The underpinning of countless Silicon Valley success stories
is a method of commerce that treats millions of workers as
disposable and deprives them of protections regular em-
ployees enjoy, like employer-paid health care. Keeping Uber
drivers and DoorDash food couriers classified as contrac-
tors saves the companies billions in costs and has helped
fuel billions more in investor value.
Now, so-called gig economy companies are engaged in
an existential fight on their California home turf to maintain
those cost advantages by keeping drivers and food deliver-
ers classified as independent contractors. The companies
are battling back against a state law that took effect this
year, called Assembly Bill 5, that more narrowly defines
which workers can be treated as contractors and was de-
signed in large part to rein in Uber, Instacart and other com-
panies that have exploited their workers.
A loss in court would mean new outlays, like payroll
taxes, travel reimbursement, health insurance and sever-
ance pay, and could empower workers to collectively bar-
gain and forestall sudden fare or wage changes. By one esti-
mate, Lyft and Uber saved more than $400 million from 2014
to 2019 by not paying into California’s unemployment fund.
“They are relying on taxpayers to bear the brunt of unem-
ployment since they aren’t paying their fair share,” said
Mara Elliott, the San Diego city attorney.
California lawmakers and regulators say the require-
ments of app-driven gigs entitles workers to the same bene-
fits as regular employees, such as paid sick leave, reim-
bursed expenses and health care. The state attorney general
and the city attorneys of San Diego, Los Angeles and San
Francisco sued Uber and Lyft in May, saying the companies
were flouting the law by continuing to classify workers as
independent contractors.
Now, they are seeking an injunction to compel the com-
panies to reclassify the laborers and will argue it in court in
August. San Francisco’s district attorney, too, challenged
DoorDash this month for how it classifies workers.
“These companies are engaged in a fight to benefit a
business model that essentially denies workers their rights,”
said Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney. “Their
business model depends on them violating the law.”
It’s clear that Uber and other tech companies have sim-
ply defied the statute, arguing disingenuously that the law
doesn’t apply to them and, moreover, that their workers op-
pose it because they would lose the flexibility of logging into
or out of the app whenever they choose. But there is no rea-
son the on-demand companies couldn’t provide basic protec-
tions to their workers while also granting them flexible work
schedules.
The law, in fact, codifies a 2018 State Supreme Court rul-
ing that holds companies to a three-part test to prove that
workers are truly independent, including demonstrating
that workers are free to work for others, that they operate
autonomously and that their labor is not central to a compa-
ny’s business.
Uber, in particular, has twisted itself into knots trying to
explain how it should be exempt. It has even argued that
drivers aren’t a core part of the business — as if the cars
drive themselves — and that Uber is “not a transportation
company.” But Uber’s reasoning crumbles under scrutiny.
The company, like other on-demand firms, dictates what
type of car workers should use, when and where they should
go and how they should get there. Workers say the compa-
nies can change wages and rules without notice and kick
them off the apps, with no recourse.
While arguing that the state law doesn’t apply to them,
Instacart, DoorDash, Lyft, Postmates and Uber have none-
theless committed more than $110 million collectively to
funding a California ballot proposal granting gig economy
companies a specific carve-out, while guaranteeing modest
wage minimums and benefits.
That proposal is designed primarily to protect the com-
panies from properly paying for their legion of workers, and
voters would be wise to reject it. One study found that, un-
der the ballot proposal, hourly wages would be a meager
$5.64 after factoring in driver down time and other ex-
penses, like fuel and vehicle maintenance. Uber’s threat to
halt operations in the nation’s largest state is implausible,
particularly as it struggles to overcome billions in annual
losses.
The companies say that the law will force them to raise
prices. That ought to be seen as a necessary goal. One way
to think about the business model of gig companies is that
they allow customers to benefit from the same kind of pric-
ing power as Walmart. Each person is only buying a little bit
of low-cost labor, but collectively, they can dictate terms to
the drivers. The point of minimum wage and benefit stand-
ards is to limit the impact of this kind of market power. Gig
workers need protections. They need the government to
force consumers to pay more for cab rides.
Americans are willing to spend extravagantly on their
smartphones. Now it’s time they also spent a little more on
the artificially low paid labor those phones make possible.
The updated classification of on-demand workers na-
tionwide has taken on added urgency during the coro-
navirus pandemic as shelter-at-home orders have decimat-
ed the ride-hailing industry. Workers whose primary income
was ferrying Lyft and Uber passengers have struggled to
replace their lost income since demand cratered.
Normally ineligible for unemployment benefits, gig
workers were granted a temporary lifeline in the federal co-
ronavirus aid package — but some states have said they’ll
have to wait weeks for stimulus checks (gig economy com-
panies don’t remit payroll taxes on behalf of their contract
workers).
Without strict employment rules, some of the on-de-
mand companies have failed to enforce consistent safety
measures during the pandemic, including providing suffi-
cient numbers of masks or guidance on social distancing,
while pushing workers to fulfill an ever greater number of
orders to keep up with the rising demand for food deliveries.
Some Instacart workers, for instance, say they come into
close contact with dozens of people while shopping for and
delivering groceries.
Another fear for on-demand companies, of course, is
that other states could quickly follow in California’s foot-
steps. Proposed legislation in states such as New York and
Illinois appears sensible and should be seriously consid-
ered, whatever the outcome in California.
The gig economy has become a part of our daily rou-
tines. But workers shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of a busi-
ness model that only works when they are exploited.It’s OK if Uber Rides Cost Us More
EDITORIALILLUSTRATION BY NICHOLAS KONRAD; PHOTOS BY GETTY IMAGES8 SR THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 2020TO THE EDITOR:
Re “New York Museum to
Remove Roosevelt Statue”
(front page, June 22):
I applaud the decision of the
American Museum of Natural
History, agreed to by the City
of New York, to take down the
equestrian statue of Theodore
Roosevelt, riding high over a
Native American and an Afri-
can — a colossal monument to
racism and colonialism. It has
stuck in my craw for years,
each time I passed it — espe-
cially in the last few years, on
my way to the New-York His-
torical Society, where I am a
docent, and whose portals are
graced with statues of Lincoln
and Frederick Douglass!
I applaud, too, that the mu-
seum will continue to honor
Roosevelt’s contribution as a
“pioneering conservationist,”
which is consonant with its
mission as a museum of natu-
ral history.
CAROL S. GRUBER, NEW YORK
The writer is professor emerita of
history at William Paterson Uni-
versity.TO THE EDITOR:
The question of where the
Roosevelt statue will go might
best be addressed closest to
home. I suggest moving it to its
own permanent exhibition
space within the museum,
surrounded by an expanded
version of last year’s “Address-
ing the Statue” exhibition for
lasting contextualization.
SUSAN H. LLEWELLYN
NEW YORKTO THE EDITOR:
After his presidency, Col. Theo-
dore Roosevelt embarked upon
expeditions through Africa and
across America to garner
specimens for exhibit at vari-
ous natural history museums.
This work was memorialized
by the sculptor James Earle
Fraser with the 1940 unveiling
of a statue of Roosevelt on
horseback, flanked by a Native
American and an African
standing.
The statue currently resides
outside the entrance to the
American Museum of Natural
History in New York. Now it is
slated to be removed under
pressure from self-appointed
intellectuals and armchair
historians who believe that the
statue is a monument to white
supremacy.
Surely the intent of the stat-
ue should be left to the man
who sculpted it. In Mr. Fraser’s
own words, “The two figures at
[Roosevelt’s] side are guides
symbolizing the continents of
Africa and America, and if you
choose may stand for Roose-
velt’s friendliness to all races.”
TOM KIRKMAN, HIGH POINT, N.C.TO THE EDITOR:
As the author of the recent
biography “Theodore Roose-
velt: A Manly President’s
Gendered Personal and Politi-
cal Transformations,” I
strongly agree with the muse-
um’s decision to remove the
statue.
While the biography lauds
Roosevelt for his domestic
policies — particularly his
drive for food and drug inspec-
tions, workplace safety, and
forest, bird, animal and natural
resource protection — it con-
demns him harshly for his
lifelong racism, mitigated
somewhat only two years
before his death. The statue is
an express depiction of Roose-
velt’s racism.
Whether he was writing
about history or hunting, as he
often did, his writing reflected
a racist bias that descendants
of Western Europeans were
superior to the Indigenous
populations of the Americas
and Asia. Like the current
administration’s policies,
Roosevelt’s support of in-
creased barriers to immigra-
tion was race-based. And his
foreign policies reflected Amer-
ican race superiority.
