Happy Nice Mall

Encouraged by a California election victory last year that protected their drivers’ independence, gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft have stepped up a crackdown on what they’re calling a “third way of work” in recent months to classify independent gig workers. limited benefits without gaining employee status.

However, this plan is a Friday evening. california judge It ruled that the voting initiative, backed by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other so-called gig economy companies, violated the state’s Constitution. It was a potential setback for companies and a victory for labor organizers and drivers who claimed they had been wronged.

Here’s an explanation of this long-running fight and what happened next:

Isn’t this issue resolved in California?

Uber and Lyft have long said their drivers are independent contractors, allowing companies to avoid health insurance, unemployment insurance, sick leave and other employment benefits.

However, some state legislatures, federal officials and legal experts have argued that drivers are employees under the law and Uber and other gig companies owe them the full protections that come with employment.

California legislators in 2019 Passed a law requiring companies like Uber to employ their drivers. NS state attorney general sues Uber and Lyft to enforce the law and companies responded threaten to leave the state.

Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash spent more than $200 million on a ballot that would keep drivers as independent contractors, known as Proposition 22, while companies offered them limited benefits. Recommendation 22 approved in November about 59 percent vote.

In January, a coalition of car drivers and workers’ groups sued, arguing that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. After a month, The California Supreme Court refused to hear the caseseems to put an end to the difficulty. But the group re-submitted its petition in a lower court, leading to last week’s decision.

Why did the judge find Article 22 unconstitutional?

California Supreme Court Justice Frank Roesch’s decision in Alameda County had three main findings.

The first is Prop. 22 removed gig workers from the pool of employees who qualify for workers’ compensation in the event of an injury or other workplace incident. However, the State Legislature has the right to determine and control workers’ compensation under the California Constitution.

Judge Roesch wrote in his book: decision 22. The resolution “limits a future legislator’s power to define practice-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law” and is therefore unconstitutional.

Second, Proposition 22 contained several unusual provisions designed to prevent the Legislature from making significant changes to the law.

The measure requires the Legislature to reach a seven-eighths majority to make any changes to the law, a supermajority considered unattainable. It also requires that any amendment be “consistent” with Proposition 22, preventing the Legislature from drastically changing or reversing the law.

If the independent status of the drives were changed, Prop. The remainder of the 22 would also be invalid. So, if drivers are advertised as employees, Uber and Lyft will do so by Prop. Can be withdrawn from higher wages, private accident insurance and other benefits offered under 22.

Because the issue of workers’ compensation could not be separated from the remainder of Proposition 22, Judge Roesch wrote that “all of Proposition 22” could not be applied.

Finally, the judge, Prop. He also brought up an article that prevented the concert workers in 22 from unionizing. Proposition 22 said any future law giving an organization the right to collectively bargain for driver rights, compensation or working conditions would be considered an amendment and would be subject to a seven-eighths majority rule. Judge Roesch ruled that this provision was unconstitutional, as the collective bargaining law should be considered “irrelevant legislation.”

prop. Who intervened to block 22?

Three full drivers and a rider were involved in the case, along with the Service Workers International Union.

“We will continue to draw attention to how labor companies put their profits ahead of their workers,” Michael Robinson, a Lyft driver from Loma Linda, California, told a news conference Monday.

Who’s on the other side of the courtroom?

While the lawsuit focuses on how app-based companies treat their employees, a coalition of drivers and workers groups is suing the State of California and the Department of Industrial Relations, which oversees workers’ compensation.

The California attorney general’s office is now Prop. Defends 22 – a strange occurrence. Attorney General sues Uber and Lyft Prior to proposal 22, it was approved with the aim of forcing companies to run their drivers.

Gig economy companies can still weigh in. Protect Coalitions, App-Based Drivers and Services is a defendant in the case and plans to appeal, he said.

“This outrageous decision is an insult to the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Proposition 22,” said coalition spokesman Geoff Vetter. “We will appeal immediately and we are confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold Proposition 22.”

What’s next?

The California attorney general or Protect App-Based Drivers and Services may appeal to overturn Judge Roesch’s decision. Even an expedited appeal can take several months.

For now, gig economy companies may need to start paying workers’ compensation funds – but the companies argue that nothing will change until the appeal is resolved. They also said they have no immediate plans to change the way drivers are classified. Mr Vetter said all provisions of the 22nd Proposal will remain in place until the appeal process is complete.

Drivers’ lawyer Stacey Leyton disagrees. “The Supreme Court declared Article 22 invalid” and said that drivers should be recognized as employees immediately.

The California war is starting to recur in other states. In August, companies filed a similar application. ballot in Massachusettswhere the gig worker treatment is already facing close scrutiny.

SEIU and other labor activists have pledged to continue their struggles and plans to assist drivers’ organizing and activist efforts.

“We will continue to support their actions towards their demands for the fundamental rights granted to them under current law, which were reaffirmed to them on Friday,” said Alma Hernández, executive director of SEIU California.