SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gig economy
Workers Built the Platform Economy, But They’re Not Seeing Its Rewards
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done.
May 29, 2025
Alejandro G. thought that driving full-time for Uber in Houston offered freedom—flexible hours, quick cash, and time to care for his young son. But that promise faded fast.
“There are hours when I make $20,” he told me. “And there are hours when I make $2.” As his pay dropped, he pawned his computer and camera, began rationing the insulin he takes to manage his diabetes—putting his health at risk—and started driving seven days a week, often late into the night, just to break even.
Alejandro, whose real name is withheld for his privacy, is one of millions of workers powering a billion-dollar labor model built on legal loopholes. Companies like Uber insist they are tech platforms, not employers, and that their workers are independent contractors. This sleight of hand allows them to sidestep minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, and other workplace protections, while shifting the financial risks and responsibilities of employment onto the workers. It also lets them avoid employer taxes, draining funds from public coffers.
If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
A new Human Rights Watch report looks at seven major platform companies operating in the U.S.—Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Favor, Instacart, Lyft, Shipt, and Uber—and finds that their labor model violates international human rights standards. These companies promise flexibility and opportunity, but the reality for many workers is far more precarious. In a survey of 127 platform workers in Texas, we found that after subtracting expenses and benefits, the median hourly pay was just $5.12, including tips. This is nearly 30% below the federal minimum wage, and about 70% below a living wage in Texas.
Seventy-five percent of workers we surveyed said they had struggled to pay for housing in the past year. Thirty-five percent said they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Over a third had been in a work-related car accident. Many said they sold possessions, relied on food stamps, or borrowed from family and friends to get by. Their labor keeps the system running—but the system isn’t built to work for them.
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done. The platforms often use algorithms and automated systems to assign jobs, set pay rates, monitor performance, and deactivate workers without warning. In our survey, 65 workers said they feared being cut off from a platform, and 40 had already experienced it. Nearly half were later cleared of wrongdoing.
Companies use incentives that feel like rewards but function more like traps. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash dangle “quests,” “challenges,” and “surges” to push workers to stay on a shift for longer or hit quotas. These schemes lure workers into chasing bonuses that rarely reflect the true cost of the work. One Uber driver in Houston said, “They are like puppet masters. They psychologically manipulate you.”
Access to higher-paying gigs is also conditioned on behavior. Platforms use customer ratings and performance scores to shape who gets the best jobs. One Shipt worker in Michigan said her pay plummeted immediately after she received two four-star reviews, down from her usual five. Ratings are hard to challenge, and recovering from a low score can take weeks. Workers feel forced to accept every job and appease every customer, reinforcing a system that rewards compliance over fairness.
These aren’t the conditions of self-employment. They’re the conditions of control.
This labor model also drains public resources. In Texas alone, Human Rights Watch estimates that misclassification of platform workers in ride share, food delivery, and in-home services cost the state over $111 million in unemployment insurance contributions between 2020 and 2022. These are public funds that could have strengthened social protection or public services. Instead, they’re absorbed into corporate profits—a quiet transfer of public wealth into private hands.
In 2024, Uber reported $43.9 billion in revenue and nearly $10 billion in net income, calling the fourth quarter its “strongest ever.” DoorDash pulled in $10.72 billion, up 24% from the previous year. Combined, their market valuation exceeds $250 billion.
But workers are pushing back, and policymakers are starting to listen. From June 2 to 13, the 113th session of the International Labour Conference—the United Nations-backed forum where global labor standards are negotiated—will convene to debate a binding treaty on decent work in the platform economy. The message is clear: Workers are demanding rules that protect their rights.
The U.S. can start by updating employment classification standards and adopting clear criteria to determine whether a platform worker is truly independent. We also need greater transparency. If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about making sure new forms of work don’t replicate old forms of exploitation or create new ones, by hiding them behind an app.
Alejandro doesn’t need an algorithm to tell him when to work harder. He has a right to a wage he can live on, protections he can count on, and a system that doesn’t punish him for getting sick, injured, or speaking up.
He and millions like him built the platform economy. It’s time they shared more than the burden.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Report Sheds Light on the Pitfalls of AI-Powered 'Gig Nursing'
"These apps are a symptom of broken healthcare infrastructure that is now victim to corporate takeovers. Failing to act on both fronts poses risks to our healthcare system and the workers who power it," wrote one of the researchers.
Dec 17, 2024
While gig work is fairly common in a number of sectors in the American economy, a brief released Tuesday by the progressive-leaning think tank the Roosevelt Institute details how the gig model now has its tentacles in the healthcare industry, and argues it is creating new hazards for workers and patients.
The brief, authored by Groundwork Collaborative fellow Katie Wells and King's College London lecturer Funda Ustek Spilda, sounds the alarm over "on-demand nursing firms" such as CareRev, Clipboard Health, ShiftKey, ShiftMed, and others which have gained traction by promising hospitals more control and nurses and nursing assistants more flexibility.
Practically speaking, these "new Uber-style apps use algorithmic scheduling, staffing, and management technologies—software often touted by companies as cutting-edge 'AI,' or artificial intelligence—to connect understaffed medical facilities with nearby nurses and nursing assistants looking for work," according to the brief.
The authors, whose research was largely based on interviews with 29 gig nurses, argued that these apps "encourage nurses to work for less pay," do not offer nurses clarity when it comes to scheduling and amount or type of work, are not sufficiently concerned with worker safety, and "can threaten patient well-being by placing nurses in unfamiliar clinical environments with no onboarding or facility training."
These platforms are also using the same tactics asthe ride-hailing serviceUber when it comes to lobbying state legislatures in order to shield themselves from labor regulations, according to the authors, who noted that larger hospital systems in the country have included gig nurses in their operations since 2016.
The researchers argued that while the rates on a platform like ShiftKey can be higher for nurses and nurses assistants, nursing on-demand platforms can create a race to the bottom for wages: "The nurses and nursing assistants who use these apps must pay fees to bid on shifts, and they win those bids by offering to work for lower hourly rates than their fellow workers."
When the nursing on-demand firms classify the workers as self-employed, nurses and nursing assistants are also exposed to higher risk because they are "excluded from the protections of local, state, and federal law on minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, retirement benefits, employment-based health insurance, and paid sick days."
Workers are also rated based on facility feedback and determinations made by the algorithm, and can be penalized if they cancel a shift because they are sick or have a conflict, per the report.
"In at least one case, a nursing assistant went into work at a hospital while sick with Covid-19 because she could not figure out how to cancel a shift without lowering her rating," according to the authors.
By way of background, the authors of the brief also argue that the often-invoked "nursing shortage" is actually misleading term. In fact, there is no shortage of available nurses and nursing assistants, but rather a "growing number of nurses and nursing assistants who refuse to accept chronically understaffed, underpaid, unsafe, and high-stress workplaces," according to the brief, which cites outside research.
In fact, many of the workers interviewed said they would continue working for nursing on demand services because broadly speaking they like the work. According to the brief, interviewees said "over and over again how important flexible schedules are to their lives, especially their own caregiving, be it for children, spouses, or elders"—though the authors of the study wrote that this does not mean the concerns expressed by the workers are not worth paying attention to.
The rise of gig nursing is taking place on the backdrop of increasing corporate ownership over the healthcare industry writ large, including the rise of private equity ownership of medical facilities and medical staffing agencies.
"Policymakers need to be proactive and step in to regulate these platforms and provide proper labor protections for all nurses, gig and non-gig alike," said Wells in a Tuesday statement. "But these apps are a symptom of broken healthcare infrastructure that is now victim to corporate takeovers. Failing to act on both fronts poses risks to our healthcare system and the workers who power it."
Wells also toldThe Guardian that the gig companies don't release data and the industry is unregulated, meaning the true extent to which the U.S. healthcare system is leaning on gig nurses is unknown—but she said it is clearly a growing trend.
These on-demand nursing apps can also have a negative impact on patients, according to sources the authors spoke with. One nurse recounted that "there have been times when I've been unable to access patient records or find supply closets."
"Other workers report that the lack of management and resources can result in major safety lapses for patients, such as gig nurses not being able to get updated information on patient medications or instructions about whether patients need help with feeding," the authors wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don’t Take Rideshare Companies at Their Word When It Comes to Worker Pay
A new study found that after the industry-backed Prop 22, rideshare drivers take home $7.12 per hour in median net hourly earnings before tips—a fraction of California’s $16 minimum wage.
Sep 02, 2024
The rise of Uber and Lyft to ubiquity over the last decade has been astonishing—over 3 billion trips were taken using the platforms in 2023. Throughout that meteoric expansion to nearly every inch of the globe, the companies have waved away concerns that the drivers keeping the platforms going are being underpaid for their labor.
Anecdotal cases of drivers working grueling hours for a pittance abound, but Uber and Lyft have been able to shrug them off through a combination of industry-funded studies and wage secrecy. However, a few independent analyses have managed to puncture the narrative that the gig economy pays well.
A new study from the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center is one of the strongest examples of that so far. Researchers analyzed 52,370 trips by 1,088 drivers on six rideshare and delivery apps across five major metro areas and found that they earned well below the minimum wage in all five.
The gig companies are promoting Proposition 22-like policies in other states. Our research demonstrates clearly that such policies can be expected to leave drivers with sub-minimum earnings.
