[California] Judge rules Prop 22 unconstitutional

A California judge has ruled that a ballot measure from last November defining Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors is unconstitutional, bringing new uncertainty into the status of the hundreds of thousands of app-based workers, The Washington Post reports.

In a ruling issued on August 20, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is “unenforceable,” arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section requiring a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature’s amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge.

Judge Roesch reportedly said that avenue for amendments ran counter to the state constitution, instituting a threshold that was “difficult to the point of near impossibility.”

In California, ballot measures are required to be limited to a single subject and the provisions in the measures must be related. The judge found that the measure proposed to Californians in November overstepped that requirement by limiting the legislature’s ability to allow workers to collectively bargain. Proposition 22 passed by a 59-to-41 per cent vote in November.

“A prohibition on legislation authorising collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers,” Judge Roesch wrote. “It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionised workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”

Uber criticised the ruling on Friday and said it intended to appeal.

“This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law,” Uber spokesperson Noah Edwardsen said. “Meanwhile, Prop 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state.”

The controversial measure - promoted by a $200 million campaign mounted by companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash - followed a 2019 state law defining Uber and Lyft drivers as employees. The companies and fellow apps mounted a vigorous defence, arguing the requirements of employment would restrict the flexibility they offer drivers and claimed that the majority of drivers did not want to be employees.

California voters sided with Uber, classifying drivers as contractors and thereby denying them benefits.

Advocates for employment argued app-based drivers should be entitled to a minimum wage and benefits such as health insurance, sick leave and job protections.

Prop 22 created a limited set of benefits such as an earnings guarantee and a health care stipend yet failed to offer the typical protections of employment under state law.

Geoff Vetter - a spokesperson for the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition - said his pro-Prop 22 group would file an immediate appeal.

“This outrageous decision is an affront to the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Prop 22,” Mr Vetter said in a statement. “We will file an immediate appeal and are confident the Appellate Court will uphold Prop 22.”

Mr Vetter stated that the court ruling is not binding and said he expected it to be stayed while the group appeals.

A California judge has ruled that a ballot measure from last November defining Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors is unconstitutional, bringing new uncertainty into the status of the hundreds of thousands of app-based workers, The Washington Post reports.

In a ruling issued on August 20, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is “unenforceable,” arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section requiring a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature’s amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge.

Judge Roesch reportedly said that avenue for amendments ran counter to the state constitution, instituting a threshold that was “difficult to the point of near impossibility.”

In California, ballot measures are required to be limited to a single subject and the provisions in the measures must be related. The judge found that the measure proposed to Californians in November overstepped that requirement by limiting the legislature’s ability to allow workers to collectively bargain. Proposition 22 passed by a 59-to-41 per cent vote in November.

“A prohibition on legislation authorising collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers,” Judge Roesch wrote. “It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionised workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”

Uber criticised the ruling on Friday and said it intended to appeal.

“This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law,” Uber spokesperson Noah Edwardsen said. “Meanwhile, Prop 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state.”

The controversial measure - promoted by a $200 million campaign mounted by companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash - followed a 2019 state law defining Uber and Lyft drivers as employees. The companies and fellow apps mounted a vigorous defence, arguing the requirements of employment would restrict the flexibility they offer drivers and claimed that the majority of drivers did not want to be employees.

California voters sided with Uber, classifying drivers as contractors and thereby denying them benefits.

Advocates for employment argued app-based drivers should be entitled to a minimum wage and benefits such as health insurance, sick leave and job protections.

Prop 22 created a limited set of benefits such as an earnings guarantee and a health care stipend yet failed to offer the typical protections of employment under state law.

Geoff Vetter - a spokesperson for the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition - said his pro-Prop 22 group would file an immediate appeal.

“This outrageous decision is an affront to the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Prop 22,” Mr Vetter said in a statement. “We will file an immediate appeal and are confident the Appellate Court will uphold Prop 22.”

Mr Vetter stated that the court ruling is not binding and said he expected it to be stayed while the group appeals.