Six weeks undercover: Investigative lessons from the Toronto Star’s probe into Uber’s algorithm 

Journalist Ghada Alsharif worked undercover as an Uber Eats courier in Toronto to expose the harsh realities of algorithm-driven gig work, revealing shockingly low wages and systemic inequities

Sometimes the best stories don’t come from interviews—they come from stepping into someone else’s shoes.  

After noticing crowds of delivery drivers gathering outside fast food joints, Ghada Alsharif, a Toronto-based immigration and work reporter for the Toronto Star, spent six weeks as an Uber Eats courier — logging into the app, testing hotspots, taking deliveries and learning first-hand how the gig economy really works.   

From unpredictable pay and long waits, to shifting peak hours driven by a shadowy algorithm, Alsharif got an insider’s view that interviews alone could not reveal.  

Throughout the investigation she spoke to couriers, advocates and experts, uncovering systemic challenges including algorithm-driven wage disparities and the daily struggles of precarious workers.  

Alsharif joined Chris Arsenault and Josette Lafleur to break down the lessons, insights and surprises she discovered while working undercover from the seat of an e-bike in the food delivery world.  

Listen to her interview here:

Read Ghada Alsharif’s award-winning investigation here.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Chris Arsenault: What tipped you off to the story in the first place?  

Ghada Alsharif: I was walking down Spadina. And there were just so many couriers hanging out outside…the Queen and Spadina McDonald’s, literally people sleeping on the street waiting for orders. And I was like: what the hell is going on here? I brought it to my editor to discuss how and why this is happening.

Chris Arsenault: You initially planned to shadow a worker. What made you decide you needed to be courier yourself?  Why did you feel going undercover was the most effective way to investigate this story? 

Ghada Alsharif: It quickly became clear that the kind of data and insight we needed: how the app actually works, how much workers are really getting paid, the day-to-day conditions, it couldn’t be captured just by shadowing someone. 

At that point, I had actually written the story [based on shadowing a courier on a busy night]. It had been edited and was ready for the Saturday paper, and our editors actually paused it.  

I was asked if I wanted to go deeper and actually do the work myself, because that was the only way to really get the kind of first-hand understanding we needed. Primarily: how much workers really get paid.  

I couldn’t keep asking this worker to shadow him. I was very conscious of not wanting to be voyeuristic. 

Chris Arsenault: How did talking to other couriers shape your reporting? 

Ghada Alsharif: The key, I think, was being transparent and respectful. I always made it clear why I was talking to the workers and that their experiences were being taken seriously. 

I think also showing that I was willing to do the work myself and demonstrating that I was invested in telling the story accurately helped… a lot of the couriers open up. Over time, many of the couriers became comfortable enough to share detailed insights about how the platform works. 

One of the most incredible tips I got was ‘don’t go to the hot spots’ … because that’s where all of the workers are. You want to go to the places where there are not a lot of couriers. So I started going to…quieter places where there were still fast food restaurants.  

That completely [changed] …how I started viewing the story: I was like, ‘oh my goodness, how does the company, or how does the app, gamify work’? 

Chris Arsenault: How did you decide on things like hours and using unnamed sources? What ground rules did you establish with editors before going undercover? 

Ghada Alsharif: Ethical considerations were front and centre throughout this investigation. A lot of the couriers we spoke to were in precarious situations; they were undocumented or new to the country, or reliant on this work to survive. 

Protecting their identities and ensuring they weren’t put at risk was critical.  At the same time, I wanted to be transparent about my own role while I was speaking to a lot of these couriers.  

We wanted to make sure that the story is not [about] me…the undercover approach was used to highlight the larger systemic problems…and…get as much data as possible to show the broader issues from precarious work conditions to algorithm-driven wage disparities, and to ensure the story centered on that experience, rather than my own.  

Chris Arsenault: What was the biggest difference from your original article to what was posted? And how do you get inside a complex, proprietary algorithm to highlight the wage disparities described by your sources? 

Ghada Alsharif: Speaking to organizations and advocates on the ground was absolutely critical to the outcome of this investigation.  

They spent hours talking to me about the realities of gig work, what to expect, connecting me with workers.  

Gig Workers United helped us access data that showed evidence of algorithmic wage discrimination. They had previously done a couple their own version of the experiment that we wanted to do. They had gotten workers [together] in a park and bounced around the orders. 

[In essence, several couriers were applying for the same order, at the same time, from the same location]. They found several instances where the same order was given to different drivers at a different wage.  

These experts… really did a lot of that groundwork in order to make this [investigation] possible. 

Chris Arsenault: What is your advice for getting into an immersive investigative piece like this? 

Ghada Alsharif: Really be clear with your goals. Be clear with your intentions, especially when it comes to something like precarious work, precarious housing…making sure that you’re doing it ethically, making sure that you’re asking the ethical questions.  

Just make sure that you have a plan and that you’re working with an editor who can keep you in check when you’re not sure.