Connect with us

Business

Uber and Lyft Drivers Offered Incentives to Fight Bill That Targets Gig-Economy

Published

on

  • On July 9 hundreds of Uber and Lyft drivers gathered outside the California State Capitol for a rally about Assembly Bill 5, which would impact how the state determines if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. 
  • On Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the I’m Independent Coalition, a group who works closely with Uber and Lyft, offered to pay drivers to attend the rally against Assembly Bill 5. 
  • Drivers say they also received emails and in-app offers from Uber and Lyft if they attended the rally against the bill.  

The Rally

Drivers for Uber and Lyft say the ride-share companies offered incentives to workers that lobbied against a proposed bill that would allow drivers to be employees instead of independent contractors.

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that drivers for Uber and Lyft who attended the July 9 rally outside California’s State Capitol were compensated for their “travel, parking and time.” 

According to the report, an email from the I’m Independent Coalition was sent to drivers, offering them anywhere from $25 to $100 if they rallied on the group’s behalf. I’m Independent is a coalition that is funded by the California Chamber of Commerce and works to change the proposed legislation. According to their website, both Uber and Lyft are supporters of I’m Independent.

Following the rally, the LA Times says that another email was sent out, reassuring workers that their compensation would be sent over soon. 

“We want to thank you again for taking time to attend the State Capitol Rally on July 9,” the email states. “Your voice had an impact and the Legislature heard loud and clear that you want to keep your flexibility and control over your work! Please expect a driver credit in the next five business days for your travel, parking, and time.”

I’m Independent later confirmed to the paper that the drivers who attended the rally had been paid.

However, the report says the coalition was not the only group offering vouchers and compensation for attending the rally. A Lyft spokesperson confirmed that the company had offered drivers $25 to help cover parking, while Uber sent a $15 lunch voucher through their app and told drivers it was for them, their families, “and anyone you know who also has a stake in maintaining driver flexibility.”

The Bill

The rally outside of the state capitol was held ahead of a Senate labor hearing for Assembly Bill 5, a bill that states it “would provide that the factors of the “ABC” test be applied in order to determine the status of a worker as an employee or independent contractor.” 

The “ABC” test comes from an April 2018 California Supreme Court case, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. During that case, the Court ruled that in order to determine if a worker was an independent contractor, three qualifications must be met. According to court documents, those requirements are: 

“(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact.”

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business,” and “(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.” 

Under AB5, drivers for both Uber and Lyft would no longer be classified as independent contractors but instead employees. The main difference between an independent contractor and an employee is the regulations and requirements their employer must follow. If a worker is determined to be an employee, they receive things like sick pay, a required minimum wage, and a limit on the hours they can work. 

However, Assembly Bill 5 states that certain occupations are exempted from the “ABC” test, such as health care professionals like doctors and dentists, among others.  

In May, the bill passed in the state assembly in a 59 to 15 vote. Earlier this month the State Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement voted the bill through. 

Uber and Lyft on AB5 

Uber has previously said the company will not take a side when it comes to the bill, but they do believe there are better solutions than Assembly Bill 5. 

However, at the beginning of June, Uber sent an email to their drivers saying the bill could “threaten your access to flexible work with Uber.” 

Lyft has taken a similar approach and also sent an email to its drivers, telling the workers that the ride-share company is trying to “protect” their jobs. 

“Legislators are considering changes that could cause Lyft to limit your hours and flexibility, resulting in scheduled shifts,” the email, which was later shared by Lyft, states. “We’re advocating to protect your flexibility with Lyft, in addition to establishing an earning minimum, offering protections and benefits and giving drivers representation so that you have a voice in the company.”

Previous Responses to AB5

In May, Uber and Lyft drivers around the world went on strike asking for similar requirements employees receive, such as a minimum hourly wage. The strikes took place just three weeks before the state assembly voted and passed Assembly Bill 5 and advocated for similar requirements for drivers. 

Previous responses from Uber and Lyft drivers

Even though the strikes did not create any massive change to the companies, according to a June 2019 Ipsos study, the majority of drivers from both Uber and Lyft still want “the same workers’ rights as those in more traditional employment positions.”

Assembly Bill 5 advanced to the appropriations committee earlier this month but the committees are currently in summer recess.

See what others are saying: (Los Angeles Times) (International Business Times) (SF Gate)

Business

Meta Reinstates Trump on Facebook and Instagram

Published

on

The company, which banned the former president two years ago for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, now says the risk to public safety has “sufficiently receded.” 


Meta Ends Suspension

Meta announced Wednesday that it will reinstate the Facebook and Instagram accounts of former President Donald Trump, just two years after he was banned for using the platforms to incite a violent insurrection.

In a blog post, the company said the suspensions would be lifted “in the coming weeks” but with “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

Specifically, Meta stated that due to Trump’s violations of its Community Standards, he will face “heightened penalties for repeat offenses” under new protocols for “public figures whose accounts are reinstated from suspensions related to civil unrest.”

“In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” the blog post continued.

The company also noted its updated protocols address content that doesn’t violate its Community Standards but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon.”

However, unlike direct violations, that content would have its distribution limited, but it would not be taken down. As a penalty for repeat offenses, Meta says it “may temporarily restrict access to […] advertising tools.”

As far as why the company is doing this, it explained that it assessed whether or not to extend the “unprecedented” two-year suspension it placed on Trump back in January of 2021 and determined that the risk to public safety had “sufficiently receded.”

Meta also argued that social media is “rooted in the belief that open debate and the free flow of ideas are important values” and it does not want to “get in the way of open, public and democratic debate.”

“The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” the tech giant added.

Response

Meta’s decision prompted widespread backlash from many people who argue the former president has clearly not learned from the past because he continues to share lies about the election, conspiracy theories, and other incendiary language on Truth Social.

“Trump incited an insurrection. And tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) tweeted. “He’s shown no remorse. No contrition. Giving him back access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous. @facebook caved, giving him a platform to do more harm.”

According to estimates last month by the advocacy groups Accountable Tech and Media Matters for America, over 350 of Trump’s posts on the platform would have explicitly violated Facebook’s policies against QAnon content, election claims, and harassment of marginalized groups.

“Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to reinstate Trump’s accounts is a prime example of putting profits above people’s safety,”  NAACP President Derrick Johnson told NPR

“It’s quite astonishing that one can spew hatred, fuel conspiracies, and incite a violent insurrection at our nation’s Capitol building, and Mark Zuckerberg still believes that is not enough to remove someone from his platforms.”

However, on the other side, many conservatives and Trump supporters have cheered the move as a win for free speech.

Others, like Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) also asserted that Trump “shouldn’t have been banned in the first place. Can’t happen again.”

Trump himself echoed that point on in a post on Truth Social, where he claimed Facebook has lost billions of dollars both removing and reinstating him.

Such a thing should never again happen to a sitting President, or anybody else who is not deserving of retribution! THANK YOU TO TRUTH SOCIAL FOR DOING SUCH AN INCREDIBLE JOB. YOUR GROWTH IS OUTSTANDING, AND FUTURE UNLIMITED!!!” he continued. 

The question that remains, however, is whether Trump will actually go back to Facebook or Instagram. As many have noted, the two were never his main platforms. Twitter was always been his preferred outlet, and while Elon Musk reinstated his account some time ago, he has not been posting on the site.

There is also the question of how Truth Social — which Trump created and put millions of dollars into — would survive if he went back to Meta’s platforms. The company is already struggling financially, and as Axios notes, if Trump moves back, it signals to investors that he is not confident in the company.

On the other hand, Trump’s lawyers formally petitioned Meta to reinstate him, which could indicate that this goes beyond just a symbolic win and is something he actually wants. Additionally, if he were to start engaging on Facebook and Instagram again, it would immediately give him access to his over 57 million followers across the two platforms while he continues his 2024 presidential campaign.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (Axios) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading

Business

Meta Encouraged to Change Nudity Policy in Potential Win For Free The Nipple Movement

Published

on

The company’s oversight board said Meta’s current rules are too confusing to follow, and new guidelines should be developed to “respect international human rights standards.”


Rules Based in “A Binary View of Gender”

In a move many have described as a big step for Free The Nipple advocates, Meta’s oversight board released a decision Tuesday encouraging the company to modify its nudity and sexual activity policies so that social media users are treated “without discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.”

The board—which consists of lawyers, journalists, and academics—said the parent company of Facebook and Instagram should change its guidelines “so that it is governed by clear criteria that respect international human rights standards.”

Its decision came after a transgender and nonbinary couple had two different posts removed for alleged violations of Meta’s Sexual Solicitation Community Standard. Both posts included images of the couple bare-chested with their nipples covered along with captions discussing transgender healthcare, as they were fundraising for one of them to undergo top surgery.

Both posts, one from 2021 and another from 2022, were taken down after users reported it and Meta’s own automated system flagged it. The posts were restored after an appeal, but the oversight board stated that their initial removal highlights faults in the company’s policies. 

“Removing these posts is not in line with Meta’s Community Standards, values or human rights responsibilities,” the board said in its decision, 

According to the board, Meta’s sexual solicitation policy is too broad and creates confusion for social media users. The board also said the policy is “based on a binary view of gender and a distinction between male and female bodies.

“Such an approach makes it unclear how the rules apply to intersex, non-binary and transgender people, and requires reviewers to make rapid and subjective assessments of sex and gender, which is not practical when moderating content at scale,” the decision continued. 

Free the Nipple Movement

The board stated that the rules get especially confusing regarding female nipples, “particularly as they apply to transgender and non-binary people.”

While there are exceptions to Meta’s rules, including posts in medical or health contexts, the board said that these exceptions are “often convoluted and poorly defined.” 

“The lack of clarity inherent in this policy creates uncertainty for users and reviewers, and makes it unworkable in practice,” the decision said. 

The board’s recommended that Meta change how it manages nudity on its platforms. The group also requested that Meta provide more details regarding what content specifically violates its Sexual Solicitation Community Standard. 

For over a decade, Meta’s nudity policies have been condemned by many activists and users for strictly censoring female bodies. The Free the Nipple movement was created to combat rules that prevent users from sharing images of a bare female chest, but still allow men to freely post topless photos of themselves. 

Big names including Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, and Florence Pugh have advocated for Free the Nipple.
Meta now has 60 days to respond to the board’s recommendations. In a statement to the New York Post, a spokesperson for the company said Meta is “constantly evaluating our policies to help make our platforms safer for everyone.”

See What Others Are Saying: (Mashable) (The New York Post) (Oversight Committee Decision)

Continue Reading

Business

Amazon Labor Union Receives Official Union Certification

Published

on

The company already plans to appeal the decision.


Amazon Labor Union’s Victory 

The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday certified the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) Staten Island election from April, despite Amazon’s objections. 

After Staten Island staffers won the vote to unionize by 500 votes in the spring of 2022, Amazon quickly filed a slew of objections, claiming that the ALU had improperly influenced the election. Amazon pushed for the results to be overturned. 

Now, the National Labor Relations Board has dismissed Amazon’s allegations and certified the election. This certification gives legitimacy to the ALU and puts Amazon in a position to be penalized should they decide not to bargain with the union in good faith. 

“We’re demanding that Amazon now, after certification, meet and bargain with us,” ALU attorney Seth Goldstein said to Motherboard regarding the certification. “We’re demanding bargaining, and if we need to, we’re going to move to get a court order enforcing our bargaining rights. It’s outrageous that they’ve been violating federal labor while they continue to do so.”

Negotiate or Appeal 

Amazon has until Jan. 25 to begin bargaining with the ALU, or the online retailer can appeal the decision by the same deadline. The company has already announced its plan to appeal. 

“As we’ve said since the beginning, we don’t believe this election process was fair, legitimate, or representative of the majority of what our team wants,” Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel, said in a statement.

This win comes after two recent defeats in ALU’s unionization efforts. The union lost an election at a facility in Albany and another in Staten Island. 

ALU’s director Chris Smalls told Yahoo! Finance that he is unconcerned about these losses.

“For us, whatever campaign is ready to go, the Amazon Labor Union is going to throw their support behind it, no matter what…We know that it’s going to take collective action for Amazon to come to the table,” he told the outlet. “So, for us, it’s never unsuccessful. These are growing pains, and we’re going to fight and continue to grow.”

See what others are saying: (Vice) (NPR) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading