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
proposition 22
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
'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
'Our System Is Broken,' Say Labor Leaders as California Court Upholds Prop 22
But "the oligarchs are dancing in the streets tonight," said one law professor as talk among worker advocates turned to a likely appeal before the state Supreme Court.
Mar 14, 2023
Labor advocates on Tuesday decried the California appellate court largely upholding Proposition 22, the industry-backed 2020 state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors—which is serving as a template for legislation to deny basic worker rights, benefits, and protections in other states.
The 1st District Court of Appeals on Monday rejected Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch's 2021 ruling that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, a decision viewed at the time as a major blow to gig economy companies such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart whose business models 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 recompensation for business expenses.
"The oligarchs are dancing in the streets tonight," tweeted Veena Dubal, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.
David Huerta, president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—which led a 2021 lawsuit challenging Prop 22 and is expected to appeal Monday's decision to the California Supreme Court—said in a statement that "when gig companies can spend over $200 million to pass a law that violates our state's constitution instead of investing in workers, it's clear that California needs better safeguards for our democracy."
"And now, the fast food industry and oil industry are copying the gig industry's playbook—attempting to boost their profits by hijacking the ballot referendum process and overturning laws that give workers a voice on the job and protect the health of our communities," he added.
Meanwhile, Uber chief legal officer Tony West called the ruling "a victory for app-based workers and the millions of Californians who voted for Prop 22" and claimed that the law gives drivers and couriers "new benefits while preserving the unique flexibility of app-based work."
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.
Had voters rejected Prop 22, gig companies would have been compelled to pay drivers the state minimum wage, and provide healthcare, paid sick leave, overtime pay, and reimbursement for some of the work-related expenses that claim a significant share of drivers' income.
Instead, app-based companies are required to pay frontline workers 120% of the state minimum wage—currently $15.50 per hour—but only while driving and not during the waiting that constitutes a significant amount of their workday. The companies must also offer a health stipend to drivers who work more than 15 hours a week—again, only actual driving hours count—and cover the cost of workplace injuries.
The experience of Daryush Khodadadi-Mobarakeh—who drives 35-40 hours a week for Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash—is typical of many app-based drivers.
According to CalMatters labor reporter Grace Gedye:
Khodadadi-Mobarakeh, who is a leader with the California Gig Workers Union, said his pay has consistently decreased since he began working in 2014, including after Prop 22 went into effect. Now it takes him about 12 hours to make the same amount he used to earn in eight hours before Prop 22, he said. And he doesn't receive the health stipend; he didn't bother trying to sign up, he said, because he gets insurance through his wife and his understanding is that you need to be on your own insurance to get the reimbursement.
A May 2021 Instacart survey found that just 12% of its shoppers—the workers who fill and deliver customer orders—said they worked enough weekly hours to qualify for the health stipend, and of those people, only a quarter applied for and received the benefit.
Prop 22's passage inspired the introduction of similar legislation in other states. In Massachusetts, Lyft gave a record $14.4 million to a coalition established to fund a prospective 2022 state ballot measure to keep ride-hailing and delivery app drivers classified as independent contractors.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judiciary Court ultimately blocked the measure from appearing on the 2022 ballot, arguing that app-based companies went too far by including language meant to protect them from liability when their drivers get in accidents by classifying them as "not an employee or agent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular