COMMENTARY: How Uber contributed to the fate of taxi drivers

globalnewsdigital 8/5/2021

Countries around the world are wrestling with whether to classify Uber drivers and other gig economy workers as independent contractors or employees.

© Pixabay Taxi cabs on a street.

But when Uber first came on the scene, the primary subject of debate was whether its drivers were, in fact, taxi drivers. Why was this ride-sharing or ride-hailing app run by a tech firm also applying to be a taxi company? Was Uber truly “the same as a taxi, but different?”


Read more: Uber Canada proposes changes to labour laws to provide workers with some benefits

We’ve studied how Uber and taxi drivers have been affected by Uber’s categorization as a technology company. As organizational and management researchers at business schools from across Canada studying stigma, marginalization and inequality as well as entrepreneurship, innovation and technology, we became very interested in Uber’s entry into the taxi industry as we watched it unfold.

In Toronto, Uber was eventually legalized in 2016 after “months of protest and turmoil” and years of debate while it operated illegally.

But when we began studying Uber’s entry into Toronto, we noticed something concerning. There was increasing praise in the media for Uber and Uber drivers, but criticism and near-contempt for taxis and taxi drivers.

Kam Phung summarizes the study in his Top 25 Finalists’ video in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s 2020 Storytellers challenge.

How were two groups of people doing the same work every day — driving other people to their desired destinations — being perceived so differently? As one Uber driver told us in an interview: “I don’t see the difference. … There is no difference between each other.” But it seemed the media and Uber disagreed.

Toronto is home to the largest taxi driver population in the country with more than 10,000 drivers, over 80 per cent of them immigrants. Unfortunately, taxi drivers in Toronto have historically faced racism, classism and stigma. More broadly, taxi driving has also been called “dirty work.”

© Provided by Global News A downtown Toronto intersectionThe intersection of Yonge Street and Queen Street West in downtown Toronto. (Kayla Speid/Unsplash)

The work of late Canadian-born sociologist Erving Goffman and subsequent research have shown that stigma transfers by association. This would suggest that Uber drivers would become stigmatized by virtue of entering the field of driving, just as taxi drivers are. But we didn’t see this happen for Uber drivers.

To make sense of this, we conducted an in-depth case study of Uber’s entry and expansion into Toronto from 2013 to 2016. We analyzed 976 media articles and conducted 55 interviews after walking the streets of Toronto and ordering Ubers to find real drivers.

We also conducted observations at protests, panel discussions and city hall meetings to better understand what was happening on the ground.

Based on this data, we wrote and published an open-access article in the Journal of Management Studies, where we argue that new entrants to a stigmatized occupation can actually deflect stigma. But how does this happen?

Uber’s perceived categorical ambiguity — as seen in the surge of debates over how to label Uber and its drivers — paved a path to differentiate Uber drivers from taxi drivers through two activities.

First, Uber spokespeople, public officials and media created a categorical distinction by pointing to technology to explain why “Uber is not a taxi company.”

Second, they highlighted differences between the perceived identities of Uber drivers and taxi drivers, often emphasizing that Uber drivers were driving short-term and part-time. Yet, this didn’t necessarily reflect reality. As one Uber driver told us in an interview:


“I start at 7 a.m. and I finish at 7 p.m. Twelve hours. I try to work Monday to Friday because I have family and I have one daughter. … I want to enjoy the summer, but sometimes I work on Saturday at night.”

These categorical distinctions and perceived differences in identities helped Uber drivers deflect the stigma of taxi driving, despite many Uber drivers even acknowledging they did the same thing as their taxi counterparts.

Video: Ride-sharing services may soon be regulated in Kingston, Ont.

Meanwhile, the stigma facing taxi drivers got worse. As distinctions and differences circulated in the media, they were accompanied by remarks anchored in prejudice tied to the social, moral and physical characteristics of taxi drivers.

These remarks degraded taxi drivers to the benefit of Uber drivers, often emphasizing and juxtaposing the immigrant status, languages, hygiene and working conditions of taxi drivers compared to Uber drivers. Media coverage also often emphasized taxi industry features that were mandated and regulated by the city, and not taxi drivers themselves.

The media reported on the convenience of the new Uber app and its automatic credit card payment process, even though Uber was operating illegally — and as several taxi companies launched their own apps to “help riders commute hassle-free.”

By the time Uber was legalized as a “private transportation company” and the distinctions between Uber drivers and taxi drivers were formalized, it wasn’t just that taxi drivers faced economic hardships. They also argued there was a “two-tier system,” and Uber drivers and taxi drivers became polarized in the media.

“It’s really severely marginalizing my existence," one driver told us.

"I feel like I’m coming to the bitter end. I feel like that guy in the orange jumpsuit who is on his knees and a guy from ISIS is standing over me, except the guy in the black suit there is an Uber guy with a machete in his hand.”

Read more: Supreme Court clears way for Uber drivers in Canada to be seen as employees

Uber’s entry into Toronto divided an occupation and exacerbated the social and economic hardships of taxi drivers. And it all started with how Uber and Uber drivers were categorized.

It’s encouraging that Uber drivers didn’t face the same stigma as taxi drivers. However, it’s disheartening that it avoided that fate at the cost of taxi drivers.

Kam Phung, PhD Candidate in Organization Studies, York University, Canada; Luciana Turchick Hakak, Assistant Professor, Organizational Behaviour, University of The Fraser Valley; Madeline Toubiana, Assistant Professor, Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Management, University of Alberta; Sean Buchanan, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, University of Manitoba, and Trish Ruebottom, Associate Professor of HR and Management, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Uber loses French case, driver declared employee

One lawyer said the ruling puts Uber's business model at risk over the long term in France

France's top civil court dealt ride-hailing giant Uber a setback on Wednesday with a key ruling that it had effectively employed one of its drivers.

Uber has long argued it is merely a platform linking self-employed drivers with riders, a model which allows for avoidance of certain taxes and social charges as well as paid vacations.

