Timeline of IDG’s campaign for a regulated minimum pay rate and a cap on new TLC drivers
The IDG formally raised the issue of fare regulation to the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) when the TLC proposed limiting the number of hours drivers could work. After polling drivers on the proposed 12 hour rule, the IDG argued that before limiting work hours, there must first be pay protection rules in place to ensure drivers could make a living.
Shortly after the IDG’s May launch, we sent a letter to TLC President Meera Joshi on June 23, 2016 in opposition to the proposed rule to limit driver hours without taking measures to maintain driver pay. In July 2016, the IDG also submitted the signatures of 615 drivers who signed on to the letter calling for a livable pay floor before capping driver hours. The IDG reinforced this position to the TLC when they attended an IDG meeting with drivers at IDG offices (in late 2016).
The IDG worked with the TLC to provide solutions to improve driver pay. IDG made members available for interview with the TLC to discuss their earnings, expenses and their daily struggles to make ends meet. IDG gave suggestions for survey questions the TLC should consider.
IDG launched a pay petition and spent the next several months gathering signatures.
Summer and Fall 2017
IDG continued to collect driver data on pay and conducted research to support pay rules.
IDG released formal pay proposal with the support of 8,000 drivers signatures.
IDG member Doug Schifter took his own life in front of City Hall. While Schifter was neither the first, nor the last driver to die by suicide as a result of economic hardship, it was the first to garner widespread media attention.
After more than a year of discussion and research, the IDG launched a formal rulemaking petition to put pressure on the TLC for timely action.
IDG President Jim Conigliaro, Jr. published an op-ed in Crains pleading with the industry to stop scapegoating drivers for New York’s transportation problems.
The IDG released an explainer on why capping the number of TLC licenses is a labor-friendly alternative to the proposed cap on vehicles.
April – May 2018
300 FHV drivers staged a funeral caravan over Brooklyn Bridge on the way to City Hall to protest the punitive Diaz Bill (Intro 838-a). Driver-activists called for pay protections instead of a law that would drive them deeper into poverty.
The IDG launched digital ad campaign reinforcing their opposition of Intro 838-a and demands for pay protections.
IDG member and allies flyered City Hall and sent nearly 4,000 phone calls and emails to the TLC in opposition of the Diaz Bill and continue to demand driver pay reform.
The New York Times and New York Daily News editorialize in favor of establishing a regulated livable wage for drivers and a cap on app fees.
IDG members and allies made more than 200 calls to City Council in 36 hours in a continued effort to demand fair pay and an end to the Diaz bill. To make an even more direct case, they held a lobby day and a flyer Day in City Council district offices to address City Council members and staff in person.
Taxi and Limousine released their proposed rules in reaction to our demands which would effectively create a 22% raise for 85% of IDG members.
We’ve taken to the streets to protest the Diaz Bill (Intro 838) that threatened to tax us $2,000 a year and eliminate our ability to work for multiple companies. Nevertheless, some members, of the City Council have refused to meet with IDG representatives. Paul Vallone is one them.
Hi, my name is ___________ and I’m a For-hire Vehicle Driver and member of the Independent Drivers Guild, the organization that represents over 65,000 app-based professional drivers in NYC. I’m calling to ask why Councilman Vallone refuses to meet with us to talk about the Diaz Bill. Councilman Vallone is a member of the For Hire Vehicle committee, and every other member has met with us. His office can schedule a meeting by calling us at 718-841-7330. Thank you, have a nice day.
For the past few months, Uber has been pushing alongside the MTA to implement a new tax on the labor of 100,000 immigrant workers. We have been at the table demanding the following:
No new tax without a guarantee that companies cannot take the sum of the tax from our cut of the fare.
No new tax without a social safety net for drivers. If New York is increasing costs to our passengers, a portion, if not all, of the profits should go back to the workers to help us provide for our families.
No new tax without parity across the industry between taxis, black car, and livery.
The final deal was decided late last week. Elected officials agreed on a deal that implements the following to fund the MTA:
A $2.75 tax on for-hire trips beginning or ending under 96th Street in Manhattan, excluding taxi trips.
A 75¢ tax on Via, UberPOOL, and Lyft Line pickups in the same area.
A $2.50 tax on taxi trips beginning or ending in the same area.
Instead of a tax on all vehicles, for-hire vehicles have been singled out to carry the burden for the whole city, while commercial trucks and private cars get off scot-free. It’s clear that for-hire vehicles are seen as the low hanging fruit and there is little doubt that is because monied special interests take precedent and most FHV drivers are immigrants who can’t vote.
