acquiesces

Lyft acquiesces to New York's rules, agrees to pay drivers at least $15 per hour

Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft have been locked in a battle with New York regulators for some time now.

The companies have effectively been hoping that they can continue to operate as normal. By considering their employees independent contractors instead of employees, they're able to bypass many US (and New York) employment laws, particularly those that govern minimum wage.

This lets ride-hailing firms keep prices low for customers while saving themselves quite a bit of cash.

Though regulators and union groups haven't yet managed to push Uber or Lyft to re-classify their drivers as employees, they nonetheless managed to score a different win in 2018.

In December, New York passed a set of rules that effectively forced platforms like Uber and Lyft to pay their drivers at least $15/hr in the city.

Lyft and Uber alike have expressed their concerns with the implementation of the rules, but they've still largely acquiesced to New York's demands.

Indeed, Lyft today officially agreed to pay drivers $17.22 per hour (the extra $2.22 will help cover other driver expenses), according to Engadget. Apparently, that price hike will increase the average driver's yearly income by around $9,600.

For now, despite Uber and Lyft's protests, needing to pay their New York drivers some extra cash probably won't affect their bottom line too much.

However, if New York's rules spread any further throughout the country, the tech giants may be forced to come up with new monetization models. Regardless, only time will tell, and we'll keep you updated if that happens.

Related Reads

Your daily Jimmy Butler update: Tom Thibodeau finally acquiesces to trade request

Jimmy Butler’s trade request sent everyone from Minnesota Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor on down scrambling to salvage what’s left a neophyte playoff team. As reporters sort through the wreckage, it’s hard to sort out everything they have uncovered, especially since new stones are unturned every hour.

We’ve got you. Here’s the latest on Butler’s dramatic exit, at least as far as Thursday is concerned.

Tom Thibodeau will honor Jimmy Butler’s trade request

Reports earlier this week indicated that Taylor was at odds with Timberwolves coach and president of basketball operations Tom Thibodeau, with the former working to get a deal done sooner rather than later and the latter digging in his heels as part of a last-ditch effort to keep Butler in Minnesota. But Thibodeau told CBS Sports reporter Reid Forgrave that he has come to terms with trading Butler.

“Our reality is that he has requested a trade, so we’ll honor that,” Thibodeau told Forgrave. “But we’re not just going to make any deal. … Our conversations will remain private. He requested a trade and we’re going to honor his request. But we’re not going to do anything that’s bad for the Timberwolves. We’re going to do what’s good for the Timberwolves. We have to prioritize that. That’s what our job is.”

Surely, Taylor would agree with that assessment, so the owner and team president may now be moving forward in closer step than they were in previous days. The disagreement could come with respect to timing. While Taylor may be more concerned with moving Butler in order to stabilize a dysfunctional workplace, Thibodeau might be more willing to wait in hopes of maximizing his return (or, in the longest of shots, in the event that Butler agrees to return to the Timberwolves this season).

The Timberwolves expect Butler in training camp

The Wolves agreed to let Butler miss the team’s media day festivities, which was probably wise, consider what a circus it would have been had he attended. The team was also informed that Butler “will not be available for on-court activities at the outset of training camp,” according to The Athletic’s Jon Krawczynski, presumably in an effort to avoid the awkwardness of Butler practicing with Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns, with whom he has respectively had public and reported quarrels.

The official reason for not being in uniform to start training camp? The “elective” minor surgical procedure Butler had on his hand, which the team announced in late July, along with a note that he had already begun offseason activities. He has been playing pickup basketball and getting up shots at Minneapolis-area fitness centers while the team has been practicing, according to the Star-Tribune.

Thibodeau has been urging Butler to return to practice, according to ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski and Zach Lowe. The coach told Forgrave that the team expects Butler to report to training camp once he has fully rehabbed his hand. “He’s under contract,” Thibodeau told CBS Sports. The Timberwolves could begin fining Butler exponentially after every missed practice, should he be cleared to play.

The Wolves want the moon in return for Butler

The Wolves continue to demand “quality veterans, top prospects, future assets and salary-cap relief” in a trade for Butler, according to ESPN, which has understandably been met with resistance from would-be suitors. Even if Minnesota was to fill two of those needs in return for a guy who will become an unrestricted free agent at season’s end, it would do well to salvage what is now a no-win situation.

There has been much interest in Butler’s services. He is, after all, a top-15 player in the NBA and one of the game’s top two-way talents at one of its most important positions. Earlier this week, the list of teams that had reached out about what it might take to acquire Butler had climbed to eight — the Brooklyn Nets, Detroit Pistons, Houston Rockets, Los Angeles Clippers, Miami Heat, Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trail Blazers and Sacramento Kings, with the Heat reportedly having been most aggressive.

As of Wednesday, Miami had also climbed to the top of Butler’s list of preferred destinations. The 29-year-old originally listed the New York Knicks, along with the Nets and Clippers, as his top priorities. Heat coach Erik Spoelstra was also pushing for his team to land Butler, per ESPN’s Brian Windhorst.

Story continues

The Timberwolves can trade Butler anywhere they please, and the list of teams inquiring about Butler has grown to include the Cleveland Cavaliers, Dallas Mavericks, Phoenix Suns and Washington Wizards, according to ESPN. However, the asking price has been so steep that the Suns and 76ers have reportedly withdrawn from the trade sweepstakes. ESPN reported that some teams even believe Thibodeau is purposely inflating his trade requirements in an effort to avoid having to deal Butler.

The Kings remain interested in serving as a third party, looking to get a draft pick in return for providing salary-cap relief for potential trade partners, according to USA Today’s Sam Amick, but the cost of doing business with Sacramento would limit the return on “future assets” for Minnesota.

Butler is growing impatient with the trade process

While the Wolves attempt to maximize their return, Butler has grown “extremely frustrated” with their unwillingness to take the best offer on the table now, whatever that is, per ESPN’s Stefano Fusaro.

That’s quite the demand from Butler, too, since he only informed Minnesota of his desire to be traded last week. If you’re going to throw the franchise into a state of flux one year after they essentially gave up three lottery picks to get you — Kris Dunn, Zach LaVine and the pick that became Lauri Markkanen — so you’ve at least got to wait until they’re convinced they can recoup that same value now.

Have a little patience, Jimmy. That goes for the rest of you, too. Stay tuned.

– – – – – – –

Ben Rohrbach is a writer for Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at rohrbach_ben@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter!

More from Yahoo Sports:• Panthers sign S Eric Reid, longtime Kap ally• Ex-NBAer Chris Dudley defends former classmate Brett Kavanaugh• Ohio State gets blasted for posting ‘Silence’ graphic on Twitter• Rick Reilly confounds Justin Thomas with awkward Ryder Cup question

Academic Journal Acquiesces to Censorship Demands

Cambridge University Press, the world’s oldest publishing house, made 300 articles from the website of the China Quarterly inaccessible inside China, at the request of Chinese authorities. John Ruwitch and Fanny Potkin report for Reuters:

China Quarterly editor Tim Pringle wrote in a letter sent to the journal’s academic board that China’s General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) had sent CUP, via its importer, a list of more than 300 China Quarterly articles “to be pulled” from its website in China.

[…] “We note too that this restriction of academic freedom was not an isolated move but an extension of policies that have narrowed the space for public engagement and discussion across Chinese society,” he said in a statement.

Neither CUP nor the China Quarterly letter said when the articles were blocked. The copy of the letter seen by Reuters was undated, but Thomas Heberer, of the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany, who is a board member, said it was sent out on Thursday.

CUP said in a statement it was “troubled by the recent increase in requests of this nature” and planned to raise the issue with “relevant agencies” at the Beijing Book Fair next week. [Source]

From the Cambridge University Press statement:

We can confirm that we received an instruction from a Chinese import agency to block individual articles from The China Quarterly within China. We complied with this initial request to remove individual articles, to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.

We are aware that other publishers have had entire collections of content blocked in China until they have enabled the import agencies to block access to individual articles. We do not, and will not, proactively censor our content and will only consider blocking individual items (when requested to do so) when the wider availability of content is at risk. [Source]

Editor Tim Pringle expressed concern over the decision to censor the articles. From Ian Johnson at The New York Times:

In a letter made public on social media on Friday, the editor of the journal, Tim Pringle, said that Cambridge University Press had informed him that the authorities had ordered it to censor more than 300 articles related to issues like the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and the Cultural Revolution. The publishing house’s site risked being shut down if it did not comply with the request, the letter said.

In response to the government’s actions, the journal issued a statement expressing its “deep concern and disappointment.”

“We note, too, that this restriction of academic freedom is not an isolated move but a further reflection of policies that have narrowed the space for public engagement and discussion across Chinese society,” the statement said.

Professor Pringle said in a telephone interview that Chinese academics, who have been publishing in the journal in increasing numbers, would suffer the most. “It’s not only a retrograde step in principle, but it affects Chinese scholars in particular” he said, because they will not have access to global scholarship on the country. [Source]

China Quarterly provided a full list of the 300 censored articles. CUP also removed 1,000 ebooks from its website, according to reports.

China scholars and authors were quick to condemn the action, writing open letters to CUP and issuing a petition calling on the publishing house to reverse the decision.

In recent years, Chinese authorities have increasingly used their growing economic clout to put financial pressure on international media, publishing houses, film producers and others in order to influence their portrayals of China. Authors have struggled over the question of whether it is better to distribute a censored version of their work in China, or not to publish in the country at all. While academic journals have so far largely been spared this debate, some have argued that CUP made the right decision in order to allow their other content to be accessible to scholars in China and to further academic exchange. From Times Higher Education:

Some will say that CUP did not play its cards right, with critics seeing this worrying development as an example of publishers putting commercial interests ahead of academic ones. And, as we all know, submitting to a blackmailer’s demands can only make them stronger.

Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at the University of Cambridge, told me that he thinks CUP faced a “difficult situation”. “We must fight any sort of censorship, of course, but I think that it is by and large a defensible response,” he said. “CUP’ response probably takes into account commercial considerations but at least it also strives to maintain some openness and engage China on the issue.”

He added that “[academics in China] are under all kinds of pressure right now, which is one reason why maintaining some kind of connection with them is so absolutely important. The best that we can do is to work with them, stand up for them and involve them in our work.” [Source]

But on Twitter, others disagreed:

Earlier this year, the online academic and news database LexisNexis refused to comply with similar demands to limit access to certain articles inside China and had their full site blocked in China as a result. From Mimi Lau and Jun Mai at the South China Morning Post:

An employee of US-based LexisNexis said its service had been shut down in mainland China since March because it refused to comply with similar requests from the authorities to protect the integrity of its global database. Now, mainland Chinese users must use a virtual private network to access academic journals on LexisNexis.

“We can’t just mess up our database because of an individual nation’s requests,” the staff member, who is based in Hong Kong, said. [Source]

In 2014, Cambridge University came under criticism after it failed to release details of a large charitable contribution to the university made by a foundation run by the daughter of former Premier Wen Jiabao.