

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The fact that a term like 'DoorDash grandma' exists should be a wake-up call," said the head of One Fair Wage. "It should never exist in the first place."
While "DoorDash Grandma" made the company's first food delivery to the White House on Monday to promote President Donald Trump's "no tax on tips" policy, the awkward encounter outside the Oval Office not only highlighted critiques of that provision of the GOP budget package but also sparked calls for a living wage and universal healthcare.
"A perfect image of the Trump era: A grandmother has to work at DoorDash in order to get by, while the president decorates his office in gold accent pieces," said Democratic strategist Max Burns, sharing a photo of the delivery on social media.
Saru Jayaraman, president of worker advocacy group One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams that "it's sad, and it's a sign of a failing society—not something to celebrate or turn into a photo op. We've normalized an economy where older people are pushed into gig work just to survive. The fact that a term like 'DoorDash grandma' exists should be a wake-up call. It should never exist in the first place."
"Corporations are paying poverty wages while policymakers offer Band-Aid solutions like 'no tax on tips' instead of paying a living wage," Jayaraman continued. "At the same time, cuts to Medicaid and food assistance are stripping away the safety net workers rely on to get by. This is all pushing people into greater dependence on tips and unstable income. Workers don't need gimmicks—they need living wages, corporate accountability, and real economic security."
Trump and then-Vice President Kamala Harris latched on to the no tax on tips policy during the 2024 campaign, despite warnings from economists and others that it is a "deceptive ploy," as the Economic Policy Institute's David Cooper and Nina Mast put it last year.
"It does nothing to address the low wages, income instability, wage theft, and abuse tipped workers already face," the pair reiterated in February. "Instead, it may undermine efforts to raise tipped minimum wages, push more workers into tipped jobs, increase workloads, and prompt customers to tip less if they believe tipped workers receive special tax treatment."
After related legislation passed the US Senate last year, Jayaraman said that "for all the bipartisan celebration, this bill is a distraction from the real fight... If Democrats want to offer a true alternative, they need to say it loud and clear: It's time to raise the minimum wage and end the subminimum wage once and for all."
A no tax on tips policy was ultimately included in Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which, as a recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis details, featured tax breaks that primarily benefited wealthy individuals and corporations while cutting programs that serve working families, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Specifically, last year's GOP budget package established a temporary federal income tax deduction for tips, capped at $25,000 per year, through 2028. In a February report, the libertarian Cato Institute estimated that "the roughly 3% of tax returns projected to claim the tips deduction in 2026 will receive an average tax cut of about $1,370," and "as a share of after-tax income, the tips deduction broadly benefits those in the middle of the income distribution."
"These provisions also add to the already large number of tax deductions and credits that shield vastly uneven amounts of income from taxation based on family size and childcare arrangements," the Cato report notes. "In addition to the income limits, the tips deduction is only available to occupations that 'customarily and regularly received tips' before 2025."
Sharon Simmons, who wore a red shirt that read "DoorDash Grandma" while delivering McDonald's bags at the White House on Monday, told Trump that she benefited from the policy. In a statement, the company identified her as an Arkansas-based grandmother of 10 who "started dashing in 2022 to earn income while keeping control of her schedule."
During the delivery, the president asked Simmons whether she voted for him—"uh, maybe," she said—and about banning transgender women from competing in sports in line with their gender identity, on which she said she did not have an opinion.
Labor reporter Michael Sainato pointed out that Simmons previously lived in Nevada and advocated for the no tax on tips policy to the US House Ways and Means Committee last year. He also questioned her comments to Trump about having saved over $11,000 on her most recent tax bill.
The dasher claims "$11,000 in savings by not having to claim." You still have to claim tipsYou can only deduct up to $25k in tips, so $11k in savings off of one year didn't happenThe tax savings are actually minimal taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts...
[image or embed]
— Michael Sainato (@msainato.bsky.social) April 13, 2026 at 3:39 PM
While Trump staff and congressional Republicans shared footage of Simmons' delivery to Trump to promote the budget package provision in the lead-up to tax day, US Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stressed on social media Monday that the president's "policy is severely limited and sunsets in 2028."
"We must make it permanent and increase the minimum wage to support our nontipped workers like childcare, fast food, and retail. We can do both by passing my LIFT Act," said Titus, whose Labor Income Fairness and Transparency Act is backed by One Fair Wage.
"Cutting taxes on tips might make for a good sound bite, but on its own, it's a hollow fix that ignores the real crisis: Wages so low that two-thirds of restaurant workers don't even earn enough to pay federal income taxes," Jayaraman said last year, when Titus introduced the bill. "In a time of skyrocketing costs, workers are drowning and need more than political gimmicks—they need a raise."
"Tips should be a bonus, not a substitute for a living wage," she argued. "By ending all subminimum wages and requiring that all workers be paid a full livable wage with tips on top, the LIFT Act addresses what working people need most: a fair wage, a level playing field, and the dignity that comes with being able to provide for their families."
