DoorDash Exec: Let's Offer Gig Workers Stable, Flexible Benefits
More Americans than ever are choosing earnings opportunities outside traditional nine-to-five jobs. In fact, as many as one in three Americans have engaged in independent work, including over 8 million people who used the DoorDash platform last year alone. These people often have another full-time job or responsibilities—whether they are small business owners, students, parents, or caregivers—and deliver just four hours per week on average. They tell us they choose app-based work for the freedom it offers.
But we at DoorDash also hear something else: those who deliver the most often want access to the kinds of benefits that offer a feeling of security. That includes things like health coverage if they suffer an unexpected illness, or extra savings to help them plan for retirement. They want benefits, but they don't want to give up the independence that drew them to this work in the first place.
Unfortunately, under current law, that's exactly the choice they have to make. The fact is that companies like DoorDash would put the independence Dashers overwhelmingly want at risk by offering benefits that historically have been reserved for employees. It's time for that to change.
Policymaking in this space has often been paralyzed by false choices: you can be a traditional employee with employer-sponsored benefits, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but no benefits. That doesn't reflect the moment we live in or our modern economy. Why can't more workers have access to benefits, without sacrificing their flexibility?
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) recently introduced legislation that does just that. It, along with a similar House bill, would allow companies like ours to design programs and contribute to benefit funds for independent workers without putting their independent contractor status at risk for purposes of federal law. These bills would be a step in the right direction—a practical fix that would help us begin to meet more working people where they are.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - APRIL 2024: In this photo illustration, a person demonstrates making a delivery with DoorDash as a Dasher in April 2024 in San Francisco, California.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - APRIL 2024: In this photo illustration, a person demonstrates making a delivery with DoorDash as a Dasher in April 2024 in San Francisco, California.This approach is also a bipartisan one. During the last Congress, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) offered a similar effort to "encourage experimentation at the state and local levels to support the realities of a 21st century workforce" through portable benefits.
At the state level, Republicans and Democrats alike are also working on this issue. DoorDash has worked with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Maryland Governor Wes Moore to launch first-of-their-kind pilots in their respective states, with promising early results. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, a bipartisan bill to make the state the first in the nation to offer a portable benefits program tailored to app-based workers recently passed, arriving soon on Governor Tony Evers' desk to await his signature.
The concept of portable benefits should galvanize policymakers regardless of party. It upholds worker freedom and choice, while finally bringing long-overdue innovation to our outdated rules. It extends more protections to more workers, as a way to support those who choose to do this kind of work more regularly. It should be no surprise, then, that when we asked Americans what they thought about portable benefits, a clear majority in both parties approved of the concept. Simply put: It's an idea whose time has come.
This idea is gaining momentum because it actually reflects what Dashers tell us they want and how they want to work. Ultimately, we hope to see a national portable benefits program. The legislation Congress is considering would represent meaningful progress towards that goal.
We don't have to treat our employment laws like they're etched in stone. After all, employer-sponsored health plans were once considered novel when they were first introduced back in the 1940s. The same could be said about retirement benefit plans when they came around in the 1970s. The time has come to once again rethink that model for a new generation of independent earners in 2025 and beyond.
Nothing could be more pro-worker than expanding access to benefits to more people, and doing it in a way that protects the flexibility they consistently say they need. Workers need Congress to step up, rise above politics, and put us on a path that better reflects how people actually live and work today. Let's hope they heed the call.
Max Rettig is Vice President and Global Head Of Public Policy at DoorDash.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
12 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Can Congress Stop Trump From Starting a War in Mexico?
