The Social Security Administration (SSA) operates two programs that provide financial benefits for people with disabilities: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This article will focus exclusively on SSDI, which is intended for applicants who have earned enough “work credits” through their employment histories. Read on to find out whether you […] The post Do I Have to Be Permanently Disabled to Get Disability Benefits in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

By Ben MillerMillions of students will arrive on college campuses soon, and they will share a similar burden: college debt. The typical student borrower will take out $6,600 in a single year, averaging $22,000 in debt by graduation, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. There are two ways to measure whether borrowers can repay those loans: There’s what the federal government looks at to judge colleges, and then there’s the real story. The latter is coming to light, and it’s not pretty. Consider the official statistics: Of borrowers who started repaying in 2012, just over 10 percent had defaulted three years later. That’s not too bad — but it’s not the whole story. Federal data never before released shows that the default rate continued climbing to 16 percent over the next two years, after official tracking ended, meaning more than 841,000 borrowers were in default. Nearly as many were severely delinquent or not repaying their loans (for reasons besides going back to school or being in the military). The share of students facing serious struggles rose to 30 percent over all.  Collectively, these borrowers owed over $23 billion, including more than $9 billion in default.Nationally, those are crisis-level results, and they reveal how colleges are benefiting from billions in financial aid while students are left with debt they cannot repay. The Department of Education recently provided this new data on over 5,000 schools across the country in response to my Freedom of Information Act request. The new data makes clear that the federal government overlooks early warning signs by focusing solely on default rates over the first three years of repayment. That’s the time period Congress requires the Department of Education to use when calculating default rates. At that time, about one-quarter of the cohort — or nearly 1.3 million borrowers — were not in default, but were either severely delinquent or not paying their loans. Two years later, many of these borrowers were either still not paying or had defaulted. Nearly 280,000 borrowers defaulted between years three and five. Federal laws attempting to keep schools accountable are not doing enough to stop loan problems. The law requires that all colleges participating in the student loan program keep their share of borrowers who default below 30 percent for three consecutive years or 40 percent in any single year. We can consider anything above 30 percent to be a “high” default rate. That’s a low bar. Among the group who started repaying in 2012, just 93 of their colleges had high default rates after three years and 15 were at immediate risk of losing access to aid. Two years later, after the Department of Education stopped tracking results, 636 schools had high default rates. For-profit institutions have particularly awful results. Five years into repayment, 44 percent of borrowers at these schools faced some type of loan distress, including 25 percent who defaulted. Most students who defaulted between three and five years in repayment attended a for-profit college. The secret to avoiding accountability? Colleges are aggressively pushing borrowers to use repayment options known as deferments or forbearances that allow borrowers to stop their payments without going into delinquency or defaulting. Nearly 20 percent of borrowers at schools that had high default rates at year five but not at year three used one of these payment-pausing options.  The federal government cannot keep turning a blind eye while almost one-third of student loan borrowers struggle. Fortunately, efforts to rewrite federal higher-education laws present an opportunity to address these shortcomings. This should include losing federal aid if borrowers are not repaying their loans — even if they do not default. Loan performance should also be tracked for at least five years instead of three. The federal government, states and institutions also need to make significant investments in college affordability to reduce the number of students who need a loan in the first place. Too many borrowers and defaulters are low-income students, the very people who would receive only grant aid under a rational system for college financing. Forcing these students to borrow has turned one of America’s best investments in socioeconomic mobility — college — into a debt trap for far too many.Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company.  All rights reserved.

   Discussing an issue that arises with some frequency in cases converted from chapter 13 to chapter 7, the court in In re: JEFFREY J. ROCKWELL d/b/a Rockwell Prods. f/d/b/a Rockwell Prods., Inc., Debtor., No. 15-20583, 2018 WL 4042859 (Bankr. D. Me. Aug. 23, 2018) found that if the property was properly exempted when the chapter 13 was filed, and the case was converted in good faith, the property remained exempt in chapter 7 even if the funds were not timely reinvested in a new homestead.     In this case, the Debtor, Rockwell, owned his residence and scheduled a $47,500 exemption of equity in the property as exempt under Maine law in his August 2015 chapter 13 bankruptcy filing.  The plan was confirmed in November 2015 providing for direct payments on the mortgage.  In January 2017 the bankruptcy court entered an order authorizing debtor to sell the property, paying the nonexempt portion to the trustee, as well as paying closing expenses and the balance of the mortgage.  Closing occurred in March 2017 with $47,500 distributed to Mr. Rockwell.  The chapter 13 trustee never objected to the exemption claim.  In August 2017 Rockwell converted to chapter 7.  As of that date Rockwell has spent $18,806.23 of the cash proceeds leaving a $28,693.77 balance.  The chapter 7 trustee objected to the exemption.  Mr. Rockwell moved out of the property in September 2017.    The court initially found that the trustee bears the burden of proof in establishing that the debtor is not entitled to the $47,500 proceeds exemption.  In examining the exemption, the court notes that when a bankruptcy is filed, an estate is created under §541 encompassing all of the debtor's property, including that which may be exempted.  Debtor may then exempt certain property from the estate pursuant to §522.  This section allows states to 'opt out' of the list of federal exemptions, and specify under state law which property may be exempt.  Maine opted out, and set a $47,500 exemption for homesteads.  The state exemption statute allows proceeds from the sale of exempt property to retain its exempt status for six months to allow reinvesting in a residence.  Section 348(a) of the bankruptcy code discusses the effect of conversion from chapter 13 to 7.  The statute provides the conversion does not change the date of filing, the case commencement, or the order for relief for purposes of the converted case.  So, despite the conversion, the court still must use the 2015 filing date to determine the debtor's rights to exempt property.  §348(f)(1)(A) provides that unless a case is converted in bad faith 'property of estate in the converted case shall consist of property of the estate, as of the date of filing of the petition, that remains in the possession of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion.'   The court noted no allegation of bad faith was made in the Rockwell case.  When the case was converted only $28,693.77 of the  proceeds of the sale remained in his control, and, before exemptions, on that amount was property of the estate.  The court defined statutory schemes where state law sets a limited time to reinvest homestead exemption proceeds as 'vanishing exemptions.'  Court's have taken different approaches in dealing with such exemptions in converted cases.  One approach, defined as the 'partial snap-shot rule' requires that exemptions be determined by examining the exact scope of the exemption as of the time of filing, and if the proceeds are not timely reinvested, the exemption expires.1  Other courts reject this approach, finding that the snap-shot must be complete, and if the time frame requiring reinvestment has not expired prior to the filing of the chapter 7, the exemption is forever preserved, notwithstanding the post-petition passage of time and failure to reinvest. 2  The Rockwell court determined that the latter view more faithfully adheres to the Code and the practicalities of administering a chapter 7 case.   Determining that the exemption is frozen in time as of the filing date, notwithstanding the failure to reinvest the proceeds, is in accord with §522(c) and (k).  Under §522(c) property exempted is not liable during or after the case for any debt of the debtor that arose before commencement of the case.  The protection under §522(c) extends beyond termination of the case.  §522(k) provides that with the exception of certain avoidance costs set forth therein, property exempted is not liable for payment of any administrative expense.  Thus, under these sections, once property is exempted and is no longer part of the bankruptcy estate, the Code specifically insulates it from the reach of pre-petition creditors or administrative claimants.  The partial snap-shot rule violates these principles.   The partial snap-shot rule also runs counter to §541(a) and the framework of chapter 7.  The chapter 7 estate is captured at the commencement of the case, and exemptions are immutable despite post-petition events, other than specific exceptions defined in the statute.      The court allowed the exemption in the proceeds despite the debtor's failure to reinvest the proceeds.1 In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2001)↩2 In re Thomas, BKY MER 17-43367, 2018 WL 3655654 (Bankr. D. Minn. July 31, 2018)↩Michael Barnett www.tampabankruptcy.com

If you are about to lose your home to foreclosure, it is a good reason to start thinking about bankruptcy as a fresh start. Make sure to consult with a qualified bankruptcy attorney immediately. If you wait too long, it may be too late to save your home. Starting the bankruptcy process can halt the foreclosure process, which may give you the necessary time to save your home. The post ​Is Bankruptcy the Best Way to Avoid Foreclosure and Keep Your Home? appeared first on Tucson Bankruptcy Attorney.

