On Wednesday, drivers for Uber Technologies, Lyft, and delivery workers for DoorDash united in a nationwide strike, demanding fair pay and improved working conditions. The protest, organized by various driver advocacy groups, highlighted grievances over diminishing earnings and what workers perceive as exploitative practices by the rideshare and food delivery platforms.
Workers argue that these platforms impose excessive fees on their fares, significantly reducing their take-home pay. Amidst the outcry, Uber, the largest player in the rideshare market, recently made headlines by announcing a $7 billion share buyback, leading to concerns among drivers that their concerns were being overlooked in favor of shareholder profits, reported Reuters.
Shantwan Humphrey, a driver based in Dallas, Texas, expressed frustration, stating, “These platforms continuously decrease driver earnings year after year as means to show they are profitable to investors to get them to buy into their stock.”
The strike action saw participation from drivers across the country, with notable demonstrations planned at airports in ten cities across the East and Midwest by the Justice for App Workers (JFAW) coalition. Additionally, members of the Rideshare Drivers United group gathered outside Uber’s offices in Los Angeles to picket.
Read more: New Suit Claims Uber & Lyft Violate Antitrust Laws
In a statement provided to Reuters, JFAW emphasized the scale of the strike, proclaiming, “Right now, thousands of rideshare drivers with Justice for App Workers are on strike in 10 cities across the United States in the largest rideshare strike in American history, with at least a dozen additional cities holding non-strike echo actions in solidarity.”
Despite the widespread protest, Uber asserted that the strike had minimal impact on its operations. The company claimed that, in most markets, there were even more drivers on the road compared to the same period the previous week.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand