Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

Opposing PRO Act, Uber and Other Gig Companies Spend Over $1 Million Lobbying (theintercept.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the labor-reform dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Intercept: Even as President Joe Biden called for Congress during his joint address last week to pass labor reform legislation, a slate of gig companies has spent over $1 million lobbying Congress to influence the PRO Act and other related issues in 2021 alone, according to newly released lobbying disclosures. Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft and delivery apps DoorDash and Instacart spent at least $1,190,000 on 32 lobbyists to persuade members of Congress on the PRO Act, first quarter disclosure reports show. The bill, which the House of Representatives passed in early March, would allow many gig workers to unionize and make it harder for companies to union-bust, among other changes.

Uber alone spent $540,000 in the first quarter of 2021 lobbying on "issues related to the future of work and the on-demand economy, possible anti-competitive activities that could limit consumers access to app-based technologies," the PRO Act, and other related labor issues. Lyft spent $430,000, DoorDash $120,000, and Instacart $100,000 on lobbying on the PRO Act and other issues, according to disclosures. The PRO Act would make the most pivotal changes to labor law since the 1970s. In addition to giving many gig workers the right to unionize, it would grant employees whistleblower protections and prohibit companies from retaliating against participants in strikes and other union-related activities. A 2019 report from Gallup commissioned by Intuit estimated that 17 percent of U.S. adults engaged in self-employment. These reforms threaten the profits of gig companies, which rely on a large and fluid group of independent contractors.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opposing PRO Act, Uber and Other Gig Companies Spend Over $1 Million Lobbying More

Opposing PRO Act, Uber and Other Gig Companies Spend Over $1 Million Lobbying

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @05:05PM (#61356548)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • That's preposterous. (Score:5, Funny)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @05:11PM (#61356582)
      I have it on good authority from /. posters who haven't had to search for work in 30 years that all it takes to move up is a hearty hand shake and that the only thing holding them back is these damn Union mandated breaks.
    • The power dynamic is that I can quit at any time and find another job. I've known people who have been held back by unions where the union was happy with what they were making but the person who was required to be in the union was not getting the prevaling wage because they were not the union's target audience.

  • Cheap whores (Score:4, Funny)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @05:08PM (#61356560)

    It's not that I don't expect politicians to be swayed by big corporations, it's just the fact that they're so cheap to buy that bothers me. I mean you're representing several hundred thousand to 10's of millions of people, you should cost more than a couple thousand dollars of schmoozing to have your vote swayed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      I mean you're representing several hundred thousand to 10's of millions of people, you should cost more than a couple thousand dollars of schmoozing to have your vote swayed.

      There is absolutely no accountability for most of them (incumbent reelection rate in house of representatives is about 98%).
      Waaay too many people are voting based on party affiliation, so there is no risk.

    • it's just the fact that they're so cheap to buy that bothers me.

      Last year, $3.5B was spent on lobbying.

      There are 435 representatives and 100 senators.

      $3.5B / 535 = $6.5M each.

      So, not so cheap.

      • $6.5M each

        That's ALL lobbying. That's including industries that rake in tens to hundreds of millions in profit plus other industries that make multi-billions. $6.5M/critter is so past hyper-cheap that it's gone plaid. For some industries $6.5M is a fraction of a single percent of their annual take.

        So, not so cheap.

        I mean yeah, to your average US consumer or small company, that's more than any of us will see in a decade worth of work before taxes. So I mean, it's all relative here. But for the industries that "matter" (matter as

  • They're coming for you too (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @05:09PM (#61356572)
    just to be clear. [bloomberg.com]

    Uber and Lyft are redefining what it means to work, and in the process wiping away hundreds of years of hard fought gains from people that work for a living.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by arbiter1 ( 1204146 )
      Um last i checked No one forces you to download the app and work for them. No one forces you to give rides to people via their app. So everyone you said is bs.
  • they north of $200 million getting Prop 22 passed in California.

  • In addition to giving many gig workers the right to unionize, it would grant employees whistleblower protections and prohibit companies from retaliating against participants in strikes and other union-related activities.

    I will ask a stupid question -- do whistleblower protections have to be explicitly established?
    So unless the laws say so, company can retaliate against a whistleblower (who presumably reports something bad) all they want?

    • Pretty much, in many states a company can fire you without cause, just notify you and out out you go.

      Even protections for things like OSHA violations are a hard bar to pass. Sure you filed a complaint anonymously but the company is going to find out who did it one way or another and next time there's a minor slip up, you're out the door, not for filing a complaint of course the record will show. Your recourse is to sue and prove you were fired via retaliation which is less than easy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Even protections for things like OSHA violations are a hard bar to pass. Sure you filed a complaint anonymously but the company is going to find out who did it one way or another and next time there's a minor slip up, you're out the door, not for filing a complaint of course the record will show. Your recourse is to sue and prove you were fired via retaliation which is less than easy.

        Still better than dying in an industrial accident, or worse, killing hundreds by causing one.

        The only real solution is to have alternative employment options, or failing that, UBI.

    • No, but it's a nice add-on to make the press conference more newsworthy.

      Another popular 'trick' is to marginally adjust one parameter of an existing law, then pretend you've done something meaningful. One example, the milky Ledbetter equal pay act. Democrats made a huge show about "finally!my protecting women from gender chased wage inequity" when in reality all they did was extend the filing window to register a comp!ain't under existing equal pay protection legislation.

      Remember, for politicians, the press

  • PRO Act, whats in it (Score:5, Informative)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @05:13PM (#61356586)

    Here are five provisions in the PRO Act (via NPR):

    1. So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract.

    2. Employer interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden. Company-sponsored meetings — with mandatory attendance — are often used to lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal. Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing elections at a location away from company property.

    3. Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle such impasses in negotiations.

    4. The law would prevent an employer from using its employee's immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment.

    5. It would establish monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate workers' rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the company could also be held liable.

    • "(via NPR)" So from a leftist media publication so take all those talking points with a grain of salt. They lied about Georgia's recent voting law changes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      A more balanced take on those:

      1. In those states, unions still collect "agency fees". They just don't get to reach into workers' pockets to collect extra for lobbying or union boss salaries [investors.com]. The agency fees are specifically supposed to cover the costs you mention. Right-to-work protects the right of free association, which unions do not like.

      2. Employers would be unable to explain to their workers what the compromises and drawbacks of joining a union would be. Their freedom of speech gets sacrificed alo

      • 3. If the union makes unreasonable demands, they can try to get a mediator to enforce it.

        Pedantic nitpick: A mediator can't enforce anything. All they do is mediate to help the parties come to an agreement.

        An arbitrator can impose an agreement. But a law to impose binding arbitration on an unwilling party is going to ignite a firestorm of resistance. Such a law is unlikely to be passed by Congress. Even if it passes, it will face constitutional challenges and conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

      • Yeah it's almost like workers need more protections than employers require due to the ease of extortion, coercion and an unequal power balance in the relationship of worker to owner. Those thing's are just conspiracies right?

        And it's not like there's decades of history of anti-union sentiment from employers, illegal strike breaking from employers and government, workplace harassment from managers, retaliatory measures against organizing. It's not like a war was fought over the ability of some states to m

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Workers should have more protections than employers, but they don't need unions for that.

          There are decades of illegal government interference [supplement...itions.com], illegal picketing [bizjournals.com], racketeering with mobsters [nytimes.com], corruption [northeasttimes.com], or RICO violations [exhibitcitynews.com] by unions -- in Philadelphia alone. Union crimes include sabotage [cnn.com], arson, sabotage and assault [buckscount...rtimes.com], extortion and defamation [azalaw.com] and sabotage [wsj.com]. ("You said sabotage three times!"
          "Unions like sabotage.")

          #1- Most companies aren't Fortune 500 companies. Canoll's salary alone is more than Warr

          • Ok, so if we acknowledge that worker need protection from employers then we have to acknowledge why and that is an inevitable consequence of living in a capitalist's system. The employer will always have an imbalance of power over the individual employee. The alternative to unions is a strong welfare state with a social safety net, otherwise it is a market failure because the alternative to selling labor for the vast majority of people is a purely sustenance existence or death and in that case the market

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Entrope ( 68843 )

              Ok, so if we acknowledge that worker need protection from employers then we have to acknowledge why and that is an inevitable consequence of living in a capitalist's system.

              No, that is not why workers need protection from employers. They need protection from the employer because the employer has a lot more resources than the worker. They have more people, more money, more fixed capital, and organization. Unions are in the same position, except -- unlike almost all employers -- they have a recent history

              • Ok, but why do employers have "more people, more money, more fixed capital, and organization". Could it be that's a natural order of the economic system we live it? Hmm? If we want to improve these systems we have to understand and acknowledge how they work and that is how capitalism works so thank you for agreeing with me. Also you are being willfully obtuse to equate the control and power corporations have versus what unions have, especially in the 21st century when unions are fairly weak and isolated.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Entrope ( 68843 )

                  Employers have those traits because they are larger enterprises, just like unions. Governments are usually the ultimate in "more people, more money, more fixed capital, and organization". If you don't like that power imbalance, then you should want a much smaller government. Thank you for clarifying that you think anarcho-libertarianism is the proper arrangement! (Seriously, that is how stupid you are acting)

                  • I can vote who is in the government, something every libertarian leaves out when they deride the "monopoly use of force via the government". Vast majority of employees cannot vote on who their manager is. I think you are making a case for worker cooperatives, thanks for agreeing with that you think market socialism is the best path forward. You could also just support anarcho-syndicalism, the ideas that "anarcho-libertarians" should actually support. Anarcho libertarianism is a 20th century canard pushed

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Entrope ( 68843 )

                      Nobody forces me to work for manager X at company Y. It is way easier for me to control either of those than to control who represents me at the local, state or federal government -- and I have no real control at all over the government agents I would encounter in daily life. Once again, you are arguing for anarcho-libertarianism!

                    • "you are arguing for anarcho-libertarianism"

                      You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means. I guess when all you have a have is a hammer....

    • 1. So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract.

      That's backwards.

      The right approach is to allow employers to give nonmembers different wages and benefits. Those who opt out of the dues, opt out of the benefits. OTOH, if the union isn't doing enough to justify the cost of membership, they may find they'd better do a little more to justify their existence.

      I fully support unions, as long as they're voluntary.

      • That sounds good but what about OSHA-like protections?
        Does a railing along a staircase disappear for non-union workers?
        Do "big red stop buttons" on machinery not exist for non-union members?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stikves ( 127823 )

      Thanks for the summary.

      That sounds good at first, but there are legitimate concerns.

      1 - Forced unionization. I know the "all or nothing" concept. However I really do not like what most unions do. So even though I would not oppose other workers being on one, I could not consciously support them with my money. Hence, if 51% of workers in my company wants to unionize, is my only option tending my resignation as the 49% minority?

      2 - Makes sense

      3 - If a union is unsuccessful at their most important function (mak

    • Here are five provisions in the PRO Act (via NPR):

      1. So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract.

      So the majority of workers can force union participation on an individual that doesn't want to be part of the union and collect union dues from their paycheck. Delightful.

      2. Employer interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden. Company-sponsored meetings â" with mandatory attendance â" are often used to lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal. Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing elections at a location away from company property.

      Like at a bar, where the union rep is buying the beer, on at your front door when a couple union members show up unannounced/uninvited to "help you" vote in the union election? No thank you.

      3. Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle such impasses in negotiations.

      So when the union and management can't agree on a contract, A third party will decide terms of employment and compensation? No thanks.

      4. The law would prevent an employer from using its employee's immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment.

      Are we just prete

  • Hmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @06:20PM (#61356820)

    These reforms threaten the profits of gig companies, which rely on a large and fluid group of independent contractors. ... Uber alone spent $540,000 in the first quarter of 2021 ... Lyft spent $430,000, DoorDash $120,000, and Instacart $100,000 on lobbying ...

    Instead of spending on opposition lobbying, seems like these companies could afford to spend on their employees -- I mean "independent contractors" -- that help generate all that money.

    • Uber spent $540,000, how many 'employees' does Uber have? Looks like about 19,000. So if we round that up to 20,000 employees that works out to what, about $27/each?

      If Uber loses, how many of those 19,000 employees would lose their jobs due to the changes in the regulation?

      • Sure, but some of those employees are already actual employees, others are "independent contractors". The latter need the extra protections. Still, I get your point, but the companies probably also have even more money available than they spent on lobbying ...

  • Known as Corruption in any other country (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khchung ( 462899 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @07:23PM (#61356958) Journal

    In any other country, this money will be rightly called "bribes" and the government called "corrupted".

    Only in the free USA, businesses can freely give money to politicians to buy laws they like.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beepsky ( 6008348 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @07:47PM (#61356994)
    Why are people even against gig work?
    Sure it's lacking protections, but it has a whole bunch of other perks like setting your own work schedule, decent pay for easy work, easy to start and no motherfucking soul crushing job interviews that you'll automatically fail if you're not charismatic enough (charismatic, not competent).
    • And meanwhile nobody is doing anything about the cancerous tipping culture the US has. How the fuck can you justify paying waiters basically nothing and making customers pay them instead? Wtf? And you come after Uber instead?

      • Pay for performance. Perform well, get paid well. Perform poorly, get paid poorly. It's called meritocracy, and we still have some vestiges of it here.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bjwest ( 14070 )
      It's the people who signed up as a contractor in a gig job thinking the could make a full time job type living off of it that are complaining that they can't live off of the money they make. These jobs weren't designed to be your full time only source of income, they were designed for part time need a few extra bucks for something or other.

  • These reforms threaten the profits of gig companies...

    Uber "only" lost $1.1 billion in 2020 [forbes.com], and that's despite cooking the books^X^X^X using EBITDA accounting.

  • Those damn unions! (Score:3)

    by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Thursday May 06, 2021 @08:34PM (#61357074)

    If it wasn't for them, we could back to the good old days of move sixteen tons, whaddya get? Another day older and deeper in debt [wikipedia.org].

  • When the cookie jar runs low politicians often talk up legislation that affects deep pockets. Works much better than begging for finds.
  • Aren't all these starups running at a loss since the beginning? Where is this money coming from? Is lobbying money tax deductible in some way?

  • I don't work for any of these companies and while they buy carve outs, the "pro" act will legislate people like me away. There is no way for a real contractor to meet the ABC test. The people dispatching you will "work in the business" by virtue of existing. Anyone that can't directly acquire customers is screwed. Just how can you approach a fortune 500 as a small fry and get a contract... that won't happen. You'd have to meet SLAs and all other requirements.

    In essence they ban self employment and you have

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close