Rachel,

Just got off a call with my co-founder and we are NOT happy about this "redline" from these so-called worker advocates. Some of these changes would literally destroy our business model. I need you to push back HARD.

Here's my take on their proposals:

ABSOLUTELY NOT — DEAL BREAKERS

1. The "no exclusivity during blocks" deletion (Section 3.5)

This is insane. They want drivers to be able to pick up DoorDash orders WHILE they're doing our deliveries?? Our retailers pay for delivery windows. If a driver is stopping at Chipotle to grab a food order in the middle of our route, our packages are late. This isn't about "control" — it's about the basic service we sell. We tell retailers their packages will arrive in 2-hour windows. If drivers are multitasking, that doesn't work.

What's the legal exposure if we keep this provision? It only applies during active blocks, which seems reasonable to me.

2. The ratings/deactivation changes (Section 7)

They want us to NOT be able to deactivate drivers for bad ratings?? We've had drivers throw packages on porches, leave them in the rain, curse at customers. One guy was clearly high. And their solution is we can only act on "documented" violations after giving them 5 days to respond? In 5 days that driver could ruin 500 customer relationships.

The 4.5 threshold is actually generous — Uber uses 4.6, I think. We NEED this. What are our options?

3. The amendment provision (Section 13.2)

They want MUTUAL CONSENT for any contract changes? So if we need to update something, we have to get 180 drivers to individually agree? That's operationally impossible. How do other companies handle this?

4. Class action waiver deletion (Section 12.2)

My co-founder says this is non-negotiable. He says if we can't have a class waiver, we're basically inviting a lawsuit. What's the current law on these — are they enforceable in NJ?

THINGS I COULD MAYBE LIVE WITH

1. Toll/parking reimbursement (Section 4.3)

I actually think this is fair. We don't have a lot of toll routes but there are some, and asking drivers to eat those costs when we're the ones assigning the route does seem wrong. Marcus, can we set this up in the app? What's the cost estimate?

2. Clearer block information upfront (Section 5.1)

We already show this mostly, so codifying it seems fine. It might actually reduce complaints.

3. The safety delivery exception (Section 2.3(e))

This also seems reasonable. We don't want drivers going into dangerous situations, and we've never penalized anyone for that anyway. Marcus — have we?

4. Substitute approval timeline (Section 4.4(e))

I didn't even realize we weren't responding to these. Marcus — are people requesting substitutes? Can we set up a process? The 5-day timeline seems workable if it's automated.

Wait, actually — can we even allow substitutes if we require background checks? How does that work?

THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND

The Section 1.3 change — What does it mean that our disclaimer of workers' comp "cannot be waived by contract"? I thought the whole point of having them sign as ICs was that they're not covered by our workers' comp? Isn't that what the contract does?

This reminds me — what's happening with Jamal Washington? He's still texting Marcus about his injury and now he's cc'ing someone named "Attorney McAllister" — is that the same guy who sent this redline?? Are they coordinating against us?

The Section 7.1 comment about "bias" — Are they saying our ratings system is racist? Our system just shows what customers submit. We don't touch the numbers.

STRATEGY QUESTION

Should we even be negotiating with these people? Are they even authorized to negotiate on behalf of drivers? Is this going to end up in a union thing? My co-founder is really worried about that.

Also — Marcus mentioned that a few of our top-performing drivers are actually GWANJ members. One of them is Jamal Washington. Should that affect how we handle this?

Let me know when you can talk. I'm free after 6 tomorrow.

Thanks,
Priya

One more thing — what do we do if drivers refuse to sign the agreement we ultimately land on? Can we just deactivate them? Or does that create problems?

And if we DO make any changes, do we have to re-do the contracts with existing drivers or just use the new version for new ones going forward?

P

Rachel,

Jumping in here with some context on the operational side.

Re substitutes: We've had 14 substitution requests since launch. We approved 2 (both were drivers who had a spouse who wanted to sign up — easy to verify). The other 12 we just... didn't respond to, because we didn't have a process. Priya's right that we should fix this, but we need the background check piece to work.

Re tolls/parking: I ran the numbers. If we reimburse all tolls and parking, it's about $3,400/month across all drivers. Not a huge deal.

Re: "dangerous" deliveries: We've had 3 complaints I can remember — one was a driver who said a dog was aggressive (we didn't penalize him), one was a driver who said a neighborhood "looked sketchy" (we told her to complete the delivery and she did), and one was a driver who refused to deliver to a 4th floor walkup because of a knee injury (we didn't penalize her but we did note it in her file). So no formal policy but it's been handled case-by-case.

Re ratings: Priya's right that we need this. But I'll be honest — we've only deactivated 4 drivers for ratings in 18 months. 3 of them were clear problems (multiple customer complaints about rudeness, one guy who was photographing customers' houses). The 4th was a borderline case where the driver said customers were rating her unfairly — she was a Black woman who thought there was a racial component. We deactivated her anyway because her numbers were bad. I don't know if GWANJ knows about this.

Re Jamal Washington: Yes, he's been texting me almost daily since his accident. He got hurt in September, filed for workers' comp in October (denied because he's an IC), and now he's got a lawyer. The lawyer's name is Terrence McAllister — same guy who sent this redline. I don't know if that's a coincidence or what, but it seems like they're building some kind of case.

Jamal was one of our best drivers before the accident — 4.97 rating, like 2,800 deliveries. If this goes to court, that's probably not great for us, right? A hardworking guy gets hurt doing deliveries and we're saying he's not our employee?

Let me know if you need anything else from my end.

Marcus