However that practice, which underpins the gig economy, has increasingly come under legal attack in many countries.

The French Court of Cassation ruled against Uber's appeal of a 2019 decision that a former driver who sued the firm effectively had a work contract.

The court found that Uber BV had control over the driver by his connection to the app which directs him to clients, and thus should not be considered an independent contractor but an employee.

"This is a first and it will impact all platforms inspired by Uber's model," said Fabien Masson, the lawyer for the former driver.

The ruling does not force Uber to automatically sign contracts, and drivers will have to go to court to obtain requalification as employees.

But for the estimated 150 Uber drivers who have already filed cases, "these drivers will benefit from this ruling", said Masson.

Another lawyer who represents a dozen Uber drivers, Kevin Mention, said the ruling will eventually put the gig economy model at risk in France as it clearly described practices that are common to all firms that use it.

"If they don't change their model today they are heading straight for the wall as it is certain qualification" for those who challenge their status as contractors.

Uber said the ruling missed many of the changes it has made.

"During the past two years we have made many changes that give drivers more control over how they use the app as well as better social protection," said a spokeswoman.

She said drivers choose Uber for the independence and flexibility it allows them and noted the Court of Cassation ruling contradicted its earlier decisions that said without an obligation to work there was no effective employment.

In the French case, the driver, who stopped working for Uber in 2016 after providing some 4,000 trips in under two years, sued to have his "commercial accord" reclassified as an employment contract.

He was seeking reimbursement for holidays and expenses as well as payment for "undeclared work" and unfair contract termination.

The former driver sued after Uber deactivated his account, "depriving him of the possibility to get new reservations", according to the court.

French court backs Uber driver in key gig-economy case (Update)


French court rules against Uber to class drivers as employees, not independent contractor

Issued on: 04/03/2020
 

An advert for the Uber ride-sharing service is seen on a bus stop in Paris, France, March 11, 2016. © Charles Platiau, REUTERS
Text by:NEWS WIRES

France’s top civil court dealt ride-hailing giant Uber a setback on Wednesday with a ruling that it had effectively employed one of its drivers.

Uber has long argued that it is merely a platform linking self-employed drivers with riders, a model which allows it to avoid paying certain taxes and social charges as well as provide paid vacations.

However that practice, which underpins the gig economy, has increasingly come under legal attack in many countries.

In Wednesday’s ruling, the French Court of Cassation rejected Uber’s appeal against a 2019 decision that found a former driver who sued the firm effectively had a work contract.

The court found that Uber BV had control over the driver by his connection to the app which directs him to clients, and thus should not be considered an independent contractor but an employee.

“This is a first and it will impact all platforms inspired by Uber’s model,” said Fabien Masson, the lawyer for the former driver.

The ruling does not force Uber to automatically sign contracts, and drivers will be forced to go to court to obtain requalification as employees.

But for the estimated 150 Uber drivers who have already filed cases, “these drivers will benefit from this ruling”, said Masson.

Gig economy at risk

Another lawyer who represents a dozen Uber drivers, Kevin Mention, said the ruling will eventually put the gig economy model at risk in France as it clearly described practices that are common to all firms that use it.

“If they don’t change their model today they are heading straight for the wall as it is certain qualification” for those who challenge their status as contractors.

Uber, for its part, said the ruling missed many of the changes it has made.

“During the past two years we have made many changes that give drivers more control over how they use the app as well as better social protection,” said a spokeswoman.

She said drivers choose Uber for the independence and flexibility it allows them and noted the Court of Cassation ruling contradicted its earlier decisions that said without an obligation to work their was not effective employment.

In the French case, the driver, who stopped working for Uber in 2016 after providing some 4,000 trips in under two years, sued to have his “commercial accord” reclassified as an employment contract.

He was seeking reimbursement for holidays and expenses as well as payment for “undeclared work” and unfair contract termination.

The former driver sued after Uber deactivated his account, “depriving him of the possibility to get new reservations”, according to the court.

(AFP)

Uber and Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees, appeals court finds

By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
Updated Fri October 23, 2020


VIDEO NOW PLAYING
Uber CEO: Let's change the system on gig work

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/tech/uber-lyft-california-appeal/index.html

CNNBusiness

In a blow to Uber and Lyft, a California appeals court said Thursday that the companies must reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors, affirming an earlier court decision.
The ruling marks a significant development in a months-long legal fight between the companies and the state of California, which in May sued Uber and Lyft and claimed they were in violation of state law. It also puts greater pressure on the companies to successfully pass their California ballot measure which seeks to exempt them from the law.
The state has argued that by classifying their drivers as contractors, Uber and Lyft deprive those workers of benefits they are entitled to under a law that took effect January 1. The law, known as Assembly Bill 5, or AB-5, says companies can only treat their workers as independent contractors if those people are free from company control and perform work outside the company's core business.
A reclassification of their workers would represent a radical shift forced on the two businesses, which have built up massive fleets of drivers by treating them as independent contractors and not providing them benefits that they would be entitled to as employees, such as minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave and unemployment insurance.


In August, a California court ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees, delivering a win to the state. At the time, both companies had threatened to shut down if they were forced to reclassify their workers.
The ruling prompted the companies to appeal. But Associate Justice Jon Streeter of the appellate court wrote in his decision Thursday that the injunction restraining Uber and Lyft from classifying their drivers as independent contractors was valid.
"It is broad in scope, no doubt, but so too is the scale of the alleged violations," he wrote.
"Uber and Lyft have used their muscle and clout to resist treating their drivers as workers entitled to those paycheck and benefit protections," Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement after the ruling. "It's time for Uber and Lyft to play by the rules."
The change won't happen immediately. Uber and Lyft still have 30 days to comply with California's law once the appeals process finishes. That clock typically starts 61 days after the appellate court transfers jurisdiction back to the trial court, assuming the opinion is not challenged. It is unclear if Uber and Lyft would appeal Thursday's ruling to the California Supreme Court, though Uber said in a statement to CNN Business that "we're considering our appeal options."

November's election might also make that court process moot. Uber (UBER) and Lyft (LYFT) — along with delivery services that use drivers such as DoorDash, Instacart, and Uber-owned Postmates — have poured $188 million into a California ballot initiative known as Proposition 22 that aims to side-step the AB-5 law.
If Prop. 22 passes, ride-hail and delivery drivers would continue to be treated as independent contractors. There would be some concessions on benefits, including a minimum earnings guarantee based on "engaged time" when a driver is fulfilling a ride or delivery request, but not the time they spend waiting for a gig.
"This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop. 22," Lyft spokesperson Julie Wood said in a statement to CNN Business on Thursday.
Uber also pivoted to the vote on Prop 22 in its statement, saying that if the measure is not passed, "rideshare drivers will be prevented from continuing to work as independent contractors, putting hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work and likely shutting down ridesharing throughout much of the state."
Last month, the CEOs of both companies told the California appeals court that they planned to comply with the law if the lower court's injunction was upheld, and if Prop. 22 fails.
But compliance "would at a minimum require fundamental changes to Uber's platform," wrote Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. He said that the change would "dramatically restrict" the number of drivers Uber could hire, among other moves.
Lyft CEO Logan Green wrote that "such implementation may include ceasing rideshare operations in all or some parts of California."

-- Jill Disis contributed to this report.

Uber drivers sue over alleged 'pressure' to vote, advocate for Prop 22
By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
Thu October 22, 2020



(CNN Business)For months, Uber drivers and passengers in California have received aggressive messaging in support of its controversial ballot initiative, Proposition 22.
Now, some Uber drivers are suing, saying the company has "unlawfully" pressured them and other drivers to support the measure.
California Proposition 22, or Prop 22, seeks to exempt Uber and other gig companies from a state labor law that would require them to classify their drivers as employees.
The class action lawsuit, filed Thursday in a San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of two Uber drivers and two nonprofit organizations, alleges that Uber (UBER) is "exerting extreme and wrongful pressure on its drivers to vote for and advocate for the passage of Proposition 22" through its usage of in-app messaging.


The lawsuit alleges this is in violation of California's Labor Code, which prohibits employers from controlling or directing the political activities of employees or attempting to coerce or influence employees' on engaging in any political action or political activity.
According to the lawsuit, first reported by The Washington Post, Uber forces its drivers to read misinformation about the ballot measure, threatens them with the loss of employment if Prop 22 fails to pass, and pressures drivers to indicate their support of it. In a screenshot included in the complaint, one of the prompts shown to drivers asks them to select "YES ON PROP 22" or "OK."

"This pressures drivers to accept Uber's position because it does not provide an option to vote no," the complaint reads.

The $185 million campaign to keep Uber and Lyft drivers as contractors in California
In a statement, an Uber spokesperson said: "This is an absurd lawsuit, without merit, filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts. It can't distract from the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22 and have for months because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they prefer to work."

The lawsuit is the latest escalation in the fight over Proposition 22 in the country's most populous state. Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and Uber-owned Postmates have put a combined $188 million into passing Prop 22, which aims to allow companies to continue treating ride-hail and delivery drivers as independent contractors with some benefit concessions. For many weeks, Californians have been inundated with television and social media ads, email blasts, and push notifications from the Yes campaign and the gig companies about the measure.
If Prop 22 fails to pass, workers would likely be considered employees who are entitled to a minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave under Assembly Bill 5, a state labor law that went into effect in January.
In May, the California Attorney General and a coalition of city attorneys sued Uber and Lyft accusing them of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and depriving them of protections they would be entitled to as employees. An Uber spokesperson said in a statement at the time that it plans to "contest this action in court." A Lyft spokesperson said it is "looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible."
David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, told CNN Business that the lawsuit is an "indication of the strategies that will be used by the opponents of Prop. 22."
"It is not about going to war dollar for dollar," said McCuan, of the opposition, backed by labor and union organizations, which has put just roughly $15 million behind its fight to date. "It's about being strategic on how to legally challenge and set the ground for what eventually will be a broader legal battle if the ballot passes."
McCuan said that if it does pass, the battle won't end on November 3."The legal wrangling around this is just beginning," he added.
The drivers, who are being represented by Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe and nonprofit Legal Aid at Work, are seeking an injunction, an order that Uber is violating the law, and penalties under the Private Attorney General Act, which could amount to $200 million, with 75% going to the State of California.

Uber ordered to pay $1.1 million to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 separate times

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies have aggressively fought efforts in multiple states and countries to reclassify drivers as employees, which would add significant additional costs to their already unprofitable business models.

tsonnemaker@insider.com (Tyler Sonnemaker)

4/2/2021

© RJ Sangosti/Getty Images A blind passenger gets into an Uber in Denver, Colorado (Lisa Irving is not pictured). RJ Sangosti/Getty Images

Uber must pay a blind passenger $1.1 million for illegally denying her rides, an arbitrator ruled.
Uber drivers denied Lisa Irving rides 14 times because of her blindness and guide dog, Bernie.
Uber unsuccessfully argued it wasn't responsible because its drivers are contractors.

An independent arbitrator on Thursday ordered Uber to pay $1.1 million to a blind passenger for illegally discriminating against her after its drivers refused her rides on 14 occasions.

The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that it wasn't liable for discrimination by its drivers because they're contractors.

Uber said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.

Lisa Irving, a San Francisco Bay Area resident who is blind and relies on her guide dog, Bernie, to help her get around, brought the claim against Uber in 2018 after "she was either denied a ride altogether or harassed by Uber drivers not wanting to transport her with her guide dog," the arbitrator's ruling said.

Uber drivers left Irving stranded late at night, caused her to be late to work (which eventually contributed to her being fired), and on two occasions, verbally abused and intimidated her - and that discrimination didn't stop even after she complained to Uber, her lawyers told Insider in a statement.

