Rideshare Uber

=see rev drgig econ prop 22
renta-tom huffman naacp<div>=</div><div><div>see dereg pvtiz</div><div>see corruption</div><div>see lobbyist</div><div>
</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/08/corporate-lobbying/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/08/corporate-lobbying/</a></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx twt</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">'Democracy for sale': Analysis ties corporate consolidation to increased lobbying</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Jessica Corbett and Common Dreams August 26, 2021</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">   </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">An analysis published Wednesday about corporate consolidation and political lobbying in the United States found that large mergers—particularly in Big Tech, the pharmaceutical industry, and the oil and gas sector—has increased corporate control of American democracy.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The new research paper from the American Economic Liberties—entitled Project Democracy for Sale: Examining the Effects of Concentration on Lobbying in the United States (pdf)—was authored by Reed Showalter, an attorney and a fellow at the anti-monopoly group.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div>"Concentrated markets are bad for consumers, bad for workers, and bad for innovation. But this research suggests that the concentration crisis in America is even more than a purely economic problem—it's also a democracy problem," Showalter said in a statement.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"We urgently need to understand and contain the power that monopolies have over the rest of us," he asserted. "Lawmakers, enforcers, and leaders cannot afford to ignore the widespread harms from concentration any longer."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report emphasizes that "the bigger companies get, the more powerful they become. A large majority of Americans distrust concentrated economic power, and criticism of the world's largest companies is a regular part of discourse within America's political parties and around the world. Research has borne out the power of money in politics."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Corporate lobbying works," the paper continues. "A number of studies show that the amount spent on lobbying positively impacts a firm's equity returns and market share. Firms that engage in lobbying also appear to have lower effective tax rates than those that do not."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Given those conditions, Showalter examined the U.S. internet, pharmaceutical, and fossil fuel sectors. The paper notes that the first case study "primarily includes digital platform companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix" and "does not extend, for example, to internet providers and other internet infrastructure companies."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">The researcher found "a noteworthy relationship" between consolidation and political activity. Though the data is a bit limited—which the paper acknowledges, urging some degree of caution—it shows that "in all three industries, concentration appears to predict elevated lobbying spending."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to Showalter:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>In the oil and gas industry as well as among internet companies, the more market power a corporation acquires, the more it lobbies. In the pharmaceutical industry, the data is even more compelling. When pharmaceutical companies gained market power, they lobbied more, and when they lost market power, they lobbied less. One tentative conclusion from this analysis is that monopolies seek to acquire political power, whereas competitive businesses focus on competing with each other instead of dominating public rule-making bodies.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"In short, the results of this report suggest that not only is big business good at lobbying, but that bigger business leads to more lobbying," the paper says. "That means monopoly is a threat to representative democracy—and that protecting our democracy requires effective antitrust."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report also addresses the political implications of Showalter's findings—specifically, the suggestion that the negative impacts of industry concentration "cannot be understood merely through the consumer welfare lens" and using that standard to govern antitrust "allows practitioners in the field to ignore non-price effects" of companies consolidating.</div><div>
</div><div>The new research "casts doubt on pure regulatory solutions that do not reduce concentration, since more lobbying can mitigate regulatory action or even turn regulatory choices into mechanisms to protect entrenched incumbents," the paper says. "If concentration begets political influence, then even a hypothetically economically efficient monopoly offering low consumer prices can still be an undemocratic usurper of political power."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In other words, according to the report, "stronger antitrust premised on reducing corporate concentration should be understood not just as a mechanism to address market power problems, but as an anti-corruption measure in itself."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Concluding that "corporate concentration and antidemocratic political influence go hand in hand," Showalter urges U.S. policymakers to recognize the limits of the consumer welfare standard when creating and implementing new regulations for major industries.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The antitrust laws were a response to rising economic concentration, and the laws' framers recognized that concentrated economic power can poison our democracy," he writes. "This article is a starting point but hopefully also a reminder that antitrust is equipped and designed to grapple with the political ramifications of economic concentration. Those crafting and enforcing the doctrine should feel empowered to step into the shoes they were meant to fill."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The New York Times' "DealBook" newsletter noted Showalter's ties to President Joe Biden:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Showalter's report begins with an interesting acknowledgment, thanking Tim Wu, a former Columbia law professor who is now a technology and competition policy adviser at the White House. What's more, Showalter works at the law firm founded by Jonathan Kanter, whom President Biden recently nominated to lead the Justice Department's antitrust division. Showalter said that Kanter did not discuss the report with him and that his work as a fellow was separate from his day job. But he acknowledged more generally that the expansive approach to antitrust that his report advocated appeared to be ascendant in the halls of power.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report comes as Congress is considering a package of antitrust bills advanced by the House Judiciary Committee in late June. Demand Progress executive director David Segal pointed out at the time that "many members are reciting Big Tech's talking points and pushing their amendments. This is why it is necessary that Congress act to break these companies up and diminish their power of speech, the economy, and our government."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"No matter what does or doesn't emerge from Congress in the coming weeks or months, it is vital that the Biden administration use existing tools to rein in the power of these monopolies," he added, calling Lina Khan, the president's pick to chair the Federal Trade Commission, "a tremendous step in this direction" and urging more similar actions that prioritize the public interest.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Historian on the implications of corporate imperialism: Here's what ... ›</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">55 corporations paying no federal tax last year spent $450 million on ... ›</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to ... ›</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy - The ... ›</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How And Why Corporate Lobbying Will Continue To Matter During ... ›</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The truth about lobbying: 10 ways big business controls government ... ›</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/12/lyft-and-uber-are-letting-christian-drivers-missionize-riders-against-their-will-complaint-2658826834/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/12/lyft-and-uber-are-letting-christian-drivers-missionize-riders-against-their-will-complaint-2658826834/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">yikes</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/uber/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/uber/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...Flourish hierarchy chart</div>The biggest spending committee so far, Nurses and Educators for Georgette Gomez for Assembly 2022, is largely funded by the California Labor Federation and the Service Employees International Union.
On the other side, the biggest Alvarez backer is Keeping Californians Working, a committee that is funded by a wide variety of business interests. In early March, it received a $250,000 contribution from Uber Innovation political action committee. Uber is no stranger to California politics. In 2020, the company spent nearly $60 million from its corporate treasury to promote Proposition 22, a successful ballot measure to overturn a state law authored by Gonzalez that required gig companies to treat their employees as employees, not independent contractors. The company has also made direct contributions to candidates. But Uber Innovation is a new political endeavor launched last year by the company with the purpose of spending more on independent expenditures.The state Chamber of Commerce sponsors two of the other bigger committees boosting Alvarez. Records show that both have raised little this year, largely drawing on funds received over the last two major elections cycles from the likes of Uber, Lyft, the San Diego-based energy company Sempra and tobacco giant Philip Morris. This year, the two committees only received a single contribution, a $15,000 cash infusion from Amazon.
The fourth biggest spending committee in the race, and certainly the most mysterious one, is called San Diego Families Opposing Georgette Gomez. Major funders to the committee are neither families nor from San Diego. They include JobsPAC, one of the chamber-affiliated committees; Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy, another business-funded committee and a regular funder of the campaigns of moderate Democrats; a self-described real estate developer in southeast Los Angeles County who has been fined twice by the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency while managing the funds of committees in other southern California races; and the former mayor of West Covina. ...<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">prop 22 ~ by ct CA 821?</div><div><div>=</div><div>1220 merc</div><div>
</div><div><div>
</div><div>p.A6</div><div>Political influence</div><div>End campaign spending by foreign-influenced U.S. firms </div><div>By Michael Sozan</div><div>
</div><div>Although the aftermath of the presidential election has dominated headlines since Election Day, California saw a development that strikes at the heart of its own self-governance. Foreign-influenced U.S. corporations spent tens of millions of dollars to help pass Proposition 22, invalidating a California law and allowing the companies to classify their workers as contractors instead of employees.</div><div>
</div><div>One of these corporations - Uber - is partially owned and controlled by the government of Saudi Arabia. Another corporation - Lyft - is partially owned by a Chinese conglomerate. This means that Saudi Arabian and Chinese investors played a role - at least indirectly - in determining the fate of important California policy. The time has come for state and federal leaders to pass common-sense laws to stop foreign influence in our elections via American corporations.</div><div>
</div><div>Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its disastrous ruling in Citizens United, giving corporations the right to unlimited political spending. Since then, independent groups unrelated to political parties have poured more than $7 billion into federal elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. This includes secret "dark money" that cannot be traced to its source and is often routed through so-called nonprofit organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the NRA, which get large contributions from corporations. More than $750 million of dark money was spent in the 2020 election alone.</div><div>
</div><div>Foreign-influenced U.S. companies allow a pathway for foreign entities to achieve, either directly or indirectly, what they are barred from doing as governments or individuals: spend money in U.S. elections.</div><div>
</div><div>Setting their sights on California in 2020, Uber and Lyft joined forces with DoorDash, Instacart, Uber-owned Postmates and others to devote a staggering $203 million to support Prop. 22. This spending spree made Prop. 22 the most expensive ballot measure in California's history.</div><div>
</div><div>This is part of a larger trend that Californians have witnessed. First, the rise of super PACs and a deluge of corporate and secret political spending, which have made politicians less accountable to everyday voters. Second, a political system further warped by foreign interference in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, as well as President Donald Trump's unconstitutional solicitation of foreign assistance for his failed reelection.</div><div>
</div><div>Foreign investment in our economy is not always bad. In fact, approximately 35% of all U.S. stock is now owned by foreigners. Yet challenges arise because foreign investors' interests can diverge from Americans' interests.</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps it's not surprising that ExxonMobil's CEO once remarked, "I'm not a U.S. company and I don't make decisions based on what's good for the U.S." If that is the case, ExxonMobil and foreign-influenced companies like it should not be permitted to spend political dollars to sway U.S. elections.</div><div>
</div><div>The good news is that a popular solution exists that is gaining momentum: a ban on election-related spending by foreigninfluenced U.S. corporations. For example, if a single foreign entity (government, company or person) owns more than 1% of a U.S. company, that company would be prohibited from spending money in elections. Often, investors who own at least 1% of a major corporation are among the largest shareholders, with at least tens of millions of dollars of stock. The prohibition would also apply if a group of foreign entities owns at least 5% of a U.S. company. Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations exceed the 5% threshold, although many smaller companies do not.</div><div>
</div><div>California should follow the lead of federal, state and local lawmakers to enact foreign ownership thresholds. Reps. Ja- mie Raskin, D-Md., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., filed federal legislation that would accomplish this.</div><div>
</div><div>Similar legislation is pending in several states, such as New York and Maryland.</div><div>
</div><div>And a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, Ellen L. Weintraub, has led a sustained quest to update regulations to include this policy solution.</div><div>
</div><div>Californians - especially those in marginalized communities - know that their preferred candidates or policies cannot be accurately reflected when elections are heavily influenced by runaway corporate spending and foreign investors to whom CEOs owe a fiduciary duty.</div><div>
</div><div>In order to help strengthen our democracy and promote economic patriotism, it is time to prohibit political spending by foreign-influenced U.S. corporations. Michael Sozan is a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div><div>=</div></div><div>=</div><div>https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/8/prop_22_uber_lyft_gig_workers</div><div>...</div><div> GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we look now at how ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory against worker rights in the election with the passage of Prop 22 in California, and how they’re now pushing similar measures in other states.During the campaign to pass Prop 22, Uber and Lyft spent a record-setting $205 million to bombard voters and their own workers with misleading advertisements and messages that promised minimum wage, healthcare and protections that are typically consistent with a full-time job. One ad appropriated the words of the legendary poet Maya Angelou as it showed images of Black and Brown workers getting ready for their morning drive to pick up passengers.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); letter-spacing: -0.2px;">MAYA ANGELOU: Lift up your eyes upon This day breaking for you. Give birth again To the dream.</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); letter-spacing: -0.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Women, children, men, Take it into the palms of your hands, Mold it into the shape of your most Private need. Sculpt it into The image of your most public self. Lift up your hearts Each new hour holds new chances For a new beginning.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: One survey of California voters who voted yes to Prop 22 showed 40% thought they were supporting gig workers’ ability to earn a living wage. But the measure will actually stop gig workers from being eligible for job protections and prevent them from accessing the benefits of being on the payroll, such as contributions for Social Security and Medicare benefits and overtime pay. Prop 22 overrides AB 5, a major labor law passed in California in 2019 that extended employee classification to gig workers. Now critics worry the proposition could have dire implications for labor rights across the country.The proposition was also backed by DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which Uber now owns. It was also pushed by Tony West, the brother-in-law of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who is Uber’s chief legal officer.For more, we go to California. In Oakland, we’re joined by Cherri Murphy. She is a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising. She wrote a piece guk for The Guardian headlined “Uber bought itself a law. Here’s why that’s dangerous for struggling drivers like me.”And Veena Dubal joins us, professor of law at University of California, Hastings, who writes extensively about the gig economy and says, during the campaign for Prop 22, she was one of many critics subjected to online and offline attacks, including a massive Public Records Act request for her emails and text messages from one of the campaign’s PR firms.We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Cherri Murphy, let’s begin with you. You’re a Lyft driver for a few years. This was billed as a way to bring financial security to people like you. Is it financial security that you’re in fact getting, or do you feel that this is subverting your ability to make a living and be secure?CHERRI MURPHY: Amy, thanks for having me.As you mentioned, along with Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and Postmates, these app companies spent more than over $200 million, some say $220 million — the most spent in any ballot campaign in U.S. history — to purchase Proposition 22 in California. And with its passage, the law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state, in the middle of a pandemic and recession. And because of that, we will be afforded no paid sick leave, no family leave, no workmen’s compensation, no unemployment insurance, no overtime, and no protective equipment in the middle of a pandemic. Most of the drivers are communities of color. Fifty-six percent of them are immigrants. No protection from discrimination based on immigration status or historical traits to race.JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cherri Murphy, what’s your response to what these companies are constantly promoting in their advertisements, that these kinds of jobs offer a freedom and flexibility that normal workers would not be able to have, a way to realize your economic dreams?CHERRI MURPHY: So, these billion-dollar corporations can afford to provide workers flexibility and benefits, like I mentioned, unemployment insurance. And there is nothing in the law that is taking away the drivers’ flexibility. But during the campaign, it was a major threat from these companies, because they know that it scared drivers. We had a UC Berkeley economics professor, in fact, say that these companies would still need the type of flexibility considering. And there’s nothing flexible about cutting wages and healthcares for workers or weakening safety regulations or chipping away workers’ rights, or even putting drivers and riders at risk. These companies fought hard and ruthlessly to get here.In your show, you mentioned that in the wake of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, these companies included various platitudes about their commitment to racial justice in the Black community. And many of us know that their lip service was in support of Black lives, and complete of hollow words by well-paid public relations teams and absent of any real change. And we rejected these attempts, because we know that racial justice is economic justice, and we saw this as an attempt to dodge their responsibility for the exploitation of Black and Brown workers every day. Many of us know that this fight is not only about police killings and terror, but it’s about every institution that exploits and abuses Black and Brown people. And when it comes to Lyft and Uber and their corporate cronies, they’re experts.JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to, if possible, bring in Veena Dubal, the professor of law at the University of California, Hastings. I wanted to ask you about the role of these corporate Democrats with some of these key gig economy firms. I think of, for instance, David Plouffe, who used to be one of Obama’s closest friends and aides, who first went to work for Uber, then eventually left Uber and went to work for Mark Zuckerberg’s charity. You also had Anthony Foxx, the former Obama secretary of transportation, who became a top official at Lyft. There’s Matthew Wing, who was a spokesman for Andrew Cuomo, who also became the spokesman for Uber. All of these corporate Democrats’ top aides going to work for these firms in the gig economy.VEENA DUBAL: Yeah. It’s striking that the law that is probably the most dangerous law to workers that we’ve seen since Taft-Hartley, that it was architected and heralded by corporate Democrats and not Republicans. It is a far-right law. The way that it was passed was anti-democratic. It is extremely, extremely dangerous to the future, poses an extreme danger to American workers. And yet, you are exactly right that the people behind it, including Tony West, who is now being potentially considered for attorney general, were corporate Democrats.AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk, Professor Dubal, about what you think was most misleading about this campaign? I mean, 58% of Californians voted — or, of those who voted, voted for it.VEENA DUBAL: Yeah.AMY GOODMAN: And talk about it being used as a model. You see this as one of the most serious attacks on labor in all of your studying of labor law in the United States.VEENA DUBAL: Yes. So, the reason that it is such a huge attack on labor is because it dismantles — it’s this corporate fantasy that they’ve been trying to accomplish for the past century. It dismantles all of the New Deal protections. Workers no longer have access to a minimum wage, to overtime compensation, to unemployment insurance, to workers’ compensation, to all the things that we know — you know, the very limited protections that working people have in the United States. Those are all completely gone. And these are the workers who most need those basic protections, as Cherri articulated. These are low-wage, mostly people of color workers.During the campaign — and I should say, these $200 million, they were spent on a variety of things, but they were mostly spent on bombarding the California electorate, or the voters of California, with misleading advertising on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, on — you know, even when you were searching on Google, sort of the ad that popped up — emails, in-app messages. I mean, just constant bombarding, bombardment of messaging, that was just inaccurate. In California, it is legal to be misleading in political advertisements.And probably the most misleading thing that I saw was that the advertisements alleged that workers would be making a minimum wage. And that is the most important thing for your viewers and listeners to understand about Prop 22 and the danger that it poses, is that it takes away access to a time-based minimum wage, so people are no longer getting paid for all the time that they work. They are only getting paid when they have an assignment. So, all of the risks and liabilities traditionally associated with doing business are now on the workers themselves. Drivers like Cherri cannot, therefore, predict how much they will make in a given day or a given week. It is at the whim and whimsy of both demand and the corporations themselves.And if that spreads to other sectors, we are going to face increasing inequality, increasing precarity, the growth of the contingent workforce. It is going to make it extremely, extremely difficult for working families to survive, to put food on the table. And, you know, as we all are anticipating, we may be facing a big economic depression in the coming years. And this is the absolute worst time for workers to not have access to just that very