PARKER, Colo. (CBS4) – The Federal Reserve estimates that student loan debt is a $1.5 trillion problem in America. This debt is sinking many families into bankruptcy, but a new interpretation of the law may be offering some relief. Paige McDaniel decided to go back to school to get a bachelors and masters degrees in business administration. She chose the online program at Lakeland University. “I didn’t want a publicly traded school. I wanted a school that was an actual university, and had a focus on academics,” McDaniel told CBS4. She took out federal student loans to cover the cost of her bachelors and masters degrees in business administration. “You’re always raised, the more education you have the better off you’re going to be,” she explained. In addition to the federal student loans, McDaniel signed up for about $120,000 in private student loans. “Started getting direct mail from Sallie Mae, who had my federal loans at the time, offering additional loans to help with additional expenses, so I did take out some of those loans as well,” McDaniel said. She didn’t realize the loans were different. Federal student loans have a fixed interest rate, and manageable repayment options. Private education loans have a variable interest rate, and no repayment help. “That one mistake is…is the biggest regret of my life, and has hurt my family, to the point where it would have been better for me not to get the degrees,” McDaniel said. She soon found herself in over her head. The loan servicing company was billing her $1500-a-month just on the private loans. She ended up declaring Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but even that didn’t help. She paid on the loans through the proceeding, but still came out owing more than she borrowed. “We knew the federal loans could not be dismissed, but the private loans were supposed to be,” she explained. Traditionally, in bankruptcy court, any loan with the word “student” associated with it has not been dismissed. New York lawyer, Austin Smith, has a different take on the law. “These loans that we’re litigating, these are just like credit card debt. It’s the exact same thing as if a bank gave a student as credit card,” Smith explained. He argues that private loans that are not used for education expenses, should be treated like any other personal debt, and be dismissed in bankruptcy. “We have not lost on this issue yet,” Smith told CBS4. Navient Solutions holds McDaniel’s loans, and is one of the largest student loan servicers in the country. It’s facing several lawsuits about it’s lending practices including those filed by Attorneys General in Illinois, Washington, Pennsylvania, and California. It’s called the allegations in those cases unfounded, and in a statement to CBS4 about McDaniel’s proceeding, it said: “It went from this is the solution, not one we wanted, but this is the solution, to we’re in worse shape than we were before,” McDaniel said. Her payments are on hold pending a court decision, but the balance keeps ticking up. It’s at more than $260-thousand now. “I can’t breathe when I look at it. It’s a panic. There’s no way out of this,” she said. Colorado Congressman Jared Polis has introduced a bill designed to keep student from getting into this situation. The Know Before You Owe bill would require Universities to counsel students on the difference between federal and private loans before they sign up for them. ©2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

By F.H. Buckley   American higher education badly needs reform. Over the past two decades, universities have regarded the availability of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal student loans as an excuse for staggering tuition increases. Now students graduate with intolerable levels of debt, in an economy where they often can’t find jobs to pay it back. And too many universities have become political-indoctrination factories or intellectual babysitters instead of providing useful educations and preparing students for the adult world.But there’s a silver bullet that could cure all three ailments: bankruptcy.In an entrepreneurial society, it’s essential to know that you can take risks and, if you fail, there is a path to try again. The ability to declare bankruptcy as a last resort and to start afresh has long been a vital element of American dynamism, yet it is denied to young people who borrow for their education.That wasn’t always the case. Until the late 1970s, Americans unable to pay off education loans were permitted to dispose of them with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. That changed in 1978 when U.S. bankruptcy rules were overhauled. Defaults on student loans weren’t a significant problem — tuition was much lower then, and jobs awaited most graduates — and legislators simply decided that it was a bit much to expect the government to guarantee loans and then absorb the cost of bankruptcy.No one thought that we’d see anything like today’s student-debt levels or that bankruptcy rights for education loans would be desperately needed.In assessing 20 years of tuition increases, U.S. News & World Report found last year that tuition at national universities (defined as those with a full range of undergraduate majors and master’s and doctoral programs) spiked 157 percent for private institutions. At public national universities, out-of-state tuition and fees rose 194 percent, while in-state tuition and fees swelled 237 percent. Inflation across that period was 53 percent.As the cost of education mounted, so did the student debt load. Since 2006, the amount that Americans owe in education loans has tripled, to $1.53 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Once again, ill-advised government interventions played a role, including the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which barred private student loans from protection, and the Affordable Care Act, which in 2010 largely made the government directly responsible for student loans. About 80 percent of student loans are owed to the feds.If many millennials have been radicalized, if they’ve given up on free markets, it’s hard to blame them. They’ve been slapped in the face by free markets in the form of the student-loan racket. What many young people need is relief from overwhelming debt burdens through bankruptcy.Private lenders would object, naturally, as would people who’ve struggled to pay off some or all of their student debt. Problems like that arise whenever a country transitions to a more efficient regime, but it shouldn’t get in the way of urgently needed reform. The U.S. deficit would increase if direct government loans were made dischargeable. But it’s not as though everyone would stop paying off student loans: Declaring bankruptcy comes at the price of damaged credit ratings and years of being unable to obtain loans or credit cards, or doing so at much higher interest rates. Most people who have jobs and are able to continue paying their loans would want to avoid bankruptcy. But countless other young Americans would be liberated from debt and more likely to invigorate the economy, helping make up for government’s added costs.What about the universities themselves? They’ve created the problem, and they should be part of the solution: Hold them financially accountable, in whole or part, when their graduates declare bankruptcy on student loans. Universities should be given time to clean up their acts — say, until 2020 — and after that they would have to agree to indemnify the federal government for student-loan bankruptcies. Schools would think twice before running up the tuition tab. They might even start bringing it down.Universities might also rethink the kinds of courses they offer. If they bore some or most of the cost of bankruptcies, they no doubt would start paying close attention to whether their graduates can get jobs. Too many universities offer too many frivolous courses, and majors, that make employers run the other way from applicants. Such graduates aren’t good bets to repay their loans. If the university bore the financial risk, it would almost certainly change what it teaches.Would all this be thoroughly disruptive? Most certainly. But U.S. higher education badly needs a measure of creative destruction.© 1996-2018 The Washington Post.  All rights reserved.

