2026-09-30 Lina Moe, Drew Weber and Noah Meixler

Caption: Delivery worker biking in the snow.

In the years following the 2008 recession, a convergence of mass unemployment, cheap capital, and new digital platforms created fertile ground for a new class of precarious labor. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and TaskRabbit built business models that sidestepped traditional labor rights by classifying workers as independent contractors, denying them protections such as a minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, paid leave, and the right to unionize. In response, labor advocates launched organizing efforts and legislative campaigns, from California’s AB5 to the early Biden administration’s promise of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

A decade and a half later, the results are mixed. The PRO Act is dead. Absent legislation, the Biden administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) rule on independent contractor classification was promptly rolled back.1 California’s AB5, passed in 2019, was meant to curtail misclassification by creating a strict “ABC test,” meaning workers would be presumed employees unless they are free from company control, doing work outside the company’s core business, and operating an independent trade.2 Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart responded by spending over $200 million on Proposition 22, the most expensive ballot initiative in state history, which exempted app-based workers from the law and enshrined their independent contractor status in the state constitution.3 This corporate playbook has since been replicated, most recently in Massachusetts, where the threat of a similar ballot initiative pushed the state to settle its misclassification lawsuit before a judge could rule.4

While there are areas of consensus, this roundtable surfaces the disagreements among those trying to build power for workers when the old rules no longer apply.

The gig economy’s most visible workers—over 100,000 rideshare drivers and 60,000 app-based delivery workers in New York City alone—are joined by independent contractors in construction, trucking, home care, janitorial services, and the beauty industry.5 Some of these workers have won protections, including minimum pay standards, paid family leave, access to unemployment insurance during the pandemic, and even the right to form a union, all while remaining classified as independent contractors, outside the framework of traditional labor law.

In what follows, we ask how gig workers can win protections in a system that thus far excludes them. We also ask whether the fight should focus on reclassifying them as employees, winning gains within independent contractor status, or building power outside the legal framework altogether. We put these questions to worker center leaders, legal advocates, union strategists, enforcement officials, researchers, and elected representatives working on the front lines of gig economy organizing and regulation. All panelists were interviewed via Zoom, with the exception of two panelists (Alexandra Mateescu and Terri Gerstein), who provided written responses. All Zoom panelists were interviewed individually, with the exceptions of Gabe Morgan and Autumn Weintraub of 32BJ Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who were interviewed together.

While there are areas of consensus, this roundtable surfaces the disagreements among those trying to build power for workers when the old rules no longer apply.

The question is no longer just how to protect gig workers, but how to prevent all work from becoming gig work.

Several advocates and researchers we spoke to placed gig work in a longer history of U.S. labor struggles, exploiting loopholes in the twentieth-century labor-capital compromise that were there from the start. Gig work, from this perspective, is not a new phenomenon, but capitalism’s latest trick. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 granted workers the right to organize, but only within narrow bounds and excluded domestic workers and farmworkers from the start.6 The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 narrowed the aperture further by banning sympathy strikes and authorizing state-level “right-to-work” laws.7 Even that constrained system has been eroding for decades, and the Roberts Court has presided over an accelerated collapse: blocking collective claims in Epic Systems,8 defunding public-sector unions in Janus,9 narrowing strike protections in Glacier Northwest.10 After an unprecedented mid-term removal of a member, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) now lacks a quorum to decide cases. And gig workers were outside its reach anyway—as independent contractors, they have no right to organize under the NLRA.

Comprehensive reform would require federal action, but with Congress gridlocked and the NLRB hollowed out, states and localities have stepped into the breach.