Still, we did successfully beat back previous proposals that would have been worse, including a $1 tax on all rides in New York City in addition to the new Manhattan tax for app-based trips, and no tax on any other vehicles.
While we did not win the social safety net for drivers in the budget bill, we believe that we have the support to win in the regular State legislative session. State elected officials could not deliver on the guarantee to stop companies from taking the sum of the tax from our cut of the fare, however all eyes are on our demand that the Taxi and Limousine Commission regulate pay. If the TLC approves our rule, our pay will be protected from this and other taxes. The city’s decision will be announced by May 21st.
With the support of 15,000 petition signers that are struggling to provide for their families, the backing of state and city elected officials, and the support of our partner community organizations, we know that we will win a fair industry.
This new tax will be devastating to some of our members. But by coming together and compelling the TLC and other elected officials to move forward on our otherproposals we will no longer have to face the dilemma of having to choose between spending time with our families and being able to provide for them.
The IDG is a Machinists Union affiliate organizing app-based drivers. We are Uber, Lyft, Via, Juno workers united for a fair for-hire vehicle industry.
As New York searches for solutions to the decades-long problem of congestion, it has focused the blame largely on for-hire vehicle drivers. We all agree the glut of drivers has outpaced demand, forcing us to work longer and longer shifts and increasing unpaid downtime between fares. There is a solution that will help current drivers make a better living while reducing traffic congestion: a cap on new TLC-licensed drivers and a raise.
Worker cap not a vehicle cap.
The number of for-hire vehicle drivers serving our city has exploded in recent years and is one of the factors depressing driver pay and crowding our streets. Limiting new TLC drivers will mean fewer cars on the street and more work per hour for current drivers — FHV and taxi drivers alike. What’s more, a limited pool of drivers will force apps and taxi bosses to compete for drivers, which could mean better pay, better policies and app improvements.
While a cap on drivers would make the workers more valuable, a cap on vehicles would make vehicle operating costs more expensive – an expense struggling drivers cannot afford. Much as the scarcity of taxi medallions led to skyrocketing prices in the last decade that pushed medallion ownership out of reach for drivers, a scarcity of vehicles would drive up costs for workers, pricing drivers out of our own jobs.
A cap on drivers is the labor-friendly way to address our crowded streets and improve the ability for all for-hire drivers to make a living.
A raise will help congestion.
Last week we submitted our petition to the Taxi and Limousine Commission demanding a 37% pay increase. We came to the number 37% because right now, drivers are working a median 11 hours per day and our goal is for workers to be able to make a living in an eight hour day.
Decreasing the workday for drivers mean decreasing the number of vehicles on NYC streets at any given time.
Working together we can create a more fair industry while reducing congestion.
On behalf of the Independent Drivers Guild (IDG), a Machinists Union affiliate that represents the 60,000 New York City based For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) drivers and their families, I am writing with regard to the first For-Hire Vehicle Committee meeting on Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Enforcement practices.
Our members are the so-called “independent contractors” that work for app-based companies such as Uber, Lyft, Juno, and Via among others. Our drivers are immigrants representing 190 countries fighting for the American dream, they are young entrepreneurs, parents, and seniors – they are the working poor.
The backbone of every issue in this industry is that For-Hire Vehicle workers are struggling more today than at any point in the history of the industry. Workers are killing themselves on your stoop to try to get that point across.
As the recent tragic deaths of Doug Schifter and Danilo Corporan Castillo clearly demonstrate, the growing economic hardship of FHV drivers is something that cannot be ignored and must be addressed whenever discussing this industry. A widely held misconception is that app-based drivers do well, but this can’t be further from the truth. While it is true that companies like Uber, Lyft and their employees do very well, app-based drivers can barely make ends meet and support their families. After years of pay cuts and systemic wage theft, most full-time drivers earn less than minimum wage after expenses. Drivers are desperately suffocating under the weight of mounting expenses. The median hourly wage for an app-based driver is about $12 per hour – less than the NYS minimum wage. While enforcement is a huge and emotionally tolling expense on workers in this industry, it’s essential that we raise the floor.
