Blogs
By Chris Brooks
The New York Taxi Workers Alliance knows how to throw a punch.
On August 14, the scrappy but militant 21,000 member union representing taxi and for-hire vehicle drivers in New York City won a landmark legislative victory establishing the country’s first cap on ride-sharing company vehicles and essentially forcing them to pay their drivers a minimum wage.
This fight pitted the Taxi Workers Alliance against corporate giants Uber and Lyft, which together employ more lobbyists than Amazon, Walmart and Microsoft combined.
Uber alone spent $1 million between January and June of this year trying to put the brakes on the Taxi Workers Alliance’s efforts.
There is little wonder why. New York City is Uber’s largest U.S. market and the number of Uber and Lyft vehicles on the streets have exploded in recent years, from 25,000 in 2015 to 80,000 in 2018.
Since neither Uber nor Lyft considers their drivers to be employees—instead classifying them as “independent contractors”—both companies have avoided paying social security and payroll taxes while stripping their drivers of minimum wage and overtime protections as well as the right to organize a union and collectively bargain a contract. A city-commissioned study found that 85 percent of New York app-based drivers are earning below the minimum wage.
The companies have also made life miserable for many taxi drivers. As the number of Uber and Lyft vehicles has risen, the value of taxi medallions has plummetted. Once a prized asset for aspiring working-class families, medallions that once sold for $1 million are today selling for $200,000.
Driven to despair by unregulated corporate growth, six New York City drivers have taken their lives in recent months: Abdul Saleh, Yu Mein Kenny Chow, Nicano Ochisor, Danilo Corporan Castillo, Afredo Perez and Douglas Schifter.
I spoke with New York Taxi Workers Alliance Executive Director Bhairavi Desai directly following the City Council vote to discuss their victory and what this new legislation means for drivers.
New York City is the first to put a cap on for-hire vehicles, can you talk about what this legislation does and why it is so important?
This legislation places a cap on for-hire vehicles for up to a year. That means no new vehicle licenses will be issued for Uber and Lyft, putting an end to the unchecked growth of these companies in New York City. There will be a pretty intense study undertaken by the city over the course of the next year. At the end of the year, the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) will be authorized to pass regulation.
What kind of permanent regulation would you hope come from this?
It's hard to say right now, but the TLC could place a permanent limit on the number of for-hire vehicles on the road. It’s going to be important that we settle on a permanent cap on for-hire vehicles that makes sense for everyone—one that lets everybody making a living, that stops the current race to the bottom, and that not only lifts standards for app drivers but all drivers across the industry.
It seems like part of what gave the city council a sense of urgency was the fact that six drivers committed suicide. Do you think that's fair and do you think this cap could save lives?
You can't look at Uber and Lyft in a vacuum. Part of what's happened over the past three years is that taxi drivers have been made to feel invisible. The six drivers who commited suicide were yellow cab, livery and black car drivers. Part of what drove them to despair was this feeling that the deteriation of their livelihoods was not visible to policy makers or the community.
One of the drivers who committed suicide, Douglas Schifter, has written one of the most important critiques of the gig economy. It was his suicide note. Doug killed himself in front of City Hall after writing a powerful note describing how the flood of for-hire cars left desperate drivers scrambling to make enough money to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. His story humanized this struggle.
Over the past three years, Uber and Lyft have presented themselves as socially conscious corporations while they have been rendering drivers invisible. That’s obviously intentional, since they want automation in the long run. One of the most important progresses we made is putting the drivers back in front— as the visible face of their industry and in the organizing campaigns to regulate these companies.
We've also been putting together a mental health program. When drivers see our flyers, they see that the Taxi Workers Alliance is fighting for change in the industry and that they’re not alone. But we also provide information on bankruptcy and a suicide hotline on every flyer. No union should have to organize under those conditions. This has been such a spiritually enlightening campaign.
What do you mean by that?
Watching families who lost their loved ones to suicide, it's such a personal grief and given that suicide is something that most people are socialized to keep private, these families have taken their darkest hour, shared it publicly, and stood strong the entire time.
I grew up poor so I don't take for granted the economic struggles that we as a movement wage to keep food on the table. But when you’re on a campaign that is literally about creating hope so members stay alive, then failure is never going to be an option.
The Taxi Workers Alliance was also responsible for passing the first legislation to establish regulation of minimum rate of payment to App drivers, right?
That’s right. We not only placed a cap on app-based for-hire vehicles, but we established the first minimum pay requirement for those App drivers. That means, the companies can’t keep lowering the rates by which they pay drivers and in establishing those rates through rulemaking, the Taxi and Limousine Commission will consider drivers’ expenses and their right to earn a livable income post-expenses.
The original version of the bill locked in App drivers at the state’s minimum wage and that floor was the ceiling, so we fought for broader language so drivers could earn more as the companies rake in more revenue from passenger fares. Our long-term goal is to win a regulated commission system where drivers could earn, for example, 80 percent of the fare.
The same bill also authorizes the TLC to regulate the App passenger fare at the end of the 12-month study. As long as the passenger fare remains unregulated, the companies can keep dropping the rates, locking out drivers in the competitor sectors from getting a raise, as taxi and livery drivers would be too afraid that Uber and Lyft would just lower rates if their rates ever went up. We fought for all drivers to get a raise and won legislation to make that possible.
The City Council has also introduced a bill to require a study on the issue of debt and bankruptcies facing medallion owner-drivers, and to make recommendations for council action, including ways to finance a fund or lower interest rates. All of these economic demands were in our platform.
On top of the enormous legislative victories in the New York City Council, the Taxi Workers Alliance also just won an important victory at the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not independent contractors. Can you talk about this ruling?
We’ve beat Uber and Lyft in labor court and we’ve beat them at City Hall. These are some of the highest valued companies in the world. They get obscene amounts of money from Wall Street. So many in the labor world said you can't organize these workers and you can’t beat back these companies, but here we are, a motley crew, a grassroots, worker-led movement and we defeated them because we never gave up. We refuse to make compromises.
The unemployment decision is so significant because, up to now, these companies could oversaturate the streets with drivers and face no consequences. Since Uber claimed that drivers were “independent contractors,” the company didn’t have to pay into unemployment insurance and drivers weren’t presumed to be eligible for it.
If Uber and Lyft had to contribute to unemployment insurance and all the drivers that couldn’t make ends meet were receiving unemployment, then that would have been a major disincentive for the profit strategy that both companies have pursued. It's easy for them to glut the market with drivers because they aren't employees of Uber. Otherwise they'd have to pay taxes for them, and they'd be on the hook for them.
Misclassification, oversaturation and deregulation of the fares are at the heart of Uber and Lyft’s business model and are the main causes of the impoverishment of drivers.
What has been the response from the Independent Drivers Guild (IDG), which is funded by Uber and would be an illegal company-dominated union if Uber drivers were ruled to be employees?
They have been team Uber. When they saw we were going to win on the cap, they turned around and said “we support that.” But meanwhile, they've been saying they want the city council momentum to end. Until a couple weeks ago, they were saying all that should be done is a minimum wage requirement set by the TLC.
So they were initially opposing the cap?
They were opposing the cap. They had their great John Kerry moment. They were against it before they were in favor of it. Well, I guess he was the flip of that.
Uber has responded to the Taxi Workers Alliance’s efforts by launching a seven-figure public relations campaign highlighting many of the legitimate grievances felt in Black communities about driver bias and being denied rides. Uber also had the support of prominent leaders of color, like Al Sharpton and Spike Lee, who stumped for them against the cap. How do you respond to these criticisms and what is the plan for addressing them?
This time around, people really saw the opportunistic way in which Uber was trying to advance their corporate agenda by dividing a workforce mostly of immigrants of color from the African-American community and creating this narrative that civil rights and economic justice for workers are somehow not interrelated.
We were able to break through Uber’s ploy because we had many council members of color who we had several conversations with over the course of many months and we put together a nine-point civil rights initiative where point nine was, we didn't call it an office of inclusion, but an office at the TLC that would oversee this program that included training, continuing licensing requirements, a renewal course, community service as well as development of the technology for electronic hailing of yellow cabs.
An emphasis on civil rights was evident in both the coalition behind the legislation passed in New York City and the legislation itself. The Taxis for All coalition, which includes numerous disability rights groups, was out in force at rallies. And the legislative cap on for-hire vehicles specifically exempts vehicles with wheelchair accessibility. So it could be argued that this is not really a cap, but a regulation that is forcing the industry to become more accessible.
The Taxis for All Campaign, they're amazing. We've been in partnership with them for over ten years. We worked with them to bring a mandate that 50 percent of yellow cabs be wheelchair accessible by the year 2020. So they’ve been supporting this campaign all along and they are remarkable people.
We are one of the few global cities that doesn’t have the level of accessible service that it should. Uber and Lyft fight accessibility passionately across the country, not just wheelchair accessibility, but signage requirements, because taxis have to meet a braille signage requirement.
I don't want to overstate their commitment to it, but I do think that accessibility is something that the City Council has acknowledged to be a standard that App companies should be required to meet. Of course, the App companies have fought that standard and they used the IDG do it. The IDG said they were against the TLC’s accessibility mandate because that would make costs go up for drivers. But why not fight your employer so that they have to absorb some of those expenses? Why is it a given that the IDG assumes all expenses have to fall on drivers?
In the taxi industry, drivers were found to be independent contractors and so we’ve focused on TLC-level regulation. Since 1997, we've won caps on all the different expenses that drivers have to pay. In 2012, we won caps on the financing expenses that drivers pay on vehicles. We didn’t just assume that drivers have to eat these costs.
These victories are made possible because we believe in worker organizing across our industry. We don’t let employers define the limits of what is possible. We organize to make new gains possible.
Since day one, we have refused to believe that Uber and Lyft couldn't be brought under control because we were able to change an entrenched medallion industry. If we were able to make changes there, why wouldn't we be able to do it with these companies?
It’s still stunning to think that a 21,000 member union has taken on a $70 billion corporation in New York City.
Since November, we've had over 20 actions. We didn't even send our first letter to City Council until April. They saw our fight and on our demonstration posters, they saw our platform. The 11-point council package comes directly out of our demands list, including first-time regulations against predatory lending in the for-hire industry, similar to protections we won in the taxi industry, and a health and benefits fund for all drivers across the industry. We've been hitting the streets because we knew this was going to be a public fight.
These men and women, when they take time off work, they lose income. When you're a yellow cab driver, you're paying a lot of expenses. When you’re an App driver, you’re paying a lot of expenses. And time you aren’t working is time you are losing income. Yet our members turned out to action after action with their families. We won because of our commitment.
Copyright ©2016 In These Times and The Institute For Public Affairs. All Rights Reserved.
By Danielle Furfaro and Max Jaeger
The city’s first-of-its-kind one-year cap on Uber and Lyft cars has actually turbocharged their numbers in the short term, The Post has learned.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission took in four months worth of applications for new for-hire vehicles in just the last two weeks, as drivers scrambled to register their rides before the freeze began Tuesday night.
Since Aug. 1, the TLC has fielded 10,020 requests to permit new cars to drive for Uber and the like — nearly one-third as many as it accepted for all of last year, when 33,700 people applied.
“This is so crazy and irresponsible,” said Carolyn Protz of the Taxi Medallion Owner Driver Association.
But “the big picture of the bill isn’t just the cap,” said Councilman-sponsor Steve Levin. “The big picture is allowing for some of this unprecedented growth to be paused while the TLC comes up with a framework to regulate this.”
© 2018 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Pros and Cons in Tacoma
Making the decision to file chapter 7 bankruptcy is difficult. You may be worried about how it will affect your credit or your reputation, but in most cases, it will dramatically improve your quality of life. Below is a list of pros and cons that may help you make your decision.
CONS
PROS
Bankruptcy will affect your credit. A chapter 7 bankruptcy will be reported on your credit report for 10 years.
Even though a bankruptcy will be reported for 10 years, most people start recovering from bankruptcy as soon as it is discharged. You may be able to get credit within just a couple of months. Using our credit repair system, many people achieve a 720 credit score in less than 2 years.
Certain non-exempt property and luxury items may be lost during a bankruptcy.
While there is always the potential to lose property during a bankruptcy, the majority of people keep everything thanks to state exemptions.
You will lose all your credit cards.
This is true, but you also lose the credit card debt which isn’t a bad trade-off. The pro is that with a few months you should be able to get another credit card.
You won’t be able to get a mortgage after filing bankruptcy.
A bankruptcy can make it more difficult to get a mortgage for a couple of years, but most people can find a lender who specializes in difficult to finance people.
If I file bankruptcy now, I won’t be able to file again for at least 6 years. What if something worse happens to me financially?
Because a chapter 7 bankruptcy gives you a fresh start, most people will not need to file another bankruptcy. However, if things go drastically wrong after your chapter 7 has been discharged, you can still file a chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy won’t get rid of my child support, tax debt or student loan debt.
In most cases, this is true, but it will wipe out most of your other unsecured debt making it far easier to manage your finances. Bankruptcy will also stop most aggressive collection actions.
A Tacoma Bankruptcy Attorney Can Guide You Through the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Process
You may be concerned about many other things. Chapter 7 bankruptcy involves many complicated considerations that you should discuss with a Tacoma chapter 7 bankruptcy attorney from Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm. We can help put your concerns to rest and formulate a chapter 7 bankruptcy plan for your specific situation. Call us today.
The post Pros and Cons to Filing Chapter 7 in Tacoma appeared first on Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief.
Filing for Bankruptcy without Your Spouse in Tacoma
I get one question all the time from married couples who have accumulated debt during their marriage. Do both of them need to file bankruptcy in Tacoma or can just one spouse file the bankruptcy. Many couples want to save one of their credit scores. Often all the debt was taken out in one spouse during the marriage.
It is certainly possible for just one spouse to file for bankruptcy in Tacoma. In a community property state like Washington, the benefits of one spouse filing are potentially more advantageous that it would be in a separate property state like Oregon.
Before we get into the weeds, it is important to understand what it means to live in a community property state like Washington. Basically, being married in Tacoma, Washington means that whatever debts you incur and whatever assets you purchase while you are married are joint. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but usually, both of you jointly own all of your assets and are jointly responsible for the debts.
If you file for bankruptcy in Tacoma, the automatic stay stops all collections against you plus it stops all collections against the marital community. This means that if you file for bankruptcy the creditors must stop collection activity against you and anything that could impact your marital community which is to say your spouse.
While your spouse is technically still liable for the debts that existed before the bankruptcy case was filed, the bankruptcy discharge protects all marital assets obtained before and after the bankruptcy filing of the non-filing spouse.
This means that while the non-filing spouse is technically still liable for the debt, the creditors cannot satisfy the debt through any marital property. This includes wages and bank accounts of either spouse. So the debt still exists for the non-filing spouse, the creditor just can’t try to collect it anymore.
So what can a creditor do to try and collect on a debt against the non-filing spouse? They can only collect from the non-filing spouse’s “separate property”. Generally, this is the property that the non-filing spouse owned prior to getting married. Because most married people do not have much separate property, the creditor is rarely going to have a chance of collecting anything from the non-filing spouse,
In essence, the non-filing spouse gets protection from the bankruptcy discharge entered in the filing spouse’s bankruptcy case for all the debts discharged in that case. The only debts that would remain collectible would be the ones that the non-filing spouse racked up prior to the marriage.
Remember that it is the existence of the “community” that makes the debts non-collectible.
Once the community terminates through either through divorce or death, the creditors are then free to pursue collections against the non-filing spouse. So the debts are permanently non-collectible as long as you stay and as long as the non-filing spouse predeceases the non-filing spouse.
Please reach out to us if you have any questions about filing bankruptcy without your spouse. I would be happy to connect with you by phone. We would also be happy to arrange an appointment at one of our Washington offices in Tacoma, Seattle or Vancouver.
The post Can Only One of Us File Bankruptcy in Tacoma? appeared first on Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief.
The court appoints a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to preside over every Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The trustee is not entirely a neutral party. Although appointed by the court, the trustee works on behalf of the creditors. This means going through your paperwork to see that everything is in order, reversing recent transactions that may be invalid in the context of a bankruptcy, and liquidating property that can be liquidated for the purpose of repaying your creditors.
To learn more about Chapter 7 bankruptcy and how an experienced bankruptcy attorney can protect your interests, contact Allmand Law Firm PLLC today.
How Is the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee Paid?
The court allots the trustee a small fee for examining your finances and other paperwork. The trustee also makes a percentage of any assets he can find to liquidate. This includes property that was sold or transferred prior to the bankruptcy. In this manner, the trustee has considerable incentive to represent the creditor’s interests. The trustee’s interests are aligned with the creditor’s and not the debtor’s.
Reviewing the Bankruptcy Petition
When you file for bankruptcy, the Chapter 7 trustee goes over your paperwork with a fine tooth comb. They will request that you back up any claims you make with pay stubs, bank statements, tax returns, and a list of all your assets expenses. They will also need to know which debts you are hoping to have discharged.
The trustee’s job is to verify your claims. If there is something suspicious, like a recent transaction of a prized personal asset to a loved one for little or no money, you can expect them to inquire about that transaction.
Investigating the Debtor
After your case is filed, you are required to attend the 341 meeting of creditors. The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee presides over the meeting. When your paperwork is in order, this meeting generally does not last very long. Creditors can ask you questions during these meetings if they believe you are hiding assets. Generally speaking, they do not show up. The trustee asks you pertinent questions about your paperwork, and the meeting is generally over in 30 minutes.
Finding Assets to Liquidate
In addition to reviewing your paperwork and investigating you, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee goes through your assets and liquidates anything assets that he can find. This money is then given to your creditors and the trustee takes a percentage of that money.
Chapter 7, however, allows you to exempt or protect certain property. The trustee must work around those exemptions in order to find property to liquidate. Common exemptions include home and car equity. In addition, many states, including Texas, allow a wildcard exemption.