More than 30 humanitarian, public interest, immigrant rights, faith-based, veterans' advocacy, and drug policy reform groups are calling on Congress to oppose the use of military force against drug cartels in Latin America by the Trump administration. Melding two failed American wars — the war on drugs and the war on terror — would 'put people at risk of violence and destabilize hemispheric relations while hindering, not helping, efforts to protect communities from drug trafficking and other crime,' according to the organizations, which include the Alianza Americas, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Drug Policy Alliance, Public Citizen, and Win Without War. President Donald Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against select Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations, according to an Intercept interview with a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak to the media. The authorization was first reported by the New York Times. The decision to involve the American military in what has previously been considered a law enforcement effort comes as Trump has increasingly turned to U.S. troops for law enforcement purposes on American soil and taken over the D.C. police. These efforts are seen as dangerous escalations of the use of military force and violations of long-held norms. The letter, sent to top congressional leaders on Friday, urges lawmakers 'to use the full slate of its powers to prevent the administration from launching a new war in Latin America without democratic debate or public accountability' by 'organiz[ing] hearings to assess the scope of the administration's envisioned use-of-force policy and its likely diplomatic, economic, and human impacts' and 'withhold[ing] funding for unauthorized, undebated, and unaccountable military action.' In January, the State Department declared eight Mexican drug cartels — the Sinaloa cartel, CJNG, the Northeast cartel, the Michoacán family, the United Cartels, and the Gulf Cartel — to be foreign terrorist organizations. The Salvadoran MS-13 and the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang were also named. That designation activates U.S. sanctions, including restrictions on financial transactions and bans on U.S. citizens from providing support to the groups. That same month, Trump mused that he might send U.S. commandos into Mexico to battle cartels. 'Could happen,' he said. 'Stranger things have happened.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened military action on Mexican soil. And a Justice Department guidance document urged employees to work toward the 'total elimination of cartels.' The coalition of groups pointed to the potential blowback of expanding the forever wars to Mexico and beyond. 'Unilateral and hastily conceived military action could contribute to the considerable human rights abuses, criminal violence, and forced displacement already harming communities in Latin America,' reads the letter. 'Militarized approaches to countering narcotics trafficking have often backfired. They have inadvertently incentivized criminal groups to traffic smaller and more potent drugs to evade interdiction, acquire deadlier weapons, and expand their networks of corruption to protect their profits.' Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum last week rejected the use of U.S. troops in her country. But earlier this week, Mexico extradited 26 alleged cartel members to the United States. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the cooperation. 'These 26 men have all played a role in bringing violence and drugs to American shores — under this Department of Justice, they will face severe consequences for their crimes against this country,' she said. 'We are grateful to Mexico's National Security team for their collaboration in this matter.' The U.S. war on drugs, first declared by Richard Nixon in 1971, has been an abject failure. It's estimated that the United States has spent more than $1 trillion battling the drug trade and drug use with dismal results. Nearly 1 million arrests are made for drug law violations in the U.S. each year, according to FBI statistics, making it the leading cause of arrest in the United States. One in 3 people in the U.S. has lost someone they know to a drug overdose. In 2024, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called the worldwide war on drugs a 'clear failure' and called out 'militarized law enforcement responses' around the world. 'Overseas military strikes certainly won't solve drug overdose deaths in the U.S., which are far better addressed through public health measures,' said Stephanie Brewer, the director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America or WOLA, another signatory of the letter. 'What military action abroad would do is open the door to increased violence, forced migration, and incalculable damage to U.S. relations with neighboring countries.' Trump has already sent thousands of National Guard and active-duty troops to the southern border to ostensibly halt the flow of drugs as well as immigrants. More than 10,000 troops are deploying or have deployed there, according to Northern Command. Under the direction of NORTHCOM, military personnel have deployed under the moniker Joint Task Force-Southern Border since March, bolstering approximately 2,500 service members who were already supporting U.S. Customs and Border Protection's border security mission. One-third of the U.S. border is now completely militarized due to the creation of four new national defense areas, or NDAs: sprawling extensions of U.S. military bases patrolled by troops who can detain immigrants until they can be handed over to Border Patrol agents. 'Launching military action in Latin America without congressional authorization would be illegal, reckless, and a betrayal of our democratic process — and Congress must intervene to stop it,' Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, told The Intercept. 'We've seen this 'war on drugs' playbook before in the region, and it has failed time and again — fueling violence, displacing communities, and doing nothing to address the root causes of drug trafficking.' Haghdoosti added, 'What makes this even more egregious is that the Trump administration is pushing for war while slashing the very public health programs that save lives. People need healthcare, treatment, and support — not military posturing and strikes.'
