Good morning, and thank you for joining us. My name is Otta McDonald and I am the head of New America, California. New America is a think and action tank based out of DC. New America's California efforts focus on economic equity, as well as community voice and agency. We are really focused on what it looks like to incorporate the lived experiences of those who are impacted by various issues in making sure that that drives policy and systems change. We hold forums like this to with an eye on community needs, as well as disruptive solutions and policy influence. We are happy that you are here to join us this morning or afternoon based on where you are. As we discuss gig workers and propositions policies changing nature of work and policy excuse me and change the changing nature of works interplay. Please feel free to take this conversation online by using the hashtag gig work or hashtag policy and tagging New America, California, and as well as our speakers. Our guests today include Kim Jacobs, who is the chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Cecilia Munoz, who is a senior advisor at New America. Mary L. Gray, who is a faculty affiliate fellow at the Harvard University at Harvard University and also co author of the book ghost work. And Vikram Iyer, who is deputy director of the economic and gender justice division at ACLU. We will be beginning this conversation in just a moment but first I wanted to thank the MacArthur Foundation for helping make this conversation possible. And I wanted to also thank all of our speakers for joining us today. This is going to be a really great conversation and I'm glad that all of you who are tuned in are here with us as well. I've asked Ken to start us off with a brief primer on the topic so that it can kind of set a groundwork for this conversation. And with that, I'll pass it to you, Ken. Thank you, it's great to be here with you with everyone today. As Autumn mentioned I'll provide some brief background to set the stage here. So what is Proposition 22 Proposition 22 was put on the ballot by the rideshare and delivery companies, who then spent over $200 million to pass the initiative. And what it does is to exempt app based workers of transportation delivery network companies in California from California's employment and labor laws. And then creates a new lower set of standards for those workers. Since their inception first the ride hailing and later delivery companies treated workers at independent contractors, and that shifts both economic risk and capital costs on to workers to the drivers in this case. It's important that we understand employment status as nothing more than a collection of rights and benefits under the law. And those benefits include minimum wage paid sickly protections against discrimination, the right to reimbursement for expenses on the job, and health and safety protections, and those benefits are participation in our main social insurance programs, and those benefits in terms of unemployment insurance workers compensation insurance should a worker getting injured on the job, state disability insurance and paid family, among others. The first ruling in an individual case that these workers were entitled to employment rights in California was in 2015. The Prime Minister came forward affirm this by creating a clearer test of employment status in the dynamics decision in 2018, and then two years ago was codified by the California legislature with assembly bill five, at which point the companies went to a ballot. So what did proposition 22 do takes away the employment rights and benefits and as mentioned replaces them with a lower set of standards. We estimate that under the prop 22 standards workers could still earn as little as $5 and 64 cents an hour without the companies being in violation of that law. Now there is a debate about what drivers do earn or we're earning prior to the pandemic, the non company finance research consistently found that on average drivers aren't well under the California minimum wage company finance researched always finds higher amounts. But the main points of debate there was really thinking about work and how we think about what is a job. The first was around waiting time and whether it's commensable as it is under California law. That's the time that drivers are waiting between the rides that they pick up. The second key point was around expenses do you count the full costs associated with driving as required rather than for its under the law, or do you count only the marginal cost of driving that extra mile. And that's connected to a larger argument that this work is made by the companies that the work is intended to be a supplement and not a family supporting job. There are things to note here. First, while most drivers are casual, full and part time drivers do most of the work and generate most of the earnings for the companies, that is drivers 20 hours or more. But it's also the same argument that was used historically to exclude service industries with a large share of marginalized workers from protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act up until 1967, and is still used today in arguments against raising the minimum wage by companies like Walmart and McDonald's. The pandemic also made clear how essential our social insurance programs like unemployment insurance are for all workers, regardless of employment status and there's a good argument for expanding coverage in those programs. But there's an important issue here of how it's paid for drivers were ultimately provided benefits through the pandemic unemployment assistance importantly. The companies never paid into the system and we estimate that had they paid into unemployment insurance UI taxes in California between 2015 and the start of the pandemic, they would have paid more than $400 million into that system. So what's happened since the law passed. We've already seen some companies like Albertsons outsource work so workers lost their job and the work work was outsourced to at base delivery companies. Opposition 22 importantly did not relieve companies of past obligations, and there's a possibly very significant back liabilities, then that's going to still work its way through the court. We've seen Uber and live try to expand this model to other states. And it's important to remember that the fact that so many people do do this work for such low net earnings is a reflection of the weakness of our overall labor market and our social safety net system, which we need to think about in the recovery. So now we're seeing this debate to the federal level, the Senate and the Senate, Senator Ron Wyden and colleagues have an unemployment insurance reform bill which would use California ABC test, like in California to determine who's eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and the House passed the pro act for labor law reform, which would do the same for the right to organize. So I think the most important thing here is this debate is not over. Thank you so much for that can that was incredibly helpful. I thought it was really kind of set up the table for us as we began. I wanted to also make sure to introduce kung fang I apologize that I neglected to mention your name. So thank you for taking us from jobs with justice San Francisco, we're so happy to have you. I would love Cecilia if you would kind of take us into the policy element of this, I have heard you describe yourself as a policy wonk. You certainly know quite a bit about policy domestic and otherwise. You would please just make the kind of transition for us. What does this mean we're talking about work workers, how people make the income they need to survive. What does this mean when we will you look at it from the policy vantage point. So first of all, thanks, autumn for having me and thank you to everybody who's participating. This is an incredibly important and timely discussion. I think I've been, it might be helpful to pull the aperture back from the really important comments that can just made about very specific circumstances that we're dealing with to talk a little bit about right as can said this question now moves to the federal level. So there's a larger conversation going on around the ways in which work is changing the ways in which the lives of workers are being transformed. And I worry sometimes that the conversation tends to land in a couple of buckets at the policy conversation. A lot of people have landed in the bucket of that that I think of as like the robots are coming for our jobs, and are focusing in on a policy response that aims at training workers and perhaps you know emphasizing like coding and with respect to training workers and so that's one of the places where I see a lot of track being laid in a policy conversation. And I think this is where the points that that can made falls is aimed at maneuvering the existing system of worker protections are trying to create a new system of worker protections but it's often built on the system of protections that we have been living with now for decades, and trying to figure out ways to protect more workers to use the tools that we have to make sure that workers in these kind of newer situations are protected. So I think that the very important debate over worker classification kind of falls in that bucket. And so I agree at some level, I kind of agree with both approaches in the sense that I think quality training for good jobs is tremendously important. And obviously a legal regime that protects workers to the utmost is also tremendously important. But I also think for policymakers. I recognize that there are big limitations in these strategies, we're not going to train our way out of this challenge. And we will need creative approaches to a legal framework that that protects workers I mean the framework that we are trying to tweak right now is designed for what work look like for my parents. And it might not be appropriate for the way work is transforming for my daughter's generation so that is a very tall order for policymakers. And, and I'm so I'm eager to hear what the other speakers today. Want to say to inform the conversation I guess the last thing I'll say is that, I don't think we're going to come up with effective act answers unless we are also being very deliberate about engaging workers themselves deeply in the conversation. Right, you know, Adam you and I were involved in research at New America that where we spoke directly to retail workers, for example, and they had a really interesting perspective on automation that not only were they not resisting it they had ideas for how it should be designed but their approach was, we actually know these jobs, we actually know how they might be better like what efficiencies you can create by accompanying our work with the work that that machines can do. And the notion that their notion was we should be designing how this happens because we actually know how to do this work we actually know how what's what's in the best interest of, of, you know what we're trying to accomplish and to better serve customers I guess the last thing I'll say before we continue the conversation is that this is a conversation. It should not be aimed at things that are happening to workers it's a conversation that we have to make sure is being driven by workers. And that is essential if we're going to get to the outcomes that I think we need to strengthen, not just the role of workers in the workforce but the the economy and the society as a whole. So yeah, as you know I couldn't agree more in terms of this being driven by those who are participating in it. And all of the stakeholders who are involved in it, not letting it be something where particular stakeholders are the only ones who are engaged in the conversation. So, with that I'd love to hear from you come if you wouldn't be so kind as to tell us the one minute story of you specifically as it relates to what puts you into this issue into this conversation. Yeah, so I actually entered the labor movement as a worker. A while ago, I was a bike messenger in San Francisco. I have tattoos to show from that time. I also have some stitches and some scars. I have this heart shaped scar which is funny because the work is often romanticized but I have this sort of small dent in my calf by my shin. And the point is I think the conditions of work and these policies actually leave real marks on real people. I worked for a bunch of different companies. I was employee at some one of them I was an independent contractor. We did the exact same work of delivering packages from point A to point B, but I did not make a minimum wage all the time at that job. So, you know, I didn't even think about this until I started thinking about this for this panel but I didn't have workers compensation.  We did a study last year with Professor Chris Benner at UC Santa Cruz of app work in San Francisco. We found that 80% of workers in San Francisco were people of color. Right, so I just want to foreground that because it's not an economic, only an economic justice question but it's a racial justice question where there's, these are the folks who are being excluded from worker protections. I mean that's happened historically. Right, and this is happening again.  The big victories of the strike that they ended that. And it was on demand work, people would go to the docs line up, and crowd for a day's work of work and a gang boss would tell them you work or you start. Right, and actually I feel like there's a lot of systems of work that are these and demand work except now you know an algorithm sort of helps sort people and jobs, but the basics are sort of the same in terms of the abuses of this very precarious work. And the story there and I think relates back to what Cecilia said is that these dock jobs have now become one of the best blue collar jobs you can have actually, and that's because dock workers came together and they fought to make it a better job. And I think that's fundamental you do have these questions about what protections there are what status people have, but fundamentally I think there's a question of what power people have. What is the power that people have together to actually change and shape these lives. So, you know, there's a lot of talk about flexibility but I actually find that that's sort of misleading. But there's also it's an impoverished concept, right, we really should be talking about power, we should really be talking about how people are their full selves and get to live full lives and have their full needs, not just sort of juggle and prioritize any choices. So that's, that's my point is how I enter into this is really a question of how workers have power in their lives. Thank you so much for that condo and it's really important and it's great to hear your perspective individually as well as what you're seeing in terms of the needs for how to influence this conversation and who should be influencing it all around. I'd like to ask you to also share the one minute story of you and what brings you to this conversation. I think it's interesting because we've heard a little bit about the nature of work and how work has been changing. And we've also heard about some of the kind of challenges that exist for people who are using this, this, this way of working to augment or maybe fill their whole kind of income. What's your take on all of this. Yeah, I'm sure we'll unpack a lot more of my full take throughout the arc of this conversation but you know I come at this from maybe a unique vantage point because I ran public policy for one of the companies that did fund the ballot measure that that I also spent time like Cecilia in the Obama administration, and more recently as autumn pointed out now work in civil society at the ACLU. And I think that that vantage point is pretty unique, because the challenge that has been laid out that both can and I spoke to is really going to take a whole of stakeholder approach. It's going to absolutely require and demand workers have a voice at the table it's absolutely going to require and demand that labor advocates have a voice and shaping our path forward, but it's also going to demand government get involved and it's also going to involve a demand that the tech companies themselves that have been encouraging new types of innovation and new access to work, also get involved. And I think for far too long, there has been this depiction specifically on the issue of worker classification, but even on the issue that Cecilia spoke to with automation that every few weeks it feels like Bain or Mackenzie or New America Foundation might be issuing a new report on the plight of automation and the perils of disaggregated work and kind of vilifying industry as the culprit in that, but American entrepreneurship has always celebrated the innovation. The question is, how can we ensure that government builds more empathy for technologists and technologists build more empathy for government. So that way we're not leaving workers behind, but rather giving them heightened access to new work opportunities, while also invoking smart and balanced regulations to inform that. And I think that's a pretty darn epic task, and it's going to require all of those stakeholders to come together. And particularly because since essentially World War two, we've had this system in America, in which you have workers with benefits, and some workers without. And I think that from an industry perspective from a labor perspective from a government perspective, every point of you would see that that system may not be working anymore. COVID showed us that 5.5 million Americans that had jobs, all of a sudden we're without healthcare overnight. I think that suggests that something's got to give here. And I think a lot of the strategies that we need to discuss today should vector around how to make sure all of those perspectives are being reconciled respectfully and in an attempt to ensure that workers have an ability to access this work without sacrificing the innovation that's creating this work. And brought up some really great points, including that innovation and technology and advancements. This is a fantastic thing in so many ways and so I think that the question is, what does it look like for us to keep up with it, in terms of how policy fits into the, you know, the ways in which our lives are changing. And I think that that's a really exciting thing for us to look into, in addition to what does that mean in terms of safety nets or supports that go along with that. I wrote a piece a few years ago, on what I called kind of policy holes where we had it really kept up with the different ways in which we are changing the way we do all sorts of things. Technology advancement innovation, these are all can be fantastic things and we just have to think about like what does it look like to make it work well. Mary. Hello. The kind of story of what where you fit into this conversation, as well as kind of what brought you into your thinking about it and if you want to speak a little bit about kind of the premise behind the book that you co authored ghost work. Yeah, I mean, policy holes are a good way to think about this I think, and all of us I imagine we agree that one of the challenges before us is that we need to stop thinking of this as a market problem. We need to see it as a as a social problem that there is, there is no magical fix to the situation we're in it's it's about looking at this moment so everything that I have to contribute to this conversation comes from five years of studying the lives of people, hundreds of people who led us into their day to day lives, studying the worth that they're doing surveying thousands of people who are doing everything from delivering food to labeling images that are training artificial intelligence to recognize our faces. The key takeaway is these are not niche jobs that that go away with automation. It's what's created when tech is applied to any work that can be at least in part sourced scheduled managed shipped and build through a mix of software not even that complicated software and the internet so if you have internet connection, every business has learned what can I break off and hand to somebody who's not present with me right now that that I think reveals this world of work that's been burgeoning under, you know the surface that perhaps the exhaling apps showed us just the tip of that iceberg but we literally studied what's everything below that surface, and they, the, the reality of being able to dismantle full time employment is is really the thing for us to track. I feel like we're grappling with what does that mean and we're not paying attention to this collision of that reality meeting a host of other sectors, most importantly the service sector, which means that you can effectively take any kind of approach to this work and have it distributed to a number of folks. So, some of the key takeaways I just want to put on the table from the research that we did and this is all coming from listening to workers and observing their lives and also getting into this broader ecosystem. There isn't a single type of worker. This is a key thing to keep in mind because that means we're not looking for a particular person we're looking at different profiles of work, and people can easily occupy these different profiles over the trajectory of time they're in any of these jobs. And those three, those types of work those three ways of entering these workforces that are all necessary to keep being platform work alive are our folks who are always on the absolutely are making this a mainstream form of income for themselves, folks who are regulars who come in and out but they've picked the amount of time they're working on something or what they choose to do. And folks are experimenting. And there's no way to get to becoming an always on worker without experimenting. So, trying to take care of the interests of one of those profiles without acknowledging the myriad ways in which people entering these workforces really means we're always fixing one piece of the problem and creating more headaches for other folks. And then also there's this mix of routines that mean there isn't really one way in which people are thinking about what they're doing, but we did find three constants, everybody was trying to control their schedules to the point or made earlier. Nobody was seeking flexibility. This was entirely about how do I manage all the other constraints on my time, taking care of my kids my elders pursue other interests. The second thing people were trying to accomplish they're trying to control what they work on, and I don't think anybody on this call can't relate to wanting that to be the priority of what pays their, their daily bread. And then third they were trying to control who they worked with. You know, I absolutely agree with with Professor Jacobs this is a reflection of what's not working in formal employment. I mean, in the United States comparing the two to look at that broader reality of many people are managing these constraints and have these interests and controlling who they work with, even if the access to full time employment is not available to them. And in all cases, all folks who want to organize or advocate for workers have to be assuming there's not a single work site. Everyone's effectively remote, and they care deeply about connecting with each other. In fact, that was the number one difference in terms of people's earnings that they had connections with other workers. They're not a single employer of record in most cases they're operating as folks who are self interested self employed business owners and investors they diversify their portfolio they're working for multiple platforms. There's not a single professional identity or career that's unifying folks. And that means they have different investments in what it is they see as common ground and common cause. And they're always going to be operating with this sense of whether this is meeting those those other needs that they have the value of these systems is their collective contribution. I would argue we have yet to discover the economic model that really fully appreciates and values somebody contributing that moment of snap judgment but also being available at any moment. But that's really different right so hopefully what we learn to do is to think about these laws addressing any working age person that's contributing value, and that we're paying for collectively, and appreciating their availability to us that that defines the service sector it is about availability, and we have yet to really fully take in paying for that, and what that means. There's so many elements to unpack here. One of the things I've heard all of you talk a little bit about is how things are changing in terms of work and what people want and need. But also talking a little bit about how things are in some ways staying the same in terms of the basics of what we're ultimately trying to accomplish when we when we work in general. And I appreciate Mary you're sharing a little bit about kind of what are the things that you were seeing in terms of what people were really trying to ask for and trying to get to happen as they get their daily bread. So I'd love to direct a question toward you. You know, people always talk about covert has changed everything well in a way it hasn't it was only really just kind of shown a light, right it's highlighted some of the different things that were problematic, or challenging obstacles from from before. But I think it's taught us a little bit about the safety net in general right so I'd love to hear your thinking about what are some of the connections you're seeing to how work has been upended, both through do covert or just in general and what are some of the things you're seeing in terms of what that means for legislative protect protections or safety net protections in general. Yeah, I'm, I'm unfortunately in that category of covert has changed everything because I feel like my Taco Bell conception I've worked from home has gone up, but it from from a safety net perspective. I think it has shined an incredible light on on what is not working with worker protections right now. Think about, you know that step that I mentioned before 5.5 at least 5.5 million Americans lost access to health care, they had a job one day, they lost a job the next because of pandemic induced frustration of the economy, and then all of a sudden they were without that health care. That's a safety net that is not working because even if you can call a pandemic and edge case. Even the Democratic primary fight of 2019 showcase that whether you're on the camp of Medicare for all or more moderated Medicare for all who want it, or maybe in the in the President Biden camp of maybe mild tweaks and adjustments to the ACA, maybe should have a public option. All of those suggests that there should be an undergirding safety net that workers have access to irrespective to their definition of whether they get a W to job or not. And I think this is much bigger than worker classification, and it's much bigger than what a mile tweak to worker classification through the pro act or mile tweaks to what happened in California that prop 22 can accomplish alone. And I think we need to have a very clear idea about that problem statement that we're trying to go after here. At the same time, though, I think I want to heed Cecilia's advice that this should be a worker first conversation. It would be a mistake then to ignore, you know, my prior employer postmates. When we surveyed workers, 89% of workers out of a sample size of 3000 suggested that they only work three to five hours per week. It would be a mistake to suggest that all of a sudden every single one of those workers wants to be an employee. At the same time, it would also be a mistake to not necessarily invest as cung laid out in worker power that gives workers more of a voice in the conversation about those outcomes that solution doesn't involve these binary entrenched camps, and what you have a tech defense of a business model in one camp, and you have kind of a labor critique in another camp. And that is midwifing some solutions here. And I think that's, that's really, really important because when we talk about flexibility, or we talk about the positive externalities of being able to work with other people. If you examine the worker approach, particularly in low barriers of entry to work, you can consider the nonviolent drug offender who maybe is finding difficulty getting a full time work because some employers aren't willing to take a chance on them based off of their background, but all of a sudden is able to download an app and within 55 minutes get paid out. That's a better alternative for that worker in one instance, and it might even be a better alternative to someone who otherwise has to go seek a predatory payday loan if they need cash and demand or they get hit with an unexpected medical bill. So there are advantages to this low barrier of entry model. And I do kind of want to speak about the safety net issues in just two quick ways. First is what California did and, and I hate to kind of created a direct point counterpoint response with Ken, especially as a Berkeley alumni myself. I feel like professors are going to yell at me for doing this but if you think about what California did, it took this vision of work, and it has, you know, post made to 170,000 careers in the state of California for motor company has 190,000 employees globally. So if you were to all of a sudden force these companies, many of those workers of which we're only working a couple of hours a week into a full time employment mold that the weight of that we would instantly become the largest employers on the planet overnight, and the weight of that wouldn't be able to be sustained, particularly when workers were looking to this work during pandemic to earn, and a lot of restaurants were looking to these platforms in order to deliver. So I want to think about an alternative approach. And so, you know, there's a minimum wage approach under the employment law model in California that if we stuck with the status quo workers would receive. What prop 22 does is actually allocates a higher minimum wage. There's a healthcare approach which under Obamacare you can access if you work 30 hours per week. So what prop 22 did was actually give you access to that healthcare at only working 15 hours per week workers compensation has is often a challenge. What prop 22 did was actually create workers access to $1 million worth of accident insurance on the job. So that is just a quick defense of something that I clearly participated in, and I think that created a step function for for this debate, but what it hasn't addressed is what we think about a durable path forward for meaningfully addressing what Americans truly care about which is a chance to work, take care of your families and what comes next. And so what we need to actually consider is an alternative model where you're able to not necessarily dwell on this binary of destroying work or necessarily keeping work, but how do we actually improve the standards of this work. And what that means in my opinion is raising the state of the wages, raising the state of the access to healthcare, but also giving workers a chance to actually have a voice in that dialogue. And right now, simply by saying that you're going to convert workers into employment models may dis only destroy that work so what you really need to do is have workers, worker advocates and tech companies and governments to gather and figure out how is there a path for these workers to actually collectively bargain. How is there a path to do this in a way that protects the business model, and how is there a path to do that in a way that actually improves the standard of work. And I think this false narrative of either destroying it, or keeping it as status quo is going to be a broader problem that doesn't address those 5.5 million Americans that still have with a lack of healthcare because they lost their job. What are you going to hear and it would be silly to just blame the tech companies in one way out of this. I want to thank you because you've made this juicy, and you are already kind of making this into a ballgame I saw kind of shaking his head so I think he has some thoughts to say. Let's share. I saw Mary putting something into the chat talking about let's stop hedging. Let's just talk about what we need. But Cecilia, I will go to you first because you had something you wanted to add in. I'll make it really fast I mean I think what that this speaks to is the notion that you can't really have a conversation about what happens to work and workers absent from the Congress the broader policy conversation about what is the kind of economy that we need and what are the kinds of supports that government needs to invest in to make sure that human beings have starting with healthcare I completely agree with the comment that Mary put in the chat. Some of the other supports as well like compensation when you're injured and like retirement right the things that we used to count on that my father was able to count on the Ford Motor Company where he worked for 40 years to provide. But which that's just not happening in the workplace any longer. Some of that is a matter for large scale federal level public policy. But if we collectively stand up for each other to do that. It also creates more room for the kind of kinds of innovations that Vikram and others are talking about in the workplace. Thanks, can did you have anything you wanted to share. I think there are a couple of really important points here. First is just, I think we should be honest about the standards that you can't say it's 120% of the minimum wage without acknowledging that only paid for two thirds of the time. And so workers come out well below. What we're talking about here is not and then turning to these jobs wouldn't work as full time employment. We talked about these jobs as full time employment. We have a service industry that treats people as employees, in which many people work part time. That has never been the issue here employment isn't full time isn't isn't by its nature, always full time. The issue is, do workers have access to a basic set of rights and benefits including health and safety protection on the job who has the liability is injured. You take away the robust workers compensation disability insurance and replace it with a pale, very small level of coverage that avoids covering during the time people are between rides. That is taking away those benefits now I think we all agree that if we had a much more robust safety net. Overall, that some of these issues become easier. If we have universal health care where health care is not dependent on the job. That makes things much easier in lots of these ways including in the questions of workers compensation insurance, but we will also always need basic protections around work. And as I think there's other seems to be agreement here, and the best way that's defined is with workers having the power to be a serious part of that decision making. And that means when we look at all of this. It's not just workers should be a seat at the table, they have to come to that table with real power. So, part of things like the pro act and expanding it to make sure that it includes gig workers is making sure that not only can they negotiate that they have the ability to exercise economic power negotiate power, and have to agree with Cecilia opening when we look at technology. It's the same set of issues what we're seeing from technology is not mass destruction of jobs it's not a question of will people have employment in the future. It's fundamentally become a question about job quality. What will happen to the quality of our jobs through technology will be a labor replacing or labor enhancing. What we see with Amazon just a case of speed up and more injury, or will workers have power at the table as workers able to organize and collectively bargain over those conditions, so that those technologies can be used in a way that is supporting workers and the ability to fulfill themselves and best carry out work versus being ways to turn them into machines. I'd love to hear from you on your thinking on all of this I know with related to kind of the collective power of workers as well as just some of the things related to the safety net element as well. I just wanted to harken back to the piece I think we may have talked about the other day which is that there was a time when your benefits and the like did not necessarily comes directly through being an employee somewhere and so it's interesting to think about like what's shifted and how it shifted, but first I'd love to hear your thoughts as it relates to workers and collective bargaining or collective power. Yeah, I'm all for, you know, re investing in our safety net right and I just also it didn't just happen right the safety net happened because of those struggles that I named earlier, right of dock workers and millions of other workers. It came through worker upheaval and was created as part of that struggle right so we also have the ability to recreate and strengthen that here and I think that fight for healthcare. I think that universal national is really important. I actually want to go in a different direction which I think we're talking a lot about workers, but I actually want to talk about corporations, because they're kind of been invisible lies in this and that was all of the rhetoric of prop 22, which I think, you know, like if corporations really wanted to provide healthcare to their workers, they didn't need prop 20 to do that they could have done that right prop 22 was really about taking away that is why corporations needed prop 22. There was a study I think Barclays that showed that Uber would gain 500 or would lose $500 million a year, right I think lift was like $290 million a year, because, you know, if they if they if they didn't win prop 22. Right, so we got to talk about that. Another thing is the UC Santa Cruz study that we did last year. It was representative, not necessarily of the workers right but the other side of it of the labor model of the work that was being done in San Francisco, we found that 70% of those workers were actually working 30 or more hours a week. Almost half of them showed that said that they were sometimes working 12 hour days, right. I think that's the flip side this is actually what the business model is, and that's what's actually unsustainable, not just two workers right but to our society. So a quick follow up to that. What would you imagine as kind of a way of going about it that would work like if you could, you know just kind of look a wand and say okay this is how that would have it kind of comes together. And it could be let's just say the sky's the limit like you can just be like there's a policy everybody gets what they need in this way this is how with the responsibility of employers and this is how they show up to it. What would be this ideal that you might imagine. I point point folks to Mary's chat also and you know her ability to jump in here to I think she laid out some ideas. And then I would stress the right to organize right we talked about what is a real worker perspective, you know and here's these anecdotal stories and here's these studies and these surveys. The fundamental to a worker perspective is workers to have an organization, and you know, a union as an example, where ideally people come together, and they come up with their perspective, they discuss with each other they collaborate as Mary says, and they have a democratic decision making power, right that to me that worker organization is also key, right to be able to have a real worker perspective and voice. And Mary, just as was noted I would love for you to talk about kind of what you imagine as how this might actually fit together, you know, in a way that makes sense. And would love to hear also your take on. I know that they can kind of become this juxtaposed like what corporations need or should do what workers need or should do but if you could kind of take us up and what you think might be a way that works kind of as best as possible. Yeah, I mean I want to keep pointing to the research that we have that says the business model really hinges on these different types of work. And so, keeping that in mind if we, you know, again if we think about it, not as platform work but just work work that service work that's drawing on these technologies that are really coordinating people showing up when a consumer has a demand. And consumers if anybody's ever been able to enjoy, you know, take out food because they were able to call up an order and have that food available to them. That's a version of what we're talking about I'm thinking about victims called a Taco Bell there. You