In Texas, filers have a choice between Texas exemptions and federal protections, but they cannot choose both nor mix and match.
The majority of cases are “no asset” cases meaning the trustee finds nothing to liquidate. In certain cases, a trustee can dispute the “exemptability” of a particular asset. If they do, then the bankruptcy judge has the final say over whether the debtor can exempt the asset.
What Are the Advantages of Having a Lawyer Manage Your Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy attorneys are in the business of helping debtors discharge their debts. We help folks with the filing, preparing the paperwork, and exempting their most important assets. While it’s entirely possible for a savvy individual to file for bankruptcy on their own, when the debtor files for bankruptcy, they are not directly dealing with anyone whose interests overlap with their own. In fact, unless there is a dispute, a debtor will not even be dealing directly with a neutral party.
Bankruptcy attorneys streamline the process, ensure that all your paperwork is in order, and can advise you on how to protect your assets from liquidation.
Bankruptcy Law Is Complicated
Again, while there’s nothing stopping a savvy individual from filing their own bankruptcy, the law regarding bankruptcies is complex. What you save in money, you lose in time. A bankruptcy attorney can help streamline the process for those filing under Chapter 7.
Contact a Bankruptcy Attorney Today
The Dallas bankruptcy attorneys at Allmand Law PLLC can help you throughout the bankruptcy process. Contact us today. We can represent your interests against the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee and your creditors.
The post What Is the Role of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee? appeared first on Allmand Law.
Brian PascusUber plans to use creative measures to remain competitive in New York City following the passage of bills that put a cap on and freeze the number of vehicles that may operate within the city for the next year.
On Wednesday, in a 39-6 vote, the New York City Council passed multiple bills that will pause the granting of new licenses for Uber, Lyft, and other ride-share companies for one year while a study is conducted by the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to determine the effects these companies are having on the city's transportation industry. The legislation passed by the city also grants a new minimum pay-rate for drivers.
Prior to the vote, City Council Speaker Corey Johnsons said, "We are pausing the issuance of new licenses in an industry that has been allowed to proliferate without any appropriate check or regulation," before adding that he does not expect the existing service for ride-sharing customers to diminish.
Mayor Bill de Blasio is expected to sign the legislation on Tuesday, which will take effect immediately.
With new regulations in place, ride-sharing companies like Uber will now need to work within the limits of the law to continue to remain competitive.
In a statement to Business Insider, Uber spokesperson Danielle Filson said, "We take the Speaker at his word that the pause is not intended to reduce service for New Yorkers and we trust that he will hold the TLC accountable, ensuring that no New Yorker is left stranded. In the meantime, Uber will do whatever it takes to keep up with growing demand and we will not stop working with city and state leaders, including Speaker Johnson, to pass real solutions like comprehensive congestion pricing."
But Uber's options under the license freeze are limited in part because of the company will now be restricted to an existing pool of vehicles.
A company spokesperson told Business Insider that Uber is ready to use creative measures to get around the language of the bills. First, the spokesperson notes that this cap is not a limit on the number of drivers, but rather a pause on the number of new vehicles. This distinction is important, as the company is thinking of reaching out to Uber vehicle owners who may be off the app for two or three days a week and see if they will allow new Uber drivers to use their vehicle when it is idle. This way, the company can ensure it keeps a high number of cars on the road despite a limit on new licenses.
Another way Uber plans to work-around the new measures will be to recruit from within the existing field of livery drivers, which includes yellow taxis and black-cars.
While voicing his support for the legislation, Mayor Bill de Blasio told the New York Times, "More than 100,000 workers and their families will see an immediate benefit from this legislation."
Uber estimates the number of industry drivers in the area to be closer to 120,000, and an Uber spokesperson told Business Insider that the company believes there are at least 35,000 existing licensed vehicles not being utilized by their app system. In short, Uber plans to recruit black-car drivers into their network.
And while the newly passed bills plan on creating a new minimum pay-rate for drivers, Uber does not plan to oppose those changes to their business model.
An Uber spokesperson told Business Insider the company is "supportive" of a minimum wage or wage floor for their drivers.
The mayor's office told Business Insider that he plans to sign the legislation on Tuesday, August 14, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 Insider Inc. All rights reserved.
The New York Times reported that on August 8th, the New York City Council voted to issue a cap on licenses available for for–hire vehicles for one year, which went into effect on August 14th. The City Council vote was 39 to 6 in favor of the cap. According to the article, New York City became the first major American city on Wednesday to halt new vehicle licenses for ride-hail services, dealing a significant setback to Uber in its largest market in the United States.
However, according to the article, the law allows the Taxi & Limousine Commission to add more licenses if there is a clear need for more vehicles in some neighborhoods.
The City Council also passed a separate law setting a minimum payments for for–hire vehicle drivers.
The article states that “the City continued to support its decision, saying it will not only help the dwindling taxicab industry, it will also aid in reducing traffic congestion and could potentially hike driver paychecks on both sides from a possible hike in fees for riders.”
Reuters reports that the number of for–hire vehicle drivers skyrocketed from 12,600 in 2015 to about 80,000 this year.
Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said the laws will curtail the worsening traffic on the streets and improve low driver wages. Speaker Johnson added that the rules would not diminish existing service for New Yorkers who rely on ride-hail apps.
Uber has warned its riders that the cap could produce higher prices and longer wait times for passengers. A yellow taxi driver was quoted as saying that she supports the cap and hopes it will improve business for taxis.
CNN Tech reported that Uber is already planning moves to sidestep New York’s cap, which applies to vehicle licenses, not drivers. With that in mind, Uber said it will ask current drivers to share their vehicles with new drivers. And it hopes to poach drivers from competing services, expanding its presence in the city.
For medallion owners, the interesting question is what impact will the for–hire vehicle license cap have on the value of taxi medallions.
- The cap is only for one year, so the impact on taxi medallion values will probably not be significant.
- The cap maintains and does not reduce the number of for–hire vehicles, which is another reason why the value of taxi medallions will not increase significantly. However, if the number of for–hire vehicles decreased significantly, then we could expect to see an increase in the value of taxi medallion licenses.
- As noted in the CNN Tech article, the cap applies to vehicle licenses not to drivers, so Uber and the other ridesharing services, being the aggressive entities that they are, will likely create strategies to maximize the use of their existing vehicle licenses.
- The riding public has voted with their dollars and apps, and they prefer the Uber, Via and Lyft model for transportation over that of yellow taxis; notwithstanding the new locals laws, those companies and their markets will continue to prosper.
- Three years ago, the value of a taxi medallion was $715,000, and based on last month's Taxi Limousine Commission data, the value of a medallion is approximately $165,000.
In Jim Shenwick’s opinion, the for–hire vehicle cap will have little to no impact on the value of taxi medallions. It is possible that the new laws may slow the decline in taxi medallion values, but its ability to increase values significantly seems to be unlikely. It would be foolish for any medallion owner to believe that taxi medallions will return to the stratospheric valuations of 2015. The opinions expressed herein are solely the opinion of Jim Shenwick.
By Mariana Alfaro
In the pouring rain, hundreds of people lined up outside a building in Queens on Monday, clutching umbrellas and paperwork. The frenzy was not driven by a buzzy new restaurant or a new Apple store. Instead the line led to an Uber office and was prompted by the City Council’s recent decision to limit ride-hail apps by imposing a cap on new vehicle licenses.
For hours, drivers waited outside the building in Long Island City for Uber workers to let them in and to register their cars as for-hire vehicles before the legislation goes into effect. Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he is planning to sign the bill into law on Tuesday.
Mohammed Kabir, 47, a driver from Queens, said he spent four hours before emerging from Uber’s office with his paperwork in order. He said he had arrived at 7 a.m., hoping to beat the crowd, and despite the long wait he said he was content that he now had what he needed to beat the deadline.
Since the Council’s vote on the new regulations, which includes establishing a minimum pay rate, Uber had been encouraging existing drivers and others who wanted to become drivers for the tech giant to make sure they applied for the special license plates needed to register private cars as ride-hail vehicles. Once the legislation becomes law, no new licenses, with the exception of wheelchair accessible vehicles, will be granted for a year while the city studies the impact of the ride-hail industry.
Some drivers waited for almost two hours before being shepherded inside. Red Ferhani, 32, said he had been driving for Uber for almost three years by renting cars from other Uber drivers. Tired of losing part of his profit to rental fees, Mr. Ferhani said he wanted to register his own vehicle while he still could.
“I guess everybody’s doing this last minute,” said Mr. Ferhani as he approached the front of the line. Despite the hassle, Mr. Ferhani said he supported the cap.
“I think there’s enough Uber cars out there, it’s already enough,” he said.
Some drivers at Uber’s offices said they had not had enough time to get their documents and licensing fees in order. To register a car as a for-hire vehicle, owners must complete an online application with the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission, have commercial insurance for their car and pay a $550 to $625 fee, depending on their car’s mileage.
