The Empire Review
Welcome to the Empire Review, the legal series that gives you a front row seat inside the courtrooms shaping New York.
The Empire Review
The Hidden Cost of Convenience: NYC's Delivery Worker Wage Battle
The battle over New York City's minimum wage law for delivery workers reveals critical tensions at the heart of our modern economy—tensions we must confront as technology transforms work.
When delivery workers kept our city fed during the pandemic, they earned just $7.09 per hour without tips, which dropped to a shocking $4.03 after expenses. Their struggle for fair pay culminated in groundbreaking legislation guaranteeing them minimum wage, including payment for "on-call" time spent waiting for orders. But companies like Uber fought back aggressively, claiming the rule would destroy the flexibility that attracts workers to the platform.
Behind this legal battle lies a profound question about worker classification. Are delivery workers truly independent entrepreneurs, as apps claim, or employees deserving of basic protections? Looking closer, we discover these workers lack fundamental entrepreneurial control—they don't set rates, choose customers, or negotiate terms. Instead, they're managed by sophisticated algorithms that track their movements, control work assignments, and discipline them through ratings.
The stakes couldn't be higher. Delivery workers face astonishing danger—a fatality rate five times higher than construction workers. Meanwhile, Uber, which never turned an annual profit until 2023 after losing an estimated $30 billion over seven years, invested $400 million in autonomous vehicle technology. Their CEO's admission that "cars are to us what books were to Amazon" suggests human workers may be merely a transitional step toward a driverless future.
As we navigate this technological transition, we must ask: Can we embrace innovation without sacrificing fair labor practices? The court's decision upholding the minimum wage law demonstrates that collective organizing remains powerful even in our algorithmic age. But the larger question remains—how do we shape a future of work that benefits everyone?
Picture a future where your food arrives at your doorstep delivered not by a person, but by a self-driving vehicle. It's not science fiction. It's the future Uber is banking on. In 2020, as delivery workers delivered our food during the pandemic, uber invested a staggering $400 million in Aurora, a company developing self-driving technology. This investment spoke volumes about Uber's vision for a future where human drivers might become obsolete.
Speaker 1:Meanwhile, on those same streets, thousands of delivery workers were fighting for their livelihoods as they worked long hours in dangerous conditions for wages that often fell below the minimum. Their struggle culminated in a groundbreaking law passed in New York City that promised to guarantee a minimum wage for app-based food delivery workers. The conflict over this law transcended mere economic considerations. At its core, this struggle illuminated several critical tensions in our modern economy. It highlighted the complex relationship between technological advancement and human labor. It revealed the growing conflict between algorithmic efficiency and worker autonomy. Moreover, it exposed the increasingly nebulous distinction between employee and independent contractor. This battle raised fundamental questions about our social contract. In an age of rapid technological change, how do we balance the promise of innovation with the need for fair labor practices? Can we embrace the future without leaving workers behind? These are the challenges we must grapple with as we shape the future, without leaving workers behind. These are the challenges we must grapple with as we shape the future of work.
Speaker 1:I'm Jonathan Arias, and this is the Empire Review, where I give you a front row seat inside the courtrooms shaping New York In this segment. I break down the legal battle over New York's minimum wage law for Uber rideshare delivery workers. Uber's fundamental arguments are that the rule would threaten the very nature of the gig economy in New York and that it will suffer irreparable financial harm. In more detail, uber argued that paying workers for their time on call would force them to implement gating and scheduling tools to limit workers' access to the platform, thereby reducing the flexibility which attracts workers to join. It also argued that the city's workers' compensation component, which requires Uber to pay $1.70 per hour, is arbitrary because it doesn't require workers to use those funds to purchase health insurance. And it also challenged the rule on the basis that the city used flawed and biased surveys to understand the working conditions of workers, thereby making the entire rule arbitrary.
Speaker 1:Before we discuss the lawsuit's details, we'll briefly cover a report conducted by the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. In 2021, the New York City Council passed laws directing the department to study delivery workers' conditions. This included examining their expenses, hours worked and modes of travel. Now, this report is vital because its findings inform the creation of the minimum pay rule. It's also the document Uber challenged in its efforts to invalidate the law. After conducting the study with input from various professionals, the department proposed minimum wages of $18.96 for 2024 and $19.96 for 2025.
Speaker 1:The law offers apps two payment options the standard method, which requires paying workers for their time on call, which is the time workers spend waiting for orders, and an alternative pay method that pays a higher rate per trip without compensating for on-call time. The city council delegated the rulemaking to the department for practical reasons, as it allows the agency to focus on the technical aspects of the law. This delegation is justified for pragmatic reasons, but not without controversy. The city council has many other issues to consider, so it can't spend all its resources and time on a single issue. The study utilized several research methods, combining data from the apps themselves, surveys distributed to over 100,000 workers, in-person interviews with delivery workers and, importantly, public testimony. By collecting this broad range of data, the study attempted to capture a detailed picture of these workers' working reality, including the demographics, hours worked and expenses incurred while delivering. The study also conducted surveys of restaurant owners and managers to gauge the broader industry impact of a proposed minimum wage. Overall, the study revealed that delivery workers earned, on average, $14.18 per hour when tips were included, but without tips their pay fell to $7.09 per hour, which is below New York City's minimum wage. Importantly, after accounting for expenses like bike maintenance, phone plans and fuel, their net earnings dropped even further to around $11.12 per hour with tips and abysmally $4.03 per hour without tips.
Speaker 1:An Article 78 proceeding is a legal mechanism in New York State that allows individuals or entities to challenge the decisions or actions of government agencies. The name Article 78 comes from Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which is short for CPLR, which is a giant book that outlines the specific procedures for this type of legal action. Think of an Article 78 proceeding as a way to double check the decisions made by government agencies. When someone files an Article 78, they're asking the court to review the actions of an agency to ensure it didn't break the law, act unfairly or make a decision that doesn't make sense based on the facts, for instance, if the DMV suspends your driver's license or if a local zoning board denies you a permit, an Article 78 is your tool.
Speaker 1:Now it's critical to understand that in these proceedings the court's role is notably limited. It doesn't substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but it evaluates whether the agency acted within its authority and based its decision on a rational, lawful foundation. But this deference has limits, of course. If the agency's action is arbitrary or exceeds its legal authority, the court is compelled to intervene. So overall, article 78 is a vital tool in maintaining a check on government agencies and ensuring they act within the bounds of their authority. It provides a legal pathway for individuals and businesses to hold government accountable for their decisions that affect their rights or interest. In our case here, uber challenges the City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, since it's the agency that created the specific rule, and it's also suing the City of New York for passing the minimum wage law.
Speaker 1:One of the major aspects of this law is that it requires Uber to pay its workers for time spent on call, which is time spent not delivering but waiting for orders. Now, before this rule, workers were only paid to complete a delivery. Let me paint an analogy that illustrates the way the city justifies this. Imagine you're a life guard. You're sitting in your chair scanning the water, alert for any signs of trouble. Although you haven't dived into the water to rescue someone, this doesn't mean you're not working. You're there, ready to act when necessary. As you wait, you're being paid for that time on duty. Delivery workers, like lifeguards, are on duty the moment they log on into the apps. Yet, unlike lifeguards before this law, they don't get paid for the time they spent on standby. According to the report, workers spend 39% of their time on call, which I would say is significant. The report further concluded that the apps benefit from this availability, as having a large pool of workers on call allows them to promise shorter delivery window times to customers. Now, to use a sports reference, it's like having a bunch of backup players ready to jump into the game instantly. Uber obviously disagreed, concerned that this feature would be exploited and that they would hemorrhage money. It argued that it would need to constrain the app's availability, preventing workers from logging on whenever they please, thereby reducing the flexibility they normally enjoy. In fact, as a result of this law, it introduced a scheduling feature called Planner that lets workers reserve times to go online during a specific week. Successfully booking a spot depends on the worker's set of factory ratings the number of trips completed in the past month. More increases your chances and your acceptance rate. All of this, uber argues, is antithetical to the nature of working as an entrepreneur in the gig economy, where you're supposedly removed from the tyranny of a 9-5 and free from the oversight and control of a boss. The apps clearly warn that when you join their platforms, you're joining as an independent contractor.
