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
Trump’s Labor Department Tries to Redefine Workers Out of Their Rights
A proposed rule would make it easier to classify employees as contractors—and harder to claim minimum wage and overtime protections.
Mar 03, 2026
Last week, Trump’s Labor Department proposed a rule aimed at making it easier for businesses to call workers “independent contractors” instead of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It’s the latest round in a regulatory back-and-forth. The legal details get dense fast. But the real-world implications are straightforward: millions of workers are at risk of losing foundational minimum wage and overtime protections, exacerbating their financial precarity.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides employees with minimum wage and overtime protections. When Congress passed the FLSA, it sought to cover the broadest concept of employees possible, including those who were performing piece rate garment work out of their kitchens - something that today might look like gig work.
Since the 1940s, courts across the country and in vastly different employment contexts have consistently held that someone is an employee if they are economically dependent on the employer for work. Despite this broad protection in the law, too many employers today misclassify workers as independent contractors—including dishwashers at restaurants, auto mechanic technicians, and even nurses—in order to sidestep legal obligations and lower labor costs. These misclassified workers don’t just lose out on minimum wage and overtime protections. They are often misclassified under other employment laws too, leaving them saddled with higher payroll tax burdens, all while not having the protections of Unemployment Insurance if they are let go, Workers’ Compensation if they are injured on the job, or other typical benefits associated with employment.
Trump’s latest proposed rule would give employers cover to misclassify more workers as independent contractors. Specifically, it tosses aside a decades-long test that the Wage and Hour Division uses when determining a worker’s economic dependence, and instead advances a slimmed down version of the test that will enable businesses to more easily skirt their responsibilities under the FLSA. The Department believes that the long-standing test as articulated in the Biden 2024 Final Rule leads to “unnecessary classification of….workers as employees” and makes the independent contractor classification “more difficult.”
In short, the Department thinks the current test is too complicated, and employers are erring too often on the side of classifying workers as employees. The Department further claims that a slimmed-down test of classification would be a better fit for the modern economy. But at a time when businesses’ relationships with workers is getting more complicated, the test for determining classification shouldn’t be narrowed; it should remain probative. At a moment when we need a high-powered microscope to understand the complex layers of business models and management practices, the Department of Labor is seemingly saying a simple magnifying glass will do just fine. This approach will only exacerbate trends already underway in industries and occupations that have traditionally provided stable, middle-class jobs. Take, for example, nursing.
You might assume that someone working as a nurse in a hospital or nursing home is surely an employee of those entities. Not so anymore. Already, hospitals are relying on staffing agencies to fill nursing positions, and these agencies, in some cases, are misclassifying nurses as independent contractors. Research from the Roosevelt Institute has also highlighted how new app-based companies are using Uber-like platforms to hire, place, and manage nurses, all while claiming they are independent contractors. On these platforms, workers must compete for shifts and bid on pay, sometimes not knowing until the morning of whether they got a shift. These gig platforms have created a race to the bottom in wages and job quality, leaving some nurses without their own health insurance and relying on second jobs to make ends meet. Under Trump’s proposed rule, it will be far harder for workers under these models of management to realize their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. And it will only encourage other businesses to follow suit.
To be sure, there are many legitimate independent contractors who are in business for themselves. These small businesses are important parts of our economy. But a dishwasher in the back of a restaurant isn’t in business for herself. An auto technician who shows up to the same shop day in and day out likely isn’t in business for himself. And surely a nurse caring for patients in a hospital isn’t in business for themselves.
The Trump Administration pulled out a sledgehammer on a cornerstone of the New Deal. Trump’s DOL and others who are proponents of making it easier to classify workers as independent contractors often claim this provides workers with greater flexibility in their life. But flexibility doesn’t mean better outcomes. Weakening the FLSA doesn’t result in a better life for more workers.
In fact, recent research on job quality experienced by workers shows stark differences in outcomes between independent contractors and employees across some key metrics. Independent contractors, for example, are more likely to report receiving less than 24 hours notice of when they need to work. At the same time, they are no more likely than W-2 employees to say they have input on when they can take a few hours off for personal reasons. Yet, independent contractors remain more likely to report wanting to work more hours and receive more money.
Last week’s proposed rule sadly isn’t a surprise but it is a stark reminder of how little this Administration cares about using the tools of government to enforce laws and advance policies that enable workers to secure a better life.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Instacart, Stop Using American Shoppers as Lab Rats During an Affordability Crisis
The grocery delivery app is conducting large-scale, hidden pricing experiments on unsuspecting shoppers to determine just how much money they can extract from customers on the groceries they buy to feed their families.
Dec 26, 2025
Somewhere, a mom taps through her grocery app while waiting in the school pickup line, purchasing a box of Wheat Thins for $5.99. Across town, someone else scrolls through the same grocery app and adds the exact same box of Wheat Thins to their cart. For them, the crackers ring up at $6.99. It is the same item, from the same store, at the same time, but one unlucky shopper is stuck paying a higher price. Neither shopper has any idea this pricing game is even being played.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. Increasingly, it’s happening all over the country. Right now, grocery delivery app Instacart is conducting large-scale, hidden pricing experiments on unsuspecting shoppers to determine just how much money they can extract from customers on the groceries they buy to feed their families.
How do we know? Our team at Groundwork Collaborative had a feeling Instacart might be experimenting on shoppers, so we decided to run an experiment on them. Alongside our partners at Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union, we recruited over 400 volunteer secret shoppers to shop for the same basket of 20 items at the same grocery store at the same time. We ran the experiment in four different stores across the country.
The results were damning: At every store we tested, shoppers were charged different prices for an identical basket of groceries. Overall, Instacart basket totals varied by about 7%, with some items posting differences as high as 23%. For example: the exact same basket of groceries from a Safeway store in Seattle, Washington ran some shoppers $114.34, while other shoppers were charged $123.93. At a Target in North Canton, Ohio, prices varied by as much as $6, as some shoppers rang up a total of $84.43, while others were charged $87.91 or as much as $90.47.
Unfortunately, Instacart’s predatory pricing is just one small piece of a much larger–and rapidly growing–economy of extraction.
Based on the company’s own estimates, this “Instacart tax” could drain as much as $1,200 from American households’ pocketbooks each year.
Meanwhile, Instacart is gloating about their ability to use unaware shoppers as guinea pigs to pad their bottom line profits. On their website, the company notes that, “End shoppers are not aware that they’re in an experiment. For any given shopper in any given store, prices only change on a few of the products they shop and only by a small margin; it’s negligible.” But we’re facing the greatest food affordability crisis in a generation. As grocery prices continue to rise and reliance on Buy Now, Pay Later is accelerating, it is painfully evident that an additional $1,200 a year is anything but negligible for many American families.
Unfortunately, Instacart’s predatory pricing is just one small piece of a much larger–and rapidly growing–economy of extraction. Enabled by corporate consolidation and artificial intelligence technologies, companies across industries now deploy a dizzying array of tactics designed to extract maximum profit from each individual. They tack on hidden fees; collude with their competitors on price increases; and individualize prices for consumers based on granular, personal data.
These predatory pricing strategies are not about managing scarcity or efficient markets. They’re corporations experimenting with your willingness to pay to see exactly how much they can squeeze out of you.
Since its release last week, our report has struck a national chord—earning front-page coverage in the New York Times, primetime coverage on broadcast news, and featuring in a video that has already amassed nearly 2 million views. Instacart’s own stock even dropped 6% the day after our report was published, which the Wall Street Journal attributed in part to our investigation.
This reaction is unsurprising: Americans dislike being surveilled, they resent being gouged, and they certainly don’t like being lab rats for profit-driven experimentation. Fair and honest markets are the bedrock of a healthy economy—and companies like Instacart jeopardize that trust by making prices opaque and unpredictable.
Our message to Instacart—and any corporation that would try to replicate their pricing experiment—is simple. Close the labs. American shoppers are not guinea pigs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gigs That Work For All
A California pilot program offers a new blueprint for workforce development.
Nov 19, 2025
For over a decade, academics and progressive policymakers have been fretting about the “future of work” and the “gigification” of labor. And for good reason. Since the ascendance of companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart in the early 2010s, hundreds of thousands of people have taken on the work of fulfilling “gigs” provided by such apps. Consumers have become habituated to getting their rides, groceries, and household goods at the push of a button.
Workers often turn to “gig” jobs because they need flexible work schedules due to caregiving responsibilities or the need for multiple jobs to make ends meet. However, this work is usually low paying, precarious, and unprotected by employment or labor laws. That’s by design, and it’s a big problem: Those laws were created with the intention of protecting just these sorts of workers. The companies behind the apps argue that this is simply the price of flexibility.
There’s no reason that flexible work should require sacrificing the protections, rights, and opportunities provided by employment, like a guaranteed minimum wage and overtime for long hours; the right to a healthy and safe workplace; protections against discrimination and harassment; and insurance against the downside risks arising from the loss of jobs or workplace injuries.
Treating workers as independent contractors without rights and protections has become standard practice for many platform companies. Promoted by venture capital funders, the practice feeds a narrative that the acquisition of skills, experience, and on-the-job savvy—traditionally a responsibility of employers—falls on individual workers to “entrepreneurially” pick up such training on the job. Yet this perspective contradicts a fundamental principle of workforce development, which recognized the wider economic benefits arising from building a skilled workforce.
The Long Beach pilot demonstrates that flexibility can also come with good jobs and opportunities to enhance skills while meeting pressing employer staffing needs.
An innovative public pilot in Long Beach has shown it is possible for gig work to benefit workers, employers, and the broader community. The Workers Lab, an organization that funds innovations for and with workers, and Pacific Gateway, the City of Long Beach’s public workforce board, have invested in a platform called WorkLB. The technology behind the platform, originally developed with the British Labor government, plays a matchmaking role by connecting employers and workers based on needs, skills, and schedules.
Pacific Gateway is demonstrating that flexible schedules and the opportunity to do short-term work can go hand in hand with decent earnings, protections, rights at work, and upward mobility. Moreover, the program shows that such opportunities can also benefit businesses and public agencies looking for workers and seeking to improve the workforce development system.
This simultaneously undermines the dominant narrative of a trade-off between flexibility and workers’ rights, and shows how government intervention can effectively address issues arising from the so-called Gig Economy.
The Long Beach model allows Pacific Gateway to either act as, or delegate the responsibility to vet and oversee workers, ensure proper payroll management, provide healthcare, abide by labor law, and pay for liability insurance.
To participate, employers must be willing to pay the local minimum wage (currently $16.50 per hour in Long Beach), with a markup of 2.5% ($0.40 per hr) to help defray the costs of administration. For workers, this unique model helps them find the best work opportunities based on their skills, interests, and scheduling needs. Whether short or long-term, these work opportunities are W-2 jobs providing good wages, benefits, and labor protections. All that, and flexibility.
Pacific Gateway credentials workers through its formal intake process, awarding them “badges” to market their skills. Unlike traditional, for-profit staffing agencies, which have also proliferated in the gig economy space, that treat workers’ skill levels as proprietary data, Pacific Gateway makes this information readily available to prospective employers.
By using a public workforce agency in this staffing agency role, Pacific Gateway is fulfilling the original intention of the federal Employment Services program—to match workers with employers, connect workers to the appropriate training opportunities, and then place them in actual jobs.
In a reversal of gig work common sense, WorkLB’s app allows workers to review their employers, which helps ensure that Pacific Gateway recruits employers providing good jobs rather than placing workers in exploitative and precarious work. While the app currently does not allow employers to rate the workers, it enables them to track the progression of a worker to incentivize full-time work conversion where desired.
Participating workers in Long Beach report high satisfaction with the program, saying that it provides quality jobs with transparent pay, clear expectations, and legal protections and allows them to demonstrate their skills to prospective employers. Employers get a vetted, skilled workforce for on-demand jobs that serve their longer-term workforce needs. The federal workforce system was created to do this, but perpetually lacks the funding to do so at the appropriate scale.
Given its success thus far, there is growing interest in adopting similar pilots in other parts of the country. Additionally, these pilots may provide a salient avenue for much-needed workforce development at the state and local level that meets both workers' and employers’ needs, especially as the current Trump administration slashes federal programs, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and mandate greater work requirements that may impact state and local workforce funding. However, the greatest challenge is funding these pilots, especially as federal funding is cut. The Long Beach pilot was primarily funded through philanthropic dollars, but given the need to scale future efforts, public funding is critical. Now is the time for states and localities to think creatively, whether by developing sector-based partnerships with employers and unions where all partners have “skin in the game,” or identifying other public funding streams, to support this growing workforce.
Workers often accept low-paid and precarious gig jobs because they need them to shore up failing household budgets while juggling complicated schedules. The Long Beach pilot demonstrates that flexibility can also come with good jobs and opportunities to enhance skills while meeting pressing employer staffing needs, thereby benefiting workers, families, and the wider community.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular