Within Uber-Waymo split, a key labor battle over AVs is being waged in the nation's capital

To learn more about the CNBC CFO Council, visit cnbccouncils.com/cfo

In pushing back against mass autonomous vehicle deployment efforts, labor unions have found an unlikely ally — Uber.

A controversial bill currently being considered by the Washington, D.C. Council is a prime example of where this emerging political alliance is being tested.

The D.C. bill, known as the "Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act," would allow widespread use of autonomous vehicles to transport passengers and goods in the District. This proposed change has been subject to immense scrutiny from organized labor due to growing concerns surrounding the effects of autonomous-driving technologies on wages and overall job opportunities for drivers. Concerns among Americans about safety have also contributed to pushback against AV rollouts across the U.S.

The economic issues are especially acute in Washington, D.C., where an estimated 35,000 people have found work as gig work drivers, making up around 9% of its labor force based on the most recent available data, though much of the work is part-time. At a time when the D.C. metro area has lost over 100,000 jobs in the span of a year, largely due to federal job cuts, autonomous taxis have become a red-hot point of division.

"I cannot understand why, when D.C. is in the middle of an unemployment crisis, the council is considering bringing Waymo, a company that will put thousands of drivers like myself out of work and devastate the local economy," said Crystal Middleton, a part-time rideshare driver and member of 32BJ SEIU, at a mid-July public comment session for the legislation.

"Robotaxis also don't pay taxes. They don't raise families here. They don't vote. They don't make judgment calls when someone is in trouble. This isn't just a public safety issue. It's all about profit, profits that won't get reinvested into the district, but instead go straight to Silicon Valley," she added.

Uber, historically, has been a major supporter of the expansion of AV technology for its business interests, and some of its recent comments regarding the D.C. issue seem to line up with its long-held views.

"AVs have the potential to make our roads safer, accelerate electrification, expand access to transportation, and lower costs," stated Harry Hatfield, director of AV and AI policy at Uber, in prepared testimony at a mid-July public comment session. "We support the extension of autonomous vehicles, and we appreciate the council's willingness to engage on this issue."

The San Francisco-based rideshare giant has placed itself on the frontlines of this emerging technology, with a pronounced focus on its own AV capabilities throughout the past year. Uber Autonomous Solutions, founded this past February, was created to help bring autonomous platforms to market, including training data, enriched mapping, and enhanced navigation technology. The company also set aside $7.5 billion for robotaxi fleet development over the years to come, according to the Financial Times, and an additional $2.5 billion designated for equity investments in other AV developers, such as WeRide and Nuro.

And yet, $10 billion in capital expenditures notwithstanding, Uber has lined up squarely on the unions' side in the D.C. bill debate.

"The future of transportation is not a binary choice between human drivers and autonomous vehicles," Hatfield said in his testimony. "It will be hybrid, [with] human drivers and autonomous vehicles operating side by side, each filling different needs and making the overall transportation system more resilient. ... The bill largely ignores the workforce transition," he continued. "Workforce disruption is not a reason to stop innovation, but we should be honest about the trade-offs."

He cited studies from San Francisco and Los Angeles, where drivers compete with AV-only fleets, and driver utilization and earnings declined last year. "One AV in California now performs the work of roughly four drivers," Hatfield said.

These California-based AV expansions and their aftereffects were also stressed by union leaders and members throughout the D.C. hearing. Many, however, argued that, when it came to cities across the country, Uber was the new-age disruptor of economic activity, displacing cab drivers as operations scaled.

"I was here when Uber came into the marketplace. If we were to pretend we didn't see a loss of earnings for taxi cab drivers, we wouldn't be honest," said Charles Allen, the D.C. Councilmember sponsoring the AV bill. "At the end of the day, it's a net benefit to my transportation choices in the city. But I can't say I didn't see people who had earned a living as a taxi driver see their income diminished," he added.

The D.C. bill isn't the only instance in which this Uber-union alliance has been seen. In New Jersey, Uber lobbyists have circulated legislation that would require human drivers to carry out 85% of all rideshare work on all platforms offering robotaxi services over the next three years. If enacted, legislation of this kind would fundamentally alter the business model of companies like Waymo, giving them no choice but to turn to human drivers in order to stay afloat in local markets.

It is striking for Uber to be siding with organized labor in a major employment-focused debate based on recent history. The company's clashes with unions date back years, with battles over employment status, arbitration proceedings, working conditions, and more rendering it a marquee villain in the eyes of labor advocates.

Perhaps the most prevalent example of this was California's Proposition 22 in 2020. Following the enactment of statewide legislation that would have classified app-based drivers as employees rather than independent contractors, Uber spent over $59 million — the single largest donation on either side — lobbying for Prop. 22, a ballot measure that sought to overturn the statute. On election day, Golden State voters overwhelmingly bac...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: CNBC. Open at source →