A driver and passenger wearing protective masks exit the ride sharing pickup area in a car displaying Uber Technologies signage at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Monday, May 4, 2021. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Bloomberg
Advertisement
Leonardo Diaz is in a tough spot.
Diaz, a driver for Uber and Lyft, has been unemployed for more than two months.
The 51-year-old hasn’t picked up riders for fear of contracting Covid-19 and, in turn, infecting his family.
Advertisement
But Diaz, a Los Angeles resident, is also afraid to apply for unemployment benefits, as nearly 39 million Americans have done since mid-March amid to the coronavirus pandemic.
Diaz is torn.
On one hand, he needs the financial assistance. But on the other, he thinks applying for unemployment could undermine his and other Californians’ fight against Uber and Lyft and other companies in the gig economy to be considered employees instead of independent contractors.
Advertisement
“I feel like they’ll take advantage of what’s going on with Covid-19 and then say, ‘You see, they’re independent contractors,” Diaz said.
Employees vs. independent contractors
California passed a law last year requiring gig companies to treat independent contractors as employees, becoming the first state to do so. The law, Assembly Bill 5, took effect in January but is being challenged in court.
Contract workers don’t enjoy the workplace benefits employees do, such as employer-sponsored health insurance or paid leave.
Advertisement
And, as the pandemic is highlighting, companies have different requirements relative to their contractors around unemployment insurance.
Expanded unemployment benefits
Drivers fear PUA applications could be used in California court to undermine the state’s new employment law, and in other states like New York where they’re trying to get a similar law passed.
While some labor attorneys believe their concern is valid, others think the threat is overblown.
Advertisement
“People should be reassured,” said Michael Bernick, an attorney at corporate law firm Duane Morris. “I can’t imagine the companies in any state discussions or initiative saying, ‘Look, by filing for PUA you agreed that you were an independent contractor.’ That’s just not realistic.”
‘Legitimate fear’
Ismael Perez, a full-time Uber and Lyft driver, applied for PUA benefits in California before hearing from a local group, the Mobile Workers Alliance, of the potential risk.
Perez, who lives in the city of La Habra Heights, started receiving weekly unemployment payments of $767. (This accounts for $167 a week from the state and a $600 supplement funded by the federal government through July.)
Advertisement
He’s afraid that applying for PUA benefits will cost him thousands of dollars in back pay he believes he’s owed by the ride-share companies for overtime hours as an employee, in addition to setting back the broader driver movement.
Drivers are struggling big time because they need money. It’s hard.
Leonardo Diaz
Advertisement
Los Angeles-based Uber and Lyft driver
“My concern is, will it pose a threat to my labor dispute?” said Perez, 42. “And furthermore, moving forward, does that jeopardize my employee rights as well?”
Julia Rosner, an employment attorney at Legal Services NYC, said it’s “absolutely a legitimate fear.”
Advertisement
“And it’s sort of conceding a point they don’t want to concede,” she said.
But gig workers in California may feel they have no choice. They could apply for the state’s traditional unemployment insurance benefits, meant for employees, and appeal a rejection by claiming they were misclassified as independent contractors instead, Rosner said.
An appeal, however, could take months, especially as state unemployment offices are overwhelmed with millions of new applications each week, Rosner said. That’s a tough situation when many may need the money now, she said.
Advertisement
“Drivers are struggling big time because they need money,” Diaz said. “It’s hard.”
Not all concerned
Not all drivers are necessarily concerned, though.
The Protect App-Based Drivers and Services coalition represents 56,000 drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft, Instacart, Doordash and other gig companies. The group supports a ballot initiative in November that would lead drivers to be reclassified as independent contractors.
Advertisement
Stacey Wells, a spokeswoman for the campaign, which is funded by gig companies, called the notion of drivers being afraid “a false narrative” and said companies have been working hard to support their workers around applying for unemployment benefits.
Companies wouldn’t have any way of knowing which specific drivers applied for PUA, she said. They also haven’t tried retaliating against drivers who were outspoken during the push to pass Assembly Bill 5, said Wells, who questioned why drivers would think the situation would be different with unemployment.
Plus, in instances where independent contractors apply for traditional unemployment insurance, the state, in many cases, will automatically convert it into a PUA claim — meaning that worker wouldn’t be making an active choice to apply for PUA, said Bernick, former director of California’s Employment Development Department.
Advertisement
Matthew Wing, a spokesman for Uber, also wanted to reassure drivers.
“Congress fully funded pandemic unemployment assistance for gig workers so that every state, many of which face historic deficits, could give these workers immediate financial support at no cost to their own state funds,” he said.
Uber has also created online guides in each state to help drivers and delivery people apply for unemployment, he added.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for Lyft didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Solid ground
Ultimately, labor attorneys think drivers rest on solid legal footing despite their fears.
Julie Su, California’s labor secretary, said in an April 14 memo that self-certification of eligibility for PUA unemployment benefits “does not affect determinations of employee status under state law for other protections and benefits.”
Advertisement
The letter is likely all that’s necessary for a California court “to dispose” of any potential employment argument resulting from PUA benefits, said William Sokol, a labor attorney with Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld who’s based in the Bay Area.
“They will try every trick their lawyers can find in the book to avoid paying their workers decent wages and the benefits that all their employees must receive by law,” Sokol said.
Similarly, Corey Husack, a government relations manager at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a left-leaning think tank, said California “workers are on very firm ground.”
Advertisement
But that doesn’t mean gig companies won’t eventually try leveraging drivers’ PUA classification in court.
“Anything is possible in court, and PUA is a new program, so I can’t say definitively ‘No [they won’t],’” he said.
Advertisement
(Note: This is a Article Automatically Generated Through Syndication, Here is The Original Source
Passionate news enthusiast with a flair for words. Our Editorial Team author brings you the latest updates, in-depth analysis, and engaging stories. Stay informed with their well-researched articles.
Gerber and Perrigo Face New Lawsuit Over ‘Store-Brand’ Infant Formula Pricing; All Pending Toxic Baby Food Cases Consolidated into New Class Action MDL
Infant formula makers Gerber and Perrigo have been hit with a class-action lawsuit, which accuses the companies of artificially creating a shortage and jacking up prices for “store-brand” formula sold at Walmart, Walgreens, and other retailers.
The lawsuit was filed on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. It accuses Perrigo of violating antitrust laws by collaborating with Gerber to prevent competitors from entering the market for store-brand formula.
Perrigo, one of the nation’s largest suppliers of store-brand formula, sells its products under retail labels at prices lower than similar branded products. However, the lawsuit alleges that Gerber, by granting Perrigo the first right of refusal to Gerber’s excess formula supply, which could have been sold to other competitors, is engaging in practices that stifle competition.
Advertisement
The lawsuit claims that through this arrangement, Gerber agreed to keep its excess formula out of the store-brand market, thereby gaining a share of Perrigo’s profits. The lawsuit was filed by four residents of California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, who will represent millions of customers who have purchased store-brand baby formula. The lawsuit does not name formula retailers as defendants. It asks the court to intervene and end the anticompetitive deals between Perrigo and Gerber and seeks more than $5 million in monetary damages.
This lawsuit is similar to another case filed in Brooklyn federal court by a potential store-brand competitor, P&L Development. Gerber and Perrigo requested the dismissal of that case, which was denied by the judge in February. The companies involved in the lawsuit claimed they compete fairly with other infant formula manufacturers, including those of store-brand formulas. The lawsuit also cited the squeezing out of P&L Development from the store-brand market, which has led to higher prices.
Gerber is also facing numerous lawsuits accusing its brands of baby food of containing dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. These heavy metals are extremely toxic, even for adults, and can have catastrophic consequences on developing children, leading to health complications and neurological damage. Conditions such as ADHD and autism may be linked to consuming these toxic baby foods.
Advertisement
On April 11, 2024, all the lawsuits pertaining to toxic baby foods, which had been filed at different times in various courts, were consolidated into a new class action MDL in the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Besides Gerber, other baby food manufacturers like Beech-Nut and Campbell Soup Co. have also been named as defendants.
The legal wrangling between the crypto sector and the SEC, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, is getting uglier, with ConsenSys, a major protagonist of the Ethereum Blockchain, filing a lawsuit against the regulatory body in a Texas federal court. This legal action seeks an intervention to ward off a looming SEC lawsuit against the company regarding features of its popular MetaMask wallet. The lawsuit also seeks the court’s help in deciding once and for all the vexed question of whether Ethereum’s digital token, Ether, is not a security. The legal uncertainty hangs heavily on the crypto sector and puts a question mark on its very existence.
