# Prop. 22, the gig worker exemption for Uber and Lyft, is ruled unconstitutional Roland Li



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Prop. 22, the gig worker exemption for Uber and Lyft, is ruled unconstitutional


Proposition 22, which exempts gig work companies like Uber and Lyft from treating drivers...




www.sfchronicle.com





"Proposition 22, which exempts gig work companies like Uber and Lyft from treating drivers as employees, is unconstitutional, a judge ruled Friday.

The measure, which 59% of state voters supported last fall, illegally “limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law,” Alameda County Superior Court Frank Roesch ruled.

The judge’s order found that Section 7451 of the measure is unconstitutional because it “defines unrelated legislation an ‘amendment’” to the measure, making the entire measure unenforceable. The section states that any future laws related to collective bargaining for app drivers must comply with the rest of Prop. 22, which violated the requirement that ballot measures focus on a single subject, Roesch ruled.

“It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation,” he wrote.

The measure also requires a seven-eighths vote of approval to pass any amendments in the state Legislature, which is unconstitutional, Roesch ruled."


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-lyft-prop-22-unconstitutional/


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Hahahahahaha.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*For those playing along at home, a few things to note:*


 This ruling was by a *county level ('superior') court judge - not a state appeals court judge* (Alameda county includes Oakland, Berkley, Hayward, Livermore)
 The finding by the judge that the prop 22 law is 'unconstitutional' *refers to the CA State constitution* *- not the US constitution*
 "the groups plan to appeal and *the proposition will remain in effect* as the court case continues"


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

step by step


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Uber of course are relying on the state of California appealing against the ruling.
Once passed prop 22 became state law and it is up to the state of California to defend said law.🤔😊


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ok, that's it. Make them all employees and be done with it. Fifty percent won't make the cut and the remaining will cry a lot of tears because they didn't understand what being an employee really means. Oh well.


----------



## warsaw (Apr 8, 2017)

SHalester said:


> ok, that's it. Make them all employees and be done with it. Fifty percent won't make the cut and the remaining will cry a lot of tears because they didn't understand what being an employee really means. Oh well.


Here's where your assumptions are not necessarily valid:
1. Workers are smarter than you think.
2. Once made employees, the big unions will be all in and will force big gig to offer better pay and flexible working conditions.
3. Much better to have fewer drivers with most making good money rather than too many (current case) making peanuts.
4. Better qualified drivers are safer, better informed, and generally the smartest ones on the road.
5. Culling the dummies is always good for employees and business.


----------



## SpinalCabbage (Feb 5, 2020)

Received the following email from Uber a little while ago:


_Hello,

Many of you will have read the news that a county judge ruled that Prop 22 is unconstitutional. I wanted you to hear from me that we believe this decision is both wrong and legally flawed. In fact, we don’t believe there’s ever been a successful case overturning a ballot initiative in this way.

We know this creates uncertainty for you, so I wanted to update you on what will happen next: we will appeal this ruling, and we expect to win. In the meantime, *nothing has changed*. Prop 22 remains in effect, *including all of the protections and benefits* it provides independent workers like you, like guaranteed minimum earnings, injury protection, and more. It’s also important to say that this ruling *does not reclassify drivers and delivery people as employees—preserving the flexibility and independence you have repeatedly told us you value*.

Thank you for driving and delivering with Uber. We will keep you updated as this process unfolds.


Andrew Macdonald
Head of Ridesharing Operations_


----------



## warsaw (Apr 8, 2017)

Same BS as always, but they're facing a huge legal challenge that will likely be favored by California's law makers, Governor Newsom (if he wins the recall) and most CA Supreme Court Judges.

Remember, AB5 was the law of the land before prop 22 and was a gamer changer for gig workers.


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

warsaw said:


> Governor Newsom (if he wins the recall)


Sounds like we need to make sure Newsom doesn't survive the recall.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bbonez said:


> Sounds like we need to make sure Newsom doesn't survive the recall.