know, so it's keeping a mind, something much more mundane which is, if we're going to continue to see the use of technologies to coordinate people, being able to meet a request at a moment's notice and we as consumers can use to that 24 seven service. And I like to draw on the example of healthcare as a place where you can see the value of people being able to, at a moment's notice be available. What did it take to make that work dignified and valued as it should be, and it will take really thinking about this broader dynamic of shifting toward depending on people coming in and out in a very dynamic way of serving a range of needs. That means always having access to continuing education, having a suite of benefits that are no longer perks, their basic needs to be able to provide a healthy workforce that's going to show up. There are ways to pay for this that are about recognizing. This is a collective benefit that corporations get out of available workforces that come and go. So they should be footing the bill and cost sharing. Let's make that possible. It really hinges on a kind of sectoral bargaining model, but there's a desperate unmet need that traditional labor could be playing for workers to be able to have to protect their identities. So here's a great use of organizing and traditional labor could be providing effectively the protection workers need to keep their identities known to their association to their to their labor organization, but not just on the backs of any company that really doesn't want the responsibility of holding on to that identity. Another basic thing labor organizers could be providing is access to that continuing education, and effectively being the broker that protects the, the information that they need to have on file that does nobody else's business. So these these really basic things that if we could just start looking towards the future. And the present of workers experiences and healthcare is a great model for that, that we can see there's so much, so much we could be doing differently. If we let go of a fairly old model of a nine to five as the right way to work and recognize what are the workers themselves trying to achieve when they turn to this kind of work, they're trying to control when they work, what they work on who they work with. There's there's a way to support that. That is so helpful to hear this idea of kind of what is one of the elements of how this kind of comes together and what it looks like to find kind of the right way if there's one such thing but at least the elements of what the right way for work to to work. I would love to ask just an open into question of anybody who wants to jump in on it as what do you see as some of the elements of what makes make this makes this whole kind of issue come together. And I guess my prompt for that would be, is there a policy or are there policy solutions to this is this about narrative change is this about a completely new way of viewing the social contract contract. What are some of the things that you feel like I would love for each of you to just kind of think of one. Because I'm sure you have many because I'm sure you have the answer and you were thinking, thank goodness she asked me to be on this webinar because I will now share my answer with the world for this but this is your moment so maybe I'll start with. Ken, did you have a thought. I'm going to start out by, I want to disagree with Mary, a little bit here around work. I think it's important to remember that the last good full study we have of this United States is that the fact that this kind of gig work accounts for about 2% of the overall in in the country that the vast majority of workers work for in the United States work for employers they're not necessarily working full time, but they do work for employers. And that that will continue to be the model for the majority vast majority, I believe going into into the future. There's too much to be gained from the ability to the kinds of networking that happens that the skills that one learns on the job over time to have all jobs be something that people just move in and out of. And I say that because I think, when we think think towards solutions, I would agree that we do need a much bigger safety net, and a much stronger safety net across the board and that is one of the weaknesses. One of the reasons the United States can't deal with climate change is the way some other European countries are is because everyone's afraid of any kind of change because there is no underlying safety net there so that's clear that we need to do, but also we need to strengthen workers and that includes and that means pass the proactive other and other labor law reform law to give workers a much stronger voice on the job, both, and that includes in terms of basic rights and benefits, and also includes in things like technological If I could jump in here, Adam, I think that the frame really needs to be that there's a difference between the dignity of work and the dignity of a job, right, nature of work these days might be changing remote work, in any types of ways that were maybe more federated from like a core work site, either because of COVID or because of new technologies, and in so far as someone can still both amass, you know, enough means to put food on the table, invest in their own upward mobility, and hopefully leave their kids or their people who are more progeny a little better off than they came into this space, that is still a dignified path to work and what we need to do is not necessarily poo poo, the types of access to work that might offer new configurations, but really just be in the business of collectively, collectively pushing up the standards of that work, and how that ends up shaking out. And I think whether we're talking about gig workers that are only a fraction of the overall labor force, or the entire more traditional government that we have workers left out of that safety net, that is undignified work and we have a responsibility as government as technologists as civil society to fill that hole. Contractors don't have access to paid family leave policies in this country, that should change at postmates we actually exact Iran paid family leave policies in California New York or New York for workers. Gig workers in 1099 don't have access to lifelong learning accounts. Then SAS Senator from from Nebraska Senator Plobuchar have a great bill in Congress that would actually create lifelong learning accounts and use a pre tax almost a like vehicle to ensure that we can continue to invest in lifelong career technical training contractors don't have access to health care. We've interrogated that point quite a bit on this on this call, or sorry on this conversation and that should change So I don't think that necessarily because there's a defense of a business model that that necessarily means corporations are seeding the fact that that work can and should be better and autumn to be responsive to your point. I think that there are various salient policy solutions. First, there should be enhanced co determination, Mary's colleagues at Harvard on the clean slate project and some former Obama alumni have actually suggested that maybe corporations should give board seats to workers. So that way they have the same fiduciary interest as the corporation doesn't can weigh in on that. Second, Senator Warner and Congresswoman del Bene have a phenomenal bill that has been challenged to get past but I think we should put our weight behind it that would actually give money to state unemployment systems to modernize them and make sure that that stimulus money from the president is doled up faster, but actually would earmark $500 million to experiment with a portable safety net system I think everyone here is agreed that tying your access to health care retirements to one job one job alone is an idea that is a relic of the past, and we should pass that bill to ensure that we can get access to portable benefits. And then the last piece for me is actually a complete agreement, I think with with that we should expand the access to bargaining at a sector based level, i.e. across the gig economy or other spaces, but make sure that you can invoke independent contractors into that world. I independent contractors being able to have access to a table is something I believe in it is something that we even said when I was an employee of that of that organization, but current federal law prevents that from happening. All of these three policy prescriptions, I do want to say one thing, the reason that I mentioned at the top that it's unique to have someone on this panel that has worked in government has worked in tech and now works in civil society is that if you try and exact any policy prescription that's being discussed here, without a deep understanding of either a how government works, or be workers work, or see how the technology works, you're invariably undercutting the position of good robust and durable outcomes. And right now, there's never been a history and labor law in the United States, or across the world that would allow me to show up at 8am at my Starbucks shift as a part time worker, walk across the street mid shift to the Pete's coffee because it has a longer line, and I think I might be able to get more tips, and then comes back when that crowd dies down to Starbucks, only to tell my boss a few minutes later shit I forgot my homework assignment, let me go home and finish that, but I'll see you tomorrow. That is literally what the internet has powered now and all of us who have been in Ubers and Lyft see both apps open and compensable time under the FLSA is starting to be begged new questions because of advancements in technology where if you're working for two employers at the same time, who has to pay you for that same time. If you're able to toggle across all of these different apps and earn and put together an income that works for you to fulfill that vision of a dignity of work, then we need to make sure that if you pass the pro act, and that crumbles that business model, or if you think about another approach that allows you to retain that business model, but elevate the standards of worker voice through true worker power through enhanced code determination through portable benefits and a path to bargaining that that might just be a more durable path forward, as opposed to completely neglecting the stakeholder perspectives of the technology as well as the worker voice altogether. There's so much there and I really appreciate what you've shared because I feel like that is a really interesting element of or interesting way of thinking of kind of the specific example of what what it enables as well as what we are hoping to enable ultimately for workers and the interplay between everybody who's engaged in this issue which is more than just the workers sometimes, even though we talk about what we think may not be a full of the full floated voice of the of the workers there was also kind of elements of government and organizations this all kind of is it's it's an onion right so it's got many layers. I would like to ask all of you one kind of final question if you if you'll permit me, and then I'm going to move to the questions that are coming in from the people who are our attendees. So my final question would be, you have this opportunity right now to talk to a number of people who are engaged in this issue, one way or the other whether they are logging in right now as somebody who is cobbling together different types of work, whether they're with a corporation whether they're in the public sector, whether you know, whatever their their vantage point may be. What is it that you would ask them to do. What do you want them to know what do you want them to walk away with and say, aha, here is how I. It's kind of like the call to action although this is a little different, different when you're thinking about kind of potentially influencing policy or kind of lifting your voice and to say something related to this larger narrative. What is, what is it you would want folks to walk away with the aha or to, or to share with the people they know or the people they influence. I will start with Cecilia. So, I think the, at least what felt like an aha moment for me was sort of looking at, frankly, the data with respect to what's happening just in terms of income let alone access to health care or other kinds of supports that humans and to see how bifurcated it's becoming how how the inequities are growing. And recognize that that is that's just unsustainable for us as a society as you say autumn during that this last year of crisis that brighter light has shown on something that has been true and has been happening for a long time. And we, we have watched particular constituencies break under the strain of this moment, because access to health care was tenuous because their incomes were tenuous because their ability to access other things that we normally connect to their work. You know, completely disappeared. And it is, it is unsustainable for the health and well being of society for the gaps to be as big as they are. And that, if you start thinking about it from that perspective and there are some corporate leaders who are starting to think about it from that perspective I think we have leaders in government who are thinking at least at the federal level and in some states who are thinking about it from that perspective, and people who are organizing are making that case. That that's in some ways that's the change of heart that we need is that all of these sectors have a stake in and making life sustainable for right for for people who right now work is not sustaining a life in which we have caregiving responsibilities and you have to have a roof over your head and you have to have a roof over your head. It's just not. And, and that for the long term health of our society for economy is is is unsustainable and that's a thing we kind of have to get in the boat and start growing in the same direction to to achieve. Thanks. How about you Mary. I was thinking of it as getting on the boat and drawing together, because I feel like one of the most important things I would hope I could argue with the research we have is we're not talking about niche jobs. We are not talking about a small slice of the pie we are talking about what happens when technologies are continued to be applied to different sectors to be able to source manage bill ship. And that's been happening since outsourcing. So, working with that reality and seeing that means we should be equipping anybody working in the world today with a set of basic benefits so that they can enter the workforce is the policy work ahead of us to not think it's just one one industry or one way of working and I would just leave you all with thinking about not the taxi driver or the food deliverer, but the person caring for your parents, like the future of this is thinking about care work. What are we going to do to take care of the people who are going to be caring for us, because that is the largest growth area in work, and it is both very local and incredibly global. It will be done through telehealth, and it'll be done in the care of your parents So have that in mind, not not a dude who's rushing from Starbucks to Pete's no offense spectrum, but think about you know think about a woman who's caring for your kids and your and your family. Thanks for that Mary. As you were talking I was actually signaling to my daughter who was coming up to get a boiled egg. I'm going to go down and do a zoom and my parents have relocated here to Oakland and perhaps or even tuned in. So yeah there's lots of elements of what it looks like to try to balance all the different things that we all try to balance to I'm meant to be able to not just survive but thrive. Come, I would love to hear your thoughts. Sure. I don't want to push back on sort of this ideal I version of walking from Pete's coffee to Starbucks right like people are actually working 12 hours and being homeless in their cars right the image I have in my mind when I think about gig work is what was the door dash worker working in San Francisco was juggling all these things right and had his two children in the car who were kidnapped while he was walking up to try and make a delivery and try and make a living. Right, and underneath that I think the thing that I would leave folks with is the right to organize. And so it doesn't mean talking about worker power in the abstract, we can make that concrete, we can pass the pro act. We can step outside our house and learn about the ways that workers are actually struggling and in movement and making their jobs better right the domestic workers who are fighting for health and safety in the California State Legislature. There's the fight food. Sorry, there was a fight for 15 fast food workers action in San Francisco, they're fighting for the fast food act in the state of California. And so we have lived concrete ways that we can support and be part of this change and fight along some people who are leading this work. And I think the fundamental value Mary touched on right it's valuing work. During the pandemic, I think there was this whole trope around essential work. The truth is, work has always been essential to the function of society, caring for elders teaching our children, driving buses, right. We have to understand that we have to reflect on that, and we have to let workers lead the charge to actually valuing the own work that they do. I just one last offer is this also not it's not just for workers it's for our society right when we work, we're producing values, we're producing products and services, but we're also producing ourselves, like what kind of people do we become in a society where we are valued, and where we have power. It's interesting when you talk about the essential work element of it or the term essential work I in in the back of my head I had this piece that I had planned to write for the last like year about just a meditation on the term essential and essential workers like what is essential to workers but also what is essential in terms of what we need from workers but also what is essential to workers themselves and I, I was thinking about the element you just bought up which is that workers are residents workers are people, workers are really all of us like right like it so it to put it into this like little category of workers is everybody right it's all of us trying to figure out how we have our needs met as well as when you, when we've talked about it more recently we talked about what it is that the workers bring to to society, but we also need to think about what, what is necessary that we provide to workers which is ultimately all of us. Vikram what would you like to share. I want to, first of all, I think everything that was said so far is very insightful and definitely an aha moment for me, mine sort of piggybacks a bit off of the rowing together concept. Because as someone that has worked inside of a corporation I think the ultimate takeaway is we should expect and demand more of corporations. There's very interesting data that's come out in the last several months that has shown trust and government kind of on the decline but faith and Institute in corporate institutions has increased, not necessarily because they're always making the best calls or having the right practices, but just because we find a lot of kinship in our workplaces or the uniforms that we wear when we show up for these companies day to day. And I think that we can and should expect more of not just companies in the gig economy alone, but wanting to do the right thing at this point much earlier in the conversation doesn't always require legislation, right like companies can show up in certain ways, provide certain benefits, and make sure that they're lifting up workers full stop. And I think that that is one thing that both worker power can can try and address, but also just consumer purchasing power can try and address day to day. But to really honor Cecilia's point, in terms of rowing together, what we need to do is really stop or end this very uncivil war that pits workers against capital, right like tech against labor unions conservative versus at liberal, versus the rest of the country. And I think lasting generational change that delivers true economic justice is cognizant of the racial dynamics that was spoken to earlier and delivers true upward mobility for workers is really rooted in an understanding that we're a lot off if we work together. And with each other is working partners, not against one another aspiring partners, and I'm concerned that in the way that we've seen these new technologies come on the scene. And those that advocate concerns for that technology on the scene aren't in a room together rolling up their sleeves trying to suss this out I'm excited that maybe the Biden administration might try and create the space for even aside from the pro act aside from what the Department of Labor does in terms of promulgating rules about contractor versus employees, the chance to actually say, automations changing working this way. Should we take a cue from Germany and create more apprenticeship programs that create a feedback loop of that new automation at the university level or downstream of the K through 12 level gig work is changing work this way. Should we get in a room where tech and labor can actually talk about how to balance the business model with a path to sectoral or collective engagement that type of engagement that type of camaraderie. That's how we were together, and I'm really really encouraged by the fact that their voices out there calling for it, but it's going to take a lot more momentum behind those voices because those voices tend to be a little bit minority from time to time. It's, it's interesting also to think about, you know, how we structure a conversation how we ultimately make kind of the narrative about what this is ultimately about when it might actually differ from what might be the true kind of crux of the issue. What we ultimately may need in terms of the solution is, is easier to at least move toward when there's a clearer understanding of what what's really kind of at stake and what the kind of levers are, as opposed to simplifying it or oversimplifying it into just, you know, workers versus capital or corporations versus versus workers. Ken, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Sure. I think the key thing that comes out of all of this is how this is fundamentally a question of power, and that what we've seen since the late 1970s was an increase in the power of corporations and decline in the power of workers and decline in unionization, and that brought with it that increase in income inequality that Cecilia Soelle currently discussed. So, so when I look at Proposition 22 and see that a corporate set of corporations can spend $200 million to create their own law to govern their own workplaces in a way that keeps the, and that stops the state of California from being able to create its own collective bargaining law around these, these workers, it makes it very clear just the, the, what this, that's the threat that is in terms of having a functioning democracy. And so, I think what's so important in we've been thinking towards the future are the kinds of measures that increase workers ability to organize to bargain collectively. Not necessarily both for the economic power they have at the table in terms of their own jobs, but also as a collective power in terms to be that countervailing force to big business in politics in America, and what we've seen since the late 1970s is that corporate voice really took over, we saw that explosion and inequality, and the only way we balance that is by having robust institutions of workers that can bring their voice to the table but not just as a voice, but a voice with power. So, you'll never find me agreeing with, excuse me, disagreeing you'll never find me disagreeing with a statement that talks about the need for people to have more power. So, I very much appreciate that. I'm going to segue into some of the questions that I see here. What is related to centered around this idea of how workers can have power and collectively bargain when they are part of a distributed and isolated workforce, and the element of this that I find really interesting is are there any strategies that you think can be used for employing technology to facilitate workers sharing information and forming shared narratives in a distributed workforce. So what I'm hearing there is this idea of like could technology actually be used for this idea of elevating power and having workers kind of come together even if their, their industry is distributed. Yeah, I just wanted to share something from our research which was, again, I said this glossed over it maybe too quickly is that we're collectively and connecting the collective interests of people was by far, the thing that all the workers we talked with pointed to as the, the thing that was their saving grace, like the thing that kept them from being just pulled down through this, this undertow was connecting with each other. And there were really good examples of solidarity building the key thing missing as to what Professor Jacobs was just noting the key thing missing was the power to make that matter at at the table. You know, so workers being able to collectively organize they're there we just need to give them the, the, the rest of the runway to connect with with their, their political voice. So they're already doing it, technology is already facilitating that the problem is we don't have policies that recognize them as a sector. And if I could just add to that the National Domestic Workers Alliance has really pioneered both strategies for connecting these are the you know among the most isolated of workers right individuals who work in other people's homes, both into a collective, but also leveraging technology to develop an approach to some level of benefits paid leave, for example and those sort of workers comp type protections using a platform that they created called Aliyah which essentially allows if you are a worker in a household that essentially it relies on the worker to persuade their employer to kick in an extra five bucks for a fund that ultimately will pay for paid leave, but it's a really it's an early and really innovative use of technology to connect pretty isolated workers to benefits. And thanks for bringing that up Cecilia Aliyah and what the National Domestic Workers Alliance is up to anyone else on that specific point. A quick other example of Marriott workers Marriott hotel workers housekeepers in Oakland for example who organized and won the use of a panic safety button so that they could report and you know seek aid if if they were subject to sexual assault during the course of their work. So I really underscore I think Cecilia's point that workers can shape technology technology is not just an inevitable thing that happens to us right, but it's a product that people have made. Um, yeah. Thank you so much. There's a question here that I think is interesting considering how much we've talked about how multifaceted this issue is, and it is one just just like what is the clear if there is such a thing problem statement here. Is this an issue of affording workers with better protections. Are there actual employee categories laid out in the law, or is it the appropriateness of using employee status category categories for allocation worker protections. So I guess we were kind of rounding about to, if, if you had to kind of sum up your in an elevator, and you were saying like this is what this is what is the problem statement here ultimately. If we could literally let go of categories of workers to finding workers rights that anybody who's a working age adult and their families has a right to the things that to date we felt are a perk of employment. I would like to make all the difference. If we if we start setting that floor for any working age adult, no matter where they work, how long they work, what they're doing that there's a fundamental set of a bundle of rights that go with that. That would make for for anyone who is entering the workforce so they don't have to depend on their employer being the right employer, or in the right state, or doing the right kind of job like that. You know that's a luxury for me to say that but to me that would make all the difference if we've worked towards that vision. I completely agree. I know I may be playing sort of the role of corporate villain in this conversation but I think that the problem statement is that since World War two, as I said earlier we have a safety net that gets workers, some workers some benefits and many workers no benefits and that needs to change and I think it doesn't just require an examination of the gig economy I think that's a little too narrow in aperture. I think that change jobs faster than ever before Gen Z years are switching jobs faster than ever before caregiving, which as my parents get to a certain age is certainly on my brother and my mind daily. That is very vital to focus on and if there are gaps in the safety net, and maybe some of the laws of the past didn't contemplate these newer technologies, I think it's okay for us to all have hat in hand a conversation about how we just make sure all those workers get access to all those benefits. Any other thoughts on this of the public statement. Okay, I will go to another question which is interesting which is related to the relationship. How would you explain the relationship between labor law in the US and human rights. I think human rights watch did an important paper a number of years back, looking at that as labor rights as a human right, and recognizing that the actions that we see in terms of many preparations in America, especially around the right to organize and in terms of seeing those as human rights violations right now in America when workers seek to organize and bargain collected we just watch this in Bessemer with Amazon, the kinds of actions that companies take to stock workers from organizing are tremendous and in terms of the ability to to create fear. And part of that is there is no punitive finds violent for violations of labor law in America today. If you fire somebody illegally for working trying to organize in a union. You can be required to post a notice saying you'll never do it again to hire the person back or and to pay back wages minus any earnings they may have had in another job since they were fired. So what companies figured out was you could just delay and delay, because you let turnover work to your, your benefit, and then just violate the law with impunity and we have a whole industry of labor of anti labor consultants who work with employers to in in doing this. I think it is important that we think of labor rights and rights on the job as human rights, and that we create the kind of laws that allow workers to organize and bargain collectively, and that where it is not the role of the employer to engage at all in that election process, the workers are making that decision, it should be a decision of workers themselves. So my interesting question here, it's, it says, as someone who watched the proposition 22 campaign closely. I noted that the workers themselves voted heavily in favor of the proposition. Why isn't it that workers exercising their voice in a participatory democratic process. The view that the TV ads convinced people to vote against their self interest deeply insulting to the workers who overwhelmingly voted against the AB five model. I mean, that's the $200 million question.  