Deniz Osor, 37, was in line only because his friend had warned him days before that the window to apply was closing. Mr. Osor scrambled to get his paperwork in order.
“They should’ve actually extended the time for at least another two weeks,” Mr. Osor said.
Alix Anfang, a spokeswoman for Uber, said the City Council and Mr. de Blasio had rushed the cap through “without stopping to think about the consequences for hard-working drivers who have been saving up to get out of a rental and into a car they own.”
Jose Reyes, an Uber driver from Brooklyn, said he knew people who bought cars in order to register them before the cap was passed.
Uber had prepared for the surge of drivers to its New York offices by shifting employees from New Jersey and Connecticut and opening their doors an hour early. Despite the extra hands, applicants said they were expecting the process to take two to three hours. The usual wait time in the Queens office, according to an Uber worker, is usually 20 minutes.
Frustrated with how slow the line was on Sunday, Syed Hassan, an Uber driver, left after an hour.
The line, he said, went around the building. “There were more than 1,000” drivers waiting, he estimated. Still, he returned on Monday with a friend to keep him company.
The crowd on Monday was smaller, but that did not make it any less hectic. Uber workers admonished drivers to stay in an orderly line. Once inside, drivers were directed to the second floor where they were given instructions, depending on the stage of their applications.
Some drivers, after seeing the long list of requirements, decided to wait until the cap is lifted before registering their car. Diakanke Bah, 28, was on her way out after being told that she would probably not meet the deadline since she still had to get a for-hire driver’s license.
“If I do get my license, I will have to probably rent out someone who has already registered with the T.L.C., but it won’t be with my car,” she said.
Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
By Gregory Bresiger
Despite a booming economy, many Americans are having trouble paying credit card bills, industry observers warn.
An increasing number of auto borrowers are also asking for more time to pay.
These trends disturb card industry experts.
“It is a problem we should watch,” says Bill Hardekopf, founder of LowCards.com.
“I would say that credit card defaults is definitely a cause for concern,” says Joe Resendiz, an analyst with ValuePenguin, which tracks the credit industry.
Resendiz noted the recent second-quarter net credit card default numbers rose for Bank of America and JPMorgan. In an otherwise rosy report, the amount of in-default charge card bills rose by 10 percent and 9 percent, respectively, compared with the same period in 2017.
But JPMorgan charge-off rates remain “low” on a historical basis, said spokeswoman Betty Riess.
The latest numbers also come at the same time that those with the poorest credit card records — subprime borrowers — saw their credit card debt increase by 26 percent, ValuePenguin said.
Another observer, LendingTree.com, noted a $16.25 billion increase in revolving debt in May. “This was the biggest May jump since 1995,” it said. Revolving debt is the card debt that is carried from month to month, usually at high interest rates because a card, unlike a house, is an unsecured debt.
Revolving and non-revolving debt is currently at $3.86 trillion, LendingTree said. It predicts it will pass $4 trillion this year.
Some borrowers, credit industry analysts say, are forgetting the disasters of 2008. That’s when a sudden recession left many Americans without jobs and big banks with huge unpaid debts.
Resendiz said most big banks are seeing default rates rise. The credit card default rate rose in the latest Federal Reserve numbers to 3.65 percent.
This was the seventh straight quarterly increase, yet still far from the 2008 numbers, when default rates were above 10 percent.
© 2018 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
By Winnie Hu and Mariana Alfaro
Jenine James no longer worries about getting stranded when the subways and buses are unreliable — a constant frustration these days — or cannot take her to where she needs to go. Her Plan B: Uber.
So Ms. James, 20, a barista in Brooklyn, sees New York’s move to restrict ride-hail services as not just a threat to her own convenience and comfort but also to the alternative transportation system that has sprung up to fill in the gaps left by the city’s failing subways and buses. She does not even want to think about going back to a time when a train was her only option, as unlikely as that might be.
“It was bad, so imagining going back, it’s terrible,” she said.
The ride-hail cars that critics say are choking New York City’s streets have also brought much-needed relief to far corners of the city where just getting to work is a daily chore requiring long rides and multiple transfers, often squeezed into packed trains and buses. The black cars that crisscross transit deserts in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island have become staples in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods where residents complain that yellow taxis often refuse to pick them up. They come to the rescue in the rain, and during taxi shift changes, when rides are notoriously hard to find even in the heart of Manhattan.
New York became the first major American city on Wednesday to put a halt on issuing new vehicle licenses for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hail services amid growing concerns around the world about the impact they are having on cities.