Defining who counts as a gig worker remains contested. Some are genuinely independent, while others set their own schedules but work full-time under constant direction and surveillance.11 Failing to distinguish between true independent contractors (often a largely professional class of workers who do not want reclassification) and potentially misclassified workers has fractured coalitions.12

Meanwhile, the gig model has breached containment. Algorithmic management, once an aberration of the platform economy, now disciplines everyone from warehouse workers13 to registered nurses.14 The question is no longer just how to protect gig workers, but how to prevent all work from becoming gig work. The platform-enabled search for work has furthered the use of data to calculate when workers need to work and the lowest pay rate they will accept—their “desperation wage.”15 The recently proposed Empowering App-Based Workers Act targets these practices.16

Comprehensive reform would require federal action, but with Congress gridlocked and the NLRB hollowed out, states and localities have stepped into the breach. New York City offers an instructive case study. The city has been a laboratory for gig worker policy, including pay standards for rideshare and delivery workers,17 paid family leave,18 and recently passed legislation on deactivation protections.19 The organizations that have championed these fights, including the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA), Worker’s Justice Project, and the Freelancers Union, have built power without waiting for federal action or established union support. Their wins have been real: hundreds of millions recovered in wage theft settlements,20 minimum pay rates that materially improved earnings,21 and unemployment insurance access that delivered thousands of dollars per driver during the pandemic.22

Gig work is about trying to remove those protections and go back to an older form of work where the balance between labor and capital is tipped towards capital.

Local victories have not, however, resolved deep strategic uncertainty. On the left, there are genuine divides over whether to fight misclassification through existing legal frameworks or pursue incremental protections that leave workers’ independent contractor status unsettled.23 Some advocates insist that sidelining the classification fight sets a dangerous precedent, inviting employers in other industries to reclassify their workforces downward.24 Others counter that misclassification battles are too slow, too expensive, and too vulnerable to corporate-funded ballot initiatives to deliver for workers in time. These disagreements have become further exacerbated in this political moment. We heard from advocates that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have changed the organizing calculus and, in some cases, meant that parents are staying home while their children—including high school students—are picking up driving and delivery shifts. Cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), along with anticipated spikes in health care premiums, are pushing more people toward the gig economy, which is, as one legislator we spoke to put it, “set up to receive people who are pressed and need quick employment.” The platforms benefit from desperation; policy is manufacturing it.

Certain unions, most notably 32BJ SEIU, have taken advantage of ride hail drivers’ independent contractor classification to push for new state-level unionization models that operate outside the scope of the NLRA. By conceding on classification and thus avoiding the question of whether these workers are employees, these state laws avoid federal preemption. This has allowed for the development of new organizing models including sectoral bargaining, which workers classified as employees are legally barred from participating in. Such laws have gone into effect in Massachusetts and California with organizing efforts actively underway.25 Opinions remain split on these efforts. Advocates for this model argue that the Taft-Hartley framework is poorly suited to a workforce that is atomized, multilingual, high-turnover, and deliberately structured to evade the employer-employee relationship, and thus a new approach is needed. However, some advocates at worker centers have suggested that by giving up on the classification fight, they concede too much to companies and stifle, rather than advance, worker power.

Other signs of energy have come from worker centers themselves, who are leading campaigns that recall the organizing that happened before the NLRA. Gig workers have proven among the most strike-prone segments of the European workforce, precisely because their self-employed status removes legal barriers to work stoppages. And automation, for all its threats, may offer a galvanizing issue that unites workers across industries. Taken together, these developments suggest that the future of worker power may be shaped less by reviving old legal frameworks than by building new forms of enforcement and collective action from the ground up. This shift is already underway in New York City. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has proposed doubling the budget of the city’s worker protection agency, Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), and has spoken about his vision of a broader and stronger agency to enforce workers’ rights.26

We want to start by asking what gig work is, and how it should be understood historically?

Jamie Woodcock, author of The Fight Against Platform Capitalism: An Inquiry into the Global Struggles of the Gig Economy (2021), King’s College London: We think precarious work is new. But for most workers, for most of history, work has been very precarious. We’ve had a brief period in the Global North where some of us came to expect benefits tied to work. Gig work is about trying to remove those protections and go back to an older form of work where the balance between labor and capital is tipped toward capital.

