Why This Site?

Our Beyond Jobs project is important and at a pivotal stage. A first wave of public agencies are working through the complications of launching a sophisticated, supportive, regional labor market for the 35% or so of adults who now work outside of standard employment. I have done everything I can to conceal Workers Lab's problems, for 18 months. Now we are entering a new phase. If we get these launches right, the program could replicate through the public workforce system to serve tens of millions of low-income Americans.

If TWL's leadership had been willing to listen, provide actionable criticism, collaborate, and amplify our efforts in the project, I am convinced we would now have more city launches in hand, attracting further funders, and possible federal involvement. Denigration and destabilization hits a finely-tuned operation like ours hard. Continuous development of sophisticated software while supporting a diverse first wave of regional launches is already challenging.

Many in our networks expected us to soar to multiple launches on hearing TWL had unequivocally put $1m behind our expansion. Instead, 18 months later, our robust launch operations are all in areas that were well advanced towards launch before TWL knew of us. Why?

I am not willing to spend time describing futile events at TWL over and over in emails or meetings. Nor am I going to painstakingly battle possible further misstatements from Adrian. This site offers one-stop evidence for anyone who needs details; I have more important issues around our project to discuss.

There is no way we would divert funds to match TWL's spend on lawyers; so I will assume those attorneys are right when they say no laws have been broken. The complex reasons why people behave as Adrian do, and some organizations allow it, are likewise outside the scope of this site. The aim here is to - at last - simply report what's been going on as background for our stakeholders and potential stakeholders.

Tried everything

I found no roadmap for dealing with sustained hostile behavior from a small philanthropic funder. As evidence shows, I tried the following before setting up this site:

Verbally pointing out the behaviour was destabilizing then documenting events in a string of emails sent to Adrian and others who witnessed his actions. (It had no effect - email 4B.)
Filing a formal complaint with the Workers Lab. (They hired lawyers to check for legal risks to TWL who then threatened me, and refused to release their findings except to confirm they hadn't reviewed the evidence listed. See email 2D.)
Asking to speak directly to a director about the issues. (Request declined. Communications have to go through Adrian Haro or one of the managers reporting to him. Email 2D and 4B).
Suggesting we record our conversations because it should force us all to think through our words. (Permission refused - email 4D.)
Warned I was - if pushed further - planning to publish details of what's been happening. (I was told to "tell anyone you want" about the events - email 4D.)

Why now?

I have concealed the extent of our TWL problem from colleagues, contractors, partners, and other stakeholders for all the reasons people don't discuss this sort of behavior; embarrassment, fear of not being believed, assuming others will think I invited the attacks, thinking this time the problems will finally abate; plus it's just unedifying to talk about when there is so much going on in the wider project. (Some stakeholders worked out aspects of the problems for themselves.)

But a new layer of complications emerged in late 2023. Adrian posted a lengthy description of our project without mentioning us, positioning it as a purely Workers Lab effort. Casting us as bit players in a project he runs has been a recurring theme internally. Magnifying this message through TWL's extensive communications channels will once again impede our efforts to engage new stakeholders using our hard-earned knowledge and credibility.

It bears repeating: The victims in this saga are millions of low-income breadwinners waiting for America's multi-billion dollar workforce system to provide an alternative to exploitative "gig work" apps. Our team has unique expertise around the complex technology and launch requirements for non-standard labor markets. Presenting the CEO of one of our funders, who refuses our guidance (email 4C), as frontman of the project risks hubris-laden failure.

In parallel, Adrian is now making written commitments to us which are then reneged at the last minute (email 5B). He is aggressively unsettling our funding cycle (email 4A), and has proposed to another funder he take over enabling our next stage of work for them, using that takeover of which we knew nothing, to compel us to sign a contract giving him new rights to terminate our funding if we commit what he decides is any "microaggression" (email 5B).

We have had to plead for news of next month's funding from Adrian throughout 2023, it has come each time, but often after deadlines to which he previously agreed. We had planned on the basis of written commitments from Adrian in early November 2023, we now have to explain why we will not be able to deliver for our partners as promised because our plans are - yet again - in turmoil.

Public interest

This site could have wider usefulness.The non-profit sector has unique potential to address pressing social problems. TWL's mission, incubating exciting system-change innovations to a next stage, is much needed.

But there may be a fundamental flaw limiting the sector's impact. Our problems at Workers Lab show how easily grantees can be harassed for prolonged periods. (Cases where non-profits have acted conclusively to stamp out bad behavior typically involve employees, who already have statutory protections.)

That Workers Lab's directors seem happy to let an inexperienced CEO remain a sole point of contact for complaints by grantees, even after they know a journalist is compiling day-by-day evidence of his inappropriate behavior suggests unusual complacency about organizational standards. I have seen this - as a journalist - in other sectors before exposure of a first case awakens sector leaders to the damage being done.

In the last 5 years, other parts of the economy - Hollywood, business, academia, the military - have set high standards to protect people over whom they have power. But grantees of small funders? I can't find a voluntary code of conduct, boilerplate clauses about handling of complaints in contracts, records of judgements, or other obvious measures reflecting a post-Weinstein awareness of potential for power abuse. (EthicsPoint offers independent reporting of issues, used by some large foundations.)

Across the non-profit sector, how many badly needed social innovators might be failing because of dysfunctional behavior that would no longer be tolerated in other industries? Reflecting that, I would like my experience to benefit others. Specifically:

Workers Lab grantees: TWL have other grantees who are not former senior journalists and may lack confidence to raise an alarm. I have urged TWL to instigate a channel for complaints handled independently, with findings made public. I believe they should feel pressured to do this.

Other non-profits: Anyone looking to compile, for example, a voluntary code of conduct against bullying of grantees might find this site valuable as a detailed test case. The sector could usefully be aware of how sketchy protections in a grantee relationship are. Suing for workplace harassment requires proving the person harassed was financial dependant on the harrassing organization. I can't sue TWL because I work unpaid, it is only my organization that is dependent. It's easy to see how a grantee with salary contributions from multiple funders would also lack standing.

Grantees elsewhere: My understanding of the situation at Workers Lab evolved progressively. If others are on the receiving end of this kind of treatment by a funder, which seems likely, my enforced learning might offer some help until there are better resources.

> Sample evidence