California Supreme Court Upholds Gig Worker Law In a Win For Ride-Hail Companies (politico.com) 73
In a major victory for ride-hail companies, California Supreme Court upheld a law classifying gig workers as independent contractors, maintaining their ineligibility for benefits such as sick leave and workers' compensation. This decision concludes a prolonged legal battle and supports the 2020 ballot measure Proposition 22, despite opposition from labor groups who argued it was unconstitutional. Politico reports: Thursday's ruling capped a yearslong battle between labor and the companies over the status of workers who are dispatched by apps to deliver food, buy groceries and transport customers. A 2018 Supreme Court ruling and a follow-up bill would have compelled the gig companies to treat those workers as employees. A collection of five firms then spent more than $200 million to escape that mandate by passing the 2020 ballot measure Proposition 22 in one of the most expensive political campaigns in American history. The unanimous ruling on Thursday now upholds the status quo of the gig economy in California.
As independent contractors, gig workers are not entitled to benefits like sick leave, overtime and workers' compensation. The SEIU union and four gig workers, ultimately, challenged Prop 22 based on its conflict with the Legislature's power to administer workers' compensation, specifically. The law, which passed with 58 percent of the vote in 2020, makes gig workers ineligible for workers' comp, which opponents of Prop 22 argued rendered the entire law unconstitutional. [...] Beyond the implications for gig workers, the heavily-funded Prop 22 ballot campaign pushed the limits of what could be spent on an initiative, ultimately becoming the most expensive measure in California history. Uber and Lyft have both threatened to leave any states that pass laws not classifying their drivers as independent contractors. The decision Thursday closes the door to that possibility for California.
As independent contractors, gig workers are not entitled to benefits like sick leave, overtime and workers' compensation. The SEIU union and four gig workers, ultimately, challenged Prop 22 based on its conflict with the Legislature's power to administer workers' compensation, specifically. The law, which passed with 58 percent of the vote in 2020, makes gig workers ineligible for workers' comp, which opponents of Prop 22 argued rendered the entire law unconstitutional. [...] Beyond the implications for gig workers, the heavily-funded Prop 22 ballot campaign pushed the limits of what could be spent on an initiative, ultimately becoming the most expensive measure in California history. Uber and Lyft have both threatened to leave any states that pass laws not classifying their drivers as independent contractors. The decision Thursday closes the door to that possibility for California.
Translation: The race to the bottom. (Score:1)
Re: Translation: The race to the bottom. (Score:3)
This decision is, clearly, limited to gig workers, how can this expand to, say, salaried or even part-time workers?
Part-time workers that work over a certain number hours/week are entitled to various benefits including subsidized healthcare, and full-time workers are clearly entitled to various benefits - this decision has no impact on full- or part-time employees.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is trivially easy to get around. I worked at a place that paid hourly... but they hard a hard and fast rule that if anyone claimed over 35 hours a week for anything, that would be their last paycheck, and they would be fired. Because the state was an at-will state, the company got people working 60-80 hours a week and only paying 35 hours, and because the people were classified as part time as they were not under 40 hours, they received zero benefits like health insurance.
Very easy for employers to g
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the early 80's I filed such a complaint against the company I was working for (since gone out of busi
Re: (Score:2)
That would be charged under illegal coercion/blackmail with goal to defraud the worker and the taxman of their legal gains on top of the rest.
If you hypothesis is correct, this is where IRS enters the fray. And I don't care how powerful you think corporations are. IRS is stronger.
So calling the dude making this claim "lying sack of shit" is completely accurate. You may be able to intimidate a worker or two into doing this, but the moment one of them snitches to IRS, this employer is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Me:
>on top of the rest.
Retard:
>In any sensible country that would just be a blatant violation of employment laws concerning hours worked.
Yes, that is included in "on top of the rest", because US is a sensible country. Unlike PRC, where worker would become an involuntary organ donor for disrupting societal harmony.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would come on top of the rest. It's not just US either. You'll find same thing happening in many Western countries, where tax authorities join prosecutor in going after such ridiculously overblown violations.
You'd know this if you lived in the West, my dear fifty-center. But you don't, because in PRC, that's not the case.
Re: (Score:1)
The original poster did not say you couldn't claim every hour worked, what they did say was that if you did, the employer would fire you.
I know what he said. I actually read his post. Every word of it.
Was that legal? probably not,
Probably not?? What the fuck? Of course it's not legal. There's no ambiguity there. No gray area.
but many employees don't know that stuff ...
And who the fuck's fault is that? The same goddamn lefties running our education system who can't seem to be effing bothered to teach kids information they'll need to just participate in normal life. Why don't they know it? How can a citizen of this country end up in the workforce and not have a clue about some of those most basic rules about our
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Awww.. Poor wittle baby had to "Foe" me.
you have the mentality of a toddler.
Re: (Score:2)
That is trivially easy to get around.
What you describe is a serious crime and a ripe target for a class action lawsuit, which many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that California has no respect & affords no dignity to its workers.
Re: (Score:2)
This decision is, clearly, limited to gig workers, how can this expand to, say, salaried or even part-time workers?
Part-time workers that work over a certain number hours/week are entitled to various benefits including subsidized healthcare, and full-time workers are clearly entitled to various benefits - this decision has no impact on full- or part-time employees.
I've worked various jobs that were full time hours yet either didn't or only barely got any benefits due to being a contract worker. Many companies may only have a total of 5-10 actual employees (all executives) while the rest of the staff is a contract worker. They pay the contract company and the contract company pays the employee but, since they aren't directly employed, none of the contractors are afforded any real benefits including unemployment. This is how they can expand to part-time and full-time
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's tragic that we still allow roaming bands of Uber recruiters to go around kidnapping drivers and forcing them to work without pay.
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
In California, slavery is legal.
But if you have to structure your business anywhere, but California, YOU'RE A NAZI!
How does this rant fit with the topic of TFS?
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
In California, slavery is legal.
Right... Because the hyper-liberal California Supreme Court justices are tyrants.. Not because an Uber driver meets every single one of the criteria to be classified as an "Independent Contractor" under California Law. A law passed by the Assembly and Senate which both contain Democrat super-majorities.
A law liberals wanted because it allowed a person to just go out, do some gig work, and get paid for it without having to go through all the hassle of the payer calculating what taxes to withhold.. Instead the payer just has to fill out a form, and send it to the tax board, if some particular threshold of pay is reached. (I cannot remember what the number is but it's way up in the several hundreds of dollars range. Lower than that and it's the honor system (much like cash tips - which you are supposed to report and pay your fair-share taxes on). Artists, hair-stylists, musicians, trades-people, could all just go out, do some gig/side work and get paid without a bunch of hassle.. Oh, I forgot one.. Uber driver
I've seen so many lefties moaning and pissing about Uber drivers being classified as IC's.. They are never happy with anything.. They want a law, they get a law, they bitch about the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Right... Because the hyper-liberal California Supreme Court justices are tyrants.. Not because an Uber driver meets every single one of the criteria to be classified as an "Independent Contractor" under California Law. A law passed by the Assembly and Senate which both contain Democrat super-majorities.
eh... not how it happened. It was never about the workers -it was about the state budget.
-Uber drivers met some, but not all, of the conditions under California law to be classified as independent contractors.
-Lawyers agued in court that because they met some of the conditions, they should be treated as independent contractors.
-Lawmakers passed a law to clarify -explicitly- that gig workers count as employees. (There are benefits the state provides which *everyone* qualifies for, but which are paid for on
mc now hiring pay 20% commission only! (Score:1)
mc now hiring pay 20% commission only!
Re: mc now hiring pay 20% commission only! (Score:4, Informative)
McD is now paying $20/hr in CA, but you knew that, right?
A lot of Uber drivers (Score:1)
Basically Uber is exploiting a bunch of desperate workers in bad situations. If you think t
Looks like a win for people (Score:2, Insightful)
It looks to me like a win for people who want to define the terms of their work without government interference.
Re:Looks like a win for people (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people defining these particular terms are the CxOs of Uber and Lyft. I'm sure very few drivers are saying "I prefer to have a job without any benefits. I'd rather see those funds go towards executive bonuses."
Re:Looks like a win for people (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure very few drivers are saying "I prefer to have a job without any benefits.
The difference between a contractor and an employee is much more than "one has benefits and the other doesn't."
Contractors are generally paid more, have more freedom to choose their working hours, and can work for more than one company (both Uber and Lyft, in this case).
If they want a traditional company-employee relationship, with a boss looking over their shoulder, there are plenty of those jobs to choose from. But that's not what gig work is.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a contractor and an employee is much more than "one has benefits and the other doesn't."
Contractors are generally paid more, have more freedom to choose their working hours, and can work for more than one company (both Uber and Lyft, in this case).
If they want a traditional company-employee relationship, with a boss looking over their shoulder, there are plenty of those jobs to choose from. But that's not what gig work is.
You conveniently ignore all the parts of a contractor that are *not* offered by gig economy. E.g. ability to set your own wages, or define your own terms of work. When Uber stops grading its *employees* (as defined by many laws in different countries despite what they managed to do with Prop 22 in California), when it stops setting conditions of their car and setting their rates for them, then you can start calling them contractors.
But since we don't fit into either category properly let's just agree to cre
Re: Holy Christ I hope you got paid for that (Score:1)
Sounds like he might be talking about the apps that traditional taxi companies now use. Though they're not free, and they're not government run either.
I also have a hard time imagining how a government run ride share app would even work. The appeal of apps like Uber and Lyft are that basically anybody can sign up to be a driver. If you get too many bad reviews, they can ban you. If the government tried any of that, I'm having a hard time imagining how it could work without getting tied up in red tape.
Either
Re: (Score:3)
kick Uber out and let the drivers keep all of the money
What money? Uber was barely profitable for the first time last year, and Lyft is still bleeding cash.
Here's the thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Here's the thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the ride-hail services are actually cheaper than taxis anymore, it's just easier to use an app instead of trying to find a cab on your own...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the whole point. Use VC funds to undercut the taxi companies and put them out of business. Now you're the only game in town with no competition.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the whole point. Use VC funds to undercut the taxi companies and put them out of business. Now you're the only game in town with no competition.
*looks at downtown San Francisco*
It would appear that Californias political tactics related to driving business out of town, worked a little too well. And I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the point. Or the goal. You get what you vote for.
Re: (Score:3)
Use VC funds to undercut the taxi companies
Only about a third of rideshare business came from taxis.
Much of it came from people using it as an alternative to renting a car, driving their own car, or taking public transit.
Before ridesharing, I rented a car at the airport when on a business trip. Now, I use Lyft. There's no way I'd rely on taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the ride-hail services are actually cheaper than taxis anymore, it's just easier to use an app instead of trying to find a cab on your own...
Convenience being sold under the guise of a bargain? Why do I have this weird feeling there’s an app for that..
Re: (Score:2)
"it's just easier to use an app instead of trying to find a cab on your own"
In civilized parts of the world, you can use a ride hailing app and you get a real taxi.
Re: Here's the thing... (Score:2)
Regulations. IIRC, it was NYC that banned on-line cab hailing. Web-based at the time, because apps were not really a thing at that time.
All in the name of equality and "leveling the playing field". Because po' folks didn't have the same access to the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the ride-hail services are actually cheaper than taxis anymore, it's just easier to use an app instead of trying to find a cab on your own...
Depends on where you are. In many places there's still a huge difference. Where I live (in Europe) Uber is about 1/2 the cost of a taxi, and critically since taxis are regulated only by requirement to register that you carry passengers professionally, literally all public taxi drivers are also Uber drivers. You call an Uber there's a 90% chance a taxi will be at your doorstep, just charging a lower rate than the meter.
It goes both ways though. If something goes wrong and surcharge pricing kicks in, taxis ar
Re: Here's the thing... (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, the distinction between ride shares and taxi services is rapidly vanishing. Prices are nearly the same, drivers are regulated (background checks, etc.). The primary difference is that in places with cab medalions, the market is artificially restricted to create artificial property (the medallion) for the benefit of some invest
The best laws money can buy (Score:5, Informative)
These companies spent a legitimate fortune on prop 22. https://abc7.com/22-california... [abc7.com]
Social stability (Score:4, Insightful)
Having a class of people who can't afford health care and scramble for whatever job they can find at whatever terms are offered just to slow their decent into abject poverty is...
Well, it's your society, you make the rules with every vote. But I have to tell you, most of the rest of the industrialized Western world has realized exploiting the poor is not only wrong but in the long term results in bad outcomes for the society that does it.
America's rich, what's wrong with making sure everyone (and their children) has access to an education and reasonable health care so they don't have to be serfs desperate for a lord to care for them? You can afford it.
Re: Social stability (Score:1)
Most European countries' willingness to pay for social welfare is strongly correlated to how white that country is.
Re: (Score:2)
Most European countries' willingness to pay for social welfare is strongly correlated to how white that country is.
Which European countries aren't white?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a super-racist, so anyone darker than an anemic Swede in January is not white to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Show your sources for that claim or GTFO.
Re: Social stability (Score:2)
You can Google yourself to find out which countries have the best social welfare and what the racial demographics of those countries are.
Re: (Score:1)
America's rich... You can afford it.
Questionable assumption for a country with $40 trillion in debt.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's your society, you make the rules with every vote.
Really? Districts can be redrawn at will. The media is a fully owned propaganda device. Schools have not encouraged critical thinking even once during my entire lifetime.
Your vote doesn't matter because there are thousands that are hoodwinked and bamboozled for every voter that tries to vote their conscience.
You do not matter. I do not matter. The only thing that matters is who has the levers to pull to create a society that votes against its own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you see, there are these things called "apps", that are created using technology. Combined with the technology of the "internet" the companies making these apps -- often called "startup companies" -- have been able to make a lot of money. Central to their business model is the idea of "gig workers" without which these tech companies have been unable to do something called "scaling". And granting employment benefits to the gig workers would ruin that business model and make it harder for the technolog
Government fails, again (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of businesses use independent workers. That isn't a problem and a law saying it is, is kinda destructive.
No, the problem is, those corporations using 'leverage' to treat contractors as employees. If the government wanted to help, they would assist those sole traders litigate against mega-corporations for breach of contract and unfair dismissal. At the very least, they would demand record-keeping (Eg. business e-mails) and increase the penalties for misbehaviour. Once again, the government fails to protect the most vulnerable, and this time, for getting a job.
Who appointed those judges? (Score:3)
Overhwhelmingly, "gig workers", aka "independent contractors", is a scam run by MBAs who don't want to pay benefits, decent wages, and, oh, they can't form unions.
bad amendment to bad law (Score:2)
Prop 22 is a compromise kludge to fix the absurd union-sponsored anti-gig worker law the California Politburo had decreed. The whole law should have been thrown out, not just adding some exceptions to whoever had deep enough pockets to sponsor an initiative. Surprised the Calif Supreme Soviet did not throw out the prop, like they did the one making it harder to pass taxes without voter approval.
Society and legal systems have to adapt (Score:2)