It would be a harder sell for these companies to say, “Our innovative model is ripping workers off.” They do not say, “We’ve found an old trick of capitalism, which makes people work longer and harder.” So instead, they say, “We’re not even a company—we’re a platform.”

Alexandra Mateescu, researcher with Data & Society’s Labor Futures Program: Companies like Uber and DoorDash perfected the art of surveillance-intensive labor exploitation. But over the years, these practices have breached containment and permeated into many different occupations regardless of worker classification. The “algorithmic boss” was once viewed as an aberration of the gig economy. Now it’s a staple of the regular economy—everyone from registered nurses to clerical workers may be managed by a distant, tyrannical mobile app.

Terri Gerstein, Director of the NYU Wagner Labor Initiative: The gig model is best known in relation to transportation and food delivery, but it is present in other areas as well, like hospitality and health care. Katie Wells’ report on Uber for nurses is chilling.27 As I wrote in the New York Times, the idea of a dishwasher running their own independent business is ludicrous.28

Beyond the legal and policy battles, what’s standing in the way of progress?

Laura Padin, Director of Work Structures, National Employment Law Project: The reality is that, even among politicians who say they are pro-worker, there is not alignment that app-based workers should have employment rights and protections. This is because the corporations have had a sophisticated communications campaign from their inception—building a narrative that they’re unique, and provide workers with flexibility and freedom, when in reality the apps are calling all the shots, and many people are dependent on this work for their livelihoods. Plus, these companies have a lot of money . . . politicians get inundated with lobbying.

Terri Gerstein: These corporations routinely threaten to leave jurisdictions when legislation is passed seeking to regulate them in any manner.

Carlos Ortiz, Chief of Staff & Deputy Commissioner of External Affairs, DCWP: Even when you enact legislation, there are operational hurdles. There are legislative vetoes—when a bill does not pass. Operational vetoes—when you do not get resources to implement it. Regulatory vetoes—when rulemaking gets watered down from lobbyist pressure. People celebrate when a law passes, but you have to follow through on every step.

Rafael Espinal, Executive Director, Freelancers Union: Worker identity is still very siloed. Freelancers do not want to be called gig workers. The self-employed and artists do not want to be called freelancers. We have made it a part of our mission to do some of that education across the board. But I do not think we are at a point yet where everyone is getting under the same banner.

Claire Valdez, New York State Assembly Member, (D-Queens): New York State has pretty good worker protections. What we lack is enforcement. This is my white whale for my time in the state—trying to figure out why the Department of Labor is so backlogged. Workers experiencing wage theft are often folks who maybe English is not their first language, they are low-wage workers, gig workers—the most vulnerable categories of worker imaginable, and they are fighting for years to get back wages awarded to them. So, few workers can afford to wait that long.

Gabe Morgan, Executive Vice President and 32BJ PA/DE State Director, 32BJ SEIU: I would love to change federal law on this issue, but it has not happened yet. In the meantime, we have a huge opportunity. New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts. That is where the actual center of the U.S. economy is. And so, if we give workers power in those places, they would have the right to fight on economic terms in the most important markets in the country. I do not know why we are waiting on Alabama to get religion on the PRO Act, but it is not coming anytime soon.

For years, labor’s response to gig work has been to fight misclassification—to show these workers are really employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and the right to organize. This was the logic behind California’s Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) and Joe Biden’s DOL rule. But after a decade of legal battles and legislative setbacks, is fighting misclassification still the right area of focus?

Zubin Soleimany, Senior Staff Attorney, NYTWA: The first step is to hold on to what you have got. You cannot concede employee status and start negotiating from the basement. Our strategy has always been to start from the position that these workers are employees under existing law. This is not theoretical; there are material consequences here.

In a supercharged, fast-moving industry, traditional labor organizing is pretty slow. If you cannot deliver something meaningful for drivers today, you are history.