I mean there's many examples of that. I do want to back out there is a problem statement that I think is really important, which is of just name it structural racism and gender oppression. And that's also key to undoing it's not just categories based on employment status right but you know people who are excluded where farm workers and domestic workers from some of those early programs in the 1930s and that's because they were primarily black, right. And I think workers obviously work done by women, you know, service workers, you know undervalued because there are also work that's sort of traditionally done by women, right. These are some of the things that we also have to overcome if we're talking about human rights. I would, I would, I would echo that I think that's a very, very important frame through all of this and more recently, given my new role at the ACLU, I think you know another in the category of policy prescriptions here we need to seriously take a look at the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bill that that is in front of Congress but you know TBD on whether it passes or moves yet because it does speak to the fact that a lot of essential workers during the pandemic ended up being black and brown women, many of them were going to have the right to fair accommodations at the work site and being able to expand existing protection should be elements of our dialogue to have a path to labor fairness and economic justice. I also think Ken's point on labor rights as human rights is a really important framework and something that we could all benefit from more. I know that that in a commentary on voting and you know electoral outcomes, you know, if you had 59% of Californians vote for something, and you had, you know, mothers groups ranging from mothers against drunk driving to the NAACP showing up in a coalition supporting but yet there's still so much questions and the aftermath of this. I think it goes to show that that solution alone doesn't end this conversation right and it kind of goes back to the importance of needing to row together and the importance of what Mary was saying that if we're talking about labor rights as human rights, we really need to expand them to all workers, irrespective of what your tax filing status is at the end of the year. And hopefully as we continue to have more of a social justice reckoning in this country. All the intersectionality of these different concepts and issue sets, whether it's on pregnant workers or it's on racial justice or it's on sectoral bargaining wall sort of come to light in rooms and spaces where people can feel heard, and we don't prioritize strength over solutions but we actually start prescribing a path forward that balances these different stakeholder perspectives. Thanks so much for that. And can I see you put a comment into the chat if you wanted to share that for free to do so. Well, I mean just basically the $200 million went to shaping the narrative so it was about workers rights, which you know actually was about you know this business model that you know at corporations had that was trying to get off the hook for AB five so the issue as defined, you know that people were voting on was not actually the issue that was contained in prop 22. I think there's a lot of sentiment and agreement here around the safety net so I do want to point to that as a point of, you know, collaboration. Well with this, I would like to ask each of you if you have a closing thought as we wrap up the end of this conversation. If you have one by all means share it and if not feel free to just pass if you've all said so many really, really profound you share so many profound thoughts with us. I don't understand if you're like I've already given it to you, but if you have something else you'd like to add, please do so, and I will start with victim. Oh, man. It's an amazing conversation and honestly an honor to even if there's differences of opinion and honor to stand by Congress silly and can marry a new out of the body of work new America's foundations put out in this space is really important and continues to be very instructive to a lot of our thinking. So today, I think my main takeaway is that when it comes to governing new forms of work moving forward. We really need to have tours of duty where you know people in Congress that are wagging their fingers at future CEOs understand the product and understand what they're actually talking about. Similarly, people within the ranks of tech companies are looking at ROI numbers that aren't just about the bottom line, but are looking about the stakeholders in their communities and the downstream impacts of their technology is confronting and so I think the next few years, we're going to really need to as a society if we want to talk about economic justice, not just celebrate these new apps and their convenience, or these new technologies and their efficiency gains, but really understand how that algorithm is is creating worker outcomes and really understanding getting into the guts of the code and getting into the guts of the product in order to understand how to make smart balance regulations, as opposed to kind of sweeping value statements but I'm confident that if, if, if labor organizers a UC Berkeley professor, a White House alumni and Harvard group can get together with the tech, a tech alum and agree on the path to bargaining for workers that I'm hopeful and optimistic for a lot of that change going forward. Fantastic. Thank you. Cecilia. Not sure there's much I can say to top that except to say that these look this, these issues are complex and the frames that we're used to dealing with them in are not sufficient anymore. So this requires going to require us being creative but also really deciding that we want to go in the same direction and I'm hopeful about our ability to do that. Thank you so much. Ken. Just, again, thank you for putting this panel together today and I think I go something come brought in towards the end that we look at strategies that lift up the floor that provide a broad range of benefits and that increase workers, power and labor rights will benefit all workers and all working families in America but the bit largest effects will be on black and indigenous people of color who have been hurt the most by our existing system. And so I think this is these are vital issues. Thank you so much. And come. Yeah, so much. I mean, really great to be on the panel with all these folks have learned a lot from reading your books from talking with you from having coffee with Rick room. I think it's true that the legal frameworks change, right, and that actually they're a product and symptom of our power relationships, ultimately. But what's consistent I think hopefully that we all share is the values right so those human rights, the rights of, you know, women workers and you know gender oppressed people, the rights of BIPOC workers of every worker who's always essential. And that's what guides us in this conversation. It's also, you know, in terms of legal frameworks, there's a big question do we let billionaires and app corporations with billions of venture capital, write those legal frameworks, or can workers write them and I agree there's a stakeholder process like what Vikram said, but fundamental to a stakeholder process that's real is if workers have power so what they walk into that room, what do they walk out with right and that's that's the groundwork, I think for any stakeholder process. And Mary. We are at the very beginning of this change, and I try to remind anyone I'm around that the capacity to be able to do this kind of disaggregation and distribution of work at such a rapid speed and scale is literally no more than 10 years old. 15 tops. So we're at the very beginning of this moment when we can rethink everything. And I forgot to mention that in our research we studied companies that we're doing things differently and the biggest differentiator is when you prioritize the quality of a work condition for people entering these worlds of work. What better outcomes. So let the workers lead the direction and everybody wins. Everybody does better in these markets. So that to me is the goal here is to listen and learn from the way people do their work and what is it they're trying to achieve. And we will, we will address our, our greater needs as consumers and businesses that follows. So follow the workers that's that's where that's where changes at. Well I certainly can't top what each of you have said so I will just say thank you to all of you. Thank you to the MacArthur foundation and thank you to everyone who tuned in. Thank you.


This study investigated the preventative effects of betalinic acid, BA, on streptozotocinicateinamide, STZ, induced diabetic nephropathy in male mice. The results showed that BA had a protective effect against diabetic nephropathy, as it significantly reduced albumin, blood urea nitrogen, BUN, and creatinine levels in the plasma, as well as improving renal histological changes. Additionally, BA also demonstrated a similar effect to metformin, which is currently used to treat type 2 diabetes. This article was authored by Opchroma Hangerper, Ali Opbar Origin, Lysodac Crisandi, and others.