Colorado Democrats want to give gig drivers more transparency

As the 2023 Colorado legislative session neared its end last May, a group of lawmakers, advocates and drivers for ride-hailing services gathered at the state Capitol to lament what could have been.

For weeks they had pushed a bill that would have added increased transparency measures for drivers of Uber, Lyft and food-delivery apps — a group of people nearing a breaking point over opaque algorithms that, they argued, hid their data and zapped their autonomy.

Their efforts, though, came crashing down. The bill died in committee following heavy lobbying from the tech companies and concerns from key lawmakers.

Now, as legislators return to business in the 2024 session, these stakeholders are determined to learn from last year’s failure and get legislation over the finish line to boost driver protections.

“Just because you’re a (gig) worker doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be represented and have simple, basic rights,” said Sandra Parker-Murray, a DoorDash driver and officer with the Communications Workers of America Local 7777.

Transparency fight – Round 2

Lawmakers and advocates took several lessons from last year’s efforts as they crafted legislation this time around. They opted to split the transparency measures into two distinct bills as opposed to one, acknowledging the difficulty last year in lumping delivery and ride-hailing companies into one bucket.

HB24-1129 — sponsored by Democratic Reps. Stephanie Vigil, of Colorado Springs, and Javier Mabrey, of Denver, as well as Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, of Pueblo — only covers delivery companies such as DoorDash or UberEats. SB24-075 — sponsored by Democratic Sens. Kevin Priola, of Henderson, and Robert Rodriguez, of Denver, along with Rep. Jennifer Bacon, of Denver — applies strictly to ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft.

The bills consist of similar language, focusing on driver and consumer transparency and greater rights for drivers who get deactivated by the app-based companies.

Both would mandate companies provide drivers and riders with detailed information about how much of the fare goes to drivers versus the company.

Delivery drivers, under this proposal, would also be able to see their end destination before accepting a ride — information they don’t currently receive from every delivery company.

The two bills would require companies to report various metrics to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment regarding transportation tasks completed and any driver deactivations.

Last year, the deactivation language prompted significant pushback from ride-hailing companies and sexual abuse advocacy organizations, who argued that the law could force companies to reinstate dangerous drivers. The 2023 bill would have created a state-run review board to oversee cases in which the companies booted drivers following complaints.

This time, bill sponsors scrapped the independent review board. Instead, the companies would have to clearly spell out to drivers why they were being deactivated, list the ways in which a driver could be deactivated and allow drivers to request a deactivation reconsideration meeting with someone from the company who could reinstate them.

Vigil, a gig-app driver herself, said these meetings would give drivers more dignity. Drivers have said they often do not get a reason why they’re suddenly removed from the apps, with some studies showing immigrants and people of color are far more likely to be booted from their jobs. She acknowledged this deactivation language, though, marks a significant shift from last year’s bill.

“We’re going to do what we can get done and what gets us over the finish line,” she said.

Tech companies express concern

Crossing that finish line, though, will not be easy.

While bill sponsors say they’ve been in regular talks with the tech companies over the proposed legislation, the firms are gearing up for another fight — especially with the delivery bill.

Parker Dorrough, a DoorDash spokesperson, said the bill contains “serious issues, including direct violations of merchant privacy.”

“This bill failed last year because it makes unpopular, expensive and unnecessary changes to the way Coloradans use delivery services, and will fail again unless more work is done with industry stakeholders to find a workable solution,” Dorrough said in a statement.

CJ Macklin, a Lyft spokesperson, said the company has “serious concerns” with the data-sharing provisions in the bill. Uber, meanwhile, took direct shots at Vigil.

“It’s disappointing that Representative Vigil has introduced a bill that would require companies to provide an unprecedented amount of commercial and customer data to the state, make it harder for customers to get orders fulfilled and hurt small businesses who rely on food delivery apps,” Harry Hartfield, an Uber spokesperson, said in a statement. “We’ve made it clear repeatedly to her office that we’d like to find a compromise. That remains the case, and we hope Representative Vigil will work to address the serious concerns raised by the bill.”