   A court in San Diego has the opportunity to interpret a seldom-used statute regarding willful and malicious injury allegations in a suit filed after the deadline to file a 523(a)(6).  The court in In re Ang, No. AP 17-90114-CL, 2018 WL 3965208  (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018) found the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 1325(a)(4), which does not have a bar date to file the claim.  The debt involved a pre-petition judgment in small claims court, subsequently affirmed in California superior court, of slightly over $10,000 for the debtor, Danilo Ang, having sent harassing text messages to the plaintiff, Joe Plys.  Plys received over 20 disparaging text messages from more than 12 different cellphone numbers regarding Plys' daughter's paternity.  Plys was able to determine who was sending the messages by manipulating her facebook friend's list to narrow it down to Ang.  Upon questioning by a police detective, Ang admitted responsibility for the texts.  Ang pleaded guilty to one count of disturbing the peace, but the damages are related to a separate civil trial suit filed by Plys.  The Plyses sued Ang in small claims court, and obtained a judgment of $10,150.  The judgment was affirmed in Superior Court in California and increased to $11,466.23.  Seven days after the judgment, Ang filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, scheduling the debt to Plys.  The deadline to file a complaint under Rule 4007 expired on 4 April 2017.  Ang filed a complaint under §523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) on May 24, 2017.  The court dismissed the claims as late, but noted that §1328(a)(4) has very similar language to §523(a)(6), but is not subject to the deadlines set by Rule 4007.  Rule 4007(b) permits a complaint other than under §523(c) to be filed any time.  Plys amended the complaint to seek nondischargeability under §1328(a)(4)   . The bankruptcy court looked to three difference between §523(a)(6) and §1328(a)(4). While §523(a)(6) requires that the injury be willful and malicious, §1328(a)(4) requires only a showing that the debtor's actions were willful or malicious. On the other hand, §1328(a)(4) is narrower than §523(a)(6) in §1328(a)(4) only applies to personal injuries or death, not to injuries to property.  Finally, §1328(a)(4) adds to the requirement for nondischargeability provision that the restitution or damages must be awarded in a civil action against the debtor.  The willfulness requirement is satisfied by proving either that the debtor 1) had a subjective motive to inflict injury, or 2) believed that injury was substantially certain to result from his conduct.   The debtor must have intended the consequences of the action, not just the action itself.  The debtor's knowledge can be determined through circumstantial evidence.    A malicious injury involves four requirements.  1) a wrongful act, 2) done intentionally, 3) which necessarily causes injury, and 4) is done without just cause or excuse.     The court noted uncertainty as to whether 'personal injury' under §1328(a)(4) refers solely to personal bodily injury, or includes nonphysical injury but not business or financial injury; or includes all injuries treated as personal injury under non-bankruptcy law.   The vast majority of courts include both physical and nonphysical harm (such as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress).  The language is broader than that used in §522(d)(11)(D) which uses the phrase 'personal bodily injury.'    The final requirement is that the debt must be for restitution or damages 'awarded in a civil action' against the debtor.  Every court that has addressed this issue has agreed that a post-petition award of restitution or damages satisfies §1328(a)(4)'s requirements.    The court found that all the elements were met to satisfy §1328(a)(4).  They show a subjective motive to injure the Plyses.  The texts contained inflammatory accusations designed to harass and cause emotional distress.  Ang acted intentionally, and sent the messages at times calculated to do the most damage. They were wrongful acts designed to inflict emotional harm.   The personal injury requirement is found by the state court judgment based on state law tort of nuisance.  The state law tort claim requires 'knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.  Cal Code Civ P §527.6(b)(4).  Such a tort is clearly personal, and the judgment was awarded to compensate the Plyses for their annoyance and emotional distress rather than for any property or financial loss.  The court found the entire judgment nondischargeable under §1328(a)(4).Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

5 Pitfalls that Can Sink Your Bankruptcy Filing Filing for bankruptcy in Mesa can help you get out from under the weight of your debt and to get a fresh start. You might be able to discharge your unsecured debts and be free of them completely, or you might be able to negotiate a payment plan that helps you better manage your debts and pay it off faster. But there are certain steps you need to follow when you file for bankruptcy and procedures you must follow. If you make a mistake, it can not only jeopardize your chances of getting a bankruptcy discharge, but it can also result in charges against you. Here are five common pitfalls that can sink your bankruptcy filing in Mesa: Continuing to Use Your Credit Cards Some people start to think about filing for bankruptcy, and they decide to run up their credit cards with extraneous purchases because they figure that the amount will be discharged with the bankruptcy decree. Unfortunately, what they don’t know is that the bankruptcy judge will look at the pattern of spending leading up to the AZ bankruptcy filing, and if there seems to be a spike in spending, the judge may consider that fraud. Once you know that you intend to file for bankruptcy, you should stop using your credit cards and you should not take out any new lines of credit. Essentially, you should freeze your spending except for the essentials. Failing to Disclose All Credits and Assets Maybe you want to keep your one credit card that is still in good standing open. You figure that it will be harder to get credit after you file for bankruptcy, so you want to save yourself the hassle and ensure that you have credit when you need it by hanging onto that one card. So you don’t list the account in your bankruptcy filing. This is a huge mistake. The courts will find out about that account, and when they do, your bankruptcy filing will be derailed and you could be charged with fraud. Always disclose every account, every creditor, and every asset that you have. Even if you think you’ve been careful, the information will be discovered, and the consequences will be much worse than any benefits you were trying to preserve. Failing to File a Tax Return You will not be able to continue with your bankruptcy case in Mesa if you have an unfiled tax return. The court will discover the missing return, and your proceedings will come to a halt. To save yourself time and legal fees, you should be sure to file any necessary tax returns before you file for bankruptcy. You’ll save yourself a lot of aggravation later, and you won’t spend more than you have to in legal fees. You’ll also increase the chances of success with your bankruptcy filing. Failing to Get the Required Counseling When you file for bankruptcy, you are now required to attend credit counseling and to complete a course in financial management. The aim is to improve your financial literacy so that you can make better choices after your bankruptcy is discharged. Hopefully, you will not find yourself in trouble with debt again in the future. Do not think you can skip the counseling or the course and no one will notice. They are required parts of the bankruptcy process, and if you do not complete them, you will not receive a discharge. Finish these requirements as early in the process as you can so that you don’t hold up your case. Failing to Hire an Attorney Many people try to save money by filing for bankruptcy on their own. After all, they are struggling financially, so they may not think that coming up with the money for an attorney is even an option. But failing to hire an attorney is a huge risk that can actually lead to bigger problems later – and bigger expenses. You can pick up a packet of bankruptcy papers to file, and you may think that all you need to do is fill them out and submit them. Easy, right? The reality is that these are complex forms, and it is very easy to make a mistake on them. Any mistakes can derail your case or even leave you in legal hot water. An attorney will help you fill out these forms accurately, and can defend you if any adversary actions are filed because complicated issues arise. These are things you would not be able to handle on your own. Always work with a qualified bankruptcy attorney to avoid these bankruptcy pitfalls and give your bankruptcy filing a better shot of success. You’ll be able to get the bankruptcy protection you need so that you can move forward and start over after being crushed by debt. Mesa Bankruptcy Lawyers can help with your Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. Our attorneys will review your case and let you know which bankruptcy filing would be better for you, and they will help you understand your legal rights and obligations. They can advise you on the best debt-relief plan to save the maximum amount of assets and have the maximum amount of debt discharged. Call us today to discuss your bankruptcy options.   Mesa Bankruptcy Attorneys 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #101 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 The post 5 Pitfalls that Can Sink Your Bankruptcy Filing appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

By Chris BrooksThe 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.