\n<\/p>\n
This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers\u00a0exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute\u2019s world-class team of scholars.<\/em><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Since before his inauguration, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has\u00a0made it known<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that, when it comes to the gig economy, a new sheriff was coming to town. Now, just months into his administration, he has launched a citywide crackdown on gig companies. Though promoted as a defense of workers, his campaign runs against what many of them want and need.<\/p>\n Mamdani began by appointing Samuel Levine to lead the city\u2019s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. Levine, a veteran of the Federal Trade Commission under the Biden administration, was a key player in FTC Chair Lina Khan\u2019s aggressive\u00a0anti-business tenure<\/span><\/a>. (See \u201cKhan Job<\/span><\/a>,\u201d Spring 2026.) The DCWP has since become the primary vehicle for Mamdani\u2019s anti-gig push. Declaring a \u201cNew Era of Accountability,\u201d the mayor and Levine have promised stricter enforcement of gig-related laws, including the city\u2019s 2023 minimum wage for app-based food-delivery workers and a newer rule requiring apps to display tipping prompts with a default suggestion of 10 percent.<\/p>\n Right on cue, the administration launched a\u00a0lawsuit<\/span><\/a> against the gig firm Motoclick for allegedly stealing workers’ wages. The DCWP also\u00a0announced<\/span><\/a> a $5 million settlement with Uber Eats, HungryPanda, and Fantuan for violating the 2023 minimum-wage law.<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to evaluate these moves without full access to the facts. But there\u2019s more to the story of the Uber Eats settlement than the administration suggested. In the fine print, the city\u00a0noted<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that Uber Eats had been \u201cmostly compliant\u201d with the minimum-wage law and that the company had \u201cincurred the wage debt only in weeks where workers had a delivery canceled.\u201d<\/p>\n During those weeks, workers reportedly did not receive the compensation that Uber Eats owed them, and some drivers were subsequently deactivated under the app\u2019s automated rules governing canceled orders. Whether this resulted from an algorithmic error or another issue remains unclear. Uber Eats has said, however, that it was informed of the pay shortfall in August 2024, before Mamdani had even announced his mayoral candidacy, and\u00a0agreed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0at that time to take corrective action and \u201cpay more than the amount owed.\u201d<\/p>\n Mamdani\u00a0trumpeted<\/span><\/a>\u00a0the settlement anyway. \u201cThis is the most expensive city in the United States of America,\u201d he said, \u201cand we want to use every tool at our disposal to improve working conditions for delivery workers.\u201d<\/p>\n But the mayor\u2019s anti-gig push is raising costs for New Yorkers while failing to reflect what gig workers actually want. The minimum wage for delivery workers\u00a0increased<\/span><\/a>\u00a0food-delivery costs in Gotham by 10 percent after it took effect. Instacart has since\u00a0announced<\/span><\/a> a $5.99 regulatory response fee, following the extension of the delivery minimum wage to groceries. (The minimum wage already applies to restaurant delivery)<\/p>\n Delivery drivers saw their tips plummet by\u00a0nearly 50 percent<\/span><\/a>\u00a0after the minimum-wage law kicked in. This aligns with results elsewhere: economic research has shown\u00a0zero long-term growth<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in driver take-home pay in places like Seattle after that city enacted a food-delivery minimum wage.<\/p>\n Many gig workers were effectively iced out of the market after the implementation of the new minimum. To control labor costs, companies\u00a0limited the number of drivers<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on their platforms, with Uber Eats reporting a waiting list of 27,000 New Yorkers who sought to use the app to deliver food but could not. Gig platforms have also turned to so-called\u00a0arranged scheduling<\/span><\/a>, in which even already-active drivers get locked out of the app during certain periods. Why? Higher wage mandates push gig companies to operate more like traditional employers, limiting how many workers can be on the clock at one time. If too many log on, the firms risk paying for\u00a0idle<\/span><\/a>\u00a0or underutilized labor.<\/p>\n Arranged scheduling cuts directly against what gig workers value most: flexibility. More than\u00a060 percent<\/span><\/a>\u00a0cite it as the main reason they chose this work, and\u00a0few are interested<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in traditional, prescheduled jobs. They\u2019re also more concerned about the\u00a0lack of benefits<\/span><\/a>\u00a0than about wage rates.<\/p>\n These realities underscore the wrongheadedness of Mamdani\u2019s anti-gig campaign. A better approach would preserve flexible hours while expanding access to benefits. One promising model is a\u00a0portable benefits system<\/span><\/a>, in which workers and companies contribute to SEP IRA\u2013style accounts that can be used to purchase health insurance, paid leave, or retirement plans.<\/p>\n Numerous states \u2014 red and blue alike, from Tennessee to Maryland to Pennsylvania \u2014 have\u00a0enacted<\/span><\/a>\u00a0portable-benefits systems for gig workers in recent years. These models preserve the self-selected scheduling flexibility that workers prize and avoid leaving tens of thousands of would-be drivers stranded on waiting lists instead of earning income.<\/p>\n Mayor Mamdani\u2019s desire to help gig workers may be genuine, but that goal is likelier to be achieved through policies far different from his own.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute\u2019s City Journal. The original can be found <\/i>here<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n