50 ms·
Court rules California's Prop. 22 on Uber, Lyft drivers unconstitutional
- samspenc 5y agoNot a CA resident here, but I'm trying to understand Prop 22: does it require all gig companies except Uber and Lyft to "provide a health care subsidy and wage floor"? So with this ruling, Uber and Lyft will start providing benefits to their drivers similar to what all other gig companies are doing?
- singlow 5y agoI thought the wage floor and healthcare were a compromise to avoid being covered by other labor laws.
- tdeck 5y agoThe purpose of Prop 22 is to overturn a previous bill (AB5) passed by the state legislature that classified drivers as employees. First they claimed that these laws didn't apply to them and didn't comply for months, then Uber/Lyft/etc... got prop 22 on the ballot and spent incredible amounts of money advertising for it (if you were in CA at the time it was all over YouTube, as well as in the apps). These subsidies and wage floors were window-dressing so that Uber and Lyft could claim to offer an alternative solution to some of the problems AB5 was intended to address.
- fossuser 5y agoA lot of people disliked AB5 - I was happy Prop22 passed. The companies were obviously operating in their own interests, but I also think the legislature was wrong (and just politically targeting ride share companies).
- parineum 5y agoI don't ride share often but in the more than handful of times I have since this issue has been in the news I've yet to find a single driver who supports it. The support for AB5 doesn't seem come from the people it "protects".
- tsimionescu 5y agoThe whole business model of companies like Uber and Lyft relies on drivers not realizing how little they are getting out of the deal. The ones who do realize - often after some accident that leaves them injured or their cars too damaged to repair - will simply stop working and regret the past. Gig work usually looks very good when you're starting out and everything is going smoothly. With Uber and Lyft also investing massively in propaganda to ensure their drivers believe AB5 would cause numerous catastophes for their work, it's really not that surprising that most who are actually driving would be against it.
- parineum 5y agoIf this is true, I think the responsibility of the people who support AB5 is to first convince the Uber/Lyft drivers themselves. I think it's incredibly arrogant to force those people to do something against their will for their own good.
- ec109685 5y agoThe companies made it seem like drivers couldn’t work flexible hours if this passed. Nurses and other shift workers are employees, yet have flexible hours. That was completely obfuscated in this messaging.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 5y agoThis is a bad definition of flexible: "flexible hours means you have different start and end times for your workday than the standard 9 a.m. to 5 p.m." This is a good definition of flexible: "A flexible work schedule is an alternative to the traditional 9 to 5, 40-hour work week. It allows employees to vary their arrival and/or departure times." Also "gives a worker greater latitude in choosing his or her particular hours of work, or freedom to change work schedules from one week to the next depending on the employee's personal needs" The first one applies to nurses and shift workers. But the goal and the appeal of Uber and Lyft is the second one.
- lhorie 5y agoYeah, a lot of people were pointing out how ridiculously large the list of exceptions in AB5 were. I saw a bunch of stories about people in random fields getting screwed in the crossfire. It could just have been marketing-speak, but the arguments I heard from companies around voting time were that contractor status was for the benefit of drivers. IIRC they were arguing that if prop 22 did not pass, they were just going to pass the costs to the riders, and decrease service availability to match a smaller, less flexible driver workforce. In other words, many drivers would just wake up one day and find themselves booted from the platforms. And riders would find themselves unable to summon a ride depending on driver volume in the area, or time of day (basically old school cab availability) Historically, Uber has even pulled out of markets altogether (and in Austin's case, only to come back w/ their shit together later and mop the floor with the competition...) The thing that irks me about this is that I thought ballot initiatives like prop 22 were supposed to give constituents a direct voice, especially considering CA is basically a one-party state. To my understanding, legislation like AB5 gets championed by a politician without much direct input from voters.
- antiterra 5y ago> in Austin's case, only to come back w/ their shit together later and mop the floor with the competition… Uber and Lyft played hardball with increased regulations, saying they’d leave if the regulations were voted in place. Their ultimatums and campaigns (easily a dozen mailers to many people) irked residents who wouldn’t have voted against them otherwise. They returned because the state overrode the local requirements. Nothing to do with having their shit together.
- lhorie 5y agoSorry, I should've worded that better; "with their shit still together" is more in line w/ I what I wanted to say. I meant that rather than struggling to gain marketshare (like happened in China, Russia, etc), they ramped back up from 0% to virtually all of their lost marketshare, eventually causing local competitors to wind down.
- GaryTang 5y ago
- ummonk 5y agoI disliked AB5 but was unhappy Prop 22 passed. AB5 already was designed to create carveouts for politically influential white collar gig workers, and Prop 22 would have just added carveouts but not changed the essential fact of AB5 banning gig work in less politically influential industries.
- Tempest1981 5y agoProp 22 allows app-based drivers to remain classified as independent contractors, despite a state law known as AB-5 that classifies them as employees.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoNo, Prop 22 required Uber, Lyft, and other similar companies to provide a health care subsidy and a wage floor. However the devil is in the details: Prop 22 set the wage floor 20% higher than minimum wage based off of the time that drivers spent "actively working" (e.g. driving to pick up a passenger and then driving a passenger to their destination). With the AB5 wage floor, Uber and Lyft would have had to pay a lower guaranteed rate (just minimum wage), but it would have included idle time. So in Uber/Lyft's nightmare scenario, a million people sign up to be drivers, set their phone locations to the middle of nowhere and get paid $15/hour to do nothing. With the healthcare subsidy, IIRC Prop22 sets the amount of subsidy on a sliding scale based off of # of hours worked per week. AB5 would've treated someone who drives 20 hours a week the same as someone who drives 40 hours a week for insurance purposes
- jkaplowitz 5y ago> With the AB5 wage floor, Uber and Lyft would have had to pay a lower guaranteed rate (just minimum wage), but it would have included idle time. So in Uber/Lyft's nightmare scenario, a million people sign up to be drivers, set their phone locations to the middle of nowhere and get paid $15/hour to do nothing. Even in the scenario where drivers are employees, Uber and Lyft don't have to accept an unlimited number of driver applicants and don't have to allow them continued future hours if they pull that trick. Or they could restrict the locations where drivers can activate a shift, based on demand. Et cetera. Lots of ways they could manage their staff.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoI think, from Uber and Lyft's perspective, having to require drivers to sign up for shifts in advance (or preventing a driver from signing in to the app) is basically the death of the gig economy. Instead of doing their laissez-faire approach where the supply of drivers is (more or less) self-regulating, rideshare companies will have to tackle some nasty optimization problems. If a rural area only has 2 or 3 passengers a night, should they let a driver sign on or is it cheaper to just deny the customers? If a sporting event is ending at 7pm, should you increase the driver threshold if you're just going to force all the drivers to sign off in 30 minutes? Or is it better to increase wait times by decreasing the supply of drivers? etc etc
- lambdasquirrel 5y agoThe other points here are quite valid, but I think they miss the reason why legal scholars disliked Prop 22 so much. It requires something like a 7/8ths majority in order to be amended? It was effectively a statute trying to backdoor as a constitutional amendment.
- tsimionescu 5y agoApparently the 7/8ths thing isn't so problematic in itself, as other ballots don't allow even that. The bigger problem is that they prevent the legislature not just from overturning prop 22 itself, but from passing other laws in this area that are not aligned with it. This is the part the judge understandably took issue with.
- IncRnd 5y agoIt took me a few seconds to learn there are two kinds of ballot initiatives in CA. They can have the force of statutes or constitutional amendments. Prop 22 was written to be a statute, so of course it couldn't override the state constitution. Whoever wrote it made a huge mistake. "Citizens of California may initiate legislation as either a state statute or a constitutional amendment. In California, citizens also have the power to repeal legislation via veto referendum. The California State Legislature may also place measures on the ballot as legislatively referred constitutional amendments or legislatively referred state statutes. Referred amendments require a 2/3 vote of each chamber." [1] From the article: "it limits the power of a future Legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law." That makes the entire ballot measure unenforceable, Roesch said. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoDon't statutory ballots require a majority, while constitutional ballots call for a supermajority? This was a close fight. The decision may not have been, ex ante, as unreasonable as you suggest.
- IncRnd 5y agoThe fight isn't the issue I referenced, not fully. A statute cannot change the constitution and alter voting requirements of the legislature. That is what this attempted. As you mentioned, a different threshold is required in order to pass an amendment or a statute. The author wanted the benefits of an amendment but to pass it by meeting the requirements for a statute.
- lmkg 5y agoNope. Constitutional amendments proposed by voters require simple majority to pass, 50% + 1. That is, imho, the single largest flaw in California's initiative process (which I'm otherwise generally a fan of).
- 5y ago
- jvanderbot 5y agoThe fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the federal system of lobbying and campaign finance.
- tdeck 5y agoIt's interesting and quite disturbing to see businesses play the two groups off of each other. For example, this happened: > California cities and counties won’t be allowed to tax soda for the next 12 years after Gov. Jerry Brown signed fast-moving legislation Thursday. > It comes after a deal was struck between legislators and business and labor interests who agreed to remove an initiative from the Nov. 6 statewide ballot that would have restricted cities and counties from raising any taxes without a supermajority vote of local citizens. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-soda-tax-ban-20180628-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-soda-tax-ban-2018... This has happened a few times. Organizations will get a measure on the ballot that threatens some other group (usually with political power), and then use it as leverage to extract concessions before withdrawing it.
- google234123 5y agoThe fact that judges can override a democratic vote of the people is disgusting.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThe people ostensibly have a say in what judges serve in their courts, though. The only reason that Uber and Lyft were able to ram Prop 22 through is that they have a lot of money.
- chrisseaton 5y agoMoney only lets you buy an audience. You need a convincing argument to show that audience, which they presumably had, unless you think Californians are fools.
- jefftk 5y agoAlameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch wrote Proposition 22 is unconstitutional because “it limits the power of a future Legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.” That makes the entire ballot measure unenforceable, Roesch said. ... It’s likely the ruling gets appealed.
- tick_tock_tick 5y agoWhat is the purpose of a proposition but to limit the power of the legislature? If the legislature can just go against whatever the proposition says what is the point of a proposition?
- jdavis703 5y agoThe law requires a super-majority in order to change any aspects of the law. The supermajority requirement goes above what’s in the constitution. At least that’s my interpretation as a non-lawyer.
- comex 5y agoRead the ruling: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0cX7qwGAjt1KIb8JSCUUKLqDA#521033973 https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0cX7qwGAjt1KIb8JSCUUKLqDA... In short, California’s Constitution says that the Legislature has “plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution, to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation”, and the judge ruled that “any provision of this Constitution” includes the provision saying that the Legislature can’t override propositions.
- nickff 5y agoI think you're reading the ruling correctly, but the judge's understanding of the constitution would also imply that state courts would not be able to limit the Legislature's "system of workers’ compensation" (because the state constitution is what delegates power to the courts). I don't think this makes sense.
- 5y ago
- nostrebored 5y agoFor others outside of California, this is the measure that allowed Uber and Lyft to classify workers as independent contractors
- nomoreplease 5y agoThanks for clarifying. I was confused
- mrfusion 5y agoDoesn’t any proposition limit the power of a future legislature?
- dannykwells 5y agoNo
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tsimionescu 5y agoNot in this way. Propositions are supposed to cover a single specific issue, they can't cover a whole area of law. You can pass a prop saying the legislature must refer to any dog as 'your honor', and the legislature would forever have to respect it and not be allowed to repeal it. However, you can't then add wording in this proposition saying that the legislature can't pass similar laws for referring to cats with higher honorifics, which is what Prop 22 tried.
- samename 5y agoBasically, through Uber’s greed in the proposition by writing in the provision about legislators not being able to overturn Prop 22, Uber et al ended up getting the whole Proposition cancelled vs if they'd just kept it for the contractor stuff. This is just the Superior Court’s ruling
- nerfhammer 5y agothe funny thing is that was a concession: normally legislators can't overturn California ballot propositions at all.
- Dylan16807 5y agoSo I've been told that the default of a proposition is that the legislature can't overturn it at all, and the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. Is that wrong?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> [...] the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. > Is that wrong? Yes, because—and this is critical because it is the basis of the ruling here—the proposition purported to define additional legislation that did not change the proposition (and thus would not normally be restricted) as an “amendment” subject to its restriction, which as a non-germane provision is what was found to render the proposition invalid here.
- Dylan16807 5y agoSo if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine Maybe, maybe not. I haven't read the full analysis in the ruling, but it seems from the excerpts I’ve seen that the attempt to sweep workers comp rules into the amendment restrictions without them being part of the main body was found to be an attempt to do an end run around the single-subject rule, which means it would have been struck down either way. > Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works. It wouldn't change how the proposition works. It would change how the businesses affected by the proposition work, but lots of unrelated laws would do that.
- myWindoonn 5y agoWhatever happened to Nathan Fielder's attempt to unionize Uber? Is that still going?