Speaker 1:The puzzle of classifying these workers as either employees or independent contractors is a vexed legal question. At the moment, over two dozen tests are used by federal and state courts across the country to resolve this issue. For example, in determining whether a worker is entitled to a minimum wage and overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal courts that cover New York apply the so-called economic realities test, which asked whether, as a matter of economic reality, workers depend upon someone else's business for the opportunity to run the services or are in business for themselves. This test weighs six factors, such as the employer's right to control the manner in which the work is performed and the employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skills. In determining whether workers have the right to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act, the current National Labor Relations Board uses a so-called common law agency test, which, like the economic realities test, law agency test, which, like the economic realities test, also weighs several factors. Two factors include whether a worker performs functions that are essential to the company's normal operations and if the worker is trained by a company's supervisory personnel.
Speaker 1:Now, new York State in many ways resolved this exact issue when, in 2020, the Court of Appeals ruled that a Postmates delivery worker was an employee of Postmates for purposes of unemployment benefits. In that decision, the Court of Appeals sided with the Unemployment Insurance Board in determining that Postmates exercised sufficient control over its workers. The court placed significant weight on the fact that Postmates decides which workers can access delivery jobs, effectively controlling work assignments. It also found significant that workers have no say in setting delivery fees or negotiating their pay rates, and that Postmates' unilaterality decides how much to charge customers and how much to pay workers. This lack of economic autonomy weighed heavily in the workers' favor, and while the court certainly acknowledged that workers do have some freedoms, like choosing their work hours and mode of transportation, it found that these factors didn't outweigh Postmates' substantial control over core aspects of the work.
Speaker 1:Another notable test is the so-called ABC test. Originating from Massachusetts, it considers three factors 1. If the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and, in fact, that was a mouthful. The second question is if the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer, of the employer. And finally, three, if the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. Now, as of this segment, new York is considering adopting this exact test for several independent contractors.
Speaker 1:Despite the multitude of approaches, what all these tests have in common is this idea of control. Now ask yourself this what's entrepreneurship, and why is it so appealing to so many people? I would say that its appeal is that you aren't an employee subject to the control and direction of a boss. You are the boss, you set your hours, you choose whom to work with and with whom not to, and your success largely depends on your managerial skills and decision-making prowess, and you aren't simply following orders from a supervisor. You are the boss. You control your fate Control.
Speaker 1:So if control is the defining feature of an entrepreneur, of an independent contractor, how much control do these drivers and delivery workers genuinely possess? The instinctual answer is that these workers are obviously independent contractors. They log on whenever they want and they certainly are not forced to work on the platform. Further, the apps represent themselves not as transportation companies, but as technology companies. Given these surface-level facts, most people would reach the conclusion that these are, in fact, independent workers. One of the first prominent pieces of work that casted serious doubt on this claim is a book named Uberland how Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work, by Alex Rosenblatt. After riding over 5,000 miles with over 400 Uber drivers, and interviews with senior Uber employees, concluded that the independence Uber advertises to his workers is much more an illusion than reality.
Speaker 1:Now, although workers don't have a flesh and bone boss, they instead have an algorithm watching over them, constantly surveilling and manipulating their behaviors. This algorithmic manager tracks a variety of data, including the number of rides accepted and declined, hours logged on the apps and trips completed Using GPS and the accelerometer on drivers' phones. It also tracks drivers' driving behavior, such as how often they stop and accelerate. Now, one feature of entrepreneurship is that you set your rates. This isn't the case for delivery workers. Instead, their pay is determined by opaque algorithms controlled by the platforms. Now, before this law, base rates varied widely, even for similar deliveries, based on factors like estimated delivery time and distance. Some workers reported that these estimates are often inaccurate, leading to underpayment for their time. Workers don't negotiate their fees, set minimum rates or truly choose which jobs to accept without penalty. The platforms use variable pricing like surge rates and other incentives to direct driver behavior, effectively managing them like employees.
Speaker 1:Customer ratings also play a crucial role as well. Low ratings can result in fewer or less desirable work opportunities or even account deactivation. In this report, 68% of the surveyed workers reported facing some form of discipline or punishment from the apps. The apps' algorithms control the assignment of deliveries, often without providing workers full information about the job. Now this can lead to situations where workers accept orders that turn out to be unprofitable or even dangerous. Some apps use a so-called shift system, where workers must sign up in advance for the right to work in certain areas at certain times. Priority for these shifts is determined algorithmically based on factors like last work history and customer ratings. Now this algorithmic control creates a paradoxical situation where workers feel pressure to work long hours and accept most orders to maintain their status on the app long hours and accept most orders to maintain their status on the app, all while being told they have the flexibility of independent contractors.
Speaker 1:Riding an electric bike through the city is undeniably one of the most dangerous activities, both for the rider and pedestrians. According to the department's report, 33 workers died between 2020 and 2022, with 30 dying while using either a bike or a moped. Studying this period between January 2021 through June 2022, the study found that the rate of fatality for this period was 36 fatalities per 100,000 workers who use mopeds. Now, to give you a better picture of these working conditions, I'll direct you to the fatality rates in the construction industry, which is historically the industry with the highest fatality rates in New York City. For these workers, the US Bureau of Labor Studies calculated the fatality rate of 7 per 100,000 workers. For the US Bureau of Labor Studies calculated the fatality rate of 7 per 100,000 workers for the year 2020. And if they manage to survive a fatal crash, they most definitely suffer injuries grave enough to prevent them from working. Based on their interviews with the workers, the department found that just under 30 of these workers suffered an injury bad enough to prevent them from working as independent contractors without any health coverage.
Speaker 1:Hospital visits are often paid out of pocket. The report calculated this cost at $1,700. So, for all these reasons, the law requires Uber to pay workers an additional $1.70 per hour in the form of a workers' compensation payment, which is the amount they would receive if they were employed by restaurants. Uber argued that this workers' compensation component is irrational because it doesn't require the workers to use the funds to buy medical coverage. I find this to be a compelling point, but in response, the city argued that the $1.70 was the best solution it could offer workers, since there currently exists no fund, like the Black Car Fund, for taxi drivers to administer health coverage. Now, ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the city, reasoning that including the workers' compensation component was rationally related to the stated purpose.
Speaker 1:While researching this segment, I spoke to a friend who once worked for Uber and is staunchly against classifying workers as employees. He suggested that the market should fix this problem, and I thought about this deeply and wondered if a market solution exists and, based on my research, there appears to be a solution offered by a healthcare company named Stride Health, which markets itself as a healthcare company for independent workers. Now Uber, to be fair, isn't ignoring these problems and has partnered with the US Department of Health and Human Services to encourage its workers to enroll for a plan through the Affordable Care Act. Despite these options, the question remains whether workers should be covered by health insurance funded by taxpayers or by Uber. The final part I'll cover is the surveys the city used to understand the conditions of workers. To learn about the preferences, expenses and working conditions of workers, the department sent surveys to 122,000 workers, receiving just under 8,000 responses. It also held public hearings before finalizing the rule.
Speaker 1:Uber argued that the department's perception of gig workers was skewed, since it provided worker advocacy groups the vast majority of speaking slots at the hearings, to the exclusion of workers who otherwise oppose a minimum wage that would reduce their flexibility. These advocacy groups included, for example, los Dereberistas Unidos through Workers' Justice Project. According to Uber, 1,300 workers expressed their concern about the negative impact of the rule and their desire to maintain flexibility. Uber argued that the only way it could avoid passing these costs on to customers would be to increase deliveries per hour, which would further mean it would need to reduce the radius under which workers could deliver, and that it would need to prevent workers from logging on during low periods of demand.
Speaker 1:This particular battle in the lawsuit raises the larger question of whether most workers who labor in the gig economy prefer to remain as independent contractors or, if a critical mass desire to be employees. What are the benefits that accompany that? According to a 2021 survey by the Pew Research Center, a majority of gig platform workers think of themselves as independent contractors and, according to a 2017 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contingent workers report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contingent workers, aka independent contractors, overwhelmingly prefer their work arrangements to traditional jobs. If we limit our review to these surveys, we could all make the reasonable inference that any law that threatens flexibility, like a minimum wage, would be misguided. In fact, when the Biden administration in 2022 directed the Department of Labor to take an approach to labor disputes that would classify more workers as employees, several trade groups representing independent contractors opposed the approach. Some of these groups included the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Independent Electrical Contractors In 2022, the Associated Builders and Contractors, who represent workers in construction, and the Financial Services Institute, who represent financial advisors, successfully stopped the Biden administration from implementing its approach after winning a federal lawsuit challenging the proposal. All of these groups argued that the rule would increase litigation and deter businesses from engaging with independent contractors. So, given these varying preferences, how should the government regulate the gig economy, if it should at all?
Speaker 1:In answering this question, it helps to first acknowledge that the term independent contractor is a catch-all phrase that encapsulates all workers of every skill level and industry. It includes highly paid finance consultants who make over $275 an hour, and Uber drivers, some who make less than $10 an hour. $10 an hour. This distinction is a critical one because it highlights the vast differences in work conditions and the reality that some work is more hazardous than others. It also illuminates the reality that some contractors truly possess independence and the ability to negotiate their arrangements.
Speaker 1:The contractors who prefer the status quo have several traits in common. Most importantly, they don't rely on apps for work, which means that they depend on long-term relationships with clients, who they likely know in person. Given that they have a corporeal relationship with their clients, this gives them the ability to negotiate their rates and the manner in which their work is performed. They're also considered to be of higher skill and in possession of specialized knowledge, which reduces their supply. With fewer of them available for their clients, they can demand higher wages. With higher pay, they can most certainly cover for themselves all the benefits an employer would provide otherwise.
Speaker 1:Delivery workers are notably different. Although I consider riding through the city's chaotic streets as high-skill, because of the danger, whatever economic gains this provides a worker is quickly diminished by the fact that the barrier to entry is low, which means, quite literally, that thousands of other workers are available for Uber to deploy. They also exclusively depend on the platforms for work, even if they switch between the different apps. Now, the workers who oppose the minimum wage law are also notably different. While reading their comments, I noticed that the vast majority of them work part-time. In contrast, the vast majority of workers who pushed for minimum wage depend entirely on Uber for work, placing them in a category which can be described as dependent contractors.
Speaker 1:Reverting to the lawsuit, the judge ultimately determined that the city adequately considered the consequences of its rule. Notably, the report found that the customers who order most frequently and spend the most on Uber live in high-income areas. Residents who live in the 20 zip codes with the highest income spend 73% more than the residents who live in the zip codes with the lowest income. This all means to me that Uber's warning that it will need to hike its prices to pay workers isn't as concerning, since the vast majority of its customers can afford it. While the city acknowledged that some customers are more price sensitive than others, it nonetheless determined that raising workers' pay was necessary given the circumstances and the projected future growth of Uber. This rationale, the judge ruled, was sufficient enough to withstand Uber's challenges.
Speaker 1:In its lawsuit, uber argued that a minimum wage would cause it to suffer irreparable financial harm. If it passes the increased cost to its customers, it risks reducing demand for its platform. But if it absorbs these costs, it says it will run them between $100 to $200 million just for the second half of 2023. With that said, uber envisions a rather bleak future if it's forced to pay a minimum wage in New York City, let alone a minimum wage worldwide. According to its 2024 annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Speaker 1:Uber mentions that the classification of its drivers as employees instead of independent contractors is the most significant risk it faces. It should come as no surprise, then, that Uber's success is mainly due to its independent contractor model. Now, if you're a casual observer of Uber, like most people are, you might be surprised to learn that since its creation in 2009, it never turned an annual profit until 2023, when it profited $1.4 billion For its entire existence. Uber has lost money. One report by the Wall Street Journal reports that from 2016 to 2023, uber's operating loss was close to $30 billion. Given this, we can safely assume it's lost even more during its lifespan.
Speaker 1:As jurisdictions worldwide earn victories over Uber on worker classification issues, we should all wonder, especially if you're an investor, if Uber is a sustainable business. Uber's clear advantage is that most of his workers are independent contractors, which means they can keep their expenses low. I don't see how it could have ever turned a profit if just half of his workers were classified as employees or received the minimum wages. This led me to wonder if Uber has lost billions of dollars for its entire existence, how has it operated over a decade under such financial results? Why have investors continued to pour a bounty of resources into it.
Speaker 1:If you use Uber in its early years, you've noticed how much more expensive it is now. When I first took a ride from Manhattan to where I lived in Queens, the ride cost me a measly $20. Uber is not this affordable now, as it turns out. These rides were so cheap because back then, uber's investors were essentially subsidizing it all. According to an article in the New York Times, before it became a public company, uber raised close to $20 million exclusively from venture capital firms. In 2015, when it introduced its carpool service, it reportedly spent over $1 million a week in San Francisco exclusively to subsidize rides. In one week in January of that year, it offered $5 rides for a pool ride. And in 2016, in Summit, new Jersey, which is a town close to New York City, uber subsidized rides for these residents to encourage the town to hold a plan to build a commuter parking lot. Some commentators refer to these cheap rides as the millennial lifestyle subsidy, a term that describes the somewhat affordable prices we've enjoyed using apps like Uber and DoorDash during the 2010s. That shit is over now. So for all of us city dwellers who have become quasi-dependent on the convenience of Uber and now wonder why a ride from Queens to Manhattan during rush hours costs $80,.
Speaker 1:It would help to realize that we have not been paying for Uber's true cost. Why are investors pouring billions of dollars into a company that loses so much? If you think this is foolish, you wouldn't be unreasonable, but there's an actual logic to it. In venture capital, investing, particularly in technology, burning through billions of dollars for years on end without turning a profit is considered by some a necessary step to achieving what's referred to as an economy of scale. An economy of scale refers to the cost advantages that businesses can gain as they increase their scale of production. In simpler terms, it's the idea that producing more of something can lead to a lower cost per unit. Uber can establish an economy of scale as more drivers join the platform, which would decrease how long drivers wait for a ride or delivery. More riders attract more drivers, creating a sort of feedback loop. That's positive, and this increased efficiency would theoretically reduce the cost per ride and deliveries. As it grows its network, it gathers more data, improving its algorithms for matching routing and, as I mentioned, managing its workers. As it expands to more cities, it can apply learned and best practices to reduce the cost of entering new markets and, as a larger company, it will have much more resources to navigate regulatory challenges and lawsuits.
Speaker 1:Reid Hoffman, the founder of several successful companies like LinkedIn and PayPal, describes this strategy as blitzscaling, which is a remix of the German word blitzkrieg, a military method designed to strike quickly and aggressively. In an article describing this strategy, he says blitzscaling is what you do when you need to grow really, really quickly. It's the science and art of rapidly building out a company to serve a large and usually global market, with the goal of becoming the first mover at scale. Blitzscaling is always managerially inefficient and burns through a lot of capital quickly, but you have to be willing to take on these inefficiencies in order to scale up.
Speaker 1:After the housing market crash in 2007, interest rates were reduced to historically low levels to recover the economy, resulting in traditional investments offering low returns. As the nature of investing is to deliver high returns, investors during this period turned to more speculative investments that promised higher returns. Enter Uber, with its promise of disrupting car sharing and all-car mobility. It offered a spectacular opportunity, but it wouldn't reach its potential unless investors had the patience and the will to psychologically endure losing their capital. So, at first sight, although pouring endless amounts of capital into Uber seems like a mistake. It's perhaps one of the most deliberate ways to establish a monopoly, a company that has all-encompassing power.
Speaker 1:Uber makes a most interesting confession In challenging the minimum wage law. It says that complying with the law quote will require Uber to continue to divert significant product and engineering resources away from other planned projects. I take this to mean it doesn't want to be distracted from grander goals. So what are its other projects and why does Uber urge that they take priority over complying with this minimum wage law? To understand Uber, we first need to grasp Uber's long-term plans and vision for the future.
Speaker 1:The clues to its vision are in its acquisitions and partnerships. Like almost all tech companies, they are ambitious and all-encompassing. Uber has three pillars mobility, delivery and fright. For its mobility unit, it purchased Careem, the Middle Eastern version of Uber, in 2020 for $3.1 billion and invested $170 million in Lime, an electric scooter company. For its delivery unit, it bought Postmates in 2020 for $2.6 billion and Drizzly, a liquor delivery company, for $1.1 billion. And for its freight logistics arm, it acquired the trucking logistics company Transplants for $2.1 billion. Factoring all these acquisitions and partnerships together, these are acquisitions of a company that desires to be another Amazon.
Speaker 2:In an interview, the CEO said this Cars are to us, what books were to Amazon us, what books were to Amazon. Just like Amazon was able to build this extraordinary infrastructure, first on the back of books, and they went into additional categories, you're going to see the same thing coming from Uber.
Speaker 1:But the most revealing investment Uber has made in recent years is in Aurora, a self-driving company that describes its mission as delivering the benefits of self-driving safely, quickly and broadly, and that it sees a clear path to the driverless future. In 2020, uber sold its self-driving unit to Aurora and invested a staggering $400 million in the company, with Uber's CEO joining Aurora's board. In its 2024 annual report, uber warns that if it quote fails to offer autonomous vehicle technology, its financial performance and prospects would be adversely impacted. It also mentions that self-driving technology would substantially reduce the cost of providing ride-sharing, delivery and logistic services, which would allow competitors to offer such services at substantially lower prices. I think you know where this is going. Given Uber's significant investment in an autonomous driving company and the fact that it sees the classification of its human drivers as employees as a grave risk, it isn't far-fetched to believe that Uber aims to completely eliminate human workers. This is the logical conclusion. In many ways, it says right in its report that it will be forced to implement this technology for its own survival. Now, if we take a less cynical view, perhaps the future will be one where autonomous technology works alongside human drivers, and maybe decades from now, driving won't be as dangerous. According to the CDC, car accident deaths are one of the leading causes of accidental deaths in the US. If Uber could build a future where fewer people die by accident, we would all undoubtedly benefit tremendously, but it won't get there without its human drivers.
Speaker 1:The genesis of this minimum wage rule underscores a fundamental truth in our democratic system the power of the ballot extends far beyond Election day. When the city council granted authority to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection to craft this rule, they set in motion a chain of events that would prove difficult to reverse this delegation of power. A common practice in governance effectively insulates the resulting regulations from casual judicial intervention. Courts, bound by the principle of deference to administrative expertise, are often reluctant to second-guess these agency decisions. Consequently, the true battleground for shaping labor laws lies not in the courtroom but in the voting booth. By the time a dispute reaches the judiciary, the die is often already cast.
Speaker 1:This reality amplifies the importance of civic engagement at every level of government, from local elections to policy debates. It serves as a potent reminder that, in the realm of labor law and beyond, the most effective tool for change remains an informed and active electorate. Interestingly, the preferences of gig workers aren't monolithic. Many value the flexibility of independent contractor status, seeing it as a path to true entrepreneurship. However, for New York City's food delivery workers, the scales tip towards the need for better wages and protections. Their collective action, organized through groups like Los Deliveristas Unidos, demonstrated the enduring power of worker solidarity. By raising their voices in unison, these workers managed to influence policy in one of the world's largest cities. Their success serves as a powerful reminder that, even in the age of algorithms and app-based work, collective organizing remains a formidable tool for workers seeking to improve their conditions.