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Patel: 18 more overnight arrests in DC; 120+ since Trump announcement
FBI Director Kash Patel said early Friday that agents and the agency's partner made 18 more arrests in Washington, D.C. overnight, bringing the total to 120 since President Trump announced federal officials were taking over the district's police force. '18 more arrests with federal partners last night in Washington DC. – 8 firearms recovered from criminals -Multiple seizures of illegal drugs -One arrest on warrant for murder -One arrests on warrant for rape. We're now over 120 arrests since President Trump's initiative began. The good cops are getting the job done,' Patel posted on X. The statistics come after Attorney General Pam Bondi late Thursday named a new D.C. 'emergency police commissioner,' Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Administrator Terry Cole. Local officials, such as D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D), have pushed back, saying the Home Rule Act, under which Trump put the city's police under federal control, does not allow the federal government to alter its chain of command. Under the Home Rule Act, Trump can only take federal control for 30 days, but he is now asking Congress to vote on extending that deadline. 'And again, we think the Democrats will not do anything to stop crime, but we think the Republicans will do it almost unanimously,' Trump told reporters at the Kennedy Center on Thursday. 'So we're going to need a crime bill. That we're going to be putting in, and it's going to pertain initially to D.C. We're going to use it as a very positive example.' Democrats, however, stress that D.C.'s crime statistics do not illustrate excessive violence in the district cited by Trump. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared to 2024. Last year saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. The White House earlier this week said 1,600 personnel were involved in law enforcement operations, making 45 arrests on Wednesday. The Pentagon said 800 Army and Air National Guard troops would be mobilized and on the ground by Thursday. The National Guard cannot make arrests but will collaborate with local law enforcement. Moreover, the Metropolitan Police Department (MDP) will assist ICE in conducting mass deportations around the district.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats introduce bill to block Trump DC police takeover
A band of Democratic lawmakers is introducing legislation to thwart President Trump's takeover of the D.C. police department, arguing the White House is exceeding its authority. The resolution would terminate Trump's Monday order, something the lawmakers say comes as 'the President has concocted a false narrative around the city's crime rates' which have been declining for two years, while violent crime has reached a 30-year-low. 'Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress has given the president the power only to direct the Mayor to make the Metropolitan Police Department available for a specific federal purpose but has given him no power simply to take over the Department. In any event, there is no federal emergency justifying such a takeover even if Congress sought to use its lawmaking power to effectuate it,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. 'Trump has made clear that his efforts in D.C., where 700,000 taxpaying American citizens lack the protections of statehood, are part of a broader plan to militarize and federalize the streets of cities around America whose citizens voted against him,' Raskin added, calling it a 'hostile takeover.' Trump also sent National Guard troops to the nation's capital, and tensions flared earlier in the week as officers set up checkpoints in the city. The Trump administration on Thursday escalated its takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), with Attorney General Pam Bondi installing Drug Enforcement Agency Administrator Terry Cole as Washington's ' emergency police commissioner,' while rescinding policies that limited officers from taking policing actions purely for immigration enforcement purposes. 'President Trump's incursions against D.C. are among the most egregious attacks on D.C. home rule in decades,' said Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.). 'Our local police force, paid for by D.C. residents, should not be subject to federalization, an action that wouldn't be possible for any other police department in the country. No emergency exists in D.C. that the president did not create himself, and he is not using the D.C. Police for federal purposes, as required by law.' The legislation was also co-sponsored by House Oversight Ranking Member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), but cannot be taken up during the August recess. Once lawmakers return, it's unlikely the GOP-controlled body would bring the legislation to the floor. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sponsored a companion bill in the Senate. The lawmakers argue Trump's police takeover is only the latest in a string of actions they say undermine effective governance of the city, including on crime, though D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's budget fully funded MPD. Earlier this year, Congress failed to include in its stopgap funding bill language that would allow D.C. to continue spending its local budget at fiscal 2025 levels — restricting $1 billion in city coffers. 'While Trump claims that federal control of D.C. is necessary to combat crime, the President's own actions are what is jeopardizing public safety in the District. He and his allies in Congress refuse to allow the District to access the $1 billion in locally-raised revenue that would have funded D.C. police, fire and emergency response services, and other public safety efforts,' the lawmakers said in a joint release. 'He fired and demoted dozens of D.C.'s most experienced career prosecutors, contributing to a larger backlog of criminal cases being held up in court and longer wait times for crime victims to obtain justice.' Van Hollen said Trump was absent when D.C. 'actually needed support from the National Guard' on Jan. 6. 'His current takeover is an abuse of power and nothing more than a raw power grab,' he said in a statement. 'The District of Columbia has made important progress on public safety in recent years, and can do more if Trump and House Republicans get the hell out of their way and stop blocking D.C. from accessing $1 billion of its own funds to strengthen policing and provide other public services.'
