> Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work?

If I can collect 8 minimum wages concurrently from 8 gig companies by being logged to their 8 apps, their business models become unsustainable, and the gig economy dies.

I guess this is the intention of this legislation, but I can't rule out the proponents simply not understanding what they're doing.

Their business model already is unsustainable.

As for driving for multiple companies, under conditions devoid of government interference, you being able to "life hack" your way around low pay in either of the companies you drive for means there's no pressure preventing them from lowering the pay even further.

>>Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work?

For most other jobs, you do two jobs sequentially. So I'm paid minimum wage working 4 hours for Home Depot, then minimum wage working 2 hours for Home Hardware.

But drivers will be logged in to Uber & Lyft etc in parallel. How do you count, calculate, and enforce minimum wage? There's potential for double-dipping here. Or, if you only calculate minimum wage based on actual driving times, I think that's basically already effectively the case.

Is there really much potential for double-dipping? If you pick up a passenger, you're picking up an Uber customer and getting paid for that, or picking up a Lyft customer and getting paid for that. You can't pick up someone and get paid by Uber and Lyft for the same fare.

If Uber and Lyft have to pay you minimum wage while you're 'available' for rides, you can (and drivers often are) be available in one while taking a fare in the other.

If they only have to pay while you have a fare or are driving to pick up a fare, a driver may accept a fare on one app while finishing up the other.

I don't see a problem with the last point actually -- as a taxi service company you need to pay for the car to go to the customer, then to go where customer wants. If the car is doing something else (delivering a package, driving another customer) while on the first leg of that, why would you expect not to pay for that leg? (assuming the car arrived within acceptable timeframe)

Problem of idling on multiple accounts can be solved by only paying out idle time by the company the driver ends up picking up a customer for or when the 2 or 4 hour shift ends. If you see driver idling on your time a lot and never picking up rides even though they are available, fire them like you would do with any employee.

As the second customer/employer, I wouldn't expect to pay time for the first leg while someone else was paying for it because routing may not be most beneficial to me/my customer. For example, the dropoff may be in the wrong direction -- I shouldn't pay for that, or the resulting extra time to doubleback.

Paying out idle time by the company that provides a fare makes sense, but requires cooperation between the employers.

But you control that by setting expectations, like driver must take a reasonably direct route after accepting request or arrive within a reasonable time. It is up to the driver then to decide if new request is on the route or postpone accepting until first commission is handled (somebody else might pick up that ride then).

I'm sure the devil is in detail though and we might end up with drivers occupied by route juggling when they should focus on safely driving...

You can log into many apps and look for customers from many networks at the same time. This is what majority of full time drivers do here (many part time ones only use Uber for example).

The same way it currently works. You don't get paid while you're logged into the app. You start getting paid once you accept the ride and stop getting paid once you've dropped off the rider.

I don't see how this is a problem unique to uber or lyft. employees can game the system of any employer. This is an employer problem, not a legislation problem.