As a former driver I have to say lyfts logic is accurate. Also, why should a company with less dispatches be subjected to different rules from those that don't?? That's extremely anti-driver.
Except in this case it’s the reverse. The larger players, which have it far easier in terms of utilization rate, are rewarded more than smaller players working their tails off to reach better, but not best, utilization.
So it’s even worse than applying a single rate to all and tacitly advatanging larger players. It’s actively basing that advantage on largeness.
Are you saying the law advantages providers with over 10k/day and hurts providers with under 10k/day? I don't understand how that could be. The law doesn't apply to providers with under 10k/day, so they should have freedom to do whatever they find optimal.
The utilization formula part of the law advantages each operator individually according to that operator’s numeric utilization score.
Imagine if utilization was like a credit rating and the TLC wants laws that ensure good credit ratings among operators. So they incentivize reaching a good credit rating.
One option could be to say, hey if you get a credit rating about 700, that is good for the people, so you get a tax break or something.
Instead they are saying, hey if the size of your business already makes it easier for you to build a high credit rating, then you get even more tax breaks than others do, giving you even more advantage over them.
This is not about the 10k/day part at all, only about how if Uber’s position as current market leader leads Uber to already lead on raw utilization rate, then the new law automatically rewards Uber with a labor price break more than the price break Lyft would get, and more still than Via or Juno.
No, I understood them. Despite my commentnot being directly about the 10k/day part of the issue, my reply is directly relevant to the parent comments. Perhaps you misunderstood my first comment?
TylerE was only talking about the 10k/day boundary. Why did you reply to TylerE if you wanted to talk about something else? You should have replied to someone else. As-is, the thread just became really confusing.
> “Why did you reply to TylerE if you wanted to talk about something else?”
Because my comment was related to that. Not all related things had to be squarely about the 10k/day item. My reply, which was very related to the parent comments, just wasn’t about the 10k/day part.
It’s not necessary for a reply to focus on or discuss precisely the 10k/day item in order to be related and merit being a reply in this subthread.
