California is proposing a law which would require companies like Uber, Lyft and other app based companies to keep their drivers as independent contractors. The proposition is a new development in the struggle between business and state government. The most recent bill is AB 5, which provides benefits such as sick leave and minimum wage for the drivers. It classifies the workers and employees not, as independent contractors. The companies have challenged the law in court. The argument used by the companies in court is that they are technology based companies instead of transportation companies. The most current case in May was delayed because companies threatened to shut down. So while AB 5 is bogged down in legal cases, a new proposition has arisen.
The goal of the newest legislative law, Proposition 22, is to allow workers to remain independent contractors and stop the workers from receiving benefits. It does provide a few benefits for drivers, but generally keeps them as independent contractors. By keeping drivers as independent it allows them to remain flexible with hours spent driving. Some of the drivers only do it part time and receiving minimum wage could be harmful.
The CEO of Uber, Dara Khosrowshahi, said in a New York Times opinion piece, “Unlike traditional jobs, drivers have total freedom to choose when and how they drive, so they can fit their work around their life, not the other way around. Anyone who’s been fired after having to miss a shift, or who’s been forced to choose between school and work, will tell you that this type of freedom has real value and simply does not exist with most traditional jobs.”
The companies have been launching an add campaign in order to raise public support for the proposition. The campaign is working. A recent study by the University of California Berkeley conveyed that 39% of the 5,900 voters supported the proposition and 36% did not. The number of the supporters is not at the level the companies want it to be at but there is still time before the election. The San Francisco Chronicle called the proposition “an imperfect balance between companies and workers.”
The groups opposing Proposition 22 preliminarily contain labor unions, which claim the workers are being exploited by the large companies.The workers receive less pay than they should be promised. Many drivers are immigrants and the ability to have legal protections like those currently offered in AB 5 would be beneficial, instead of remaining as independent contractors.. The labor unions fear that a victory for the proposition would set terrible consequences in motion.
Steven Smith, a spokesperson for California Labor federation and no on prop 22 campaign, said “All of the jobs that exist right now that are good middle-class jobs that are the backbone of the California economy could potentially be at risk and turn into these low wage, dead-end type gig jobs where people are earning sometimes less than minimum wage”
US news - Uber, Lyft Look to Kill California Law on App-Based Drivers
Los angeles Times - Californians not sold on treating Uber, Lyft drivers as independent contractors, new poll shows
The Californian - Employees or independent contractors? Prop 22 hopes to answer that question
2 comments:
After reading a little further into the proposal in the Official Voter Info Guide, I noticed that this proposition applies differently to different kinds of workers; there are workers who do indeed only work part-time, with driving as a supplementary source of income, and there are those that are essentially full-time drivers, and thus, inevitably, this proposition impacts these groups differently (I think it’s also important to point out that the sides cited contradictory statistics; the side in favor stated that “more than 80% of drivers work less than 20 hours a week” while those against stated “over 70 percent of drivers for Lyft and Uber work 30 or more hours per week, so either the definition of "driver" is being interpreted loosely, or those in opposition have disregarded the non-rideshare driving (delivery) companies in their argument). I do think there is a valid concern over the idea of affording certain standard protections to drivers, but it seems as though the current legislation basically makes it illegal to work as an independent contractor, which doesn’t accommodate the drivers who need the flexibility in order to balance multiple jobs and makes this a very divisive issue; would it be too idealistic (and potentially cumbersome) to implement a system in which a driver can apply as an employee OR an independent contractor, like something along the lines of how one can be a consultant to a company versus an official employee? I realize how that may gloss over some of the complexities that need to be addressed, but it seems to me that a full stop of one option in favor of the other wouldn’t properly protect drivers either.
I agree with the claim in the original post from the SF Chronicle that Prop 22 is "an imperfect balance between companies and workers.” Basically a vote yes or no for the prompt is likely not going to be the last time we hear about disputes between workers and the companies of app-based drivers. While I don't want my personal opinion to take center spotlight in this issue, I was at first persuaded to "vote" (vote being in quotes as I am not yet) due to the many adds I saw on popular platforms such as Youtube and other online sites, with the "average driver" speaking in support of the bill on the basis of more freedom and flexible work times. However I later learned many of these ads were paid for by Lyft and Uber, disguised as "unbiased" (at least by big companies) and lobbying for the drivers. I now am no longer in favor of Prop 22, as these drivers will be denied the many benefits of being a true employee. The drivers will not be given "sick leave, healthcare and unemployment" protections (https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/)if Prop 22 passes. Prop 22 seems like an attempt for these big companies to increase profit, at the health and safety of their drivers, all hidden under the idea of more freedom. However classifying the drivers as employees does also pose some complications, as many drivers choose to work part-time, they might not be able to if Lyft and Uber start to limit the drivers (therefore limiting the employment benefits they must provide) the flexibility of the "anyone can drive" will become more restrictive.
Post a Comment