Happy Nice Mall

A California law protecting concert workers A California Supreme Court judge on Friday evening considered independent contractors to be unconstitutional and unenforceable while giving them some limited benefits.

The decision isn’t likely to affect the new law immediately and is sure to face appeals from Uber and other so-called gig economy companies. reopened Discussion about whether there are drivers for ride-hailing services and delivery couriers are employees who qualify for full benefits or independent contractors responsible for their own work and interests.

Proposition 22, a voting initiative supported last year by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig economy companies, made a third classification for workers, providing limited benefits to gig workers while preventing them from being viewed as employees of tech giants. The initiative was approved in November with more than 58 percent of the vote.

But the drivers and International Service Workers Association filed a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality. The group argued that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional because it limited the State Legislature’s ability to allow workers to organize and access workers’ compensation.

The Act also requires a seven-eighths majority for the Legislature to pass any amendment to Proposition 22; this is a supermajority seen as almost impossible to obtain.

Judge Frank Roesch said: his decision Article 22 violated the California Constitution as it restricted the Legislature’s ability to entitle concert workers to workers’ compensation.

“Not all of Proposition 22 is enforceable,” he wrote, creating new legal turmoil in the long battle over concert workers’ employment rights.

“The judge made the right decision, deciding that Article 22 is unconstitutional because it contains some unusual provisions,” said Veena Dubal, professor of gig economics at the University of California Hastings Law School. “It was written very comprehensively to deny workers access to rights decided by the Legislature.”

But gig economy companies argued the judge made the mistake of “ignoring a century-old case law that requires courts to protect voters’ right to initiative,” said Geoff Vetter, spokesman for the App-Based Drivers and Services Protection Coalition. a group representing concert platforms.

An Uber spokesperson said Prop. He said he ignored the majority of California voters who supported 22. “We will appeal and hope to win,” said spokesman Noah Edwardsen. “Meanwhile, Article 22 remains in effect, including all the protections and benefits it provides to self-employed statewide.”

Uber and other gig economy companies are pursuing similar laws in Massachusetts. This month, a coalition of companies voting proposal This could allow voters in the state to decide next year whether concert workers should be considered independent contractors.