Seeking to leverage a boom in food-delivery apps, Reef and competitors build restaurant kitchens in warehouses or trailers, which are meant to be cheaper and nimbler than traditional storefronts. From a report: Business models vary, but Reef generally acts as a franchisee, preparing and selling food with its own workers and paying a restaurant brand a percentage of each order. The concept has become particularly popular during the pandemic, as food delivery became clutch for many consumers and restaurants looked for cheaper places to prepare food they were delivering, not serving. Investors have poured more than $3.5 billion into ghost-kitchen startups in the past three years, according to data tracker PitchBook Data, a large slug of funding for a fledgling sector. Much of that funding has come from tech-focused investors who want the rapid growth often seen in software companies -- and delivery apps, such as DoorDash.

Reef's operational strains illustrate the challenges of meeting investors' high expectations in the food business, a sector typically defined by low profit margins and modest growth and one that depends on executing daily in the nondigital economy with workers, supplies and logistics. Reef, backed by investors including SoftBank Group, has said it plans to add thousands of mobile kitchens in parking lots around the world. The company says it currently has about 350. Big brands have begun to warm to the concept. Chick-fil-A and Yum Brands' KFC have been experimenting with their own versions of ghost kitchens, seeing them as a potential area for growth. Wendy's has joined with Reef in a deal that calls for Reef to open and operate up to 700 locations in North America, and the U.K. Reef's rivals include CloudKitchens, founded by Travis Kalanick, who co-founded Uber Technologies.

The New York Times tells the remarkable story of Uber's need for more intelligence gathering back in 2016: Uber was expanding aggressively into foreign markets. The pushback was swift and sometimes violent. Taxi drivers staged widespread protests, and in Nairobi, Kenya, several Uber cars were lit on fire and drivers were beaten. Competitors in China and India used sophisticated methods to collect Uber's data and undercut its prices. To fight back, Uber began to recruit a team of former C.I.A. officers like [Nick] Gicinto, law enforcement officials and cybersecurity experts. The team would gather intelligence about threats against Uber drivers and executives, and investigate competing companies and potential acquisitions. "They didn't know what was going on, on the ground," Mr. Gicinto said. "They recognized that they needed somebody who understood the human aspect of these things and understood foreign environments...."

In addition to Uber's recruitment from the C.I.A., Google, Facebook and Amazon poached hackers from the National Security Agency to fend off cyberattacks, former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to staff teams responsible for fielding law enforcement requests and former Pentagon officials to advise on defense contracts.
A history professor at the University of Washington in Seattle tells the Times it's not at all unusual for tech companies to hire from the intelligence community, a long-standing practice to protect intellectual secrets.

So for example, Uber's team "outsourced some of the projects to intelligence firms, which sent contractors to infiltrate driver protests... the team filmed Waymo's vehicles and scraped competitors' apps to collect pricing information." The men who gathered intelligence for Uber were supposed to be ghosts. For years, they were un-Googleable sentries, quietly informing executives about the actions of competitors, opponents and disgruntled employees. But the secrecy of the tightknit team ended abruptly in 2017 when one of its members turned on the others, accusing them of stealing trade secrets, wiretapping and destroying evidence. They flouted the law while carrying out Uber's dirtiest missions, their former co-worker, Richard Jacobs, claimed in an April 2017 email sent to top Uber executives. His lawyer followed up with a letter that said the team went so far as to hack foreign governments and wiretap Uber's own employees.

But Mr. Jacobs's most damning allegations of illegal activity were not true. In June, nearly four years after his claims drew wide attention, he retracted them. In a letter to his former co-workers that he wrote as part of a legal settlement, Mr. Jacobs explained that he had never intended to suggest that they broke the law. "I am sorry," he wrote. "I regret not having clarified the statements at an earlier time and regret any distress or injury my statements may have caused." Gary Bostwick, a lawyer for Mr. Jacobs, declined to comment....

Testifying in court, Mr. Jacobs seemed to distance himself from some of the claims in the letter. He hadn't had much time to review it before his lawyer sent it, he said, and he wasn't sure if Mr. Gicinto and his other former co-workers had broken the law. "I did not believe it was patently illegal. I had questions about the ethics of it," Mr. Jacobs testified. "It felt overly aggressive and invasive and inappropriate."
The Times reports that Uber had paid $7.5 million to cooperate with an investigation into Jacobs' allegations (according to legal filings), and while the findings were never made public, the co-workers accused in the letter "said they had been told that they were cleared of any wrongdoing...

