By: Amanda Nudelman
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023
I. Introduction and Background
Workers at companies such as Uber and Lyft operate through the gig economy: an increasingly popular labor model in which workers undertake short-term tasks (“gigs”) and interact with consumers via digital platforms maintained by app-based corporations. [1] These workers — often called “app-based workers” — controversially tow the legal line between their classification as employees, people who work for a company, or as independent contractors, people who are self-employed and tend to perform freelance work. Having a concrete legal definition of app-based workers is crucial because this definition dictates the level of employment protection and benefits to which workers are entitled. Legally-defined employees, for example, have more robust access to health benefits and unemployment insurance. The extent to which a concrete definition is feasible, however, is debatable.
Although this issue is relevant nationwide, California is an interesting state to examine because it has historically been a leader in passing progressive pro-worker legislation that strictly separates employees from independent contractors. California’s regulations have attempted to force app-based corporations into compliance with costly regulations that ensure employee benefits. This is where Proposition 22 (“Prop 22”) comes into play — rather than complying with these requirements and spending billions of dollars ensuring that their workers receive fair compensation and benefits, companies such as Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash “bought” themselves a ballot measure: the now-infamous Prop 22. Spending over $200 million advocating for the passage of Prop 22, app-based corporations developed a compelling marketing campaign targeting voters, with these firms’ primary assertion being that workers would have to compromise their freedom in order to obtain necessary employment protections. [2] As a result, constituents voted Prop 22 into the California Constitution with 58.6% support. [3] The alarming extent to which large corporations have the power to shape the legal landscape of labor and employment is aptly demonstrated in the legal battle surrounding Prop 22.
Prop 22 demonstrates the adverse impact of market power on workers’ rights legislation. App-based companies such as Uber and Lyft profit under the guise that workers are forced to choose between their freedom and their essential labor rights — with many of these companies asserting that the majority of app-based workers are willing to sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. [4] These companies present a fundamentally faulty assumption, however, when they claim employee freedom and basic protections are mutually exclusive, demonstrating a disconnect between the reality of app-based employment and the labor protections within this job market. In order to evaluate solutions to the disparity between a piece of corporate-influenced legislation and the reality of its workers, it is imperative to investigate the history — both legislative and litigative — behind Prop 22 as the question of its validity moves forward within the California (and perhaps eventually, the federal) judicial system.
II. Origins of Gig Worker Classification Standards in California
i. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
California’s Dynamex case was an inflection point in shaping the legal distinction between employees and independent contractors. The case revolved around the classification of delivery drivers under California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. These Wage Orders stipulate that workers classified as employees are entitled to certain protections, such as rest breaks, working hour limits, and a minimum wage. Delivery drivers working for Dynamex Operations West, Inc. argued that Dynamex misclassified them as independent contractors. In 2004, Dynamex began classifying drivers formerly classified as employees as independent contractors, forcing drivers to provide their own vehicles and cover all costs associated with transportation. Drivers had scheduling autonomy while needing to notify Dynamex of their intended working hours, and were occasionally expected to purchase Dynamex merchandise (such as t-shirts or decals) to display while making deliveries. Furthermore, drivers could largely choose the order in which they made deliveries as long as their work was completed within a period of time specified by the company. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the drivers, and found that Dynamex wrongly classified drivers as independent contractors; the court developed a landmark test for examining the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders, called the “ABC Test.” [5]
ii. ABC Test
The ABC test provides that workers receive classification as employees, rather than as independent contractors, unless an employer satisfies all of the following three criteria, as outlined by the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency:
A. “The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
B. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
C. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.” [6]
The above criteria largely expand the definition of an employee, meaning that more workers are entitled to protections under California Employment Law pursuant to this provision — a costly measure for companies such as Dynamex, and now Uber, whose business models rely on compensating their workers as independent contractors. [7] The ABC Test was originally only applied to California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, but the scope of this test has since been expanded under California law.