basic protection that we’ve come to understand is a limited right that Americans have, that’s just a time-based minimum wage.JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cherri, I’m wondering if you could talk about the experiences, especially during the pandemic, of Uber or Lyft drivers and others in the gig economy?CHERRI MURPHY: Yeah, certainly. So, what I know is, is that my views of Lyft were shifting prior to COVID-19. The past three years, Lyft has been my primary source of income, and I’ve driven over 12,000 rides. And over the years, as the numbers of bonuses decreased while the demands to complete rides increased, making major cuts to take-home pay, it was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain a living. And signs of a good deal, with that so-called flexibility, became painfully clear. And my views of Lyft were shifting.And so, COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement have pulled back the curtain and showed Americans diseases for which there still is no vaccine. And I know about COVID-19. While we were seeking solace in our troubled land of Lyft and Uber, were nowhere to be found. Drivers attempted to secure masks, hand sanitizers, sick time off, unemployment insurance and other protective measures, and we found obstacles and lack of transparency processes. I couldn’t even find a place that was open at the time. So I know what it’s like to work for Lyft and Uber and these corporate greed app-based companies.I’ve worked long hours with no guaranteed wage, no work breaks, no restroom facilities, no overtime, no protective equipment, no paid sick time. I know what it’s like to always have the looming threat of an accident with no coverage, or a deactivation based on retaliation or discrimination, with no protections, no remedies in place. I know what it’s like to be in the middle of a pandemic now, when you have your employer who’s denying you unemployment insurance in the middle of a pandemic. I know what it’s like to have your company threaten to shut down because they can’t get what they want. There are stories of drivers who have lost their lives in an effort to pay their bills. There are stories of drivers who were symptomatic of the virus but yet continued to drive for fear of financial ruin.AMY GOODMAN: Cherri , Prop 22 eliminates required sexual harassment training and Uber and Lyft to investigate customers’ and drivers’ harassment claims?CHERRI MURPHY: Yes, it does. It eliminates required sexual harassment training, as well as the obligations on Uber and Lyft to investigate both customers’ and drivers’ harassment claims. And a lot of us know that there are at least 6,000 claims for 2017 and 2018 that went untouched. What’s even more disturbing, as Veena mentioned, is that these companies are promising to roll out this model nationwide, foretelling a grim future for gig workers across this country.JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Veena Dubal, about this effort to roll it out nationwide, there has been discussion of trying to get a federal law passed. Could you talk about that?VEENA DUBAL: Yeah, they have announced that they are ready and willing to take this really dangerous law to the federal level. They are already trying to replicate it in a number of states, including New York state. They have — rolling out advertisements, similarly misleading advertisements to the campaign in California. And, you know, over the past — since Lyft hit the streets of San Francisco in 2012, 2013, over the past seven years, almost a decade, they have — at the company’s behest, a number of bills have been written, and even introduced, to do exactly what Prop 22 does, which is create a substandard category of worker under the U.S. law.And I think they think they have a blueprint now. They got this passed in California. And as we all know, what happens in California tends to spread all over the country and even the world. And so, I think that we are going to see a flood of misinformation in states and on the federal level about what gig work is, the kinds of benefits supposedly that it offers. We’re going to hear a lot of dishonest representations of what freedom and flexibility it offers and how people need this work.And it’s so important for people to understand, for voters, for Americans to understand, that this law takes away all of the hard-won protections that workers have. We are at a point in technology and history where we should be expanding workers’ rights. And instead, this law has completely stripped them away.AMY GOODMAN: And, Veena Dubal, in just 30 seconds, if you can explain what happened to you as you campaigned against Prop 22, the mass investigation that was done of you?VEENA DUBAL: Yeah. I had extreme forms of harassment from the PR campaign, which is — again, this proposition, it passed as a result of disinformation and harassment. It was very Trumpian in that sense. I got massive text and email Public Records Act requests. I was constantly harassed online and offline. Someone put my home address up on Twitter. I was doxxed. It was a lot of misinformation on the right-wing blogosphere. It was really something. You know, they were scared of what I had to say. And I will continue to say it, because if this spreads past California, we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing.</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>PROP 22</div><div><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/bret-baier/foxs-special-report-airs-biased-segment-shill-californias-prop-22">https://www.mediamatters.org/bret-baier/foxs-special-report-airs-biased-segment-shill-californias-prop-22</a></div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/latest-election-stunt-proves-uber-and-lyft-are-their-own-worst-political-enemies/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/latest-election-stunt-proves-uber-and-lyft-are-their-own-worst-political-enemies/</a></div><div>
</div><div>Like so much about politics today, the debate around Uber and Lyft's Proposition 22 in California has quickly become polarized. Simplistic media narratives like "<a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/dan-walters/2020/08/california-uber-lyft-campaign-proposition-22/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Silicon Valley versus labor unions</a>," or Uber's self-serving argument that its drivers prefer flexibility over security, leave voters <a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4cd2r446" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">confused and torn</a>.</div>But there is a more complex historical reality lurking beneath the headlines. Yes, the future of work is changing, and the labor laws must adapt, as the CEOs of Uber and Lyft asserted recently in <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-Forum-Uber-Lyft-ready-to-do-our-part-for-13969843.php" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">a joint op-ed</a>. Yet these companies have consistently missed numerous opportunities to act as good-faith partners for their drivers, and for society in general.I have personally witnessed these companies' failings. After my book <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Raw-Deal-Capitalism-Screwing-American/dp/1250071585/?tag=alternorg08-20" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Raw Deal: How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers</a> was published, I was asked to a meeting with high-level Uber representatives. Previously, I had also been part of a meeting with Lyft leaders. A central part of these discussions was my proposal calling for a "<a href="https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/4395-new-economy-new-social-contract/New%20Economy,%20Social%20Contract_UpdatedFinal.34c973248e6946d0af17116fbd6bb79e.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">portable safety net</a>" for their drivers, and for other types of freelance workers.With a portable safety net, each worker would have an <a href="https://www.newamerica.org/economic-growth/new-economy-new-social-contract/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Individual Security Account</a> into which any business that hires that worker would contribute an amount pro-rated to the number of hours worked for that business. Those funds then would be used by that worker to pay for her or his safety net needs, such as health care, Social Security, sick leave, and injured worker or unemployment compensation. Instead of pitting flexibility against security, a portable safety net would allow not only flexible work, but also the economic security that workers and their families need.A number of countries already do something like this, and former President Barack Obama endorsed my idea in his <a href="https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/momentum-grows-portable-benefits/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">2016 State of the Union address</a>. A <a href="https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/common-ground-for-independent-workers-83f3fbcf548f#.2xtlaqc6k" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">statement of principles</a> was signed by about <a href="https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/coalition-of-start-ups-and-labor-call-for-rethinking-of-worker-policies" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">40 business, government, labor and NGO leaders</a>—including the president and CEO of Lyft, <a href="https://wtfeconomy.com/common-ground-for-independent-workers-83f3fbcf548f" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">John Zimmer and Logan Green</a>—calling for a portable safety net as a foundation for the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-demand-workers-need-portable-benefits-tech-and-labor-leaders-say-1447199167" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">future of work in the 21st-century economy</a>. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has also <a href="https://ubernewsroomapi.10upcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Portable-Benefits-Principles-FINAL.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">called</a> for <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568af8d2d82d5e25a610856b/t/58efde5c9f7456cb9bf12e2a/1492115036518/PolicyBriefPortableBenefits041317.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">enacting a portable safety net</a> plan.It seemed like this had the makings of a win-win solution. But when legislative bills were introduced for a portable safety net in the states of Washington, New York and New Jersey, Uber and Lyft came to the bargaining table offering pocket change. Rather than contributing 20 percent of a worker's wage that is necessary to fund an adequate safety net, Uber and Lyft offered <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/it-s-a-new-game-for-uber-drivers-if-new-york-passes-this-law" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">to contribute 2.5 percent</a>. And they wanted their contributions <a href="https://www.onlabor.org/a-blueprint-for-progressive-federalism-washington-states-portable-benefits-bill/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">to be voluntary</a>. In all three states, the legislation died because these billion-dollar companies frittered away real opportunities.When California legislation was proposed, Uber and Lyft once again countered with a paltry portable benefits package. With no serious negotiating partner on the other side, the California legislature overwhelmingly passed Assembly Bill 5 to reclassify drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. Now it's the law, but Uber and Lyft have refused to implement it. This has resulted in multiple lawsuits and legal judgments against these renegade companies. One study found that if their drivers had been classified as employees in the last five years, Uber and Lyft would have paid <a href="https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/press-release-what-would-uber-and-lyft-owe-to-the-state-unemployment-insurance-fund/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">more than $400 million</a> into California's unemployment insurance fund. Instead, California taxpayers have footed the bill for the significant wage and benefit gaps created by these companies and their crummy gig jobs.These bitter losses prompted Uber and Lyft to join with DoorDash and Instacart to spend more than $184 million—the highest amount for a ballot proposition in California history—to try to pass Proposition 22.A Broken Business ModelOne can't help but wonder why these multibillion-dollar companies, who can dig deep into their piggy banks to spend on this ruinous ballot measure but not on their drivers, consistently come to the bargaining table offering pocket change. Well, there's more to this story.It turns out that, despite how badly they underpay and mistreat their drivers, Uber and Lyft are still in huge financial trouble. They have been losing billions of dollars every year, even as their stocks have collapsed. Profit margins are inherently low in the taxi business, and their predatory business model massively <a href="https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">subsidizes more than half the cost</a> of each and every ride in their bid to boost market share and undercut the competition. As a result, traditional taxi companies and livery drivers have been pushed to the desperate edge of bankruptcy, and airport shuttle companies have been driven out of business.Public transportation has also been damaged. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, public transit ridership in most major cities had declined, as commuters opted for half-priced Uber and Lyft rides over the mass ridership experience. One of the <a href="https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2752" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">most ambitious studies of ridesharing impacts</a>, conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, found that ridesharing results in a dramatic rise in the <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/10/the-ride-hailing-effect-more-cars-more-trips-more-miles/542592/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">number of trips made and miles driven</a> in an automobile, as well as a pronounced reduction in the use of mass transit. All of that contributes greatly to increases in traffic congestion and carbon emissions.Certainly, for the small minority of people who use Uber and Lyft's subsidized rides, most of them younger, college-educated, better-off Americans (their use is "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-12/uber-and-lyft-mean-more-congestion-trips-and-miles" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">double the rate</a> of less-educated, lower-income" people), this transportation option has been helpful. But for the vast majority who do not use these companies' services, and who ride on the bus or drive personal vehicles, stuck in Uber-congested traffic, ride-hailing's legacy has been decidedly negative. In short, ride-hailing has been bad for most ride-hailing drivers, and bad for congestion and traffic flow, and bad for public transportation.So what are these companies offering with Proposition 22? Yet another miserly version of a portable safety net. For example, the value of Proposition 22's offered health benefit is <a href="https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-effects-of-proposition-22-on-driver-earnings-response-to-a-lyft-funded-report-by-dr-christopher-thornberg/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">about $1.20 an hour</a>—but that's well below the value of benefits mandated for employees under state and federal laws (which is more like $4 to $6 per hour, depending on the occupation). And many drivers would not be able to afford their share of the health care premiums, which would range from 20 to 60 percent.Prop 22 also will not likely offer higher wages because of a complex formula that will be used to determine "minimum wage." A study by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center found that if Proposition 22 passes, many drivers could earn <a href="https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-effects-of-proposition-22-on-driver-earnings-response-to-a-lyft-funded-report-by-dr-christopher-thornberg/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">as little as $5.64 an hour</a> once their considerable driving expenses are subtracted, which is not even half of California's minimum wage of $12 per hour.None of Prop 22's offerings come close to what drivers will receive if voters reject it and drivers remain regular employees instead of independent contractors. Even worse, Proposition 22 would lock in these serf-like conditions, since it will require an unprecedented 88 percent vote by the state legislature and the governor's signature to change it.Uber and Lyft are their own worst enemies. They entered the taxi business 10 years ago, breaking every law in the books, motivated by the Silicon Valley philosophy of "move fast and break things." Well, they broke it, and now they can't figure out how to fix it.As California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/california-ag-court-saw-uber-and-lyfts-bogus-argument-on-drivers.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">said</a>, "Any business model that relies on short-changing workers in order to make it probably shouldn't be anywhere, whether California or otherwise." Ride-hailing has been popular and seemingly has potential, but the public must insist that these companies not profit by shifting all the risk onto their workers and hurting the environment. The vote over Prop 22 is about making a stand for the type of jobs and businesses Californians want to see in their Golden State.Steven Hill (<a href="https://www.steven-hill.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">www.Steven-Hill.com</a>) is the author of <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Raw-Deal-Capitalism-Screwing-American/dp/1250071585/?tag=alternorg08-20" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Raw Deal: How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers</a> and <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Expand-Social-Security-Now-Retirement/dp/0807028436/?tag=alternorg08-20" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve</a>.This article was produced by <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/economy-for-all/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Economy for All</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.<div>=</div>=an 1020<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/expert-uber-funded-ballot-measure-in-california-would-create-permanent-underclass-of-workers/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/expert-uber-funded-ballot-measure-in-california-would-create-permanent-underclass-of-workers/</a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx (bad code?)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Expert: Uber-funded ballot measure in California would create 'permanent underclass of workers'</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Angry young man driver, pissed off shaking hands and shrugging shoulders, has problems with the car. Displeased perplexed guy has a road accident. Traffic jam rush hour.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Nicole Karlis October 03, 2020</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">   </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Those who took high school civics may recall that our democracies lives on fractions. A majority vote — one-half plus one — is what it takes to pass a bill in most legislative bodies. The constitution requires a "supermajority," meaning two-thirds of a governing body, for only the most important and crucial matters: to override a presidential veto, or remove an officer via impeachment, say.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If two-thirds seems like a high threshold for a congressional body, what about seven-eighths? That's the super-duper-majority that would be required to overturn Proposition 22 — the Uber- and Lyft-funded ballot measure that will appear on California ballots this November — should it pass this fall.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">You read that right: the astroturf ballot measure written by some of Silicon Valley's biggest corporations, which is written to keep these companies' contractors from achieving benefits or a stable, salaried job, would require a seven-eighths majority of state legislators in both state chambers in order to be overturned — such a difficult threshold to meet that experts say it would be effectively permanent.</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">The origin of Proposition 22</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">It all goes back to California's Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The impetus for AB5 was to make gig economy work into more stable and reliable work, and reduce worker exploitation; currently, driver-contractors like those who work for Uber or Lyft are not guaranteed health care of any other benefits if they work more than 40 hours a week, as they are legally contractors rather than employees.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Likewise, such drivers and deliverypersons often make less than minimum wage after their own expenses are accounted for. AB5, which put into place a "test" to determine whether someone is a contractor or employee, was designed to lift these kinds of workers out of poverty.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">Yet since AB5 passed through California's state legislature, Uber and Lyft have refused to comply; instead, they chose to pour over $180 million into the astroturf campaign for Proposition 22. Similar gig worker-reliant companies have chipped into the campaign, too. DoorDash has donated $47.5 million; Instacart has donated $27.5 million, and Postmates has contributed a little over $10 million.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">According to Ballotpedia, Proposition 22 is the most expensive ballot measure contest in California, and the United States — and if it passes, it will set an example for the corporations that funded it that they could use as a model in other states. Indeed, the companies are funneling so much money into this campaign because there's a lot at stake. For example, Los Angeles and San Francisco are two of the five largest markets for Uber, which has stated in financial disclosures that new regulations in major metro areas could negatively affect their financials. Many of their workers have criticized these companies for pouring so much money into a campaign as they struggle to receive basic support, like personal protective equipment and hand sanitizer, from their employers during the pandemic.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Proposition 22 is more than just a determination of classification, though. Labor experts fear it will be a major setback for labor rights, the community at large, and that it will send the wrong signal to other states who have been exploring ways to regulate these companies.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"They have basically operated as though the law does not apply to them," Ken Jacobs, the chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, told Salon. "And I think that signals to other states around the country, 'Don't try to enforce your laws because we have the political power and resources to defeat you if you do.'"</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We spoke to experts about the fine print of Proposition 22, and how it will affect Uber and Lyft drivers in the state of California if passed.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1. Very few drivers will actually qualify for health insurance benefits</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Uber and Lyft have positioned Proposition 22 as a "third way" solution to provide more benefits to drivers. The campaign states on its website that voting "yes" on Proposition 22 will provide drivers with "new benefits and protections in these tough economic times including a minimum earnings guarantee, access to health care benefits and insurance against illnesses and injuries acquired on the job."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Yet this depends on a driver's "engaged time," according to the proposition, meaning the time between accepting a ride and completing the ride. This doesn't factor the time a driver is waiting in between drives. For drivers who average 25 hour per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, Uber and Lyft will provide "subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered (CC) premium for each month." For those who average between 15 and 25 hours of "engaged time" each quarter, the companies will provide healthcare subsidies equal to 41 percent the average CC premium for each month.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"They purport to have a healthcare reimbursement piece here, but it's very weak and very few drivers would qualify, or at least qualify for the larger amount of it," Jacobs said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Rey Fuentes, Skadden Fellow at the Partnership for Working Families, told Salon that drivers would essentially have to drive 40 hours a week to get that 25 hours of engaged time to qualify for the best offer. In a report Fuentes co-authored, he notes a second way in which drivers will be essentially cheated of quality healthcare options. "By using the definitions section to ensure that the maximum benefit is actually 82 percent of an average premium payment for the lowest-cost healthcare plan on the Covered California insurance exchange, not a worker's actual premium expenses," the report states.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">2. Drivers won't be guaranteed paid leave or paid sick days</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Under the current California state and federal law, app-based workers are required to have a minimum of eight weeks of paid family leave, and three days of paid leave for illness or care of a family member. None of this is part of Proposition 22. In the report Fuentes co-authored, the researchers call this omission "glaring," especially in the pandemic, in which many rideshare and delivery drivers are considered to be "essential workers."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Although some app-based companies have created limited sick leave benefits to respond to this crisis, these plans are voluntary and temporary, and cannot be added to this initiative before voters can weigh in on the ballot measure," the authors write.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fuentes says there are many drivers who drive to make money to help support a sick family member.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"They're doing it because they're caring for individuals who have illnesses and families, or they have an illness themselves that they can't have traditional employment because your work arrangements are precarious," Fuentes said. "That's why it's actually more important that those workers get things like paid sick leave or paid family leave."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Since drivers have to work at least 40 hours a week to reach 25 hours of "engaged time," taking a vacation will likely affect whether they qualify for healthcare benefits.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">3. Drivers won't be able to unionize</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">This year, more drivers have been organizing to protest unfair labor practices and the lack of protections during the pandemic. However, if Proposition 22 passes, drivers won't be able to unionize and leverage the power of collective bargaining. Under federal law, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), app-based drivers are said to lack benefits of collective bargaining because they're more like "entrepreneurs," legally speaking. While the legality of this is disputed by various labor organizations, Fuentes said this leaves an opening for states to "establish a separate organizing statute that gives workers the lawful ability to form a union under state law."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The ballot initiative, however, would prevent the state legislature from ever considering a collective bargaining regime unless it gets a 7/8ths vote of the state legislature, which is an impossible threshold," Fuentes said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">4. Proposition 22 reverses key worker benefit if there's a car accident</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">"From a driver's perspective this is actually one of the things we think is so harmful about the ballot initiatives," Fuentes said. "California provides workers compensation protection to drivers injured on the job, and that benefit is covered through what is called no-fault coverage."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Even if they are at fault for the accident or contributed to it, all workers in California are covered by the workers compensation statute. Fuentes said Proposition 22 "reverses that."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"This suggests to us very clearly that workers could be denied coverage if they're even partially at fault, which is not something that should ever happen with a workers compensation scheme," Fuentes said. "And the broader part is that workers who are seriously injured and partially disabled or permanently disabled, you can access that up to a lifetime benefit through California's Workers Compensations Temporary Disability Program, but the ballot initiative capped at two years."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">5. These reversals and precedents will be most likely permanent</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Most astonishing is that Proposition 22, if passed, will be very difficult to amend, since that would require a seven-eighths (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature. Fuentes said this will "lock in" a "permanent underclass of workers."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"All the historic workplace safety protections that California has enacted to protect workers, all of those things are still vitally necessary and even more so now during COVID-19," Fuentes said. "From an abstract perspective, the idea that some of the richest companies in the world are passing a ballot initiative that would exempt their workers from basic labor protections is just, I think beyond the pale."</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div> <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4q7p/uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification">https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4q7p/uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification</a>9/20
<div data-component="BodyComponentRenderer" class="articlebody-components" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: var(--line-height-body-loose); max-width: 640px;">the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign—a ballot initiative bankrolled by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates to permanently protect themselves from reclassifying California drivers as employees—has donated $2 million to California's Republican Party. The revelation was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">Twitter on Monday</a> by KPFA Radio reporter Ariel Boone. The donation was made on Friday, with additional contributions made exclusively toVentura County and Santa Clara County Republican parties for an additional $20,000 and $2,593.15, respectively.<div class="lazy-vice-ad" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both;"><div class="vice-adcontainer vice-adcontainer--border" data-reactroot="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; clear: both; margin-bottom: 30px;"><div id="shortform-top_qj4q7p_1" class="vice-adad" data-ad-unit-path="/16916245/oo_web/vice/tech/article" data-change-correlator="true" data-slot-id="shortform-top" data-targeting="{" topic="topic" uber="uber" keywords="keywords" labor="labor" lyft="lyft" ride-hail="ride-hail" ab5="ab5" proposition-22="proposition-22" aid="aid" uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification="uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification" pagetype="pagetype" short-form="short-form" country="country" en="en" brand_name="brand_name" vice="vice" section_name="section_name" tech="tech" utm_source="utm_source" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0;"></div></div></div>According to <a href="http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1422181&session=2019&view=late1" style="box-sizing: border-box;">campaign finance records</a>, the companies have contributed $184.3 millionto the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign’s war chest as of September 18. In a deep dive into the campaign’s advertising operations, Darak Kerr of CNET found it had <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-lyft-doordash-181-million-campaign-war-chest-goes-heavy-on-ad-blitz/#ftag=COS-05-10aaa0j" style="box-sizing: border-box;">already spent millions</a> on digital advertising, but that was likely only "a small fraction" of what would be spent on television advertisements. Here lies another way the campaign’s money is being redirected to the GOP: consulting groups and lobbyists.The Chris Mottola Consulting—founded by a former GOP operative and responsible for multiple ad campaigns for prominent GOP politicians—has helped craft multiple ads for the Yes on Prop 22 campaign. According to its <a href="https://mottolaconsulting.com/authenticity/" style="box-sizing: border-box;">website</a>, advertisements that "tell the story of victims, villains, heroes and actions.” Uber and Lyft have also deployed <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/y3z4mg/uber-deployed-record-number-of-lobbyists-on-washington-this-year" style="box-sizing: border-box;">a record number of lobbyists</a> this year, many of whom have worked for <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/08/uber-lyft-boost-lobby-california/" style="box-sizing: border-box;">prominent Republican lawmakers</a>. Generally, Democrats have been publicly supportive of California’s Assembly Bill 5, which Proposition 22 seeks to exempt gig companies from complying with, while the GOP has vocally opposed it. During the Democratic nomination race, prominent candidates <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/8/27/20833233/ab-5-california-bill-candidates-vote" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">including</a> Senators Bernie Sanders, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/jge9w8/elizabeth-warren-calls-on-uber-instacart-to-reclassify-workers-as-employees" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">Elizabeth Warren</a>, and <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43kv9b/exclusive-kamala-harris-is-backing-a-bill-giving-uber-lyft-postmates-workers-new-rights" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Kamala Harris</a> (whose brother-in-law Tony West is Uber's general counsel), expressed support for Assembly Bill 5h. After <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgakm/biden-reluctantly-supports-uber-drivers-protesting-outside-billionaires-homes" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">reluctant support</a> for protesting ride-hail drivers, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden came around to <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243025696.html" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">supporting AB5</a>. <div class="lazy-vice-ad" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both;"><div class="vice-adcontainer vice-adcontainer--border" data-reactroot="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; clear: both; margin-bottom: 30px;"><div id="shortform-scroll_qj4q7p_7" class="vice-adad" data-ad-unit-path="/16916245/oo_web/vice/tech/article" data-change-correlator="false" data-slot-id="shortform-scroll" data-targeting="{" topic="topic" uber="uber" keywords="keywords" labor="labor" lyft="lyft" ride-hail="ride-hail" ab5="ab5" proposition-22="proposition-22" aid="aid" uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification="uber-lyft-give-california-gop-millions-while-fighting-driver-reclassification" pagetype="pagetype" short-form="short-form" country="country" en="en" brand_name="brand_name" vice="vice" section_name="section_name" tech="tech" utm_source="utm_source" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0;"></div></div></div></div></div></div>Assembly Bill 5 has been regarded much more coldly by the GOP, however, especially by prominent figures such as <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1236754997339185152?s=20" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Senator Ted Cruz</a>, who attacked AB5 as part of a "daily war on jobs", and Representative <a href="https://twitter.com/dancrenshawtx/status/1195459751024451595?lang=en" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Dan Crenshaw</a>, who pointed at the bill as proof that "Republicans are the party of Uber" while "Democrats are the party of taxi cab unions."“It was only a matter of time before they embraced the political party [that] wants what they want,” Edan Alva, a ride-hail driver and organizer with driver advocacy group Gig Workers Rising. “They’ll do anything to protect their wage theft long enough to find a way to profit from it. Donating to the GOP hurts workers and drivers, but that’s what they’ve been doing all along.”By comparison, the No on Proposition 22 campaign—financed largely by driver advocacy groups and unions—has raised a comparatively humble $5.6 million. To make up for the fact that they have almost 33 times less money than the gig company campaign, drivers have relied on generating attention through <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bv8b5v/protesting-drivers-unveil-big-inflatable-diaped-up-baby-outside-uber-hq" style="box-sizing: border-box;">protests</a>, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gjba/without-us-uber-and-lyft-would-not-exist-drivers-react-to-shut-down-threats" style="box-sizing: border-box;">press conferences</a>, and <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5ppqq/uber-and-lyft-drivers-organize-caravan-outside-uber-hq" style="box-sizing: border-box;">actions</a> meant to raise awareness of driver misclassification, poor working conditions in the industry, and exploitative labor practices.“Early on during this crisis, I had to work even when I was sick. Even then, that was not enough and I almost found myself without a roof over my head,” Alva said. “That is what these people are spending millions to defend. Not making sure we are safe, secure, well-paid, or have benefits, but whether we can help them one day make money. They won't stop with our industry. They'll spread this to every industry if they can.”<div class="articletagged" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 40px; clear: both;"><div class="tags" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; text-transform: uppercase; padding-top: 10px; border-top: 1px solid black;">TAGGED:<a class="tagsitem--link" href="https://www.vice.com/en/topic/labor" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; white-space: normal; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px;">LABOR</a> <a class="tagsitem--link" href="https://www.vice.com/en/topic/lyft" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; white-space: normal; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px;">LYFT</a> <a class="tagsitem--link" href="https://www.vice.com/en/topic/ride-hail" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; white-space: normal; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px;">RIDE HAIL</a> <a class="tagsitem--link" href="https://www.vice.com/en/topic/ab5" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; white-space: normal; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px;">AB5</a> <a class="tagsitem--link" href="https://www.vice.com/en/topic/proposition-22" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; white-space: normal; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px;">PROPOSITION 22</a></div></div><div>=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body css-listicle-body-2648054594" style="margin-top: 10px; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; margin-bottom: 15px; display: -webkit-box; text-overflow: ellipsis; line-height: 23px; -webkit-line-clamp: 3; overflow: hidden;"><div class="body-description">https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-lyft-doordash-181-million-campaign-war-chest-goes-heavy-on-ad-blitz/</div></div><div style="">no lnx pix of ads</div><div style="">
</div><div>jimin Song says working for Instacart saved her life. Two years ago, she was trapped in an emotionally abusive relationship that culminated with her partner pulling a gun on her. She needed to get out quick and make some money while taking care of her two kids. So she signed up to be a shopper for the grocery delivery company and still does the work today.</div><div>
</div><div>Song's experience made its way to Instacart's corporate headquarters, and the company asked to feature her in a promotional video on becoming a shopper.</div><div>
</div><div>"They liked my story," Song said in a phone interview. "I think that's why they used me as an example, to show that people are in tough situations and they may need this job."</div><div>
</div><div>Now, Song has become one of the "paid spokespeople" for the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign funded by Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart and Postmates. In one political ad for the California ballot measure, she sits in the driver's seat of her car with a face mask on. In another, she talks about her hectic schedule being the mom of two kids.</div><div>
</div><div>Incorporating workers, like Song, and their stories into ad campaigns is now commonplace in the pitched battle over Proposition 22, which could change the business models of the five gig economy companies in the country's biggest state. At stake is whether gig workers will be reclassified as employees as dictated by California law AB5 or if they'll remain classified as independent contractors. </div><div>
</div><div>AB5 requires companies to provide gig workers benefits such as minimum wage, health care and sick leave by making them employees. That could add tens of millions of dollars in costs each year to the gig economy companies' bottom lines, according to analysts.</div><div>
</div><div>Proposition 22 is designed to establish a carve-out for the companies. The proposition suggests creating an alternative to the law that maintains workers as independent contractors but adds benefits such as expense reimbursement and a health care subsidy.</div><div>
</div><div>The proposition is jointly sponsored by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which have contributed $181 million to the campaign, making it one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in US history. The No on Proposition 22 campaign, which is backed by unions and labor groups, has raised $5.6 million.</div><div>
</div><div>With the Nov. 3 election less than seven weeks away, both sides are focusing on ads. Facebook, Instagram, Google and local TV channels have been blanketed in messages, including those featuring Song for the Yes campaign.</div><div>
</div><div>"Now, politicians are trying to take away our ability to do independent work," Song says in one ad. "It would force me to choose between my job and my children."</div><div>
</div><div>The Yes on Proposition 22 campaign paid Song $1,290 for being involved in at least one of these ads, according to public records from the California secretary of state. It also paid at least two other gig workers, Kiesha Broussard and Isaiah Navajo, $590 each for their involvement in advertisements. (CNET couldn't find contact details for either Broussard or Navajo. The Yes campaign didn't respond to a request for contact details for the two workers.) More ads featuring roughly a dozen other drivers have also popped up, but public records for those expenditures haven't yet been posted by the state.</div><div>
</div><div>"You have to imagine these companies are going to plow a lot of money into this thing."</div><div>Steven Passwaiter, VP of Kantar's Campaign Media Analysis Group]</div><div>
</div><div>These people are considered "paid spokespeople" because they've received money for being involved in the ads, according to a spokesman for California's Fair Political Practices Commission. However, the campaign isn't required to disclose this in the ads themselves because the payments are less than $5,000.</div><div>
</div><div>"Every driver who appears in our ads is a volunteer," a spokesman for the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign said in an email. "The listed expenditures are reimbursements for travel time, expenses and mileage."</div><div>
</div><div>Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Postmates (which was acquired by Uber in July) didn't respond to requests for comment. Instacart referred CNET to the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign.</div><div>
</div><div>The million-dollar ad machine</div><div>
</div><div>Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates hired Chris Mottola Consulting to create some of the ads featuring Song and other gig workers, according to public records. The firm was founded in 1985 by Chris Mottola, a former political consultant for the Republican party.</div><div>
</div><div>Mottola has created ads for political candidates, including the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former US President George W. Bush and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. On his LinkedIn profile, Mottola says the author and journalist Carl Hiaasen once described him as the Freddy Krueger of politics.</div><div>
</div><div>Many of Chris Mottola Consulting's ads appear to be aimed at tugging on the heartstrings of viewers. On its website, the firm says the best commercials "tell the story of victims, villains, heroes and actions in an honest and self-effacing way." The consultancy didn't respond to phone or email requests for comment.[pix]</div><div><div>s of Thursday, the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign had spent more than $1.7 million to feature ads on Facebook, according to Facebook's ad library. It's spent $980,800 to display 183 of its political ads on Google. According to Google's ad analytics, the campaign's spending had remained relatively steady throughout 2020 until it spiked in mid-August, when it rose from an average daily expenditure of about $10,000 to a peak of $162,800 on Aug. 15. The most recent reported daily expenditure, from Sept. 5, was $84,900.</div><div>
</div><div>"You have to imagine these companies are going to plow a lot of money into this thing," said Steven Passwaiter, vice president and general manager of Kantar's Campaign Media Analysis Group, which is the research company's nonpartisan political advertising intelligence division. "One would expect that it's just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger until we get to Nov. 3."</div><div>
</div><div>It's unclear how much the Yes campaign has spent on TV ads, and the campaign's spokesman declined to answer questions about TV and radio spending. But Passwaiter, who's analyzed Yes on Proposition 22 ad spending for Kantar, said "compared to what they're spending on TV, [digital ad spending is] a small fraction."</div><div>
</div><div>The No on Proposition 22 campaign is also raising its ad profile, but it's spending far less. Google's Transparency Report, which tracks political ad spending on its platform, doesn't show any ads from the No campaign. Starting in June, the campaign began featuring ads on Facebook and has spent about $47,000 on the social media site as of Thursday, according to Facebook's ad library. Very few of the No campaign ads feature produced videos but instead have static interfaces that say that "Prop. 22 hurts app-based drivers" and that Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden agrees. (Biden urged Californians to vote against the proposition in a May tweet.)</div><div>
</div><div>RELATED STORIES</div><div>'A totally different ballgame': Inside Uber and Lyft's fight over gig worker status</div><div>Uber and Lyft threaten to halt service in California if forced to reclassify drivers</div><div>Uber and Lyft drivers could become employees with this law: 10 things to know</div><div>Voting during 2020 election: What you need to know about voting by mail, online ballots, polling places</div></div> </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/why-courts-across-the-globe-keep-finding-the-gig-economy-is-the-road-to-serfdom/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/why-courts-across-the-globe-keep-finding-the-gig-economy-is-the-road-to-serfdom/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">the  tech industry buzzword “gig” has distracted society from important questions about the gig economy that are surprisingly traditional: whether a business has employees or contractors, and how it can <a href="https://medium.com/@ojacobson34/millionaires-get-tax-breaks-gig-workers-get-screwed-c7cc2f7cf9a4" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">avoid payroll taxes</a> and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pros-and-cons-of-amazon-delivery-business-offer/#:_{:text=Why%20is%20Amazon's%20requirement%20that%20you,well%20as%20to%20substantial%20additional%20liability.&text=%22If%20an%20independent%20contractor%20gets%20into,are%20your%20employee%2C%20you%20are%20liable.%22}" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">legal liability</a>. Countless Silicon Valley business models have been built under the guise of gigs, Uber and Lyft two of the best known cases, which is ironic considering that for all of their high-tech pretensions, at the core both are taxi and food delivery services. But with <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-28/california-legislature-tax-hike-millionaires-schools-other-services" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">state governments like California facing increasing revenue shortfalls</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2018/08/31/57-million-u-s-workers-are-part-of-the-gig-economy/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">an estimated 57 million gig workers in the United States</a> noting a lack of employer protections and fair wages, the matter has shifted to the courts.Uber and Lyft now find themselves at the center of years-long legal disputes on this question. Court challenges, however, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/4e827588-4b0b-41d9-80c4-515fcc798771" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">are now extending beyond these two companies</a>.Over the past 40 years, the rise of neoliberalism has enabled employers to tilt the terms of our capitalist economies heavily toward capital and away from labor, via the evisceration of unions, the deconstruction of the welfare state, and the privatization of public services. The growing use of the independent contractor classification represents the latest attempt to exploit and amplify this power imbalance. The exploitation of this labor loophole is symptomatic of the rise of what author <a href="https://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/people/2607/azmanova-albena" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Albena Azmanova</a> has called “precarity capitalism” in her new book, <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/capitalism-on-edge/9780231195379" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Capitalism on Edge</a>, a condition that <a href="https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/the-pandemic-and-capitalism/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Professor James Galbraith has described as</a> “a minority ensconced in a diminishing set of safe career paths or sufficient wealth not to bother worrying about [economic insecurity], and a majority living in persistent anxiety over the costs of health, housing, education, the quality of public services and other formerly ordinary attributes of middle-class life.” What makes this trend particularly galling is that the main economic drivers of this transition to serfdom fancy themselves as enlightened, socially “woke” corporations, be they Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or Amazon, but in fact all embrace <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">employment practices</a> more evocative of the 19th-century <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robberbarons.asp" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">robber barons</a>.As the protections governing the traditional employer-employee relationship <a href="https://laborrights.org/blog/200907/casualization-work-global-pandemic" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">have been increasingly subverted</a>, workers have responded by turning to the courts to rectify this loophole that has allowed their employment conditions to become a form of indentured servitude. And the courts are largely ruling in their favor. A California superior court judge <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/13/uber-and-lyft-lose-bid-to-delay-worker-reclassification-order-in-california/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">has recently denied injunctive relief to both Uber and Lyft</a>, which means that they will be forced to comply with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,Inc.v.Superior_Court" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">earlier rulings</a>, and a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5(2019)" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">California state statute</a>, that mandated them to reclassify their workers as employees (although the original August 20 deadline <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/20/uber-lyft-emergency-stay-california/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">has now been extended until October</a> so that the companies’ full appeal can be considered by the California Court of Appeals). The original California ruling confirms a similar ruling <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/business/economy/lyft-uber-drivers-unemployment.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">made by a New York federal judge in July</a>.these are also consistent with a growing number of decisions in other countries, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/uber-appeals-against-uk-employment-rights-ruling-in-supreme-court.html" target="blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" transition="transition" color="color" s="s" ease="ease" cursor="cursor" pointer="pointer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">such as the UK</a>, where Uber is now appealing a lower court ruling that its drivers should be classified as employees “entitled to employment protections such as a minimum wage and holiday pay,” and <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-supreme-court-sides-with-uber-driver-seeking-minimum-wage-and-benefits/" target="blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" transition="transition" color="color" s="s" ease="ease" cursor="cursor" pointer="pointer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">in Canada</a>, where the country’s Supreme Court has recently ruled that Uber drivers were entitled to sue for traditional benefits and vacation pay....</div>micro-disaster cap'lism?<div><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 1px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/uber-and-lyft-price-gouge-customers-trying-to-flee-seattle-shooting/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">Uber and Lyft price-gouge customers trying to flee Seattle shooting</a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/uber-and-lyft-price-gouge-customers-trying-to-flee-seattle-shooting/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">
