A group of Uber and Lyft drivers in California filed a lawsuit on Tuesday at the state Supreme Court to overturn an electoral measure that allows companies to continue to treat their workers as independent contractors.
Drivers claim that Proposition 22, which was approved by California voters last November, violates the state constitution by “depriving” the state legislature’s ability to enable workers to organize, as well as by “illegally” excluding drivers State workers’ hitchhiking program.
“Every day, shared travel drivers like me struggle to survive because companies like Uber and Lyft prioritize corporate profits over our well-being,” complainant Saori Okawa said in a statement. “With Proposition 22, they are not just ignoring our health and safety – they are dismissing the constitution of our state. “
Motivators who challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 22 are being supported by unions such as SEIU and the California Labor Federation, which have unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the run-up to the elections.
But, in the end, the labor was spent and maneuvered by companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, who injected more than $ 200 million into the “Yes on 22” campaign to exempt them from a state law of California that would require them to treat their workers as employees. The companies aggressively opposed the law, arguing that it would eliminate driver flexibility while increasing consumer prices and waiting times.
The law, AB5, represented an existential crisis for companies, none of which had ever made a profit and who pursued costly efforts to develop autonomous technology in the hope of eventually replacing drivers and couriers altogether. In response, the companies proposed an electoral measure that would keep their workers hired, while providing some additional benefits.
It is not clear how drivers will succeed in overturning Proposition 22. The measure was written to withstand future challenges, including a provision requiring a seven-octave majority of the state legislature for any modification, and ensuring that it will be anything but impossible invalidate.
But drivers are trying to use that language to argue that Proposition 22 was illegal from the start. The plaintiffs note that the constitution of the state of California gives the legislature “unlimited” authority to provide for a worker compensation system, “so that the authority cannot be limited by a statutory initiative”.
“We hope the court will state that show companies cannot deprive workers of their fundamental right to negotiate for better wages and working conditions – and that corporations alone should not dictate the laws in our state,” said Bob Schoonover , president of SEIU Local 721 and SEIU California State Council, in a statement.
In the past, electoral measures have been successfully overturned in California, but mainly through additional electoral measures. If the process fails, the only other recourse for drivers and support unions to overturn Proposal 22 may be another electoral initiative.
Drivers are organizing caravans in San Francisco and Los Angeles in support of the Prop 22 lawsuit.