iii. Assembly Bill Five (AB5)
AB5, a California bill signed into law in September 2019, expanded the scope of the ABC Test to all employment provisions in the state, including minimum wage, overtime, and unemployment insurance, ensuring that workers wrongly classified as independent contractors would no longer be deprived of their fundamental labor rights. [8] This bill shifted the burden of proof to the employer to define their workers as independent contractors, ultimately creating a much clearer picture of when a worker is entitled to necessary employment protections. [9] Despite providing workers with essential labor rights, AB5 was also an impetus for app-based companies, which would be forced to pay millions of dollars in labor protections and benefits for their newly-defined employees, to lobby for their own legal exemption.
III. Corporations Strike Back: The Prop 22 Ballot Initiative
i. Prop 22 Provisions
It is imperative to examine the specific provisions within Prop 22 to more clearly understand its goals and potential problems. To exempt themselves from AB5 and the provisions associated with the bill, DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, Postmates, and Uber invested $203 million in lobbying efforts for the Prop 22 ballot initiative. In California, upon receiving enough voter signatures in support of a measure, citizens can directly vote on ballot initiatives to be added to the state constitution. [10]
When carving out a specific employment category for their workers to avoid spending millions of dollars on labor protections, app-based companies included the following provisions in Prop 22 for an app-based driver to be classified as an independent contractor:
1. The employer does not provide specific dates, times, or minimum hours during which the driver is logged into the platform.
2. The driver is not required to accept any rideshare or delivery requests.
3. The driver is not restricted from working for other delivery platforms during unengaged time.
4. The driver is not restricted from working in another profession. [11]
These provisions allow companies to avoid compliance with the labor standards outlined in AB5, and to instead pay workers for only their “engaged time” when they are actively driving for the company. Additionally, drivers would be responsible for their own vehicle costs. Under AB5, drivers, even while waiting for an assignment, which would be classified as unengaged time, would be entitled to minimum wage. The policy proposed under Prop 22 causes gig drivers to receive approximately $5.64 per hour, far below California’s minimum wage standard. [12] It appears that app-based companies weaponize worker classifications to avoid paying for the same benefits and wages for which other employers would be responsible.
On the other hand, the Proposition argues that California legislation such as AB5 eliminates essential flexible working hours for app-based drivers by taking away their scheduling autonomy in favor of protecting their labor rights. Along with allegedly protecting freedoms, Prop 22 claims to provide workers with new benefits including a healthcare subsidy, a minimum earnings guarantee at 120% of minimum wage, compensation for vehicle expenses, accident insurance, and anti-discrimination protection. [13] The validity of these provisions will be assessed in the following sub-section, but the details of Prop 22 are necessarily outlined in order to gain a clearer understanding of the decision made by 58% of California voters to pass this bill and to eventually analyze the judicial proceedings behind this controversial bill. Along with these potentially misleading worker protection promises made in Prop 22, several other provisions are important to note as we examine the litigation process surrounding the bill: Prop 22 limits the State Assembly’s ability to supervise worker compensation, includes a collective bargaining restriction against workers and requires a near-impossible seven-eighths majority vote to amend the collective bargaining restrictions the measure imposes. [14]
ii. Consequences of Prop 22
Despite the generous promises app-based companies made to continue to provide protections for workers classified as independent contractors, the process for app-based workers to receive necessary protections is complex and difficult for drivers to access. These companies, for example, required drivers to purchase a healthcare policy in advance and work a minimum number of hours in order to qualify for a healthcare stipend and were otherwise required to pay a full insurance premium. As previously noted, workers also suffered a reduction in pay as a result of Prop 22, with Uber driver Ben Valdez reportedly receiving $150 per day for 12 to 15 hours of work. Despite removing costly worker protections and benefits, companies such as DoorDash and Uber Eats raised their prices after Prop 22 was passed while claiming the contrary, demonstrating the adverse impact of their actions on both consumers and workers. These hypocritical actions imply that the motivation behind Prop 22 was not a benevolent app-based company movement for worker independence but rather a cushioning strategy to protect these companies from legal trouble and expense for violating California labor law. [15]
IV. To the Courts: History of Prop 22 Litigation
i. Castellanos v. California (August 2021)
To combat the growing power of corporations in influencing democratic decisions and funding laws that ultimately harm workers, Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) challenged the constitutionality of Prop 22. [16] Several rideshare drivers — Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, and Michael Robinson — along with SEIU California State Council and the SEIU argued in the Alameda County Superior Court that Prop 22 prevents the California Assembly from deciding which workers are covered by the employee compensation system. The California Constitution provides that its State Legislature has the power to “create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation” — by exempting workers previously classified as employees from this system, Prop 22 unconstitutionally prevents the legislature from exercising its full scope of power. Judge Frank Roesch ruled in favor of Castellanos, agreeing that Prop 22 limits the power of the California legislature to define app-based drivers as workers and to thus create a complete system of workers’ compensation. [17]
ii. Appellate Court Decision (March 2023)
Castellanos was appealed to California’s First Appellate District, leading to two judges out of a three-judge panel reversing the trial court’s decision and leaving Prop 22 largely intact. The Appellate Court disagreed with Judge Roesch on the grounds that both the legislature and the voters have the right to alter the California workers’ compensation system, and that not all types of workers must be covered by the compensation rules, meaning that voters are constitutionally able to prevent app-based workers from being covered under the scope of this system. [18]
The majority decision held that the clauses in Prop 22 restricting collective bargaining for workers in a manner largely unrelated to the scope of the initiative as well as the rule requiring a seven-eighths majority vote to amend this collective bargaining measure were unconstitutional. [19] The court ultimately ruled that Prop 22 may remain intact as long as these sections were removed from the rest of the initiative. Justice Jon B. Streeter, in his dissent, argued that through using a ballot initiative to undermine the legislature’s ability to oversee workers’ compensation, Prop 22 underhandedly attempts to alter the California Constitution without passing a requisite amendment. [20] Streeter’s dissent is an important argument against Prop 22 which will be re-visited in the following analysis of Prop 22’s constitutionality.
iii. California Supreme Court Agrees to Review Castellanos (June 2023)
The California Supreme Court recently granted SEIU’s request for review of Castellanos, meaning that the gig economy landscape in California will continue to shift with further legal analysis and controversy. While the State of California and the nation await the California Supreme Court’s decision on Prop 22, it is important to look at the constitutionality surrounding this law in relation to undue market power and labor rights and to investigate whether the government can amend definitions of the gig economy to avoid future controversy and ensure fair working conditions.
V. Analysis: Is Prop 22 Constitutional?
i. “Buying” Laws
The undue influence exerted by app-based companies over legislation reveals a deeper issue, not just in the case of Prop 22, but in the larger context of proposing future worker-friendly measures that large corporations may oppose. In order to truly overhaul the legal landscape of employment to provide worker safety and protection, it is necessary to examine the extent to which corporations, rather than lawmakers and citizens, should be able to alter legislation. California ballot measures intend to empower citizens to “propose laws and constitutional amendments without the support of the Governor or the Legislature” rather than as a tool for corporations to exempt themselves from legal regulations. [21] For just over $200 million — a small fraction of the $9.3 billion companies like Uber earn each fiscal quarter — app-based companies launched an aggressive campaign to influence voters, including mailers implying that Prop 22 was a progressive measure and a pop-up on the Uber app requesting customers to confirm a warning that voting against Prop 22 would increase fares. [22] Furthermore, examining an advertisement disseminated by Lyft promising “guaranteed earnings, healthcare benefits, personal protections, and…flexible schedules” demonstrates a blatant misrepresentation of benefits received by drivers following the passage of Prop 22, as examined previously when discussing the consequences of the measure. [23]
The aggressive marketing campaign calls into question the extent to which the 58% of voters supporting Prop 22 understood the true impact of the ballot initiative on app-based workers. [24] Companies such as Uber and Lyft may be creating a slippery slope where companies who believe that the expense of advocating for a ballot initiative will be outweighed by the cost of complying with a law that benefits their workers can abuse the legislative process. Allowing big companies to push their agenda through ballot initiatives creates incentives for corporations to continue undervaluing their workers and undermines the legislative process not just in California but across the country. For this reason, dissenting Justice Jon B. Streeter reasonably concluded that Prop 22 is unconstitutional for its attempt to effectively circumvent the California Constitution through a ballot initiative.
