I think this framing is off. I think it's this notion that the company is offering compensation as a blend of base rate and tips. Like it's compensation in a blend of cash and stocks. But that seems wrong. The company isn't compensating with tips.
The claim that drivers are looking for more of their pay to come from tips seems false. Tips and pay are independent, and saying that drivers want to be paid less by the company seems false on its face.
A more accurate framing seems to be that the companies are using the presence of tips to lower the wage for the position to save money.
The issue is that variable base rates are directly using customer tips to fund wage obligations. If the company indicates they are giving 100% of a tip to the worker, but then offsets the pay by exactly that amount, they aren't actually giving that tip to the worker like they claimed.
So a fixed base rate plus protection against downside risk like you proposed is not the same as the variable base rate these companies are implementing.
The claim that drivers are looking for more of their pay to come from tips seems false. Tips and pay are independent, and saying that drivers want to be paid less by the company seems false on its face.
A more accurate framing seems to be that the companies are using the presence of tips to lower the wage for the position to save money.
The issue is that variable base rates are directly using customer tips to fund wage obligations. If the company indicates they are giving 100% of a tip to the worker, but then offsets the pay by exactly that amount, they aren't actually giving that tip to the worker like they claimed.
So a fixed base rate plus protection against downside risk like you proposed is not the same as the variable base rate these companies are implementing.