What you have is a new company that comes into the workforce, telling people it is something novel. But under New York State labor law, Uber drivers were already employees with thirty years of black car precedent. Starting from that position yielded unemployment insurance, which meant 10,000moreperdriverduringCovid—hundredsofmillionstotal.TheAttorneyGeneral′swagetheftcase,whichwasabletoleveragethewagetheftlawsunderstatelaborlaw,returned328 million. All of that was an outgrowth of us not conceding anything.

Rafael Espinal: I think [focusing on misclassification] is the wrong approach. It has gotten to a point where the conversation has become toxic, including among workers themselves. We have to work toward a model where every working American, no matter how you are classified, has access to affordable health care, paid leave, time off. I do not think creating a third category is the best way forward, but I also do not think boxing independent workers into full-time employment is the right move either.

Claire Valdez: Misclassification has to be addressed at the federal level, which is especially challenging under this current administration. Absent that, there are piecemeal [state and local] efforts to bring independent contractors closer to the protections afforded to full employees. We have won some of those victories around minimum wage and paid sick leave.

Misclassification is absolutely worth fighting as a legislator, but understandably, a worker who is just trying to pay rent and get through their shift is maybe less invested in the long-term vision of achieving employee status. I am sympathetic to near-term goals around wages, protections, insurance, and so on.

Carlos Ortiz: I think New York City has kind of made its choice on this. A minimum pay rate for independent contractors is not a misclassification battle. It is raising the floor in the independent contractor space to try and equalize as much as we can with the employee space . . . It is a philosophy that is about bringing outcomes to New Yorkers and materially improving their lives as soon as possible.

James Parrott, Director of Economic and Fiscal Policies at the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School: There is a case for pragmatic wins. In a supercharged, fast-moving industry, traditional labor organizing is pretty slow. If you cannot deliver something meaningful for drivers today, you are history. I have done lots of studies about misclassification and the harm it causes—all of that still stands. But for rideshare, the universal pay standard is the only demonstrated way improved conditions have actually been delivered for workers. Plus, with very few exceptions, traditional unions so far have failed to deliver meaningfully for gig workers and have generally not appreciated enough the efforts of worker centers.

Under the NLRA, independent contractors cannot unionize. This is one of the limits of existing federal labor law. A recent law in Massachusetts allows ride hail workers to organize and bargain collectively as independent contractors through a newly created state-run process. What do you make of this effort? Is conceding on classification a worthwhile exchange to win collective bargaining rights at the state level?

James Parrott: In Massachusetts, I think the state was days away from winning its misclassification lawsuit against Uber and Lyft—the judge appeared inclined to rule that drivers were employees. Since the companies were threatening a Prop 22-style ballot, the Attorney General feared even a positive ruling might be nullified by a corporate-funded ballot campaign, so they settled. Drivers stay independent contractors with a pay standard, poorly negotiated by the AG’s office, that only covers “engaged time,” not waiting time. A separate ballot initiative to allow drivers to unionize did succeed but the organizing effort has been slow-going, not unlike in an NLRB context.

Laura Padin: We have been supportive of intermediate steps like strong pay standards (that account for all time worked and expenses) at the state and local level which can raise standards for these workers while being silent on classification. However, we do not think workers should be giving up protections that they should be entitled to. We are much more wary of legislation that says these workers get a certain pay standard while enshrining the independent contractor classification. This sets a bad precedent. Why should people be denied employment rights and protections just because they get their work through an app?

Autumn Weintraub, Fast Food Director, 32BJ SEIU: We started talking to our members and listening to what they were telling us: our pay rate is decreasing, we are being deactivated, we have no control over our working conditions. And so, the logical answer for drivers, or any worker, to fight these things is to get power through a union.

The federal unionization process right now is not going to help any classification of worker. Just because gig work is classified differently does not mean that those workers should not have the same rights as other workers, and that we as labor organizers should not be able to find solutions and policies that win power.

Gabe Morgan: We believe, as a matter of ideology, but also as a matter of political strategy, that if workers have a union, they can figure out the right strategy. If they have the legal right to force a company to the table, they will figure out a way to win. You have the opportunity here to give them better collective bargaining rights than they get with the NLRA. The law we passed in Massachusetts has sectoral bargaining and is the first of its kind in the country.

If the question is about protecting workers’ economic security and their collective power, are there other ways to do this while the classification question remains unresolved?

Laura Padin: So many so-called independent contractors do not even make their local minimum wage, after accounting for all time worked and work expenses, like gas and vehicle wear and tear. Perhaps we need a bright line rule that says if an employer does not pay “independent contractor” earnings that work out to $30 an hour at least, then the workers cannot be classified that way. There is government interest in making sure people, regardless of worker classification, make enough money. If they are making so little, that should be enough evidence they do not have bargaining power to negotiate their contracts and are misclassified.

Malcolm Emerich, Organizing Director, Workers United NY-NJ Joint Board: Taft-Hartley narrowed the tiny hole that we have expended 100 years of resources trying to make work. It organizes all worker energy toward negotiating a contract—and not everybody can be involved in that. It hands what seems like power to people, then takes it away. Labor needs to reject the structures that limit us. Think about organizing as a class—as people who work in an industry in an area. Think about how people can connect to each other and make demands that stick outside of traditional contract bargaining.

Claire Valdez: I have always seen my role as a legislator as trying to make the terrain as fertile as possible for organizing to happen. I think things like universal health care, universal childcare are the big fronts we should be contending power on . . . As legislators, we should be thinking about what programs are available to every single worker, regardless of classification, because it is also true that being a W-2 worker can be terrible . . . Universal programs galvanize everyone, unite everyone to fight for the same thing.

One of the core challenges we have heard talked about for app-based workers is arbitrary deactivation. How central is this issue and how can it be addressed?

Carlos Ortiz: There are so many testimonies from workers who get into accidents on the job, go to the hospital, and then get deactivated for being late to make a delivery. The current models do not take into account that these are human beings. You have a race to the bottom, or literally a race across the city, where workers are concerned about penalties, or what could trigger a deactivation where they lose their livelihood. But, suddenly the narrative out there is that the workers are the cause of unsafe deliveries, and therefore their rights are secondary, when we know the real push behind the danger is coming from the apps themselves. We have to turn that narrative on its head.

Laura Padin: App-based workers should have real deactivation protections, where they have a right to their job and a process to appeal deactivation. And I think that also gets at something people are seeing, which is people do not want to be fired by an app. They want to know that there is a human there.

What do you see as the impact of new forms of automation, including generative AI and self-driving cars, on gig workers and how can it be addressed?

Rafael Espinal: Most freelancers that I am hearing from are already feeling the impact. They are probably losing 10 percent of income since last year. It is becoming standard for hiring parties to include clauses that will give them ownership over the content that is created, and our members are concerned their content will be fed into AI generative models.

I think we have a responsibility to make it a unifying issue. AI companies are grooming us to see their tools as something fun that we should use to try to deflect from how destructive this is going to be. I want to get involved in something like this with a broader coalition. When things head down that route, count me in.

Zubin Soleimany: Taxi drivers have repeatedly found themselves on the front lines of harmful trends for workers, from misclassification in the 1970s, to the rise of the gig economy, and now AI and automation. It used to be easier for people to believe these changes were happening to someone else. But now, if you are a retail worker, a driver, or a lawyer, there is widespread awareness that automation and AI pose real threats to jobs and economic stability. The central question is how this technology can be integrated into the economy without devastating it, and addressing that challenge will require a broad, coalitional effort.

Claire Valdez: There is a really concerted lobbying effort in Albany to get our buy-in. The most compelling idea to me about how we push back against AI is in thinking about how human creativity is on the line. The promise of automation was that we would have more time to pursue our passions and contribute to society. But it is those goals and dreams that are being undermined by AI—not the drudgery of folding laundry or whatever. No—making music and making art. Those are under attack.