Roosevelt’s racism was
inconsistent with the Christian
morality embraced by his
construction of the manliness
ideal. But for most of his life,
he lived that inconsistency.NEIL H. COGAN
WHITTIER, CALIF.
The writer is a professor of politi-
cal science at Whittier College.TO THE EDITOR:
The statue of Theodore Roose-
velt at the American Museum
of Natural History is racially
offensive, but the memory of
Theodore Roosevelt is not.
While some of Roosevelt’s
opinions and actions now of-
fend us, his primary legacies
are his leadership on progres-
sive policies throughout a long
career of public service, his
visionary environmentalism,
and his extraordinary learning,
energy and curiosity. He is avery worthy role model, as
shown in the museum’s other
tributes to him.
All people are complex amal-
gams of different traits. We
should not stop reading the
Declaration of Independence
or rename our capital city
because Jefferson and Wash-
ington were slave owners. The
monuments we should remove
are those of figures whose
fame and legacy relate primar-
ilyto slavery.
Different moral views pre-
vail in different times and
places; we cannot evaluate
historical figures by our cur-
rent sensitivities. Our moral
objection to slavery is one of
the few views that can be con-
sidered permanent, objective
and obligatory.
RON MEYERS, NEW YORKTO THE EDITOR:
At the same time the Museum
of Natural History has decided
to remove the bronze statue of
Teddy Roosevelt, plans are
afoot to place a monument in
Central Park honoring one of
the great champions of the
women’s rights movement,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, not-
withstanding her unequivo-
cally racist remarks uttered in
opposition to the 15th Amend-
ment giving African-American
men the right to vote. She
questioned whether women
should stand aside and allow
“Sambos” (her word) the right
to vote.
Is there a double standard
here? Why can’t Americans
come to terms with our racist
past without feeling compelled
to demonize those we used to
deify? Those American “icons,”
including both Teddy and Mrs.
Stanton, were mortals like the
rest of us. We should not white-
wash history in an effort to
purify our souls. Instead we
need to deal with the real prob-
lems of systemic racism today
without obsessing about the
past in a futile attempt to erase
the stain on our nation’s soul.CORNELIUS D. MURRAY
ALBANY, N.Y.TO THE EDITOR:
A mob in Portland, Ore., has
taken down a statue of George
Washington. Mobs cannot be
expected to be discriminating,
but the Portland mob was
clearly picking on the wrong
patriot. Washington owned
slaves, but he was among the
few founders who (in his will)
freed his slaves, and all of us
are in his debt for the exam-
ples he set as the commander
of the Continental Army who
was deferential to Congress
and a president who gave up
power gracefully.
Some statues should be
moved from public squares to
museums. That of Washington
in Portland should be restored
to the public square.IRA D. GRUBER, HOUSTON
The writer is professor emeritus of
history at Rice University.TO THE EDITOR:
We should not attempt to de-
stroy our history. We should
learn from it. I fully under-
stand the anger of having to
view statues of Confederate
leaders that appear in our
cities. We should follow Hunga-
ry’s lead and dedicate a park
where these “memorials” can
be moved. In 1991 Hungary
announced the creation of
Szoborpark (Memento Park),
where the statues of Lenin,
Marx, Engels and many Hun-
garian Communists hold forth.
They date from Hungary’s
Communist rule from 1949 to
1989.ARTHUR LIEB, BOULDER, COLO.TO THE EDITOR:
Re “G.O.P. Defends Monu-
ments to Traitors” (editorial,
June 20):
On the day before June-
teenth, Nancy Pelosi an-
nounced that portraits of past
House speakers who were part
of the Confederacy would be
taken down. Instead, plaques
should have been added under
these portraits to educate
viewers about former House
members who were on the
wrong side of history and why.
I think it is harmful to try to
rewrite or erase what has
happened in the past; that
makes us no better than totali-
tarian regimes. And though I
am all in favor of renaming
buildings that glorify those
who promoted slavery and
advocated for the dissolution of
the Union, I do not support
destroying or removing art.
Sculptures, paintings and
murals all provide an opportu-
nity for learning about our
country’s horrific past regard-
ing racism.
TOM GOODMAN, CHICAGOMore perspectives on monuments:
nytimes.com/opinion.LETTERSRemoving T.R.’s Statue, and Others
Readers react to controversies at the Museum of
Natural History in New York and elsewhere.