Hell Yes!

A California judge has ruled that Proposition 22, which was pushed by the ride-share companies to keep their employees in penury, is unconstitutional. 

Basically, he said that some of the provisions were unconstitutionally limited the legislature, and that there were multiple provisions in the measure, which is also unconstitutional.

Let's hoping that Uber and Lyft (and Instacart, and DoorDash, and Uber Eats, etc.) will be forced to treat their employees as employees:

A California judge ruled unconstitutional a ballot measure from last November defining Uber and Lyft  drivers as independent contractors, throwing fresh uncertainty into the status of the hundreds of thousands of app-based workers.

In a ruling issued Friday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is “unenforceable,” arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section that required a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature’s amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge.

Roesch said that avenue for amendments ran counter to the state constitution, instituting a threshold that was “difficult to the point of near impossibility.”

In California, ballot measures are required to be limited to a single subject, and the provisions in the measures must be related. The judge found that the measure pitched to Californians in November overstepped that requirement by limiting the legislature’s ability to allow workers’ to collectively bargain. Proposition 22 passed by a 59-to-41 percent vote in November.

“A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers,” Roesch wrote. “It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”

Uber criticized the ruling Friday and said it intended to appeal.

………

The hotly contested measure, driven by a $200 million campaign mounted by companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, followed a 2019 state law that defined Uber and Lyft drivers as employees. The companies and fellow apps mounted a vigorous defense, arguing the requirements of employment would impede the flexibility they offer drivers — and that the majority of drivers did not want to be employees.

………

Veena Dubal, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings who co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners, said the companies erred in “trying to completely take away the right of legislatures and municipalities to do anything on behalf of workers, as well as trying to take the workers out from the state’s workers’ compensation scheme.”

Clearly, this will be appealed, and I expect this to go all the way to the California Supreme Court.

If the measure is finally overturned, it would have a much harder path, even as a more limited ballot initiative, because of the perfidious behavior of the "gig economy" companies after its passage.

Once they had their law passed, the went all in on shafting their workers.

As a not particularly wise person once said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again"

One hopes that any similar bite at the apple will be denied by the California electorate.