If you’re a small business owner, freelancer, solopreneur, or entrepreneur who has built a company that isn’t publicly traded, there is a chance you applied for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) relief, a $349 billion program designed to benefit businesses that can’t obtain credit elsewhere or who are underbanked.

And you’re meekly asking around to see if you’re the only one who got the dreaded “we ran out of money” email from your local bank after you jumped through several hoops to apply into a black hole with no responses or returned phone calls.

The $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act unanimously passed in the Senate on March 25, and signed by President Trump on March 27. The Act includes the PPP which gave Americans hope in the form of 2-year loans of up to $10 million for companies with under 500 employees, forgivable if applied to payroll, mortgage interest, rent, and/or utilities.

Meanwhile, over 40,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. It’s hard to be outraged under these conditions, but people are angry. Sure, some are violating stay-at-home orders to protest, but I don’t believe it’s simply because the economy is frozen, but because we were all given a false sense of hope. The PPP was thrown into choppy waters as a life preserver, but it was never intended for actual small businesses. The growing anger is from entrepreneurs and freelancers embarrassed to ask others if they’re the only ones to get rejected.

The truth is that most were rejected. And now carry that pit of fear in their stomachs, which is blossoming into anger. Sure, President Trump said that companies will have to “return” funds if they were “inappropriate,” given how many major institutions got funds, but that doesn’t help anyone today.

Politicians are nearing a deal on the second round of PPP, but small businesses are confiding in each other that they don’t believe they’ll receive help this time, either. With roughly 700K pending applications, and an estimated $310 billion which could become available in the second round of PPP, that rounds out to $442K per applicant, but will the cap remain in the millions, edging out smaller companies? Again?

There is a growing sense of dread and jadedness in this community that is becoming contagious as we compare notes (all of which look suspiciously similar).

If your local politician doesn’t understand how the entrepreneur community views them right now, show them this quick (but poor quality) clip from The Campaign:

You may think the growing outrage is because there are so many open mouths right now expecting the government to swoop in and feed them, but that’s not it. The rage is because once again, the little guy got screwed.

Under the PPP, Harvard University received $9 million, and responded to the public outrage by promising to apply funds to financial assistance to students. That’s neat, but what does that have to do with paycheck protection!? It’s literally in the name of the damn program. They have the largest endowment in the nation, sitting at a sweet $49.5 billion, so you can see how a copywriter in Dallas whose landlord is waiting to be able to file eviction is frustrated.

Under the PPP, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, 71 publicly traded companies received emergency funding. SEVENTY. ONE. You can see how a 10-person graphic design firm in Nashville is frustrated.

Under the PPP, Ruth Chris Steak House (who has a $250 million valuation and 150 locations) received $20 million. They said in a statement that they applied so they can be “well positioned to emerge from this situation a strong and viable entity.” Are you effing kidding!? Please tell that to the day care operator in Kansas City who already laid everyone off and was told by politicians that the PPP was their lifeline. Strong and viable? Small businesses just want to stay open.

Under the PPP, Potbelly sandwich shops received $10 million despite having over 400 locations and an $89 million valuation. SEC filings also indicate that Kura Sushi USA received $6 million, Fiesta Restaurant Group (operating Taco Cabana and Pollo Tropical) snagged $10 million, and J. Alexander’s Holdings received $15 million for their 47 restaurants in 16 states.

Notice a trend here?

Shake Shack made a public splash by giving back the $10 million they received under the PPP, noting they had access to other funding, given that they have a $16 billion valuation, 7,600+ employees, 200 of whom were already laid off, and roughly 800 furloughed. The company explained that they applied because the CARES Act allowed any restaurant with under 500 employees per location to qualify.

Did you catch that? ALL RESTAURANTS WITH UNDER 500 EMPLOYEES PER LOCATION QUALIFIED. How many single restaurant locations do you know of that employs over 500 people?

Shake Shack accidentally explained why the first round of PPP failed. It was never designed for small businesses, and especially not for freelancers or gig workers as politicians had so optimistically promised.

False hope.

Meanwhile, you have JPMorgan Chase bragging that they gave out more PPP funding than any other bank. Credit unions and small banks aren’t processing the same volume, and it is unclear as to whether the SBA is favoring large banks, large accounts at large banks, or if the little guys just took too long to figure out how to get help for their customers. But what is clear is that banks have gotten paid, as $6 billion was given to banks processing PPP funding. Did the SBA favor large companies, or did banks?

Either way, banks got paid billions. Smaller account holders did not.

Also frustrating, the Small Business Administration (SBA) refusing to be transparent about who the PPP recipients are, whereas SBA loans are typically public information (company names, executives, addresses, etc.) and they say only nominal amounts have funneled down to hospitality, in clear conflict with reality. Further, few have received aide under the SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (and grew frustrated at conflicting information ranging from large amounts available, to $10K grants, to maybe only $1K per employee).

It remains unclear who is screwing the little guy here – politicians, the SBA, banks, or all three simultaneously.

Small business owners Duncan and Rita MacDonald-Korth started a petition calling on the second round of PPP funding to be limited to companies with under 250 employees, and that half of all funding be reserved for those with under 50 employees. They call the first PPP round “flawed from top to bottom,” having done “very little to help genuine small businesses and instead has benefited large companies who have used subsidiary entities to benefit disproportionately and unfairly.”

Companies are banding together to sue Wells Fargo, Chase, and U.S. Bank claiming the banks “front-loaded applications for larger loans and focused on loans for $150,000 and under at the tail end of the program before it lapsed.”

Sure, you have companies like software company 75F in Minnnesota who have gained attention for publicly rejecting the help they applied for, but given the $18 million they raised in venture capital funding last year, solopreneurs are quietly reading that headline from home, wondering if they’ll ever be in line for help if companies like that qualified for PPP.

On Twitter, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), chairman of the committee overseeing small businesses, has softened over time, now saying that the PPP wasn’t designed to reach multiple subsidiaries of a national brand, and that “should be corrected.”

Should be corrected? You’re damn right.

There is growing fear which breeds anger, and actual small businesses are getting screwed, thinking they’re alone in their failure.

With the PPP’s lack of transparency and misallocation of funds to massive businesses, it is no wonder people are enraged. People are realizing they’re not the only one feeling betrayed by this false sense of hope, and we’re seeing entrepreneurs begin to compare notes. Trouble is brewing.

Many Americans are suddenly being forced into a Sophie’s Choice: continue to work out and about in public where demand for work is high, or stay home, stay healthy, and stay safe from contracting or spreading the coronavirus. While the internet seems to be convincing many people that the easy choice is to stay home and deal with the boredom and monotony of indoor life, the decision is more complicated for gig workers who rely on in-person business for their income.

Instacart shoppers are no exception. The popular app – which essentially allows customers to send a stranger out to run their grocery errands for them – has seen a sharp increase in demand as Americans across the country are hunkered down at home, committed to self-quarantine to stop the spread.

On March 23, Instacart Founder and CEO Apoorva Mehta announced plans to bring on an additional 300,000 shoppers to meet the increasing customer demand. The announcement included health and safety guidelines for shoppers, a promise of in-store cleaning products and safety supplies to be distributed to shoppers in North America.

But some workers are frustrated that Instacart is not doing enough to protect its current shoppers. When shopper Laura Richey began showing early symptoms of the virus, she immediately sought medical advice and stopped working on the app. Richey told Rolling Stone that despite submitting overwhelming evidence that she was instructed by doctors to get a COVID-19 test and quarantine for at least 14 days, Instacart is not paying up.

Instacart Shoppers and the Gig Workers Collective initiated a strike demanding PPE (personal protective equipment), hazard pay (an extra $5 per order and defaulting the in-app tip amount to 10%), and expansion of pay for workers impacted by COVID-19.

Amazon employees staged a walkout of a Staten Island warehouse after Amazon decided to keep the warehouse open even after one confirmed and multiple suspected cases of COVID-19. Amazon implemented daily temperature checks for employees before they enter the warehouse, staggered shifts, and spaced out break room chairs. The workers who staged the walkout only wanted the warehouse to be closed and sanitized, and to be paid while it happened.

While it may not be a simple decision to weigh the risks of exposure with the risks of closure, gig workers are forced to rely on large corporations to make decisions in the best interests of its workers. The protections these leaders choose to provide will be a testament to corporate priorities and whether we can rely on private sector innovation to save business while saving lives.

Get your ponchos ready, Uber’s making waves. Again. For the (potentially) worse. Again.

At first I thought it was making so many headlines because the name’s much more fun to say than its pink counterpart’s (sorry, it’s true), but my goodness, they’ve been…so…consistently nose-wrinkling.

Their latest ‘Mm.’-inducing showing is asking legislators to reclassify their drivers as a new kind of employee.

Pump the brakes. What?

Uber’s big mad because the state of California won’t let them scrape by with not providing certain benefits to its employees, and that’s what they are, and they’re asking Congress to provide what they call a combination of flexibility and protection in a new classification for independent contractors…with benefits, I suppose.

“We believe our laws should protect all workers, not just one type of work — and rather than restricting independent work, we should strengthen the protections and benefits afforded to it,” said Uber Spokesperson Matt Wing.

And on the surface, that sounds great, because Matt Wing is good at his job.

The main issue here is that company policy and people policy is different.

For instance: I as an individual don’t need a law to tell me that loading a cart full of mangoes and flan from Fiesta Mart and then just running straight out the door never looking back as I stuff my face like an animal is wrong despite how very very very right it would feel to do so. Stealing is bad.

Companies as companies however DO need laws telling them not to put deadly chemicals into paint, to let consumers know exactly what’s in their corned beef, to not let warehouse interiors be built as to dump workers over crumbly railings and into Joker-esque vats of dangerous chemicals. Because otherwise they will not do it. And the graves of a lot of people over the centuries stand testament to that fact.

Uber’s resistance to classifying its workers as employees has nothing to do with protecting flexibility. Uber’s a flexible job in that due to the flood of people in need of money, your natural disposability means the company doesn’t need individual drivers to be held as accountable as a regular 9-5er. Doesn’t sound that great.

As a writer, I have ACTUAL flexibility because I can produce as easily at 3AM on a Monday as I
can at 7:00 PM on a Saturday, from any location with decent wi-fi, and I don’t have to pretend to
not hate anyone leaving foundation stains on my property to do so consistently.

An Uber driver can hardly make the same boast…especially right now considering all the traffic we’re not seeing. Anywhere. As such, Uber’s claims about flexibility being a big perk fall rather flat.

The gig economy HAS redefined a lot of things about employment. Work clothes, work equipment, levels of respectability, et cetera.

What hasn’t changed is how much money flows upwards to a very few, rather than outwards. Nor has the phenomenon of dissatisfied workers feeling helpless and stuck changed. Nor has the equally troubling phenomenon of companies squashing legitimate consumer complaints.

Kids, if someone is getting super rich off your labor, that means they can afford to treat you nicely. There’s no excuse. But since they usually won’t unless mandated to do so…the law has to step in.

There’s no reason for Uber to ask that their drivers be classified as anything but the company money makers they are. In common parlance we call those ‘Employees’.

I believe Uber needs to fasten its seatbelt and accept that to be the case in legal parlance as well.