Based on their line of questioning, California Supreme Court justices gave the impression to be in search of a compromise as they heard oral arguments today within the long-running legal saga over whether gig staff needs to be considered independent contractors or employees.
Proposition 22, the gig industry-backed initiative that passed 58% of the state's voters in 2020, has been mired in a legal back-and-forth because it went into effect — including a Supreme Court justice ruling it unconstitutional before it was upheld by a state appeals court. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and other corporations have used the law to treat their drivers and delivery staff in California as independent contractors slightly than employees.
The specific query before the state's highest court is whether or not Prop. 22 conflicts with the state legislature's constitutional authority to implement a full staff' compensation system. A provision within the initiative that makes gig staff ineligible for staff' compensation as independent contractors could end in your entire bill being thrown out. But the judges didn't appear to want that.
John Mejia, an Alameda gig employee in his late 60s who has driven for Uber and Lyft for nine years, said becoming a contractor means forgoing protections offered to virtually every other employee in California. “There is no unemployment insurance. There is no employee compensation. There is no health insurance,” said Mejia, a member of the Gig Workers Union, a bunch that represents Californians who work for corporations like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart.
“When you're sick, you don't make any money and you suffer. Being a contractor under Prop 22 essentially takes away the California civil rights that everyone in California has.”
Gig drivers must cover their very own healthcare costs and pay for fuel or charging, tires and vehicle maintenance, Mejia said. Because their pay is so low — a UC Berkeley Labor Center report released Monday found that the median wage with suggestions is between $7.63 and $11.43 — many gig drivers work 12-hour days and sleep of their cars, Mejia said.
“It’s unfair that you take the ballot measure in California, create your own law and take advantage of the people who work with you and your clients,” Mejia said.
When Scott Kronland, the attorney who argued on behalf of SEIU California and 4 gig staff, said that Prop. 22 conflicted with the Legislature's exclusive and unfettered authority over staff' compensation, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero asked whether the Legislature was violating the Workers' Compensation for Gig Workers Could Restore Workforce.
Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said there’s “still uncertainty” about voters' initiative power, which is imagined to be reminiscent of legislative power: “Does that mean voters are not allowed to act at all in this area (employees' compensation)?”
Crown land responded that the legislature's power over worker compensation was unlimited.
Attorney Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on behalf of the gig corporations, said, “The Constitution allows voters to act on any issue.” That prompted an issue from Associate Justice Leondra Kruger: “Could voters, on initiative, abolish workers' compensation altogether?”
Fisher said yes, but “we are miles away from that.”
At the top of the hour-long hearing, Kronland reminded the justices: “If the Court decides this case on the basis that the Legislature could restore workers' compensation coverage to gig workers…Prop. 22 states that this section cannot be amended. The drafters of Prop. 22 put it on the ballot as an all-or-nothing vote.”
If Prop. 22 is overturned in its entirety, it could impact some gig staff who’ve come to depend on a few of its provisions, comparable to guaranteed earnings of 120% of the minimum wage for time spent driving or making deliveries. whatever they did. That wasn't the case before the initiative became law.
Cora Mandapat, a Bay Area driver who got here to the San Francisco courthouse with the industry-backed group Protect App-Based Drivers + Services, said she receives extra cash each week as a part of this guaranteed income. She added that she takes an uncle for dialysis and that driving for Lyft gives her the liberty to accomplish that. She said she wished there was a way for some drivers to grow to be employees, “but let me do what I want to do.”
Ed Carrasco, a rideshare driver and member of Rideshare Drivers United who got here to San Francisco today but drives within the Los Angeles and Orange County areas, said afterward that the justices look like “asking how to change Prop. 22.” For example, drivers could qualify for staff' compensation if, for instance, the legislature passes a law making them eligible. Carrasco and about 100 other gig staff and members of labor groups, including Gig Workers Rising, gathered for a rally outside the courthouse before the hearing. The gig staff who didn't go into the courtroom watched the oral arguments on a big screen they arrange outside United Nations Plaza across from San Francisco City Hall.
At the rally, Hector Castellanos, the lead plaintiff within the case, spoke about being injured as a gig driver years ago and never with the ability to get staff' compensation. He said his daughter needed to drop out of college to support his family.
“We're asking the judges to stand behind the drivers,” Castellanos told the gang. After the hearing, he told CalMatters that he knows many drivers who regret voting for Prop. 22, which he said was bought by ride-sharing corporations.
The court's seven justices have 90 days to make a choice.
Staff author Ethan Baron contributed to this report.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com