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
uber
White House Scorecard Rates Companies Based on How Much They Fawn Over Trump's Agenda
"Just one authoritarian thing after another."
Aug 15, 2025
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Casar-Tlaib Bill Would Ban Corporations From Using AI to Set Prices, Wages
"The idea that employers would leverage surveillance data to exploit a worker in a desperate position and offer them a lower wage is appalling," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Jul 23, 2025
A pair of U.S. House progressives have introduced a bill that would stop companies from using artificial intelligence to set prices and wages based on the personal information of customers and workers.
The "Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act," introduced Wednesday by Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), is an effort to curb the growing trend of "surveillance-based price setting," where companies use data from customers to determine how much they are willing to pay for a service.
According to a recent report by the Federal Trade Commission, "Retailers frequently use people's personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage."
Casar said that "giant corporations should not be allowed to jack up your prices or lower your wages using data they got spying on you."
"Whether you know it or not, you may already be getting ripped off by corporations using your personal data to charge you more," he added. "This problem is only going to get worse, and Congress should act before this becomes a full-blown crisis."
Earlier this month, Delta Airlines announced a pilot program using an AI model to charge individual consumers the maximum amount it determines they are willing to pay for plane tickets. Delta has described the change as "a full reengineering of how we price, and how we will be pricing in the future."
Other companies have been accused of using similar forms of "surge pricing."
Uber, which has been suspected of jacking up prices on riders with low cellphone batteries, pioneered the method. Kroger and Walmart have used digital price tags on goods to rapidly change prices, and Kroger also says it is using facial recognition to track customers in order to offer targeted coupons.
Amazon has been accused of setting personalized prices based on customers' location and browsing history, and the Princeton Review has even been caught charging greater amounts for SAT prep services in Asian communities.
Companies also frequently use hidden algorithms based on personal data to pay workers different wages for the same work—an especially pervasive practice in gig economy jobs like rideshare and delivery driving.
A 2024 report by the Roosevelt Institute found that these algorithms were also being applied to nurses, who were offered shifts by an opaque algorithm based on who was willing to work for the lowest pay and a number of other undisclosed factors.
"It is shameful that companies would use our neighbors' sensitive personal information against them to raise prices," said Tlaib. "The idea that employers would leverage surveillance data to exploit a worker in a desperate position and offer them a lower wage is appalling."
The bill still allows companies to change prices for individuals based on certain circumstances. For example, they would still be allowed to offer discounts to certain groups like college students, veterans, and senior citizens or enact loyalty programs.
Likewise, wage-earners would still be allowed to receive overtime pay or bonuses for good work or have their salaries changed to accommodate the cost of living.
The bill instead targets companies that use underhanded and invasive tactics to take advantage of their customers' and employees' desperation.
"This bill draws a clear line in the sand: Companies can offer discounts and fair wages—but not by spying on people," said the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Surveillance-based price gouging and wage setting are exploitative practices that deepen inequality and strip consumers and workers of dignity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Lyft, Uber Drivers Banned From Tennessee Airport After Caravan for Pro-Worker Bill
"Uber, Lyft, and Metro Nashville Airport Authority are engaging in an inappropriate and malicious alliance to destroy dozens of livelihoods," said the Tennessee Drivers Union.
Mar 03, 2025
A Tennessee union announced Monday that 34 Uber and Lyft drivers received messages "informing them that they had been permanently banned" from working at Nashville's airport after joining scores of workers for a peaceful caravan there last month to support a state bill that would impact the companies.
The Tennessee Drivers Union (TDU) said in a statement that some participants, "including those in the passenger's seat not driving," were banned from providing rides at Nashville International Airport following the February 14 action, during which "participating Uber and Lyft drivers had their apps turned off."
In a message to one Uber driver obtained by Common Dreams, the company said that "Nashville International Airport (BNA) notified us that you conducted a pickup on the arrivals level of the terminal. Please note that all pickups must occur in the Uber-designated zone."
