Su-Weil Study Abandons Facts in Favor of Union Propaganda

Failed Biden nominees Julie Su and David Weil recently co-authored a misleading study in pursuit of cracking down on independent contractors, expanding the joint employer standard, and propping up their union cronies.

The study, published by Harvard University’s Shift Project alongside Harvard co-authors Daniel Schneider and Kevin Bruey, sought to provide evidence that Amazon’s business model leads to poor results for workers. In particular, the study makes claims that delivery drivers are worse off in Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program or Amazon Flex program, as compared to the less flexible employment models of other delivery and logistics companies. The conclusions reached within the study, naturally, align perfectly with the preconceived notions already espoused by Su and Weil in the past. However, the authors rely on highly flawed data in order to manufacture the results they desired.

The data within the study was obtained by running advertisements on Instagram and Facebook which offered entries into “a lottery for a $500 gift card.” If a social media user wants to be entered into the lottery and clicks on the advertisement, they are “automatically routed to a survey landing page” and then “begin the online self-administered survey.” The self-reported data on respondents’ experience at the workplace is then simply compiled and averaged.

This sampling method is extremely flawed. Rather than using a more scientific sampling method such as stratified sampling, where differences in population subgroups can be accounted for, the study used convenience sampling, where the sample is made up of anyone who happens to stumble across the social media post and chooses to participate. This does not create a representative sample that can be used to make broad conclusions.

Additionally, the survey only drew responses from 279 Amazon-affiliated delivery drivers. This is less than one-fourth the number of responses received from the competitor firms to which the study compares Amazon’s business model. This is also far below the minimum sample size required to draw conclusions about such a massive workforce: The DSP program involves 390,000 drivers, and more than 3 million drivers have signed up for Amazon Flex. Applying statistical concepts such as Yamane’s formula to determine minimum sample sizes, 279 does not meet the mark. Even worse, where qualitative analysis is used, the conclusions are drawn from interviews with just five Amazon employees: “2 warehouse workers, 2 delivery station workers, and 1 delivery station manager.”

Ultimately, the purpose of this study was not to draw accurate, data-based conclusions. Rather, the goal was to provide arguments against the rights of independent contractors and in favor of granting broader powers to union bosses.

Su and Weil have a long track record of opposing the rights of independent workers and siding with union bosses over workers. Julie Su was the architect of the infamous Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) in California, which forced independent contractors to reclassify as W-2 employees based on a vague three-factor “ABC” test. After being rejected by the Senate in her bid to become Secretary of Labor, President Biden allowed Su to serve indefinitely as Acting Secretary, where she attempted to impose a federal version of AB 5.

Earlier in the Biden administration, the Senate also blocked David Weil’s nomination to become Wage and Hour Administrator at the Department of Labor based on his radical views against independent contractors and against the franchise model. Su and Weil both seek to eliminate independent work arrangements and make it easier for union bosses to organize workers.

The misleading study authored by Su and Weil is just their latest attempt to empower Big Labor. It should be treated as such.