ii. The Catch-22
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the Prop 22 marketing campaign was the false catch-22 established by companies such as Uber and Lyft in which voters were supposedly forced to choose between workers’ rights (limited by Prop 22) and workers’ freedoms (protected by Prop 22). In their marketing campaigns, Uber and Lyft argued that drivers prefer the flexibility of being defined as independent contractors and would forfeit these freedoms if they were classified as employees. Labor activists and the State of California both argue that no legal regulations prevent app-based companies from providing workers with flexibility while defining them as employees and providing them with the associated benefits. [25] In an opinion piece published in Forbes, a Lyft driver argues that “many employees—including, I bet, many high-level executives at Uber and Lyft—get to work a schedule that fits their needs, while also enjoying the rights and protections that come with being an employee.” [26] These companies, however, do not afford drivers at the backbone of their operations the same protections because of a trade-off that does not truly exist, further undermining the accuracy of information used in the marketing tactics employed by app-based companies.
iii. Freedom of Speech and Citizens United
Although this article argues that app-based companies’ massive spending on ballot measures is unethical, the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) holds that unlimited spending on political activity such as ballot measures is constitutional. Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, was advised that they could not broadcast a video criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 30 days before the Democratic primaries, as such action would violate The Federal Election Campaign Act. [27] This Act makes it unlawful for corporations and unions to monetarily contribute to federal campaigns. [28] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court enacted a sweeping revision to formerly restrictive campaign finance law under the guise of protecting the First Amendment right to free speech, allowing app-based companies to spend exorbitant amounts in support of ballot initiatives.
Although the Court narrowly ruled that political spending is protected under the First Amendment, the dissenting opinion and recent patterns in Congress demonstrate that Citizens United, although unlikely to be overturned, is an unpopular ruling that may not accurately reflect how the government should treat app-based companies’ spending. In their dissenting opinion, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor argue that “there were principled, narrower paths that a Court serious about judicial restraint could have taken.” '[29] It is likely that the importance of judicial restraint resonates outside the scope of the Supreme Court dissent; in January of 2023, for example, House Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment proposing a reversal of the Citizens United decision. The representative introducing this amendment was, in fact, from California. [30]
These actions by liberal politicians may not be compelling to their counterparts across the aisle who believe that companies have the right to spend unlimited sums on ballot measures altering employment provisions. There is bipartisan support for overturning Citizens United, with 66 percent of Republicans polled by The Center for Public Integrity supporting a constitutional amendment overturning the decision, perhaps making this case less of a polarizing political issue compared to Prop 22 itself. [31] Given the low likelihood of Citizens United being overturned, however, and a lack of full bipartisan support for this decision, examining how gig workers can adapt to this ruling is a necessary step. Although there are collective bargaining restrictions on unionized independent contractors, gig worker organizing remains important to, in the words of William Gould, a former chairman of the NLRB and professor emeritus at Stanford Law School, empower gig workers to “speak out politically,” “fund litigation designed to improve their conditions,” and “try to get legislators elected who are sympathetic to them.” [32] Through these measures, gig workers could strive to achieve equal employment protections in a world where corporations have power to shape legislative decisions — this solution may be more reflective of the real world given the prominence of lobbying power due to the Citizens United decision. As Prop 22 continues to be examined, bolstering union power will help to level the playing field between big business and labor without altering legislation.
A pragmatic policy approach to prevent corrupt electioneering would be to reverse the Citizens United decision, preventing app-based companies from using their fiscal power to influence voter decisions. Realistically, however, Congress is unlikely to overturn Citizens United, leading to the above investigation of how workers can advocate for their rights within the confines of Prop 22, as well as the below analysis of alternative policy solutions to misleading tactics regarding gig worker classification on a federal level.
VI. Future Policy Recommendations
Looking beyond the scope of California legislation is important to gain a fuller understanding of the national landscape of gig worker classification. Both California’s AB5 and Prop 22 have been used as models across states and at the federal level in attempts for labor activists and big corporations to redefine app-based drivers to suit their own agendas. Massachusetts, for example, is facing similar legislative challenges to California — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy sued Uber and Lyft for the misclassification of their drivers as independent contractors under state law. Rather than losing in court, these companies chose to rewrite the law by proposing a Prop-22-esque ballot initiative in Massachusetts. [33]
Rather than simply changing the status of California drivers, a federal overhaul of the definition of employees versus independent contractors would bring clarity to a vastly ambiguous legal landscape. A potential, although somewhat idealistic, legislative solution would be creating a federal test modeled after California’s AB5 that would classify gig drivers as employees, thereby preempting California’s Prop 22 and forcing app-based corporations to provide their workers with the requisite protections and benefits. [34]
The current test used by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the Federal Labor Standards Act is called the “economic reality” test. The Trump-Era DOL altered the worker classification rule in January 2021 identifying two “core factors” in analyzing the status of workers: the nature and degree of control over work, and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. This was a shift from examining various factors to only two limited prongs, which restricted the scope of factors that could be evaluated when determining whether a worker was an employee or an independent contractor. President Biden’s DOL, however, proposed on October 13, 2022 to remove the core factor test in favor of a multi-factor test more resemblant of the ABC Test to evaluate the employee-employer relationship, which would favor employees rather than employers. Although the DOL delayed the implementation of the rule until October 2023, changing this test is an important step in providing workers with necessary protections and benefits on the federal, rather than the state, level.
In an ideal world, one federal rule for determining employee versus independent contractor status would be the simplest in clarifying controversial legal disputes regarding worker protections. However, it is difficult to determine a single standard because different political parties assume power and alter definitions to suit their polarized agendas, leading to instability over time with regard to the definition of an employee. [35] In addition to political polarization creating definitional instability over time, the undue lobbying and economic power of app-based corporations over employment measures creates a largely pessimistic landscape for the future of gig economy workers.
Endnotes
[1] Charlton, Emma. 2021. “What is the gig economy and what's the deal for gig workers? | World Economic Forum.” The World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/what-gig-economy-workers/.
[2] Browning, Kellen. 2023. “California Court Mostly Upholds Prop. 22 in Win for Uber and Other Gig Companies.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/business/prop-22-upheld-california.html; Lyft, Inc. 2020. “What is Prop 22 | California Drivers | Vote YES on Prop 22 | Rideshare | Benefits | Lyft.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QJLgdQaf4.
[3] Osentoski, Keith. 2023. “NOTE: THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC COST OF CALIFORNIA DIRECT DEMOCRACY, 56 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 679.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, (Spring).
[4] “Proposition 22.” n.d. Text of Proposed Laws. Accessed October 23, 2023. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop22.pdf.
[5] Marks, Tony. 2018. “The California Supreme Court Deals A Blow To Independent Contractors.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonymarks/2018/05/29/the-california-supreme-court-deals-a-blow-to-independent-contractors/?sh=b15a68070a18.
[6] “ABC Test | LWDA.” n.d. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://www.labor.ca.gov/employmentstatus/abctest/.
[7] Dubal, Veena B. 2022. “Economic security & the regulation of gig work in California: From AB5 to Proposition 22.” European Labour Law Journal 13 (1): 53. 10.1177/20319525211063111.
[8] Osentoski, Keith. 2023. “NOTE: THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC COST OF CALIFORNIA DIRECT DEMOCRACY, 56 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 679.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, (Spring).
[9] Dubal, “Economic Security,” 55
[10] Dubal, “Economic Security,” 55-63.
[11] “Proposition 22.” n.d. Text of Proposed Laws. Accessed October 23, 2023. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop22.pdf.
[12] Dubal, “Economic Security,” 63-64.
[13] “Proposition 22.” n.d. Text of Proposed Laws. Accessed October 23, 2023. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop22.pdf.
[14] Browning, “California Court.”
[15] Chen, Brian, and Laura Padin. 2021. “Prop 22 Was a Failure for California's App-Based Workers. Now, It's Also Unconstitutional.” National Employment Law Project. https://www.nelp.org/blog/prop-22-unconstitutional/.
[16] Browning, “California Court.”
[17] Castellanos v. State of California, 86 Cal. Comp. Cases 826. (Cal. Super. 2021)
[18] “You Can Contract If You Want To: California Appellate Court Leaves Prop 22 Largely Intact | BakerHostetler.” 2023. Baker Hostetler. https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/you-can-contract-if-you-want-to-california-appellate-court-leaves-prop-22-largely-intact/#
[19] “You Can Contract.”
[20] Castellanos v. State of California, 86 Cal. Comp. Cases 826. (Cal. Super. 2021)
[21] “Ballot Initiatives | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General.” n.d. California Department of Justice. Accessed October 30, 2023. https://oag.ca.gov/initiatives; Osentoski, Keith. 2023. “NOTE: THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC COST OF CALIFORNIA DIRECT DEMOCRACY, 56 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 679.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, (Spring).
[22] “Uber Technologies, Inc. - Uber Announces Results for Third Quarter 2023.” 2023. Uber Investor Relations. https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2023/Uber-Announces-Results-for-Third-Quarter-2023/default.aspx.
[23] “What is Prop 22 | California Drivers | Vote YES on Prop 22 | Rideshare | Benefits | Lyft.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QJLgdQaf4
[24] Dubal, “Economic Security,” 64.
[25] Browning, “California Court;” Cutler, Joyce E. 2022. “Uber, Postmates Get Appeal Win in Worker Classification Case (2).” Bloomberg Law. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/litigation/X3E19ADO000000?bna_news_filter=litigation
[26] Robinson, Mike. 2022. “Commentary: I've been a full-time Lyft driver since 2017. Here's how 'flexibility' and 'independence' just don't apply to underpaid gig work that requires 50 hours a week.” Fortune. https://fortune.com/2022/08/17/full-time-lyft-driver-flexibility-choice-act-underpaid-gig-work-pay-workers-rideshare-mike-robinson/#.
[27] Lau, Tim. 2019. “Citizens United Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
[28] “Legal | Citizens United v. FEC.” n.d. FEC. Accessed November 16, 2023. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/.
[29] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310. (S. Ct. 2010)
[30] Sforza, Lauren. 2023. “Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United campaign finance ruling.” The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3819814-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-reverse-citizens-united-campaign-finance-ruling/.
[31] Balcerzak, Ashley. 2018. “Study: Most Americans want to kill 'Citizens United' with constitutional amendment.” Center for Public Integrity. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/study-most-americans-want-to-kill-citizens-united-with-constitutional-amendment/.
[32] DiFeliciantonio, Chase. 2022. “Here's why California Lyft and Uber gig workers are forming a union that can't bargain over a contract | Stanford Law School.” Stanford Law School. https://law.stanford.edu/press/heres-why-california-lyft-and-uber-gig-workers-are-forming-a-union-that-cant-bargain-over-a-contract/.
[33] Chen and Padin, “Prop 22.”
[34] Dubal, “Economic Security,” 65.
[35] Wood, Christopher. 2023. “Legal Experts Weigh-in on Labor Department's Upcoming Worker Classification Rule.” Thomson Reuters. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-labor-departments-upcoming-worker-classification-rule/.