</a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/uber-and-lyft-price-gouge-customers-trying-to-flee-seattle-shooting/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">120 an </a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/nicole-karlis/" title="Posts by Nicole Karlis" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="text-align: right; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Nicole Karlis</a> / <a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/salon/" title="Posts by Salon " class="author url fn" rel="author" style="text-align: right; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">S</a>alon</h3></div><div><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?465225-15/mike-isaac-silicon-valley&event=465225&playEvent">https://www.c-span.org/video/?465225-15/mike-isaac-silicon-valley&event=465225&playEvent</a><span class="time" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-weight: 600; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; display: block; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">OCTOBER 26, 2019</time> | PART OF <a class="origin-title" href="https://www.c-span.org/event/?465225/texas-book-festival-saturday" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">TEXAS BOOK FESTIVAL - SATURDAY</a><h1 class="video-page-title" itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 2px 0px 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mike Isaac on Silicon Valley</h1><div class="initial" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.3; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/?123208" style="font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Mike Isaac </a>talked about his book, Super Pumped: <a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/?estherbattle" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">The Battle </a>for Uber, at the <a href="https://www.c-span.org/organization/?41379/Texas-Book-Festival" style="font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Texas Book Festival</a> in Austin.</div></div><div class="initial" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.3; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">... MIKE ISAAC WITH YOU. HE'S A TECHNOLOGY REPORTER FOR "THE NEWS YORK TIMES". HE'S BASED IN SAN FRANCISCO WHERE HE COVERS FACEBOOK TWITTER UBER AND A LOT OF THE SILICON VALLEY GIANT AS THEY ARE SOMETIMES KNOWN. HIS UBER COVERAGE WON HIM THE GERALD LOEB AWARD FOR BUSINESS REPORTING. SO A ROCK STAR BUSINESS REPORTER HERE WITH US. WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING MIKE HERE TODAY. [APPLAUSE] MY PLAN WITH THIS CONVERSATION IS TO KIND OF TEASE OUT OF MIKE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK HOW INTERESTING IT IS AND THEN WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE APPLICATIONS FOR WHAT HE FOUND FOR THE STORY FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD. MAYBE MIKE IF WE COULD JUST START OFF IF YOU COULD JUST ORIENT EVERYBODY FOR SOME PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT KNOW WHAT THE STORY IS AND WHAT UBER IS IF YOU COULD GIVE THE ARC OF IT AND WE WILL TAKE A DEEP DIVE INTO THE PIECES. WHAT IS THE STORY AND HOW DID YOU GET INVOLVED IN EVEN WRITING THIS BOOK?...</div>...HERE'S ANOTHER "FROM THE BOOK. TRAVIS KALANICK AND HIS EXECUTIVE TEAM CREATED A CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE A MIXTURE OF ANIMAL HOUSE AND THE -- OF WALL STREET TwO. THIS TOXIC START CULTURE WAS THE RESULT OF THE YOUNG LEADER SURROUNDED BY YES MEN AND ACCOLADES GIVEN NEARLY UNLIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND OPERATING WITHOUT SERIOUS ETHICAL OR LEGAL OVERSIGHT. THE COMPANY ENGAGED IN SPYING BACKBITING AND LITIGIOUSNESS IS A STRUGGLE FOR POWER AND SUPREMACY OVER MULTIBILLION DOLLAR EMPIRE. CONCEPTS LIKE BREAKING THE LAW WORKED UP APPLICABLE THEY BELIEVED WHEN THE LAWS WERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. CAN YOU GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES? I WAS REALLY SHOCKED BY THE THINGS THEY WERE DOING WITH THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC SERVANTS. THEY WERE ACTUALLY MESSING WITH APPS ON THEIR PHONES SO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS COULDN'T ACTUALLY CATCH UBER DRIVER'S. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT?...I THINK UBER WAS ON THE LEADING EDGE OF A LOT OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO MATERIALIZE. 2017 WAS A NIGHTMARE YEAR WHERE THINGS STARTED COMING OUT. THE CULTURE FROM THE BEGINNING WAS AGAIN THEY WERE GIVING UNLIMITED MONEY. THEY RAISED $3.5 BILLION FROM THE SAUDI INVESTMENT FUND AND THEY CONTINUED RAISING MUTUAL FUNDS AND WERE READY TO GIVE THEM AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY COULD THAT RESULTED IN IN 2015 THEY SPENT $25 MILLION FLYING EVERYONE OUT TO HAVE A HUGE PARTY IN LAS VEGAS IN THE DESERT WHERE THEY HIRED BEYONCE TO PERFORM PRIVATELY FOR $6 MILLION IN EQUITY WHICH QUICKLY DOVE AND VALUE. ONE PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS AN HOUR FOR LIFE SO BEYONCE DO THE ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT MADE IT INTO SONG ON HER LAST ALBUM. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE OF THE LAST SONG SHE DID ON HER ALBUM IS SOMETHING ABOUT EQUITY AND THAT WAS THAT UBER DEAL. BUT IT WAS VERY MUCH THIS CULTURE LIKE WE JUST WANT YOU TO GET YOUR NUMBERS AND WE WANT YOU TO GROW YOUR OFFICE OR WHATEVER AND THEN WE CAN TURN A BLIND EYE TO EVERYTHING ELSE WITH IT THAT'S THROWING COFFEE MUGS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY TREATING WOMEN UNFAIRLY THROUGHOUT THE COMPANY. ONE WOMAN EMPLOYER TALKING ABOUT WAS PROPOSITION ON THE FIRST DAY PLAYER ENGINEERING TEAM MANAGER. WAS JUST A REAL, I THINK THE CULTURE OF HARASSMENT BUT IGNORED LARGELY BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DID AS LONG AS YOU MADE YOUR NUMBERS. IT MIGHT BE MESSY GETTING THEIR AND A LOT OF THAT WAS BY DESIGN. THE CORPORATE CHALLENGE IS HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN A SCRAPPY STARTUP MENTALITY WHILE SAILING INTO A BIG TECH COMPANY? FACEBOOK IS GOING THROUGH THAT NOW PRIVY OF 35,000 PEOPLE WORKING THERE AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF INTERNAL STRUGGLES GOING ON RIGHT NOW. TRAVIS AND COAL'S PHILOSOPHY WAS WE AREN'T GOING TO BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE TOO CORPORATE AND MAYBE THAT WAS POSITIVE IN WAS POSITIVE IN SOME EYES BUT ALSO PLAYED OUT IN A LOT OF NEGATIVE WAYS.<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/can-uber-and-lyft-survive-if-californias-worker-protections-go-nationwide/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/can-uber-and-lyft-survive-if-californias-worker-protections-go-nationwide/</a><a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/09/11/uber-and-lyft-launch-anti-labor-misinformation-campaign-in-response-to-historic-california-bill/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">passage of California’s Assembly Bill 5 (AB5)</a>, the landmark state law that reclassifies contract rideshare drivers as employees, marked a historic win for gig economy drivers demanding better working conditions. Now Los Angeles is taking the first step toward securing a $30 minimum wage for Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare drivers in the city.On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to proceed with an independent study on the average wages and business expenses of the city’s rideshare drivers, and review policies around the country. The motion also asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance that would set the minimum wage to $30, suggesting that drivers will need an additional $15 per hour to pay for business expenses like gas. Currently, the city’s minimum wage for most businesses is $14.25, but will be raised to $15 citywide by 2021. In the state of California, the minimum wage is $12 an hour, and will reach $15 by January 2023....<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/can-uber-and-lyft-survive-if-californias-worker-protections-go-nationwide/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/can-uber-and-lyft-survive-if-californias-worker-protections-go-nationwide/</a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/uber-is-upset-that-its-underpaid-drivers-are-gaming-the-app/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/uber-is-upset-that-its-underpaid-drivers-are-gaming-the-app/</a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/lyft-uber-to-spend-60-million-on-propaganda-to-keep-workers-maximally-exploited/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/lyft-uber-to-spend-60-million-on-propaganda-to-keep-workers-maximally-exploited/</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Lyft, Uber to spend $60 million on propaganda to keep workers maximally exploited</div><div>
</div><div>Written by Nicole Karlis / Salon September 1, 2019</div><div>
</div><div>On Friday, California state senators on the appropriations committee voted for Assembly Bill 5 — a bill designed to improve the livelihood of gig economy workers at companies like Uber and Lyft, whose business models depend on independent contractors who often suffer inconsistent wages and little or no benefits.</div><div>
</div><div>The vote brings the bill one step closer to becoming a law, one which has the potential to completely remake California’s gig economy to make it more equitable for workers. Lawmakers voted 5-2 to send the bill to the Senate floor, which will be the final vote.</div><div>
</div><div>Yet Uber and Lyft seem frightened at the prospect of treating their workers better, and have been amping up their efforts to protect their companies in case the bill passes. Both rideshare companies’ business models rely on having low-paid independent contractors that are exempt from full-time employee benefits — and even that seems not to be enough to break even. Uber lost $5 billion in the past 3 months, the same time period in which it went public. Lyft’s quarterly loss was $644 million.</div><div>
</div><div>Assembly Bill 5, if passed, would force all companies to make their drivers W-2 employees — a move that would require paying a standard slate of benefits, as well as guarantee that employees made at least minimum wage. Notably, many Lyft and Uber drivers have reported making less than minimum wage, a situation only possible because of the contractual nature of their labor.</div><div>
</div><div>But Uber and Lyft are not going to treat their workers any better without a fight. As The New York Times reports, both companies are taking extreme measures to keep their workers independent contractors, spending millions on propaganda to sway public opinion.</div><div>
</div><div>The two rideshare companies are spending $30 million each — $60 million total — toward a fund to put an initiative on the California  2020 ballot to exempt them from AB5, assuming it passes. DoorDash, whose business model also depends on independent contractors, said it would contribute $30 million, too.</div><div>
</div><div>In a statement to TechCrunch, a Lyft spokesperson said: “We are working on a solution that provides drivers with strong protections that include an earnings guarantee, a system of worker-directed portable benefits, and first-of-its kind industry-wide sectoral bargaining, without jeopardizing the flexibility drivers tell us they value so much.”</div><div>
</div><div>Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in an interview with The New York Times the fund is a “Plan B.”</div><div>
</div><div>“As a Plan B, we are reluctantly funding this initiative,” West said. “This is not our first-choice option. We would much rather have a historic deal that is good for drivers, good for innovation, good for labor.”</div><div>
</div><div>The news quickly followed requests made by both companies to their customers to contact their legislators to oppose AB 5 and support their proposed revision. In an email to California riders, Uber advocated for a policy that would offer drivers a minimum of $21 per hour while on a trip, in addition to paid time off, sick leave and compensation if they are injured while working — all rights that drivers don’t have as independent contractors.</div><div>
</div><div>In a separate email from Lyft sent to its customers, the company said that AB5, as it is written, could mean that customers pay more, wait longer, and “risk losing reliable access to rideshare altogether.” They, too, promised a new proposal “with additional workplace protections for drivers and a minimum earnings floor.</div><div>
</div><div>AB 5 expands on and codifies the 2018 California Supreme Court decision made in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, and will make it harder for companies to claim that workers are independent contractors. The determination, according to the bill, would be an “ABC” test would ascertain whether a worker is an employee rather than a contractor. Under the test, as it stands, it is likely that gig economy workers — who are currently classified as independent contractors — would be considered employees.</div><div>
</div><div>While the bill only pertains to the state of California, some experts believe its repercussions will extend across the country — perhaps unsurprising given that California is both the largest state by population, and has the largest economy of any state.</div><div>
</div><div>“What happens in California will be closely watched around the country,” Ken Jacobs, the chair UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, told Salon in July. “As we have seen with paid sick leave, $15 minimum wages, and fair scheduling, policies that start in one state or locality often spread elsewhere.”</div><div>
</div><div>Jacobs told Salon such a law can have a nationwide impact not only because it will set a precedent, but because a majority of gig economy companies are in California — like Uber, Lyft and Postmates.</div><div>
</div><div>“California makes up a significant part of the market for many of the gig economy companies,” Jacobs said. “It will have a large effect on their overall business model … in the context [of] New York City, and other important markets, that have put higher labor standards in place.”</div><div>
</div><div>The corporations’ massive propaganda efforts to exempt Uber and Lyft exempt from the bill come as an insult to Uber and Lyft drivers who support AB5.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s insulting,” Uber driver Rebecca Stack-Martinez, an organizer for Gig Workers Rising, told Salon in an interview. “Here is a company claiming drivers are the heart of their business, and that they would do right by them.</div><div>
</div><div>“If that was true they would let AB 5 pass,” she added.</div><div>
</div><div>Stack-Martinez said she felt “nauseous” when she heard that the companies had created a  $60 million fund for the 2020 ballot measure.</div><div>
</div><div>“Why don’t they take that money and give it to their drivers who are sleeping in their cars and who can’t afford to put food on the tables for family?” she said.</div><div>
</div><div>Tech giants argue that their workers “prefer” freedom and flexibility in their workday. Jacobs, of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, told Salon that argument lacks steam.</div><div>
</div><div>“Their model is based on offloading as much risk to the drivers as possible while paying at the lowest possible rate,” Jacobs told Salon in July. “There is no reason there cannot be flexibility in an employee model …. this is a choice the company makes, and ultimately the best place to make the decision on trade-offs between security and flexibility is through a union — and workers need both higher labor standards and a union to have a voice in how policies are implemented.”</div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div></div><div class="mag-post-box hentry" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; width: 374.545px; overflow: hidden; display: table; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(236, 236, 236); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><div class="magcat-thumb" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 20px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left; position: relative; transition: opacity 0.3s ease 0s;"><a class="penci-image-holder penci-lazy small-fix-size" href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/chairman-mao-trump-accused-of-socialism-after-announcing-15-billion-payoff-plan-to-our-great-patriot-farmers-as-tariff-war-explodes-tariff-war-explodes/" title="‘Chairman Mao’: Trump accused of ‘socialism’ after announcing $15 billion payoff plan to ‘our great patriot farmers’ as tariff war explodes" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; position: relative; width: 120px; background: url(" https="https" www.alternet.org="www.alternet.org" wp-content="wp-content" uploads="uploads" farmers-585x390.png="farmers-585x390.png" center="center" cover="cover" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" vertical-align="vertical-align" top="top" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" /></div></div><div class="mag-post-box hentry" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; width: 374.545px; overflow: hidden; display: table; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(236, 236, 236); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><div class="magcat-detail" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-style="font-style" normal="normal" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/these-common-psychological-tactics-that-exploit-workers-are-intrinsic-to-ubers-business-model-but-it-still-cant-make-money/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block;" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px" line-height="line-height">These common psychological tactics that exploit workers are intrinsic to Uber’s business model — but it still can’t make money</a></h3><div class="grid-post-box-meta mag-meta" style="font-weight: 400; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: right;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/keith-a-spencer/" title="Posts by Keith A. Spencer" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Keith A. Spencer</a> / <a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/salon/" title="Posts by Salon " class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Salon</a></div></div></div>strike before $92bill est IPO (112% tax proposed by SF?)
<header style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 165px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; position: relative;"><div class="article--header" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; float: none; line-height: 1em;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/uber-drivers-strike-and-the-future-of-labor-4-essential-reads-116772" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Uber drivers strike and the future of labor: 4 essential reads</a></h2><p class="byline" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 2px 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; line-height: 1.2; clear: both;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/team#bryan-keogh" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Bryan Keogh</a>, <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Conversation</div></header><div class="content" data-raw="" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 165px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Uber driver walkout raises questions about how workers can fight for better pay and benefits in the age of the gig economy – a topic frequently on the minds of Conversation scholars.</div><a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/04/01/lyft-ipo-gig-economy-labor-law/">https://theintercept.com/2019/04/01/lyft-ipo-gig-economy-labor-law/</a>evan low pal<a href="https://medium.com/s/story/technologists-should-abandon-their-craft-69e874e7e68b">https://medium.com/s/story/technologists-should-abandon-their-craft-69e874e7e68b</a>
<div></div><div>https://YYY.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-low-pay-gamification-lyft-uber-drivers-ride-hailing-gig-economy</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> language of choice, freedom, and autonomy saturate discussions of ride hailing. “On-demand companies are pointing the way to a more promising future, where people have more freedom to choose when and where they work,” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/08/quiz-travis-kalanick-gordon-gekko-who-said-it" title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; cursor: pointer; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgba(199, 0, 0, 0.4); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">Travis Kalanick</a>, the founder and former CEO of Uber, wrote in October 2015. “Put simply,” he continued, “the future of work is about independence and flexibility.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">In a certain sense, Kalanick is right. Unlike employees in a spatially fixed worksite (the factory, the office, the distribution centre), rideshare drivers are technically free to choose when they work, where they work and for how long. They are liberated from the constraining rhythms of conventional employment or shift work. But that apparent freedom poses a unique challenge to the platforms’ need to provide reliable, “on demand” service to their riders – and so a driver’s freedom has to be aggressively, if subtly, managed. One of the main ways these companies have sought to do this is through the use of gamification.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">....</div><div></div>Lyft will make all of its rides carbon neutral starting immediately by investing millions of dollars in projects that offset its emissions, the company announced Thursday.The ridesharing service, which is part of the <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">We Are Still coalition</a>, provides more than 10 million rides worldwide each week. "We feel immense responsibility for the profound impact that Lyft will have on our planet," founders John Zimmer and Logan Green wrote in <a href="https://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=4c62b9d8b1&e=bc036cc506" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">a Medium post</a>.<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/prepare-breathe-dirtier-air-public-transit-becomes-ubers-next-casualty">http://www.alternet.org/environment/prepare-breathe-dirtier-air-public-transit-becomes-ubers-next-casualty</a>==<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-june-26-2017/">https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-june-26-2017/</a>
writer and political columnist Steven Hill about his book “Raw Deal: How

the ‘Uber Economy’ and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American

Workers.” The two also discuss Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s decision to

resign, which he announced last week.=Timeline: Uber's rough year leads to CEO's resignation
June 21, 2017 by The Associated PressUber has had a rough year, largely of it its own making. There have been lawsuits, allegations of sexual harassment and a profanity-laced outburst by its CEO that was caught on video.
On Wednesday, Uber CEO and co-founder Travis Kalanick resigned under pressure from investors.Here's a timeline of Uber's troubles so far this year. Jan. 28: After President Donald Trump releases his first executive order on immigration, New York taxi drivers protest by refusing to pick up passengers at Kennedy Airport for an hour. Some protesters say Uber tries to capitalize on the protest by picking up passengers anyway, prompting a Twitter protest urging people to delete Uber's app from their smartphones.— Feb. 2: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick quits President Trump's council of business leaders amid mounting pressure from employees and customers over the immigration order.— Feb. 19: A former Uber engineer, Susan Fowler, discloses sexual harassment and sexism claims in a blog post about her year at Uber. Fowler says her boss propositioned her and higher-ups ignored her complaints. Kalanick calls Fowler's accusations "abhorrent" and hires former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate.— Feb. 23: Waymo, a self-driving car company spun off from Google, sues Uber. Waymo alleges that Anthony Levandowski—a former top manager for Google's self-driving car project—stole pivotal technology from Google before leaving to run Uber's self-driving car division.— Feb. 28: A video emerges of Kalanick arguing with an Uber driver. It includes yelling and profanity and ends with a combative Kalanick dismissing the agitated driver's claims that sharp reductions in fares forced him into bankruptcy. In an email to employees, Kalanick admits he needs leadership help. "I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up," he says.— March 3: The New York Times reveals that Uber used a phony version of its app to thwart authorities in cities where it was operating illegally. Uber's so-called Greyball software identified regulators who were posing as riders and blocked access to them. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating Uber's use of the Greyball software.— March 19: Uber's president, Jeff Jones, resigns less than a year after joining the company. He tells the tech blog Recode that his approach to leadership is at odds with what he experienced at Uber. April 18: Sherif Marakby, a global vice president who leads Uber's self-driving car program, leaves the company.— April 27: Levandowski announces he is stepping aside while Uber defends itself against the allegations from Waymo.— May 11: A federal judge in San Francisco rejects Uber's request for arbitration and refers Waymo's case to the U.S. Attorney's office for a possible criminal investigation. Days later the judge bans Uber from using technology taken from Waymo, but doesn't order Uber to halt its self-driving vehicle program, as Waymo requested. The case is set for trial in October. May 26: Kalanick's mother dies in a boating accident. His father is seriously injured. May 30: Uber fires Levandowski. May 31: Uber's finance chief Gautam Gupta says he plans to leave the company in July. June 6: Uber fires 20 people after a law firm, Perkins Coie, investigates complaints of harassment, bullying and retaliation. That investigation, which was separate from Holder's, checked into 215 complaints; 57 are still under investigation. June 11: Uber's board meets with Holder and adopts a series of recommendations based on his report. June 12: Emil Michael, Uber's senior vice president for business and a close ally of Kalanick, leaves the company. June 13: Kalanick tells Uber employees that he's taking a leave for an unspecified period, but will be available for "the most strategic decisions." Uber's board releases Holder's recommendations, which include removing some of Kalanick's responsibilities and replacing Uber's chairman and founder, Garrett Camp, with an independent chairman. Holder also recommends many cultural and policy changes, from establishing an effective complaint process to recruiting more diverse applicants to prohibiting alcohol and drug use during core work hours. June 20: Uber embarks on "180 days of change," seeking to persuade riders and investors that it is a company with a conscience and a heart. The first move was allowing riders the ability to give drivers tips through the Uber app, something that Kalanick had resisted. Details of the rest of the plan were not made public. June 21: CEO Travis Kalanick resigns under pressure from investors and the board. He will stay on as a board member. Explore further: Uber CEO Kalanick resigns under investor pressuresadly, the sharing economy, a hopeful idea of leveraging social networks for reducing excess consumption has been coopted as yet another way to extract wealth from ppl with limited: rent out your car and house.
like to clothe themselves as disruptive pioneer entrepreurs [cf TEDtalk techno-optimism/liberttian silly vally] but have aggressively lobbied to write rule in their favor, vs taxi (union?)
fought unionization of their own "contractors?pres dash cam=<h2 style="backface-visibility: hidden; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: right; line-height: 19.2px; overflow: hidden; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UBER AND AIRBNB GO TO WASHINGTON</h2>Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–<a href="https://goo.gl/SvHJNO" title="Uber and Airbnb" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Uber and Airbnb</a>. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; <a href="https://goo.gl/YeuiZi" title="take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas</a>, or <a href="https://goo.gl/gEdBBU" title="New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising</a>. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.<img class="alignnone wp-image-58855 size-large" src="https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_Uber-700x311.jpg" srcset="https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_Uber-700x311.jpg 700w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_Uber-320x142.jpg 320w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_Uber-768x342.jpg 768w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_Uber.jpg 1151w" sizes="(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" width="620" height="275" />Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to <a href="https://goo.gl/LoKNn1" title="CRP" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">CRP</a>, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.<img class="alignnone wp-image-58857 size-large" src="https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_AirBNB-700x311.jpg" srcset="https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_AirBNB-700x311.jpg 700w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_AirBNB-320x142.jpg 320w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_AirBNB-768x342.jpg 768w, https://1y3k9w1hgks341lixk3c35d5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CRP_AirBNB.jpg 1151w" sizes="(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" width="620" height="275" />Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, <a href="https://goo.gl/fSOmWu" title="Marriott International" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Marriott International</a>, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on <a href="https://goo.gl/3KD6Cs" title="Uber" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Uber</a> and <a href="https://goo.gl/uFjtyO" title="Airbnb" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Airbnb</a>. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.<hr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><h2 style="backface-visibility: hidden; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: right; line-height: 19.2px; overflow: hidden; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JOIN THE POOL: UBER’S LOBBYING EFFORTS </h2>So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have <a href="https://goo.gl/48z6xl" title="forced it out of some cities and states" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">forced it out of some cities and states</a>, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, <a href="https://goo.gl/ZfULny" title="one lobbying accomplishment" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">one lobbying accomplishment</a> for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the <a href="https://goo.gl/30GYsX" title="Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets</a>, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by <a href="https://goo.gl/pFtP1n" title="David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,</a> the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.<hr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><h2 style="backface-visibility: hidden; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: right; line-height: 19.2px; overflow: hidden; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">KNOCKING ON DOORS: AIRBNB’S LOBBYING EFFORTS</h2>What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to <a href="https://goo.gl/5mBEs0" title="The Hill" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Hill</a>: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; <a href="https://goo.gl/JDeq7j" title="Airbnb has pushed back" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Airbnb has pushed back</a>, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.<hr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><h2 style="backface-visibility: hidden; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: right; line-height: 19.2px; overflow: hidden; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CONCLUSION</h2>Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because <a href="https://goo.gl/Oqewne" title="Uber" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Uber</a>, <a href="https://goo.gl/ro4cIN" title="Airbnb" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Airbnb</a>, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like <a href="https://goo.gl/LVSdm5" title="Lyft" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Lyft</a>, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and <a href="https://goo.gl/vCHBPQ" title="#DeleteUber began trending as a result" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">#DeleteUber began trending as a result</a>. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments...After widespread protests, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stepped down from Trump’s Economic Advisory Council. Over the last week, thousands of people deleted the Uber app from their phones, after the company turned off surge pricing at JFK airport Saturday in a move many saw as an attempt to break the New York Taxi Workers Alliance strike on picking up travelers from JFK airport in solidarity with the massive protests that had erupted there over Trump’s immigration ban. On Trump’s Inauguration Day, activists chained themselves to each other to shut down the headquarters of Uber in San Francisco.airbnb buys sf election<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-8">https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-8</a>
saudi arabia uber<div></div><div>http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33720-the-sharing-economy-is-the-problem</div><div>
</div><div><div class="itemFullText" style="font-family: Georgia, " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height">The "sharing economy" sure has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? As the saying goes, "sharing is caring."Through Uber, the sharing economy's poster-child, thousands of drivers have turned their personal cars into money-making vehicles. Homeowners internationally have earned extra cash by using another popular sharing service, AirBnB. These companies' ads are filled with<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJgRwdIGyRs" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> smiling people, caring about each other and just wanting to do good</a>. The idea of the sharing economy also comes at the perfect time. Since the Great Recession, more and more people have been looking for economic alternatives, ones that build off of mutual aid, rather than greed and the "it's everyone for themselves" philosophy. Likewise, the recession pushed significantly more segments of the American workforce into positions where they must string together part-time gigs and find alternative ways to bring in revenue. So a sharing economy, where people can use what they already have to help others, while making some bonus money for themselves, sounds like a perfect solution.It's unfortunate then that these companies and the misnamed "sharing economy" are really just fronts for millionaires and billionaires to opportunistically ride off the backs of everyday people, while also exacerbating many economic inequalities.<a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/against-sharing/" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> Avi Asher-Schapiro explains the truth in Jacobin</a>:<blockquote style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 25px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-left-width: 0px !important; line-height: 1.467em !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The premise is seductive in its simplicity: people have skills, and customers want services. Silicon Valley plays matchmaker, churning out apps that pair workers with work. Now, anyone can rent out an apartment with AirBnB, become a cabbie through Uber, or clean houses using Homejoy.But under the guise of innovation and progress, companies are stripping away worker protections, pushing down wages, and flouting government regulations. At its core, the sharing economy is a scheme to shift risk from companies to workers, discourage labor organizing, and ensure that capitalists can reap huge profits with low fixed costs.There's nothing innovative or new about this business model. Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form.</blockquote>It's Anything but SharingSince when has paying for something ever been the definition of sharing? In The Nation,<a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/192545/socialize-uber" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert make the case</a> that selling a service through an app comes nowhere close to qualifying:Cutting through the marketing BS of Silicon Valley is a good goal for everyone, but the left in particular should debunk its definition of a "sharing economy." Sharing, in this case, doesn't mean "lending someone the use of something for free." It also doesn't match the Silicon Valley description of creating a large number of small-scale entrepreneurs or independent business owners.Instead, what we see is the creation of a low-wage workforce under the ownership of tech companies. At Uber, this arrangement means that drivers have to pay for their own cars, maintenance and gas, while management sets the rates and terms of their labor, taking a hefty cut in the process. A crucial first step for reform is to get these drivers recognized as actual workers, with proper rights and proper insurance.Uber has actually become so dominant that it is valued as a more than<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubers-new-funding-values-it-at-over-41-billion-1417715938" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> $40 billion company.</a> And you don't become worth $40 billion by sharing and caring. You become worth $40 billion by ripping off the people who work for you.To extrapolate, in return for putting their own vehicles to work,<a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/against-sharing/" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> Uber's drivers can receive as little as $1.21 per mile</a>. As the IRS figures, operating a car is a 56¢ per mile expense, on top of which Uber collects 20% of the fare. By the time all these expenses are accounted for, Uber drivers can be making much less than minimum wage. Uber drivers often complain that they have to be on the road<a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/uber-unionized-worker-owned-co-op-denver-cabbies" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> constantly in order to make anything resembling a reasonable income</a>. If it sounds unfair, it's because it is - but drivers can't do anything about it. And as Mary Hansen explains<a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/uber-unionized-worker-owned-co-op-denver-cabbies" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> in YES! Magazine</a>, "Taxi and Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees. As such, they are not guaranteed a minimum wage or other labor protections, nor can they unionize."This isn't just a problem for drivers, though. By being a multi-billion dollar industry, these sharing economy corporations are pushing our already exploitative economy in a worse direction.<a href="http://theweek.com/articles/546097/how-uber-sharing-economy-could-pave-way-workerowned-companies" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> Jeff Spross explains it in The Weekly</a>:Another complaint is more subtle, but more frightening: that these technologies are<a href="http://prospect.org/article/task-rabbit-economy" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> exacerbating</a> inequality and driving us towards a "<a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5785928/the-democratization-of-butlers" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;">servant</a>" economy, where large pools of poorly paid and economically insecure workers will spend their lives providing all manner of petty services for the well-heeled elite.Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/04/09/the-distributive-implications-of-the-sharing-economy/" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> laid out</a> the grim logic succinctly: The efficiency gains of connecting workers to customers via the internet applications will drive down prices and thus incomes, while the new profits created will all get sucked up by the small group of Silicon Valley companies that created the platforms, along with their shareholders.There's a simple phrase for this: extracting wealth. And that's exactly what these sharing economy corporations are so good at doing. They belong with the old, extractive economy but they're trying to pass as part of the new, generative economyIt's no wonder, then, that Uber drivers in LA, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and elsewhere<a href="http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17279/the_sharing_economy_first_strike_uber_drivers_turn_off_the_app" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> have protested</a>. Their complaints join a chorus of voices already upset about their industry being disrupted (a term the tech world loves) by a company offering low wages, stripping away worker protections, and bypassing regulations - all while stuffing the wallets of Silicon Valley executives.It's Only Getting WorseIt's important to note that this article's authors have used Uber and AirBnB - on more than one occasion, in fact. And we will probably use them again.We admit our hypocrisy to bring up this point: articles criticizing Uber, AirBnB, and the sharing economy at large often seem to regularly miss that the traditional companies they compete against can be quite awful in their own right. Cab companies can be one of the most exploitative industries out there. Hotels and motels are also extremely abusive to their workers. You can't just take a cab instead of an Uber and feel good about your decision, or vice versa.Yet almost every time we've taken an Uber, we have asked the drivers how they like driving for the service. Over time, we've noticed that the pendulum has swung increasingly in the direction of people expressing that they are simply not happy. One driver in particular that we spoke to was incredibly open about the reasons for his dissatisfaction. Let's call him George. George explained that he had been driving for Uber for around a year. But throughout that year, Uber had cut how much it cost for passengers to ride with the service. The company framed this as a pro for the drivers: it would get more people to use the service, which would result in more rides, which would result in more money. Lower costs equals higher volume, that sort of thing. Which sounds nice, but George said Uber also started taking a higher cut of the drivers' pay while simultaneously no longer waiving fees they'd originally waived to entice new drivers into their service. Worst of all, Uber did this with absolutely no warning - one day drivers were making a certain amount, the next day they were making way less. So Uber was cutting the costs of their service but placing the entire burden of that cut entirely on the drivers.This one example points towards a larger trend: as these sharing economy companies become greater juggernauts, they care less about the people who are actually doing the work and who actually own the assets that their businesses depend on.What we need to do is stop the shift towards a world where more and more people must rent out their own resources simply to make a living, and we must work towards a system where it's not about choosing one type of exploitation over the other.The good news is that this paradigm shift is already underway.The Alternative: The Cooperative EconomyLet's take a minute to clarify that we do not put any blame or ill-will at the feet of most of the people who drive for Uber, do odd jobs off of TaskRabbit, rent out their homes on AirBnB, and so on. People largely are doing this because they need to make more money, and these services help them do just that. Theproblem is that the users are the people creating all of the wealth, have all of the assets and resources, are taking on most of the burden, and do pretty much all of the actual work. Yet a significant portion of the capital that they create is flowing out of their hands and their communities and to investors, stockholders, and Silicon Valley executives. At the same time, these executives have inordinate power over everyone who uses their "sharing economy" services, making it easy to exploit the laborers and the producers, who in turn have almost no recourse of their own.  These extractive and unfair practices are a far cry from the actual kinds of sharing that generates community and connection. Sharing itself, of course, is a good thing. In fact, even flexible labor arrangements can have a place in a vision for a new economy. As sharing activist Mira Luna<a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/sharing-direct-action-for-the-new-economy" target="blank" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none;"> puts it</a>, "If greed was a major characteristic of the dying economy, sharing is a key element of the blueprint or DNA for the new economy."...</div></div>rival sf gone?
=== Prof. Wolff joins David Pakman to discuss ride sharing services like

