Gig workers cannot collectively bargain because antitrust law treats them as businesses

When gig workers attempt to organize and collectively negotiate for better pay or working conditions, they face a legal barrier that traditional employees do not: federal antitrust law. Because gig workers are classified as independent contractors — legally, individual businesses — any attempt to coordinate on pricing (i.e., agreeing to reject rides below a certain rate) can be prosecuted as price-fixing under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The same legal framework designed to prevent corporations from forming cartels is used to prevent individual drivers earning $15/hour from collectively asking for $18/hour. This matters because collective bargaining is the primary mechanism through which low-wage workers have historically improved their conditions. The eight-hour workday, minimum wage, workplace safety standards, and health benefits all emerged from collective action. Gig workers are denied this tool entirely. An individual driver has zero bargaining power against a platform with $30 billion in revenue — rejecting low-paying rides simply means the algorithm sends those rides to the next driver. Without the ability to act collectively, each worker is atomized and powerless, competing against millions of other atomized workers in a race to the bottom. The practical consequence is that gig workers have no institutional voice. They cannot negotiate over deactivation policies, pay algorithm changes, safety standards, or benefit provisions. Their only channel for influencing platform behavior is social media outrage, which platforms can ignore. Traditional employees at the same companies (software engineers, product managers) have employment protections, can form unions, and can negotiate collectively. The workers with the least power and lowest pay are the ones legally prohibited from organizing. This persists because the National Labor Relations Act, which grants collective bargaining rights, only covers 'employees' — not independent contractors. Amending the NLRA to include gig workers would require Congressional action, which platform lobbying has blocked. The alternative — state-level bargaining ordinances — face preemption challenges under federal antitrust law. Seattle passed a gig worker bargaining ordinance in 2015, and the US Chamber of Commerce immediately sued to block it, arguing it violated antitrust law. The structural incentive is clear: platforms benefit enormously from an atomized workforce that cannot collectively demand better terms, and they have the resources to maintain this legal framework.