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
doordash
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, toldCalMatters 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
DoorDash and Uber Using Customers as Pawns to Punish Workers—Don’t Fall for It
Why Seattle’s City Council should reject calls to repeal or weaken PAY UP! policies protecting app-based workers.
Mar 28, 2024
A mere two months after a series of new protections for certain app-based workers in Seattle took effect, corporations like DoorDash and Uber Eats that had opposed them are trying to destroy them another way: by charging new service fees in order to tank consumer demand and available work.
In doing so, these companies manipulate more than just the market. They orchestrate a political backlash in which they seek consumers and workers to join them in denouncing the law as the culprit and clamoring for its repeal. It’s a tactic from a well-worn playbook.
As Seattle’s City Council recently recognized in passing the minimum pay law, these corporations “often pay app-based workers subminimum wages despite the promise of good wages, flexibility, and accessibility.” Moreover, these digital labor platforms rely disproportionately on Black and Latinx workers to provide the services they offer. Again, the City Council astutely recognized that such workers “face unique barriers to economic security and disproportionately must accept low-wage, unsafe, and insecure working conditions.” Black and Latinx workers are “disproportionately deprived of core employee protections” because the corporations treat them as independent contractors.
The new policies did not require DoorDash, Uber Eats, or any other company to increase service fees instead of ensuring that their workers benefit.
The Seattle City Council wisely sought to tackle and reverse these unfair and inequitable conditions. It declared that: “the City intends to address the inequities of app-based work by ensuring that such workers earn at least the city’s minimum wage plus reasonable expenses, receive transparent information on job offers and pay, and exercise the flexibility promised by network companies.”
Policy changes take time to have impact. Yet the City Council is already facing pressure from these corporations to reverse policies that they committed to just recently.
That’s because these corporations have launched one of their favorite strategies: use their control of the apps to bamboozle consumers, workers, and even elected officials into thinking that workplace protections are too costly and unworkable. In New York City, for example, after a new pay standard for app-based delivery workers took effect, “the companies wasted no time in restricting workers’ access to their platforms and discouraging tips.” Such tactics are designed to undermine support for the new protections.
App-based delivery companies are imitating the corporate tactics Uber and Lyft have used against ridehail drivers. Although Seattle’s city laws can’t touch ridehail driver conditions after the corporations pushed through a problematic preemption policy, recent analysis of that industry shows the need to drill down on the true causes and impacts of price increases. Uber and Lyft raised fares substantially more in Chicago—a city without a pay standard for app-based drivers—than in New York City, which enacted a relatively robust pay standard. If corporate claims that pay increases necessarily make rides prohibitively expensive were true, New York’s riders would have seen the more drastic increases.
Given these predictable tactics, perhaps it is no surprise that Seattle’s app-based workers are still struggling, at the mercy of corporate greed and gamesmanship. They log on and make themselves available for work, only to find there is suddenly little work to be had. It’s easy to see why many would blame the new laws, but the new policies did not require DoorDash, Uber Eats, or any other company to increase service fees instead of ensuring that their workers benefit.
The likely culprit isn’t the new protections, and the City Council should not be fooled. Rather than caving to corporate demands that reduce pay for disproportionately Black and immigrant workers who can least afford it, the council should demand data from the corporations to conduct rigorous, neutral research on its true impacts. For their part, the corporations that insist that new protections are the problem should be eager to turn over the data that will prove their case. But their one-sided and self-interested claims about what their own corporate-backed research shows should be rejected. And without evidence, the council should not fall victim to this play.
All eyes are on Seattle. Elected officials must be clear eyed about what is happening and demand answers. Corporate-sponsored policies that give the companies even more control will only undermine and exacerbate the race and income inequalities that the council sought to address. Rather, councilmembers should look to the Minneapolis example, and reject corporate efforts to scapegoat policies at the expense of the populations those policies were designed to protect and benefit. Stay the course.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular