactivations.
And much of what I wanted
to say was covered in the PowerPoint,
but I just want to say
I should know about this issue very well
because I was one of those deactivated drivers
several years ago.
I was deactivated
and immediately removed from the platform
based on an allegation that I am still
not quite clear about.
And because of the volume of trips that I took during that
time, I was at a loss to identify exactly
which passenger made the complaint.
And as you can imagine, it is hard
to defend yourself against a complaint
that someone makes against you when there's no specifics.
And the onus is on you to figure out exactly
what the complaint was and which passenger may have made it.
And all the company shares with you.
Is that a passenger complaint about your driving?
And this violates our terms of service.
Now, in recent years, this absence
of due process has become a chronic problem
with these companies, and they have,
and it has had a devastating effect.
And on the financial consequences of drivers.
For many people, ride share driving has become their
sole means of income.
And people who are in their households depend on them.
These are working class residents of this city
who have a serious financial obligation.
So to have their income arbitrarily stripped away from them
from one day to the next without due process,
financially shatters not only their lives,
but the lives of those people who rely on them for support.
For many reasons, these drivers suffer
a loss of income,
and it has a ripple effect on their lives from losing
a vehicle because it was repossessed to losing an apartment,
to becoming homeless.
And I wanna acknowledge, I'm ask to wrap up. Yes.
I, I wanna acknowledge Ken who was here,
the deaf gentleman spoke earlier, he's now homeless
and trying to find his way back to substantial income.
So for all of these reasons, I the committee
to support this piece of legislation
and put some guardrails in place so
that drivers are protected
and independent contractors have the ability to earn income
without being suddenly stripped away from them
without sufficient due process. Thank you. Thank
You Mr. Andrew Greenblatt
of the IDG.
Uh, good. Mor is Isan. Yeah.
Uh, good morning, chair Rodriguez,
committee members and alders.
My name is Andrew Greenblatt
and I'm the policy Director
of the Independent Driver's Guild.
The IDG is a nonprofit affiliate of IAM,
formerly the Machinist Union.
Our organization represents over 70,004 hire vehicle drivers
here in the state of Illinois as the policy director
for the Independent Driver's Guild,
the nation's largest rideshare drivers group I am riding to.
I'm speaking here today to strongly support your efforts
to enact this legislation.
Drivers in Chicago are suffering from a lack of safety,
transparency, fairness, and compensation in their workplace.
And this organ and this ordinance
would go a long way to fix that.
I had written quite a bit more here,
but on my way in, I saw that your rules, uh,
forbid profanity and vulgarity.
So I'm gonna not read from my written prepared statement
and instead address some of the things
that were said earlier today.
Um, the first is, I, I I wanna say that
the companies are using scare tactics to try
to get you to vote against this.
What's going to happen?
If I'd like to instead refer you to this report written
by the University of Chicago
and two other people that analyzed
what did happen when New York City put in
place a very similar system.
So instead of scaring you with what could happen,
I'm gonna tell you what actually happened.
The first is, prices are gonna rise by 40 or 50%.
Well, what actually happened in New York was prices rose
by about 15% in the year
after this was put in place in Chicago.
The same year while your pay for your drivers went down,
your prices went up by 22%.
I'm gonna say that slowly,
they went up 15% in New York while drivers got a raise,
they went up 22% in Chicago while drivers took a pay cut.
Okay? Also, this idea
that there'll be fewer drivers, we gotta fire people.
And so none of that happened.
Trips went up in New York in that first year, 6%,
which would also mean more revenue for Chicago
and taxes went up 6%.
But if they fired all these drivers,
that must have meant all these,
all these people were standing around waiting
for a, waiting for a trip.
No, actually what happened was, wait,
time went down in New York by 17% from about six minutes.
Will I ask you to wrap up Mr. Greenblatt?
You have more opportunities in a moment.
All right, I hear you. Thank you.
So, so I just, I just wanna say
that you're gonna hear a lot of things today.
Please don't fall for the scare tactics.
Look at what actually happened
and see that Chicago will be better off
by passing this ordinance.
Thank you. And last, Lori Simmons of the People's Lobby.
Mr. Chairman, while are we waiting on Ms. Simmons, uh, Ms.
Alderman Ferro, uh, is it possible that we can continue
to hear, um, the gentleman speak from a,
a statistic, um, perspective?
Um, I, I found those statistics very, um, um, informative
and if he could be given an opportunity at some point to,
uh, to give us those
statistics, again, I'd, I'd really appreciate.
I'm gonna tell you, Farrell, you're, you're out
of order right now, but I will call you first when we get
to questionings, and that's about five minutes from now.
Does that sound good? Maybe
even, maybe even shorter than that. Okay. Sounds
Good. Wonderful.
Thank you. Um,
All right. Thank you. Thank
you, chairman Rodriguez, uh,
and the Workforce Development Committee, uh,
for the opportunity to speak today.
Uh, my name is Lori Simmons,
and I'm an organizer with the Chicago Gig Alliance,
which thank you, um, is a project of the People's Lobby.
Um, I wasn't always an organizer, though.
Uh, before that I was a ride share driver.
Um, I have been on the platform since 2014,
and I was a full-time driver for five years.
Um, as you've heard probably
before, uh, money at first was real good.
Um, we now know that that was part of, uh, a plan
to blow billions in investor money to lure passengers
and drivers onto the platform,
and then force conditions that encourage increased in, uh,
dependence on their services.
Um, even as prices get jacked up across the board, um,
for drivers, the trap was actually pretty insidious.
Um, it may be common knowledge now that driving for Uber
and Lyft is not really overall a very reliable job.
But when Uber first came here, they made, um,
some real promises about how much drivers could earn.
Like all drivers, I knew that I was not gonna get rich,
but I was making enough to live.
Um, unfortunately, the business model
for the gig economy is wealth extraction on a massive scale.
Um, as workers, we pay for the vehicles.
We, uh, pay for service and maintenance.
We pay our own payroll taxes.
We have to buy two different kinds of our own insurance,
and ultimately, we're the ones
who lose everything when the unthinkable happens
and, uh, there's a life changing accident,
or we're attacked, or we just get deeper
and deeper in debt until, uh, we can't afford
to find another job anymore.
Um, uber lured people like myself into a false sense
of security, and we made life choices that allowed them
to build the wealth that they now use
to lobby against living wage ordinances
and other worker protections.
Um, over the years,
they've raised passenger affairs while cutting pay
for drivers, and we've been raising our voices
to organize and fight back.
Um, drivers have spent years talking to thousands
of our fellow workers about the issues in the industry,
holding rallies and press conferences, researching
and comparing pay models in other cities,
and talking with alders
and city officials to draft this ordinance.
And I urge, uh, council to move it out of committee
and to full city council vote
to protect workers. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
We will now move on to questions from Alders.
Before I move forward, I'd like to recognize Alderman Curtis
as a committee member for the Quorum.
Um, we will, uh,
I think if you can keep a clock, please, that'd be great.
Um, I know this committee's pretty good about keeping time,
but just in case, um, I do, uh, want
to pick up my daughter from school at 2 45, if
that's last day of school, y'all.
Um, so we will start with Alderman Talia Farrell,
and any others who wish to ask questions.
Uh, just please let me know,
alderman Ferrell, the, the floor is yours.
Thank you, chairman. Um, I,
I don't know the gentleman's name.
Uh, I was wondering if he had any more statistics
that he could, uh, let me know about, uh, regarding
what happened in New York when the ordinance was implemented
as compared to, um, Chicago.
Um, yes. Hi, it's,
it's Andrew Greenblatt from the Independent Driver.
Gu. Thank, thank you for asking. So thank you,
Sir. Um,
so I, I did wanna say, uh,
address one more thing directly
and then I'll, I'll speak more broadly.
So directly, Josh mistakenly has
been saying that the tax
and Li Commission is looking to get rid of this system.
In fact, in a presentation I saw him give once,
he described June as the month that it goes away.
So I contacted the commissioner
and he said that was not true.
I then put him in touch with you, the, the committee here.
Were you able to get through to the commission?
And if so, what, what did they say about the Uber's claim?
Uh, uh, but so go ahead, LAN.
Yeah, we spoke to the deputy, uh, commissioner yesterday
and, uh, some of the policy staff,
and they informed us that, um, they are not getting
of the rid of the utilization rate.
Um, what they told us was that they are changing it, uh,
from making it a automatic change that used
to happen and it wasn't working for them.
But what, what's happening now is that they are actually,
um, just gonna do it by rule,
but they said that, uh, the claim that, uh,
it is being got gotten rid of is, uh, incorrect.
Thank you. Yeah, and I'd love
to be, I'd love to be able to respond to
that. Josh, I'll let
You respond to that in a moment. Is that, is that good?
Thank you. So in general, in general,
what we've seen happen in New York is, um,
first things were working very well.
Then COVID came and nothing worked.
And then it took a couple of years for everything
to respond, and now it's working better.
Um, the companies have tried different tricks to be able
to pay workers less.
One of them was using lockouts.
The, uh, taxing limousine Commission went
after them for that called that a manipulation of data.
And that's why they've changed the rule from an annual
change to whenever we need to.
Basically what they said was,
if you're gonna try this manipulation of data again,
we're gonna come after you again.
That's the change that's being made. Okay.
So this ordinance in front of you, addresses that problem
by closing that loophole
and won't allow them to manipulate data in the same way.
So you won't have that problem here in, in Chicago.
But what's happened is workers have gone from their pay
going down and down and down, which is what continued
to happen in Chicago to stabilizing.
And then their pay increases with the rate of inflation
and other and, and other, um, uh, expenses.
So it's not some giant,
like, you know, everyone's buying a boat.
It's just like they now earn minimum wage in New York,
and as expenses and,
and inflation changes, their pay changes.
Mi we're going to go to Mr. Gold for response there.
Yeah, just, uh, what I put in my letter to the committee
and, and what I said in that
presentation was, was very, very clear.
And I'll just read it from the Tax
and Limousine Commission, um,
to further reduce the incentive to restrict driver access
to the apps and align TLC's driver payroll with the approach
of other jurisdictions.
So moving away from New York's only in the country rule,
TLC will not automatically calculate
and adjust applied utilization rates going forward, which is
what this legislation does.
It automatically adjusts applied
utilization rates going forward.
Instead, TLC will monitor and publish utilization rates and
after such rates through the rulemaking process,
which is a long process like this one that we're going
through right here, not something
that's just done automatically,
like it's done in the legislation, um, as needed
to reflect changing industry dynamics.
So the TLC is moving from a date which they adjust
utilization, um, to monitoring it
and not adjusting it automatically.
But I want to just respond to this,
all this comparison to New York.
Uh, I'm a New Yorker. I love New York. I'm a Knicks fan.
I cried a couple weeks ago when we lost to the Pacers.
Um, I love to see people want to mimic New York,
but I just, I, I would implore the people of Chicago
to make sure you know what you're mimicking in.
New York fairs are 43% higher than they are in Chicago,
in New York in 2019 when this was implemented.
And Andrew knows this well.
'cause this organization led some protests around this.
We implemented scheduler planner drivers had certain
hours they were allowed to work.
They could not sign up, sign on whenever they wanted.
They could not, uh, use the app
whenever they felt they had a, a maximum
of amount of hours that they could use.
That's what happened when this was implemented.
This law tries to prevent that.
Um, however, if that's prevented,
we only have one other option,
and that's to reduce the amount of drivers on the platform.
If drivers are gonna drive more because they're paid more
and they're less rider out there, then we need
to increase utilization by reducing the amount
of drivers on the platform.
We estimate that we will have to reduce the amount
of drivers on the platform by 10,000.
We will cut 10,000 jobs if this is implemented without the
ability to schedule in New York,
which you're trying to copy.
Drivers also have to buy their own insurance.
Uber does not buy insurance, and
therefore we can, we don't have to, uh, charge riders
as much in New York above what we, what we pay, uh, drivers,
because we don't have
to pay insurance companies here in the state of Illinois.
We do pay for the insurance right now.
However, the state law allows us to have the drivers do
that just like they do in New York.
And so drivers can buy
or will be required
to buy $5,000 commercial auto insurance policies just like
New York drivers are required to buy.
Thank you Mr. Gold. Uh, Mr.
Te, uh, alderman Tally Ferrell, any more questions?
Um, just one last question, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
Um, does anyone know what the, the, the profit is
for Uber and Lyft?
The Chicago market?
Say more? Alder Alderman?
Yeah. The process for what? No, the profit margin.
Oh, what the, yes. In only in the Chicago market.
Mr. Gold, do you wanna respond?
I don't have the Chicago market,
but I can talk about 2024 broadly.
Uh, Uber's operating profit was, I believe,
$2.8 billion on 11.2 billion trips,
so about a quarter a ride.
And Lyft, we can follow up with that information.
So we'll get that through the chair to the committee.
Uh, anything else? Uh, alderman, Tyler Farrell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all.
Okay. And we'll try to do that, uh,
at most two minutes per answer if we could.
And I want to get both sides in on that. Okay?
So if you're gonna be first, you gotta make sure you get,
you get your, your comments in. All right. Next, what
I have an opportunity to respond about the insurance
or No, I'm, it's my first state here.
I you strike me as a smart guy
and you'll figure out how to get it in
with one of these questions coming up.
We're gonna go with appreciate the, uh, alderman.
We're gonna go with Alderman Casada.
Ask The gentleman to respond to that question about,
um, about the insurance policy.
Okay. Thank you very much. Not a plant.
Um, so, um, so I,
I would say two interesting things about what Josh said.
The first is he's absolutely right about the New York City,
um, insurance system.
It is horrible. We're trying to get rid of it,
and we wanna model it on Chicago's model, right?
We think you do in, in insurance, correct? Here.
And that's why that's not changed in this ordinance.
The second thing I would say is interesting
how he used that as a threat.
Mm-hmm. Right? Like, that's what all of this has been about.
If you do this, we're gonna have
to raise prices way more than we did the last time
something like this happened.
And if you do, like, it's, it's just,
they're just threatening you.
But what really happened in New York is
life got better for drivers.
More passengers took the trips.
They didn't fire a whole bunch of drivers.
It, wait, time went down.
Life was better for everyone except maybe the people
who get dividends from profits.
And so, like, just don't believe the scare tactics.
Don't be bullied by, if you do this,
we're gonna do this terrible thing to you.
Stand up for your workers, stand up
for your passengers, pass something fair.
They're paying less than minimum wage. It's 2025.
Why are you letting a company that's making billions?
And by the way, his profits was only about one portion.
They made $10 billion last year.
The why would you let a company
that makes $10 billion a year make let not pay your
citizens at least your own minimum wage?
Yeah. All this stuff.
Thank, thank you very much.
Um, I wanna ask, I didn't catch, um, I didn't catch the,
the names of the individuals who are some of the
Workers up there, but if, if one of the, excuse me,
you're, you're now interrupting an older person, please.
Thank you. Thank you.
Um, if one of the workers were up there who is a,
a rideshare, uh, worker, could answer some
of these questions around, um, how much has, uh, well, one,
how many hours do you typically drive in a week?
So, um, if any, any driver that works full time,
we went from working 40 hours a week to 60.
Some of us work 70 hours a week. Oh.
Um, in order to make the same exact pay we were making just
three years ago, three, four years ago.
So how much, uh, do you usually earn per
hour after expenses?
So per hour after expenses? I'm, Hmm.
Probably making like, uh, a little, like,
like 10 bucks, something like that.
Uh, every, every hour after, after expenses.
And, uh, and the, and the reason why I say that is
because they're, they're taking half of every, every ride.
So if the passenger pays $20, they're,
they're taking at least, uh, 10 50,
something like that or more.
Uh, so that's what I'm saying.
And, and so how has your pay changed?
How has your pay changed over the past,
let's say two, three years?
Oh, simply, I mean, we used to get 70%.
We used to get 70%, um, even average.
Uh, we used to get, we used to get 65%.
So it started going down to down, down
after every, after every year.
So, uh, it, it, it needs to be at at least 70%,
uh, take home at least.
Do you feel like your earnings reflect
the amount of work that you put in?
No. No, sir. No, sir.
It, it is not, it's not
because again, uh, like was explained earlier, we have
to go to the passenger.
We have to wait for the passenger deal with the problems
of the passenger deal with 20 different personalities a day.
Uh, it is, it is, it is very hard.
You think we just drive,
but we actually save lives, you know,
like Uber that they mentioned.
We take 'em to the hospital, all type of stuff.
And if you had access to guaranteed minimum
wage, what would that mean for you?
It, it will mean everything for me.
And it will mean everything for every driver in this room.
Um, everything, everything.
Uh, I will be able to take care of my family more pay,
pay my rent, uh, without having
to borrow money, things like that.
So, everything. So what would you say, what would you say
to my colleagues here, who are some of them
who are undecided about this ordinance?
What would you say to them? Anybody that's undecided,
just know this, this ordinance will be fair to the,
your constituents, and it'll also be fair to Uber and Lyft
and also to the city.
You got, everybody will make more money.
Everybody can win with this. Everybody can win with this.
Not just, um, two companies. Thank you.
And to the Uber representative here, um, what was your name?
Josh. Josh. Josh.
Do you know what the, uh, Uber CEO's Dara K
or Sha, he's 2024.
Compensation was, I
Don't, I'll tell you.
It was 34, 39 $0.4 million.
Do you know what his compensation was in 2023?
I don't. It was $24 million.
So you're looking at a $15 million increase in
compensation over one year.
That is not what workers are seeing,
but it's, for some reason, it's something that CEOs can see.
And I think what's really frustrating is, uh,
across all sectors of our economy right now,
we are seeing a huge redistribution
of wealth from poor people
and working class people to the ultra rich.
And so, I, I do not want to hear crocodile tears about
how you can't pay workers who run this city. We need to
Pay workers a fair
wage auto woman play.
Uh, real quick, I just, um,
I didn't rec did I recognize Alderman Curtis
for the role You did.
And, uh, I, I, I got admonished
by those in the front, so forgive me. I will make
Alvin. I, I, I appreciate,
sorry to everyone.
Do I have a chance to respond? Give him a chase?
It was in a question or just a statement? I,
I'll leave. I think that's fair.
Yes. We'll allow, uh, uh, Mr.
Gold to respond. Oh, sure. Yes.
Yeah. Thank you, alderman. I appreciate the comments.
Look, I think what we had proposed doing in conversations
that the share had brought us into, um, is not having no,
uh, path forward and no regulations
and not having any minimum wage.
We actually, um, have been able to sit around the table
with drivers like the ones in this room with labor unions,
like the ones in this room with legislators like the ones in
this room in Minnesota
with the Attorney General in the state of New York
with the Attorney General in the state of Massachusetts.
And we've put together compromises that work
for those jurisdictions.
And we proposed, I believe, a $28 an hour, uh, uh,
minimum wage here as part
of a proposal, as part of a conversation.
Those conversations abruptly ended last week.
But we're not here saying, no,
let's not have any path forward.
We're opposed to a leg legislation that copies New York,
because there are some good things about New York,
but there are also things that you should ask
and figure out if that's what you really want,
a full-time workforce that's, that's, uh, uh, responsible
for their own insurance that is scheduled.
Those are the things that are in New York
that people may want and they may not want.
Um, there are also higher affairs associated with that.
And so there are other people
who used rideshare in these communities,
and we're trying to find a compromise
that balances their needs as well as the concerns,
the legitimate concerns that drivers have raised here today.
And you've raised as well. Thank you. Thank you,
Uh, Very quickly.
Thank you, Josh. I, I appreciate that,
and I appreciate your willingness to explain
how we are working together,
but I, I really, you know, we, we need
to have a fair conversation about
what is possible when we are seeing such huge profits.
And I think that it's only fair that workers
who put in the work, I mean, you're, you heard one worker
who said that he was working 40 hours a week
to 70 hours a week,
and there was a $14 million pay increase in compensation.
It's possible we can make it happen.
So let's have that conversation.
All the women, clay, uh, followed by,
uh, non committee members.
So any committee members want
to get in, uh, let me know now.
Thank you, chairman. Um, I wanted to just start off
by getting some stats, either from Lyft or Uber.
How many drivers are currently on each of your apps?
About 60,000 on the Uber platform in the city of Chicago.
Same one. Lyft. Lyft is 60,000 as well. Mm-hmm. Okay.
60, 60, sorry for Lyft, Uber, six, zero,
60,000. Yeah.
So Uber's 60,000. And then Lyft
Is approximately the same.
And, and a lot of folks do work on both platforms.
Um, what is the average span
that a driver can spend on a given ride?
What's your average ride look like?
Like average? Like average? Are you average price or
Ride? Like, how
long does a driver spend on an average ride?
I'm happy to get that for you.
I don't have it off the top of my head. Okay.
Um, I'm also very curious into
how do you currently calculate the price of trips?
So this actually is a, this is a point, um,
another comparison point to New York in Chicago,
in many markets, uh, drivers are, uh, presented
with a trip ahead of time, uh, which includes
where they're going, where they're picking the person up,
or they're dropping the person off,
and how much they're gonna get paid for that ride.
And they the opportunity to accept or reject that trip.
Um, if they reject the trip, they don't have to take it.
Um, they can move on to the next one.
In New York, uh, where we're trying to mimic, uh,
drivers don't get that up upfront information.
They don't know where the ride's going.
Uh, they don't know how much the ride's
gonna, the value of the ride.
Uh, they don't get any information upfront.
Um, instead they're paid on the, on the back end,
whatever the result of the ride is here in Chicago,
drivers get the upfront information, uh, about
how much they're gonna get paid on the, uh, uh, on the ride.
Uh, and they get to decide
whether or not they wanna take the ride.
Thanks for that. 'cause I'm a avid Uber, and
I'm sorry, one second. Older woman,
an out outbursts like that.
Please do not, we will be
asking folks to leave at this point. So please,
I appreciate you giving me the rundown.
And as a avid Uber
and Lyft rider myself,
I always see when a driver gets a ride and it pops up.
However, you haven't answered my question as to
how are you calculating the full expense of the ride
when it pops up and it says, the driver is gonna make $3
and 83 cents to take me a mile,
but it costs me $12.
How are you calculating that?
I, I think Alderwoman, thank you for the question.
I think when you're looking at a whole fare,
what you're looking at is not just the cost of the ride,
but it's also the fees
and taxes, taxes that are
implemented in the city of Chicago.
So just for everybody's awareness, in the city
of Chicago per ride, there's a dollar 13 tax.
There's additionally a 10 cent tax added per ride
to fund the wheelchair accessible vehicle program.
And that is listed as the accessibility fee. Additionally,
Daily From 6:00 AM
to 10:00 PM there's a downtown surcharge of a dollar 50.
And that is to and from downtown.
On top of that, riders will also pay a $5 surcharge.
This goes to the city for trips to, or from the airports to
or from Navy Pier and tour from McCormick Place.
So that means that many driver, many riders, excuse me,
already paying $7 and 63 cents just in fees per ride.
Thank you so much again for that breakdown.
Is there an algorithm that you use
to come up with the final prices?
I guess I get all of the fees and the one 13
and the 10 cents that we have to have.
What I'm still not getting is how do you,
how do you come up with the final price?
I guess I'm very adamant about this
because the other day you all, I tried to get an Uber
to take my baby one mile away to school,
and they tried to charge me $30
Of Our business models.
Both of our business models operate on a dynamic pricing
model, which means that fares can fluctuate from day to day.
All things in determine how many drivers are on the road,
what is the demand, what is the distance,
what is the time that it's going to take.
So all of those are factors that come into play.
The algorithm itself is proprietary information.
Happy to have a follow-up conversation with you one-on-one
to explain that a bit further
and not into a, a public forum,
but all of those factors come into place.
We did launch a new product that is price lock,
where you can actually price lock your guarantee on the Lyft
app for a model if you are commuting on a day-to-day basis
to help adjust.
And people, um, deal with like the day-to-day fluctuations
of pricing that is just part of the business model
and the dynamic pricing that is involved with Rideshare.
I appreciate that and I would love a
follow up conversation.
However, I think for this subject matter, hearing, all
of us deserve an answer.
The issue that I'm hearing from all
of these rideshare drivers is that there is
so much confusion in non-communication when it comes down to
how, how is this calculated?
How do you determine
what a rideshare driver gets based on this dynamic pricing
and surcharges and how that is not communicated, right?
The, at the end of the day, they get a price
and they have 30 seconds
because I see it to swipe that dang on button
and say, yes, I accept it.
Right? So I would love to have this conversation in private,
but I think, chairman, that this is a conversation that all
of us deserve to have. Yeah,
I I I, I would also like, I would also like to add too,
like to, to help drivers deal
with the dynamic pricing and the fluctuation.
That's why Lyft did institute a 70% weekly rider fare minus
an after external fees and taxes commitment.
So it is guaranteed
and a weekly true up that drivers will in earn 70%
of the fares that come through for them.
But to the point before,
and what Josh, I think was getting towards,
and like, it's not the threat of insurance.
Insurance is the largest external cost that we have.
That factors into the price at the end of the day,
that will be part of that.
So when you move into a model like New York,
and if that insurance costs are now added on top of this,
that is what we're saying, this dramatic increase is gonna
increase rides costs by more than 50%.
Insurance is the largest factor playing into that,
that we bear the burden and pay on behalf of drivers.
And if this is going to pass in this ordinance as is,
we no longer are going to be able to bear that burden.
'cause riders are not gonna be able to pay for it,
and there will not be a demand
for rideshare in the city of Chicago.
Thank you. Before I, uh, get a second opinion on this,
one of my other questions is,
how are surges determined and calculated?
Sorry, what was the question?
How are surges determined and calculated? Surge
Pricing. Surge pricing,
correct. Yeah.
So just, uh, on, on your first point, um, you know, uh,
the transparency and the understanding of
how much they're gonna get paid, I
think that's a great point.
Which is why in conversations with, uh, the chair,
we've offered, uh, a model that the, that the people
of Minnesota, uh,
the legislature in Minnesota has gone forward with,
that the Attorney general in Massachusetts has gone forward,
forward with, and the attorney general in New York, um,
which is drivers will know exactly
how much they were gonna get paid.
Um, we offer $28 an hour from the moment they accept the
trip until the moment they, uh, they drop someone off.
Um, that is the model that went forward in the state
of New York, in the state of, uh, Massachusetts.
And it's similar to the model in the state of Minnesota, um,
which has a mileage component and a time component as well.
Um, surges is,
is determined based on a, a supply and demand.
So if there's not a lot of drivers, um,
but a lot of riders, then, uh,
surge pricing goes in, into effect. And
Then of the surge pricing, how much of
that surge pricing is going to the driver?
It all goes to drivers. Okay.
I would, I would like the Ali Upid. Um,
It doesn't go to the individual.
So historically, um, when Uber
and Lyft started, historically, when Uber
and Lyft started, um, surge pricing went
to the individual driver, who, who did that trip,
um, that model.
Uh, we had, uh, complaints, um, that drivers would drive
to the surge and then not get any of the surge pricing.
Surge pricing. So in 2016, I believe, um,
the surge was instead of
that individual driver getting the surge, it was given to,
uh, all the drivers who drove into
the area of surge pricing.
I see you gesturing towards me. I'm ge
Because I'm at a loss for words,
and I know you're gonna pull 'em out.
So go for it.
Wow. So, so many things. Um, okay.
So let's start with this idea that like,
the companies are paying for insurance,
and if the drivers are paying for insurance,
prices have to go up.
Like, I'm not sure why they would have to shift the price
to the driver, but whatever it, it's still being paid for.
Like, it's not like it's not being paid for now.
And it would be, it just like, it's built into the price.
Uber and Lyft build it into the price and they pay it.
And if they don't wanna pay it anymore,
and they want the drivers to, it'll be built into the price
and the driver will pay for it.
We'll just have to make sure the drivers make a little bit
more, but it's not, suddenly insurance used to be free
and now you're passing this ordinance
and someone's gonna have to pay for insurance.
It's the same insurance. Okay. Sec sec.
Second of all this idea that somehow Minnesota,
Massachusetts, and, um, uh, New York, upstate New York,
not New York City
or these, you know, models on a hill
that you should be looking at Minnesota, they got done
by bullying their way
and threatening they were gonna pull out
after they had destroyed the local taxi industry.
They said, we're gonna leave you without any transportation.
And in fact, got a city ordinance overturned by the state
because of that.
So it's not like Minnesota's like, yay.
Minnesota was bullied into that.
In upstate, uh, in upstate New York.
The, uh, in upstate New York, the Attorney General's office,
uh, has told us that they didn't do the New York City model
just because it was a legal sentiment
where they were being sued
for underpaying drivers, by the way.
And the only thing
that they were able to do was what they did.
And, and it would've been better if they could
have copied the New York City system.
And the Massachusetts system similarly, was so unpopular
that the Attorney General who cut the deal
and endorsed a public referendum to overturn the deal
and instead give the workers in, in, uh,
Massachusetts the right to form a union.
So nobody liked Minneapolis. What happened in Minnesota?
Nobody likes what's happening in upstate New York,
and nobody likes what's happening in Massachusetts.
The New York City system is the system that's working.
Give your workers minimum wage.
That's all we're asking for, and just give the minimum wage.
Thank you. One more question if I can. Chairman,
I I, I, I'm sorry.
I wanted to answer your question about
how do they determine the, the rates?
Wait, I just give the time
To time constraints we have in this room,
and everyone has, I I do
Wanna, I'll yield, I'll yield my question
because I would love to hear very
Well. Okay. Okay. I
I, I apologize for rambling. Okay.
Ronnie's supposed to be raising his hand when I do that.
Um, so, um, the, uh, um,
so here's how they determine prices.
Whatever the market will bear, they're,
they're publicly traded companies whose legal obligation is
to maximize shareholder profit.
That's the law, right? So that's what they do.
They try to make as much money as they possibly can.
And so they set rates as high as they possibly can.
And that's why in New York, after they raised the pay,
after we raised the pay for drivers,
they still were only able to charge customers only so much.
And so prices only went up 15%.
While in Chicago, even though they didn't give an extra
penny at all, in fact, cut pay for workers in Chicago,
the prices went up even more.
They went up 22%
because the market bore that
paying drivers isn't what's driving, uh,
expenses, it's profit.
And when, and from 2019 when the New York City system went
into place, until today, profits at Uber have gone up 10
fold while driver pay has gone up
with the rate of inflation.
Driver pay is not driving all of this.
It's maximizing shareholder profits.
Some people call that greed.
Some people call that fiduciary duty,
but it's not a mystery.
They're just trying to squeeze as much out of your city
as they can and transport and transfer to Silicon Valley.
And they're gonna keep saying that. Until you,
If I could respond to that, um,
I fundamentally disagree with
that statement. And that has been our best
Interest. I'm, I'm sorry, we're gonna go
with Alderman Curtis at
this point, you, you will have a chance to chime in.
Alderman Curtis, go right ahead.
Uh, thank you, chairman.
Uh, yeah, I, uh, this question,
I, I remember when, when Uber first came, uh, to Chicago,
basically we were excited to see it.
Um, I, I have a question.
I have a question that was, uh, just brought up.
And it's for Uber. So if you have to cut drivers,
if you paid them the minimum wage, just the minimum wage
that they're asking for, uh, why do drivers drive
for both Uber and Lyft? The same driver?
Sorry, to, to be clear.
The, the need to, um,
reduce the workforce is
because of the utilization requirement, uh,
without the ability to schedule drivers.
So in New York in 2019, when they passed this rule,
they did not put restrictions on, uh, scheduling.
And so drivers were able to, we did not cut any drivers, uh,
because we were able to, uh, have shifts.
Uh, and in, so in New York,
drivers got every week they got the ability
to sign up for shifts.
Some got more, some got less. Um, it was upsetting to many.
Um, but they did get paid more, uh, in the shifts
that they worked when they were able to work shifts here
without the ability to have shifts, we'd have
to reduce the workforce, uh, in order to make sure
that we were keeping the utilization rate at the 56%.
I don't know where the 56% came from.
There's no study that I saw.
Uh, it may have been pulled from thin air.
Um, perhaps you, you all know.
Um, but in order to get to that 56%
and maintain it, uh, we would either have
to schedule drivers like we did in New York City in 2019,
um, especially when we have to do it in this first year, um,
because there is an ability to reduce new drivers,
which is something else we've done in New York.
And so our workforce in New York has gone down about 6%,
7% over the past, uh, year or uh, two years.
But that takes time. And so in order to get the utilization
to the 56% and maintain it next year, we'll have
to reduce the driver population by 10,000
or we'll have to be able to schedule.
And alderman, if I can clarify
Alderman Curtis, if, if Lyft can also a answer
That one. Thank you, chairman.
Just, just to clarify too, what,
what we're proposing,
they're proposing a utilization rate model
that has not worked in New York.
They're taking the worst parts of failed policy.
We are at the table
and in fact did propose 175% of minimum wage.
That is the proposal. That was the model.
And so I just wanna help understand,
so we're all on the same page here.
We did offer something at minimum wage 175% of, of
that time when a passenger's in the vehicle.
So what we're trying to get at is we have
to learn from our history
and we have to learn from failed policy.
Minnesota was a two year negotiation.
It wasn't that something that happened overnight
and things, it was a long conversation to get
to where we are today there.
So I just wanna share that. And I am a proud Chicagoan.
I'm like Mr.
Greenblatt and I'm, I live here and I work in the city
and I'm very proud to be a part of this city.
And we wanna remain a, a part
of this vibrant fabric that is Chicago.
We wanna be here. And that's why we're at the table
because we wanna find a solution together.
So Add, if this ordinance was just about minimum wage,
we would be able to have a great conversation here.
But this ordinance goes far beyond minimum wage.
It makes it fundamentally challenging for us to be able
to operate in this market.
And to add, like I disagree with the statement is
that it's in our best interest to jack up prices.
Actually, it's not. We are competing
for the same riders and drivers every day.
And it's fundamentally in our best interest to make rides
as affordable as possible,
to get more people on our platform,
and to choose my product over his
product at the end of the day.
And so it is in our best interest to keep ride costs
as low as possible.
And that way we get more riders on the platform
and more earnings opportunities for drivers.
It is not in our best interest to jack up the prices.
We make cuts to stay competitive every single day when it
comes to pricing just so we can,
'cause we're fighting over the same customers.
And, and what's the difference between your model
Alderman Curtis, I don't think we can hear you online.
What's the difference between your model
and Uber's model Lyft, uh, product
and your product basically drivers, right?
And, and how they act toward your customers
and things like that.
Right. So I'll let you answer instead of me. Go ahead.
Um, I would say from the rideshare perspective,
there is no difference.
You know, our, our customers are their customers, our riders
and drivers are theirs at the end of the day.
So it isn't our best interest to be as competitive
as possible when it comes to pricing.
That means making the rides as affordable as possible.
So they choose us and making drivers earn as much
as they can on the platform. So they choose us.
Right. Uh, and,
and just my last question so I can move on.
Um, for the commissioner, when we passed the, um, uh,
raising minimum wage in Chicago, uh, was Uber
and Lyft exempt?
Uh, hello everyone.
Ivan Cap commissioner for BACP, this, uh, um,
Uber drivers and
and Lyft drivers are considered, uh,
independent contractors.
So this would not apply to them, right. The minimum wage.
So being an independent contractor,
you guys get 10 99, correct? Correct.
Correct. Which means you're gonna have
to pay taxes sooner or later, correct?
That's correct. But when the, when, when Uber
or Lyft got a customer, they were already taxing.
They paid their taxes already.
Yes, correct. But they collect the tax,
They collect the tax already. Uh, so Right. They
Alderman again, I don't think folks can hear you online.
I'm sorry. Uh, yeah, we were,
we were talking about the taxes that once, uh,
the charges there, uh, is going to Uber or Lyft,
and they're able to, to pay the taxes on that ride.
When, when, uh, a driver pays,
uh, uh, submit their, uh, 10 99, they still have
to pay taxes on the under $10
an hour that you already getting.
Yes, sir.
Yeah. So I'm, that's, that's, that's all I'm asking.
That's, that's, thank you, Jim.
Thank you Alderman. Very
quickly for a point of information,
Um, chairman, I had a question
'cause I had a Uber driver yesterday drop me off at home.
And what I learned as, as a, I, uh,
as an independent contractor, the total amount that Uber
or Lyft is stating that they made is the full price
of the ride, not the portion that they took home.
Can you speak to that? Can Uber,
Lyft speak to that and clarify?
Yes. I don't think I fully understand your, your
Question. So if the ride costs
$20,
but the driver made 10, it's reported on their taxes
that they made the full $20
and not the $10 that they took home.
I can look into that for you and follow
Up with you. I would love
that because that results in our drivers paying
more in taxes, although they didn't make all of that.
Yeah. We're gonna go to Alderman Vasquez
online by that question.
They, they, they report 10, not 20. Okay.
Alder Vasquez, go ahead. You said something
nice about the company.
I wanna just Thanks Andrew Alder Vasquez.
Okay. Just checking. I like my man
out here, but he is going a little extra.
Thank you so much. Um, so I got a couple questions I'll kind
of go straight into, um, for each of the companies,
what's the racial makeup of the drivers on each platform?
The question was racial makeup
of drivers on the platform. Is that right? Ler?
Yes, that's correct. So, so on the Lyft platform, 79%
of our drivers are, uh, from communities of color.
I think it's similar for the Uber platform,
and I can get you the exact number.
Okay. How about, uh, We didn't catch that,
Mr. Gold? It's similar
for the Uber platform,
but I'll get you the exact number.
Okay. What about the breakdown of,
uh, drivers who are women?
I can, I can look into that for you, alderman.
Yeah, if you could, uh, both send that
through the chair if you can't provide them now.
I mean, I think we're talking about populations that
historically are underpaid when it comes to their labor.
And so I just wanna make sure that that's the case.
Sorry, this is Ariel.
Yes, it's, we actually, it's, uh,
22% of our drivers are women.
Okay. Um, for each of the companies, um,
has either one had a year of either no profit
or actual loss.
Uh, famously Uber has lost lots of money for many years.
Well, I, I I'm not saying I'm not profit
loss 'cause you still maintain profit.
We're talking loss loss.
I mean, we were unprofitable for many, many years
until I think two years ago. Okay.
Uh, if you could send through the chair kind of
what the last 10 years have looked like year over year,
and that'd be for both companies.
Yeah. We can send you our public filings.
Um, but similarly, Lyft has not been profitable for many,
many years until recently.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I mean, I know, uh,
I I believe the gentleman, Mr.
Gold Plat was his name. Did you guys did what?
2 billion this past year?
The operating profit was, I believe,
2.8 billion last year on 11 point.
So close 3 billion on, on 11.2 billion
trips world worldwide.
Right. So 3 billion bucks billion with a B, right?
Yes. On 11.3 billion with a b trips worldwide.
Yeah, no, I got that point. And just make sure
the profit margins is correct.
Thank you for that. Um, now I guess,
what's the difference in
how each company defines utilization in comparison to
what the ordinance is proposing?
'cause I'm understanding why the riders, I think,
fairly wanna be compensated for their actual labor,
meaning their time that they're waiting, the time
that they're dropping somebody off, if somebody,
you know, cancels.
Um, how is that, uh, quantified as it pertains
to both companies and what's the difference?
Yeah, I would, I would just say on the utilization
numbers, I, I'm surprised that they, they called, uh, um,
the individual study called the New York
City TLC and talked about this.
The New York City TLC has also proposed shifting
to two different utilization rates.
One for time and one for distance that's absent here.
Um, because distance, uh, uh, ri uh,
drivers often do not move during P one
'cause they're sitting at the airport waiting for a ride
or they're sitting at other locations waiting for a WA ride.
And so New York City has in their proposal, which
of course we're only copying the parts of New York
that we like, um,
but New York has proposed moving
to a time-based utilization rate
and separately a distance utilization rate.
So the mileage part of the formula is not divided
by the time utilization,
it's divided by its own utilization.
I think Chicago just made up 50 sec 56%,
which is why there's probably no corresponding distance
utilization, but New York's distance utilization rate.
One of the key differences between the company
and the city here is that New York's distance
utilization rate is probably in the seventies, eighties.
Andrew might know off the top of his head,
but much higher than 56%.
Yeah. Andrew, if you'd, uh, I'd love
to hear Andrew's take on it.
Yeah. Uh, I'm sorry.
I'm gonna have to defer to Will,
can I, uh, ask you a question?
The, the 56% comes from the Berkeley study
or the Chicago study.
Okay. So, and it's 56% for distance.
So, so, uh, no, it's 56%, uh, overall.
So, um, I, I'm not gonna disagree
with you on this one, Josh.
Sorry, I I know you're like a good fight.
Um, the, the, um, there, there are some distance,
there are some differences between time and distance.
Um, we're nibbling at the edges here.
Uh, you, you know, I think the question is do you wanna pay
your workers minimum wage or not?
The question, uh, this ordinance says you have to,
if you wanna calculate it, it would lead
to a slight difference in how much goes to, to the workers.
Not a tremendous one.
Um, I as opposed to, uh, what was said
before about this crazy idea that the companies have offered
to pay 160% of minimum wage.
I, I wanna be clear what they offered.
They're offered to pay 160% for 56% of your work.
So right off the bat, you're making less than minimum wage
and you have to pay for all of the equipment,
the gas and everything else.
So this would be like going into a McDonald's
and saying, okay, we do things a little different here.
Now we're only gonna pay you
for half an hour when you're here for an hour.
And, uh, but don't worry, we're gonna pay you a little bit
more for that half hour time.
So we'll pay you like 150%.
So, uh, for, for that for a half an hour instead of,
you know, a hundred percent for a whole hour, oh,
and from now on you have to bring the beef
and we expect you to pay for the fryer.
And like that's what, that's
what she's calling 160% of minimum wage.
And yeah, no, it isn't. It isn't.
If you're not putting into the ordinance some way to account
for all of the work the worker is doing
and all of the expenses the worker has,
they are making less than minimum wage.
That is what's happening in Chicago right now.
You can put an end to it.
I'd like to respond to that. Chairman,
I'm sure you guys will go ahead.
I'd like Alder
Vasquez, uh, Lyft would like
to respond to that. Is that okay?
Yep, that's fine. Thank you.
So to clarify, I said we offered 175%
above minimum wage when a passenger is in the vehicle.
And that time includes that P one and P two time,
otherwise it would just be minimum wage.
So understand that those rates are taken into account
in what we've offered.
So, again, to clarify, the model
that we have proposed is a minimum wage model.
The model that is in this ordinance is not.
And so to be clear, we, we have made that offer,
and I al I really am grateful
that Andrew brought up the Chicago study
because in fact, the city of Chicago had a study done
by our regulator, BACP, which found that 65%
of full-time drivers are in between 31 to $40 per hour.
And 22 earn, 22% earn between 41 to $50 an hour.
The same study done by the city found that 0% of full-time
TNC drivers earn less than $20 an hour after expenses.
That study points to exactly what we're talking about here.
And again, we are at the table
and have continued to be at the table with all of you
because we are engaged stakeholders,
we wanna see a solution.
But this model is not it
All. Va, Lori,
very,
the people's lobby would like to respond to that.
I, I i, we did one with, you know, do another. I just
Wanna very sorry.
I wanna very briefly, because we're gonna skip over it.
We found an agreement here and,
and I noticed that we didn't do a right
to substitution, uh, in the beginning.
So there's still an opportunity to change that, the,
the legislation before it comes forward on Monday.
And we did find an agreement on distance utilization,
and I know Andrew said it,
you know, was nibbling on the margins.
But, um, when we had an underserved area credit back in
Chicago, uh, in Chicago
before, uh, the council got rid of that in 2021,
about a third of Uber trips were being done from
underserved communities.
And I think even, even a little bit, if we could lower
that increase even a little bit, um,
it would be great if we were able
to get a distance utilization number in
to the final bill that moves forward on Monday. Uh,
Okay. Thank
You.
Yeah, thank you. I just wanted
to make a comment about the, uh, study
that Lyft is referencing.
Um, that was one that I was involved with, um, along
with some of the people that are up here with me
and some of the advocates in the audience.
And I just want to point out that at the time of the study,
we had some real concerns about
how the data was being collected from drivers.
Um, people who do this work know that the bulk
of your expenses is not, oh, I went and got some gas today,
or I paid my car payment.
It's the depreciation on your vehicle,
which almost no driver's account
for if you ask them what their expenses are.
So, um, when the study was sent out, we raised concerns
that nobody was asking drivers
to report their studies in a way that would be uniform
or make any sense.
Um, they just had a blank space
and said, tell me what your expenses are.
So I don't know how you could ever figure out
what drivers are actually earning if you're not taking any
consideration for getting a, uh, real estimate of
what their expenses would be.
Der Vasquez, um, yeah, Thank
You. Any, anything else?
Yes, plenty. They just been a whole lot
of answering. Um, I
Can't, I can't hear you.
I said yes, I have, I have more questions.
They just spent a whole lot of time answering.
Uh, so my next questions are related to Deactivations
'cause no one's been bringing that up.
So when it re uh, when it comes
to deactivating ride share workers, we've gotten a lot
of complaints about folks who've been deactivated
because a, a rider was perhaps frustrated
and didn't have any basis.
What's the process for reactivation
and having a transparent process
whenever someone's being deactivated?
'cause I know that the ordinance also
serves to address some of that.
I I can take that first.
Um, we go through, uh, there is a human review process,
uh, with deactivations.
Folks are, um, are given notice
and we also have a, an appeals process
as part of that as well.
What does that appeals process look like and what
Guys?
Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.
Alright, sorry. Um,
what does the appeals process look like
and what's the, um, time that a driver is given
before they're deactivated?
Can, can we give that so the, so the company's answer,
the la the last one, we'll let the,
the drivers answer this one if that's okay.
Anyone wanna take that? Sure, that's
Fine. Yeah,
Yeah. Let, let
me just respond to that.
Um, currently we don't, as drivers
are, we are not able to, to to clearly discern
what the appeals process is.
We know that a by a year ago, the companies tried
to make an adjustment and put an appeals process in place,
but that appeals process has not had any kind
of transparency, uh, transparency, any clear,
clear guidelines on how
to go about getting back on the platform.
Uh, we see drivers every day who get deactivated
and all they get is an email saying that if you want
to appeal, uh, send, send us your version of the story.
And then it goes into a black hole.
And then sometimes they get a response from the company,
but many times they don't.
So drivers are still in a lawsuit, is the act exactly
what the appeals process is.
So that's why the ordinance that we have in place now,
it requires a clear, uh, deactivation policy.
It requires seven days notice before drivers deactivated,
and it mandates a, an appeals process that's clear
and transparent that everyone understands.
Thank you very. Although you've got, uh,
you've got two minutes and 40 seconds on the clock here.
I dunno if you could see it. Okay. I
Sorry. I'll have you,
I have you on, uh,
let's let Alder Vasquez go
and I'll get your point of clarification. Okay, thank you.
So based on that, I need
through the chair from both companies
what their guidelines are related to deactivation as well
as appeal, and also the, the amount of people
that have been deactivated each year for the last 10 years.
And how many have been reactivated
for the past 10 years, year over year as well.
I don't have that information. I'm ha
I'm happy to get you that information.
I will say that I thought we were, you know, on the,
the cusp of making progress in the discussions
that we were having, um, with Chair Rodriguez and,
and others, um, here, uh, on the deactivation issue.
It is something that, um, the companies have
admittedly tried to approve over the past,
uh, uh, few years.
Um, and there has been some progress
and there could be more progress.
Um, but I thought we were making progress,
uh, in those conversations.
There are, um, deactivation regulations on the books in, um,
you know, Minnesota, in Washington state.
Um, there are, they're part of those agreements
that we talked about in New York and Massachusetts.
And I do think there's an opportunity to make sure
that there are clear deactivation policies,
that there's a clear appeals process that it's monitored.
Um, but we still have concerns here.
Um, we haven't, the, this, uh,
draft hasn't reflected any of those conversations.
Uh, the seven day warning period, um,
makes sense in some situ situations
and in some, um, you probably don't want us to, to continue
to allow someone to on the platform for seven days. Um, uh,
Hello. Excuse me. Sorry.
Pardon me.
Yeah, so I kind of, for everyone's best interest
and for timing, you can include that in your
through the chair response, if that's okay.
Uh, sure. I'm happy to include that.
I think it's a really important part, um,
because we wanna make sure our platforms
continue to be as safe as they can.
That'd be great. Um, I, my last question I've got, um,
before I wrap up is related to driver safety, right?
Uh, riders who, come on, how are they verified to make sure
that they're safe because we have multiple instances
of drivers being killed, drivers being hurt,
and what is the company,
what are companies seeking to do there?
Because the point that we're at now is
where workers are demanding from us
that we're drafting legislation to fix
and correct things that
the companies appear not to be doing.
Chair, uh, alderman, this is Ariel.
Uh, thank you for the question.
I, I wanna share with you that safety is
of the utmost important to us.
We want both rider and our drivers to be safe.
That, that is, we want people to use our platforms
and we want them to feel safe
and comfortable when, when doing so,
the companies have both implemented several safety
guidelines and we have rolled out rider verification.
We have also, uh, rolled out, uh, safety verification pins,
and I can share that information through the chair, uh,
to show you just outline all the many ways, um,
that we are creating, um, a safe environment.
Yeah. Alright. Thank you. Just
To piggyback and add onto Ariel's comments here
and like how important safety is for us
and technology is ever changing and evolving,
and so we are constantly finding new ways
to improve safety on the platform.
But when you tie our hands in a prescriptive way
through regulation, it holds us back from being able
to utilize advanced technology
to improve safety on the platform.
So we also wanna make sure that we are not pigeonholed
and prescribed the way that we can handle things in safety.
We wanna be able to continuously evolve
as new tech technologies come out. I'll
Allow one brief response from the advocates.
Well, I would just thank you, chair.
Uh, I would just say that prescriptive, it just says you,
the, the ordinance just says they have to have a system
that like, like you can't not have a system
for figuring out if the person
who says they are getting into
your car really is that person.
You could have any system you want as long as it works.
There is no prescription in the ordinance. None. Zero.
Again, chairman, what we're saying is we do have,
I'm sorry, all the woman Lee, on the point of clarification,
Uh, Thank you Chair.
I think Alderman Vasquez clarified.
I just wanted to hear from both
companies on their, uh, appeals
Process. Got it. Alderman Quinn,
Thank you Mr. Chair.
And uh, thank you for running this meeting.
I think you're doing a fine job. Thank
You.
Um, I, I have a couple questions related to the
bottom line of the city of Chicago.
So how much annually does the city realize
from the Rideshare tax?
Someone can answer that.
Commissioner Ivan.
Hello everyone. Uh, Ivan Cap Commissioner Department of,
uh, business Affairs and Consumer Protection.
Uh, I have information that was
provided through the, um, uh, department of Finance
and uh, for 2024.
Uh, it looks like the tax, uh, total paid to the city
of Chicago wasn't the amount of 206,000,280, uh,
with 732. And
That for both companies?
Yes, all total paid by the TMP companies.
That's just information that I got from
Commissioner. You, can you
repeat those numbers one more time?
Uh, in 2024,
206,280,732.
206 million. Okay.
Um, and has there been an analysis done, um,
on this particular ordinance as to whether
or not it would have a financial impact on the City
of Chicago's bottom line?
Not currently. Not currently.
Uh, we, we can have
that conversation. I don't have that information.
We've done our own analysis. Well, if
Alderman, would you mind if I get a response from
the advocates and the Sure.
Yeah. Can I have one industry folk?
It's a good question. I'm interested. So
I guess Mr. Mr,
go ahead, Josh. Yeah, so, um, we looked at, um, uh,
the elasticities and we went really conservative.
So with a negative 0.5, um, most, um, uh,
academics either have between a minus one and a minus two.
And so we believe that with a 40% increase in fares,
there'll be a 15% reduction in trips.
One five. Uh, and the corresponding tax reduction from Uber
alone would be $20 million.
And I just did my own analysis of his analysis
and found that 40% is a ridiculous number.
What actually happened in New York was a 15% change
in the fares.
And that, uh, fair, uh, number
of trips actually went up 6%, not down 6%.
So if you follow that, the pattern of
what actually happened,
revenue would go up for the city of Chicago.
I just, I just wanna flag
that we're comparing the percentage differences
from New York and Chicago.
Chicago is starting from a 43% lower
base rate than New York.
And, uh, if you go back to the slide that we had,
the slideshow that we had,
we're doing the same driver rates as New York.
Right? And so it would, it would be, um, not out
of left field to assume
that if the driver rates are similar in New York,
then the rider rates would be similar.
In New York. Rider rates in New York are 40%,
43% higher than rider rates in Chicago.
And, and to, to Andrew.
And then we'll go back to the, to the alderman.
Yeah, I mean, we just, we heard the same scare tactics
when they were fighting this in New York.
You know, no one's gonna be able
to afford to take these anymore.
Prices are gonna go through the roof.
You know, people are gonna be standing
around waiting for, for trips.
None of it happened.
So like, if you don't believe me,
look at the University of Chicago study.
I brought some extras in case anybody wants
some, uh, reading this evening.
Um, the, uh, you know, don't believe the threats.
Look at what actually happened,
what actually happened was none of that.
Mr. Mr. Chair j just a suggestion
and I appreciate the back
and forth from the industry and the advocates.
It probably makes really good sense for us
to do our own analysis
as we're gonna be going into budget making season
sooner rather than later.
And we wanna make sure we get this right
and, um, wanna understand full well, um,
before we make a decision.
So thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you. Uh, we'll go on
to non committee members at this point.
Uh, what, well forgive me, we're gonna go back.
Alderman Hall committee member. Go right ahead.
And I wanna recognize Alderman, uh, Burnett for the
as a non, uh, member in attendance.
Uh, thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I think that this is a good
conversation, a good intersection.
Uh, there's no if, ands
and buts about it that everybody needs to make sure
that our workers are well
and compensation is for the worker.
Uh, I got a question as we are continuing this ongoing
conversation clearly into the weekend, um,
has there been any conversations around
what is a fair hourly wage that allows workers,
as my brother said, going from 40 hours to 70 hours
ain't fair and it's no if ands abut it Also, that
what we heard as it pertains to the cost
to go a mile doesn't make sense.
So if compensation wages is the issue,
is there a number hourly rate that has been discussed
that's fair, that makes the writer sovereign,
company sovereign?
Is there, where are we at with that?
If I may, uh, just respond
and then I'll ask the companies and Sure.
Uh, advocates to respond. We've had ample negotiations.
Um, the fact is there are non-negotiables on both sides.
Gotcha. Uh, so I just wanna make that clear.
And, and it is this pay model
where both sides are in, in non-agreement.
I don't think either side would disagree with that.
So I'll allow both of you to, uh, uh,
respond to that question.
We have Mr. Mohammed. Yeah,
Let me, let me give you some perspective on that Alderman.
Um, if right now any one of us
calls for an Uber to O'Hare
and I actually just called for one, do you know
how much that fair would cost you?
$65.
Now, let's be generous to the driver.
If we were generous to the driver, that means that
that driver would get 70% of the fair.
But we know we don't get that right.
There's no driver in here that would agree
that they would get 70% of the fair.
70% of that fair would be $45.
We would more than likely get around 60%,
which is 37 point 80.
Do you know how much it cost
to take a taxi from right here to downtown?
20 years ago it was $40.
Now when you take away fuel maintenance
and taxes, it's down to 20 to $25.
That's what we're taking home.
So we're getting paid less than a taxi driver
would 20 years ago.
And to,
and we gotta pay our own taxes, maintenance, and fuel.
Now, that's what needs to change here,
and that's what we're here fighting for.
Got you. So is there a number Right? For sure.
And we should clap for that.
Um, is there a number though,
however, that you see as we, like I said, all
of the variables, we don't know
what the cost of fuel will be.
We don't know what insurance is
going to be so forth and so on.
So is there a, like a flat line baseline that is a part
of this ordinance that says, no matter rain, sleet, snow,
O'Hare, trip, midway trip, 63rd to 69th trip, this is
what would be consistent
and safe for drivers financially. Yeah.
So you, you asked two questions is
like, how do we get this number? Is
My, yeah. You
Know what? I think press the button.
Make sure it's green.
It is green. Oh,
It's black. Use that one.
Yeah, please. All right. How's that much?
That's better. Okay. Sorry about that.
I, I, I heard you asked two
Questions. One is,
what's a fair number?
And the question is what's this number?
And a fair number is up to you.
You're, you're the legislature.
You set what is a fair minimum wage for the city of Chicago.
The number we picked was the nu was the number you set.
So what we did was we did an analysis of
what all the expenses are, how much wait time there is,
all those kinds of things to get you to
Chicago's minimum wage.
If you feel Chicago's minimum wage is too low,
you should feel free to raise it.
And then we would adjust, uh, we would come back to you
and adjust these rates also to make sure
that these drivers were keeping up
with Chicago's minimum wage.
Okay. But all we're trying to do is take this workforce
that these companies are paying less than minimum wage to
and get them to Chicago's minimum wage. That's the number
We're So for those that are watching,
what is the concrete number?
Right? So, so in the end, so,
so we had to pick a few things, right?
So one of the things, uh, so we're, what we're shooting
for right, is, is, uh, I'm sorry, too many cities.
1660 is what you're, you've gotten now, right? 16, 16 80.
You saying 1620, your point's about to go off 80.
It's about $75 an hour. Yeah, but it's about to go right.
It, but it's about to go up.
And this doesn't kick in until March. So it's gonna be 16.
Well, I'm sorry. There is a number. We worked with that.
And then to get to that number,
the numbers we used was first for expenses.
We started with the IRS figure.
So you'll see the companies will throw out numbers like, oh,
it's only 30 cents a mile.
It's only whatever, because you already own your car.
So that doesn't count. It's, it's a marginal cost, which
of course if they did that
for their own capital investments, they would be brought,
hauled in front of the SEC for fraud.
But they expect that's
how drivers should figure out their capital expenses.
Right? So, um, so we say, okay,
let's take the IRS number 70, 70 cents a mile.
And then there are certain things that a typical person,
so the IRS number is set for things like you have
to drive to a business meeting.
