By Levi SumagagsayCalMatters
This story was initially printed by CalMatters. Enroll for his or her newsletters.
Uber and Lyft drivers rallied at three California metropolis halls immediately, calling consideration to a long-running lawsuit in opposition to the businesses over hundreds of wage-theft claims that might be price billions of {dollars}.
The rallies come as court docket paperwork present public companies at the moment are in mediation and negotiations to probably settle the swimsuit. Filed collectively by the state’s Justice Division, the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, and different events, it seeks again pay and damages for Uber and Lyft drivers who labored for the businesses from 2016 to 2020 — earlier than the passage of a poll initiative that labeled app-based gig employees as impartial contractors reasonably than staff.
“We’re asking the state to stand strong, the cities to have a backbone, and not let these companies off the hook,” mentioned Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, in an interview with CalMatters forward of the rallies.
The lawsuit asserts that Uber and Lyft drivers have been lined below Meeting Invoice 5, a legislation that took impact in January 2020 that will have required the gig corporations to categorise their employees as staff. Beneath that legislation, which was meant to be retroactive, the drivers would have been entitled to minimal wage, meal and relaxation breaks, unemployment advantages and extra.
Gig corporations by no means complied with AB 5. As a substitute, they spent greater than $200 million to place Proposition 22 on the poll, promising larger pay and higher advantages for gig employees. It handed in November 2020 with 58% of the vote, permitting the businesses to proceed to categorise their ride-hailing drivers and couriers as impartial contractors with some advantages, however not full employment rights.
The lawsuit is an effort to carry Uber and Lyft accountable for the pre-Prop. 22 period. Rideshare Drivers United, a gig employees group, organized 5,000 drivers to file particular person wage claims with the labor commissioner’s workplace in 2020. That led to the lawsuit, which consolidated these claims with these by the town attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, and with different plaintiffs who had filed related claims below the Personal Attorneys Basic Act.
Rideshare Drivers United estimates that the drivers who filed the claims are owed a minimum of $1.3 billion, based mostly on unpaid wait time and reimbursement for bills, not assembly fundamental hourly minimal wage requirements, and damages. The group additional estimates that about 250,000 drivers might be eligible through the interval lined by the lawsuit, and if that’s the case, the businesses may owe tens of billions of {dollars}.
Uber and Lyft wouldn’t touch upon the settlement negotiations nor on the motive force group’s estimates of what they owe drivers. Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab mentioned California voters “have spoken,” and that “we look forward to putting these years-old matters behind us.”
It’s unclear how most of the drivers who filed the claims are nonetheless working for Uber and Lyft; there’s excessive turnover in gig work. However Moore mentioned she frequently talks to drivers who’ve been driving for the previous decade.
“What’s devastating is hearing where they are in their lives because of these policies,” Moore mentioned. “Nobody has held (the companies) accountable. This is the state’s opportunity to do that.”
Moore added that Prop. 22 has largely failed to enhance drivers’ wages and situations, and that she hopes any settlement would come with new advantages her group has championed. These embody a charge card that pays drivers a minimal of $1.75 a mile and 60 cents a minute, much like what New York Metropolis drivers have, plus establishing a system that requires simply trigger for “deactivations,” or kicking drivers off the apps.
“Voters were presented with Prop. 22 as good policy for drivers and passengers,” Moore mentioned. “It was the biggest fraud.” One instance she cited: Prop. 22 promised to pay gig employees 120% of minimal wage, however that’s based mostly on “active” time and doesn’t embody time they spend ready for a experience or supply.
The businesses have mentioned the legislation has elevated gig employees’ pay to a mean $34.46 an “active hour” in California, however analysis final 12 months from the UC Berkeley Labor Middle, which took under consideration drivers’ bills over their complete shift, discovered that the common pay for drivers, with ideas, was $9.09, and for supply employees was $13.62.
After the California Supreme Courtroom upheld Prop. 22 final 12 months, CalMatters wrote about how the industry-backed legislation has affected gig employees and examined a whole lot of their persistent complaints to the state about wages, advantages and dealing situations. The largest distinction since earlier than the measure handed: Now there is no such thing as a state company answerable for gig employees’ complaintsas a result of their impartial contractor standing means the Labor Commissioner doesn’t have jurisdiction.
The rallies organized by Rideshare Drivers United immediately — the largest of which was in entrance of Los Angeles Metropolis Corridor, the place drivers chanted “we want fair wages and we want them now” — come forward of a scheduled Uber mediation session on Monday. Lyft’s subsequent mediation session is scheduled for April 8.
The San Francisco metropolis legal professional’s workplace mentioned solely that mediations are confidential. The San Diego metropolis legal professional’s workplace mentioned it “is not able to participate in the story.” The opposite plaintiffs within the case — the town legal professional of Los Angeles, the state labor commissioner and the Justice Division — didn’t reply to requests for remark.
If no settlement is reached and the case goes to trial, the state expects it to start in 2026, in keeping with details about the lawsuit on the labor commissioner’s web site.
Veena Dubal, a legislation professor at UC Irvine who research the consequences of expertise on employees, mentioned the alliance between the state and cities is notable as a result of in her analysis, she has come throughout state enforcement officers who’ve been “scared” to tackle Uber and the opposite gig corporations. “I imagine these are very tough negotiations (between) a resource-strapped government agency against a very well-resourced team representing Uber,” she mentioned.
Dubal additionally mentioned the labor commissioner and different public officers are most likely weighing the potential of a protracted authorized battle with Uber and Lyft vs. agreeing to a settlement.
“The reality is that these are immigrant workers who need money in their pockets sooner rather than later,” Dubal mentioned.
This text was initially printed on CalMatters and was republished below the Inventive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