Autumn Weintraub: This is exactly why drivers need a union, so that they can have the power to negotiate how this works and to be able to inspire other workers that this is not something that we should take lying down. It is an impending unbelievable transfer of wealth.

Gabe Morgan: We are trying to get folks to understand that this is not really about robot cars. This is the new NAFTA. This is the beginning of replacing people with AI and with robots. We think rideshare drivers have an incredible role to actually lead on this issue. What is going to happen to people? And what are going to be the rules as these technologies roll out?

From a political or organizing perspective, what would it take to shift the balance of power? And what forces are working against it?

Carlos Ortiz: Something is more doable when there is a strong and organized constituency. Coalition building is about putting in the time and building trust. It is not something you do in a month, but it has huge dividends once it is in place. Ultimately, the way you counter corporate is with people power and proof—evidence that worker policies are working, lives are getting better.

Alexandra Mateescu: With Medicaid cuts, slashed federal grants, the tapering off of Covid-era funds supporting community-level organizations, and other large-scale disinvestments in both social programs and public institutions like health care and education, policymakers will be tempted to turn to techno-solutionist, privatized fixes that will inevitably fail to plug the gaps while further degrading work. Fighting for universal care, for instance, as a public good is critical to stopping all the “Uber for care” platforms from taking over.

A big part of the fight is going to be not only bringing protections to gig workers but also preventing “standard” jobs from becoming more and more like gig work.

The fight has to come at both ends, because even existing labor protections, including those available only to W-2 employees, are increasingly ineffective at reining in many of the more novel, data-driven practices used to exploit workers. A big part of the fight is going to be not only bringing protections to gig workers but also preventing “standard” jobs from becoming more and more like gig work.

Malcolm Emerich: We have to think about something like a general strike. Just the naming of a day, whoever does it, however they do it—if people say May 1, 2028, I will take that seriously and work with members to prepare for it.

Authors’ Note

The views expressed in the quoted statements are those of the individuals and should not be construed as representing the official position of the organization.

Notes:

1. Keith E. Kopplin, Margaret Santen, and Zachary V. Zagger, “Trump Administration to Rescind Biden-Era Independent Contractor Rule—What Could a New Rule Look Like?” Ogletree, October 17, 2025, available at https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/trump-administration-to-rescind-biden-era-independent-contractor-rule-what-could-a-new-rule-look-like/.

2. Levian Law, “AB5 & Proposition 22: Impact on Employment Classification,” Levian Law, available at https://www.levianlaw.com/ab5-proposition-22/.

3. “California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative,” Ballotpedia, 2020, available at https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020).

4. Joshua Nadreau and Katie Reynolds, “Uber and Lyft Settlement Provides New Precedent for the Gig Economy and Major Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers: Key Employer Takeaways,” JD Supra, July 2, 2024, available at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uber-and-lyft-settlement-provides-new-7451703/.

5. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 2024 Annual Report (New York: New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, January 2, 2025), available at https://www.nyc.gov/assets/tlc/downloads/pdf/annual_report_2024.pdf.

6. CLJE:Lab, “Workers Excluded from the NLRA,” in Building Worker Power in Cities & States, Center for Labor and a Just Economy (Harvard Law School), September 1, 2024, available at https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-excluded-from-the-nlra/.

7. National Labor Relations Board, “1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions,” available at https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions.

8. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285, slip op. (U.S. May 21, 2018), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-285_q8l1.pdf.

9. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, slip op. (U.S. June 27, 2018), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf.

10. Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, No. 21-1449, slip op. (U.S. June 1, 2023), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf.

11. Fight For Freelancers USA, “Data and Studies,” Fight For Freelancers USA, available at https://fightforfreelancersusa.com/data-and-studies/.

12. Jen Singer, Kim Kavin, Debbie Abrams Kaplan, and Karon Warren, “Protecting the Rights of Independent Contractors,” The New York Times, February 8, 2024, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/opinion/independent-contractors-freelancers.html.