Well, if you have to drive to a business meeting,
you don't have to keep your car clean all the time.
'cause no one's getting into your car. You don't have to.
I understand the conditions
surrounding and all of these factors,
$75 an hour, their number of $75 an hour,
our number is around $30 an hour. There's the difference.
Thank you. So, so right now none
Of that is True. Okay.
So for the, the point I'm trying
to make is essentially I just one one
Cole, just, just please wait to be
Acknowledged so we can get full comments Yeah.
And the context that we need for this conversation.
And Alderman, I think Lyft wanted to respond as well. Yeah.
So, so all I'm asking, again,
it's been said 12 times over.
It is no if and but about it, and I'm in agreement with you.
The cost to do business in every sector is going up.
It's called inflation. It's called the times that we are in.
Yep. A bag of chips went from a quarter to 50 cents.
Two for a dollar, used to be four $4. I get it.
So again, for the fourth time,
the question I'm asking you is this, what is a hourly wage
that makes it fair for workers,
whether you are in the gig community that you are proposing
to the city, not on us to give to you.
What do you suggest?
Do we have, do we have it up there?
Yeah, so, uh, we go with 35 cents a minute
for the 60 minutes that they're working and 84 cents a mile.
And then because they're only being paid for, for 56%
of the time that they're driving, you divide it by 0.56
and that gets you up to about 62 cents a minute
for the time they're being paid.
That's when someone's actually in your vehicle.
And, uh, I'm sorry, I don't have the number in front of me,
but it's, it's about a dollar 50.
You have it in front of me. It's a dollar 50,
uh, for each mile.
Gotcha. So you all are proposing 6 cents per minute,
a dollar 50 per mile.
Is there any calculation of what
that average would be per hour
that you all have been working with?
Or is that something you are working with? If
That boils down after you pay your expenses,
that boils down to Chicago's minimum wage.
That's what you take home after you pay your taxes.
After you, you the additional taxes,
not your taxes, but you have to pay additional taxes.
'cause they pay as an independent contractor
after you set aside some money for paid time off
because you're in an independent contractor.
After you pay for your car,
after you pay for maintenance, you are, you're pocketing,
you're able to pay your rent, your food, take care
of your kids with Chicago's minimum wage. Gotcha.
Okay. Alderman, can Lyft chime in?
Yeah, yeah. I'm Let Josh go first. Okay.
I'll just say the number is $75 an hour.
I, I, if I may, alderman, I think what I'm hearing you say
and ask is, is there a number under a minimum wage model,
which is what we've proposed, which is that 175%
Minimum yourself?
We haven't heard you all day. Who are you again?
I'm Ariel with Lyft. Okay. Yeah. So
Which company?
Lyft. Okay, gotcha. Okay.
So what we propose is exactly what you're referencing,
which is a minimum wage model, so per hour rate.
So we propose 175% per hour
when a passenger is in the vehicle.
And that takes into account the times
that folks are on the platform
and are driving to pick up a, a rider.
So I just wanted to clarify. Okay.
I also wanted to clarify one earlier point about
an, an airport fair.
For example, the money that goes
to the driver and then the rest of that money,
that money is not pocketed by the companies.
To be clear, I stated earlier all the taxes and,
and fees that go to the city of Chicago directly,
and then we have to pay for commercial insurance
and then there's a profit from that.
But to be clear, whoever is left after he is paid
after a driver is not pocketed
by the company. A hundred percent.
Okay, cool. So in concluding, I have Ms. Jones
that's 87 years old and her grandson rides, I mean drives.
And she wants to know what her grandbaby will make
and percentages and factors.
She 87 years old, so 118% increase, da, da da.
She just want to know what's the proposal
that her grandbaby would make an hour under
Proposal at 175%?
It equates about to approximately 28 $30 an
Hour. So you all are proposing
28 to $30 an hour for per hour
for Lyft drivers, is that what you're saying?
Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
That's it. And, and alderman
this is, this is a good question.
It's complicated. It's, I hope I represent both,
I hope I represent both sides well.
And if I don't, please let me know.
I think the companies have rep, have, have, have proposed,
and I want my, I want my colleagues to know this.
They've proposed a percentage above the minimum wage.
The advocates would say that
that's not taken into account all the
expenses that are incurred.
The way to do that is through the utilization rate,
is the way the advocates would point that out.
And there's disagreements in that point.
That is the essential disagreements. Gotcha.
And I got both sides saying yes to that.
Thank you. You're welcome. Two hours
Laid there. I'm here for you,
man, and we're gonna get this done, you
and me in the next couple days.
All right. Uh, hours later. Do you have any more questions?
All? Oh, that's it. All right.
We're gonna go to non committee members.
Alderman Lata just left. Uh, we're gonna go to Alder.
Oh, forgive me. Alderwoman Coleman is a committee member.
She's being recognized for quorum.
And we're gonna go to her and then to you.
Alderman Sko Lopez.
Thank you Chairman for this also necessary hearing.
Absolutely. On this important subject matter question,
what is the initial agreement, if I would like to be a sub
of Lyft or, or Uber?
When you sign up, what is that initial agreement
that the driver is led to belief?
Are you talking about, and,
and I wanna make sure everyone understands the question,
the contractual agreement
between a potential driver and the company?
Correct. Okay. It sounds like Ms. Simmons
wants to answer. Yeah,
That largely depends on when you signed up.
Uh, when I signed up, the conditions were very different,
but I was promised that I would keep, um, 85% of my fares
when I signed up to drive.
And I was grandfathered in at that level for several years
until they did away with all of the previous, um, numbers
and just kind of started doing everything by algorithm.
Um, but it, it changes over time.
Um, drivers who started, you know, you'll notice a lot
of the drivers here have been driving for 10 years.
The agreement that we signed when we signed on is very
different than the agreement that other
drivers may have signed onto.
The thing I do wanna point out though is
that the agreement is, um, written in a fashion, uh,
which a driver would certainly need a lawyer to understand
what they're signing, and they ask drivers
to sign it one minute
before they are signing on to, to work.
Um, you're supposed to sign on to the terms of service
as you're logging in to, to do your job.
So, um, the chances of a driver not signing
that thing in order
to research it first are exactly zero
when the companies know that.
So there's no simplified, there's no rhyme
or reason that I will get 70%,
and the estimated fees are X, Y, and Z.
The Uber or Lyft fee is, this is the bottom rate.
So there's no transparency or anything.
The ride share, would you all Uber, Lyft,
do you have a comment about that?
Sure. On the weekly statement, there is a breakdown of
how much the riders paid for that week, how much the, uh,
city of Chicago took, um, how much goes
to commercial insurance, um, which is a lot in the state
of Illinois, um,
and, uh, how much goes to, uh, uh, the driver.
But is that understood
before when the drivers are signing up?
Because I feel as though that's
where a huge disconnect I have.
Um, for example, June 9th,
9:41 PM This is someone from the 16th Ward Wright accepted
at 9:41 PM picked up passenger 10 minutes, 22 seconds,
3.91 miles at 9 52, dropped off passenger 20 minutes,
40 seconds, 6.636 miles, uh, dropped off at 10 12.
Passenger payment was $18 and 90 cents.
Estimated external fees, $5 and 97 cents.
Estimated lift fee was $3
and 63 cents that driver's earnings for from 9 41
to 10 12 was $9 and 30 cents.
But at the bottom, there's a, a disclaimer,
weekly earnings commitment.
Each week, you'll earn 70% or more of passenger payments
after external fees.
If your earnings are less than 70% when the week ends,
you'll get paid an adjustment. Yeah.
So I'll let Lyft talk about the specifics,
but I think that's an important example of transparency.
So that driver had all of that information,
um, uh, laid out to them.
Uh, and I do think that there was good stuff in this, um,
legislation that, that the sheriffs put forward
that I think it's worth talking about in terms of how to be
as transparent as possible.
Um, there is, you know, we send a red line over, uh,
that hasn't been responded to on how, uh,
on proposals on, on that transparency.
Um, but that is the type of transparency
that we should both have as platforms.
Um, that was a specific lift
once I'll let them talk about it.
Yeah. Um, I'll just add to that, that that's a, an effort
for us to be more transparent in
how the dynamic pricing works.
And so that drivers will have a better understanding of, of
what they will earn on a week to week basis.
And that is our commitment, that you will earn 70%
of the fares, and if it falls short,
we will true you up at the end of the week.
But there is opportunity, obviously to earn more than
that 70% commitment that we've made.
Okay. What safety measures,
because that's what I recall a, a consistent message
from our amazing, uh, drivers here,
but what safety mess, um, measures has ride share,
have you all taken on your end
to protect not only the drivers, but also the passengers?
For example, I was just in Atlanta, I got in a car
and there was a camera, like a dash cam camera,
that looked at all of the passengers.
Have you all considered investing, especially with,
you know, the dynamics of Chicago
or is that on the drivers expense?
We did launch safety products, including record your ride,
uh, here in Chicago about two years ago.
Um, we have piloted turning the phone into a, um,
a video camera as well, and launched that in some markets.
And I would love to launch, be able
to launch that in Chicago as well.
Um, so drivers can record, uh, the ride.
Um, we have discussed in some jurisdictions also, uh,
not just having it on the phone, but having a,
at a dash camp, uh, in Chicago, um,
we launched the rider verification program
that's now gone, uh, national.
So riders, drivers know
before they accept a ride, if a rider's been verified, um,
similar to what's being, uh, called for in this legislation,
which I think is a good idea.
Um, and drivers have the opportunity to, um, make sure
that anybody who enters their car
before they enter their car gives them a pin code.
Uh, drivers can go to their app
and turn on a PIN requirement so that you know
that the rider or the individual getting
your car has that pin.
Um, so we are trying to take steps
and there are more steps we can take.
Is that on your expense or on the driver's expense?
Uh, all the steps that I just mentioned were on,
were on Uber's expense.
We, uh, if I may add, we also have rider verification
and safety pins on the Lyft platform.
We also have an a DT feature.
So like you would in your home where you have an alarm,
you can press the a DT button if
there's something going on in the right.
And that's for both the driver and the rider.
It also is a a DT smart trip.
So if it is noticing that you,
your driver is going off route
or going in a different direction,
or it's taking much longer than it should,
it'll automatically reach out to you
and say, Hey, does something doesn't seem right.
Is everything okay? And we'll reach
out to you as well through it.
Yes, sir. Steven. Right.
Thank you. Um, so just for example, the safety features
that, uh, Lyft and Uber has added.
And so Uber has the, the safety feature that you're, um,
talking about it is in Chicago where they have the, um,
Uber can see what's going on inside the cabin of the car,
but, um, the buttons, the buttons
that they have implemented, the safety features.
I have a question for you. So if, if I'm getting robbed
or something that's happening to me,
how can I press the button if this guy is doing this?
That's not happening. I can't press a button.
The, the, the safety features that they have is not, uh,
sufficient for, um, uh, for, for our, uh, safety.
It is just not, it's not. Alright,
I'll, I'll do my, I'll I'll say
Ms. Simmons wants to respond.
Is that okay? Sure.
Okay. Thank, thank you. Yeah.
I'll also say, um, we have a driver, um,
who was recently attacked.
Um, unfortunately, even though these measures are,
are a step in the right direction, um,
if somebody steals the rider's phone, um,
they can get around that pin.
And in fact, that's what happened to this driver.
Somebody stole the, the phone of the rider pretended
to be the rider and attacked this driver.
And he actually has very significant injuries
to his face because of it.
Um, but, uh, you know, we, we need
to really think more about how these, um,
methods are working because if someone steals someone's
phone, this pin number doesn't mean it make any difference.
Um, and drivers are still being attacked and,
and the, the account was verified as well.
So, um, you know,
'cause it was a rider's phone who was stolen,
so it was the actual person, but it wasn't, you see.
Um, so that's kind of the problem we're up against.
I'm not saying I have the answer to that here today,
but it is something that needs to be addressed.
I, I will say that, um, I think there's an,
there's an opportunity here to work together.
I will, um, point out there,
there are always gonna be bad actors
and we need to figure out how
to minimize those bad actors and what they can do.
And the writer verification piece, um, was actually, uh,
is something that, that Andrew's colleagues in New York, um,
the drivers that we meet with on a quarterly basis, uh,
continue to push and pursue.
Uh, and our, um, you know, implementing that came out
of those regular conversations with drivers.
I think that, you know, if there's an opportunity
to have continued conversations here about
how we can improve safety, um, I think that makes sense.
No matter what you pass, there will be bad actors.
Uh, and we'll still have to continue to work together
to figure out how to stop those bad actors. Thank you.
Very quickly, my time is almost up. Tollway fees.
Is that on the driver or the company
or how is that calculated?
Tolls. Tolls, yeah. On the riders.
On the riders on the rider. Gotcha.
If I could also address that, um, we are supposed
to be reimbursed those toll fees,
but, um, that rarely happens without having to call them
and tell them that they didn't reimburse the toll fees.
I just don't, I just file it on my taxes
as a business expense now
because they don't reimburse them the way they're supposed
To. Okay. Chairman,
um, Rodriguez, uh, chairman, my colleague
of the Latino caucus did ask about the ethical
breakdown of the companies.
Uh, I would like to take that a little few steps further.
I would like to know within the city of Chicago,
what is the ethical breakdown, uh, of drivers, uh,
and the number of hours worked? Okay.
I'll be able, I don't have that information here,
but I do know that that 50 51% of drivers work, um,
less than 20 hours a week. Okay.
But I would like to quantify that,
and if so, break it down by ward.
I think that'll be helpful. Very helpful
for the city council, if and or when this goes to vote.
And then what does the leadership actually
Do? Have a response on the breakdown
on the racial breakdown,
if you'd like to hear it for Lyft.
Um, so 79%
of our drivers are members of a community of color.
That means 38%, um, have self-identified
as Hispanic or Latino.
Uh, 23% as black
or African American, 11% as, um, A API
and 2%, uh, native American,
6% Middle Eastern, and or Persian.
Thank you, Liv. They reveal.
Liv, if I could, if I could just add, is this working now?
Yeah. Okay. If, if I could just add, be be cautious
of the statistic that Josh just gave you.
It's, it's misleading.
So he says 51%
of the drivers drive less than a certain amount.
That's absolutely a correct but misleading statistic.
The reality is the overwhelming majority
of trips are being done by people who do this full-time.
So, like at any moment, if you took a snapshot
of who's on the road, it's full-time drivers.
These part-time drivers are just like, you know, I need
to get some more beer money for the weekend, or whatever.
They, they do a very small number of the trips.
So that's 51%
of the drivers do a ti a very small number of the trips.
And then 49% do the overwhelming majority of the trips.