Some observers on Monday also noted Simmons' appearance on Fox News, during which she acknowledged the financial burden of her husband's 2025 cancer diagnosis.
"Grandma shouldn't have to rely on DoorDash tips to make up for Republicans doubling the cost of healthcare," declared Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, sharing a clip of the interview on social media.
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare, emphasized that "'no tax on tips' does not make up for the fact that no one can afford healthcare."
Historian Timothy Snyder said, "So let’s have universal healthcare and help people live in dignity."
"Just one authoritarian thing after another."
US President Donald Trump's White House has reportedly created a scorecard that rates American corporations and trade groups based on how fervently they have promoted Trump's agenda, a move that critics described as part of the president's authoritarian approach to governing and dealing with private businesses.
Axios, which first reported on the White House scorecard Friday, explained that the document "rates 553 companies and trade associations on how hard they worked to support and promote President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'" which includes massive corporate tax breaks and unprecedented cuts to safety net programs.
"Factors in the rating include social media posts, press releases, video testimonials, ads, attendance at White House events, and other engagement related to 'OB3,' as the megabill is known internally," the outlet reported. "The organizations' support is ranked as strong, moderate, or low. Axios has learned that 'examples of good partners' on the White House list include Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association."
The spreadsheet is reportedly being circulated to senior White House staffers and is expected to evolve to gauge companies' support for other aspects of the president's agenda. Corporations that decline to praise Trump's policies—or dare to criticize them—could face government retribution.
"Just one authoritarian thing after another," Rachel Barnhart, a Democratic member of the Monroe County, New York Legislature, wrote in response to the Axios story.
News of the internal "loyalty rating" spreadsheet comes days after Trump reached an unprecedented deal with the chip giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that critics likened to a strongman-style "shakedown." The companies agreed to pay the US government 15% of their revenues from exports to China in exchange for obtaining export licenses.
Trump, who has reported substantial holdings in Nvidia, has hosted company CEO Jensen Huang—one of the richest men in the world—at the White House at least twice this year. Huang has effusively praised the president, calling his policies "visionary."
That's just one example of how major CEOs have sought to flatter Trump, who has proven willing to publicly attack executives—and even demand their resignation.
Fortune noted Wednesday that "Apple CEO Tim Cook gave Trump a customized glass plaque mounted on a 24-karat gold stand last week, when he announced his company’s $100 billion investment in domestic production."
Cook also donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.

Companies that have worked to get in the president's good graces appear to be reaping significant rewards.
A Public Citizen analysis published earlier this week found that companies spending big in support of Trump are among the chief beneficiaries of his administration's deregulatory blitz and retreat from corporate crime enforcement.
"Tech corporations facing ongoing federal investigations and enforcement lawsuits that are at risk of being dropped or weakened following the industry's influence efforts include Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Snap, Uber, Zoom, and Musk-helmed corporations The Boring Company, Neuralink, SpaceX, Tesla, X, and xAI," the group said.
Business journalist Bill Saporito wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times earlier this week that "in ripping up numerous business regulations, Donald Trump seems intent on replacing them with himself."
"The recipient corporations don't necessarily want Mr. Trump's meddling, particularly given his fun house view of economics," Saporito added, "but they can't get away from it."
As the “gig” model has taken hold, many traditional, stable jobs have been put in jeopardy, and many of the hard-fought rights associated with them are being dismantled or watered down.
In his 1930 essay “ Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”, the economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that future generations would someday work 15 hours a week. The theory was based on anticipated advances in technology and productivity. Keynes’ theory has a strange kind of prescience today (though not quite in the way he expected). What’s called the “gig economy”—a labor market that relies heavily on part-time, temporary, or freelance work—resembles his prediction in a backward sort of way, as numerous industries and occupations have moved away from fixed, stable employment toward short-term flexibility.
Conclusive data on the current size of the independent contractor workforce in the U.S. is difficult to find. Different sources disagree on the scale. In 2017, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 6.9% of workers in America were classified as independent contractors (lower than in 2005). However, the Covid-19 pandemic increased demand for delivery services and rideshare apps (Uber, Doordash, Instacart). A study published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that independent contractors may be around 15% of all workers.
Gig workers are not a particularly large slice of our labor force, but they represent a microcosm of a larger trend—the effects of post-Fordism (post-industrialism). In the 1970s, America transitioned away from the Fordist model of labor, where people worked on assembly lines in the mass production of goods. As this was happening, wages began to stagnate, union membership declined, and the U.S. lost its domestic manufacturing base. The New Deal coalition was dissolved, and the working class became less and less associated with the Democratic Party.
Keeping people stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs in the service sector without security or benefits is a poor substitute for fair compensation, and companies cannot rely on it forever.
A major change has taken place in the economic organization of our society. As social safety nets and union membership have been eroded, job precarity has become a permanent state for many Americans. In the gig economy, your position and status are constantly in flux. Maybe you do your job online in a hybrid or work-from-home format. Maybe you move around between periods of unemployment and temporary or part-time employment. Under the Fordist model, a person could expect to work at the same place for their entire lives with rising standards of living. The gig economy, by contrast, is a fractured labor market where work is increasingly isolated, casualized, and digitized, and limited compensation and benefits are the norm. Gig work is particularly common among younger generations. Nearly 45% of millennial professionals do freelance work (many in addition to other jobs).
In 1997, Alan Greenspan, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before Congress, and he attributed the success of the economy to growing “worker insecurity.” Essentially, workers were too worried about keeping their jobs to ask for higher wages or benefits. They no longer had the same kind of job security, which meant they were in a weaker bargaining position. If you’re an employer, this kind of relationship is ideal. You keep labor costs low, and profits high.
Nowhere is this basic lack of fairness more evident than in gig positions. If you’re classified as an independent contractor, there are a whole host of legal rights that don’t apply to you. It varies by state, but in Massachusetts, for example, you don’t have a right to a minimum wage, overtime, or sick pay. You’re not eligible for unemployment benefits. You’ll almost certainly have a harder time finding health, dental, or vision insurance. Benefits such as retirement, worker’s compensation, and family leave are also generally not offered. You most likely won’t get paid time off for public holidays. Anti-discrimination laws don’t protect you, and you can’t legally sue your employer for wrongful termination (although there are exceptions if the employer has violated a written contract). Independent contractor status also severely limits the possibilities of labor organizing.
There are some benefits to independent contract work (it’s easier to set your own hours, work remotely), but in an ideal labor market, people would have a choice between flexibility and stability. They wouldn’t be forced into either category. For many people, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
In 2020, rideshare drivers in California fought a bitter fight to avoid being classified as independent contractors. The state had previously passed Assembly Bill 5, which required rideshare drivers to be classified as employees. Uber, Lyft, and other companies drafted and campaigned for Prop. 22 to exclude drivers from being classified as employees and spent more than $200 million supporting the measure, according to OpenSecrets. The U.S. Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board also supported the bill. In 2020, the measure passed.
As gig positions become more and more common, we can expect to see similar fights in other industries, with similar results. Companies can essentially rewrite labor laws in their favor, and poor and working people bear the brunt of this.
Alternatives to Uber have also suffered. A significant share of the market has been taken away from traditional cab companies. New York City’s taxi medallion system, for instance, has faced a collapse. The medallions (which are required to operate a yellow cab) once sold for up to $1 million, but have plummeted in value, now going for as little as $90,000. Many cab drivers have worked for years to earn these medallions, planning to lease them to new drivers to finance their retirement. These people have essentially had their savings wiped out.
In 2018, New York drivers experienced a string of suicides related to the increased difficulties of earning a living in these positions. In February, 2018, a livery driver named Doug Schifter committed suicide in front of City Hall. He had previously been the writer of a column in a trade publication about how app-based services were flooding his market. Later that year, a cab driver named Nicanor Ochisor hanged himself in his garage. His family publicly stated that ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft had made it impossible for him to earn a living.
In other industries, such as academia, gig workers are being similarly squeezed. Adjunct or contract-renewable professors may make less than half what tenured professors make, and often have to string together work across multiple universities, sometimes supported with tutoring, test proctoring, and other side jobs. According to survey data released in 2022 by the American Federation of Teachers, “a quarter of adjunct faculty have an annual salary below the federal poverty line.” These professors often have limited or no benefits, and no guarantee of work past the current semester.
These are just a few examples. As the “gig” model has taken hold, many traditional, stable jobs have been put in jeopardy, and many of the hard-fought rights associated with them are being dismantled or watered down. We’ve entered the age of casualized work, but for the opposite reason Keynes predicted—not because we’re basking in leisure, but because we’re trapped in a state of precarity. Productivity has increased, but these gains have not been evenly distributed.
Aside from being unfair, this model is also unsustainable. Keeping people stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs in the service sector without security or benefits is a poor substitute for fair compensation, and companies cannot rely on it forever. The essential hollowness of this model is in plain view, and the subordination of workers to these demands will, sooner or later, collapse. It’s impossible to predict when exactly this will happen, or on what scale, but it can be predicted that it will happen eventually.
How can this be overcome? A sharp reversal of course is needed. Working conditions are unlikely to improve unless we can rebuild the popular institutions which guarantee our rights. Labor unions in particular can establish paths to long-term job security and multi-year contracts as industry standards. Additionally, peer countries have addressed the shortcomings of gig work by offering things like paid family leave, sick leave and universal healthcare to the population. The U.S. needs to encourage broad, expansive change to address these growing concerns, and re-write the terms of our social contract to create routes to economic security. If there is to be any kind of positive development in this area of the labor market, it will depend on these efforts.