In an exhaustive 34-page legal filing, ConsenSys states that the SEC’s endeavor to exert control over Ethereum is both illegal and a threat to blockchain technology.
The complaint states,
Advertisement
“The SEC’s unlawful seizure of authority over ETH would spell disaster for the Ethereum network, and for ConsenSys. Every holder of ETH, including ConsenSys, would fear violating the securities laws if he or she were to transfer ETH on the network. This would bring the use of the Ethereum blockchain in the United States to a halt, crippling one of the internet’s greatest innovations.”
The lawsuit also alleges that SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has embarked on an aggressive enforcement policy directed at the big players in the crypto sector like Coinbase and Uniswap. The lawsuit particularly points out a campaign that involved a deluge of subpoenas asking firms and developers for documents related to their dealings with the nonprofit Ethereum Foundation, which supports the blockchain’s development.
The crypto sector is up in arms against Gensler’s tactics and has contended that the SEC has never provided clear rules meant for the distinct features of blockchain technology. However, Gensler negates this argument, saying that the existing securities laws are clear and sufficient, and that the crypto industry refuses to comply with them.
Gensler’s actions are full of contradictions since, in the past, the SEC had maintained that blockchain’s tokens, like Bitcoin, are not securities and hence beyond its purview. A senior official in 2018 had stated that Ethereum has reached a state where it is adequately decentralized, and further, the agency also gave the green signal for the launch of Ethereum futures trading—an implicit acknowledgement that Ether is a commodity. However, at present, Gensler is using a recent feature of Ethereum, known as staking, as grounds for the recent legal campaign.
Advertisement
The lawsuit was filed after the SEC issued a Wells Notice, which is akin to a formal letter warning that the agency intends to sue a firm and could lead to a settlement later. The SEC charged ConsenSys that MetaMask was operating as an unlicensed broker-dealer. MetaMask offered users a means to stake Ethereum on their behalf. Staking was a feature introduced in September 2022 on the Blockchain as a replacement for the energy-intensive mining process. The process involves a system of validators who pledge collateral to become trusted validators.
The SEC objects to the process of staking, which has changed Ethereum from a commodity into a security. ConsenSys founder Joe Lubin has called this account of the SEC “preposterous”.
Lubin said,
Advertisement
“The act of staking is really just posting a security bond so you can get paid to contribute labor and resources to help operate the Ethereum protocol. Now they’re trying to turn that into some sort of investment contract.”
Lubin also stated that the SEC’s actions will lead to a halt in the growth of the crypto sector and blockchain technology as a whole. Lubin feels that the SEC seeks to block pending applications by companies to launch spot ETFs for Ethereum, following the huge popularity of Bitcoin ETFs. The SEC is in fact trying to regulate a technology on its merits and it will only stifle innovation.
Caterina Fake is a renowned American entrepreneur and co-founder of several groundbreaking ventures, including Flickr and Hunch. Born on June 13, 1969, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Fake has been a driving force in reshaping the digital landscape through her innovative ideas and entrepreneurial acumen.
From her early days in Pittsburgh to her rise in Silicon Valley, Caterina Fake’s career has been marked by a relentless pursuit of excellence. Co-founding platforms like Flickr and Hunch, she has revolutionized how we connect and share information online. Her visionary leadership and creative brilliance have cemented her status as a trailblazer in the tech industry.
Caterina Fake Net Worth
As of 2024, according to TheRichest, Caterina Fake’s net worth stands at an impressive $25 million. Her entrepreneurial ventures, including Flickr and Hunch, have contributed significantly to her financial success. With a keen eye for emerging trends and a knack for innovation, Fake continues to inspire aspiring entrepreneurs around the world.
Advertisement
Caterina Fake Age
Currently 54 years old, Caterina Fake was born on June 13, 1969. Despite her age, she remains a dynamic force in the business world, constantly pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in technology and entrepreneurship.
Caterina Fake Family: Husband and Children
Caterina Fake was previously married to Stewart Butterfield, with whom she co-founded Flickr. They tied the knot in 2001 but announced their split in 2007. They share one child, Mint Butterfield, who has recently been reported missing. Caterina Fake is currently in a relationship with Jaiku co-founder Jyri Engeström.
Caterina Fake Height and Weight
While specific details about Caterina Fake’s height and weight are not readily available, her stature in the tech industry is undeniable. Standing tall as a visionary leader and innovator, Fake’s impact transcends physical measurements, leaving an enduring legacy in the digital sphere.
