Minneapolis City Council vote fails to override Frey’s veto of rideshare protection plan

Minneapolis city council votes on Frey’s veto of rideshare protection plan

Councilors voted against overriding a veto from Mayor Jacob Frey regarding a proposed plan for new rideshare driver protections.

During its Thursday meeting, the Minneapolis City Council voted against overriding a veto from Mayor Jacob Frey, who disapproved a proposed plan for new protection for rideshare drivers in the city.

Thursday’s override vote didn’t pass, with only four votes in favor. A total of nine votes were needed in order to do so, and four members of the City Council were absent from Thursday’s meeting.

The measure also only passed the full city council by a vote of 7-5 before Frey’s veto.

If the ordinance had been approved by Frey, it would have guaranteed more pay for rideshare drivers. However, as previously reported by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, Frey vetoed the measure last month after both Uber and Lyft threatened to stop operations in the city.

RELATED: Minneapolis rideshare drivers react to council’s approval of minimum wage ordinance

Frey previously said he agrees drivers should get paid more, but says more data is needed before moving forward.

That data is currently in the works, as Gov. Tim Walz’ workgroup study on rideshare recommendations is expected to be released in January.

RELATED: Walz vetoes rideshare bill, signs executive order after Uber threatens to end service in Greater Minnesota

Frey also announced last month that Uber made the commitment to offer minimum wage, and that no driver will make less than $5 a ride, no matter the distance.

Despite that commitment, supporters of the measure have said drivers are in need of substantial raise.

“I believe that drivers should get paid more, they deserve to make a fair wage,” said Eid Ali of the Minneapolis Uber and Lyft Drivers Association. “I don’t know any other profession other than driving for Uber and Lyft getting paid less than half of what they were getting paid nine years ago, so that is how critical it is.”

The measure could be discussed at a later date, but the process to approve it would start over.