Uber and Lyft and the impact they have on local economies and regulated

taxi services.<a href="http://www.rdwolff.com/content/prof-wolff-david-pakman-show-uber-innovator-or-business-destroyer">http://www.rdwolff.com/content/prof-wolff-david-pakman-show-uber-innovator-or-business-destroyer</a>
<div>==
AN 1/1


<div class="coverage_header_bar coverage_header_bar_news-politics" style="text-transform: uppercase; font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 32px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">NEWS & POLITICS</div><div class="region region-content" style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 32px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;"><div id="block-system-main" class="block block-system first last odd count-1" style="position: relative;"><div class="content"><div id="node-1048172" class="node node-story view-mode-full clearfix" style="position: relative;"><div class="headline"><h1 class="node-title" style="line-height: 52px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px 0px 10px; clear: both;">5 of the Most Cynical Libertarian Stealth Campaigns of 2015</h1></div><div class="teaser" style="display: block; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 15px;"><div class="field field-name-field-teaser field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Read the fine print and there's someone trying to make a buck.
...
<p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;">Using Black Lives Matter to push Uber in New York City<p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;">Back in July, the head of the <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117837/airbnb-uber-wage-war-regulators-army-customers" style="text-decoration: none;">decidedly libertarian</a> Silicon Valley goliath Uber, <a href="http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/07/8572061/shifting-tactics-uber-hits-city-race-issues" style="text-decoration: none;">trotted out several members of New York’s black clergy class</a>,

including a member of Reverend Al Sharpton’s National Action Network,

to sell the anti-regulation car service as good for black communities.

The effort, headed up by Uber PR frontman and former Obama speechwriter

David Plouffe was a fairly crass exercise in libertarian piggybacking

off Black Lives Matter:<blockquote style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">There’s

a lot of discussion in this city by some leaders about progressive

politics, economic equality and economic opportunity,” David Plouffe,

Uber’s chief adviser, said. “What they’re doing is killing over 10,000

jobs.”The

press conference, which included one member of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s

National Action Network, came one day after Plouffe met with Sharpton,

reportedly to enlist Sharpton to oppose the growth cap. Sharpton, a

friend and occasional political ally of Mayor Bill de Blasio, "has

questions" about the bill’s impact on the city’s minorities, Crain’s

reports.</blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;">Things

took a turn for the worse when Brooklyn-based bishop Gerald Seabrooks,

presumably reading off of Uber’s PR script, made the rather vulgar claim

that police killings of black men were somehow a result of “lack of

jobs”, jobs that Uber could in theory provide.  “If [Eric] Garner had a job, today he would be alive,” Seabrooks said. “We’re talking economics here. We’re talking jobs.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;">The

article reads like a perfect parody of what happens when

#BlackLivesMatter becomes #BlackLivesMatter™. The amount of cynicism it

takes to parlay Eric Garner’s death into a commercial for a car service

with a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-18/uber-increases-fundraising-to-1-billion-amid-investor-appetite" style="text-decoration: none;">$50 billion</a> market

cap is truly a masterclass in marketing pap. The reality is, job status

had nothing to do with Garner or any other African-Americans death at

the hands of cops.
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Camp">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Camp</a>http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-obnoxious-tech-apps-made-people-too-much-moneyu know how sometimes you get sick of flying commercial first class and decide you want to take a private jet instead? I’m sure that’s definitely a feeling we can all relate to. Garrett Camp, the guy who co-founded StumbleUpon and Uber, launched BlackJet to deal with this terrible problem, which so many have had to suffer through, usually while breathing the same air as the plebes flying coach. The BlackJet app lets you buy an empty seat on a bajillionaire’s plane, which saves the tons of money it would cost to charter your own private flight. It’s a pretty unbelievable deal. I just <a href="https://www.blackjet.com/demo/" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">checked ticket prices</a>, and apparently you can fly from New York City to San Francisco any time in the near future for somewhere around $6,000! The site doesn’t say anything about BlackJet flight attendants handing out $100 bills that passengers can light on fire and pretend to smoke like cigars, so try to remember to pack your own.=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPG_CapitalAfter <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/23/uber-confirms-258m-raise/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px;">announcing a $258 million funding round</a>from Google Ventures and TPG, Uber is revealing a<a target="blank" href="http://blog.uber.com/Callinicos_Michael_Baker" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px;">number</a> of new hires today in finance, business and international growth at the executive level.Uber stole Brent Callinicos from Google, where he was VP, Treasurer & Chief Accountant. He will be Uber’s new Chief Financial Officer. Former COO of Klout, Emil Michael, will be the company’s SVP of Business. Prior to Klout, Michael was SVP of Field Operations at TellMe Networks. Lastly, Ed Baker, who previously served as Head of International Growth at Facebook, is joining as Head of Growth. Previously he was co-founder and CEO of friend.ly (which was acquired by Facebook in 2011).These are all huge talent wins for Uber, which was valued at <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-into-uber-its-largest-deal-ever/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px;">$3.4 billion</a> pre-money in this latest round. With the new funding, CEO Travis Kalanick had said that Uber will be moving into new markets and begin marketing efforts.ber’s Emil Michael is going back to the Pentagon, just when the Defense Department wants a little more love from Silicon Valley.Mr. Michael, who joined the car-hailing service last September as senior vice president of business, will also become a member of Pentagon’s Defense Business Board, an advisory group tasked with sharing best practices from the private sector with an agency straining at the leash of its half-trillion dollar annual budget.The appointment is notable as the former Pentagon advisor will be the only representative on the board with tech start-up experience at a time when the Pentagon is trying to encourage more competition in its procurement process and buy more off-the-shelf equipment. Defense officials also fret that the U.S. is quickly losing the technological edge that kept it ahead on the battlefield.Mr. Michael served as special assistant to defense secretary Robert Gates from 2009 to 2011 before joining Klout, the social importance ranking service, and then hitching a ride with Uber.The former White House fellow – who <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/wh-fellows-spring-summer-2010.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">parachuted</a> with the military during his time at the department – won’t be expected to change Pentagon practices overnight. Multiple efforts to reform how the Pentagon develops and buys equipment and services over the past four decades have pushed the department’s current leadership to pursue evolution rather than revolution, and the Pentagon has been upfront about wanting more involvement from the tech community.The tech community isn’t so sure, pointing to cumbersome and bureaucratic contracting procedures that leads many firms to steer well clear of defense deals. DynCorp International, a big defense contractor, said Monday that the average time from bid to award at the department had ballooned to 300 days.The Defense Business Board is one of those obscure corners of government that is simultaneously lauded as a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/defense-business-board-pentagon-wall-street" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">conduit</a> for Wall Street to gain favor and profit from the Pentagon and dismissed as an ineffective talking shop, depending on who you ask. Its ranks have been <a href="http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16882" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">expanded</a> to 23 from 15, most of them management consultants and former and current corporate executives.Uber has no direct ties to the Defense Department, but the appointment could be viewed as recognition of the company’s prominence in using technology to uproot a highly regulated and entrenched taxi industry. Uber, which is valued at more than $18 billion by investors, is <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/two-tech-upstarts-plot-each-others-demise-1407800744" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">aggressively pushing</a> for a key role in the future of urban transportation.==The Defense Department continues to be a truly unique place for a White House Fellow.

While it is the largest and most complex agency, it has offered me virtually limitless

opportunity. The highlights have been my travels with Secretary Gates. Not only is

spending time with him an incredible experience in and of itself, I have been able to

interact with all manner of our top Generals and world leaders.

Our most recent trip to Afghanistan was particularly enlightening as we were briefed by

General McChrystal on the progress of the assault in Marja and we were also able to

inspect Afghan troops trained by the US Military. Another highlight was attending a small

group dinner with the President of Pakistan at his palace.

Beyond those interactions, I have spent a lot of time with troops about to go to war and with some of our

wounded warriors. Seeing the pride and commitment of these soldiers up close is truly a gift that not many

Americans get to see. While visiting with these troops, I have gotten a chance to appreciate the awesome power

of the US military. The sophistication of our weapons, equipment and our training methodology is amazing. On

the fun side, I was able to sky dive with a Para Commando team near MacDill Air Force Base. Pretty cool, huh? I

would love to talk more about my work responsibilities…but those are mostly classified! ne of Uber’s most senior executives has been forced to apologise after suggesting the car company should hire a team of researchers to dig up dirt on the “personal lives” and “families” of journalists who write negatively about the controversial car hire company.
Emil Michael made the comments with specific reference to a female reporter who has in the past written that she deleted her Uber app after the company teamed up with an apparent escort service in France.
At a high-profile dinner party attended by the actor Ed Norton and publisher Arianna Huffington, Michael was asked about such depictions of Uber in the media.
According to Buzzfeed News, the senior vice president of business suggested the company spend $1 million hiring four researchers and four journalists to investigate “your personal lives, your families” and discredit those behind the unfavourable reports.
Emil Michael, Uber's senior vice president of business Emil Michael, Uber's senior vice president of business The female reporter, Sarah Lacy, wrote a column on her tech website PandoDaily accusing Uber of “sexism and misogyny” and not “respect[ing] us or priorit[sing] our safety”.
Michael reportedly responded by saying Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who also deleted her Uber app and was later sexually assaulted by a taxi driver.
Screengrab showing the English-language version of the Avions de Chasse homepage, which featured in an Uber promotion earlier this year Screengrab showing the English-language version of the Avions de Chasse homepage, which featured in an Uber promotion earlier this year The executive has since taken to Twitter to apologise for his comments, which according to Buzzfeed he believed were made off the record.
Writing to Lacy herself, Michael said: “I would like to apologize to you directly. My comments were wrong and I deeply regret them.
@sarahcuda I would like to apologize to you directly. My comments were wrong and I deeply regret them.
— Emil Michael (@emilmichael) November 18, 2014Just deleted @Uber from my phone. Already found their biz practices questionable, but this business with @sarahcuda & others crossed a line.
— Shawn C. Reed (@shawncreed) November 18, 2014“Neither me nor my company would ever engage in such activities. Again, I apologize.”
Also on Twitter, Lacy said Michael had since called her to explain his comments “off record” – which she refused. “You threaten my family and you want to chat off record? Um no,” she wrote. She also shared a number of tweets from people saying they had joined her in deleting Uber from their phones.
In pictures: European taxi drivers in protest against Uber app
A spokesperson for Uber told The Independent that the company “has not, does not and will not investigate journalists”. “Those remarks have no basis in the reality of our approach,” he said.
A statement from Michael, issued via Uber, said: “The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner – borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for – do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853812/Uber-executive-disciplined-privacy-violation-tracking-journey-journalist-took-using-God-View-tool.html

Uber executive 'disciplined' for privacy violation after tracking the journey of a journalist took using 'God View' toolJosh Mohrer, the New York manager, allegedly tracked Johana BhuiyanBuzzfeed claims Mr Mohrer did this twice using a tool called 'God View'It is available to all employees and allows them to see customer activityThis week, another employee said he wanted to 'dig up dirt' on journalistsEmil Michael, senior vice president, made comments at New York dinnerMohrer has now been disciplined, Uber confirmed, but would not say how By ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER and MAIL ONLINE REPORTERPUBLISHED: 00:44 EST, 29 November 2014 | UPDATED: 07:09 EST, 29 November 2014 Uber Technologies has confirmed it has taken 'disciplinary action' against one of its general managers who was being investigating for violating the popular car-booking service's privacy policies by snooping on a reporter's ride.Josh Mohrer, general manager of Uber's New York office, was accused of using a company tracking tool called 'God View' to monitor the location of a BuzzFeed reporter earlier this month. In a statement, Uber said access to the personal data of anyone using its car service is limited to 'legitimate business purposes.' The San Francisco company said employees violating the rules may be disciplined or fired.God View is available to all employees at the car-sharing service and allows them to see customer activity, such as where a person wants to be picked up.  Tracked: Buzzfeed claims that Josh Mohrer, Uber's New York general manager, tracked technology reporter Johana Bhuiyan on using a feature known as 'God View'Caught: Uber has finished its investigation into New York City general manager Josh Mohrer for spying on the ride history of a journalist and has 'taken disciplinary actions' against the executiveMohrer was accused of twice accessing the personal account of BuzzFeed reporter Johana Bhuiyan.Buzzfeed is now reporting that Mohrer was disciplined. It is not known how he has been disciplined, but it’s clear the company found him in violation of its privacy policy.News of the investigation followed a separate BuzzFeed story, which reported that another Uber executive recently threatened to look into the personal lives of journalists that have criticized Uber.01 May 2012, San Francisco, California, USA --- NOTE THE APP NO LONGER LOOKS LIKE THIS---Uber CEO of Uber Travis Kalanickuses shows the application they use to give exact location and connect a customer and a driver in San Francisco, Calif. on May 1, 2012. --- Image by © Siana Hristova/San Francisco Chronicle/CorbisUber banned in Nevada over passenger safety fearsFILE - In this July 10, 2012 file photo, Uber CEO and co-founder Travis Kalanick arrives at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. In the midst of a controversy involving a top executive who reportedly suggested paying $1 million to dig up dirt on a journalist critical of the company, Kalanick on Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014 gave a speech to current and potential investors at a Goldman Sachs technology conference in Las Vegas.  (AP Photo/Paul Sakluma, File)Uber CEO ‘compared his taxi firm’s battle with Las Vegas...Emil Michael, Uber senior vice president for business, made his remarks in New York during a dinner that was also attended by Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and a list of prominent guests including actor Ed Norton, New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman and Huffington Post CEO Arianna Huffington, according to a USA Today column.The column was written by Michael Wolff, a prominent journalist, who said he invited BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith to the Uber dinner without informing his guest that all conversations were supposed to be off the record. Wolff said most other guests at the dinner didn't hear the conversation between Michael and Smith.Michael apologized for his remarks earlier this week. Shocking: Emil Michael (pictured), Uber's senior vice president, reportedly proposed looking into journalists' 'personal lives' and 'families' while in the presence of a BuzzFeed editor at a private dinner in New YorkShocking: Emil Michael (pictured), Uber's senior vice president, reportedly proposed looking into journalists' 'personal lives' and 'families' while in the presence of a BuzzFeed editor at a private dinner in New YorkUber Technologies Inc., the popular car service app, is close to raising between $35 billion and $40 billion in their latest round of funding, inside sources said this weekUber Technologies Inc., the popular car service app, is close to raising between $35 billion and $40 billion in their latest round of funding, inside sources said this week'WHAT'S SO WRONG ABOUT DIGGING UP DIRT ON A SHADY JOURNALIST?': UBER INVESTOR ASHTON KUTCHER ON EMIL MICHAEL'S COMMENTSAshton Kutcher entered the firestorm surrounding under-fire taxi-hiring app Uber and defended controversial comments made by the executive who suggested spending $1million to dig up dirt on journalists who criticise the company.Kutcher, an investor in the app, took to Twitter last Wednesday to show his support for beleaguered VP Emil Michael and described Sarah Lacy, a female journalist who has been highly critical of the company, as 'shady'.'What is so wrong about digging up dirt on shady journalist?' tweeted the celebrity tech entrepreneur who has invested in tech firms including Skype, Foursquare, Airbnb and Spotify through his venture capital firm A-Grade. So as long as journalist are interested and willing to print half truths as facts... Yes we should question the source' he continued in a series of tweets before he sought to clarify that he was speaking for himself and not Uber.'This should be fun... Here comes the part where journalist explain why they should be exempt from ridicule and judgement and probing...' he continued.In a series of messages on his Twitter account, Kalanick rebuked Michael. 'His remarks showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity, and a departure from our values and ideals,' Kalanick tweeted. Kalanick also tweeted that he and Michael would learn from their mistakes.The incidents have triggered a wave of tweets calling for a boycott of Uber, whose competition in the rapidly growing car-booking industry includes Sidecar and Lyft. Some of the investors backing Lyft also own stakes in BuzzFeed.It comes as a legal battle between Nevada's highly regulated taxi industry and Uber stumbled into complications as two state judges laid claim to hearing the same case. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853812/Uber-executive-disciplined-privacy-violation-tracking-journey-journalist-took-using-God-View-tool.html#ixzz3SyITd6fX several tweets, Ashton Kutcher defended Uber from its critics, including asking what is not right about "digging up dirt on a shady journalist."
Uber has been receiving an increased amount of criticism lately as executives for the ride-sharing company have reportedly said a series of statements that step over the privacy of their passengers.
Emil Michael, Uber's senior vice president of business, was said to have proposed that certain journalists should be the subject of investigations, including their personal and family lives, by operatives for Uber.
Michael reportedly said during a dinner in New York that Uber should hire researchers to "dig up dirt on its critics in the media," according to a report published by BuzzFeed.
While Michael has since apologized for the remarks that he made, Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber and Michael's boss, has expressed his disagreement with the thoughts expressed by Michael that there is "sensational media coverage" on Uber.
"[Michael's] remarks showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity and a departure from our values and ideals," tweeted Kalanick.
In addition, Uber confirmed that it is investigating whether one of the company's general managers, Josh Mohrer from the New York office of Uber, violated the privacy policies of the company by tracking the location of a reporter.
Mohrer allegedly used Uber's tracking tool "God's View" to monitor the whereabouts of a reporter for Buzzfeed earlier in November, which the news service also reported.
Uber said in a statement that accessing the personal data of its customers is only limited for "legitimate business purposes," and that all employees found to be in violation of the rule could be fired.
Despite the allegations, Kutcher held firm in the tweets that he posted in defense of Uber, wherein he is an investor.
"So as long as journalist (sic) are interested and willing to print half truths as facts...Yes we should question the source," tweeted Kutcher, referring to the reports circulating on the allegations against Uber.
Kutcher, however, should be reminded that Uber was given by the Better Business Bureau a rating of F, and that several business practices of the company have already previously received intense criticism, including strategies that looked to severely undermine the operations of its rival ride-sharing companies.
Uber, as a company, has always emitted a sense of arrogance with the way it carries out its business, as if the company believes that it is above the law.
Despite his controversial comments, Michael was not fired and was just instead told by Kalanick to learn from his mistakes.
When Travis Kalanick and his co-founders launched Uber in 2009, it was <a href="http://nextcity.org/forefront/view/the-black-car-company-that-people-love-to-hate" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">just “about being baller</a> in San Francisco.”How things have changed.Kalanick <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-07-16/uber-ceo-sees-huge-amount-of-growth-in-hong-kong" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">appeared</a> on Bloomberg TV Thursday to discuss Uber's rollout in Hong Kong. He made just two references to the Mercedes S-Class cars that will pick up Uber Black users there before the host turned their conversation to less glamorous subjects, like Uber's conflicts with taxi drivers' trade groups and regulators.“Now, there's choice words I've had at times for the taxi industry,” Kalanick said, later adding, “In many ways they don't provide choice for consumers, and they've often lobbied city governments to restrict choice and restrict supply and restrict convenience for people who live in those cities.”That seems to be how the last two years have gone for Uber, beginning with fines from the California Public Utilities Commission in November 2012. What began as a story about tech-industry geekerati coming up with a more convenient way to tool around in luxury cars has turned into one about political insiders haggling over the particulars of chauffeurs' licenses and insurance policies. In a <a href="http://recode.net/2014/05/28/travis-kalanick-uber-is-raising-more-money-to-fight-lyft-and-the-asshole-taxi-industry" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">recent interview</a> with Re/Code's Kara Swisher, Kalanick said the company was in a “political campaign” against “an asshole named 'Taxi.'”The disruption Uber brought to the way cities work turns out to look a lot like politics as usual, as full of the crazy and terrible and banal as the rest of the world. While Kalanick might see himself in the middle of a battle with good guys and bad guys, the events of the past few years have made it more and more difficult to pick out heroes and villains.There are other companies like Uber—Lyft and Sidecar, for example. But thanks to Uber's financial success and its three-tiered business plan, with various combinations of black cab, taxi and part-time individual drivers at work through the company's services depending on what each city will allow, it has attracted the lion’s share of attention. Kalanick has taken the opportunity to try to redirect any negative heat towards the taxi industry—and, given <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3032165/most-innovative-companies/why-the-insurance-industry-is-taking-aim-at-uber-and-lyft" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">increasing demands</a> that Uber drivers take on more expensive insurance policies, he may look to insurers next. But the company’s recent history looks less like that of an underdog on the ropes and more like an $18 billion business opening new markets every way it can, with regulators scrambling to keep pace. Uber is now active in more than 100 cities, and Lyft in 67.  Uber and Lyft both appear to follow a pattern in launch after launch. First, they set up operations in a city under a legal theory about how they are allowed to operate under that place's current rules. In the US, at least, regulators often disagree. As Uber and Lyft continue to operate, they build a user base. If regulators haven't cleared the company's drivers to work—and that has often been the case—then fines start to pile up for drivers and possibly even the companies themselves. At about the same time, the companies start sending representatives and lobbyists to meet with regulators. Eventually, lawmakers pass new rules that make room for companies like Uber and Lyft to operate legally.As all of this goes on, strange and sad things happen that call into question the idea that Uber and Lyft don't need much regulation. It may be true that the taxi industry is also throwing “mud” at Uber, as Kalanick told Swisher in May. The company has been named in at least a dozen ongoing federal civil lawsuits around the country, many of which are brought by customers or taxi or livery cab drivers. It's also true that many of the counts in those lawsuits have been dismissed.For example, one Uber user sued the company after he and his fiancé got in an<a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-uber-passenger-sues-after-scuffle-with-driver/article/4879999" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">altercation with an Uber-summoned driver in an Arby's parking lot in Oklahoma City</a>. He says the driver asked his fiancée why she was “being a bitch,” so he told him to stop right away and let them out. After pulling into the Arby's lot, according to the civil suit, the driver walked around the car, punched him in the face, got back in the car, and sped off. The driver, an Air Force veteran, is quoted denying this version of events. He has said the passengers actually became belligerent and assaulted him, and criticized the company for its handling of the incident.Either way, the Oklahoman reports no criminal charges were filed. A federal judge took Uber off the list of defendants in the civil suit. The driver no longer works with Uber. In general, Uber relies on a <a href="http://blog.uber.com/qualityTO" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">ratings system</a> to track which drivers are good and which ones may need to be let go.But these incidents seem to have little to do with jealousy from old-school cab drivers. Earlier this month, an Uber driver allegedly <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/07/09/man-visiting-d-c-says-uber-driver-took-him-on-wild-ride/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">took passengers along</a> on a high-speed chase in Washington, DC. In Los Angeles, a driver was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uber-driver-kidnapping-hotel-20140603-story.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">arrested on suspicion of kidnapping</a> for purposes of sexual assault. Another driver in Seattle has been cleared of a rape accusation in <a href="http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Woman-visiting-Seattle-says-she-was-raped-by-Uber-driver-267059081.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">what remains an active sexual assault investigation</a>. Then there's a suit <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-sued-over-girl-s-death-in-S-F-5178921.php" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">seeking to hold Uber liable</a> for the 2014 New Year's Eve death of a 6-year-old girl. She was struck by an UberX driver who was not carrying a passenger at the time.Uber has said that UberX drivers are backed by commercial insurance while carrying passengers, but that 2014 New Year's Eve incident has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/us-ridesharing-california-lawmaking-idUSKBN0ET0B220140618" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">motivated</a> new California legislation that would raise insurance requirements for drivers even when between fares.Then there are Uber's conflicts with competitors and drivers themselves.One such claim is that a 20 percent "gratuity" <a href="https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202290128-Do-I-have-to-tip-my-driver-" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">Uber includes in the bill for its users</a> is deceitful because a chunk of that money goes to the company and not to the driver. This argument appears in several pending federal cases brought by customers and drivers.“Uber driver partners are licensees of the Uber platform and earn 80 percent of every fare,” Lane Kasselman, an Uber spokesman, said in an email. “Although it varies by market, Uber generally has a 20 percent commission for lead generation and marketing.”I asked him if “fare” includes charges labeled as gratuities.“There is no need to tip with Uber,” he replied.Confused? Perhaps that's why the cases haven't been dismissed and are still pending in federal court.Another claim is that Uber overburdens drivers with the cost of new cars in the name of keeping its fleet up to date. In Seattle, Uber drivers—whom the company treats as independent contractors, not employees—want <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/uber-drivers-say-they-need-a-union/Content?oid=19281784" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">to form a union</a> to fight to improve working conditions. One of their complaints, according to the Stranger, an independent Seattle weekly newspaper, is that the list of vehicles approved for Uber Black, the black-car service, changes so frequently that it puts a strain on drivers' wallets.A livery cab driver who works in New York City made that charge against Uber in a case now before the State Supreme Court. In the suit, he says he was bumped to UberX because his 2010 Chrysler was not on a new list of approved Uber Black vehicles. He traded it in for a newer model worth nearly $65,000. Just five months after buying that 2013 Chrysler 300, Uber notified him that this vehicle, too, had been bumped from the Uber Black list and he was once again being dropped back to UberX. As an UberX driver, he says, he can't make nearly as much money. At issue is whether Uber made any promise to keep the driver on Uber Black for any length of time, which of course the company denies. Uber <a href="https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=DOmAyq_PLUS_FKbLEv97_PLUS_qIP25Q&system=prod" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">has filed a motion to dismiss the suit</a> and the case is still pending.All of these issues—ranging from tragedies to alleged crimes, bizarre events and routine business disputes—are the same kinds that bedeviled the taxi industry <a href="https://www.google.com/search?&q=bus+flips+over&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#channel=fs&q=taxi+arrest" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">long before Uber </a>arrived. Perhaps the biggest actual departure from the norm on Uber's part is its "surge pricing," in which the company raises prices during peak usage times—like snowstorms—and is now testing out what happens if it reduces prices <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-07/uber-temporarily-cuts-prices-on-uberx-service-in-new-york" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">during low-usage</a> summer months. Uber has promised drivers they will not lose money because lower prices will raise demand.Innovative? Absolutely. Disruptive? Probably so. But revolutionary? One city official I spoke to said surge pricing was among the least problematic issues confronting regulators, because Uber customers know what the cost of a ride is going to be before getting in the car."As long as that agreement is made up front," says Adam Stevens, an assistant city attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, "let the free market decide."Milwaukee officials are working on a bill that would allow Uber, Lyft, and companies like them to operate within their city limits. In the meantime, both companies have been told that drivers might be fined for violating city law—and have stayed in business anyway. (Stevens said this week he was not aware of any drivers actually getting fined, and that the companies would probably reimburse them in any case.)Milwaukee would <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/07/14/council-green-lights-ride-share-deal-that-lifts-lyft-uber-sidecar/#20586101=0" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">join Seattle</a> on a list of places where ride-sharing companies disrupted their way to the bargaining table and got laws passed that cleared the way for their drivers to work, although only after some tough talk—or more—from officials. Seattle's mayor was <a href="http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-ride-sharing-cease-desist/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">on the verge of issuing a cease and desist letter to Uber and Lyft</a> before officials brokered a deal earlier this month to revise previous legislation that set a cap on the number of drivers each company could have on the road. In California, the state Public Utilities Commission fined Lyft, SideCar, and Uber $20,000 each; last year, the state issued regulations allowing ride-sharing companies to operate. Uber was fined $26,000 and Lyft $9,000 in Virginia, according to a state DMV spokeswoman, Sunni Brown. Both companies appealed and have since applied for authority to operate, although Lyft withdrew its appeal and paid the fine. In Pennsylvania, regulators have filed complaints seeking more than $110,000 in fines from Lyft and about $95,000 from Uber. Both companies are seeking authority to operate there, now, too. (Lyft had already applied when investigators from the state Public Utilities Commission there slapped the company with those fines.)“Many of those processes have moved forward and turned into a thoughtful, collaborative discussion where we can work with local leaders to create new rules for peer-to-peer transportation,” said a Lyft spokeswoman, Paige Thelen.Ride-sharing companies are pulling out all the stops to steer that discussion.On Monday, the Illinois state legislature sent a bill to Governor Pat Quinn that Uber and Lyft don't like. The legislation sets new rules for "ridesharing" services, like prohibiting drivers from working more than 10 hours a day, preventing them from charging more than the most expensive cab ride in the area, and requiring them to obtain a chauffeur's license. It mandates cars conform to some of the same insurance and safety requirements as taxis and livery cabs. And it requires that 5 percent of vehicles available through a "ridesharing arrangement" like Uber be able to accommodate wheelchairs. It would also keep services like UberX out of airports and cab stands.Uber's response has been a petition calling on customers to urge Quinn to veto the bill and a <a href="http://chicagoinno.streetwise.co/2014/07/08/uber-to-bring-400-jobs-to-chicago-as-long-as-quinn-vetoes-or-amends-ride-sharing-bill/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">public suggestion</a> that it would add more jobs to an already planned expansion of its Chicago office—provided Quinn prevents those provisions from becoming law. In a<a href="http://blog.uber.com/quinnveto" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">blog post</a>, Uber writes that the bill's rules "threaten consumers" and that insurance provisions are a maneuver to "protect the taxi monopoly."“Uber works with leaders across the country to develop regulations that protect driver economic opportunity and rider access to safe, affordable and reliable transportation alternatives,” Kasselman, the Uber spokesman, told VICE.This might not be a change in position for the company, but it's sure a change in tone. In 2013, the Wall Street Journal’s Andy Kessler <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324235104578244231122376480?mg=reno64-wsj" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">quoted</a> Kalanick this way:"We don't have to beg for forgiveness because we are legal," he says. "But there's been so much corruption and so much cronyism in the taxi industry and so much regulatory capture that if you ask for permission upfront for something that's already legal, you'll never get it. There's no upside to them."Maybe Uber's rough ride to success over the past two years has motivated the company—including Kalanick, who was more diplomatic in his Bloomberg TV appearance Thursday—to get better at this whole politics thing.The company has hired lobbyists in Illinois to advocate on its behalf, according to public records, including Governor Quinn’s former chief of staff, Jack Lavin. In New York, it made a similar move by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/akchhabra" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">bringing on</a> former NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission official Ashwini Chhabra earlier this year. And Kara Swisher at Re/code <a href="http://recode.net/2014/07/14/ubers-search-for-key-comms-hire-shows-just-how-serious-it-is-about-fighting-asshole-taxi" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">reports</a> that Uber is looking for a senior communications hire to head up its growing government affairs staff.All signs point to a rapid shift by Uber and companies like it from trying to ignore politics to actively shaping it. That shift must be informed by the fines, the penalties, the accidents and the allegations of the past two years—not just, as Uber CEO Travis Kalanick puts it, the “asshole named 'Taxi.'”In Milwaukee, for example, officials are in discussions with Uber and Lyft about whether their background checks, vehicle inspections and insurance provisions are in line with what the city wants. Thelen, the Lyft spokeswoman, says the company's background checks are done by an industry-leading third party, and claims they meet or exceed local standards in most cities where the service operates. Uber makes similar claims about its own safety standards. But according to Stevens, the Milwaukee official, officials there want the police department to check drivers working within the city limits, the argument being that cops have access to databases that no civilian can see. The city wants to find suitable third parties to handle things like vehicle inspections, too, rather than taking companies at their word that cars are up to code.Even with an algorithm matching passengers and drivers rather than someone at a radio console, many problems seem to crop up for Uber and its brethren—just as they do for regular cabs. Passengers get angry. Drivers get lost, or worse. Cars break down. Collisions happen and sometimes, sadly, six-year-old kids wind up dead. Hiding all of this behind a smartphone interface changes nothing. Uber cannot protect its drivers or its users from all of the terrible things that happen while people are humping to Point A from Point B in the modern city, and there are not enough lobbyists in the world to convince a state or a city that it isn't within their rights to force the company to try harder anyway."I think the companies are recognizing that there's going to be some regulation," says Stevens, the Milwaukee official. "They can't just operate outside of the law."Nick Judd is a freelance writer whose work has also appeared at Yahoo News and techPresident. Follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/nclarkjudd" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">Twitter</a>.
<a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141224/business/141229649/">http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141224/business/141229649/</a>

On a Thursday in June, bureaucrats from Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles made their move against Uber Technologies. The fast-growing ride-for-hire company was told that its popular service was, in fact, illegal and that the firm needed to immediately cease all operations in the state.

Far from being intimidated, Uber was ready to fight back. The company immediately called on one of its most potent weapons -- its ever-growing list of smartphone-wielding customers. A notice sent to Uber users in Virginia included the email address and phone number of the ordinarily low-profile official in charge of the decision. The notice instructed the company's supporters to demand that the DMV "stand up for you."

Hundreds of them did and, by Sunday, Commissioner Richard Holcomb's inbox was flooded. Holcomb did his best to respond -- working through the weekend, even crafting emails to irate Uber customers as he lay in bed at home.

"OK, after staying at the office until 9:00 Friday and working for several hours yesterday, last night and today, I am caught up responding to all the incoming emails," he wrote in an email to his staff that Sunday afternoon.

While Uber pushed its riders to lobby Holcomb, the company also moved quickly to mobilize its newly hired team of high-powered lobbyists in the state capital.

After the lobbyists agreed to meet in the ensuing days with aides to Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the state's transportation secretary instructed the DMV not to interfere with Uber drivers, according to documents obtained through a public records request.

Within 48 hours of the order, Uber had, in effect, won a reprieve.

Then, seeking a longer-term fix, Uber lobbyists submitted a draft of a proposed temporary operating permit. State officials granted a revised version several weeks later, permitting Uber as well as Lyft, a smaller company, to continue normal operations for the time being.

In an era of government dysfunction, the Virginia example shows how San Francisco-based Uber has pioneered not just a new sort of taxi service but also a new way to change long-standing local ordinances.

Uber's approach is brash and, so far, highly effective: It launches in local markets regardless of existing laws or regulations. It aims to build a large customer base as quickly as possible. When challenged, Uber rallies its users to pressure government officials, while unleashing its well-connected lobbyists to influence lawmakers.

The company -- which says its goal is to work with officials to change old laws that its executives argue don't apply to a phone-app-based service -- has carried out this approach repeatedly in cities and states across the country over the past year. It has upended long-entrenched taxi regulations while building itself into a technology giant valued at more than $40 billion. (Washington Post owner Jeffrey Bezos is an Uber investor.)

In the past eight months, officials in 17 cities and states have approved measures allowing Uber to operate -- seven of them since the start of October. Uber has expanded from 28 U.S. cities a year ago to 138 now, according to the company.

In the District of Columbia, the D.C. Council approved rules for app-based services in late October on 12-to-1 vote despite a mass protest by cabdrivers. Oklahoma City approved such regulations also in late October, while Dallas did so Wednesday; Anchorage, Alaska is weighing them now.

The company has, with some exceptions, steamrollered government opponents. Critics, led by traditional cabdrivers and insurance companies, argue that Uber drivers are underinsured and dangerous.

Uber, founded five years ago, has asserted its strength in recent months through a combination of new-age tacticsthat portray the company as a social movement to be embraced by its faithful and old-school lobbying more typical for a business seeking to avoid government interference.

Riders, for instance, have been sent alerts on their phones to sign petitions when a key decision point is imminent. More than 450,000 Uber riders have signed petitions, the company says, and when an alert goes out, people respond quickly -- sometimes at a rate of seven electronic signatures per second.

In California, where state lawmakers sought to stiffen regulations after an Uber driver fatally struck a girl, celebrities such as company investor Ashton Kutcher have taken to Twitter to rally public support around #CAlovesUber.

In Illinois, as Uber fought legislators' efforts to impose new restrictions, the company sent its riders an interactive map, allowing them to email an Uber testimonial to their state representative with a single click.

At the same time, the company has assembled a lobbying empire with traditional ties to both major parties, bringing onto its payroll with startling speed a sprawling team of former gubernatorial aides, former state legislators, high-level political operatives and other well-connected advocates.

In the past two years, the company has hired private lobbyists in at least 50 U.S. cities and states, employing multiple firms in some places, according to a Washington Post review of local lobbyist registration records. The records show that the company has hired at least 161 individuals to lobby on its behalf, on top of its own rapidly expanding policy office. In Sacramento, California's state capital, the company spent $475,000 from July to November to lobby lawmakers.

The total number of Uber's registered lobbyists nationally is probably higher than The Washington Post's review found; Uber officials declined to release a complete lobbyist list.

To lead the effort, the company brought on former White House adviser David Plouffe this fall. In addition to his deep connections to President Barack Obama and other national Democrats, Plouffe is the architect of the 2008 campaign that helped transform Obama into a winning political brand -- a trajectory, from upstart to victor, that Uber executives envision for their company.

Announcing Plouffe's appointment, Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick declared on his blog that the company was in "the middle of a political campaign and it turns out the candidate is Uber." The opponent, he said, is "the Big Taxi cartel," which he said had "used decades of political contributions and influence to restrict competition." Plouffe, who started with the company in September, added a message of his own to Kalanick's blog, decrying taxis and their backers as "those who want to maintain a monopoly and play the inside game to deny opportunity to those on the outside."

In many ways, 2014 has been the year that Uber established itself as a seemingly permanent force in technology and transportation.

With that success has come some stumbles.

Kalanick apologized last month after a top executive mused at a private dinner in New York about the possibility of investigating unfriendly journalists. Uber has also faced questions about the privacy of customer data, its sometimes unpredictable surge pricing, and aggressive tactics it has employed against rival Lyft.

Overseas, officials are starting to contend with some of the questions that have faced U.S. regulators over the past few years. The company suspended operations Thursday in New Delhi amid questions about background checks after a female passenger accused an Uber driver of rape. Also in the past week, a judge in Spain ordered the company to halt operations after finding it guilty of unfair competition.

And the company has suffered setbacks in some domestic markets -- failing to win support from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who vetoed an Uber-backed measure. The company was sued this month by city officials in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, and the company recently halted operations in Nevada because of a court ruling.

In some cases, the company's lobbying efforts have left a sour taste.

A Brewer aide described how the company's lobbyists lectured policy advisers on Uber's contributions to society.

In California, a mass mailing by Uber to constituents of a legislator who sponsored a measure that would impose stronger insurance requirements on the company was seen by critics as an intimidation tactic.

"They wanted to get themselves established very quickly as the bully you didn't want to mess with," said State Assembly member Adrin Nazarian, who was sponsoring a different measure to regulate Uber.

Plouffe, in a recent interview at Uber's headquarters, said there is a "misnomer that Uber just wanted to operate in a wild-west way" and have no regulations governing it.

"That's clearly not the case," he said. "We're eager for smart and modern regulations."

He said the company has aimed to "work with regulators, work with elected officials, to find a way forward" in dealing with laws that in many cases "never anticipated" a service such as Uber.

As for some of the company's recent controversies, particularly the New York dinner for which Uber apologized, Plouffe acknowledged that they have caused "reputational angst."

"We have to correct it. Part of this is just when you're maturing and growing, you're going to make mistakes," he said. "The growth is great. But catching up to the growth is hard."

Plouffe, 47, has been splitting time between Washington and the San Francisco headquarters. But he said he has fully made the transition from election politics to his new life as a business executive -- and he said he is planning to move his family to California.

Still, Plouffe drew parallels between Uber and the 2008 Obama campaign, in which a broad, multiethnic coalition of voters was energized by a young candidate who appeared to offer something special and different from the norm.

Uber, Plouffe said, has the unusual ability to inspire its base. The company has succeeded in shaping new regulations, he said, in part because politicians could not ignore the voices of constituents asking to make the service legal.

"People always say, everyone should run the campaign that Barack Obama did. Well, you can't. Because you can't manufacture it," Plouffe said. "It's a really important thing to understand. It either exists or it doesn't."

"There may be many companies that want to do what Uber does, but if they don't have it, they won't be successful," he said.

Plouffe pointed to the growing number of state and local governments adopting new pro-Uber laws as evidence that the company has gained acceptance.

"What's changed is reality's set in," he said. "The discussion has fundamentally changed to how do we regulate ride sharing. And not whether Uber and Lyft and others should be in existence."

<h3 class="breakHead" style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Regulations across U.S.</h3>

<p class="p402_premiumInside" style="line-height: 23px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As Uber has rapidly remade regulations from coast to coast, it has also scrambled traditional partisan alliances.

Even as taxi unions and other pro-Democratic labor advocates have blasted Uber as anti-consumer and a drag on driver wages, many Democrats have backed the company, which caters to young urban dwellers and tech investors, who tend to lean left.

Democratic Party figures such as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been vocal supporters.

After Virginia officials overturned the DMV's cease-and-desist order against Uber this year, McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, hailed the new arrangement as a symbol of his state's embrace of innovation.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, whose office had given the DMV key legal guidance allowing a new permit to be offered, even cited the decision in a fundraising appeal to supporters.

In an email to his PAC with the subject line "Uber upLyfting news," playing off the name of the company and its rival, Herring wrote, "For the moment, we've found a way to keep Virginians safe, preserve a service they want, and support innovative businesses." In an interview, Herring said the point of the email was to update supporters about an important compromise.

Republicans, too, have embraced the company as a celebration of the free market and as a challenge to big-city unions that are aligned with the taxi industry. The Republican National Committee circulated an email in August asking for supporters to sign a petition to show "support for free market companies like Uber."

One of the company's most vigorous defenders is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, who regularly tweets his support. When Virginia issued its initial cease-and-desist order, Paul declared on Twitter, "The Nanny state strikes again."

In July, Grover Norquist, president of conservative political advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, drew attention to the culture-war aspect of the Uber debate, writing an opinion piece for Reuters in which he argued that embracing Uber could help Republicans "make a comeback" in Democratic cities. The urbanites who favor the ride-sharing service and other similar applications, he wrote, are "leading Democratic constituencies -- including educated professionals, gays, minorities, single women and working mothers."

"By championing the often disruptive share-economy businesses, defending them against the status quo and focusing their political campaigns on these issues, the GOP can show it is the party that embraces companies that improve the quality of life in cities," he wrote.

Foreshadowing more fights ahead, the conservative, corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council began this month drafting legislation that supportive lawmakers, mostly Republicans, can push in states across the country.

<p class="p402_premiumInside" style="line-height: 23px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Uber has built its lobbying empire out of necessity.

While plenty of other high-tech companies have experienced rapid growth, and many businesses of all sizes seek to alter regulations that affect them, there are few if any parallels to Uber -- which has more than doubled in value since the summer and has engaged simultaneously with so many levels of governments in so many places.

The company says it is not a transport or taxi service; it is a technology company whose product is not car rides but the phone application used to arrange them. Its UberX service relies on partnerships with thousands of independent contractors who use their own vehicles. Drivers find passengers using Uber's phone app and then remit a percentage of the fare to the company.

Uber generally enters local markets without seeking prior approval from regulators -- a brazen move that, almost immediately, draws complaints and regulation efforts.

Across the country over the past year, the company has been fined, sued and repeatedly issued cease-and-desist orders.

As Uber began to amass its lobbying army, the battles brewed in dozens of places at the same time.

In June, for example, the Illinois General Assembly passed a measure that would have applied strict new rules to Uber and other ride-sharing companies. Uber drivers who worked more than 36 hours for the company every two weeks would have to get a chauffeur's license, as if they were full-time taxi or limo drivers. Ride-share drivers would have been required to hold commercial auto insurance.

Backed by the taxi industry and insurance companies, the bill passed with an overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof majority. Its sponsors were Democrats, but Republican leaders, whose constituents tended to be residents in more rural areas not served by Uber, backed it as well.

In the face of what seemed to be a dramatic setback -- particularly given the lucrative Chicago market where Uber was catching on -- the company fought back.

It blast emailed all Uber account holders in the state and urged them to sign a digital petition asking Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn to veto the measure. It inserted a splash screen when users opened the smartphone app to hire a ride in Chicago, also urging them to get involved. Uber representatives said the petition was signed by 25,000 supporters in its first hour -- and ultimately more than 80,000 people signed.

Uber also successfully interjected itself into Illinois' fierce gubernatorial campaign, with GOP challenger (and eventual winner) Bruce Rauner issuing a statement in July urging Quinn to veto the measure. "I love Uber," Rauner's statement said.

The company assembled a powerhouse Springfield, Illinois lobbying team -- including Mike Kasper, a lawyer who has represented Emanuel and top legislative Democrats; Jack Dorgan, a former state Republican chairman; and Jack Lavin, who took on the company as a client in May, eight months after leaving his job as Quinn's chief of staff.

The company scored a victory in August, when Quinn vetoed the bill.

Legislative leaders, noting the bill's broad support, said they would simply override the veto and allow the law to go into effect anyway.

But Uber's lobbyists showered attention on lawmakers who had backed the bill but seemed to be growing tepid. For example, they took Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Democrat from the Chicago suburbs, on a tour of the company's Chicago offices. Nekritz said in a recent interview that she learned a lot from the Uber officials, adding that she "didn't have a solid grasp on what the bill said" when she had voted for it.

The company mailed 60,000 glossy fliers to voters in about 20 targeted legislative districts. "Don't let special interests leave you sitting on the curb," it said, a reference to the taxi industry's vigorous support of a veto override.

By the November session, Nekritz and others were either undecided on or opposed to the bill they had once backed.

The issue was resolved between Uber lobbyists and lawmakers in late November in a private meeting room in the state Capitol. There, the bill's sponsor agreed to abandon his veto override effort and company executives said they would sign off on a less onerous measure, which passed this month and is awaiting the governor's signature.

"We came really close here -- we got to the precipice of putting uncomfortable restrictions on Uber," said Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski, the measure's sponsor.

Uber's tactics in Illinois mirrored those it had successfully used in a similar legislative battle in California.

The company moved aggressively to fend off legislation that would have required it to use a government agency to conduct criminal background checks as well as impose drug tests for drivers.

Uber summoned hundreds of its drivers and riders to Sacramento to rally on the company's behalf. It produced a campaign-style video featuring personal testimonials, including from a blind man who talked about how the service helps him get from place to place.

State Assembly member Susan Bonilla, a Democrat who sponsored a bill to tighten insurance requirements, said she felt the pressure from Uber intensify over the summer as she and other lawmakers held talks with the company's lobbyists. Emails poured in from constituents, who she said had been egged on by appeals from pro-Uber leaders in both parties.

"It seemed like even as I moved toward what I considered to be a negotiated compromise, the opposition actually increased," Bonilla said.

In the end, the background screening measure failed. Bonilla's insurance bill passed -- but Uber secured enough concessions that the company wound up supporting the bill and citing it as a success.

Virginia officials, meanwhile, say they succeeded in imposing new rules on the company in exchange for the state's reversal over the summer that permitted Uber to continue operating. The company, for instance, paid $26,000 in civil penalties.

"What we said was, 'If you want to sit down in good faith, we'll bargain in good faith,' " said state Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne, who said he met twice with company representatives in the weeks following the June cease-and-desist order.

Internal documents suggest that negotiations were aimed from the start at finding a way to allow the company to operate.

At a meeting between state officials and Uber lobbyists two weeks after Uber and Lyft were told to stop operating, Layne said the administration "wants Uber to be able to operate legally in Virginia," provided it complied with certain conditions, according to meeting notes. One was that the company submit evidence that would establish an "immediate and urgent need" for its service, a legal requirement of a temporary permit. The DMV had earlier determined that Uber and Lyft could not meet the standard.

Documents show that a first draft of the temporary permit was forwarded to a state official by a lobbyist for Uber seven days later, several days before the company formally applied for it and six weeks before it was granted.

Asked about the company's role in crafting the agreement, Holcomb, the DMV commissioner, said it "would be a stretch" to say the company wrote it.

Uber Eastern region spokesman Taylor Bennett said the company "worked very closely" with the state throughout the process. He said that the cease-and-desist order was a surprise and that the company has "demonstrated an eagerness to collaborate on building sensible regulations."

The DMV will propose permanent legislation to regulate the industry when Virginia lawmakers gather January in Richmond, the state capital. Vigorous negotiations are underway on that proposal. It is not yet clear whether the company will support the legislation.

---