The governor's office has NOTHING to do with a Prop or a court that shoot it down - and only tangentially has anything to do with the state legislature. But thanks for trying to make a blatantly political statement unrelated to the topic.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

everythingsuber said:


> Uber of course are relying on the state of California appealing against the ruling.
> Once passed prop 22 became state law and it is up to the state of California to defend said law.🤔😊


It's up to the state to choose to defend the law - or choose not to defend it. (The state's attorney general is under no obligation to defend a law they believe to be in violation of the state's Constitution. I'm not saying that's how they see it, just that they always have the option not to present a defense of the law and leave it up to the appeals court)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

warsaw said:


> Same BS as always, but they're facing a huge legal challenge that will likely be favored by California's law makers, Governor Newsom (if he wins the recall) and most CA Supreme Court Judges.
> 
> Remember, AB5 was the law of the land before prop 22 and was a gamer changer for gig workers.


Just to clarify, AB5 is the law and remains the law. (Prop 22 just exempted certain gig workers from that law.)


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

warsaw said:


> 2. Once made employees, the big unions will be all in and will force big gig to offer better pay and flexible working conditions.


you are forgetting a big variable. Unions can't do shyte unless the 'employees' vote to be unionized; pretty sure that would be a steep hill to climb with drivers who would balk at union dues.

I also think you are neglecting all the cons to be an employee. I realize many think all the freedoms would remain; they are dead wrong.


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The governor's office has NOTHING to do with a Prop or a court that shoot it down





Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's up to the state to choose to defend the law - or choose not to defend it. (The state's attorney general is under no obligation to defend a law they believe to be in violation of the state's Constitution.


These statements seem contradictory.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bbonez said:


> These statements seem contradictory.


I know.. but they aren't. The atty general does not defend a prop - it defends (or chooses not to defend) a law.. A proposition is not a law until passed by the voting public and written into law through codification.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

SHalester said:


> you are forgetting a big variable. Unions can't do shyte unless the 'employees' vote to be unionized; pretty sure that would be a steep hill to climb with drivers who would balk at union dues.
> 
> I also think you are neglecting all the cons to be an employee. I realize many think all the freedoms would remain; they are dead wrong.


Who are you kidding?

California is blue enough that the Unions will start breaking kneecaps if you don't vote pro union.

"You.. with the horn... you're going to vote pro-union and get a 75% pay increase for 10% tithe to the union or we are going to break your knees"

That's really all it would take me to bend over. But then again I understand what Unions do and would vote one in anyway.


But thankfully the momentum is starting to roll in favor of killing prop 22.


Pretty soon you guys will either have 57.5c a mile for all miles driven plus min wage, plus tips for all time logged in, or uber will provide a car for you to use free of charge plus min wage plus tips.

Those are the two ways they can legally get into compliance once prop 22 gets the axe, and they will have to pay for time between pings as well btw.


And once the unions get involved it won't be min wage either. Wouldn't be surprised if you saw $20 plus a late-night adjustment. And that's on top of getting either mileage or a shiny car from uber to do the gig.


----------



## warsaw (Apr 8, 2017)

Sounds like you have a good idea of how unions operate, but there’s no denying that Union busting is a national pastime and corporations love it.


----------



## warsaw (Apr 8, 2017)

getting a nice electric car to drive and guaranteed hourly pay for my time plus benefits and tips isn’t that bad, if the hours are semi flexible.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> California is blue enough that the Unions will start breaking kneecaps if you don't vote pro union.
> ...
> But thankfully the momentum is starting to roll in favor of killing prop 22.
> ...
> And once the unions get involved it won't be min wage either.


had to chuckle at that - union bashing while being thankful that the momentum is leaning towards killing prop 22...
It was a union (SEIU) that argued the case that just got a judge to take a swipe at prop 22.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> had to chuckle at that - union bashing while being thankful that the momentum is leaning towards killing prop 22...
> It was a union (SEIU) that argued the case that just got a judge to take a swipe at prop 22.


I'm a realist.

Unions do a lot of good but sometimes they break a few knee caps.





Union violence - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org






There's a wiki page on the topic of unions busting heads ect.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

I have said from the beginning: CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 22.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

“There were several ways in which the drafters of [Prop. 22] overreached and included provisions that conflict with our state constitution, which is the higher law,” he explains.

Until then, everything remains in a state of limbo for gig workers in California who simply want the right to access basic workplace protections. As they and their allies continue on this mission, a tool like UnionTrack ENGAGE can help them stay connected and share valuable information in real time.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

nosurgenodrive said:


> I have said from the beginning: CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 22.


It sure would be nice if the lawmakers would retool AB5 before that happens.


----------