- beckman466 5y agoThere are myths that Nathan made it all the way into Travis Kalanick's living room but then he found out Kalanick was no longer the leader :/
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- google234123 5y agoSo, what is the point of a ballot measure or referendum then?
- jdavis703 5y agoThey needed to write part of the law as a constitutional amendment in order to override the legislature’s constitutional powers.
- seibelj 5y agoRide firms ultimately forced to pay more for labor. Less drivers total and more expensive rides. Poorer areas stop getting service. Stock prices fall. Not a big deal if you don’t care about ride share transportation. If you actually like it then it costs more and gives less. This website is full of rich techies so won’t affect us. However will affect less well-off people negatively.
- dd36 5y agoLess well off people use ride sharing?
- bombcar 5y agoThe kind where you call your brother or cousin (whoever’s beater is working this week) and ask for a ride in exchange for some gas money. “Paying drivers more will hurt the poor” is an interesting argument
- tablespoon 5y ago> “Paying drivers more will hurt the poor” is an interesting argument Take that line of thought to its conclusion, and you end up claiming that paying workers anything at all hurts the poor. After all, if workers weren't paid, wouldn't prices decrease making things more affordable to the poor? Of course, then the poor wouldn't make any money to pay for anything, but let's overlook that irrelevant detail.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThe loss of the concept of surplus value or wage share of production from basic economic knowledge is a tragedy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cool_dude85 5y ago>This website is full of rich techies so won’t affect us. However will affect less well-off people negatively. Just imagining the less well off losing huge chunks of their 401ks, IRA savings, pensions, and so on when Uber loses 2% of its market cap... it's giving me chills! Volunteer at a shelter this weekend, folks. Many of those less diversified individuals in the bread line will have seen their net worth drop double digit percentage points.
- MiguelX413 5y agoEpic
- sriram_sun 5y agoWhile I agree with your sentiment, please try to add more value to your comments.
- MiguelX413 5y agoI'll keep that in mind for future comments on here.
- beckman466 5y agoThis is the ballot initiative that Uber and Lyft pumped $200 million into a misinformation campaign for https://www.vice.com/en/article/akddx8/proposition-22s-victory-shows-how-uber-and-lyft-break-democracy https://www.vice.com/en/article/akddx8/proposition-22s-victo... https://twitter.com/bigblackjacobin/status/1294865684782919686 https://twitter.com/bigblackjacobin/status/12948656847829196... https://twitter.com/darakerr/status/1299395127253762049 https://twitter.com/darakerr/status/1299395127253762049 https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-labor-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-...
- harles 5y agoUnions with a direct line to the legislature created AB 5. I’m amazed so many people are ok with that while shaming Uber for spending money to encourage voters to overturn it.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt's pretty obvious why someone would be okay with unions lobbying and not okay with corporations doing it. One of the two is at least as democratic as the government itself and it's not Uber.
- skohan 5y agoYes it's basically the main goal of organized labor to support the best interest of workers by any means, including legislative means. How on earth else are workers supposed to get legal protections against the multi-billion dollar corporations which are trying to give them the worst deal possible?
- harles 5y agoExcept this was a pretty overt land grab to expand the unions into new territory. How did AB5 support existing union members?
- seany 5y agoCan we work on getting rid of AB5 instead?
- jeffbee 5y agoAB5 is an ordinary law that can be erased by any future legislature with a simple majority vote at any time. Or, it could be repealed by initiative. There's no reason why Prop 22 or an initiative like it was necessary.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- prostoalex 5y agoThe whole thing is kinda moot as supply/demand dynamics raised the base earnings amidst the driver shortage https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-and-lyft-drivers-are-coming-back-but-prices-arent-falling-11628337601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-and-lyft-drivers-are-comin...
- dragonwriter 5y agoNote that “Superior Court” is a first-level trial court; there is an opportunity for appeal of right to the Court of Appeal and potentially a discretionary appeal to the State Supreme Court before this is final.
- justinzollars 5y agowhats the point of voting? Almost 60% of Californians supported this measure.
- AaronFriel 5y agoOne wonders about the hubris of the folks who approved this part of Prop 22: After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter. Prop 22 was intended to be almost impossible to overturn, requiring a higher bar for amendment than even the state constitution, and only permitting the legislature to amend it if the amendment was "consistent with" Prop 22. Regardless of one's opinion about Prop 22 and AB5, this provision was undemocratic at its core because it deprived future citizens and their representatives of their ability to modify the law.
- resonantjacket5 5y agoThats a bit misguided in interpreting the propositions. By default propositions cannot be override by the legislature, by adding the provision it was more amendable than normal.
- AaronFriel 5y agoToday I learned: https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. The "Supermajority approval for ... years following" that North Dakota and Washington follow, or expiring the protection of the initiative from amendment automatically after some number of years seems appropriate.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- coliveira 5y agoThe US political system is full of anti-democratic laws. California is not the first and, unfortunately, no the last state to have such laws.
- lwf 5y agoLink to opinion: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos-order https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos... The key bits: > The Court finds that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law. This was the key section of prop 22 which defined app-based service providers as non-employees. > The Court finds that Section 7465, subdivision (¢)(4) is unconstitutional because it defines unrelated legislation asan “amendment” and is not germane to Proposition 22's stated “theme, purpose, or subject.” This was the section that imposed a 7/8ths requirement on modification to the statute.
- balozi 5y agoRegardless of the merits of arguments before the court, or the soundness of the ruling, I fear that this development will only serve to undermine California voters' faith in the judiciary and/or the ballot initiative process.
- WheelsAtLarge 5y agoUber, and all, will just rewrite the prop and try again. Gig work is here to stay. They just have to figuerout how to make it work for all. I doubt the legislature will get its way or that Uber will get their way either. A few years from now a middle ground will be found. Gig work works at some level since both workers and customers want it. Uber just took a bigger bite than it should have this round. Also, this issue will end up at the California supreme court level so this is just the first round of many.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoUber only has so much cash on hand (about $6B as of Jun 20th, 2021; having lost $28B over the last 5.5 years [1]). Governments and legal proceedings can outlast unprofitable gig work companies with limited runway, no? Eventually someone with common sense is going to stop throwing money at these concerns with no chance of profitability. [1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/08/hubert-horan-can-uber-ever-deliver-part-twenty-six-with-no-hope-of-real-profits-uber-and-lyft-double-down-on-fake-profit-metrics.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/08/hubert-horan-can-ube...
- WheelsAtLarge 5y agoGig work is a new way to work. Just because Uber might go away it does not mean that gig work will disappear, other business models will continue it. I suspect someone will make it work. Look at free shipping, at first, it looks like a money pit that could never be part of a profitable business. But Amazon Prime is not only making it work but it powers the company's earnings. You just never know.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoGig work exists until regulation catches up. It’s worker classification fraud masquerading as innovation (imho), in typical Silicon Valley fashion. It’s taking longer than it took Homejoy to fail (~5 years), but someone will close the capital spigot eventually. What is the terminal or discounted cash flow value of perpetual double digit negative margins?
- wheresmycraisin 5y agoSo, are uber and lyft drivers suddenly employees now, until an appellate court issues a preliminary injunction or something?
- endisneigh 5y agoCustomers don’t want gig work - customers want cheap labor. I’d be surprised if Uber wins an appeal at any level. With Uber you have to follow their rules, follow their timing once a ride is scheduled, you can’t set your own prices, nor can you use any vehicle you’d like. In summary, an Uber driver cannot complete their ride the way they want with no restrictions. Seems like a slam dunk for classifying as an employee. A true gig Uber would basically just be eBay, except it would have an algorithm to schedule the rides based on your location and arbitrary filtering requirements.
- nielsbot 5y agoHence the proposition. I seem to remember the CA Dept of Labor was on the verge of telling Uber and Lyft their gig workers are employees. I was wrong about the details. I think I was thinking about this ruling: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-judge-rules-uber-lyft-drivers-employees-72296195 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-judge-rul...
- throw_m239339 5y ago> A true gig Uber would basically just be eBay, except it would have an algorithm to schedule the rides based on your location and arbitrary filtering requirements. Your right, drivers should be able to set the price they want.
- SilasX 5y ago> A true gig Uber would basically just be eBay, except it would have an algorithm to schedule the rides based on your location and arbitrary filtering requirements. They basically had that in the form of SideCar (closed end of 2014), in that drivers set their own rates and passengers picked whichever they liked. Spoiler: nobody at the time distinguished it from Uber as being somehow innocent of the abuse of contractor status.
- czhu12 5y agoI've all but stopped taking Uber / Lyft in SF since the pool option was removed and $6 dollar rides started becoming $20+. Mostly adjusted lifestyle by: 1. Taking buses 2. Traveling less in general I guess the $6 ride business model was never sustainable. I'm actually all for better treatment of ride-share drivers, but I can't help but feel that it doesn't necessarily help drivers if the volume of rides drop significantly as they get more expensive due to regulations. I've noticed most commentary around this topic tend to skirt this issue. What is a sensible response to this?
- sitkack 5y agoThe price should be 20$+, there wasn't much middle ground, it is nice to have cheap rides for certain things but if the low cost option dominates, the whole model is unsustainable.
- czhu12 5y agoI guess my question is less about the economics of Uber but more: How do we think through the fact that a certain portion of Uber drivers will lose their job due to a drop in demand driven by these new regulations? Unless the argument is that Uber makes so much money they can afford to compensate their workers more. But, clearly, that doesn't seem to be the case.
- joelbondurant 5y agoUSA is fast becoming a communist hell hole.
- ummonk 5y agoThis is good. AB5 needs to be scrapped altogether, rather than merely adding additional carveouts for sufficiently large fields of work.
- DannyBee 5y agoHere is the order: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos-order https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos... Things to know: 1. This was a referendum statute and not a referendum amendment. 2. referendum statutes can't normally be amended by the legislature directly, but they can submit it back to the voters by normal majority vote on the legislation/etc. The referendums can, if they want, add ways for the legislature to amend it without going back to the voters. 3. With that in mind, here are the issues: A. Prop22 inartfully tries to say it can only be amended by 7/8th vote of the legislature. That would, normally, be unconstitutional- the constitution requires allowing the majority vote + submit back to voters. To avoid this, the court has (IMHO, correctly) interpreted this to be just be a way to amend the statute without going back to the voters, rather than the only way to amend it at all. It also tries to change the publication rules for any possible amendments (which is also not allowed to do to the majority vote path, and so this is severed and only applies to the 7/8th path) B. California has a single subject rule on ballot amendments. This statute has a stated subject/purpose (too long to quote). That purpose/subject does not include collective bargaining, even a little. It does not talk, in any part of the statute, about collective bargaining. At the very end, after just about all meaningful text it attempts to limit collective bargaining it in a super-odd way. It says anything dealing with collective bargaining is considered an amendment to the statue and is explicitly subject it to the 7/8th rule to pass it . By defining anything related to collective bargaining as an amendment, it causes itself to run afoul of the single subject rule - it's entirely unrelated to anything in the statute. It also can't subject it only to the 7/8th rule as it attempts to do, but as above, that would normally be reinterpreted by the court to say "7/8th rule or submitting back to voters". The court severed this provision, which seems right. C. Even if the above issue didn't exist, the actual constitution (remember, this is not an amendment) provides that the Legislature shall have the power to create worker's compensation laws “unlimited by any provision of this Constitution”. So, the statute's attempt to limit workers comp also fails. The statute, for some reason, also says this provision may not be severed, so if it is held unconstitutional, like here, the entire statute is struck down. On appeal, B will be argued about to death because the single subject rule is easily twistable. But since it is severable, i think a court will sever it in the end. C will have a flat yes/no ruling - either it's usurping power the legislature has (without being an amendment) or it's not. On its face, it's hard to see how you can successfully argue it's not. The wording in the california constitution is pretty strong. The superior court takes the reasonable position that an amendment-by-ballot could change workers comp because it can overrule the constitutional provision, but that an statute-by-ballot cannot. It would take some mental gymnastics to uphold this part.
- okareaman 5y agoI'm happy about this and I used to be for Prop 22. After I retired I drove for a year from Aug 2019 to Aug 2020 (I quit because Pandemic.) I didn't work full time, but maybe 20 - 25 hours a week. I did 2000 rides. I had a fun, met a lot of interesting people, and got to drive in many cities in California. I loved the flexibility of the job. However when I added it all up, I netted about $6,000, which works out to about $6/hr or $3 per ride. This includes tips. A lot of people don't tip since when Uber started up they said ppl didn't have to. Now I am of the opinion that the ride share companies should pay closer to a living wage so drivers don't have to practically live in their cars. Not everyone can be retired taking joy rides like I did.