After the video of a TLC officer choking a driver was released (http://idg.ms/TLCEnforcementChoke) we disseminated a survey in an effort to encourage our members to report any similar acts of violence from officers to us, so we could in turn report those to the Commission on Human Rights. However, when responding to the question “Have you ever experienced an abuse of power by TLC police or the NYPD? What was your experience?” the vast majority of the 177 responses were about the economic hardship TLC enforcement imposed. Here are a few of the responses:
“I have had experience with TLC Police. I check my vehicle everyday before I start driving. Apparently one (only one of the bulbs in my braked light went out, I was given two summonses (one for $50.00, and one for $250) I work two days to make that kind of money and for one bulb had two hefty tickets. I went down two TLC and even though I explained my circumstance I was sent a decision in the mail it read “I did not make representation and I did not see a judge” (not true) and I paid the fine because I could not lose another day’s pay to attend court.” – Manjit
“I have experienced an abuse of power by the TLC police. On June 28, 2017, I was pulled over by the TLC police while I had a passenger in the vehicle. They took my drivers license and after 15 minutes they came back to me and told me to come out of the car. I asked why and they insisted that I step out of the vehicle. They handcuffed me with the passenger still in my car. When she asked what’s going on, she was told to call another Uber. I was taken to the precinct, fingerprinted and arrested for a suspended license. I was then transported to Manhattan Central Booking and while there I saw a medical professional that checked my sugar level. I am a diabetic; the professional instructed the police that I must go to the hospital because my glucose level was extremely high. I was taken to Presbyterian Hospital for observation. The doctor told them that I was ok and was taken back to central booking. I spent the night in jail. At approximately 4pm an officer came to my cell and told me that I was free to go and all charges were dropped. The district attorney dropped all charges because my license was NOT suspended.
I have documents from this incident and a letter from the District Attorney that cleared all charges. I lost 4 days of work time and pay due to this incident. Uber deactivated my account due to the report from the passenger.” – Richard
“El amor que sentia por esta ciudad se me ha convertido en un tremendo miedo y muho panico con tantas jodias senales no doble a la isquierda, no le veo el motivo, que no doble a la derecha tampoco veo ningun motivo en algunos lugares ya todo esto de ser driver de taxi dan ganas de llorar y rendirce. A veces pienso todos los dias que esto esta peor que los dictadores.” – Dalia
“When you are immigrant, you went to court, the judge find you guilty because you are immigrant and he cannot understand. He refuses to allow you to explain a full detail of what happen. He made grimace with his face. Shut you off and said you guilty without explanation. You can see 4 traffic agents plus police officer, not directing traffic but waiting to give you ticket because you will end up blocking the street and the box. Driver unable to see in front of them. The traffic agent and the cops saw the street is full, cars kept coming instead of signaling drivers to stop. Taxi drivers thought the traffic is flowing. Taxi Drivers spent more time on the road than any other drivers, we are targeting. These days we make less and less of what we used to make 10 or 15 years ago but the high cost of TLC tickets and regular ones stay the same.” – Eugene
Right now, the core focus of the Independent Drivers Guild is to win a 37% raise and pay regulations. TLC enforcement abuses and injustices is an issue that requires our full attention and more resources than we currently have available to be properly addressed. Since our inception, we have agreed on and identified some preliminary suggestions the TLC enforcement improvements, but this letter in no way does justice for the justified rage workers experience in their relationship with Taxi and Limousine Commission enforcement, and should not be misconstrued as an exhaustive policy letter.
Fines Are Too High, Workers Without Equal Rights
With the steady decrease in pay in the industry and the increase in cost of living and operational expenses, the fine costs are a risk to public safety. The cost of most summons range from $150 (an entire days pay) to $3,000 (a bit more than pay for a month of working 11 hours per day, 5 days a week after expenses).
Our members are piece workers without a set shift, whose piece rate has only ever decreased, who are in debt as a requirement to work, and whose other expenses remain the same while cost of living increases. So when they are issued an expensive summons, most workers only choice is to work longer shifts, putting the public at risk. It’s no wonder our members reported working a median 11 hour workday.
About half of our members that have health insurance are on medicaid — meaning the state recognizes they live in poverty. The fine schedules must be readjusted to reflect the current economic conditions.
The Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) went into effect on June 13, 2017, but no Taxi and Limousine Commission summons’ can be paid by doing community service—that discrepancy should be amended.
A History of Extortion
Many workers report regularly getting tickets without cause, or being entrapped into hefty fines.
Please note: we don’t use the term entrapment lightly. Before mid-2017, we were regularly receiving desperate reports of workers that had been issued a $2,500 ticket at an airport because a “crippled old man” who couldn’t figure out how to use the Uber app offered to pay the worker cash to get them to their destination. Feeling sorry for the older gentleman, who is being oddly pushy, the worker would accept and be fined in the neighborhood of $3,000. This is roughly an entire month’s net income.
