This concerted action by employees is protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which safeguards employees, whether or not unionized, who act together to address terms and conditions of employment. Retaliation against participants, including coercive conditions on severance, violates the National Labor Relations Act. Under the NLRB's decision in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), severance agreements containing overly broad confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions are themselves unlawful, regardless of whether the employee signs.  Signatories are supported by legal counsel at multiple national law firms, with policy and advocacy support from the National Employment Law Project, coordinated by What We Will and the Tech Workers Coalition. Only names of core members will be presented to Oracle in the initial request. We will continue collecting initials until the day of the meeting for participation in collective severance negotiation. We have 200+ confirmed signers with 600+ engaged in conversation. If you are willing to sign with full name, rather than initials, please let the Core Group know by email.

The ongoing payroll issues at Telus are not merely administrative glitches; they are eroding the fundamental trust between the company's management and its dedicated employees. Week after week, the frustration intensifies as affected employees grapple with the fallout of negative paychecks, underpayments, and persistent broken promises. This issue is crucial because it extends beyond financial discrepancies – it's about the erosion of morale and confidence within the workforce. The toll on employees' trust is reaching a critical point, impacting their overall job satisfaction and commitment to the company. The importance of resolving these payroll issues promptly cannot be overstated; failure to do so risks a significant decline in employee morale, productivity, and the overall health of the employer-employee relationship.

Pro-climate companies have an opportunity to lead the way when it comes to climate change. But first, they have to escape the influence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is one of the largest trade associations in the United States. Its members include corporations like Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron. It also has a long history of being anti-climate, spending millions lobbying against climate policy progress. Most recently, the Chamber worked to block the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which invested $369 billion in clean energy and policies to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. The Inflation Reduction Act is our best shot at avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Several pro-climate companies, such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, are also members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These companies are known for their climate forward initiatives, which conflict with the actions of the Chamber. Clearly, there’s a disconnect here. To be climate leaders, these companies must stop their support for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s obstruction. It’s time for pro-climate companies to LEAVE the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and LEAD by lobbying for bold and just climate policies at the federal, state and local levels, aligning political contributions with climate leadership and leading pro-climate coalitions in advocating strongly for pro-climate policies. Tell pro-climate companies it’s time to ESCAPE THE CHAMBER.

Shipt’s platform glitches take time and money away from shoppers. Since Shipt has fully implemented The California Protect App-Based Drivers and Services act on it’s platform, California Shipt shoppers have been timed out erroneously from the platform due to an app glitch and shoppers have also reported to Shipt that they are not getting an accurate guaranteed minimum due to the current app glitch. In compliance with California’s Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, Shipt created a step on it’s platform requiring shoppers to swipe “Head to Store” when doing so as a way for Shipt to record a shoppers engaged time and miles. After an app update on Oct 20, 2022, shoppers began to notice an issue with the head to store time in the app. For delivery only orders, the head to store time changes by the minute and for Shop and Deliver orders the app resets, forcing shoppers to re-swipe Head to Store. In some cases, shoppers who have already started shopping, are forced to re-swipe and rescan the barcodes for all the items already shopped. This would also mean all the time spent shopping an order and miles driven to the store would not be accurate. According to California’s Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, “ride-share and delivery drivers deserve economic security.” Pursuant to this act, a network company shall ensure a guaranteed minimum for each app-based driver that cannot be reduced and shall apply for all engaged time spent completing that rideshare request or delivery request. The act defines “engaged miles” as all miles driven during engaged time and “engaged time” is defined as the period of time, as recorded in a network company’s online-enabled application or platform, from when an app-based driver accepts a rideshare request or delivery request to when the app-based driver completes that rideshare request or delivery request. Due to the nature in which Shipt offers its shoppers orders, the platform has created a swipe function to record its shoppers engaged time, however the app’s current glitch prevents Shipt from accurately recording shoppers engaged time and miles. Shoppers have reported the timed out app glitch to Shipt for over a year, and the current “Head to Store” app glitch to Shipt but Shipt has not given any notice to California shoppers indicating that it is aware of the problem nor have California shoppers received any reassurance that any long standing app issues are being addressed. These app glitches are in breach of California’s Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, which was overwhelmingly approved by California voters in 2020. Shipt states that it’s the drivers responsibility to swipe head to store when doing so in order for Shipt to record a shoppers engaged time and miles, but what recourse do shoppers have when shoppers have completed this step and are forced to do it again, erasing initial engaged time and miles?

We believe that Ally should encourage, not prohibit, flexible work to build a more diverse and successful company where we can feel comfortable to “be an open, diverse, and inclusive culture” together.

It is the job of Facebook content moderators to try and make the platform safe. This means reviewing every post that is either reported by a user or flagged by Facebook’s automated tools from its 3 billion users. For context, around 130,000 images are uploaded to Facebook every minute. The work can be harrowing, with content moderators having to look at some of the worst material on the internet. This includes murder, gruesome violence, hate speech and the sexual exploitation of children. Outsourced content moderators don’t receive proper mental health support and many develop PTSD as a result of their experience. This year, TIME magazine (https://time.com/6147458/facebook-africa-content-moderation-employee-treatment/) revealed chilling abuse at Facebook's content moderation centre in Nairobi, Kenya. Workers reported exploitation and unlawful union-busting at the Nairobi office, run by Sama — the US company who Facebook use as its main provider of outsourced content moderation in Africa. For this harrowing and dangerous work, TIME revealed workers are paid as little as $2.20 per hour. Sign this petition today in solidarity with them and all Facebook content moderators around the world.

Etsy was founded with a vision of "keeping commerce human" by "democratizing access to entrepreneurship." As a result, people who have been marginalized in traditional retail economies -- women, people of color, LGBTQ people, neurodivergent people, etc. -- make up a significant proportion of Etsy's sellers. For many of us, Etsy makes up our main source of income. But as Etsy has strayed further and further from its founding vision over the years, what began as an experiment in marketplace democracy has come to resemble a dictatorial relationship between a faceless tech empire and millions of exploited, majority-women craftspeople. Unlike employees or tenants in traditional retail marketplace settings, Etsy can fire or evict us at any time, for any reason, with no recourse. Our fees (the rent we pay as tenants of Etsy's marketplace) can be unilaterally raised any time Etsy feels like it. Etsy can and does withhold payments to sellers for months at a time, without any process for appealing or speaking with a representative of the company. Even though it's the hard work of Etsy's sellers who've made it the massively successful company it is today, we have fewer rights and less of a voice in our workplaces than ever. It doesn't need to be this way! Etsy can be a successful and profitable company while still treating its sellers fairly and ethically. Etsy can be the force for good it initially set out to be. And together, Etsy sellers and the buyers who support us can show hyper-exploited platform workers everywhere that there's a better way, if we unite in solidarity and work together to achieve it!

This is a human rights issue. There are LGBTQ+ individuals who rely on Samsung US and iAdvize as the only place who will accept them. These people need to be protected. There are single parents who rely on Samsung US and iAdvize as their sole source of income. These people need to be protected. There are disabled individuals who rely on Samsung US and iAdvize as the only job that will allow them the flexibility they need. These people need to be protected. There are college students and dropouts who rely on Samsung US and iAdvize as the only job that will allow them to work from home or their dorm. These people need to be protected. We are human beings who just want to help customers pick out a new phone, television, refrigerator, or laptop. But we'd also like to be treated with respect and be paid a living wage while doing it. We don't want something radical, we want something equitable.

-

Workers behind AI, even invisible, still matter. Our stories have been neglected for years and it's our time to feel safer while doing our work in an unbalanced platform that only protects requester's voices. A victory for us is a victory for all workers. Petition FAQ 1. You may sign the petition with your first name and last initial. Full name is not required. 2. Working for Mturk and working on Mturk are the same thing for our purposes. 3. Email addresses will not be publicly displayed.

At Right Networks, a large part of our company culture revolves around in-person gatherings (the company outing, the Christmas party, and so on). While we're in a mixed-vaccination state, some employees haven't felt that it's safe enough to attend in-person events or return to the office even temporarily. Putting these rules in place would allow for future gatherings to be less likely to result in an outbreak, helping us to feel safer attending.

People working in the gig economy, such as drivers for transportation giants like Uber and Lyft, face many challenges. They don’t receive any employee benefits or protections, and the work they do is also inherently dangerous. Drivers lose their lives in carjacking incidents, they have a high likelihood of being in an accident due to long hours on the road and they are often targeted by municipalities for expensive tickets. To add insult to injury, some of the most loyal, hardworking drivers can often find themselves out of a job due to unverified customer complaints. At the moment, if a customer complains about a driver to Uber or Lyft, even if there is no evidence that the claim is valid, drivers can be deactivated and have no ability to appeal or defend themselves against the allegation. Riders are incentivized to complain as they receive discounts if they say their driver did something wrong. There is no accountability or transparency in how these complaints are handled by the companies. This places thousands of workers and their families in financial hardship. Nationally, about 70% of Uber and Lyft drivers are BIPOC or immigrants, and poor labor standards further harm these already vulnerable populations, even while the City of Chicago and gig companies publicly claim to be working to improve conditions for these very people. These workers keep our city running every day, and made Uber and Lyft executives rich with their labor; they deserve a voice! Manminder Sethi, one of the original drivers in Milwaukee Wisconsin, started driving on Uber black first and later joined Uber X nearly 7 years ago. He had over 19000 rides and a rating of 4.93 when he was suddenly deactivated. When he tried to find out why, he was given reasons that ranged from unsafe driving to sexual harassment. Manminder has had no tickets related to unsafe driving, and he offered to provide the dash cam footage for the ride in question but Uber never responded to his requests. Chicago driver Mehrez Sahli, another long-time driver on the platform, started working with Uber Taxi first for a year or two, then also moved on to Uber X. He had 5,710 trips over 3.5 years on Uber X and a rating of 4.94 when he was suddenly deactivated. When he went to the Uber hub to ask why, he was told he was “manipulating” surge pricing by moving from a low surge area to a high surge area before accepting a ride. As this is the way the app is intended to work (surge pay is incentive to drive from a less busy area to a busy area) it is still unclear what the real reason for the deactivation was. However, in Mehrez’s case, not only was he deactivated from Uber, but Uber then also communicated something to the City of Chicago who then communicated that information to Lyft and he was summarily dismissed from Lyft as well. Typically, this is the process that would be followed if a driver were being deactivated for a serious offence such as assault or intoxication on the job, yet no such allegation has ever been communicated to Mehrez. Maurice Clark of Chicago was accused of falling asleep behind the wheel and was deactivated from Lyft with a driver rating of 4.98 and 5,734 rides under his belt. He has never had a ticket or been in an accident in relation to unsafe driving, and the details of the ride have been withheld from him. He was told by Lyft in an email that he was not permitted to “appeal or protest” the decision. Another Chicago driver, Hiep Can Tran, was deactivated from Uber due to an unspecified customer complaint after he completed 6,034 trips. He has called Uber repeatedly and visited the Uber hub but has never been told the details of the complaint. Hiep was supporting his small children using the money he made driving Uber and losing his income suddenly was a major financial hardship for him. He has been able to start driving for Lyft, but he has not been earning as much and still wants to know why he was deactivated from Uber. He maintains a 4.99 driver rating on Lyft at this time and has no tickets or accidents on his driving record. JC Muhammad of Chicago was deactivated due to a customer complaining that he was speeding after completing 3035 trips. He has received no tickets or warnings due to speed, and in fact believes that the complaint was made sarcastically as he typically drives the speed limit or under. Uber has offered no proof of the violation and again has denied JC the ability to defend himself or provide proof to the contrary.