"In 2021, Mr. Jacobs settled the libel lawsuit by his former co-workers. The terms of the settlement are not public."

The Justice Department said Wednesday that it was suing Uber for charging wait-time fees to passengers with physical disabilities. From a report: The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act for charging fees to passengers who, because of disability, need more time to enter a car.

Today the iconic Bitcoin white paper "celebrates thirteen years of financial disruption," notes Cointelegraph, "after being first published on Oct. 31, 2008, by an anonymous person or entity named Satoshi Nakamoto." (Here's a 2013 story from Slashdot about version 0.3.)

Cointelegraph writes: The white paper, titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, foresaw the need for a peer-to-peer online payment system that is self-governing, secure and limited in quantity. The Bitcoin network was launched on Jan. 3, 2009, with each Bitcoin priced at $0.0008.... Today, Bitcoin maintains a stable trading value well above $60k after experiencing a gradual appreciation of 7,749,999,900% since its launch.
Cointelegraph celebrated the anniversary by embedding a video of the original bitcoin white paper being read by comedian Gilbert Gottfried — but they weren't the only ones. Entrepreneur/investor Anthony Pompliano celebrated with the return of what he describes as a decentralized pizzeria" named Bitcoin pizza. (An interactive online map shows participating locations around the U.S.A. where pizzas can be ordered with cash or with 0.0003 BTC — either through the web site or through the Uber Eats app.)

"If you want to pay for your pizza in bitcoin, I will gladly take your bitcoin," Pompliano says in a video posted to Twitter. "I don't think that you should use your bitcoin to buy the pizza — but we now accept bitcoin." The five available topping combos even have bitcoin-themed names like "No Keys, No Cheese" and "Satoshi's Favorite" — and the pizzas are all delivered in a special commemorative bitcoin-themed pizza box. "Every single dollar that I make from this, I donate to bitcoin developers," Pompliano explains in the video. "I make zero dollars from Bitcoin Pizza."

"And we're going to keep building this until eventually we are the single largest independent pizza chain in the United States. And then after we become the single largest independent pizza chain in the United States, we're going to turn around, and then we're going to go international."

Greg Bensinger of the New York Times editorial board argues ridesharing companies haven't delivered on their promises of well-paying driver jobs with less traffic congestion (let alone their predictions of an end to car ownership — or even of a sustainable, profitable, business model).

And he adds that now a new study "is punching a hole in another of Uber and Lyft's promised benefits: curtailing pollution." The companies have long insisted their services are a boon to the environment in part because they reduce the need for short trips, can pool riders heading in roughly the same direction and cut unnecessary miles by, for instance, eliminating the need to look for street parking. It turns out that Uber rides do spare the air from the high amount of pollutants emitted from starting up a cold vehicle, when it is operating less efficiently, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University found. But that gain is wiped out by the need for drivers to circle around waiting for or fetching their next passenger, known as deadheading. Deadheading, Lyft and Uber estimated in 2019, is equal to about 40 percent of rideshare miles driven in six American cities.

The researchers at Carnegie Mellon estimated that driving without a passenger leads to a roughly 20 percent overall increase in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared with trips made by personal vehicles.

The researchers also found that switching from a private car to on-demand rides, like an Uber or Lyft, increased the external costs of a typical trip by 30 percent to 35 percent, or roughly 35 cents on average, because of the added congestion, collisions and noise from ridesharing services. "This burden is not carried by the individual user, but rather impacts the surrounding community," reads a summary of the research conducted by Jacob Ward, Jeremy Michalek and Constantine Samaras. "Society as a whole currently shoulders these external costs in the form of increased mortality risks, damage to vehicles and infrastructure, climate impacts and increased traffic congestion."

Federal prosecutors allege that Elizabeth Holmes and the No. 2 at Theranos, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, "broke the law by deceiving investors about how well the business was doing and the capabilities of its testing machines, in addition to allegedly providing false or flawed test results to patients," reports NPR.

