walmart pharmacy adderall policy amoxicillin walgreens urinary tract infection antibiotic over the counter metronidazole topical cream reviews metronidazole gel cost cvs

How Millions From Uber And Lyft Are Funding The Harassment Of A Critic

By Michael Hiltzik Los Angeles Times

WWR Article Summary (tl;dr) Veena Dubal is an associate professor at UC Hastings law school. She has been an outspoken critic of employment abuses by the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft. As a result of her criticism, Dubal has become the target of harassment on Twitter, some of it obscene. 

Los Angeles

Veena Dubal has spent much of her professional career examining and writing about the rise of the gig economy and the loss of employment rights by workers in that sector.

An associate professor at UC Hastings law school, Dubal has been an outspoken supporter of AB5, the California law designed to rein in those employment abuses, including those by the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft.

She's also a critic of Proposition 22, the initiative funded chiefly by Uber and Lyft aimed at overturning AB5.

As a result of her criticism of Uber, Lyft and the gig economy business model, Dubal has become the target of harassment on Twitter, some of it obscene and some of it overtly encouraged by the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign, which is heavily funded by Uber and Lyft.

Her home address has been published online, which prompted her local police department to start regular patrols around her home. She has been falsely accused of having written AB5 and having had a "hand" in the 2018 California Supreme Court decision that led to AB5.

A Sacramento opposition research consultant working for Yes on 22 recently filed a public records act request seeking nine months of emails, text messages or "other writings" related to AB5, Proposition 22 and the gig economy between Dubal and roughly 160 organizations and individuals.

The request resembles a technique of intimidation often employed by fossil fuel, tobacco, anti-labor and other interests against researchers, scientists, activists and other critics.

One ride-hail driver filed a complaint against Dubal with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging that she violated lobbying laws. The FPPC rejected the allegation and closed the case.

Dubal tries to laugh off all this activity. "I hope they have a wonderful time wading through my thousands of emails and text messages," she told me.

But it's also plain that it has taken an emotional toll. The posting of her home address left her "really freaked out," she says, since it happened in the teeth of the pandemic lockdown and she has three children at home. "I kept the doors locked and the kids' windows closed and I slept in their rooms."

She has changed all her online passwords, hired a security consultant to scrub her personal information from the internet, even removed wedding photos that had been turned into offensive memes online. Although the initial tweet disclosing her home address has been taken offline, she's aware that her address is still circulating on the internet.

"Sometimes it's really overwhelming," she says.

Some of the attacks on Dubal have come from, let us say, right field. These include a series of articles appearing on the right-wing website Communities Digital News.

They label Dubal, without evidence, the "true author" of AB5 (Dubal says that's untrue), call her the law's "puppet master," and say she had a "hand" in the 2018 state Supreme Court decision.

That implies that Dubal helped to write the decision, but that's also untrue: The 7-0 decision, which appeared over the name of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, mentions Dubal once, citing an article by her in a single footnote.

I asked the articles' author, Jennifer Oliver O'Connell, what these assertions are based on. She told me by email that she had "documented" the claims, but didn't reply when I asked her to provide specific documentation.

It should go without saying that this sort of treatment is detestable. Even though not all the harassment of Dubal can be traced to the Yes on 22 committee, if you're inclined to give the Uber/Lyft initiative the benefit of the doubt in November's election, you should consider those companies' role in the attacks on Dubal.

The Yes on 22 ballot committee has collected more than $110 million in contributions, of which more than $70 million has come from the two ride-hailing firms. (That includes $10 million contributed by Postmates, a gig company that Uber acquired in July.)

We asked Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, a gig company that has contributed $10 million to the Proposition 22 campaign, for their comments.

Lyft didn't respond. Uber and DoorDash referred me to the Yes on 22 campaign, but that won't do. The question isn't what the initiative campaign thinks about the harassment, but what Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, in whose name the campaign operates and whose money is its lifeblood, think about it. On that, they're silent.

Let's take a closer look at this noxious situation.

AB5, which went into effect in January, codified a 2018 state Supreme Court ruling that workers for many gig companies who had been classified as "independent contractors", such as drivers for Uber and Lyft, were effectively employees and therefore entitled to benefits such as work expenses, workers compensation and unemployment insurance and the right to unionize.

Uber and Lyft, which haven't acknowledged that they're subject to the law, responded by concocting Proposition 22. The initiative would exempt them from AB5 and substitute an alternative employment scheme. As we've reported, this scheme would still leave the drivers and other gig workers vulnerable to being ripped off by the businesses they work for.

That brings us back to the campaign against Dubal. Uber's record points to its interest in intimidating critics. In 2016, for example, U.S. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York determined that in the course of a lawsuit filed against Uber's co-founder and then-CEO Travis Kalanick, the company had launched a secret, fraudulent investigation of the plaintiff and his lawyer, and misled the targets about it.

In 2014, then-executive Emil Michael expressed interest in looking into the "personal lives" and "families" of journalists critical of the company. Uber subsequently said it had never taken any steps Michael mentioned. In 2017, Uber critic Susan Fowler Righetti discovered that someone had been contacting her friends to glean personal information about her; she didn't name Uber, and the company denied it was responsible.

Uber is now under new management, with Kalanick and Michael both gone. But it's conceivable that the DNA they left at the company remains in place under new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi.

What has Yes on 22 done? After her home address was posted online, Dubal, at the suggestion of her digital security consultant, started blocking Twitter accounts that had targeted her, sometimes with vile and obscene language and imagery. Yes on 22 then issued a tweet urging anyone she blocked to post a screenshot of the blocking notice.

Almost anyone familiar with Twitter knows that publicizing blockings is like waving a lunch bucket in front of Twitter trolls, it often feeds more trolling. In its tweet, Yes on 22 accused Dubal of silencing "those who try to engage her."

Yes on 22 spokesman Geoff Vetter told me that the post was designed to ensure that "drivers who do not want to be employees and remain independent ... are not erased or silenced."

This is absurd: Dubal hasn't "erased or silenced" anyone. Blocking just means the blocked user can't access her tweets or respond directly to her; no one has been prevented from saying anything they wish on Twitter or anywhere else.

Vetter also said on behalf of the initiative campaign, "we strongly condemn any form of harassment and ask that it stop immediately."

But he acknowledges that the campaign hasn't issued a condemnation generally, only to news organizations that have raised questions about the harassment of Dubal. To date, that's Slate.com, CNet.com, and us. Only readers of those articles will be aware of the campaign's oh-so-valiant stand against harassment. The campaign has never taken down its original tweet, by the way.

Related News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *