Uber and Lyft Avoided Paying Into Unemployment While the Federal Government Provided Drivers With Millions in Loans
- Newly released data from the Small Business Administration shows that many Uber and Lyft drivers heavily relied on federal aid programs during the pandemic while the multi-billion dollar tech firms provided little to no unemployment assistance.
- The data, accessed by the Washington Post, reportedly shows that tens of thousands of gig drivers took in $80 million under the Economic Injury Disaster Loans program for small businesses, in addition to other aid for out-of-work contractors.
- Policy experts said it is unusual for such a vast number of workers operating under huge corporations to receive government aid of this nature.
- Experts also claim that workers’ access to federal assistance helped the two companies financially and alleviated pressure to make drivers employees amid tense political battles over the issue.
New Data on Gig Workers and Federal Aid
Tens of thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers took in $80 million from a federal loan program during the pandemic while the multi-billion dollar companies refused to pay out unemployment, according to a new report from The Washington Post.
The report analyzed data from the Small Business Administration that was released after The Post and 10 other news organizations filed a federal lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Post’s analysis of the data showed that many gig drivers “were left without employer support” during a time when ride-share companies themselves reported that trips had dropped as much as 80% in big cities.
As a result, those drivers were forced to rely on a mishmash of different government aid programs. Specifically, the $80 million figure comes from a loan program for small businesses, similar to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), called the Economic Injury Disaster Loans program (EIDL).
According to The Post, both Uber and Lyft “were the two most common business names” in the EIDL. Nearly 20,000 grants and loans going to people with apparent ties to Uber and Uber Eats and more than 8,000 with ties to Lyft in their searches of the data.
Additionally, many drivers also received federal aid under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, which provided unemployment benefits for independent contractors who otherwise would not qualify, a well as loans from the PPP.
The Independent Contractor Debate Continues
Uber and Lyft, for their part, responded to The Post report by emphasizing what they did do for drivers.
Uber spokesperson Matthew Wing said that the company provided $29 million total in assistance to almost 100,000 drivers and couriers who tested positive for COVID-19 or who were told to isolate because of preexisting conditions.
Wing also noted that the company gave out free PPE, helped connect workers with other ways to earn money, and provided information on government assistance programs.
Lyft, by contrast, just provided information about what money its workers could get from the government without providing any financial support themselves. The company’s spokesperson, Julie Wood, even argued that drivers preferred to be independent contractors because it meant they could qualify for the government assistance.
But policy experts told The Post that it is highly unusual for such a big group of workers under the purview of such large corporations to receive that money. Beyond that, not only did the tech companies benefit financially from their workers tapping into programs they did not have to pay into, the aid also lifted the pressure for them to make drivers employees at a time when there was a political battle raging over the topic.
While these companies’ workers were relying on help from the government, rather than simply giving them benefits, the same gig economy employers were pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into efforts to ensure those workers stayed as contractors and did not have access to standard benefits under California’s Prop 22.
The measure, passed in November, provided the companies with a model they are now pushing in other states.
“More broadly, it reflects how a new economic class of workers was left to rely on the social safety net at the same time Big Tech added billions in value and fought regulation that would require gig firms to contribute more to social programs,” The Post wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Business Insider Australia) (The Verge)
TikTok to Require Labels on Manipulated Media, Ban Deepfakes of Children
The social media platform says it wants to embrace the creativity AI can offer while being cautious of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it.
TikTok is rolling out a slew of limitations regarding synthetic deepfake videos, including a ban on deepfake content of children.
In an update on Tuesday, the social media platform said it wants welcome “the creativity that new artificial intelligence and other digital technologies may unlock” while also being careful of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it. To mitigate those risks, TikTok will require users to label manipulated media depicting “realistic scenes.” Users can do so in stickers, captions, or other means that make it clear the video is “synthetic,” “fake,” “not real,” or “altered.”
On top of that, there are new restrictions about who can be the subject of these manipulated videos. TikTok will not allow deepfake media that shows the likeness of a “young person” or any private person, including adults. It is also barring deepfakes that depict adult public figures giving political or commercial endorsements, as well as deepfakes that violate one of the platform’s other rules.
“While we provide more latitude for public figures, we do not want them to be the subject of abuse, or for people to be misled about political or financial issues,” the company’s updated guidelines say.
As TikTok’s policies previously stated, synthetic media that has been edited to mislead audiences about real-world events is also not allowed on the platform.
As far as what kind of deepfake media is allowed on TikTok, the company said videos showing adult public figures in “certain contexts, including artistic and educational content,” get the green light. This can include a video of a celebrity doing a TikTok dance, or a historical figure being depicted in a history lesson.
The rules will be enforced starting April 21. Between now and then, TikTok says it will be training its moderators to better implement the guidelines.
See what others are saying: (The Verge) (The Associated Press) (TechCrunch)
Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades
Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company.
Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years.
Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.
According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes.
On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.
“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press.
However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.
Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million.
If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.
Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.
As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval.
Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company.
“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)
Elon Musk Bashes Disabled Ex-Twitter Employee, Gets Blowback
After Musk claimed the former employee “did no actual work,” the staffer calmly directed passive-aggressive insults right back at the billionaire.
Excuse Me, Do I Still Work Here?
Elon Musk brawled online with a former Twitter employee who didn’t know whether he was fired Tuesday, accusing the staffer of exploiting his disability.
Haraldur “Halli” Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, joined Twitter in 2021 after it acquired the creative agency he founded: Ueno.
He said on Twitter that he was unable to confirm whether he was still a Twitter employee nine days after being locked out of his work computer, despite reaching out to the head of HR and Musk himself through email.
At the time, Twitter had laid off at least 200 workers, or some 10% of its remaining workforce.
In search of an answer, Thorleifsson tweeted at Musk, who responded with the question: “What work have you been doing?”
After being given permission by Musk to break confidentiality, Thorleifsson listed several of his accomplishments, including leading “design crits to help level up design across the company.”
“Level up from what design to what? Pics or it didn’t happen,” Musk replied.
“We haven’t hired design roles in 4 months. What changes did you make to help with the youths?”
Thorleifsson reminded Musk that he couldn’t access any pictures because he was locked out of his work computer.
Musk stopped replying to the tweets, but hours later he returned to the platform to lob invective at his former employee.
Musk Vs. Halli
“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm,” Musk tweeted, apparently referring to Thorleifsson. “Can’t say I have a lot of respect for that.”
“But was he fired? No, you can’t be fired if you weren’t working in the first place,” he added.
In a later Twitter thread, Thorleifsson said he could type for one or two hours at a time before his hands cramped, but that in pre-Musk Twitter, that wasn’t a problem because he was a senior director.
He added that despite his crippling disability, he worked hard for years to build Ueno.
“We grew fast and made money,” he said. “I think that’s what you are referring to when you say independently wealthy? That I independently made my money, as opposed to say, inherited an emerald mine.”
Thorleifsson made several more passive-aggressive jabs at Musk.
“I joined at a time when the company was growing fast,” he wrote. “You kind of did the opposite. The company had a fair amount of issues, but then again, most bigger companies do. Or even small companies, like Twitter today.”
Thorleifsson said that immediately following his back-and-forth with Musk, Twitter’s head of HR confirmed that he had indeed been fired from the company.