But they add that in Silicon Valley, the trial has launched this debate. "Since Holmes was following a playbook used by dozens of tech CEOs, why is she the only one to face prosecution when a company becomes engulfed in a scandal?" To Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit, who is a vocal critic of gender discrimination in tech, sexism is partially to blame. "When you see which CEOs get to continue to wreak havoc on consumers and the market, it's people who look like the venture capitalists, who are mostly white men," Pao said. She points to Adam Neumann, who drove WeWork into the ground; former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who resigned after a sexual harassment scandal; and Juul's Kevin Burns, who stepped down amid questions over the company's role in stoking the youth vaping epidemic. There were lawsuits, settlements and more fallout — but notably, Pao points out, no criminal prosecutions.

"That all these people continue to lead their lives and not be held accountable for all the harm that they've caused, it does send a message," she said.

Former prosecutors who have tried white-collar crime say there are several reasons why Holmes stands out among disgraced tech CEOs. First, the allegedly fraudulent behavior was egregious: Holmes told the world she had a miracle machine that would upend laboratory science. Prosecutors say, compared with her claims, the technology barely did anything at all. Mark MacDougall, a former federal prosecutor who focused on fraud cases in the U.S. Justice Department, said Theranos' being a biotech company raised the stakes. "It allows the government to contend, with some evidence, that the health of private citizens, the health of innocent people, was put at risk," MacDougall said. Another reason Holmes was charged, according to former prosecutors, was that the government says it obtained evidence that she acted intentionally, which can be difficult to establish in fraud cases.
Prosecutors now plan to show Holmes "knowingly and intentionally" defrauded investors and patients, "something her defense team says is false," the article points out. "Proving that Holmes is guilty will turn on demonstrating her intent, since exaggerating a product's potential, missing financial forecasts and running a secretive company do not constitute federal crimes."

Pao's argument is that Holmes "was encouraged by the high-risk, high-reward culture of venture capital. That said, Pao said she is not defending Holmes, saying her behavior warranted prosecution."

"At the same time, Pao wants a broader discussion in Silicon Valley about why other CEOs accused of wrongdoing have not faced criminal consequences."

The New York City Council overwhelmingly approved a groundbreaking package of legislation on Thursday that will set minimum pay and improve working conditions for couriers employed by app-based food delivery services like Grubhub, DoorDash and Uber Eats. From a report: The bills, which have the support of Mayor Bill de Blasio, are the latest and most broad example of the city's continuing effort to regulate the multimillion dollar industry. While other cities have taken steps to restrict the food delivery apps, no city has gone as far as New York, which is home to the largest and most competitive food delivery market in the country.

The legislation prevents the food delivery apps and courier services from charging workers fees to receive their pay; makes the apps disclose their gratuity policies; prohibits the apps from charging delivery workers for insulated food bags, which can cost up to $50; and requires restaurant owners to make bathrooms available to delivery workers. Under the legislation, delivery workers would also be able to set parameters on the trips they take without fear of retribution. Workers -- who have been targeted by robbers intent on stealing their money or their e-bikes -- would be able to determine the maximum distance they want to travel from a restaurant or specify that they are not willing to go over bridges to make a delivery, for example.

DoorDash sued New York City on Wednesday over a new law requiring food delivery companies to share customer data with restaurants, saying it violates customer privacy and lets restaurants compete unfairly. Reuters reports: It was filed in federal court in Manhattan six days after DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats sued the United States' most populous city over a separate law capping fees that delivery companies charge restaurants. [...] In Wednesday's lawsuit, San Francisco-based DoorDash said New York exhibited "naked animus" by requiring food delivery companies to provide customers' names, phone numbers, email addresses and delivery addresses to restaurants. DoorDash said this would let restaurants "free-ride" on the data in a "shocking and invasive intrusion of consumers' privacy," saying restaurants would not demand the same information from in-person diners. It also said "more vulnerable populations, especially undocumented customers" could be harmed if data were mishandled, and shared with immigration authorities or hate groups.

Uber Chief Technology Officer Sukumar Rathnam is stepping down as the company's head of engineering, a spokesperson of the ride-hailing company said late on Tuesday. From a report: The spokesperson did not specify the reason for Rathnam's departure but Business Insider reported earlier that he had been increasingly at odds with chief product officer Sundeep Jain. Rathnam, who joined Uber about a year ago, plans to leave in early October, the spokesperson said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, and so entitled to greater workers' rights under local labor laws, a Dutch court ruled on Monday, handing a setback to the U.S. company's European business model. It was another court victory for unions fighting for better pay and benefits for those employed in the gig economy and followed a similar decision this year about Uber in Britain. The Amsterdam District Court sided with the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV), which had argued that Uber's roughly 4,000 drivers in the capital are employees of a taxi company and should be granted benefits in line with the taxi sector.