"Due to the nature of the incident, the airport is restricting certain driver-partners from accepting rides or dropping passengers off at BNA permanently, pursuant to the terms of Uber's agreement with the airport," Uber continued. "Your account appeared on the list. For that reason, your account has been permanently blocked from operating at BNA. Contact the airport for more information."
A message to a Lyft driver similarly said that "it has been reported that you were conduct detrimental to the orderly operation of the airport. That being said, at the request of the airport, you are prohibited from operating on BNA airport property indefinitely."
"To prevent future suspensions, carefully review the BNA rules and regulations," Lyft added. "Please note, citations may be given if you operate on BNA property during your suspension, and you will be responsible for paying them."
Lyft and Uber have not responded to Common Dreams' requests for comment on the bans, which come as working people face high costs and a billionaire-led assault on the federal government.
TDU said Monday that "Uber, Lyft, and Metro Nashville Airport Authority are engaging in an inappropriate and malicious alliance to destroy dozens of livelihoods. The airport is one of the only opportunities for ride-share drivers to make barely above minimum wage."
"This is an attack against dozens of workers, their families, and their communities," the union continued, noting the millions of dollars in fees the airport gets from drivers and Metro Nashville Airport Authority CEO Doug Kreulen's $600,000 salary.
As Common Dreams reported last year, TDU has sounded the alarm about working conditions for drivers at BNA. Union members kicked off Labor Day weekend in 2024 with a strike to draw attention to demands including a cap on the number of ride-share drivers in the area, an expansion of their airport lot, and clean, working bathrooms on-site.
TDU said Monday that "this retaliation isn't a mistake," arguing that "Uber and Lyft are threatened" by Tennessee House Bill 879/Senate Bill 818, introduced last month by state Rep. Rush Bricken (R-47) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-28).
The bill text begins by highlighting that "Tennessee is the only state in the Southeast that allows out-of-state ride-hail drivers to operate within the state, while Tennessee ride-hail drivers may not work in surrounding states."
"Tennesseans who live and work in our communities, contributing directly to our local economy, struggle to compete with an oversaturated market of out-of-state drivers," the legislation explains, calling for "a basic licensing regime."
The bill would require ride-hail drivers operating in the state to have a "transportation network license," which would require a Tennessee driver's license, or proof of residency in DeSoto County, Mississippi, or Crittenden County, Arkansas.
Companies that allow drivers to provide rides without a Tennessee-issued transportation network license would be hit with a $1,000 penalty per violation and could ultimately be banned from operating in the state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs Call Out Trump AG Pick Pam Bondi's Corporate Lobbying
One democracy advocate urged senators "to carefully scrutinize Bondi's lobbying record and ask what she will do when the interests of her lobbying clients again clash with the Department of Justice she now wants to lead."
Jan 08, 2025
When President-elect Donald Trump in mid-November decided to tap former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to succeed former Congressman Matt Gaetz as his pick for U.S. attorney general, details about Bondi's career, including her time as a corporate lobbyist, began to surface.
On Wednesday, two watchdog groups released reports that delve into Bondi's time as a lobbyist and say that their findings raise concerns about Bondi's fitness to serve as head of the Department of Justice.
The first report was published by the group Public Citizen and looks at federal lobbying disclosures and Foreign Agents Registration Act reports filed by Bondi and Ballard Partners, the lobbying outlet where Bondi worked as a registered federal lobbyist for the past five years. Ballard Partners also employed Susie Wiles, Trump's pick for White House chief of staff.
The other report, from the group Accountable.US, also looks at Bondi's time at Ballard Partners and reports that at least five of Bondi's major lobbying clients have "faced DOJ fines, investigations, or related scrutiny that could pose serious conflicts if she is confirmed as AG." The Public Citizen report also details DOJ scrutiny on some of these companies.
Jon Golinger, the author of the Public Citizen report, wrote in a statement Wednesday that "the U.S. attorney general should be the American people's lawyer—not a lobbyist for big corporations and foreign governments."
"As they evaluate this nomination, we urge senators to carefully scrutinize Bondi's lobbying record and ask what she will do when the interests of her lobbying clients again clash with the Department of Justice she now wants to lead," he added.
According to Public Citizen's report, Bondi was registered to lobby the federal government on behalf of 30 different clients—a list that included the government of Qatar, large corporations, and government contractors—between 2019 and 2024.
The report details that her corporate clients have included the car service Uber; the large private prison company the Geo Group; the waste management company Republic Services; the e-commerce giant Amazon.com; and others, according to the report.
The watchdog found that lobbying reports filed in 2020 reveal that Bondi's firm was paid $120,000 that year by Uber to lobby federal offices on "issues related to sharing economy, surface transportation measures, foreign regulation of data management, regulatory relief, and legislative measures for Covid-19." Offices lobbied included the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of the Treasury, and the Small Business Administration.
Public Citizen reported that Bondi also retained two clients through 2024: the Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Sheriffs Risk Management Fund.
Both reports also detail that many of these companies have come under scrutiny from the agency that Bondi is tapped to lead.
Accountable.US highlights, for example, that in 2023 the DOJ imposed a $25 million civil penalty on Amazon to resolve allegations that its Alexa service illegally retained recordings of children's voices. Another former client, General Motors—who Bondi had as a client in 2020 and 2021—reached a settlement with the DOJ in 2023 to resolve the DOJ's determination that the company imposed a "discriminatory barrier" against lawful permanent residents in its hiring processes.
"Pam Bondi's career lobbying for corporate clients that had run-ins with the DOJ now poses potential conflicts of interest and serious questions whether she will put her personal interests ahead of the American people," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement Wednesday. "People are tired of this same, old insider game."
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
Uber and Lyft Drivers Kick Off Labor Day Weekend With Nashville Strike
"This is something we're doing for all of us," said a Tennessee Drivers Union co-president.
Aug 30, 2024
Drivers for the ride-hailing companies Lyft and Uber are demanding better pay and work conditions by beginning Labor Day weekend with a Friday strike at Nashville International Airport.
"The Tennessee Drivers Union (TDU) has strategically chosen Labor Day weekend to stage its strike," the group said in a statement. "The weekend, which draws thousands of visitors to Nashville's music, entertainment, and tourist venues, highlights the $31 billion industry that relies heavily on the labor of ride-share drivers to generate profits."
In addition to the airport strike, which began at 1:00 pm and was set to continue until at least 7:00 pm, the drivers planned to "lead a caravan through Broadway in downtown Nashville, the center of Tennessee's country music tourism industry."
WPLN reported that "at one point, the airport shut down access to the ride-share lot and refused to allow more drivers to enter and join the strike on Friday."
TDU co-president Kovan said that "this is something we're doing for all of us, not for a single individual, whether you are Uber Black, a regular Uber, or a taxi driver," and "this is gonna be the beginning of a nightmare" for the companies.
The union is calling for meetings with Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell and the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, and the Transportation Licensing Commission to go over demands, based on surveying hundreds of drivers.
The workers said they want an expansion of their airport lot as soon as possible and clean, working bathrooms on-site, a 9:00 pm cutoff for scooters in the city, a cap on the number of ride-share drivers in the area, enforcement of the prohibition on fake taxis, and a "dignified" wage.
"The drivers are doing everything. The gas comes out of the drivers' pay, the repairs of the car because it is a personal car, so if they're giving the driver just 45% of the fare, that leaves everybody struggling," a six-year driver in Nashville, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told The Guardian. "In one hour, I can drive from the airport to downtown or downtown to the airport and get $8 to $10, and then a different hour I can get $17. We need the pay to be consistent."
Citing delays in waiting for fares, receiving tickets without warnings, and inadequate airport bathrooms, the driver said, "That's why we came together."
"With the current economic situation, it is really difficult to meet family needs or what you need to survive. We're trying to fight for our rights," he explained. "We also don't want passengers to be overcharged by Uber. When they take over 50% or 60% of the ride fare, they are counting on us getting tips from riders, but the way we are struggling we understand people are struggling, so not everyone tips."
While Lyft and Uber drivers in Nashville joined delivery service workers for Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Grubhub, Instacart, Postmates, and other companies in a strike on May 1, or International Workers' Day, TDU said Friday that "this ride-share organizing effort is the first of its size to occur in the Deep South, in an explicitly anti-worker state."
A report released last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) details how "for at least the last 40 years, pay and job quality for workers across the South has been inferior compared to other regions—thanks to the racist and anti-worker Southern economic development model."
"In addition to right-to-work laws and the overall opposition from political leaders across the region, workers seeking to organize a union typically face intense opposition from employers," the EPI report says. "Further, because of the political opposition to unions, when workers try to organize, employers know that they can illegally intimidate them, refuse to recognize the union, or negotiate a contract in bad faith—with little to no fear of being held accountable by political leaders."
In April, as Volkswagen employees in Chattanooga began voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers, six Southern Republican governors, including Tennessee's, released a joint statement saying they were "highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the UAW has brought into our states."
The Volkswagen employees ultimately voted to join the UAW. The EPI report emphasizes that "workers must be able to come together in a union to demand fair wages and benefits, a safe working environment, and the ability to have a say about their workplace—even when politicians are intransigent."
TDU co-president Arkangelo on Friday also stressed how important it is to "always stand in solidarity with one another," saying that "if we don't come together as people striving for their rights then we will continue to suffer and [be] robbed by two giants, Uber and Lyft."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Gig Economy Is a Working-Class Nightmare
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.
Aug 05, 2024
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, told CalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawmakers Move to Bar Foreign-Owned Corporations From Spending on US Elections
A new bill "closes a glaring loophole opened up by the Supreme's Court disastrous Citizens United decision which allows U.S. companies primarily owned by foreign entities to funnel money into our elections," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Jul 11, 2024
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced bills to the U.S. Senate and House seeking to ban corporations that are at least 5% foreign-owned from federal elections spending, drawing praise from advocacy groups.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced the Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act to the Senate and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) reintroduced the same bill to the House, with each version gaining co-sponsorship by progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
The legislation would, if enacted, dramatically curtail the power of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized unlimited corporate spending on elections, as the vast majority of major corporations have at least 5% foreign ownership.
"Autocrats and oligarchs across the globe have continually tried to control the outcome of U.S. elections, diluting the voices of citizens and undermining American democracy," Raskin said in a statement. "Our legislation closes a glaring loophole opened up by the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision which allows U.S. companies primarily owned by foreign entities to funnel money into our elections."
BREAKING: @RepRaskin and @SenWhitehouse are re-introducing a bill to stop foreign-influenced corporations from spending money in our elections. pic.twitter.com/hfrlIRHNHM
— Free Speech For People (@FSFP) July 11, 2024
The bill would ban firms with either 5% of foreign ownership in aggregate or 1% ownership by a single foreign entity from electoral spending. The Center for American Progress (CAP) argued for those ownership thresholds in a 2019 report, which found that 98% of S&P 500 firms it analyzed had at least 5% foreign ownership.
Foreign ownership of U.S. corporations comes in many forms. Shell USA is a subsidiary of the oil major headquartered in London, but in other cases foreign investment or ownership is less obvious. Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund has stakes in several U.S. companies including Uber. As of 2020, about 40% of U.S. corporate stock was owned by foreigners, according to CAP.
The Whitehouse and Raskin law would only apply to federal elections, but certain states and cities have started to take similar action. Minnesota passed effectively the same bill—using the 5% and 1% thresholds—last year, in what a state official called the "Mount Rushmore" of electoral reform bills. The cities of Seattle and San Jose have passed similar bills.
Such legislation appears to have strong public support: 82% of likely voters agree that "there should be new limits on U.S. corporations spending money in our elections if the corporations have any foreign ownership," according to a Data for Progress poll released Wednesday.
A number of advocacy groups—including CAP, Common Cause, Free Speech for People, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund—expressed support for the new bill.
Ben Olinsky, a senior vice president at CAP, called it "commonsense legislation" that closes "a dangerous loophole opened by Citizens United and prohibit[s] political spending by foreign-influenced U.S. corporations" in a statement.
Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director at Free Speech for People, said in a statement that the bill "puts our democracy back into the hands of the people where it belongs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy