It’s wrong to think that Uber and Lyft, which are behind Proposition 22, value public interest over shareholders’ profits. (Shutterstock ph

Prop. 22 would help undo decades worth of worker protections

By Susan Vaughan and Evelyn Engel

Through Proposition 22, a few vast multi-national corporations are attempting an audacious move: the rollback of every worker protection law on the books.

What are these companies? Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart, Postmates (now owned by Uber), and a student transport service, Hopskipdrive.

Uber and Lyft are publicly traded so we can see their profit models. Their scheme is to replace public transportation systems and locally regulated taxis with vast fleets of independent contractor drivers transporting paying passengers in their own cars — and to skim off a percentage of the revenue. All theprofits are largely ill gotten, as drivers routinely violate road rules, and corporate masters have price gouged, deceived authorities, spied on passengers and drivers alike, and conspired with state agencies to cover up accident data. All profits are also based on increasing vehicle miles traveled and exacerbating the climate crisis, the planet be damned.

But Uber and Lyft are money losing operations. They undersell their product to lure customers away from public transit and taxis. Uber is additionally propped up by Softbank, the Japan-based venture capital slush fund, and by the Public Investment Fund of Saudia Arabia, which has also invested in SoftBank.

The next scheme of these scofflaw desperados is to undo decades worth of hard fought worker protection laws. If Proposition 22 passes, its drivers, now legally classified as employees, would be denied:

  • Minimum wage(A University of California Berkeley Labor Center study calculates hourly driver wage under Prop. 22 at $5.64 after expenses)
  • Sick leave
  • Overtime pay
  • The right to form unions
  • Mandatory payroll contributions to Social Security, Medicare, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance.

Proposition 22 would reclassify drivers as independent contractors — but without the right to set their own rates or develop their own client base.

If Proposition 22 passes, industries nationwide will see this as a precedent — something they too can do to people now classified as employees. Think store clerks, nurses, hotel staff, janitors, UPS and FedEx drivers and others. They may be employees now, but they would just be a ballot measure away from becoming “independent contractors.”

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution it has been a corporate goal to squeeze workers as much as possible. Starting in the late 1800s, corporate lawyers successfully reinterpreted the 14th Amendment, which had been passed expressly to protect newly freed slaves, into an amendment to protect corporate earnings. In 1905, in Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court applied this reinterpretation to a state law mandating maximum hours of bakery work, finding that the law denied bakery workers and employers “liberty of contract” — that is, the liberty to work 14-hour days! That ruling was overturned during the New Deal, but forces of greed have never stopped attempting to restore “liberty of contract.” In Wisconsin in 2011, in fact, then Governor Scott Walker pushed Act 10 through the state legislature, repealing the right of many unions to (including teacher unions) to bargain collectively on membership’s behalf over anything but wages.

Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented in the Lochner case, writing: “A decision that the New York statute is void under the Fourteenth Amendment will, in my opinion, involve consequences of a far-reaching and mischievous character; for such a decision would seriously cripple the inherent power of the States to care for the lives, health and well-being of their citizens.”

That too will be the case if Proposition 22 passes in California. Vote no on 22.

Susan Vaughan and Evelyn Engel both earned their masters in American history from San Francisco State University.

CaliforniaElection 2020Politicstransportation

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Nicole Canedo looks at her City-issued Medical Reimbursement Account page on her computer outside her Berkeley apartment on Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2020. Canedo has worked numerous retail jobs in The City and the MRA has helped her with health costs. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Millions left sitting in medical reimbursement accounts by city workers

Health officials looking at how to improve access, outreach as untapped funds reach $409M

Dr. Grant Colfax, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
SF moves into purple tier, triggering curfew and business shutdowns

San Francisco moved into the state’s purple COVID-19 tier Saturday, requiring The… Continue reading

Indecline, an art activist collective in San Francisco, transformed a billboard into an editorial with a message blasting immigration policies of Donald Trump’s administration. (Screenshot, Indecline website)
Has immigration fallen off the administration’s radar? Not a chance

Enforced as executive orders, Trump’s hardline policies are proceeding, against will of the people

University of San Francisco head coach Todd Golden coaches his team on defense during a 2019 gameat War Memorial Gymnasium on the campus of the University of San Francisco. (Ryan Gorcey / S.F. Examiner)
Stunner in Bubbleville: USF upsets fourth-ranked Virginia

Less than 48 hours removed from a loss to a feeble UMass… Continue reading

A dinner at three Michelin Stars restaurant The French Laundry in Yountville, Napa Valley has highlighted Gov. Gavin Newsom’s relationship with a well-known lobbyist. (Leonard Zhukovsky/Shutterstock)
The lobbyist who led Gavin Newsom to the French Laundry has a history of controversy

Lara Korte and Sophia Bollag The Sacramento Bee When photos circulated earlier… Continue reading

Most Read