I, if I can clarify from the lift side, over 90%
of our drivers do this part-time
and have said that they want the flexibility.
What we're offering is the best of both worlds.
We want people to maintain their independent contractor
status, and we want them to be paid fairly,
which is why we propose the minimum wage model.
Uh, and last of those numbers,
what does the leadership look like in Chicago?
You mentioned 38% Latino,
20 something percent African American.
What does the Chicago leadership look like of the company?
'cause I don't see anyone that looks like me
with the respect of, of this side,
but anyone who looks like me in this position.
So I like to know that
As a woman of color.
Ariel, you are the only name in, in Chicago.
It's me. I, I, I am here in, in Chicago working for Lyft.
Our headquarters are based out
of San Francisco and New York.
Gosh, I'm happy
to get you the information about all of our employees in Chicago.
I'm sorry. I'm happy to get you the information about
all of our employees in Chicago. Thank
You so much. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Um, we have two more speakers lined up, uh,
and wo Silverstein.
I don't think I, I, I called you, so you're
as a non committee member here.
Um, we'll go to Alderman, Cisco Lopez.
Thank you, uh, chairman Rodriguez.
And thank you everybody for being here, especially, um,
or, uh, shared right workers.
Um, and, um, all the people in our community, over 60%
of the workforce actually lives in the city.
And I think that's who we represent.
Um, I want to ask some specifics
because it seems like, as Alderman Hall mentioned,
the whole thing is about how difficult it is for the
companies to get living wage for their workers.
Um, uh, looking at the statistics in terms of like
how profitable this has been, uh, just for river alone,
the profitability rate has gone up 152% from
1.1 billion to 2.8 billion.
Um, 30% increase for, for, um, Uber, for Lyft.
So this notion that this is going to be transferred
to the user, the company's already been doing that
without giving any increases to the workers.
So my que my question is to the companies,
how much does it, how much would it cost
for the companies to give the living wage
that the workers have earned and deserve?
What is the ta the, the, the, the price tag?
Because your numbers are huge.
Talk about billions of dollars.
So I wanna know, what is your estimation?
Why is it so difficult to give them their first share
of the living wage as they deserve?
I can say that. So I'll,
I'm grateful, I'm grateful for the
Opportunity to answer that question.
I think what we are offering, in fact, is we are trying
to come to an agreement on what is a fair compensation.
We are just approaching it in two different models.
Lyft alone does 35 million rides in 2024 in the city
of Chicago, just on back of napkin math.
This increase, we will not be able to absorb that cost,
which is what I believe is the implication of your question.
And so understand that those costs will be passed on,
unfortunately to our customer.
That is the reality of any business.
If you're looking at an increase this high.
Please. Um, if I could just, I mean,
there's an implication to your question that
what they're doing is they're coming here today to say,
look, you gotta let us pay less minimum wage.
Like either we're gonna go to business, we're gonna,
we're gonna jack the right, what, whatever.
If any other industry could imagine if like the bakers came
and said, look, we're gonna, you gotta, you gotta make it
so the bakers don't have to pay minimum wage anymore.
Otherwise, like the cost of baked goods is gonna go up.
Like, no, if you can't pay minimum wage,
you are not a business.
It's, I'm not throwbacks, I'm not sure
That's what's happening here.
I think, oh, this industry has convinced you that like,
it's okay that they're paying less than minimum
wage and have been for years.
It's not okay. Chicago needs to put an end to this.
Yeah, I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
I think Chair Rodriguez actually was right.
There's two models that we're, um, debating one model
by the city of New York, um,
that has its pluses and minuses.
Um, and I will, you know, concede that the 10,000 drivers
who will lose their jobs
or won't work for us anymore are probably part-time drivers.
'cause they won't wanna buy commercial insurance.
Just like in New York City, the vast majority
of drivers are full-time drivers
because they pay for their own background checks.
They pay for their own drug and alcohol testing.
They pay for their own commercial insurance.
Chicago could adopt that model,
have 10,000 less drivers on the road,
and the drivers who remaining will earn, uh, more money.
Um, but they also have more expenses.
Those commercial expenses. There's another model
that has a different, uh, um, you know, uh, uh, outcome,
which still has allowed those part-time workers,
which the New York Attorney General,
the Massachusetts Attorney General, the legislature,
the Democratic Assembly, and the Democratic Senate,
and the Democratic governor of the state of Minnesota,
they all believe
that their models also pay drivers minimum wage.
And that's the model that we're proposing here.
You're proposing a different model.
It has its pluses and minuses.
Our model has its pluses and minuses,
and that's really the conversation,
Right? Uh,
So that not, not exactly.
So we ask them, does that model in Minnesota
and upstate New York and Massachusetts work show us
how many hours are people on your platform collectively?
Like we're not looking for some individual,
just like all the hours people have their apps on
all the amount of money you pay, we'll do the simple math
and figure out if they're making minimum wage or not.
Both companies refuse to give that information.
Again, again, i I give a presentation of
that us the information.
And in the New York model, we know they make minimum wage
just to like, show me the money. Yep.
And, and that's a, that, that's a,
and and thank you.
I I think I, I just, I just find it hard to believe that
a company like Uber
that makes $9.8 billion net income in 2024
will tell us that you cannot afford to pay living wage
to the workers who are doing the work.
I, I just have that have to be The other thing I'll say,
you know, and I'm hearing, I
Don't, I don't think, excuse me, I
don't think anybody has said that.
We, we've talked about this profit number now, six I'm, we
Talked about, okay. What you said.
No, it's not what I said. Excuse me. Let
Me look Anna, Let me, let
Me, I hear you. I'm
listening to you now. You're gonna listen to me.
We've look, I, I've been, I'm being out there.
I've, I've been with workers get
hurt in the work environment.
Another families, many of them are here.
I represent them and I hear you.
What I'm telling you, what I'm telling
You is that When
You make, when your company makes $9.8 billion
and you have a CEO that makes 39 mil $39 million a year,
I have a hard time to believe that you cannot
have a business that has been, again,
raising rates independently.
Don't even this, given these workers a first share.
And you're telling me that you cannot give
them the living wage.
I'm not here to discuss
what is happening in the models that you propose.
I am here for the Chicago Living Wage Ordinance to make sure
that we have safety for the workers.
That's what I'm here. And I am c and I would like to expand
and maybe, uh, I will go back to the importance
of having this conversation.
Other men, cha Lopez. So, sorry, the live stream is off.
Can we just resist while they'll work on it? Sure.
We'll, sure. Because they're really important questions,
so we just want to get back those answers.
So if we can just resist, uh, while the live stream is back.
Okay. Please. Thank you. Thank you.
Live livestream. You want a drink? Water? Yeah.
Okay.
So we will take five minute break.
We'll come back shortly. Thank you.
My work, and we had already had the foundation,
but we had thought about what does it mean to create impact
to our nonprofit institute.
We want give, we're give them hope,
train folks and send back to the street.
So,
All right. We'll be coming back.
Just so all there's know,
we've checked with legal, the city clerk's office
will be recording this meeting
and posting it, uh, at a later time.
So, um, we will reconvene, um,
and continue with Alder person, Ko Lopez.
Any questions first before we,
does that make sense to everybody?
Okay. All right, alderman,
Thank you, chairman. And,
um, yeah, just to, just to end up that line
of questioning, I just, I just have a hard to time
to believe that a $10 billion,
and, you know, if you had both companies combined,
probably double that.
If we have a billion, billions of dollars in net income CEOs
who make $40 million,
but yet today I didn't get an answer
how much even this will cost to give workers a living wage.
I just simply cannot take your word,
the company's word for granted.
I do think as elected officials, we have a responsibility.
Do we dictate the laws
or we allow corporations to dictate the laws?
That is that simple. And I think that,
I think the answer is for the colleagues to see.
I think the problem that we have is corporate greed,
not leaving wages for workers.
My next question, it is,
and I just wanna be, 'cause I didn't hear I was going,
but this, this deactivation of workers as well,
and I, this is for the maybe the Chicago Gig Alliance.
Um, we've been waiting this for a long time.
I know there's like the living wages,
but there's other components that are important,
like the deactivation.
Um, the algorithms are completely random.
And I would like to hear from the company, right?
Why so long? We've been going three organ,
three administrations to get this done.
I think to me, the urgency is now the inflation is,
is, is killing workers.
And I would like to know what,
what we have to wait more time.
What is the, what is it taking so long?
And I, um, yeah, that's just for the gig alliance.
I wanna, I wanna hear this issue
of deactivation, how it affects their workers
Gig alliance. So
that's to the gig alliance. So yeah,
I can, I can definitely speak to that.
Um, so, uh, you know, when a driver is deactivated, um, most
of the time, uh,
it's not necessarily something that's expected.
Um, so what we've seen is a driver will, um, go to log in
and when they do, they'll see a message on the screen
that says, sorry, your account's been blocked.
Um, but you can take steps to, to resolve this potentially.
Um, and they tell the driver to reply back to an email.
There is no phone number that a driver can call.
There is no place that a driver can go in person to talk
to anyone about their deactivation.
Um, if the driver doesn't speak English as a first language,
which many, many drivers do not, there is nobody
to communicate with them in their language about
their deactivation.
So even though the companies do employ a lot of, uh,
immigrants and actively market
to immigrants in their own language,
they don't actually have anyone
to assist a deactivated driver
who speaks a language other than English.
So it's very challenging for workers.
Um, a lot of these workers are working for money
that they need today or tomorrow.
Um, so to go to log into the account
and find out that you, you can't log in
and maybe not ever again
with absolutely no warning is extremely destabilizing.
And we have workers who are living out
of their vehicles right now, um,
because at the end of the day, uh,
they're making the decision, am I gonna pay my rent
or am I gonna pay my car payment?
And unfortunately I know the answer to that question
and so does Uber and Lyft.
And that's why, uh, we need to take action on this.
Thank you Chairman. I think that it is very clear that
the city council has a responsibility to act.
I think we're waiting long enough.
I think the companies can afford this.
If you have billions of dollars, you have,
you have a responsibility with your workers
to make sure they're safe, that they pay the living wage.
Um, and they talk about net adjusted living wage, not
what the companies consider is leaving wage.
And I urge city council to make sure
that we don't allow greed to take over a city.
Chicago is the union town.
Chicago continues to be a strong place for workers.
And I urge immigrant workers and workers all together
and city council to act.
The time is now to get these
ordinance, the right ordinance done.
Thank you, chairman. Thank
You.
Wo Lee.
Thank you chairman. Um,
and thank you to everybody who, um,
has put in all this work.
I know there's, uh, a lot of work
that your team has put in on this ordinance,
and for all of you who are in the box
and have spent, uh, lots of time
and, uh, energy on this, um, appreciate all of it.
Um, a lot of questions have been asked today.
I I kind of wanna just get to the heart of everything.
It seems to me that there's generally some agreement on the
need for transparency around the activations.
Is that fair? I'm look looking across the board, right? Yes.
Um, uh, uh, um,
and on, um,
and the point of utilization, that seems
to be the biggest sticking point here, right?
'cause that comes to compensation and, and time.
So, um, I started to ask a couple of these questions
during our briefing, uh, last week,
which I appreciate having the additional
briefing ahead of this meeting.
And, and as a non committee member, thank you
for allowing me to ask the questions.
Can we just dig into utilization rates a little bit more?
And I, what I'd like to hear, um, is from, uh,
from the advocate side, like how we determine the, the, uh,
what the basis is for the utilization rate.
And then I'd like to hear from, um,
the ride share companies as well.
Uh, 'cause I think as people are listening, uh,
to hear someone like Uber say that, that Uber,
Lyft say we we're guaranteeing 70% of the fair, um, the,
that will be trued up at the end of the week.
That seems like a, a fairly fair deal at the end of the day.
But I think that there's, uh,
I think it's worth elucidating kind of where the points
of departure are on this
because it, this is a really important point
that I think people need to understand.
So if you wouldn't mind
Sure. Getting into that a little bit.
Um, so the utilization rate is just a, a fancy word for
how much of your hour are we paying for
and how much of your hour are we not paying for?
And so let's take a, a simple example.
Let's say it was a 50% utilization rate, okay, just
to keep the math easy and we were trying to get
to $20 an hour, that would mean
that if you're only gonna pay for half an half of that,
we have to pay you $20 for half an hour.
'cause we're paying you nothing for half an hour.
The, that makes sense so far.
So the companies are saying there's certain times we don't
pay you for when you're waiting,
even though we need you out there in the field, right?
Like, you can't just be at home cooking dinner,
you gotta be out there where the rides are.
We're not gonna pay you for that, even though part
of our business model requires you to be there
or our business collapses,
but we're not gonna pay you for that.
And then when somebody orders a trip
and you're driving towards that trip, that's also part
of their business model, right?
We need you to get there to get the person,
but we're not gonna pay you for that.
What we are gonna pay you
for is the time the passenger's in your car.
So what we need to do is figure out
for typical average in an industry average,
how much time do drivers spend waiting for their next trip?
How much time do they spend driving to get somebody?
And how much time do they spend in their car?
This is the P one, P two, P three, right?
So it's called p and
and p interestingly, uh, stands
for phase something I've been working on for eight years.
I just found out thank you Josh.
Uh, and, and one of his period.
Um, so, uh, all right, so it's phase one,
phase two, phase three.
And so all the utilization rate is, is, okay, so of that,
of a typical hour,
an industry average hour, how much are you paying for?
And then because we wanna get to, um, the, the minimum wage,
we've gotta make sure you're paying enough extra when you're
paying to cover the zero that you're not paying
for P one and P two time.
That's all it is. And so we got to 56% by looking at a study
that was done here by the city of Chicago.
We're not a hundred percent sure 50,
56% is the right amount.
And there's a, a reason for that and a,
and a solution to that problem.
So the reason we're not a hundred percent sure is
'cause back when we started negotiating
with the companies in February,
we've been at this a long time with the companies.
When we started negotiating with the companies on this,
we asked for this data and they refused.
And there's lots of ways you could do it.
An analyzing the data, just send us total amounts, you know,
I mean, there's all kinds of things you can do.
And they gave us zero data,
so we couldn't calculate something more exact than
what the city had already calculated the solution
to the problem is built into the ordinance, which is
that the city will actually get more data, that kind
of data we, we requested.
And we, we'll be able to reset
that number based on reality every year.
And so we just wanna make sure that's all we're doing here,
is we're trying to get to the minimum wage
because the companies say, we're only gonna pay for some
of the time you're working, then we just have to adjust
how much you pay during the, the, the time you're paying so
that it's covering the time you're not paying.
That's all this is. Did did that answer your question?
I know it gets complicated because of all it
Does to a certain extent.
I wanna look at the Chicago study.
I mean, I like to dig into these things
and really understand kinda how the math works out.
'cause I, I wanna see, and I, I'm gonna have some questions
for BACP as well, but that's enough for me for right now.
And I, I'd like to give the ride share companies an
opportunity to respond
As well. Thank you, Almar.
I, I appreciate the question.
I think one of the things I wanna highlight is,
Andrew mentioned the Chicago study.
That is where they got this number from.
It is the same study that I referenced earlier that says 0%
of drivers are paid less than $20 an hour after expenses.
So you can't pick and choose what parts of
that study you deem credible.
So I need to call that out.
The second thing I wanna say on utilization rate is
that in New York City, it is a failed model.
It passed in 2019
and no other jurisdiction in the world has taken up
that model because they have learned
from the mistakes of New York.
So Minnesota happened after that.
Seattle happened after that.
And we have seen other models presented
and passed by other jurisdictions.
That is not a utilization rate model.
It only exists in New York.
And we have to learn from those failures.
Yeah, I'll just add on New York, um, you know,
what I've been, uh, saying
before, uh, there are, you know, pluses and minuses
and I think it's important not to look at, um, what happened
after the New York rate came into effect in
2019 from a percentage basis.
But just to look at what's happening in New York
and decide if the New York City model makes sense
for, for those in Chicago.
Um, New York City has altered the utilization rate model.
I think this would be the fourth time.
The proposal right now, um, in, uh,
since 2019 when it went into effect,
it's been altered now four times.
Um, they've looked at the industry ride rate,
they've looked at the company specific rate,
they've changed the rules about whether it can go up
or when it, when it can go down.
It spent started in January, 2020 until the middle of 2023.
It was on pause, um,
because of issues and then because of COVID.
Um, but that rate, that,
that program has been in effect since 2019.
The actual proposal came out in 2018.
Uh, they wanted it to be a model for the world.
And the world has said no. Uh,
and if you're gonna say yes, I think you should make sure
to take a look at everything that happens in New York.
That means no upfront information.
Drivers don't get up upfront information.
That also means that the companies have to care about
what happens in period one or phase one.
Um, companies have to care about what happens in phase one,
uh, and when companies care, they care.
And we're gonna have to care about that.
And the way we cared about that in New York is if there were
too many drivers working in phase one, in period one,
we didn't allow drivers to come onto the app.
Um, the alternative was scheduling. Uh, in New York City.
Uh, we, we had a scheduling program where drivers had
to pick their schedule ahead of time.
And some drivers only got a few hours a week.
Some drivers got 30 hours a week, they made more money
during those hours because
there were less drivers on the road.
But there were less drivers on the road.
And that means we had to,
like any other business restrict how many people we were paying.
Um, this rule is very complicated
'cause it attempts not to allow us to fully copy New York
by prohibiting us from scheduling drivers.
If we are unable to schedule drivers,
the only way we can reduce that period one time
and increase utilization, um, in real time, uh, we can,
the only thing we can do is to let drivers go. So
Just to be clear that I heard what you said,
'cause I have not read the ordinance unfortunately,
backwards and forwards at this point.
Am I understand that the ordinance today does not,
would not allow for scheduling shifts, is that
It doesn't address That.
It doesn't address it. Okay. That's fine.
Okay. I just wanna, I just wanna be clear.
The, the, from the, the council,
because it's a, it's confusion on our end.
If the ordinance allows us
to restrict drivers from going online based on a schedule,
that's an important point.
That's not, uh, that's something that we need to know.
Anybody read the ordinance? I,
Yeah, it, it would not vent necessarily that,
but what it does stipulate is that Uber
and Lyft can't randomly lock drivers out without warning.
That's actually what it addresses. But
We can, we can schedule drivers.
Yeah. So I, I think it's important to take a moment here
to talk about what actually, again,
what actually happened versus
what they're phrase gonna happen.
So there, there was scheduling very briefly in New York.
What really what really happened is the companies
stopped onboarding the drivers.
Uh, I'm sorry, lemme back up a step.
What Josh is saying is, if you want us to be able
to pay the minimum wage, we're going
to have to have fewer drivers.
'cause there's just not enough trips, right?
So again, this is like the bakery saying, look,
you gotta let us pay less than minimum wage.
That's what he's saying. And if you want us
to pay the minimum wage, there's gonna be,
something's gotta change.
Now, one of the things that can change
is they can stop onboarding drivers
and over attrition, you'll lose drivers
and get to the level that you need to be at.
That's one of the reasons why this bill won't
kick in until next March.
So if you pass it now, they have until March
to just stop bringing new drivers on, get to the level
of drivers that they can support and pay minimum wage.
And the world just goes on the way it should go on in,
in terms of addressing Lyfts constantly saying,
we wanna pay the minimum wage.
We wanna pay the minimum wage. We ask
for just very basic information about Minnesota, uh,
and upstate New York to show
that workers really aren't earning the minimum wage.
They refuse to turn over the data.
In Massachusetts where the new law that passed, um,
by the people of Massachusetts
and was endorsed by the Attorney General,
it's moving towards the New York model.
And finally, I would say all this ordinance does is require
that they pay the minimum wage.
So if they are hitting those numbers anyway,
if they're paying the minimum wage
anyway, it doesn't matter.
So like if you start the laws that you hospital has
to pay doctors minimum wage, do you,
do you pay doctors a lot more than minimum wage?
You don't have hospitals in, you're screaming about like,
oh, this minimum wage is ruining our industry.
You can't make us pay the minimum wage.
Only companies that aren't paying the minimum wage are
concerned that you're gonna make them pay the minimum wage.
And so Lyft's, you know, thing that, oh,
we're gonna pay the minimum wage.
If they were paying the minimum wage, they wouldn't be here.
They're here because they don't wanna pay the minimum wage
because they don't pay the minimum wage
and they're afraid you're gonna make them pay the minimum
wage that would happened. I think you're,
I Would like to, I Know you're
at your 10 minutes.
Do you have one more question that you wanna get in? I
Have like six more questions,
but I won't ask six of them if you just allow me to, um,
I would love a little bit more time with this in general.
I mean, and I appreciated the briefing
and I know that you're not taking a vote today.
I think that's gonna be a little bit later.
Um, I, I would like to, to ask BACP while they're here.
Um, look, my, my grandfather was a taxi driver.
I've, I've got, uh, I've, I've got an affinity
for taxi drivers as well, and I use Rideshare.
I have a relative who refuses to use Rideshare
because she's so loyal to taxi drivers.
Um, I, I'd like to understand from BAC P'S perspective, you,
you manage the, the chauffeurs
and the, uh, taxi medallions and stuff like that today.
Um, what, what would implementation
and enforcement of this ordinance as it stands today,
what would that look like for your department?
Um, and do you have any idea like what, what
that cost would be?
Um, to the additional cost for unfortunately, I mean there,
there's more duties involved.
Sure. Der Woman Lee, uh, Ivan Cap Commissioner, BACP.
So the way it is right now, we are using existing resources.
We're gonna balance our workforce to accommodate this.
And we're, we're not, we're not, uh,
requesting any additional resources at this time.
We are, we are working with what we have right now.
Working, working with what you have right now. Yes.
How do you feel enforcement's going with, with other,
I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
I'm really just, one of my frustrations
as an Alder person is we, we sign off on lots
of laws and ordinances.
Yes. Um, that have all the best intentions.
And then we don't equip our city staff
with the resources actually needed to enforce them the way
that they're intended to be enforced.
This is going to be, uh, uh,
this is gonna reside in the Office of Labor Standards.
So we are gonna be, uh, using our resources,
our existing resources, just by balancing our workforce.
Do you guys have a perspective on this?
I mean, you, you see both sides.
Uh, you're already working with the, the chauffeur drivers
and the, the taxi drivers.
Um, you know, what does, what does this look like, um,
from BP's perspective?
Is this a, is this a good thing?
Do you have, have you guys taken
a position on this at all yet?
We have been able to be part of the discussion process
to make sure that the ordinance,
the way it is drafted right now, uh, it's, it's possible
for us to operation, operationalize, operationalize.
So we are confident that the way it is right now, we can,
we will be able to, to do that.
Chairman, if I may just get on the record my,
through the chair request and then I Please Yeah,
I would be right.
Love to, uh, wrap that piece of it up.
Um, I know that we've already asked for some, uh, some data
and I was able to get some data
from Lyft and, and thank you.
Just, so for the record, um, I asked for
how many rides come in
and out of, uh, my ward, the 11th ward.
So I've got a guaranteed rate field
and I've got Chinatown as our, uh,
biggest sort tourist de attractions, 500,000 rides.
Uh, that is not a small number
and I've got drivers in my ward as well.
Um, I do get concerned about what
increases in prices could potentially do
to people's willingness to come
and like, have dinner in Chinatown or go.
I mean, it's hard enough to get people
to go to SOX game already.
Sorry that there's at least one camera running.
Um, I love the socks
and the pope's gonna, we're you're gonna
be honoring the Pope on Saturday.
Um, I do have a concern about what that will do
ultimately, um, because this is a big ecosystem.
Uh, and, and I I would like to understand from,
from the city's perspective, all due credit to all
of the advocates and, and, you know,
opponents and proponents alike.
Um, I think we have to take a realistic look at
what we think the impact is going to be.
So whether that's OBM
or cofa, um, I would like an opinion, um, as to what,
what we think the economic impact is going
to be from a tax revenue perspective.
I mean, I like the rest of it.
We really, it's harder to extrapolate, right?
But I do worry about a decrease in tourism, um,
because prices in general are going up.
It's more expensive. Like in, in a place like Chinatown
where we get all of our products from China
and there's a 30% tariff on everything, um,
it's getting more expensive in general.
And if it's more expensive to get a ride to come
to Chinatown, I, I worry about my community,
including the Chinese drivers that are, um,
taking people all over the place as well.
So if you can provide, um, through the chair, um, the number
of rides Uber, if you wouldn't mind providing that,
the number of rides, um, to, to and from the 11th board.
And actually, if you can provide that for every word,
I think my colleagues would appreciate that.
Um, I'd like to also, um, I'd like
to also know the breakdown of full-time, uh,
and part-time drivers with the additional information
of who's doing, uh,
and how many rides those individuals are doing,
because I think that was a point
that was brought up earlier.
So I would like to see, um, really how that, uh, how
that impacts drivers.
Uh, and then also through the chair,
if the ride share companies are able to provide this.
Um, do you guys keep track of how many
of your registered drivers are actually,
um, licensed chauffeurs?
Uh, 'cause uh, I heard something about in New York how the,
the, the changes in the driver makeup went, right?
So if it's mostly full-time drivers now,
and they are all like black car drivers
and I worry about the, the working guy who,
who wants to continue to be a full-time driver
and like how, how does that deteriorate, uh,
the opportunities for working class people to use Uber and,
and, uh, Lyft, the way they were always sort of marketed to,
to be able to make a living, uh,
but also to supplement your income.
So if you can provide that information, um,
that would be really
appreciated. And I think that's all I've got.
Thank you. You very much Alderwoman.
Uh, certainly not least, but last.
Well, I guess I'll have some comments, but you go ahead.
Alderman under need
Two rounds. I thought this was
the last of the first round,
so. All right. Well give
Him five minutes. First
of all, thanks for having this meeting.
It's just something I was asking you for. You know what,
Alderman, we can't hear you.
Let's get 'em live. Can you hear me now?
No, you're, you're red. We gotta get you green. Oh,
I'm red. I gotta be,
There you go. All
Right. Can you hear me? Sounds right.
All
Right. All right. Let's
start all over. Reclaiming my time.
Thank you. Thanks for the hearing.
Uh, 'cause I, this is what I wanted.
I was, uh, uneducated and,
and it just a, a, a 30 minute
briefing just wasn't enough for me.
So I appreciate it. And I also think you're running a great
meeting and, and pretty damn fair.
So I appreciate that. Uh, just one thing I wanted to say
and, and I just wanna let everybody know people,
somebody's not a bad person just
'cause they're a capitalist people, okay?
Doesn't make somebody a bad guy.
This world is what it is because of capitalists. All right?
So, um, I worked for capitalists for 37 years
and they were awesome people to work for.
So, and I always felt they treated me fair.
Um, uh, some of my questions, uh,
some from conversations that went on a little earlier.
So, and I don't, I don't know
who I'm asking or who's gonna answer.
You were promised 70%, you're only getting 40%.
With the 40%. You're only making $5 an hour if you were
making 70%, or if you're making 80, you making $10 an hour.
My question is, why do Uber then,
this is what I don't understand.
Why would you drive Uber?
And I know my community isn't,
everybody isn't living the same community I live in,
but my community, uh,
food delivery slash pizza delivery guys are making
20, 25 bucks an hour.
Although they only get five, six hours a day.
You know, why would, why would you do Uber?
And, and what is it? What is it?
Are you, are you get, what is it you
getting and what are you really making?
I don't know who to ask. I think the, the Uber
and Lyft people will say one thing
and the advocates are gonna say another thing.
And this is the one thing I don't really understand.
So, where we at per hour, can anybody say we're close to,
obviously the advocates are saying you're not even making
minimum wage and the, the,
the companies are saying you're
making over 20 bucks an hour.
So who do we believe would say you?
So to answer your question, um, again,
my name is Steven Everett.
To answer your question, you simply believe the
workers we are on the ground.
Um, and, you know, we have screenshots proof.
The thing is this, um, most drivers love to drive Uber
and Lyft because of the freedoms that it offer.
They can go to their kids' baseball
game and things like that.
Um, and also most drivers still drive Uber.
Um, because a lot
of drivers are uneducated about
what they're actually making on the roads.
A lot of drivers don't subtract their, um, the things
that they have to pay, um, outside of the upfront fees
that Uber and Lyft gives us.
So to answer your question,
the reason why drivers still do this is
because of the freedoms.
And a lot of 'em are not
educated on what they're actually making.
Okay? So since you took the question,
I'll ask you the next one then, is there ever a time
that you'll make $20 an hour doing this after,
after expenses and everything, not
before expenses, the end of the week.
Let's say you had a week and you,
and you drove four,
I know you said you drive 50, 60, 70 hours,
so I'm just gonna use a 40 hour work week.
You did 40 hours per week.
And I'm like, damn, I made 20 or 25 bucks an hour.
Does it ever happen?
Um, so to answer your question, just like one of the auto
the auto people asked earlier, even Lyft
and Uber can't ask answer
that question on what they pay drivers.
So it fluctuates, sir.
Uh, it, they do what they want to do on a day-to-day basis.
I'm asking if there's ever a specific week
that you made $20 an hour.
You know, not, not,
I'm not asking do you regularly make $20 an hour?
I mean, if there, have there ever once in a while
say, damn, I had a good week.
I drove 40 hours, I cleared $800
for that week, so I had a good week. Does that ever happen?
Yes, but it's rare. Okay. All right. Thank you.
That, that's all. I'm just, I'm not trying to trick anybody.
Sure. I'm just trying to understand stuff.
Uh, one of the things I think is we should, I I,
I always push my colleagues
to do ride alongs with the police.
And maybe, maybe some of us should do ride along with Uber
or Lyft drivers a little better
understand, uh, how things work.
I think that would maybe help us, uh, understand some stuff.
So, so to actual goal per hour, um,
but you don't get overtime pay, right?
There's no such thing as overtime pay. Okay?
Uh, you pay for 'em, you start till you finish.
Um, is what, is, what is the goal then?
I mean, so I guess, you know,
did you say it's 25 bucks an hour goal?
Not you, the two on the right there? Not me.
Yeah, you, uh, you were kind of, we're trying to,
we're just trying to get to the Chicago minimum wage Okay.
As a floor. So the goal is, so
Sometimes drivers will earn more, right?
So like, if it's a rainy day
and it's rush hour, they're gonna earn more
that hour for sure.
But we wanna make sure that on average there's a floor set,
and that floor is Chicago's existing minimum wage.
And I'm sorry if I could just make a comment about
good capitalists.
There are good capitalists,
and you probably work for some of them.
Did any of them pay you less than the minimum wage?
Uh, mo most of the time I was a kid, so probably,
but it, when you're a kid making
two bucks an hour, you didn't care.
That was awesome. So yeah, I look okay, like,
Like I think capital, I was working in
early seventies, so yeah.
So capitalism works well when it works
for everybody, right?
And so, you know, when you're talking about,
and this is back to Alder woman, Lee's question about
how much is, is gonna cost the city.
One of the things this is costing the city according to a,
a study done by an organization called Power Switch is about
$400 million a year in lost revenue to city workers
to work, not say workers.
Workers who live in the city who drive for Uber
and Lyft, they pay taxes, they go out to eat in Chinatown.
Like, those are the things we're talking about.
And when, and the things that you're worried about, like,
oh, isn't this gonna raise prices?
Uber and Lyft did raise prices all of this time.
They just didn't share it with the workers.
So prices went up over the last five years,
over 50% in Chicago. Right?
But that, that's why I quite don't understand
what you guys make and that it doesn't seem,
I can get a clear answer from anybody.
That's all right. I I, I
Have an answer. The money's
going somewhere.
It's, it's going to their bottom lines,
but it's not like drivers aren't the problem.
We made sure in New York,
the drivers are making the minimum wage
and prices went up slower than they did in Chicago.
I'm not, I'm not accusing anybody of being the problem,
mayor, I'm just trying to
understand what actually you're making.
I am not you, but they are making, okay,
so not trying to trick anybody.
I'm just asking questions. Obviously I took
this very serious people.
I was here right in the start and I'm here to the end. Okay?
I didn't leave. Okay.
During that break I went to take a pee and that was it.
All right. So, um, out of order, sir.
Alderman's chairman, he respond to me.
Alderman, can I, can I just respond
to your question about how much you make?
Actually, it really all depends.
It depends on what kind of car you drive,
because certain cars are more efficient than others.
I personally drive a Prius, which means I can get
anywhere from 35 to 50 miles per hour.
But then also, um, there are different types of, uh, levels
that you can participate on the
Platform. You're driving an
SUV, you'd make more money.
Absolutely. Now, drivers who are more savvy, yeah,
they can make more money,
but that also requires them turning down crappy rides,
uh, passing them up, uh, not taking them.
So you have to be very skillful on how you use the app,
because if you are not, the companies will send you rides
that, um, will you only make $12 an hour?
Okay. Which, which leads me to my next question.
'cause my friend here that I met, that I've talked
to us several times, Norberto,
thanks for your help, Norberto.
So is there bonuses for drivers? He told me there's bonuses.
If you take so many rides, do you get, is there a bonus
for taking X amount of rides or something?
It depends. Yeah. It, it depends.
And it, there used to be a lot more.
I mean, all of the drivers here can testify to the fact
that about five or six years ago, bonuses were everywhere.
They were, they were tripping over bonuses.
Right now, I'm a Lyft driver.
I haven't seen a bonus in probably about a year and a half.
Um, so it all depends and it all depends.
They are very rare. If it's
A year and a half Reality is
that the companies can manipulate who gets bonuses, don't
who doesn't, and when they get out.
So I talk to drivers all the time who say
that they do get bonuses. I never see 'em though.
All right. Okay. So 10 minutes. I don't mean to be rude.
I, I'm always joking with my friend about long,
long talk or long questions.
I, I can't accept long answers
because I only have so much time.
So, but thank you. Um, so, um,
I'm would, I was professional.
Cliff wanted to chime in. Okay. We
Just wanna chime in. We understand
that bonuses are important,
but I just wanna say if this New York style utilization rate
model is taken into play,
then there will no be no more bonuses
because we won't be, have a need to incentivize drivers
to come onto the platform and drive
because we'll have an oversaturation of supply
and when we need to institute lockouts to be able
to meet that utilization rate.
So if this goes into effect, we can kiss bonuses goodbye,
because there won't be a need for them. Okay.
Um, I'll just, I, I am worried about something.
This is just a safety thing. I'm not worried about safety.
Uh, you know, I believe it
or not, I was a professional driver
before I was an alderman.
I drove a UPS truck
for 12 years in a fire truck for 18 years.
So, um, you know, you're not supposed
to be on the road for too long.
So that's just, I just to tell people,
be careful about being on the road more than 10, 12 hours.
You could, it's almost like drunk driving.
Uh, how long can you be off?
And I guess this is Uber and Lyft.
How long can you be off the app
and still be able to come back on?
So if somebody takes a month off, somebody's on the app
and they haven't been on for a month,
and then they, they put in to come back on, is that okay?
Yeah. There, there are background check requirements
and we talked a little bit about Deactivations.
The number one reason for being deactivated on the
platform is compliance reasons.
There's, so there's state level background
check require requirements.
There's city background check requirements.
Um, and I think you have
to do it every year from the city of Chicago.
Yep. Uh, every year from the city of Chicago.
So as long as you've met your background,
require checker requirements, you can come back on.
Um, but there's also city debt here,
which this law does not address.
So if you have city debt, you can't drive,
uh, on the Uber platform.
Um, that's a city of Chicago law that we've tried to change
for 10 years now, I think, um, which would go great in this,
uh, pro driver, uh, legislation.
I just wanna say one comment about, uh, Steven, uh,
mentioned that he's, that people try
because they like the freedom and flexibility.
And the one thing I'd really, um, you know, implore you
to look at is what happens
with a New York City utilization style model.
Um, and that freedom
and flexibility will go towards scheduling shifts.
If you're lucky to get one, that freedom
and flexibility will go, um, you know,
the way that it has in New York.
And I really implore you to look at
that if you're gonna move forward with, uh, uh,
copying the only jurisdiction in the world, um,
that did something that's now moving away from it.
Can I take that a step further? Chairman, I,
I wanna just highlight something that Andrew also mentioned,
which is they want us
to stop adding new drivers to the platform.
So what you're hearing them say explicitly is
that the folks, your constituents who want
to drive on these platforms, who want the flexibility
to earn for their families will no longer have
the opportunity to do so.
I don't see how you can classify that
as a success in this city.
We wanna be able to give people as many opportunities
to earn in the city, especially given the current times.
Okay. So one of, one of my concerns is,
and one of the first ladies that spoke,
she said she's from Melrose Park.
Well, I'm a border ward,
and I'm not sure who this question is for.
I'm a border ward, so I, I border Element Park River Grove,
Harwood Heights, Norridge, I'm real close to Melrose Park,
uh, forest Park, Oak Park, Siller Park, uh, park Ridge.
So my question would be,
and I'm not sure who to ask this, if,
if we're paying 'em X amount and they live in Chicago
and right on the border and go across the street
to the suburbs, how, how would that pay work? We'll,
We'll take that and I'll have, uh, Michael Malick
for LRB that out,
Respond to that. Okay. I
Sorry. This is also
a New York City example, right?
New York City drivers cannot operate outside
of New York City unless they're going back to New York City.
So Chicago drivers would stay in Chicago.
They would not operate outside of New York City anymore.
Well, or outside of Chicago anymore. Okay.
All right. Go Ahead. Would you introduce yourself?
Yeah, he just made, that's not a choice in New York.
You're good that, that he just made that What,
what, what Josh just said.
He like, that's a choice that Uber
and Lyft made if we're choosing to copy New York. Time out,
Time out. No, you're out
Of Time. My time.
One second. You're gonna have your time back.
I will call upon you, Mr. Gold. You jumped in there.
So now I'm gonna allow them to jump
in and we're gonna stop there.
Andrew, please.
I apologize, chair for jumping. No, you're fine.
Um, so, um, it, it, the, the rule in New York City is if,
do you have, you need to get special licensing
to operate in New York City.
So you can't just drive into New York City,
start picking up if you don't have special licensing.
The fact that you have that special licensing doesn't forbid
you from picking up anywhere else
that doesn't have special licensing.
Now, Uber and Lyft sometimes restrict that
and say, we want you back in the city
because we need you there.
'cause that's where the ride are and
other people can't pick up.
But like, yeah, that's what happens when
you have to pay minimum wage.
And, and yeah. And comment on that thing about like, oh,
we're saying people can't have jobs.
We're saying nobody should have a job
that pays less than minimum wage.
Yeah. That, that's what we're saying.
Nobody should have a job at the pay less
minimum wage. And, all
Right, we'll start the clock and then we'll have an answer
from, uh, LRB here and introduce yourself, please. Hey,
Y'all. Uh, Michael Malick
from the LRB.
Uh, I, I think the simplest answer to your question is
for all trips that originate outside of the city of Chicago,
the minimum wage standard of this ordinance is only applied
to the city portion.
So if there was a trip from Evanston to Rogers Park,
for example, the clock
for the minimum wage required under this law would only
trigger when they crossed into the city.
Okay. Thanks. All right.
Um, so, so I I I, I'm guessing the,
the big disconnect here is between the groups is
should usually get paid from you get on the app
to the time you get off,
or the time you're actually driving.
Now, the one thing I don't understand, I don't know
what side I'm at on this,
but if you're on two apps, I don't know
how you could be paid by both Uber and Lyft.
The times that you're to get that minimum rate, uh,
minimum wage requirement.
So is, are they, are they responsible to split it in half
or is one of 'em responsible? Whatever apps? I, so
Yeah, I can, I that's a, that's a great question.
Thank you. Um, so, um, we, we don't require everybody
to make minimum wage every hour, right?
What we're doing is we're saying, so if,
if you wanna turn your app on at two in the morning,
in the middle of February and a Tuesday,
you're not gonna make the minimum wage that hour.
'cause there's just no trips. What we're saying is looking
at the whole industry, both companies
and a typical driver over the course of a month, a year,
their career, they're gonna get paid for about 56%
of the minutes that they're driving
and not get paid for about 44%
of the minutes that they're working.
And we just wanna make sure that they're getting paid enough
during the minutes that they're working either by Uber
or by Lyft, so that it covers the 44 minutes, the 44%
that they're not getting paid.
So if you happen to drive a lot for Lyft,
then Lyft's gonna make it all up.
If you happen to drive a lot for Uber,
Uber's gonna make it up.
If you, if it's 50 mix, then they're both gonna make sure,
but there is no guarantee here
that you're gonna make minimum wage any hour.
So it's not like, oh,
this company has to make up the difference. It's, it's only
We're talking average. I know
I'm not, I'm not asking specific hours. Okay.
Um, so I'll just try to wrap up
'cause I have been over generous to me as a rare time.
I take more to my 10 minutes and it's been 15.
Um, so, uh, just something I didn't understand earlier.
Somebody said it's not right. You
gotta use your own vehicle.
I mean, I thought that's a whole idea of Uber and Lyft.
I do support a minimum ride fee,
although I don't understand, I don't know
what would be the appropriate minimum ride fee for people
to charge 'em, you know, because I'm looking at consumers
also because I have more constituents
that are consumers and are drivers.
I'm sure of that safety is a very big concern of mine.
Um, I'm gonna give you all, all your drivers
that are still here, and if you think
I'm nuts, just look it up.
All good kids like milk, A, G,
K, L, M.
If you think I'm nuts, look it up.
All aim high in a aim, high in steering
G, get the big picture.
K, keep your eyes moving.
L leave yourself an out m make sure they see you.
So that's a little, little safety tip for you.
And, um, uh, I, I believe, um, this is a complicated issue.
Um, and I'm worried about unintended consequences, um,
if, uh, and that's about it.
So, but thanks everybody. Thanks for appearing. Thank
You. Thank you very much.
Uh, chairman Pasado
and I want to thank, um, I wanna thank the mayor's office.
They've been a partner on this for a while.
Um, thank Uber and Lyft for being here. The People's lobby.
IDGI am, uh, formerly machinist, SAU, local one.
Um, look, it's been a while since I've had this.
Um, we got, uh, some things done early on in the term.
Um, I think there are about, you know,
86,000 drivers across the two platforms if you disaggregate,
uh, who uses both?
Um, a lot of those folks are in the city of Chicago.
Um, I don't think there's a reason for us to wait.
The fact is, is implementation here is March of 2026.
That gives ample time for other activities to happen.
So for I'm saying is I want this done.
I'll be working with my colleagues to get this done.
I'll be working with everybody in that box as well to try
and figure out how we can get this done.
There's been a lot of concessions so far.
Um, whether it be dropping, uh, uh, the cap on commissions,
uh, whether me taking a stand that I like the, I endorse
the model that's being proposed utilizing utilization rate.
Right? Um, I'm still gonna try to figure out
how we get this done in a way that Chicago benefits,
most importantly, our working class drivers,
but also consumers.
You know, we, I received, uh, a piece of literature about,
um, on, uh, that came from, from, from, uh, Uber on a group
that wouldn't support this if we didn't change, uh, some
of the definitions here, particularly as it relates to, uh,
the assaults of, of, of female passengers.
Sometimes we're looking at that I've instructed my staff to,
to, to, to, to, to, to cure that.
So, um, this is iterative process
and as of now, um, I am going
with there being no further business before this committee.
No, I was gonna have the ending.
You can ask me if that's okay.
Everyone wants to get outta here and I gotta
go pick up my daughter.
We are gonna reset and you'll have a chance though.
You have a chance On Monday, we're gonna recess
until Monday, June 16th,
noon in room 2 0 1 A, which is down the hall here.
Okay. Um,
and, um, that, um, being said, we will now,
uh, be in recess.
Thank you.
Alright, everything. Good job.
Good job, y'all. Yeah, I.