While the current Chief of Enforcement at the Taxi and Limousine Commission has assured us that those practices have changed since, and the peace officers are being instructed to focus enforcement efforts on drivers without Taxi and Commission licensing, to a great extent, the damage has been done. Workers will not trust the intentions of the TLC.
Fix the Built Environment, Before Punishing Workers For ‘Undesirable’ Behavior
Oftentimes when a worker violates a rule, they do so because it’s what the built environment, job requirements, or dispatch companies encourage. Many workers are simply making rational decisions in response to their environmental incentives.
The outdated model to modify a person’s behavior through policies is to punish them for behavior society deems undesirable. B.F. Skinner, a renowned psychologist and behaviorist, is known to be the father of Operant Conditioning. Skinner identified three types of responses or operant that can follow behavior:
Neutral operants: responses from the environment that neither increase nor decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.
Reinforcers: Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.
Punishers: Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.
In this case, fines and tickets are a punisher, and not a particularly effective one at that.
There are many problems with using punishment as identified by Skinner and other behaviorists, such as:
Punished behavior is not forgotten, it’s suppressed – behavior returns when punishment is no longer present.
Causes increased aggression – shows that aggression is a way to cope with problems.
Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of the Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Does not necessarily guide toward desired behavior – reinforcement tells you what to do, punishment only tells you what not to do.
We see all of those effects in the industry today. As policymakers, you have the ability to change the environment workers experience and can create incentives for desirable behavior. Some suggestions of that shifting mentality in this context may be:
Mandate apps provide and enforce one-touch calling and texting instead of fining workers for handling their phones, which is a requirement of the job.
Target the bases that are dispatching unlicensed drivers, not the drivers themselves. If the drivers are fined, they should be allowed to take the 24-Hour course for free to get their license — we’re happy to partner with the TLC to test this idea.
Require in-cabin and external dash cam video recording in all TLC-licensed vehicles without a partition. While there is some uncomfortability with the idea of creating a panopticon in the industry, always having recorded proof may prevent incidents from ever happening in the first place, and could modify the behavior of police to discourage abuses of power.
Please note, much of the information in this section was referencing a post on SimplyPsychology by Saul McLeod which describes Operant Conditioning. You may find the original post here: http://idg.ms/OperantConditioning
Insufficient Education Resources
Oftentimes due to liquidity of the labor market in the For-Hire Vehicle industry, workers frequently move from working yellow cab to the black car sector of the industry. Due in part to shoddy education providers and steep language barriers (91% of the industry is an immigrant) the worker may not be knowledgeable of all of the rules of the industry, and be issued a crippling fine without any real recourse.
There are a few policy changes that could help amend the access to education issue:
Online schools should not count toward TLC requirements. Workers frequently meet their Defensive Driving Class requirements by paying $60 for an online course which they can get through without paying any attention to it, which is to say, it’s not an effective model for learning.
Workers should have the right to choose to take one five hour class when issued a summons with points, in lieu of a fine or points. The class provider should be required to be a nonprofit organization.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission should require an accreditation that needs to be maintained annually for 24-Hour Class instructors to ensure high-quality trainings.
The IDG has recently been approved to provide the 24-Hour course and intend to use it to encourage workers into enter ongoing remedial English as a Second Language courses. We also have an interest in teaching workers how to avoid being fired from apps, have the necessary skills to protect themselves, and intensive courses on what their rights are when responsibly interacting with enforcement officers. The IDG provides an intensive Defensive Driving and Safety Class where we dive deeply into current laws and policies, and teach skills to stay safe in the industry.
Competition Between OATH And TLC Is Problematic
After a worker is issued a summons, they are sent an extremely intimidating letter in the mail. That letter essentially says ‘If you take your summons to OATH and fight it in court, not only are you probably wasting your time, but you’re going to pay more money.’ That letter is a pre-court settlement offer from the TLC, but it isn’t perceived as a negotiation; it’s perceived as a threat.
While I doubt it’s the intention or motivation of the Taxi and Limousine Commission to pit workers against the industry and the City Government in its entirety — especially for workers that are from countries where government financial exploitation is the norm — this practice makes it seem like they are being forced to pay more to fight a ticket.
From what I understand, the TLC engages in this practice of sending pre-court settlement offers because OATH and TLC compete for Funding. Whichever agency is most effective at getting money from poor immigrant workers gets a bigger cut of the City’s budget. While the agencies compete, the workers are dying.