The study is particularly notable for the results it extracted about California, where in 2020 gig companies poured tens of millions into Proposition 22, legislation which allowed the industry to continue to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.
The companies promised that exempting drivers and delivery workers would preserve the “flexibility” of gig work while ensuring that they would make over the minimum wage.
Four years later, that promise seems broken. Rideshare passenger drivers, the study found, take home $7.12 per hour in median net hourly earnings before tips—a fraction of California’s $16 minimum wage. When you account for the employee benefits and taxes that drivers have to pay for themselves, the number is even lower.
The lesson for other states and cities considering similar exceptions to labor law for gig companies? Don’t take rideshare companies at their word when it comes to worker pay.
I discussed this report with one of its authors, Ken Jacobs, co-chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
First of all, congratulations on this major report! Can you tell me a little about how you collected this trip data? What kind of roadblocks do rideshare companies put up to knowing how much workers get paid?
The data comes from a third party app called Gridwise. Drivers use it to track mileage and earnings. We analyzed data for over 1,000 drivers and more than 50,000 trips over a two week period in January 2022 in five metro areas: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and Boston.
The data allowed us to analyze how much drivers earned per hour and shift across the main passenger and delivery services. I have looked at lots of screenshots from the company apps. The companies don’t make it easy for drivers to calculate their net earnings.
This study split apart passenger and delivery drivers—were there any notable differences in the pay for those distinct groups?
The biggest difference was the share of income that comes through tips. Tips account for a little more than half of the gross income of delivery drivers, but only 10% for passenger drivers. Overall we found that the typical passenger driver earned the equivalent of a $5.97 an hour wage before tips in California, and $7.63 an hour after tips.
Delivery drivers earned about $5 an hour in California without tips and $11.43 an hour with tips. In the three metro’s outside of California, non-tip income—base pay, incentives and bonuses—barely covered expenses. Drivers were essentially working for tips.
Can you explain a little more about how gig companies and this study calculate pay differently, especially when it comes to time between trips and expenses?
When the gig companies talk about how much drivers earn they usually put out figures for gross pay per hour and they don’t include the time a driver is waiting for a request or returning after dropping off a passenger or delivery. That is work time! It is an essential part of the job.
A recent study looked at data from 5.3 million San Francisco rideshare trips to see what drivers did between trips—they found that drivers were mostly heading back to hub areas where they had a greater chance to find a passenger or were cruising while waiting to get the next ride. They were working. When the companies talk about expenses, they don’t include costs associated with any of those miles.
The Gridwise date allows us to account for drivers’ full time and miles for each shift. For expenses, we use the IRS mileage rate for the time period under study of 58.5 cents a mile. This reflects the full cost of owning and operating a vehicle.
Proposition 22, the initiative put on the California ballot by the gig companies, set an initial mileage rate of only 30 cents a mile. The companies justify this by saying that most drivers work very few hours. What they don’t tell you is that most trips are done by drivers who work 20 hours a week or more and for whom gig driving accounts for the greatest use of their vehicle.
We also account for the fact that gig companies do not pay the employer side of payroll taxes or provide other mandatory benefits to drivers.
Your report mentions that concentration in the rideshare and delivery industries may be contributing to low pay, could you tease that out for me?
There are two major gig passenger companies, and four for food and grocery delivery. That gives them significant power to set pay in the industry. They are also able employ what UC Irvine law professor Veena Dubal calls “algorithmic discrimination.” They can see what trips or deliveries drivers have been willing to take for how much money in the past, and can individualize what they offer each driver for the same ride. They do the same in setting what they charge passengers.
How did pay in California compare to the other metro areas you analyzed?
The typical passenger driver earned around $3 less an hour in California than in the other three metros before tips. If we include tips it was around $3.50 less.
For delivery drivers it was the other way around. The typical delivery driver earned $4.50 more an hour in California than the other three metros before tips; $3 more with tips.
What does that say about the ways that Prop 22 affected the industry?
Proposition 22 was sold to voters as setting a higher minimum wage for drivers. In the case of passenger drivers, it had very little effect. Delivery drivers were much more likely to receive Proposition 22 payments and did have higher earnings than their counterparts outside of California. In both cases driver earnings were still well below the state minimum wage. The gig companies are promoting Proposition 22-like policies in other states. Our research demonstrates clearly that such policies can be expected to leave drivers with sub-minimum earnings.
The California Supreme Court recently upheld Prop 22 against a constitutional challenge—how should we expect that situation to evolve?
With the court’s recent decision upholding Proposition 22, we can expect gig companies to continue to pay subminimum wage in the state. The courts did leave open the possibility for the legislature to grant collective bargaining rights to gig workers. Massachusetts will be voting on a gig worker collective bargaining initiative this November. The results of that vote may shape what happens next in California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular