Uber, Lyft workers who are now allowed to unite in California

From LevagsCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

California drivers have just won a decisive circle in pursuing the right to unite, but the political drama surrounding the process and among the state groups of drivers raises many questions about what is next.

Have sent legislators Assembly Bill 1340 to Gavor Gavin News Governor Tuesday, but it’s just a formality. The governor has already expressed support for the legislation in a deal he has announced with Senate President Mike McGuire and Assembly Chairman Robert Rivas in late August.

The best politicians of the country tied the bill to unite with Senate Bill 371which is supported by Uber and Lyft and is also expected to pass this week. It drastically reduces the amount of uninsured and undervalued insurance coverage that Uber and Lyft are required to provide, for which they claim to inflate costs for both drivers and passengers. In return, the driving giants missed their opposition to the unification bill.

The critics of the deal say that it mostly took advantage of the driving companies, which in 2020 wrote and submitted a vote proposal to support drivers classified as independent contractors. Both companies are likely to lead to a solid deal with a driving union, experts say.

“I think this is a sign of politics in California that these major technology companies literally get their cake and eat it too,” says Vena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine, who focuses on labor and inequality.

Uber called the compromise deal, but a spokesman would not answer Calmatters’ question about whether the company is committed to bargaining in good faith if drivers vote to form an alliance. Lyft also expressed support for the deal, but a spokesman for the company will not comment on the unification bill.

There is even more political intrigues surrounding the Bill: A new case filed by the former Rivas press secretary, Cynthia Moreno, claims that Rivas has concluded a deal with the International Union of Office Employees on the Bill in exchange for the support for its support for the redistribution of state democrats will

Maya Polon, a spokesman for Seiu California, said “the allegations are completely unfounded.” A Rivas spokesman said the speaker would not comment, but sent a statement to Lia Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer of Assembly Rules: “This complaint is complete production.”

Mention in the trial aside, the political maneuvering around the two bills and disagreement among the groups of drivers already present complications, as California became the second state behind Massachusetts to allow drivers to unite.

Consumer and labor groups opposed the insurance bill, which reduces the requirement to cover companies for crash companies, including uninsured and insufficient motorists from $ 1 million to $ 60,000 per person and $ 300,000 per incident. They said that this shifted the burden and potential responsibility to consumers and possibly the state.

Opponents of the bill included the California Federation of Trade Unions. But when Calfatters asked Lorena Gonzalez, who runs the group, why she wants the insurance bill linked to the unification bill, she only said that her group “supports all efforts to give more workers on the work and a chance to shop collectively.”

Calmatters also asked the same questions to McGuire and Rivas as a member of the Assembly Mark Berman, Democrat from Palo Alto, who co -authorized the Bill. They did not answer.

State Senator Chris Kabaldon, Democrat of Napa, who is the author of the Insurance Bill, said through a spokesman that both bills expect to take advantage of drivers and riders: “My interest in wearing SB 371 is to reduce the rates for people who use Rideshare for the necessary transport in their jobs,

The governor’s service forwarded Calmatters to the Newsom statement of August 29, when he announced the deal binding the two legislative acts together. Then he said, “Labor and industry sat together, worked through their differences, and found a common position.”

The authors of the two bills have received contributions from Uber, Lyft and Seiu, according to state records.

Drivers groups in contradiction

Now that 800,000 state drivers have won these rights, they will have to choose a union to represent them.

SEIU, who sponsors the legislation, is likely to become a representative of the drivers, thanks to the late amendments to the bill. These include new requirements that make it difficult for newly built drivers to qualify for drivers. One of these requirements is the attempt to negotiate trade union contracts.

“This is so outrageous,” said Nicole Moore, President of Los Angeles -based drivers at RideShare United, adding that since the driving industry is quite new, even a group like hers, which is organizing drivers from 2018, has no experience. Moore said her group supported the bill and also engaged the legislators. “They pulled out the carpet from us,” she said.

A spokesman for a member of the Assembly Buffy Wix, who co -authorized the bill, directed calm at Seiu.

SEIU California said: “Changes are intended to ensure that fake or corporate unions are excluded and that any organization representing these workers has the ability and expert experience necessary to present these workers.”

What can be the next

Jaime Lopez said he believed an union would help improve his pay and work.

The 60 -year -old Lopez is driving for Uber and Lyft in Los Angeles. He was in Sacramento last week, gathering with other drivers before passing Bill for merger. Lopez said he had been driving since 2015 and had observed his salary drops over the years. He added that he works seven days a week, does not receive a fee when he is ill and uses Medi-Cal for healthcare.

“Maybe the Union can do something about it,” he said. “I’m sure something will change.”

But the experts who looked at the bill and its changes are skeptical.

“The real collective negotiation for concert drivers would mean a big change in the business model of these companies,” says John Logan, professor and chairman of labor and employment studies at the State University of San Francisco. “Any improvement in the conditions for concert drivers must be welcomed, but how many votes they will receive is not really clear,” Logan said.

Dubal, the Professor of UC Irvine, saw previous efforts to create what she calls “alliances from top to bottom,” which she believes is what is happening here. She said that the language in the bill “creates a mechanism for receiving an union to receive a fee (from drivers), plus money from the company.”

This language, SEIU, says, allows drivers to negotiate “Contributions or fees for a separate benefits and services administration fund”, including for the presentation of drivers in cases of deactivation or when they are kicked out of applications.

Nelson Liechtenstein, a professor at UC Santa Barbara, who wrote books on labor history, said the sectoral negotiation-or negotiate as a group in a common activity, for example, for example, fast food workers. “It’s hard to organize McDonald’s franchises,” he said. “But this is different. Uber is a giant corporation with many resources.” Therefore, he said the union should require more for drivers.

Lichtenstein has indicated a provision of the legislation, which in his opinion will be positive: driving companies will be obliged to share more specific information about drivers, rides and profits. There is often a broad gap between what companies say that drivers and what drivers and labor groups are reporting to be profitable.

“Data will put pressure on Uber and Lyft,” he said.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.