In California on Friday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Rosch ruled that Proposition 22, which was voted into law in the November 2020 election, was invalid. violation California State Constitution.
The proposal classifies ride-sharing drivers from companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors, thereby preventing them from being automatically classified as regular employees-thus complying with all relevant employer requirements for medical insurance, etc. under AB5.
In the ruling, Judge Roesch statement Although the proposal itself does not violate the state constitution, a provision in the proposal requires that any amendment to the proposal requires a 7/8 majority vote of the California legislature, which is not in compliance with state law.
In addition, there are also problems with the clause on collective bargaining rights in the proposal. Rosch said,
“The legislation prohibiting collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide these workers with minimum workplace safety and pay standards. This seems to be just for protection. The economic benefits of Internet companies, because they have a split and ununionized workforce, are not the stated goal of the legislation.”
Although unions such as SEIU, which are part of the lawsuit, are naturally ecstatic about the ruling, which they believe will help expand their ranks, the ruling is deeply disappointed and quite disappointing to independent contractors facing the situation in California. It may be the entire country, strictly restricting, if not completely banning, the ability to promote their services under their own control. It remains to be seen how the defendant has stated that the ruling that will be appealed will be enforced.
As already chronicle Here, although its creators and supporters claim that AB5 exists to protect workers from exploitative employers, it is In fact An undisguised effort to force freelancers to join unions against their will.
Its punitive effects on freelancers who wish to maintain this status, as well as the punitive effects of being forced to fundamentally restrict the goods and/or services they provide due to the huge financial requirements of the law on medical insurance, etc., are still affected by those Those seeking to return to work completely ignore it. The current status of store closures in the past-this goes hand in hand with the union’s pouring of funds into the Democratic coffers. It also puts tremendous pressure on those seeking to maintain a livelihood and solvency in the deteriorating Biden economy by limiting available employment opportunities.
Since the ruling will be appealed, we will closely monitor the matter.
