Hiding exploitation behind an app
DuKai photographer via Getty Images
COMMENTARY | Companies like Uber insist to local governments that they are "tech platforms," not employers, but their labor model could violate international standards.
This article was originally published by Nevada Current.
Alejandro thought that driving full-time for Uber offered freedom — flexible hours, quick cash, and time to care for his young son. But that promise faded fast.
“There are hours when I make $20,” he told me. “And there are hours when I make $2.” As his pay dropped, he pawned his computer and camera, began rationing his insulin, and started driving seven days a week just to break even.
Alejandro, whose real name is withheld for his privacy, is one of millions of workers powering a billion-dollar labor model built on legal loopholes.
Companies like Uber insist they are “tech platforms,” not employers, and that their workers are “independent contractors,” not employees. This sleight of hand allows them to sidestep minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, and other workplace protections while shifting risks onto workers. It also lets them avoid employer taxes, draining funds from public coffers.
A new Human Rights Watch report looks at seven major platform companies — Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Favor, Instacart, Lyft, Shipt, and Uber — and finds that their labor model violates international human rights standards.
These companies promise flexibility and opportunity, but the reality for many workers is far more precarious. In a survey of 127 platform workers in Texas, we found that after subtracting expenses and benefits, the median hourly pay was just $5.12, including tips — well below the already paltry federal minimum wage.
Seventy-five percent of workers we surveyed said they struggled to pay for housing. Thirty-five percent said they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Over a third had been in a work-related car accident. Many said they sold possessions, relied on food stamps, or borrowed from family and friends to get by.
Their labor keeps the system running — but the system isn’t built to work for them.
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done. The platforms often use algorithms and automated systems to assign jobs, set pay rates, monitor performance, and deactivate workers without warning.
One Uber driver in Houston said, “They are like puppet masters. They psychologically manipulate you.”
One Shipt worker in Michigan said her pay plummeted immediately after she received two four-star reviews, down from her usual five. Ratings are hard to challenge, and recovering from a low score can take weeks. Workers feel forced to accept every job and appease every customer, reinforcing a system that rewards compliance over fairness.
These aren’t the conditions of self-employment. They’re the conditions of control.
This labor model also drains public resources. In Texas alone, Human Rights Watch estimates that misclassification of platform workers cost the state over $111 million in unemployment insurance contributions between 2020 and 2022 — a quiet transfer of public wealth into private hands.
In 2024, Uber reported $43.9 billion in revenue and nearly $10 billion in net income, calling the fourth quarter its “strongest ever.” DoorDash pulled in $10.72 billion, up 24 percent from the previous year. Combined, their market valuation exceeds $250 billion.
But workers are pushing back, and policymakers are starting to listen. At this June’s UN-backed International Labour Conference, for example, a binding treaty on platform work is under discussion.
The message is clear: workers are demanding rules that protect their rights.
The U.S. can start by updating employment classification standards and adopting clear criteria to determine whether a platform worker is truly independent. We also need greater transparency. If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn — and how high executive compensation soars above them.
This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about making sure companies don’t hide exploitation behind an app. Alejandro has a right to a wage he can live on, protections he can count on, and a system that doesn’t punish him for getting sick, injured, or speaking up.
He and millions like him built the platform economy. It’s time they shared more than the burden.