The New York Times - 12.09.2019

A34 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

N

Corporate America has made a lot of money by treating mil-

lions of workers as independent contractors, denying them
basic legal protections enjoyed by employees.

California is now on the verge of taking an important
step to curb that sham.
The State Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that im-

poses strict limits on who can be classified as a contractor.
The State Senate has already passed the measure, and Gov.

Gavin Newsom has said that he will sign it into law. Begin-
ning next year, companies like Uber, Lyft and other giants of
the gig economy would be forced to treat hundreds of thou-

sands of workers as employees. The legislation creates a
valuable template that other states should emulate, particu-

larly in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts to re-
duce worker protections.
Contractors are workers paid by a
company, but not protected by most
workplace laws. They are not guaran-
teed a minimum wage, overtime pay or
any other benefits, for example.
The use of contractors can serve a
legitimate purpose, as when a company
pays an expert to perform a specific
task. But companies have taken advan-
tage of the law, hiring large numbers of
contractors whom they have treated as an inferior grade of

employee.

The practice is pervasive, but it has reached new ex-
tremes with the rise of companies like Uber and Lyft, whose

business models are built on the use of such contractors.
California’s bill would put the burden on corporations to

establish that a worker is a legitimate contractor. It codifies

and broadens a State Supreme Court ruling last year that
held that companies must meet a three-part test: demon-

strating that the worker operates autonomously and is free
to work for other companies, and that the work is not central

to the company’s business. This is common sense: An ex-
pert brought in to fix a computer problem would qualify as a

contractor; a person on hand every day to help with com-

puter problems probably does not.
The legislation excludes a laundry list of professions, in-

cluding doctors, dentists, lawyers and real estate agents, in
which workers tend to benefit from their status as independ-

ent contractors and fought to be exempted. Uber, Lyft and
their allies wanted to be added to that list, arguing their

workers also enjoy life as contractors. But the dearth of

drivers willing to make that case speaks for itself. The companies are not done fighting. Uber and Lyft have sought leverage by threatening to spend tens of millions of dollars to put a referendum exempting their workers on the 2020 ballot. Lyft sent a message to its California drivers Wednesday, warning that under the bill, it might begin to require them to work specific shifts, and perhaps to drive in specific areas. The bill would give Lyft that power, but does not require the company to do so. If Lyft is correct that its drivers want flexibility, the company would only undermine its own business model by insisting on fixed schedules. Uber, for its part, responded to the bill’s progress by telling reporters that its drivers would still be contractors because transportation is not Uber’s primary business. It seems unlikely that California courts will sympathize with that argument. It’s also a bad look for Uber, which under its new management has made a lot of noise in recent years about turning over a new leaf and setting aside its old reputation as a scofflaw. The real issue, of course, is that the new law would force Uber, Lyft and other companies with similar business models to share more of their revenues with their workers. That could well result in higher prices for customers, too. But that would be nothing more than a necessary cor- rective. The companies and their customers have benefited at the expense of workers who lack the legal power to pro- tect themselves: They have neither the minimum protections afforded to most workers nor the right to bargain collectively. The underpayment of unprotected workers is not a defensible business model. There is also reason to suspect that the companies are overstating the likely pain. When New York City imposed minimum pay standards for Uber and Lyft drivers this year, the companies offered similar warnings. So far, price in- creases are modest and ride volumes keep rising. Drivers for Uber and Lyft in California would still lack the right to bargain collectively. The Trump administration has advised that the workers, as contractors under federal law, do not enjoy that right. But that leaves California free to create such a right under state law. Setting minimum standards is an important first step; allowing workers to bargain is a necessary second step. And other states should follow close behind. It’s not enough to raise the minimum wage or to mandate family leave. Legislatures also must act to ensure those standards apply broadly.

Calling an Employee an Employee

PETE RYAN

EDITORIAL

A California bill

would make it

harder for

companies like

Uber to take

advantage of

workers. Other

states should

borrow the idea.

R

OUGHLY sixminutes into Apple’s annual keynote
presentation on Tuesday, I watched with grim fasci-
nation as a video game executive guided a digital
frog across a bathroom floor in order to carefully
avoid scraps of rogue toilet paper, while a second executive

provided breathless color commentary.
“Whoa, what is that?" Executive Two whooped. “Is that a
giant baby wearing sunglasses?! He’s making quite a mess!”

(It wasa giant baby; he wasbeing quite messy).
The tightly choreographed scene was a demo of an iPad

reboot of the classic “Frogger” game, which Apple was teas-
ing as an example of its new arcade gaming platform. It was
also a tidy example of just how peculiar and out of touch the

company’s product unveilings have become. And why Apple
needs to put an end to its 90-plus minute advertising specta-

cles.
The evolution of the Apple keynote is understandable.

Apple is a global company that changed computing by putting
little ones in all our pockets. Their new phones are big deals
by virtue of the fact that they’ve sold more than 2.2 billion iOS

devices since their debut in 2007. iPhones changed how we
communicate with one another and seek information; they’ve
addicted us, tethering us to our jobs and helping us feel both

attached to and alienated from one another. So it makes sense
that we pay attention when the company dreams up a new it-

eration. Plus, they’re exceedingly shiny and the cameras can
turn any point-and-click amateur taking photos of their goofy
dog (me!) into Annie Leibovitz.

But what started as a Steve Jobs TED Talk has become a
parody — exhausting love letters to consumerism complete

with rounds of applause from the laptop-lit faces of the tech
blogging audience when executives mention that you (yes

you!) can hold the future in your hands for just $24.95 per
month or $599 with trade-in.
The entire event is at odds with our current moment —

one in which inequality, economic precarity and populist frus-
tration have infiltrated our politics and reshaped our relation-

ships with once-adored tech companies. But it’s not just the
tech backlash. When the world feels increasingly volatile and
fragile, it feels a little obscene to gather to worship a $1,000

phone.
Apple has chosen not to read the room, and so the dis-

cordant moments accumulate. While employees at Microsoft
and Amazon organize walkouts over their companies’ contri-

butions to carbon emissions, Apple executives are adding applause lines touting that the iPad’s case is made of 100 percent recycled aluminum — a fact that tech journalists rightly note “means essentially nothing.” And, as Motherboard’s Jason Koebler reminds us, “making a new iPhone is an incredibly destructive endeavor.” The Pleasantville cheery, sanitized tone of the keynote clashes with Apple’s position as a global tech behemoth. Given the pressures of looming tariffs and trade wars, the event seemed, as the journalist Lauren Goode tweeted, “eerily calm. Like parents throwing a super chill birthday party for the kids when the marriage has gone haywire.” As a luxury brand, Apple’s been accused of being out of touch in keynotes before. My former colleague Katie Notopou- los skewered the company in 2016 for appealing to the proto- typical “40-something dad who just wants to FaceTime his adorable children while he’s on a business trip, and also find a local pourover coffee shop while he’s in town.” She dubbed this marketing amalgam, “Apple Man,” noting that the needs of this test audience often came at the expense of making the product more affordable or adding features aimed at the millions of loyal customers who don’t worship at the altar of inbox zero. To its credit, Apple has taken steps to address a good deal of this criticism. Its keynotes now feature more women and people of color, and Apple has designed many more accessibil- ity features (some life-changing) for users with different needs. But even more inclusive products can’t fix the problem with recent Apple keynotes: The company’s flagship product — the iPhone — no longer feels like a piece of the future dropped from into the hands of mere mortals. It feels like, well, a phone, a commodity. And so the whole thing seems gra- tuitous, self-serving and, most importantly, quite removed from the very fraught relationship most of us have with our phones. That’s part of why the keynotes need to end. Losing them doesn’t mean that the new technology isn’t impressively engi- neered (machine learning cameras!) or that Apple has failed. It’s probably the opposite. The iPhone set out to change ev- erything, and it did. Mr. Jobs famously pitched Apple products with the line “it just works.” He’s right. It does. And we live with the effects — the good and the very bad — every day. There’s no more need for the song and dance — or Lewis and Clarking a digital frog across a bathroom floor.

The Last Apple Keynote (Let’s Hope)

CHARLIE WARZELis an Opinion writer at large.

Charlie Warzel

TO THE EDITOR: Re “The Cost of College for the Middle Class” (Sunday Review, Sept. 1): Caitlin Zaloom opens by dis- cussing how the average cost to attend a private, four-year university is $50,000 per year. This is the approximate average stickerprice of these institutions. However, the amount actually paid after schol- arships and tax benefits are de- ducted is well less than this — about $27,000 last year, or just a little more than half of the sticker price. It is also important to remember that only about one in six under- graduates attend college in this sector. About 80 percent of students attend public institutions, where both the sticker and net prices are even more affordable, with the remainder in for-profit colleges. Yes, middle-class families face challenges in paying for college. But sensationalizing the issue by focusing on a small proportion of all students serves only to dimin- ish the arguments being made. Let’s start with factual data about the real price burden facing the majority of families before we start debating solutions. DONALD E. HELLER, SAN FRANCISCO The writer is provost and vice president of academic affairs at the Univer- sity of San Francisco.

TO THE EDITOR: Caitlin Zaloom overlooks one of the fundamental problems that has accompanied increasing anxiety about the cost of college: elitism. Most middle-class families would have little financial trouble sending their children to state universities. Unfortunately, many are caught up in the class-based bias that public universities have classes brimming with weak students and offer a poor education. They are wrong. State universities all over the country offer an education that ranges from solid to outstanding, and students from even the weak- est state schools can and do go on to successful professional careers, top graduate schools, government jobs and other promising trajector- ies in every imaginable field. Few middle-class students need to come out of college tens of thou- sands of dollars in debt. Perhaps if we embrace public education, we will have not only fewer young people with debt, but

also a more balanced and less unequal society.