"Of all Americans who should be liberated by the rideshare revolution, the blind and visually impaired are among those who stand to benefit the most. However, the track record of major rideshare services has been spotty at best and openly discriminatory at worst," Catherine Cabalo, one of Irving's attorneys, said in the statement.

"The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go," Cabalo added.

"We are proud Uber's technology has helped people who are blind locate and obtain rides. Drivers using the Uber app are expected to serve riders with service animals and comply with accessibility and other laws, and we regularly provide education to drivers on that responsibility. Our dedicated team looks into each complaint and takes appropriate action," Andrew Hasbun, a spokesperson for Uber, said in a statement.

But the arbitrator found that Uber employees who investigated possible incidents of discrimination were "trained, in some instances, to coach drivers to find non-discriminatory reasons for ride denials," and even to "'advocate' to keep drivers on the platform despite discrimination complaints."

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's illegal for transportation businesses that are subject to the law to refuse to transport people with guide dogs, but Uber tried to shift the blame to its drivers, arguing that it wasn't responsible for any ADA violations because its drivers are independent contractors.

The arbitrator disagreed, ruling that Uber was also liable for ADA violations because of its "contractual supervision over its drivers and for its failure to prevent discrimination by properly training its workers."

But classifying drivers as contractors is a strategy that has allowed Uber to avoid legal liability in other contexts, such as when a pedestrian alleged that she nearly lost her leg after being struck by an Uber.

The strategy has also allowed Uber to avoid paying drivers' health insurance, sick pay, and unemployment insurance, shifting those costs to taxpayers - who paid $80 million last year to keep Uber and Lyft drivers afloat during the pandemic, making the companies two of the larger beneficiaries of a subsidy program aimed at small businesses.

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies have aggressively fought efforts in multiple states and countries to reclassify drivers as employees, which would add significant additional costs to their already unprofitable business models.

Earlier this week, UK food-delivery company Deliveroo's initial public offering tanked by 30% after investors expressed concerned about how it had exploited its drivers.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Uber Falls as Focus Shifts From First Profit to Slow Growth

Jackie Davalos
Tue, August 1, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- Uber Technologies Inc. reported its first-ever operating profit, but the shares slid as Wall Street questioned whether the company can maintain the pace of growth in its ride-hailing and delivery business.

Uber posted a second-quarter operating profit according to generally accepted accounting principles of $326 million and free-cash-flow of $1.14 billion. Total revenue jumped 14% to $9.2 billion during the period, narrowly missing the $9.3 billion analysts were expecting. It was the slowest rate of growth since the first quarter of 2021.

The shares, which had doubled this year, dropped 5.1% to $46.97 in New York Tuesday morning.

“The market doesn’t believe Uber can keep top-line growth at these levels,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh.

The results have raised the bar for Uber going forward. Uber’s business has remained largely unscathed from elevated inflation rates as customers are still willing to pay a premium for the convenience of hailing a ride and getting food delivered to their door. Trips in the US and Canada have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, while delivery demand hit an all-time high, despite increased costs for food.

After struggling with a driver shortage that caused fares and wait times to increase, Uber said the number of active drivers were up 33% in the second quarter compared with last year. The number of trips taken increased 26% from a year earlier to a record high.

Uber has focused on adding new features and products to the app, including a teen rides program, the ability to book group and guest rides, video gift messaging and a boat service. The company has also expanded advertising on the app and said it has been disciplined in cost management “across the board.” The company has avoided the widespread layoffs that have afflicted many other tech companies in recent months, though it has made limited cuts in its freight unit and in human resources. Uber was forced to undertake a major downsizing in 2020, when it dismissed about a quarter of its workforce at the height of the pandemic.

The operating profit, the company’s first since its founding in 2009, helped push Uber to a surprising gain in net income in the quarter. Uber has previously reported a quarterly net profit on occasion but it has always been fueled largely from investment gains, as it was again in the second quarter. In the three months ended June 30, Uber generated net income of $394 million, far surpassing the loss of $49.2 million analysts were expecting.

Uber projected gross bookings of $34 billion to $35 billion in the current quarter and adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization of $975 million to $1 billion, both beating analysts’ forecasts.

“These milestones were achieved through a combination of disciplined execution, record audience, and strong engagement,” Chief Executive Officer Dara Khosrowshahi said in prepared remarks. He added that the company was “well-positioned to sustain strong, incremental profit generation.”

The company also announced that Chief Financial Officer Nelson Chai is stepping down effective Jan. 5, marking one of the most high-profile departures since the company went public in 2019. A search for his replacement is underway.

“When I joined the company in 2018, Dara asked me to lead the financial transformation of the company,” Chai said in a statement. “As you can see from our Q2 results, that transformation has occurred. I am very proud of the great work we have all accomplished and thank Dara for his partnership.”

San Francisco-based Uber shares have diverged sharply from Lyft Inc., which has struggled to fully recover from the effects of Covid-19. Unlike Uber, Lyft only operates in North America and doesn’t have a food-delivery unit. Earlier this year, Uber’s crosstown rival installed a new chief executive officer and lowered prices to stem market share losses to Uber. Uber accounted for 74% of the US consumer ride-share sales at the end of June, while Lyft had 26%, according to Bloomberg Second Measure. Lyft shares slid less than 1% in premarket trading. The company is scheduled to report results next week.

In a conference call with analysts, Khosrowshahi said that Ubers fares during the quarter were “comparable” to Lyft’s. The two are in a “constructive” marketplace, Khosrowshahi said, adding that Lyft is “a tough competitor who now is competing effectively. We think the US is going to be a two-player market for some periods to come.”

When the pandemic crushed demand for rides, Uber’s decision to focus on Uber Eats helped it gain a foothold in the meal delivery sector which has continued to grow, even as indoor dining has resumed. Uber Eats generated $3.06 billion in revenue, slightly below Wall Street’s estimates, but better-than-expected adjusted Ebitda of $329 million as the unit benefitted from advertising. Customers seem to have been undeterred by higher prices for food, with delivery frequency of four monthly orders per eater, up 8% from a year earlier.

Uber generated $33.6 billion in gross bookings, which include ride hailing, food delivery and freight. That was up 16% from a year earlier and beat the $33.5 billion Wall Street had forecast.

Uber’s freight unit dragged on the company’s overall results. The division, which accounts for less than a quarter of total revenue, saw bookings and sales tumble 30% in the quarter. Uber said the unit is pressured by “category-wide headwinds,” with spot rates seasonally weak, a trend it expects to continue in the near term.

(Updates shares in third paragraph. A previous version of this story corrected a typo on Uber name in first paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

BC
Union files complaint alleging Uber engaging in unfair labour practices

A large B.C. union is taking Uber to the B.C. Labor Relations Board over allegations it fired a number of drivers for refusing unsafe work.

Author of the article: Keith Fraser
Publishing date:Oct 07, 2021 •

A large B.C. union is taking the cases of three Uber drivers to the B.C. Labor Relations Board alleging that the giant tech corporation is engaging in unfair labour practices.

 PHOTO BY REUTERS/MIKE BLAKE/FILE PHOTO
Article content

A large B.C. union is taking the cases of three Uber drivers to the B.C. Labour Relations Board alleging that the giant corporation is engaging in unfair labour practices.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union local 1518 said Thursday that the Lower Mainland drivers in question were fired after refusing unsafe work. One of the drivers was allegedly terminated in November 2020 and the other two in February and July of this year.

The union, which represents more than 26,000 members in various sectors including community health, hospitality and retail, says in a news release that in one case a customer threatened to lodge a complaint against a driver and became violent after the driver asked her to wear a mask.

In that instance, the driver phoned police, who had to remove the customer from the driver’s car, according to the union.

Another driver was fired after refusing to take four passengers in his vehicle in violation of Uber’s COVID-19 safety regulations, says the union.

After complaints were made against them, the drivers discovered that the Uber app had been deactivated from their phones, meaning they were no longer able to get passengers, it says.

Eva Prkachin, press secretary for the union, said that the union has been fighting for a long time to get Uber drivers the right to organize and join a union in order to enhance their working conditions.

“So we’ve been partnering with them over the last couple of years on a variety of initiatives, this one being a pretty obvious example.”

Bhupinder Singh, one of the drivers who was fired, says in the news release that he bought a new car, borrowed money from a friend and planned to start studying for his future, but his livelihood was stolen from him.

“It affected my mental health. I was a top star rating driver and completed more than 2,000 trips and with two false and angry customer accusations, Uber deactivated my account without proper investigation.”

The union says that if the board rules in their favour, the drivers could be reinstated and compensated for the unfair firings.

Uber said in a statement that they had just received a copy of the complaint and were reviewing it.

“We want every experience on the Uber platform to feel safe, respectful and positive and we’ve developed our policies with this in mind,” an Uber spokesperson said in the statement.

The company said that by way of background, that “losing access to a driver or delivery account” didn’t happen very often.

“Often when it does, we know it can be very stressful and frustrating. That’s why our case review process is human-led.”

The company said the most common reasons why a driver or delivery person might lose access to their account are an expired document or an issue with their background check.

“Others are usually due to safety issues, fraud, discrimination by the driver or the delivery person, or persistently low ratings from riders or Uber Eats users.”

 

B.C.-based Uber drivers claim they were fired for refusing unsafe work

In one case a driver says a woman became violent when he asked her to wear a mask.

a day ago By: Elana Shepert

One of B.C.'s oldest and largest unions is supporting Uber Drivers who claim they were fired fo

r refusing unsafe work in 2021 in Vancouver, BC. File photo.

One of B.C.'s oldest and largest unions is supporting Uber drivers who claim they were fired for refusing unsafe work. 

UFCW 1518, the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union, is taking the cases of several Uber drivers to the BC Labour Relations Board. They've filed an unfair labour practice complaint against giant tech corporation Uber, according to a news release. 

For the drivers who were fired the ride-hailing service was the primary source of income. They had also been working for the company for several months without any other incidents before being fired. In fact, one of the drivers had "1,000 five-star reviews on his account."

In one of the cases, an Uber driver said a customer threatened to lodge a complaint and became violent when the driver asked her to wear a mask. The driver phoned the police who had to remove the customer from the vehicle.

In another incident, a driver refused "to take four passengers in his vehicle as this violated Uber’s explicit COVID-19 safety regulations. The driver believes that the customer who ordered the trip retaliated against him by leaving a bad review and rating."

In addition to COVID-19 safety regulations, drivers reported having to deal with intoxicated customers who were "rude, demanding and insulting." When they asked the customers to tone down their behaviour, the riders said they would "lodge a formal complaint against the drivers."

Following these complaints, the drivers discovered that the Uber app was deactivated from their phones. The apps were deleted from drivers who otherwise had "strong driving records and high customer ratings and reviews."

When they attempted to reach Uber support, the drivers claim that the team did not follow up on requests. 

“I bought a new car, borrowed money from my friend and planned to start studying for my future, but my livelihood was stolen from me,” explained driver Bhupinder Singh. “It affected my mental health. I was a top star rating driver and completed more than 2,000 trips and with two false and angry customer accusations, Uber deactivated my account without proper investigation.”

If the Labour Relations Board rules in favour of the UFCW 1518 complaint, the drivers could be reinstated and compensated for the unfair firings.
The union is also seeking changes to the Employment Standards Act to enable app-based contract workers like Uber drivers to join a union.

A spokesperson from Uber Canada told Vancouver Is Awesome that the company has just received the complaint and is reviewing it. “We want every experience on the Uber platform to feel safe, respectful, and positive and we’ve developed our policies with this in mind.”

Uber Canada adds that people don't lose access to driver or delivery accounts often. "When it does, we know it can be very stressful and frustrating. That’s why our case review process is human-led. While data and technology are useful tools for improving the safety of the Uber platform, people will always play a role in helping to ensure that drivers and delivery people are treated fairly.