The court found drivers who transport passengers via the Uber app are covered by the collective labour agreement for taxi transportation. "The legal relationship between Uber and these drivers meets all the characteristics of an employment contract," the ruling said. Uber drivers are in some cases entitled to back pay, the court said. The judges also ordered Uber to pay a fine of 50,000 euros ($58,940) for failing to implement the terms of the labor agreement for taxi drivers. Uber said it would appeal against the decision and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent. Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."

Last November, Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies scored a decisive win in California when a majority of the state's voters passed a company-sponsored ballot measure that cemented workers' status as contractors, albeit with some benefits.

Food-delivery companies DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats have sued New York City over a legislation to license food-delivery apps and to permanently cap commissions they can charge restaurants. From a report: The three food-delivery companies filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York late on Thursday. The companies are seeking an injunction that would prevent New York from enforcing the fee-cap ordinance adopted last month, as well as unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. The New York City Council approved in August a legislation which limits the amount that food-delivery companies can charge restaurants to use their platforms and requires them to obtain operating licenses that are valid for two years. read more "Those permanent price controls will harm not only Plaintiffs, but also the revitalization of the very local restaurants that the City claims to serve," the companies said in the lawsuit filed on Thursday. The suit argues that the legislation is unconstitutional because "it interferes with freely negotiated contracts between platforms and restaurants by changing and dictating the economic terms on which a dynamic industry operates."

Slashdot reader phalse phace tipped us off to a breaking story. Reuters reports: A California judge on Friday ruled that a 2020 ballot measure that exempted ride-share and food delivery drivers from a state labor law is unconstitutional as it infringed on the legislature's power to set standards at the workplace...which makes the entire ballot measure "unenforceable", Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch wrote in the ruling.

Gig economy companies including Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Instacart were pushing to keep drivers' independent contractor status, albeit with additional benefits.

"The combination of a massive labor shortage in the U.S. coming out of the pandemic and an increasingly crowded market of app-based share-everything companies is raising the prices for freelance and contract work," writes CNBC's Ari Levy. "Companies have to find new ways to bolster the supply-end of their platforms to meet consumer demand and continue growing at a rapid clip." From the report: Far from taking the number to zero, Airbnb said in its second-quarter earnings report on Thursday that sales and marketing expenses surged 175% from a year earlier to $315.3 million. Costs aren't quite back to pre-pandemic levels, but they're not too far off the peak of $437 million in the fourth quarter of 2019. The difference now is that Airbnb is spending to attract hosts, rather than travelers. It's becoming a common theme in the gig economy. Food-delivery service DoorDash said in its earnings announcement, also on Thursday, that it boosted sales and marketing costs by over 150% from a year earlier to lure Dashers, or what the company calls its drivers.

Uber and Lyft have been struggling with long wait times and consumer complaints about higher prices. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said on his company's earnings call last week that Uber has been spending more to get drivers on the road. "The heaviest driver acquisition spend and incentive spend that we think we will see and we saw was in Q2," Khosrowshahi said. "We really had to take action very quickly because the marketplace was not at a place that we considered healthy, and we wanted to lean in to get wait times down, to get surge levels down."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Teleperformance, one of the world's largest call center companies, is reportedly requiring some employees to consent to video monitoring in their homes. Employees in Colombia told NBC News that their new contract granted the company the right to use AI-powered cameras to observe and record their workspaces. The contract also requires employees to share biometric data like fingerprints and photos of themselves, and workers have to agree to share data and images that may include children under 18.

Teleperformance employs over 380,000 people in 83 countries to provide call center services for a range of companies, including Amazon, Apple, and Uber. A company spokesperson told NBC that it is "constantly looking for ways to enhance the Teleperformance Colombia experience for both our employees and our customers, with privacy and respect as key factors in everything we do." Amazon and Apple said that they did not ask Teleperformance for this extra monitoring, and an Apple spokesperson said the company forbids video monitoring of employees by suppliers. A recent Apple audit reportedly found Teleperformance in compliance with this requirement. But Uber apparently requested the ability to monitor some workers. Uber said it wouldn't observe the entire workforce, but the company did not specify which employees would be subject to the new policies. The ride sharing company asked for the monitoring of Teleperformance's remote employees because call center staff have access to customers credit cards and trip details, an Uber spokesperson told NBC News.

NBC News reports: Colombia-based call center workers who provide outsourced customer service to some of the nation's largest companies are being pressured to sign a contract that lets their employer install cameras in their homes to monitor work performance, an NBC News investigation has found. Six workers based in Colombia for Teleperformance, one of the world's largest call center companies, which counts Apple, Amazon and Uber among its clients, said that they are concerned about the new contract, first issued in March. The contract allows monitoring by AI-powered cameras in workers' homes, voice analytics and storage of data collected from the worker's family members, including minors.

Teleperformance employs more than 380,000 workers globally, including 39,000 workers in Colombia. "The contract allows constant monitoring of what we are doing, but also our family," said a Bogota-based worker on the Apple account who was not authorized to speak to the news media. "I think it's really bad. We don't work in an office. I work in my bedroom. I don't want to have a camera in my bedroom." The worker said that she signed the contract, a copy of which NBC News has reviewed, because she feared losing her job. She said that she was told by her supervisor that she would be moved off the Apple account if she refused to sign the document. She said the additional surveillance technology has not yet been installed.

The concerns of the workers, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, highlight a pandemic-related trend that has alarmed privacy and labor experts: As many workers have shifted to performing their duties at home, some companies are pushing for increasing levels of digital monitoring of their staff in an effort to recreate the oversight of the office at home... "Surveillance at home has really been normalized in the context of the pandemic," said Veena Dubal, a labor law professor at the University of California, Hastings. "Companies see a lot of benefit in putting in software to do all kinds of monitoring they would have otherwise expected their human managers to do, but the reality is that it's much more intrusive than surveillance conducted by a boss."
An Uber spokesperson confirmed to NBC News that it Uber actually requested the monitoring of its workers, the article reports. Interviewed by NBC News, an Uber spokespreson "said that its customer service agents have access to private and sensitive user information, including credit card details and trip data, and that protecting that information is a priority for Uber.

"As a result, Uber requested Teleperformance to monitor staff working on its accounts to verify that only a hired employee is accessing the data; that outsourced staff weren't recording screen data on another device such as a phone; and that no unauthorized person was near the computer."

Instead of having AI in a self-driving car decide whether to kill its driver or pedestrians, the Washington Post reports there's a new philosophy gaining traction: Why not stop cars from getting in life-or-death situations in the first place? (Alternate URL): After all, the whole point of automated cars is to create road conditions where vehicles are more aware than humans are, and thus better at predicting and preventing accidents. That might avoid some of the rare occurrences where human life hangs in the balance of a split-second decision... The best way to kill or injure people probably isn't a decision you'd like to leave up to your car, or the company manufacturing it, anytime soon. That's the thinking now about advanced AI: It's supposed to prevent the scenarios that lead to crashes, making the choice of who's to die one that the AI should never have to face.

Humans get distracted by texting, while cars don't care what your friends have to say. Humans might miss objects obscured by their vehicle's blind spot. Lidar can pick those things up, and 360 cameras should work even if your eyes get tired. Radar can bounce around from one vehicle to the next, and might spot a car decelerating up ahead faster than a human can... [Serial entrepreneur Barry] Lunn is the founder and CEO of Provizio, an accident-prevention technology company. Provizio's secret sauce is a "five-dimensional" vision system made up of high-end radar, lidar and camera imaging. The company builds an Intel vision processor and Nvidia graphics processor directly onto its in-house radar sensor, enabling cars to run machine-learning algorithms directly on the radar sensor. The result is a stack of perception technology that sees farther and wider, and processes road data faster than traditional autonomy tech, Lunn says. Swift predictive analytics gives vehicles and drivers more time to react to other cars.

The founder has worked in vision technology for nearly a decade and has previously worked with NASA, General Motors and Boeing under the radar company Arralis, which Lunn sold in 2017. The start-up is in talks with big automakers, and its vision has a strong team of trailblazers behind it, including Scott Thayer and Jeff Mishler, developers of early versions of autonomous tech for Google's Waymo and Uber... Lunn thinks the auto industry prematurely pushed autonomy as a solution, long before it was safe or practical to remove human drivers from the equation. He says AI decision-making will play a pivotal role in the future of auto safety, but only after it has been shown to reduce the issues that lead to crashes. The goal is the get the tech inside passenger cars so that the system can learn from human drivers, and understand how they make decisions before allowing the AI to decide what happens in specified instances.

"Last year, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart succeeded in getting Californians to vote in favor of a ballot measure exempting them from classifying drivers and delivery workers as employees," remembers CNN. So after their success with Californian's Proposition 22, "the companies are in the early stages of taking a similar approach in Massachusetts..." The Coalition to Protect Workers' Rights, an alliance that includes labor advocates and community groups, argued this week that the Massachusetts measure would "permanently create a 'second class' status" for the workers... [T]he proposed Massachusetts ballot initiative presents a minimum earnings guarantee of "120 percent of minimum wage" based on "engaged time," meaning the only time counted is when a driver is fulfilling a ride or delivery request but not the time they spend waiting for a gig. (An analysis from UC Berkeley Labor Center had estimated the pay guarantee under Prop 22 for Uber and Lyft drivers would be equivalent to a wage of $5.64 per hour, instead of $15.60 or 120% of a $13 minimum wage, given such loopholes.) Workers would also receive $0.26 reimbursement per engaged mile to cover vehicle upkeep and gas. (The UC Berkeley Labor Center previously pointed out that Prop 22's $0.30 reimbursement is lower than the IRS' estimated $0.58 per mile cost of owning and operating a vehicle.) While the proposal includes a health care contribution from a company for certain qualifying workers, that too is based on "engaged time" and only a small portion of workers would likely qualify, according to the Coalition to Protect Workers' Rights, due to minimum engaged time requirements...

Some workers could also earn paid sick time, paid family and medical leave, and in lieu of worker's compensation, benefits for medical and disability in cases of on-the-job injuries. Workers would have the ability to appeal if their accounts are deactivated, and would receive training on public safety issues. It would also let gig companies avoid contributions to unemployment or Social Security, and deny app-based workers more robust legal protections around discrimination, including when it comes to compensation.
Lyft, Uber and other members of the coalition, want their proposition included on November 2022 ballots, TechCrunch reports. (Though the question still has to pass a legal review and receive enough signatures from voters.)

But a Boston Globe columnist argues the measure isn't just about gig-working conditions. "It's about the future of work in America." If voters side with the tech giants, the labor landscape will be transformed, immuring a giant and growing body of workers in a world with fewer benefits and protections. And where ride-hailing drivers go, nurses, restaurant workers, executive assistants, programmers, and others will surely follow. The tech giants who rule the world are already dreaming of the day when those workers, too, will be classified as mobile, independent contractors, with fewer benefits and less security than employees. "If they get away with this, every industry is going to line up to ask for an exception," said labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has battled the gig companies for years. "And before you know it, the entire fabric of workplace protections will be gone..."

Plenty of people are fine with the fact that that means there will always be a bunch of drivers milling around unpaid and unprotected, waiting for us to summon them. But if blue Massachusetts follows liberal California and approves the formal creation of a second-class workforce, the rest of the country will follow, as will other industries. "This is a question of whether we are going to be a society that recognizes the dignity of work," Liss-Riordan said.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Five months after he was carjacked while driving for Uber, resulting in thousands of dollars in damage to his car, David Morrow finally received an offer of assistance from the company: $1,000, the amount of his insurance deductible. But there was a catch -- Morrow would need to sign a nondisclosure agreement promising to not sue Uber, disparage the company, or talk any further about his carjacking or the details of his settlement. The offer came a day after The Markup approached Uber and Lyft about an investigation into more than 100 carjackings of ride-hail drivers, including the February attack on Morrow in Atlanta. But Morrow didn't take the offer. "I would be signing all my rights away," said Morrow, who's 71 and has completed almost 5,000 Uber rides. "I would have no recourse."

In 2018, Uber's chief legal officer, Tony West, announced the company was dropping the mandatory arbitration agreements and confidentiality provisions it had with drivers, riders, and employees for individual claims of sexual assault or harassment. Lyft quickly followed suit. But in the case of driver carjackings, both Uber and Lyft still appear to be using the tactic. The Markup is aware of a Lyft driver who signed a nondisclosure agreement after being carjacked.

"America reported 122,000 new COVID-19 cases on Friday, the highest single-day spike since February," reports Business Insider. But when it comes to anti-Covid measures like vaccine mandates, America's technology companies have been "decisive trend setters," according to the New York Times' On Tech newsletter. (Alternate URL) Last year, some high-profile tech companies were relatively early to close their corporate offices as coronavirus outbreaks started in the United States, and they continued to pay many hourly workers who couldn't do their jobs remotely. Those actions from companies including Microsoft, Salesforce, Facebook, Google, Apple and Twitter probably helped save lives in the Bay Area and perhaps beyond. Now many of the same tech companies — along with schools and universities, health care institutions and some government employers in the United States — have started to announce vaccine mandates for staff, the resumption of requirements to wear masks, delayed reopenings of offices or on-site workplace vaccinations to help slow the latest wave of infections.

America's tech companies, which deserve criticism for misusing their power, also should get credit for using their power to take decisive action in response to virus risks. Those steps helped make it palatable for other organizations to follow. And in some cases, tech companies have acted more quickly in response to health threats and communicated about them more effectively than federal or local government leaders.
Disney, the world's largest entertainment company, is also requiring all salaried and nonunion hourly employees in the U.S. to be fully vaccinated, according to the Washington Post. Walmart, the nation's largest private employer at almost 1.6 million employees, announced all of its corporate staff members and regional managers would need to be fully vaccinated by Oct. 4. Though the mandate does not apply to store and warehouse staffers, which make up the bulk of the company's workforce, Walmart is offering a $150 bonus as incentive for those unvaccinated employees to get inoculated... While companies are pushing for vaccinations, they must contend with employees who are seeking exceptions for medical or religious reasons. Walmart said in a statement that while a "small percentage" of employees are unable to be vaccinated due to such reasons, those workers "must follow all social distancing standards, wear a mask while working, and receive weekly Covid-19 testing provided by Walmart...."

The news comes after corporate giants Google, Facebook and Uber announced their own vaccine mandates for employees this week. Companies such as Apple, Twitter, Lyft and the New York Times said they are delaying their return to the office due to the rising cases.
More examples from CNN:

• BlackRock the world's largest asset manager, is currently allowing only vaccinated employees to return to the office
• Morgan Stanley's New York office is banning all unvaccinated staff and clients from entering its headquarters.
• Luxury department store chain Saks Fifth Avenue is requiring that all employees be vaccinated.
• All new hires and current employees of the Washington Post will be required to demonstrate proof of full Covid-19 vaccinations.
• As of August 2, all employees working in Lyft's offices are required to be vaccinated
• If Uber employees want to come back to the office, they must be fully vaccinated

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: During the depths of the U.S. coronavirus pandemic, cars sat idly in driveways, city streets were deserted, onetime commuters worked from bed -- and it was much, much easier to find a parking spot. All of which was devastating news for the small cadre of tech startups dedicated to helping people find and reserve places to park. For SpotHero, which makes an app that helps drivers locate parking spaces, business was down 90% in April 2020 compared with February. The company laid off half its employees. "It was a really hard time for us," Chief Executive Officer Mark Lawrence says. Now, at last, drivers are back, and so is the familiar American pastime of hunting for a parking spot. In the U.S., traffic was up 55% in April from a year earlier, according to the Federal Highway Administration. And although urban roads were slower to refill than their suburban counterparts, traffic in such cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C., finally touched pre-pandemic levels again in June, according to Inrix, which analyzes mobility data.

The result has been a wave of new customers for SpotHero and companies like it. SpotHero bookings started to come back in January, then accelerated. "It was slowly, then suddenly," Lawrence says. Now the startup is profitable for the first time in 10 years, he says, thanks in part to a surge in car ownership spurred by people avoiding public transit. At FlashParking, which makes two spot-finding apps and helps event companies and garages coordinate availability, demand is higher than it was before the pandemic in some cities. Meanwhile, SpotAngels, which uses crowd input to create maps of nearby open spaces, says monthly revenue since its previous high in February 2020 had tripled by May 2021. "It's interesting to see how dark it was, and can get," SpotHero's Lawrence says, "and then have such optimism now."

Before the pandemic, the industry was in crisis, says Eran Ben-Joseph, a professor of urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of ReThinking a Lot: The Design and Culture of Parking. The rise of such ride-sharing services as Uber and Lyft had meant that many parking garages at stadiums and the like were forced to retrofit their spaces for other uses, such as mini-distribution centers for packages. Post-pandemic, though, parking companies are benefiting from a renewed love of personal space. "I do think right now there's a little bit of a psychological issue with taking public transit or taking Uber," Ben-Joseph says. He also thinks parking apps in particular may be benefiting from the lack of desire to touch kiosk screens or hand over cash to an attendant.