Ride Fair aims to put curbs on Uber, Lyft
Despite vote in California, advocates say Toronto needs robust rules around ride-sharing
Toronto Uber driver Earla Phillips had a frustrating Tuesday. Thousands of miles away, Californians were voting on a measure that could change the gig economy. Phillips just needed a day’s work. Over the course of over two hours on the road, she earned $21 — not counting gas.
“It’s terrible,” said the 58-year-old former salesperson. “I’ll go out for three or four hours. And if I can’t make anything, then I won’t stay out.”
South of the border, a similar dilemma was on the ballot.
California’s Proposition 22, the most expensive ballot initiative in state history, was a touchstone vote on the future of app companies’ business model. After a $200-million campaign, tech giants like Uber and Lyft this week won an exemption to recently enacted state legislation that would have converted their fleets of independent contractors into employees with the right to minimum wage and other labour protections.
A new Toronto-based coalition of workers, environmental organizations, researchers and cycling advocates known as Ride Fair has been watching closely.
“These are formidable opponents,” said Ride Fair’s co-founder, Thorben Wieditz.
California’s high-octane battle sparked a debate about working conditions in the gig economy: App companies defended the flexibility offered by their platforms, while labour advocates and lawyers for the state said the business model was based on “mistreating
workers.” While Phillips said she values flexibility on the job, she said she’s “devastated” by developments in California.
“Flexibility doesn’t mean you’re going to make any money,” she said.
For Wieditz, the outcome makes one thing clear: Silicon Valley’s massive public and political clout. Closer to home, Ride Fair wants to ensure that power is checked.
“I think there is a role for ride hailing, in certain situations,” said Wieditz. “But I think it’s fair to say we need a regulatory framework around these companies that ensure they are brought under democratic control and work in the public interest, not interest of venture capitalists.”
In a statement to the Star, an Uber spokesperson said ride sharing “offers Torontonians a safe, reliable and affordable alternative to personal car ownership, helping to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.” The company said it also provides “flexible earning opportunities for those with a safe driving record and criminal background check.”
In Toronto, new regulations for the ride-sharing industry came into effect earlier this year. In the consultations leading to the updates, Uber described the proposals as “conducive” to app companies — and saw some of its key positions ultimately reflected in the bylaw, according to submissions obtained by the Star through a freedom-of-information request.
For Ride Fair, a key way to protect the environment and ensure drivers have enough work is to put a cap on the number of ride-sharing vehicle permitted in the city. (New York City implemented a similar measure capping the number of hours ride-hailing drivers could spend on the road without passengers, until Uber challenged it in court and won.)
But in submissions made to the City of Toronto in 2018, Uber argued a cap would “not solve the problem of traffic congestion since it is being primarily caused by other factors.”
“Any potential cap could wreak havoc on the reliability of ride-sharing and cost for riders,” the submission reads.
Ultimately, a cap was not adopted. Toronto’s business licensing and regulatory services director, Fiona Chapman, said in a statement to the Star that a transportation impact study showed “changes in congestion are within normal year-to-year ranges and can be driven by a number of factors ranging from construction to seasonal variation.”
“Based on this initial analysis, Municipal Licensing and Standards did not recommend restricting or limiting the number of (ride-sharing) vehicles.”
But the data that app companies provided for the study did not include the amount of time drivers spend “cruising” without passengers — a crucial component of understanding the true scale and impact of ride hailing, said Juan Sotes of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, a Ride Fair supporter. While Sotes said he lauds Uber and Lyft’s commitment to transition to 100 per cent electronic vehicles by 2030, he said the goal doesn’t address congestion on the streets.
“We think that it will be also necessary to somehow limit the number of Ubers and Lyfts,” he said.
Municipal research shows that ride-hailing usage has increased dramatically since 2016. Chapman said before the pandemic, there were typically 5,000 to 6,000 ride-sharing vehicles operating on weekdays in Toronto; the average driver worked 20 hours a week.
While app companies say most of their drivers are parttime, Phillips said low pay and an oversaturation of drivers mean gig work is often not a viable full-time job.
Lyft’s base rate, for example, is $1.87 plus about 75 cents for every minute and kilometre spent making a drop-off, according to a rate card provided to the Star. Recently, the company introduced a pilot in Toronto and two U.S. cities offering drivers “priority” access to customers in exchange for a lower pay rate.
Lyft said in an emailed statement that it provides a “flexible earning opportunity” for drivers who are mostly “parents who have busy schedules, retirees, students or individuals who have another full-time job.”
“Over 90 per cent of people who drive with Lyft in Canada drive less than 20 hours per week,” the statement said.
While Toronto’s new bylaws mandate a minimum $3.25 fare, Phillips said some of the rides she picks up through app companies still pay less than that. “Four years ago, you could make an income and pay the bills. But that’s not the case anymore,” she said. “The city has dropped the ball.”
While some advocates have forcefully called for in-person training following fatal collisions with ride-sharing drivers, Uber’s submissions to the city advocated for online learning, rather than “traditional taxi inclass training” that “has been found to produce worse customer service outcomes as compared to education provided by Uber.”
The pandemic means there is still little clarity on what the program will look like in practice; an Uber spokesperson said the company supports training requirements and believes online options are viable while COVID restrictions are in place.
According to the city, a thirdparty training process for ridesharing drivers “remains delayed.” The statement did not say whether eventual accreditation would include an in-person component post-COVID, but said “preliminary topics” will include safe driving, driving in an urban setting, and antiracism training.
The pandemic also means new reporting requirements for app companies like collisions reporting are on hold, because the “provincial collision reporting incident form” has yet to be amended to include a category for ride-sharing vehicles. As a result, there is still no data on the issue.
Ride Fair says it hopes to produce research across multiple disciplines to get a “holistic view” of ride-sharing on Toronto, including issues like the impact on public transit sustainability, said Wieditz, who has also done research for the Fairbnb coalition on tenant issues. Ride Fair is focused on issues that fall under the city’s purview, rather than whether gig workers should be classified as independent contractors or employees — a matter for provincial labour law.
“I think we do have an opportunity here to hold our elected officials locally accountable for what they do to our cities and and how they treat these big platforms,” said Wieditz.
The (unrestricted) growth of these platforms has enabled a race to the bottom. And that’s something that we would like to stop.”
“We need a regulatory framework around these companies that ensure they are brought under democratic control and work in the public interest.” THORBEN WIEDITZ RIDE FAIR CO-FOUNDER