Tag Archives: Local Elections

Court rules that Uber and Lyft can keep treating drivers as contractors in California

Posted on by

Uber and Lyft don't have to worry about reclassifying its workers in California for now. An appeals court has just ruled that gig workers, such as rideshare drivers, can continue to be classified as independent contractors under Proposition 22. 

If you'll recall, California passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) in September 2019 that legally obligates companies to treat their gig workers as full-time employees. That means providing them with all the appropriate benefits and protections, such as paying for their unemployment and health insurance. As a response, Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash poured over $220 million into campaigning for the Prop 22 ballot measure, which would allow them to treat app-based workers as independent contractors. It ended up passing by a wide margin in the state.

In 2021, a group of critics that included the Service Employees International Union and the SEIU California State Council filed a lawsuit in 2021 to overturn the proposition. The judge in charge of the case sided with them and called Prop 22 unconstitutional. He said back then that the proposition illegally "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law." 

The three appeals court judges have now overturned that ruling, though according to The New York Times, one of them wanted to throw out Prop 22 entirely for the same reason the lower court judge gave when he handed down his decision. While the appeals court upheld the policy in the end, it ordered that a clause that makes it hard for workers in the state to unionize be severed from the rest of the proposition. That particular clause required a seven-eighths majority vote from the California legislature to be able to amend workers' rights to collective bargaining. 

David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union in California, told The Times in a statement: "Every California voter should be concerned about corporations’ growing influence in our democracy and their ability to spend millions of dollars to deceive voters and buy themselves laws." The group is now expected to appeal this ruling and to take their fight to the Supreme Court, which could take months to decide whether to hear the case. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/court-rules-uber-lyft-keep-contractors-classification-drivers-california-054040457.html?src=rss

Massachusetts court rejects proposed gig worker ballot measure

Posted on by

The New York Timesreports Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a proposed ballot measure that would have enshrined Uber and Lyft's business model in law. The court said the measure violated the Massachusetts constitution by including two unrelated policy decisions, including one hidden by "obscure language."

The bulk of the proposed ballot measure outlined limited benefits for rideshare drivers. However, the offending provision would have said that drivers couldn't be treated as an "employee or agent" of gig-based companies. If voted into law, this might have shielded outfits like Uber or Lyft from liability in the event of a crash or crime — not to mention kneecapping any attempts to reclassify drivers as employees in the state. The unrelated provisions raised concerns that voters might be "confused, misled and deprived" of a real choice, the court wrote in its decision.

Uber, Lyft and their supporters contended that formalizing the gig worker model would have protected flexibility for drivers seeking their own hours. Groups supporting the companies, such as Chamber of Progress, have claimed employee status could cost jobs and income. Critics like AFL-CIO union federation, however, have argued that measures like this create a false dichotomy between flexibility and benefits — they see ballot options like this as attempts to cut employment costs at the expense of laborers.

Uber and Lyft declined to comment. The two spent a total of $17.8 million endorsing the ballot measure, and have had mixed success promoting similar efforts in other states. They got Californians to vote for Proposition 22, a bid to reverse a state law protecting drivers as employees, only to watch as a judge ruled the measure unconstitutional. The companies struck an agreement with Washington State legislators in early 2022, but failed to get much traction in New York State.

Lyft is spending millions to stop Massachusetts drivers from becoming employees

Posted on by

Lyft has already splashed out $14.4 million towards a likely November ballot measure in Massachusetts which would cement its drivers as contractors, rather than employees — and the vast majority of those funds were paid in a single, $13 million donation, the largest in the state's history by a considerable margin. It's an unambiguous opening salvo in what will likely be a bitter and protracted battle, the playbook for which Lyft and its gig work peers successfully tested in California two years ago. 

As the Boston Globereports, Lyft has thus far contributed the lion's share of the Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers committee's $17.2 million war chest, which is intended to fund the forthcoming ballot measure. The rest comes from Uber, DoorDash and Instacart owner Maplebear. The previous record for largest single donation was nearly a third the size: a $5.1 million contribution from General Motors in 2020. 

Currently Lyft and Uber are engaged in a lawsuit, filed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, which contends that the companies have been misclassifying their driver workforce as contractors. Leveraging contractor status relieves them of many of the costs and obligations associated with employees — such as minimum wage, healthcare and overtime pay — but true contractors typically control how and when they work, and what they charge for their services. Whether or not ridershare drivers actually have that level of autonomy has become a point of legal contention in several of the states and countries in which these companies operate.

California thus far has prosecuted its defense of gig-workers-as-employees most vociferously, first through a state Supreme Court ruling in 2018, then through AB5, a successfully-passed bill that (however briefly) enshrined these kinds of drivers as employees. It went into effect on January 1, 2020 and was overturned by ballot measure Proposition 22 that November. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates dumped a historic $224 million into the proposition — outspending their opposition, which largely consisted of labor unions, by more than 10-to-1 — the most expensive ballot measure in California history. 

Although Prop 22 was eventually ruled unconstitutional, the strategy has thus far been successful for gig work companies. Legislative changes have been tied up in court, and nowhere in the United States are Lyft or Uber drivers currently entitled to the entire slate of benefits enjoyed by full-time employees.

In making their case for Prop 22, gig companies essentially employed two lines of attack. The first, against its own workers, was a facile attempt to tie the concept of "flexibility" to contractor status, an utterly false dichotomy perpetuated by the companies themselves. The second was to convince voters in California that the costs associated with a fleet of employee drivers would either force them to scale back service or raise prices. 

After Prop 22 passed, every single company that backed it raised prices anyway. Uber's CEO also recently contended on a call with investors that, in the face of potential employee-status regulations in the European Union, Uber can, in fact, afford to "make any model work" financially. We've reached out to Lyft to ask if it's in a similar position.

Given this much publicized bait-and-switch, it seems unlikely the Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers committee will be able to successfully argue the same case regarding cost to consumers. Still, the $17.2 million already amassed has paid for, as the Globe reports, a slew of big-name political consultancies who were behind what is currently the most expensive (and likely to soon the be the second-most expensive) ballot measure in Massachusetts history, which sought to stymie a right to repair law.

Update 1/19/21 2:09pm ET: Reached for comment, a representative for Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers told Engadget that, "this is just the beginning of our effort. All of the Coalition members have committed to providing significant resources to achieve our shared goal of protecting drivers’ ability to remain independent contractors while accessing historic new benefits." Lyft decline to comment individually. 

Are you a gig work driver or courier working in Massachusetts? Download Signal messenger for iOS or Android and text me confidentially at 646 983 9846 and let's keep in touch.

 

Judge bars county clerk after voting machine passwords leaked to QAnon

Posted on by

In August, QAnon conspiracy theorist Ron Watkins shared a video he claimed showed ballot machines from Dominion Voting Systems could be remotely accessed to tamper with the results of a vote. At the time, he said the information came to him from a “whistleblower.”

This week, a Colorado judge barred Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters from overseeing the county’s upcoming November election in relation to a leak of voting machine BIOS passwords. Peters, who tweeted in support of former President Donald Trump’s election conspiracy theories, invited a man named Gerald Wood to a meeting involving a “trusted build” software update that was meant to ensure the security of the county’s voting machines. Peters claimed Wood was an “administrative assistant” transitioning to her office, but then later described him as a “consultant” she hired to copy information from the computers.

Ahead of the meeting, Belinda Knisley, Peters’ deputy, sent an email to staff asking that they turn off the security cameras in the Election Department and not turn them back on until after August 1st. Knisley didn’t explain the reason for her request, but it was carried out either way. On the day of the meeting, Wood photographed a spreadsheet that contained the passwords to the machines and copied over their hard drives. Following the meeting, the passwords were publicly posted to an “online social media site.”

“Peters directed the creation of the images of the hard drive, which was not authorized by law and which directly led to the decommissioning of Mesa County’s voting systems, facilitating the leak of sensitive data and exposed the county’s voting system to compromise,” Judge Valerie Robinson wrote in a decision spotted by Ars Technica.

In a statement, Peters said she plans to appeal the “decision to remove a duly elected clerk and recorded from her election duties.” She went on to described herself as a whistleblower and called the case against her a “power grab” by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

“Clerk Peters seriously compromised the security of Mesa County’s voting system,” Griswold said in a statement. “The Court’s decision today bars Peters from further threatening the integrity of Mesa’s elections and ensures Mesa County residents have the secure and accessible election they deserve.” The FBI and Mesa County district attorney are investigating Peters, but no criminal charges have been filed yet.

Judge bars county clerk after voting machine passwords leaked to QAnon

Posted on by

In August, QAnon conspiracy theorist Ron Watkins shared a video he claimed showed ballot machines from Dominion Voting Systems could be remotely accessed to tamper with the results of a vote. At the time, he said the information came to him from a “whistleblower.”

This week, a Colorado judge barred Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters from overseeing the county’s upcoming November election in relation to a leak of voting machine BIOS passwords. Peters, who tweeted in support of former President Donald Trump’s election conspiracy theories, invited a man named Gerald Wood to a meeting involving a “trusted build” software update that was meant to ensure the security of the county’s voting machines. Peters claimed Wood was an “administrative assistant” transitioning to her office, but then later described him as a “consultant” she hired to copy information from the computers.

Ahead of the meeting, Belinda Knisley, Peters’ deputy, sent an email to staff asking that they turn off the security cameras in the Election Department and not turn them back on until after August 1st. Knisley didn’t explain the reason for her request, but it was carried out either way. On the day of the meeting, Wood photographed a spreadsheet that contained the passwords to the machines and copied over their hard drives. Following the meeting, the passwords were publicly posted to an “online social media site.”

“Peters directed the creation of the images of the hard drive, which was not authorized by law and which directly led to the decommissioning of Mesa County’s voting systems, facilitating the leak of sensitive data and exposed the county’s voting system to compromise,” Judge Valerie Robinson wrote in a decision spotted by Ars Technica.

In a statement, Peters said she plans to appeal the “decision to remove a duly elected clerk and recorded from her election duties.” She went on to described herself as a whistleblower and called the case against her a “power grab” by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

“Clerk Peters seriously compromised the security of Mesa County’s voting system,” Griswold said in a statement. “The Court’s decision today bars Peters from further threatening the integrity of Mesa’s elections and ensures Mesa County residents have the secure and accessible election they deserve.” The FBI and Mesa County district attorney are investigating Peters, but no criminal charges have been filed yet.

California judge finds Prop 22 gig worker measure unconstitutional

Posted on by

A California judge has ruled that Proposition 22, the measure that allows companies like Uber and Lyft to keep classifying app-based drivers in the state as independent contractors, is unenforceable and unconstitutional. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alameda County Superior Court judge Frank Roesch found that Prop 22 illegally "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law."

Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin in the state when most people voted in favor of it in last year's November elections. Companies were legally obligated to classify gig workers as full-time employees under Assembly Bill 5 A (AB5), which was passed in 2019, but some (like the aforementioned ride-sharing firms) continued to treat them as contractors. Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash poured over $220 million into campaigning for Prop 22 in order to overturn AB5, and the move clearly worked. 

The measure requires gig companies to provide their contractors with healthcare subsidies and a wage floor, but it also exempts them from having to classify their workers as employees with appropriate benefits and protections. While those in favor of the proposition argue that it would allow workers to keep their independence while enjoying benefits they didn't have before, not everyone's happy with the development. A group that includes the Service Employees International Union and the SEIU California State Council sued California earlier this year to overturn the proposition. 

In his ruling, Roesch specifically singled out Section 7451 of the measure, which states that any future law related to collective bargaining for app drivers must comply with the rest of the proposition. "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 in his decision. He also found it unconstitutional that any amendment to the measure requires a seven-eighths vote of approval to pass in the state Legislature.

If the ruling stands, gig companies like Uber and Lyft may have to spend hundreds of millions paying for healthcare and other additional benefits for their drivers. At the moment, though, Prop 22 is still in effect, and gig companies are already planning to appeal. An Uber spokesperson told The Chronicle:

"This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. We will appeal and we expect to win. Meanwhile, Prop. 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state."

California judge finds Prop 22 gig worker measure unconstitutional

Posted on by

A California judge has ruled that Proposition 22, the measure that allows companies like Uber and Lyft to keep classifying app-based drivers in the state as independent contractors, is unenforceable and unconstitutional. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alameda County Superior Court judge Frank Roesch found that Prop 22 illegally "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law."

Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin in the state when most people voted in favor of it in last year's November elections. Companies were legally obligated to classify gig workers as full-time employees under Assembly Bill 5 A (AB5), which was passed in 2019, but some (like the aforementioned ride-sharing firms) continued to treat them as contractors. Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash poured over $220 million into campaigning for Prop 22 in order to overturn AB5, and the move clearly worked. 

The measure requires gig companies to provide their contractors with healthcare subsidies and a wage floor, but it also exempts them from having to classify their workers as employees with appropriate benefits and protections. While those in favor of the proposition argue that it would allow workers to keep their independence while enjoying benefits they didn't have before, not everyone's happy with the development. A group that includes the Service Employees International Union and the SEIU California State Council sued California earlier this year to overturn the proposition. 

In his ruling, Roesch specifically singled out Section 7451 of the measure, which states that any future law related to collective bargaining for app drivers must comply with the rest of the proposition. "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 in his decision. He also found it unconstitutional that any amendment to the measure requires a seven-eighths vote of approval to pass in the state Legislature.

If the ruling stands, gig companies like Uber and Lyft may have to spend hundreds of millions paying for healthcare and other additional benefits for their drivers. At the moment, though, Prop 22 is still in effect, and gig companies are already planning to appeal. An Uber spokesperson told The Chronicle:

"This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. We will appeal and we expect to win. Meanwhile, Prop. 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state."