The legislation calls for a one-year moratorium while the city studies the booming industry and also establishes pay rules for drivers. It was passed overwhelmingly by the City Council and is expected to be signed into law by Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, who attempted to adopt a similar cap in 2015 but abandoned the effort after Uber waged a fierce campaign against him.
The cap was supported by many transportation analysts who say the ride-hail cars have contributed to worsening traffic in Midtown and Lower Manhattan, and by taxi drivers whose financial plight has become precarious in the past year, underscored by a spate of suicides. Mr. de Blasio held a celebratory rally on Thursday with Corey Johnson, the City Council speaker who wrangled widespread support for the cap among his colleagues by focusing on the plight of taxi drivers.
Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant who has studied the ride-hail services, said that it was only a matter of time before city officials took action. Since Uber successfully fended off a proposed limit three years ago, the number of for-hire vehicles in the city has soared from about 63,000 to more than 100,000.
“You can’t have Uber and Lyft growing forever in Manhattan without having total gridlock,” Mr. Schaller said. “At some point, the city was going to have to say enough — and they have now said enough.”
But Alix Anfang, a spokeswoman for Uber, said the city’s “12-month pause” on issuing new vehicle licenses will threaten a reliable transportation option for New Yorkers without improving the reliability of the subways outside Manhattan. “As Uber continues to grow in communities outside of Manhattan, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that no New Yorker who needs a ride is left stranded,” she said.
Nisha James, 34, a nanny from Brooklyn, said she felt the cap on the ride-hail services had been a Manhattan-centric decision without regard for what it will mean for riders in the other boroughs. “I don’t think they were thinking about anywhere else,” she said, adding that the cap will likely send her and other Uber riders back to public transit when they cannot get a car.
In the Bronx, Jeff Gutierrez, 26, said that he only takes Uber now to commute to his job in media sales for a cable news station across the borough. Uber takes 15 minutes. The bus takes 1 hour and 30 minutes and is so crowded he cannot always get a seat. There is no contest. “We should not be stuffed like sardines in a bus,” he said. “Uber is so affordable and convenient. I will never ride the bus or train again as long I work in the city.”
Uber officials said that they planned to recruit drivers who already hold for-hire vehicle licenses in the city to work for Uber, a group that represents as many as 35,000 potential new drivers. Moreover, since the moratorium is on new vehicles — not new drivers — they also hoped to maximize the use of existing vehicles by encouraging their owners to allow other drivers to use them when they are sitting idle.
Though the cap would apply citywide, the ride-hail companies have warned that it could lead to fewer cars and worse service with longer wait times and higher prices, particularly in the boroughs outside Manhattan. With a limited supply of vehicles, too many drivers could opt to remain in Manhattan picking up well-heeled tourists and business workers, leaving too few drivers in the other boroughs where ridership has been growing the fastest. Yellow taxis, which are similarly limited in number, have traditionally been concentrated in Manhattan’s business districts, though they can legally operate anywhere in the city.
Mr. Schaller acknowledged such concerns, but added that unlike taxis, the ride-hail cars are dispatched with technology that allows the drivers to see exactly where the calls are coming in. He said that if they see more calls coming from, say, Queens, they will go there. “Water doesn’t bunch up at one end of the lake, it levels off across the whole lake,” he said. “The drivers chase the money — and if the money is all over the city — they go all over the city.”
Not all fans of the ride-hail services were disappointed by the regulations. Shiri Wolf, 38, a lawyer who recently moved back to the Upper West Side, said that even though she has come to rely on the ride-hail services, something needed to be done about the “horrendous” traffic on city streets.
“In the five years I’ve been gone, I think traffic must have doubled,” she said. “It’s fair to have cabbies earn a decent living, and they may have some efficiencies to gain, to learn from Lyft and Uber, but on the whole they’re more expensive because they’re regulated and I think regulation is a way to keep things fair for everybody.”
Still, some riders are bracing for the worst. Carmel Maurice, a client coordinator from Brooklyn, was seething as she waited for an Uber outside the Atlantic Terminal, a major transit hub in Brooklyn, on Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after the legislation passed. “I feel like it’s unfair,” she said, adding that she had opted out of public transit in Brooklyn because “it’s never reliable, it’s never on time.”
Darella Jasper, a Brooklyn security worker, said that if the rides become more expensive, she might have to cut back on her use of Uber and Lyft, even though they are the easiest way for her to get around Brooklyn and Queens. “To get from point A to point B,” she said. “We’re just going to have to find other alternatives.”
Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
Updated daily, this blog will keep you informed on the latest bankruptcy news! 
Learn more about how Bankruptcy works and what you need to know.