On Friday, a judge rejected a voter-approved California law that stipulates that gig workers are considered independent contractors.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposal No. 22, which California voters passed with nearly 59% of the vote last year, was unconstitutional and unenforceable because it deprived “the future legislature will be based on the driver of the app Defined as the power of workers constrained by workers. ‘Compensation Law. “
The proposal went into effect in December last year and ensures that drivers of app-based carpooling and meal delivery services are not considered employees by California law. Gig workers receive not full benefits, but specific limited benefits, such as a $0.30 reimbursement per mile of work, and health insurance allowances for people who drive more than 15 hours a week.
The voting initiative is a response to the AB-5 passed by the California State Legislature in 2019, which will mandate full benefits for gig workers.Carpooling and delivery companies, including Uber, Lyft, and Instacart spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help pass Proposition 22 in 2020 to exempt application-based work from AB-5.
Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty
Although an overwhelming majority of voters approved No. 22, others, including groups representing gig workers demanding full benefits, were not satisfied and immediately vowed to challenge the law. Roesch’s ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in January.
“Companies such as Uber and Lyft have spent $225 million to try to deprive workers of their rights in violation of the California Constitution,” said Bob Schoonover, chairman of the SEIU California State Assembly, in a statement. “They are trying to increase profits by undermining democracy and the national constitution.”
“For two years, drivers have been saying that democracy cannot be bought,” he added. “And today’s decision shows that they are right.”
Although Friday’s decision was a setback for Proposal 22 supporters, the law is unlikely to change anytime soon.An Uber spokesperson said in a statement Weekly newspaper The ruling “disregards the wishes of the vast majority of voters in California, ignoring logic and law,” adding that they “hope to win” the appeal.
The Protect App-Based Drivers & Services (PADS) Coalition, an organization that represents gig economy companies and supports the 2020 plan, also promised to promptly appeal to ensure that the law is at least temporarily effective.
PADS spokesperson Jeff Witt said in a statement: “We believe that the judge made a serious mistake by ignoring the case law that has required the court to protect the right to electoral democracy for a century.” Weekly newspaper“This heinous decision is an insult to the vast majority of California voters who passed Proposition 22.”
“We will appeal immediately and believe that the Court of Appeal will support Proposition 22,” Witte added. “Importantly, this High Court decision is non-binding and will be shelved immediately after our appeal. All the provisions of Proposition 22 will remain in effect until the appeal process is completed.