- syshum 5y agoUber is not sustainable now. All that will happen is A. Ride-sharing collapses and everyone returns to the taxi model B. Prices goes WAY WAY up, less people can afford it likey resulting in A C. Every is classified as an employee and drivers loose all flexibility or most flexibility. No more working for multiple app, no more infinite flex time. As a employee you would be exclusive to one app and have a set shift and section People seem to think they can get cheap fares, infinite flexibility and ultra wages... Not likey
- pessimizer 5y ago> C. Every is classified as an employee and drivers loose all flexibility or most flexibility. No more working for multiple app, no more infinite flex time. As a employee you would be exclusive to one app and have a set shift and section This would be a choice the ride-sharing companies would be making, not a logical necessity. They could pay drivers a minimum wage to be on-call for whatever time-period was agreed upon between the company and the driver, and neither demand exclusivity outside of those periods, nor demand a minimum number of hours per week be worked. You can have more than one job without being a contractor. e.g. The driver says "I want to work from 3PM to 5PM today." The app says "LOL, no, too many drivers today, try again tomorrow" or "How about 2PM to 4PM instead" or "Perfect, you're booked." The app could also solicit drivers for shifts well ahead of time within a baseline of predicted demand, guarantee that drivers be offered X hours of shifts sometime between A o'clock and B o'clock a week ahead of time, and/or demand that drivers take at least Y hours of shifts (between the hours of A o'clock and B o'clock) if they want to continue to be offered X hours of shifts. If they were really forward-thinking, the rideshare companies could work on making their benefits compatible with each other; maybe have them managed by an employee union.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lsiebert 5y agoLet me break this down based on my understanding after reading the opinion and the law. I am not a lawyer. From the judge's opinion "The Court finds that Section 7451 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.... Because Section 7451 is not severable from the remainder of the statute, the Court finds that the entirety of Proposition 22 is unenforceable. The petition is therefore GRANTED." Why is that? 7451 says that workers are independent contractors, but per the Judge's ruling: "The California Constitution vests in the Legislature the “plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution, to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.” (Cal. Const. art. XIV, § 4) Since that specific enumerated power conflicts with the more general ballot initiative rule in the constitution regarding the legislature not being able to amend ballot initiative passed laws, that section of the law is unconstitutional. (See Scalia's Canons of Construction, The Specific/General Canon) Since Prop 22 explicitly said if that section is invalid the whole law is invalid (7467 (b)) the whole law is thus invalid. This is likely to be appealed and stayed upon appeal so it's not taking effect immediately. Judge's opinion (provided by lwf in a comment): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos-order https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos... Text of prop 22: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop22.pdf https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop22.pdf
- mlindner 5y agoHow about we just repeal the damn law in the first place rather than adding all this stuff on top. That was my issue with Prop 22. The original law it was layering on top of is faulty from the get go and needs to get repealed. The person who proposed it is an utter asshole to boot (her twitter is full of personal fiery attacks on other people and she can't take criticism)
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWell... Add that to the list of reasons why California used to be great and increasingly sucks.
- BrianOnHN 5y agoWhat's the non-human cost to operate Uber? Server costs, customer service people (maybe?) I'd be interested to see what the breakdown is on how fees collected are spent. If it is mostly ROI for capital invested then that's the problem. Not a crypto bull, but this would be a great opportunity for a DAO/smart contract. Act as a backend, fees collected go directly to operations. Maybe a diminishing royalty is collected by the creators. Most the time I spend $10 for a five minute ride, and often even see the person before me get dropped off. There's no way that the "ultra cheap" rates being paid couldn't actually provide a decent wage, given that capital isn't chopping off their lions share.
- JudgePenitent 5y agoThis is a rideshare capital vs opponent capital legal battle. Any claims to doing this for the drivers is absurd; different drivers want different things, and for that, you would have to design an environment whereby a driver can be either freelance or employee. Some drivers want the flexibility, and genuinely like the way the system works today. Some want security, a guaranteed hourly wage, as they need a consistent income. Some want healthcare, etc. The legal straightjacket is convenient for tax purposes but little else. The idea that a driver can only be one or the other is of course the capitalists convenience. Having the law back them up is the goal of the shareholder- hence this war- but the claims that drivers want it one way or the other is silly. As to the claim that it has to be one way or the other because of the legal environment (taxes etc) and the rigidity in work classifications, then a different bureaucracy is in order, a conversation which is conveniently ignored in this public debate.
- somewhereoutth 5y agoReferenda 'A Device of Dictators and Demagogues' - Margaret Thatcher. We had one in the UK recently that has pretty much wrecked the country. It would appear that California (and other states?) do this sort of thing all the time!