"The most common reasons why a driver or delivery person might lose access to their account are an expired document or an issue with their background check. Others are usually due to safety issues, fraud, discrimination by the driver or delivery person, or persistently low ratings from riders or Uber Eats users."

UFCW Local 1518 represents more than 26,000 union members working in the community health, hospitality, retail, grocery, industrial, and professional sectors across British Columbia.

Uber and Lyft could shut down in California this week. It may not help their cause

By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
 August 16, 2020


Exclusive: Amanpour interviews Uber's CEO
(CNN Business)

When faced with tough legislation over the years, Lyft and especially Uber relied on a tried and tested playbook: threaten to suspend service in the area. The threat, which the companies would sometimes follow through on, appeared designed to rile up customers and drivers, and put more pressure on lawmakers.
Now Uber (UBER) and Lyft (LYFT) are once again betting on a version of this playbook as they confront a heated legal battle in their home state over a new law impacting how much of the on-demand economy classifies its workers.
The two companies have said they may suspend their operations in California as soon as this week while simultaneously pushing for a referendum in November to exempt them from the law, known as AB-5. But industry watchers say the shutdown may not have the same impact on residents now as it once did in earlier fights because of their steep drop in ridership from the pandemic.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, then did it really happen?" said Bradley Tusk, a venture capitalist, political strategist and former regulatory adviser to Uber. "If voters couldn't get an Uber or a Lyft when they wanted it, that's one thing. But ridership is down so drastically, if this does prompt a political outcry, it'll come from the drivers, not the riders."

Court orders Uber, Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees in California
The threats from Uber and Lyft to halt their businesses came after a California court ordered them last Monday to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees in 10 days. This reclassification would represent a radical shift for the two businesses. They built up massive fleets of drivers by treating them as independent contractors. That way they were not entitled to benefits like minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave.
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said last week that it would be "really, really unfortunate," but the company would "essentially shut down Uber until November when the voters decide" if it cannot delay the order until the referendum vote. Not long after, Lyft cofounder John Zimmer said on the company's quarterly earnings call that it would also be "forced to suspend rideshare operations in California."
"Lyft cannot comply with the injunction at a flip of the switch," Zimmer added.
At a time when Uber and Lyft arguably have the least leverage with riders, the stakes are the highest for the companies to mobilize support for a more favorable solution. Both companies are grappling with sharp revenue declines from the pandemic and have histories of steep losses. Now they risk losing access to a state whose economy is larger than most countries -- or else overhauling their business models.
Moreover, if they lose the battle in their home state, it may only add momentum for other states to rethink legislation for the gig economy.
Under AB-5, which went into effect January 1, companies must prove workers are free from company control and perform work outside the usual course of the company's business in order to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Last week's injunction is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a coalition of city attorneys.
In their ideal world, Uber and Lyft would delay the enforcement until California residents vote on the referendum, known as Prop 22, that the companies have each backed with tens of millions of dollars. If passed, it would exempt Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and Uber-owned Postmates from the law while providing drivers with some additional benefits. (The other companies are not part of the ongoing lawsuit so are not facing the same deadline.)
But their initial attempt at an appeal proved unsuccessful. On Thursday, a California judge denied them. Uber said it plans to again appeal the order; Lyft filed an appeal Friday with a California appellate court.
In the absence of a legal victory, shutting down is one way for Uber and Lyft to attempt to wield the power of their apps in order to sway public opinion. And there is certainly precedent for it. The companies have threatened to leave, or have left, a number of cities, including Chicago, Houston and Austin. In 2015, in New York City, the company put a tab on its app to show New York riders what it would be like to need to wait 25 minutes for a car if the city's mayor's proposed regulations went through.

Uber's delivery service is now bigger than its rides business
But multiple industry watchers noted that Uber and Lyft may be in a weaker position this time. Uber's ride-hailing revenue for the second quarter of this year declined 67% from the same period a year earlier. Lyft's business similarly shrank during the second quarter ending in June, with its revenue falling 61% and ridership falling by nearly the same amount.
A sharp drop in ridership from the public health crisis may only be one part of their problem in this fight. Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant and a former New York City transportation official, said the public is "far more sympathetic to worker rights issues now with respect to these companies than they were five or six years ago," citing the recession and pandemic, which have drawn increased attention to the plight of essential workers.
California is hardly the only legal challenge Uber and Lyft are facing. Massachusetts has a similar law to AB-5 and the attorney general there recently sued the companies over worker misclassification. Decisions in Pennsylvania and New York around unemployment insurance also go against the companies' stance on employment. Last year, the New Jersey Labor Commissioner determined Uber owed $649 million in unpaid unemployment insurance contributions as a result of driver misclassification.
Terri Gerstein of the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program and Economic Policy Institute questioned if the companies may also eventually withdraw from other markets where their business model is similarly in limbo: "What's the long term plan?"

California ruling against Uber, Lyft threatens to upend gig economy

BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 08/16/20

© Getty Images


The business models for Uber, Lyft and dozens of other gig worker companies that have sprouted up over the last decade are up in the air after a California judge ruled that rideshare drivers must be classified as employees rather than contractors.

Uber and Lyft have until Thursday to appeal the decision. The end result will likely have repercussions well beyond California.

Failure to overturn the ruling would mean the two companies, which already fail to turn a profit, will be unable to operate under their current business structures in a state known for setting nationwide precedents.

San Francisco Superior Court judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as full employees under Assembly Bill (AB) 5, a landmark law that establishes a test for determining whether workers can be classified as independent contractors.

Schulman sided with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who brought the lawsuit after the two ridesharing giants resisted the law after it took effect in January, arguing their core business is technology rather than ride-hailing.

Both companies reacted aggressively to Monday’s court decision, threatening to shut down operations in California if they are forced to provide workers with basic protections like a minimum wage and the right to organize. Those threats have put drivers in a precarious position.

“As deplorable as that is, it's not surprising, because now that the pandemic has pushed the vast majority of drivers into financial ruin, Uber and Lyft are ready to completely abandon them,” Erica Mighetto, a driver in the San Francisco area and member of Rideshare Drivers United, told The Hill.

After the ruling, both companies filed motions to extend a 10-day stay that Schulman placed on his decision to give Uber and Lyft time to file appeals. He denied their motions, meaning Thursday is still their deadline for appealing.

Legal experts say that while the companies are almost certain to appeal, they’re unlikely to make any new arguments when they do so.


“Based on what I heard in the oral argument, I think they’re really going to go hard on this idea that this is going to cause irreparable harm both to the companies and to drivers,” said Veena Dubal, associate professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

That argument was rejected in court by Schulman, who said the companies had plenty of time to figure out how to comply with the law.

The case will also likely hinge on rules for determining employment status. AB5 codified a test for determining whether workers can be considered independent contractors.

The first prong of the test says the worker must be free from control and direction of the hiring entity. Both Uber and Lyft have emphasized the flexibility that they provide drivers on their platforms, letting them select their own hours and rides.

However, researchers have raised questions about that independence, noting that drivers are tightly surveilled and have to follow strict policies. Additionally, nothing about being a full employee has a requirement for hours.

Uber has taken some steps to resolve that part of the codified test in California, such as letting drivers set their own surge rates and showing them whole trips before they pick up riders.

But those changes don’t “give drivers sufficient control to say that they control their own destiny, and that they control their own work,” Bryant Greening, an attorney at LegalRideshare, a law firm that specializes in rideshare cases, told The Hill.

The second prong of the state test, and the most important in this case, is that the task performed by workers must be outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

Uber and Lyft have long held that they are technology platforms, not ride hailing businesses. That argument has been increasingly harder to defend.

“It’s this simple,” Schulman wrote in his ruling, “Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is ‘outside the usual course’ of their business. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are ‘multi-sided platforms’ rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that ‘engage in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation.’”

The third prong of the test requires that the worker participate in a type of task that has been established before as being independent.

If any one of the prongs is failed, the worker cannot be considered an independent contractor under state law.


Even though they’re expected to file appeals, Uber and Lyft have already begun charting next steps.

In addition to threatening to leave the state -- a tactic Uber used frequently while it expanded across the country -- the two firms have joined forces with other gig companies to pour millions of dollars into a ballot measure Prop 22, that would exempt them from state labor laws that threaten their business models.

The ballot measure would entitle gig company workers to some protections including minimum earnings, vehicle insurance and health care subsidies, but would exempt the companies from having to give them full employee status.

Uber and Lyft asked Schulman to delay his decision until after the vote on Prop 22 to let voters decide, a plea that was swiftly rejected by the court.

Prop 22 would establish the kind of third employee classification type that Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has long sought. Khosrowshahi sent a letter to the White House earlier this year asking President Trump to consider legislative action on a worker classification that could let Uber maintain the flexibility of having independent contractors while adding some basic worker protections. He made a similar push for new laws in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.

An Uber and Lyft driver in California named John, who asked that his last name not be used for fear of reprisal, said the companies’ threats to leave the state also have the effect of pressuring drivers to support Prop 22.

“They’re shooting a salvo over the bow, they basically want to scare drivers, they want to scare them into voting yes,” he told The Hill.

The resolution of Uber and Lyft’s battles against California labor laws could have ripple effects nationwide for other companies that rely on gig work, like grocery or food delivery, that have grown immensely during the coronavirus pandemic.

Dubal called the decision "probably the most important one that has come out globally,” because “California is such a huge market for them, and... the judge made such clear legal statements about how this is not a technology company but a transportation company and they are clearly in violation of the law.”

For Mighetto, the San Francisco area driver, forcing Uber and Lyft to choose between offering worker protections or folding is long overdue.

“We're really hopeful that we can put a stop to Prop 22, and that Uber and Lyft come to the reality that there's no place for them anywhere unless they treat their workers fairly,” she said.

CAPITAL STRIKE THREATENED
Uber and Lyft say they will have to SHUT DOWN for several months in California if a court upholds ruling requiring them to classify their drivers as full-time employees

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi warned on Wednesday that his company may have to shut down service if a California court's ruling is upheld 

Lyft President John Zimmer issued the same warning soon after 

A San Francisco Superior Court judge on Monday ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify their drivers as employees instead of independent contractors 

Both companies are now in the process of filing appeals to overturn the ruling

'If the court doesn't reconsider, then in California, it's hard to believe we'll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly,' Khosrowshahi said

He said switching will result in 'much smaller service [and] much higher prices'

By MEGAN SHEETS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and WIRES

PUBLISHED: 16:49 EDT, 12 August 2020 | UPDATED: 17:09 EDT, 12 August 2020

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says the ride-sharing company could be forced to shut down service in California for several months if a state court does not overturn a ruling requiring it to classify its drivers as full-time employees.

'If the court doesn't reconsider, then in California, it's hard to believe we'll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly,' Khosrowshahi told MSNBC on Wednesday.

'We will have to shut down until November.'

Uber's rival Lyft issued the same warning about a probable shutdown soon after.

'We may appeal this ruling and request a further stay. If efforts here are not successful, we would be forced to suspend our operations in California,' Lyft co-founder and president John Zimmer said.

Both companies are now in the process of filing appeals to overturn a Monday ruling from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman, who determined there is an 'overwhelmingly likelihood' that the firms violated a state law by classifying their drivers as contractors instead of as employees.

Schulman gave Uber and Lyft 10 days to reclassify the drivers, which would require the companies to provide benefits and unemployment insurance to all of them.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is pictured in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday, where he warned that the ride-sharing company could be forced to shut down service in California for several months if a state court does not overturn a ruling requiring it to classify its drivers as full-time employees


Khosrowshahi warned that restructuring its operations in California would result in 'much smaller service [and] much higher prices', hurting both drivers and customers.

'That's a reality, so it's not a game of chicken one way or another,' he said. 'It's really up to the courts and we're going to comply with the law, and we will look to get going again.'