13. Teke Wiggin, “Weaponizing the Workplace: How Algorithmic Management Shaped Amazon’s Antiunion Campaign in Bessemer, Alabama,” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 11 (2025), available at https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231251318389.

14. Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda, “Uber for Nursing: How an AI-Powered Gig Model Is Threatening Health Care,” Roosevelt Institute, December 17, 2024, available at https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing-how-an-ai-powered-gig-model-is-threatening-health-care/.

15. David Sathuluri, “Why Gig Platform Wage Theft Is a Governance Crisis,” TechPolicy.Press, January 13, 2026, available at https://www.techpolicy.press/why-gig-platform-wage-theft-is-a-governance-crisis/.

16. “Jayapal, Norcross, Omar Introduce Legislation to Protect App-Based Workers,” Jayapal.house.gov, December 11, 2025, available at https://jayapal.house.gov/2025/12/11/jayapal-norcross-omar-introduce-legislation-to-protect-app-based-workers/.

17. New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, “Minimum Pay Rate for Delivery Workers,” NYC.gov, available at https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/workers/Delivery-Worker-Public-Hearing-Minimum-Pay-Rate.page.

18. New York State, “Self-Employed Individuals,” New York State Paid Family Leave, January 13, 2026, available at https://paidfamilyleave.ny.gov/self-employed-individuals.

19. Sophia Lebowitz, “At Last: Council To Pass Delivery Worker Deactivation Protections,” Streetsblog New York City, December 18, 2025, available at https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/12/18/at-last-council-to-pass-delivery-worker-deactivation-protections.

20. New York Taxi Workers Alliance, “November 2, 2023: WE WON!” New York Taxi Workers Alliance, March 12, 2024, available at https://www.nytwa.org/home/2024/3/12/we-won.

21. New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, “Minimum Pay Rate for Delivery Workers,” NYC.gov, available at https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/workers/Delivery-Worker-Public-Hearing-Minimum-Pay-Rate.page.

22. New York Taxi Workers Alliance, “NYTWA Wins Big for N.Y. State App Drivers,” January 13, 2026, available at https://www.nytwa.org/app-drivers-ui.

23. Marshall Steinbaum, “A Real Post-Neoliberal Agenda,” Boston Review, Winter 2025, available at https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/a-real-post-neoliberal-agenda/.

24. Scholars Against US Support for Genocide in Gaza, “Sectoral Bargaining: Principles for Reform,” Medium, March 1, 2021, available at https://concerned-sectoral-bargaining.medium.com/sectoral-bargaining-principles-for-reform-7b7f2c945624.

25. David Madland, “State Rideshare Collective Bargaining Policies Hold Great Promise,” Center for American Progress, August 6, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-rideshare-collective-bargaining-policies-hold-great-promise/.

26. Sophia Lebowitz and Dave Colon, “Mamdani Appoints Pro-Labor Lawyer To Run Worker Protection Agency,” Streetsblog New York City, December 23, 2025, available at https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/12/23/mamdani-appoints-pro-labor-lawyer-to-run-worker-protection-agency/.

27. Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda, “Uber for Nursing: How an AI-Powered Gig Model Is Threatening Health Care,” Roosevelt Institute, December 17, 2024, available at https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing/.

28. Terri Gerstein, “More People Are Being Classified as Gig Workers. That’s Bad for Everyone,” The New York Times, January 28, 2024, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/opinion/rights-workers-economy-gig.html.

Author Biographies

Lina Moe is a research fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. She previously served as economist at the Center for New York City Affairs, where she contributed to the for-hire driver pay standard in New York City and a statewide analysis of independent contractors.

Drew Weber serves as the strategic campaign coordinator at the Consortium for Worker Education, the workforce development arm of the NYC Central Labor Council.

Noah Meixler is the director of the Astoria Worker Project, an initiative of the Consortium for Worker Education (CWE) that advances community building and worker empowerment in Western Queens. Previously, he served as a senior policy analyst for the New York City Council, where he shaped labor, workforce, and small business policy.

Share this: