Flexibility Works

NYC is losing jobs.
Don't take away how people earn.

The city's job market is the weakest in years. Grocery delivery gives tens of thousands the flexibility to earn on their own terms. New regulations threaten to take that away.

POWERED BY CHAMBER OF PROGRESS · POWERED BY CHAMBER OF PROGRESS · 
27K
Jobs added in 2025.
The city forecast 150,000
Source: The City
7 / 9
Major private sectors lost jobs last year
Source: NY DoL
40%
Of restaurant delivery workers lost access to work
after similar regulations in 2023
Source: Instacart

Restricting shoppers doesn't protect them.
It limits them.

Since taking office, the Mamdani administration has embraced a regulatory approach to gig work that treats flexibility as a problem to be solved rather than an opportunity workers chose.

Local Law 124 — now in effect — forces grocery delivery platforms into rigid scheduling systems, capping how many shoppers can be online and when they can work.

That's not worker protection — it's worker reduction.

At a time when NYC added fewer jobs than in any year since the pandemic, the city is actively restricting one of the few flexible earning opportunities workers have left.

What's Happened
July 2025
City Council passes Local Law 124, extending restaurant delivery regulations to grocery delivery workers
August 2025
Mayor Adams vetos
September 2025
City Council overrides Mayor Adams' veto
Jan 26, 2026
Local Law 124 takes effect, platforms must implement scheduling restrictions and minimum pay rules tied to on-call time
July 2026
Full compliance required, platforms must pay for all on-call time, further restricting shopper access
40%
We've seen this before. When similar rules hit restaurant delivery in 2023, 40% of workers lost access overnight.

The people this law claims to protect are asking the city to stop.

If I wanted to be bound by a set schedule. I would get a salaried or hourly job. I do app gig work for the freedom it offers. I have a 9-5 as a state employee. Working with Instacart allows me to work around my schedule on my free time and earn extra income so I can afford to live in NYC without having to sell a kidney.

Grocery delivery worker carrying bags on a New York City street
Tens of thousands of New Yorkers depend on flexible delivery work.

I've been an instacart shopper since I got laid off from my remote job in September 2023. The reason I worked remotely was to be able to make sure my son is taken care of, and to have an income.

This ordinance would drastically impact my life by taking away my ability to create my own realistic and ideal work hours. I rely on Instacart to pay rent, and it's unfair to be forced into a rigid system resembling a 9-to-5 job. We need the flexibility to live and work on our own terms. This proposal should be entirely eliminated!

Due to constant growing prices because of inflation it's becoming more difficult to make a living, please consider not making things even more difficult – passing this would hurt my ability to earn.

Delivery worker checking phone while carrying grocery bags
Flexible scheduling means workers can earn on their own terms.

The flexibility I get shopping with Instacart allows me to support my family and community on my own terms. A 9-to-5 schedule would tie me down. This ordinance would undermine my freedom, making it difficult to maintain the lifestyle and support that I value.

Grocery delivery is more than a convenience — it's a lifeline.

The city didn't ask. The shoppers answered anyway.

540+ NYC Instacart shoppers surveyed. The message was clear: flexibility, not rigid scheduling. Most didn't even know the law existed.

68%

Oppose a scheduling system required under this law

89%

Say the Council should take more time to gather input

78%

Were not even aware the bill was being considered

0

Shoppers testified in support of this bill

Source: Instacart NYC Shopper Survey, Early 2025 (540+ respondents)

Flexibility
Works.

In a city where the job market is shrinking, flexible work isn't the problem. It's part of the solution. Workers chose this. The city should protect it — not restrict it.