LISA L. MILLER, PHILADELPHIA The writer, a professor at Rutgers University, is a state university graduate and the parent of state university students.

TO THE EDITOR: Caitlin Zaloom’s excellent essay points out how the cost of a college degree, “which has tripled at public colleges and universities in the past three decades,” forces middle- class families into financial insecu- rity. But whydoes college cost so much today? Why has the cost of higher education far, far out- stripped the rise in the cost of living? With many colleges hiring increasing numbers of adjunct teachers, the answer does not lie in the cost of teaching. There are far more administra- tors today than 30 years ago. Many of them make egregiously high salaries. They are also spending huge sums on new buildings and renovations. A thorough analysis may show that tuition payments are subsidizing these substantial costs.

JANE S. GABIN, CHAPEL HILL, N.C. The writer is an educational consult- ant.

TO THE EDITOR: My colleague Caitlin Zaloom artic- ulates my greatest frustration as an undergraduate dean at New York University. Middle-class students may be concerned about future debt, but their low-income peers are struggling to stay in school. Usually they have ex- hausted all financial options. May- be I have empathy for my students because as an undergraduate I worked three jobs to barely pay for a state college. I know they are thinking more about paying tuition than studying for exams. I also know that they are feeling an extremely high level of stress and embarrassment. It becomes hard to think about any- thing else. To New York Universi- ty’s and other schools’ credit, they are trying to do more for these students, but the situation may be more than the administration can handle. It is certainly more than the students can. ROBERT L. HAWKINS, NEW YORK The writer is a faculty member at the N.Y.U. Silver School of Social Work.

Middle-Class Struggle to Pay for College

LETTERS

TO THE EDITOR: Re “G.O.P. Wins in North Carolina Despite a Slide in the Suburbs” (front page, Sept. 11): Dan Bishop wins the special House election by a small margin, but he wins. The key takeaway is that he won with President Trump’s strong endorsement and Election Eve rally. Mr. Trump still holds sway with significant parts of the electorate and has off-the- charts approval ratings among Republicans. His unconventional presidency (and that is being kind) still ap- peals to large segments of Ameri- can voters, and the Democrats don’t seem to be penetrating Mr. Trump’s base in any meaningful way. Democrats need a wake-up call, and Mr. Bishop’s win should be signal enough that they have their work cut out for them.

PETER ALKALAY, SCARSDALE, N.Y.

Trump’s Unwavering Base

TO THE EDITOR: “Embattled at Home, South Ko- rea’s Leader Turns on Japan, Stok- ing Old Hostilities” (news article, Aug. 30) paints a misleading pic- ture of the Korean government’s response to recent Korea-Japan relations and Seoul’s decision to terminate a military-intelligence- sharing agreement. You report that “analysts say” President Moon Jae-in “is moving to rally his supporters by tapping into hostility toward Japan.” The article also suggests that the decision to end the intelligence-sharing agreement was a means of diver- sion to save the new justice min- ister. This wrongly depicts Seoul’s diplomatic and security policies as having domestic political aims. Japan maintains its export re- strictions by saying its trust in Korea has been undermined. Therefore, Korea found it untena- ble to renew the intelligence-sharing agreement, which requires a high level of trust between the two countries. You say this decision “exposed Seoul’s fraying alliance with the United States.” Rather, Seoul will take this opportunity to upgrade its alliance with Washington. HYO-SUNG PARK, NEW YORK The writer is consul general of South Korea in New York.

South Korea-Japan Pact

TO THE EDITOR: Re “U.S. to Challenge California’s Right to Set Pollution Rules” (Busi- ness Day, Sept. 6): The Times explains that the Clean Air Act “granted California a waiver to set stricter rules of its own because the state already had clear air legislation in place.” But the article does not mention the reasonCalifornia had enacted legislation: From the 1940s through the ’60s, the Golden State had a staggering smog problem. Far from “failed policies” or “radical agenda,” as a Trump administration official termed them, the state’s laws pioneered a solu- tion to toxic air pollution that was eroding the health of millions of Americans. A revocation of Califor- nia’s waiver threatens a return to the type of lung-searing smog currently endured by Beijing’s residents — and dramatically on view during the 2008 Olympics. ELLEN FISHER, NEWTON, MASS.

TO THE EDITOR: Re “U.S. Investigates Emissions Pledge” (front page, Sept. 7): So, the Trump administration is now going after the four auto com-

panies (Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen of America, Honda and BMW) that have dared to cooperate with California to lower exhaust fumes and make the plan- et cleaner. The arrogance of Presi- dent Trump is astonishing. California is taking steps to reduce global warming — which scientists agree is both real and existential — and Mr. Trump tries to punish the companies. The nerve! Companies don’t often take positions that support the public good, and to punish the few that do is truly despicable and outrageous. If anyone had doubts about getting rid of Mr. Trump before now, this should be the last straw. MALCOLM BURNSTEIN BERKELEY, CALIF.

Effort to Ease California’s Strict Pollution Rules