California lawmakers to propose legislation giving ride-hailing drivers right to unionize
California lawmakers are pursuing legislation that could give drivers for apps like Uber and Lyft the ability to form unions, while still being classified as independent contractors.
Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) plan to introduce Assembly Bill 1340, also titled the Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act, on Tuesday.
The legislation would allow drivers to negotiate pay as well as other terms of their agreements with app-based companies, exempting them from state and federal antitrust laws that would prohibit such activity, according to a draft reviewed by the Times.
"Fundamentally what this bill seeks to do is empower rideshare drivers to advocate for better working conditions," Wicks said in an interview.
The proposal does not include food delivery drivers.
The exact process of how collective bargaining would be overseen by the state is not outlined in the proposal.
Wicks and Berman said that they expect those details to be hashed out during the legislative process, with conversations from all stakeholders, including drivers, ride-hailing companies and Service Employees International Union California, which is backing the bill.
Typically, antitrust laws would prevent collective action by independent contractors. For example, Seattle faced litigation when it attempted to establish a driver bargaining model through a local ordinance in 2015.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an Uber subsidiary successfully challenged the law, arguing that bargaining by independent-contractor drivers amounted to illegal concerted action and price fixing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed with the city's position that it had created a state-supervised regulatory program, finding that it was not exempt from antitrust law.
Drivers for Uber and Lyft are considered independent contractors under a voter-approved state law — Proposition 22 — that went into effect in late 2020. The law originally had barred collective bargaining over drivers' compensation, benefits and working conditions, but an appeals court struck down the provision, arguing it inappropriately limited the California Legislature's authority.
The state Supreme Court in a ruling last year largely upheld Proposition 22 but did not address the collective bargaining provision.
SEIU California contends that the Legislature has the authority to allow drivers to collectively bargain, based on the appeals court ruling. However, if the bill is ultimately approved by lawmakers, it's possible ride-hailing companies might challenge it.
'A union is the only pathway for 600,000 rideshare drivers to improve their pay and working conditions under Prop 22," said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, in an emailed statement.
Uber and Lyft representatives said the companies opposed the proposal, arguing it would make rides more costly for consumers and go against the will of voters who approved Proposition 22.
"At a time when families' budgets in California are stretched to the max, this proposal would make trips even more expensive," said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.
Lyft spokesperson Shadawn Reddick-Smith said Proposition 22 is drivers "preferred way to structure benefits and protections."
The California proposal is similar to a ballot initiative approved by Massachusetts voters in the fall that was also backed by the Service Employees International Union — as well as the International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Uber and Lyft did not oppose the Massachusetts initiative.
Minnesota lawmakers proposed a similar bill in February, and unions in Illinois have begun a campaign to unionize drivers in the state, with Uber agreeing to refrain from interfering with the effort.
"This isn't coming out of left field, " Berman said. "It aligns with our values in California to make sure drivers get the rights they deserve."
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't overlook the Big Labor funding behind the LA protests
The left in general and labor leaders in particular continue to misread the will of the people. Case in point: Among the dozens of lessons both seem incapable of learning from last November's electoral drubbing is that Americans are solidly in favor of enforcing the nation's sovereign borders and expelling as many as possible of the millions of lawbreakers who breached them thanks to the calculated apathy of the previous administration. Apparently unfazed by facts, however, David Huerta, president of the California chapter of Service Employees International Union, last Friday, traded on the full faith and credit of his position to join those violently protesting a legal raid at a Los Angeles worksite by officials from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was subsequently arrested for trying to physically block a vehicle trying to enter the property. Again, Huerta made no attempt to distance himself and his actions from his role as SEIU's California director. To the contrary, he first made sure to don his purple SEIU T-shirt in order to make clear to everyone that he considers obstructing law enforcement one of his legitimate job responsibilities. Even more brazenly, his own SEIU affiliates in California have used member dues to support at least one group spearheading the protests — the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights — and to finance the informal 'immigration rapid response' network that has been equally at the center, and in which SEIU itself also participates. And rather than disavow Huerta's irresponsible, illegal behavior, state and national leftists quickly circled the wagons around Huerta. After all, SEIU California is a major funder of liberal causes and candidates in California. Syndicated columnist Kurt Schlicter, shrewdly noted this week that the scenario 'provides (the Trump administration) an opportunity to defund the government support to (non-governmental organizations) that launder government money to fund this kind of violence.' They could start with Huerta's union. SEIU California and its affiliates siphon millions of dollars a year from Medicaid by confiscating dues from thousands of Californians participating in a federal program that pays a modest subsidy in exchange for providing in-home care for an elderly or low-income client. Because they work at home, usually looking after a loved one, the union representing the caregivers — many of whom don't even realize they are union members — has relatively little to do. But that doesn't stop Huerta's organization from seizing 3 percent of their annual wages — among the highest dues rates in the country. In a very real sense, Medicaid is therefore bankrolling the protests in Los Angeles. Here's a thought: Instead of arresting Huerta and the other lawbreaking protestors, why not just cut off their source of funding by prohibiting unions from plundering Medicaid? Hundreds of thousands of government employees all over the country have exercised their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues since it was affirmed in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the primary factors behind this movement is widespread anger over unions that use confiscated dues money to promote a radical political agenda instead of representing the legitimate workplace concerns of their members. SEIU-affiliated care providers in the Golden State need to ask themselves how Huerta's embarrassing spectacle helps enhance their pay, benefits and working conditions. It doesn't. It simply reinforces what's been obvious for years: The welfare of their rank and file hasn't been a priority for public employee unions in decades, assuming it ever was. Modern government-employee unions like SEIU exist almost exclusively to fund the failed policies of the left with workers' hard-earned dues dollars; workers who are increasingly fed up with it. It isn't just worksites overrun by violent agitators that are burning while labor icons like Huerta fiddle. It is also their fading hopes of ever being taken seriously or being handed political power again. Aaron Withe is CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit government union watchdog organization. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Don't overlook the Big Labor funding behind the LA protests
The left in general and labor leaders in particular continue to misread the will of the people. Case in point: Among the dozens of lessons both seem incapable of learning from last November's electoral drubbing is that Americans are solidly in favor of enforcing the nation's sovereign borders and expelling as many as possible of the millions of lawbreakers who breached them thanks to the calculated apathy of the previous administration. Apparently unfazed by facts, however, David Huerta, president of the California chapter of Service Employees International Union, last Friday, traded on the full faith and credit of his position to join those violently protesting a legal raid at a Los Angeles worksite by officials from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was subsequently arrested for trying to physically block a vehicle trying to enter the property. Again, Huerta made no attempt to distance himself and his actions from his role as SEIU's California director. To the contrary, he first made sure to don his purple SEIU T-shirt in order to make clear to everyone that he considers obstructing law enforcement one of his legitimate job responsibilities. Even more brazenly, his own SEIU affiliates in California have used member dues to support at least one group spearheading the protests — the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights — and to finance the informal 'immigration rapid response' network that has been equally at the center, and in which SEIU itself also participates. And rather than disavow Huerta's irresponsible, illegal behavior, state and national leftists quickly circled the wagons around Huerta. After all, SEIU California is a major funder of liberal causes and candidates in California. Syndicated columnist Kurt Schlicter, shrewdly noted this week that the scenario 'provides (the Trump administration) an opportunity to defund the government support to (non-governmental organizations) that launder government money to fund this kind of violence.' They could start with Huerta's union. SEIU California and its affiliates siphon millions of dollars a year from Medicaid by confiscating dues from thousands of Californians participating in a federal program that pays a modest subsidy in exchange for providing in-home care for an elderly or low-income client. Because they work at home, usually looking after a loved one, the union representing the caregivers — many of whom don't even realize they are union members — has relatively little to do. But that doesn't stop Huerta's organization from seizing 3 percent of their annual wages — among the highest dues rates in the country. In a very real sense, Medicaid is therefore bankrolling the protests in Los Angeles. Here's a thought: Instead of arresting Huerta and the other lawbreaking protestors, why not just cut off their source of funding by prohibiting unions from plundering Medicaid? Hundreds of thousands of government employees all over the country have exercised their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues since it was affirmed in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the primary factors behind this movement is widespread anger over unions that use confiscated dues money to promote a radical political agenda instead of representing the legitimate workplace concerns of their members. SEIU-affiliated care providers in the Golden State need to ask themselves how Huerta's embarrassing spectacle helps enhance their pay, benefits and working conditions. It doesn't. It simply reinforces what's been obvious for years: The welfare of their rank and file hasn't been a priority for public employee unions in decades, assuming it ever was. Modern government-employee unions like SEIU exist almost exclusively to fund the failed policies of the left with workers' hard-earned dues dollars; workers who are increasingly fed up with it. It isn't just worksites overrun by violent agitators that are burning while labor icons like Huerta fiddle. It is also their fading hopes of ever being taken seriously or being handed political power again. Aaron Withe is CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit government union watchdog organization.
Politico
5 hours ago
- Politico
Democratic strategist David Plouffe to become Coinbase's newest adviser
SAN FRANCISCO — David Plouffe, the veteran Democratic strategist who in recent years has worked extensively in tech, is joining the global advisory council of Coinbase. Plouffe, who recently helped guide Kamala Harris' presidential campaign and was a top aide to Barack Obama, is the latest political heavy-hitter to join the advisory body, telling POLITICO he'll bring his skills as a storyteller to an industry whose regulatory struggles have turned into a fight for credibility and stability. Among Plouffe's charges will be outreach to tech-savvy voters who flocked to Democrats during the Obama era, but have shifted to the right in recent years. It's another move meant to reinforce the bipartisan credentials of the largest U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange as it pushes for broader buy-in after Republicans and President Donald Trump opened their arms to the industry and many of its policy goals. 'A lot of the debate is 'are you pro-crypto or anti-crypto, pro-ride sharing or not, pro-home-sharing or not,'' Plouffe said in an interview, referencing the emerging industries that have grown around companies like Uber and Airbnb. 'And I think this next stage is really deepening the benefits, whether that's the unbanked, whether that's security, whether that's opening up new forms of commerce.' Plouffe arrives a few months after the advisory council added former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — a Democrat turned independent — and Chris LaCivita, who served as Trump's co-campaign manager in 2024. Others on the board include the Democratic pollster John Anzalone; former Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Stephanie Murphy of Florida; former Republican Sen. Pat Toomey; as well as longtime Republican strategist and lobbyist David Urban, among others. Plouffe and LaCivita are appearing on a panel this morning with Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase's chief policy officer at the exchange's third annual State of Crypto Summit in Manhattan. Plouffe has worked in a number of prominent tech roles before, including at Uber, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and rival crypto exchange Binance in a similar advisory post. He was a top adviser to Obama's first campaign and then served in the White House. He joined Harris' unsuccessful bid last fall, blending with a team of Harris loyalists and leftover aides and advisers to former President Joe Biden. Plouffe joins the exchange's council during a crucial week for the crypto industry in Washington, where both the Senate and the House advanced key pieces of legislation. The Senate could vote as soon as Monday on a bill that would create a new regulatory structure for stablecoins, which are tied to real-world assets, and is seen as an important step toward legitimizing crypto. Two committees in the House approved another bill that would lay down the first U.S. regulatory framework for crypto assets — but not without exposing deep Democratic divisions over how to police a sector that Trump has so blatantly embraced and profited off of through his family ventures. Plouffe conceded that 'there were elements of the Biden administration clearly not very friendly to the industry' and he has since seen remarkable progress in Democrats' attitude toward crypto. The digital asset industry found itself in the crosshairs of Biden's regulators after a series of high-profile scandals. Former SEC Chair Gary Gensler wielded the agency's enforcement powers to file lawsuits and actions against companies like Coinbase, which it dropped after Trump came into power. 'In some of the votes in the Senate, in the House, and some of the comments made from people who might end up being presidential candidates in '28, I think there's an understanding,' Plouffe told POLITICO. They may have learned from last campaign cycle, when Coinbase's influence operation quietly thrust the once-niche digital asset world into the heart of the 2024 elections. It outspent every other business in the sector on lobbying, poured millions into the industry's leading super PAC and helped launch a grassroots arm. Crypto has made a concerted push to keep a bipartisan reputation, though. The super PAC, Fairshake, also heavily backed the races of friendly Democrats like Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. Industry lobbyists have worried that the Trump family's fast-growing interests in crypto could distract from getting the legislation it wants from Capitol Hill and undermine the president's own desire to make the U.S. 'the crypto capital of the world.' 'We don't try to solve for one particular political circumstance or another,' Shirzad told POLITICO. 'That's been our model for the last two and a half years that we did our political efforts. And so far it's, I think, paid off for us.'
