Skip to Content

Is Uber disclosing enough information about its lobbying? 30% of shareholders want more

By Levi Sumagaysay

30% vote for first-time resolution 'will only grow over time,' says Teamsters, which proposed it

A shareholder resolution asking Uber Technologies Inc. to be more transparent about its lobbying spending failed this week, but the investors who proposed it are vowing to keep pressure on the ride-hailing and delivery company.

Thirty percent of shareholders voted for the proposal calling for Uber (UBER) to produce a report on its lobbying, according to preliminary results announced by the company Monday at its annual shareholder meeting.

As Uber continues to try to interpret or change labor laws to be compatible with its business model of treating drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors, not employees, its lobbying activities are bound to remain under scrutiny. After Uber and the other gig companies persuaded 58% of California voters to approve Proposition 22 (link) in November, allowing them to circumvent a state law on worker classification, they said they want to expand their victories to other states and elsewhere.

See: In record-breaking $200 million fight to preserve the gig economy, messaging doesn't always need money (link)

The Teamsters General Fund, which proposed the first-time resolution, said Tuesday that if the company doesn't make "meaningful changes" in its lobbying disclosures, it may refile the same proposal next year.

"Thirty percent support for the proposal in its first year at Uber shows a significant base of support for this reform, which we believe will only grow over time," a spokeswoman for the Teamsters said Tuesday. "Transparency and accountability are necessary at Uber and throughout the 'gig' industry."

Michael Connor, executive director of Open MIC (Media and Information Companies Initiative), a nonprofit that works on socially responsible investing, agreed with that assessment.

"[It's] a strong signal that the underlying issues are important to an influential contingent of investors -- and the company's board and management would be wise to begin addressing those issues," he said.

Connor added that the vote was "almost certainly helped" by two influential proxy advisory services, Glass Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services, which also deemed Uber's lobbying disclosures inadequate and recommended that shareholders vote for the resolution (link). Glass Lewis called the company's spending on Proposition 22 "controversial."

In its proxy, Uber recommended a vote against the proposal, arguing that it already complies with all state and federal lobbying-disclosure laws. The San Francisco-based company also said it discloses payments to trade associations of more than $50,000.

Keir Gumbs, Uber's deputy general counsel, said in the filing that the company's "political advocacy activities are strongly aligned with our business strategy, the interests of our stakeholders, and the creation of shareholder value."

The company did not return a request for further comment Tuesday.

Rondu Gantt, an Uber driver in the San Francisco Bay Area and a member of Gig Workers Rising, presented the resolution at the company's shareholder meeting.

"Without adequate disclosures, investors are blind to the untold sums that Uber funnels through other groups to finance state, local and grassroots lobbying efforts," he said during the meeting. "What we don't know can hurt us."

In an interview with MarketWatch after the proposal failed to pass, Gantt said: "The best we can hope for is to have the conversation again. This is risking making Uber look bad."

Uber spent more than $57 million on Proposition 22, and a record $2.5 million on lobbying in 2020. This year, the company spent $490,000 on lobbying in the first quarter, according to a disclosure filed with the Senate last month. The company mentions it is lobbying against the PRO Act, which would likely give its workers the right to organize.

See: PRO Act, called 'most important labor legislation in several generations,' passes House (link)

Among the other specific lobbying issues Uber listed in the first-quarter report:

See: Uber and Lyft set records in annual spending on Washington lobbying (link)

Lyft Inc. (LYFT) shareholders are scheduled to vote on a similar proposal from the Teamsters at the company's annual general meeting on June 17. Lyft's board has recommended that its investors vote against the resolution, saying the company already complies with state and federal disclosure laws and could be placed at "a competitive disadvantage" if it expands disclosure.

-Levi Sumagaysay; 415-439-6400;


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

05-11-21 1839ET

Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.

We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.

We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.

How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:

  • Verify your identity, personalize the content you receive, or create and administer your account.
  • Provide specific products and services to you, such as portfolio management or data aggregation.
  • Develop and improve features of our offerings.
  • Gear advertisements and other marketing efforts towards your interests.

To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.

Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.

To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.

Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.