He said that service would have to pause for a few months, and when it resumed it would be much more limited and concentrated in cities rather than suburbs.

Khosrowshahi penned an op-ed in the New York Times over the weekend calling for states to require all gig economy companies to establish benefit funds for their workers instead of forcing them to classify workers as employees.

Schulman's ruling came down the following day, marking a crushing defeat for Uber and Lyft as they fight a May 5 lawsuit from state Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco - where they are both based.

The suit accused Uber and Lyft of violating Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which requires companies to classify workers as employees if they controlled how workers did their jobs, or the work was part of their normal business.

Uber and Lyft say their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials argue that the designation deprives drivers of benefits like health insurance, sick leave and overtime.

A judge on Monday ordered Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as employees instead of contractors after California sued the ride-sharing giants for violating state law (file photo)

In a 34-page decision faulting the money-losing companies' 'prolonged and brazen refusal' to comply with state law, Schulman said the plaintiffs showed an 'overwhelming likelihood' they could prove Uber and Lyft classified drivers illegally.

Labor advocates praised the ruling as a milestone in their fight to apply traditional worker protections to a fast-growing segment of the labor force.

'This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard - and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day - to provide for their families,' Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said in a statement.

But the companies - whose largest market is in California - criticized the decision, saying it threatens to shut them down during a pandemic-induced economic downturn where many people who have lost their jobs turn to the ride-hailing companies to make money.

'Our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression,' Uber spokesperson Davis White said.

Both Uber and Lyft have pledged to spend more than a hundred million dollars to support a November ballot measure, Proposition 22, that would exempt them from AB5.

'Drivers do not want to be employees,' Lyft said in a statement. 'Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers.'
Judge blocks Uber and Lyft from classifying drivers as contractors



Both Uber and Lyft have pledged to spend more than a hundred million dollars to support a November ballot measure, Proposition 22, that would exempt them from AB5. Pictured: Drivers protest the proposition on August 6 in Los Angeles

Several hundred thousand 'gig' workers, including many at ride-hailing companies and app-based food delivery services, are affected by AB5, which took effect on January 1 and had broad support from organized labor.

Lawyers for Uber and Lyft said they are not violating the law because drivers are not fundamental to the business, arguing the companies are 'multi-sided platforms' whose activities encompass much more than transportation.

But Schulman rejected that argument, writing that it 'flies in the face of economic reality and common sense'.

'To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft's entire ride-hailing business,' Schulman wrote.

He also said the public could face substantial harm if drivers were denied employee benefits such as minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance.

'These harms are not mere abstractions; they represent real harms to real working people,' Schulman wrote.

The judge said Uber and Lyft had themselves to blame if their resisting state laws contributed to any 'far-reaching' effects an injunction might have.

'Defendants may not evade legislative mandates merely because their businesses are so large that they affect the lives of many thousands of people,' he wrote.

State officials have argued Uber and Lyft's behavior hurts more than just drivers, noting the companies don't pay into the state's unemployment insurance fund that covers benefits for people when they lose their jobs.

The state's fund was quickly depleted following huge job losses because of the pandemic, resulting in the state borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government.

'Our state and workers shouldn't have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities,' Becerra, California's Democratic attorney general, said.

'We're going to keep working to make sure Uber and Lyft play by the rules.'

But ride-hailing companies have been hurt by the pandemic, too. Uber announced last week it lost $1.78billion in the past three months as millions of people stayed home during the pandemic.

Shares in both companies tumbled in early trading on Tuesday following the ruling.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (right) and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (left) are leading the state's lawsuit against Uber and Lyft. After their injunction was granted on Monday, Feuer said: 'This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard - and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day - to provide for their families'

Hours before the ruling was handed down, Uber outlined proposals for a new type of relationship with gig workers, including its own drivers, that would allow them to keep their independence as freelancers while also receiving benefits.

The ride-hailing giant described 'a new model for independent platform work' in an 18-page document it hopes can be used as blueprint for Uber and similar firms relying on independent workers.

The company seeks 'to deliver certainty for millions of independent contractors who will increasingly rely on independent work to help them face the economic challenges that lie ahead,' Uber said in its document.

'The current health and economic crisis has brought into sharp focus the need for everyone, regardless of their employment status, to be able to find good quality, rewarding work; be able to work in the way they choose; and have access to adequate social protections and benefits.'

Uber proposed that gig economy companies be required to establish 'benefits funds', allowing gig workers to accrue and use the money for benefits or paid leave.

In his Times op-ed, Uber CEO Khosrowshahi said that the current employment system 'is outdated and unfair' and 'forces every worker to choose between being an employee with more benefits but less flexibility, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but almost no safety net'.

'Uber is ready, right now, to pay more to give drivers new benefits and protections,' Khosrowshahi wrote.

'But America needs to change the status quo to protect all workers, not just one type of work.'

Khosrowshahi (pictured) penned an op-ed in the New York Times on Monday calling for all gig economy companies to establish benefit funds for their workers

Khosrowshahi echoed the arguments Uber made in response to the California lawsuit, saying that the requirement to classify drivers as employees would leave fewer jobs and dramatically increase costs.

'Uber would not be as widely available to riders, and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees,' Khosrowshahi wrote.

'The vast majority of drivers have said they don't want to be employees because of how much they value flexibility.'

He called the argument over flexibility and benefits a 'false choice', adding: 'As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits, should be more honest about the reality of the work and must strengthen the rights and voice of workers.'

Khosrowshahi said that if all 50 states required gig economy companies to establish benefits funds, Uber would have paid $655million into theirs last year.

'During this moment of crisis, I fundamentally believe platforms like Uber can fuel an economic recovery by quickly giving people flexible work to get back on their feet,' he wrote.

'But this opportunity will be lost if we ignore the obvious lessons of the pandemic and fail to ensure independent workers have a stronger safety net.

'This is the time for Uber to come together with government to raise the standard of work for all.'