California Supreme Court deciding the future rights of gig workers

In Tuesday’s case before the court, Castellanos v. California, the California Gig Workers Union, which represents tens of thousands of gig workers and delivery drivers, and the Service Employees International Union allege that Prop. 22 violates the state constitution because companies who hire independent contractors do not have to provide them with workers’ compensation insurance. The state requires companies to provide workers’ compensation to their own employees.

The argument hinges on workers’ compensation, but it also argues that the proposition is nearly impossible to change. It includes language that requires a seven-eighths majority vote for amendments.

“The gig workers’ union is arguing that, as it currently stands, Prop. 22 doesn’t allow the state Legislature to enforce workers’ compensation laws in its entirety, and that may infringe on the state’s constitutional powers,” said Kaumudi Misra, professor at California State University East Bay who studies human resource management. “By requiring a seven-eighths majority in the Legislature for amendments, the argument is that Prop. 22 limits the state’s authority.”

On Tuesday, hundreds of ride-hailing service workers traveled to the state’s highest court in San Francisco to watch the opening arguments and rally in support. Jorge Vargas, 53, drove up from Southern California. He started working as a gig driver in 2016, when he had to leave college to take care of a sick family member. He remembers thinking conditions would improve when AB 5 passed.

“It would have the corporations pay the workers better,” Vargas said. “Better wages and better working conditions, maybe medical benefits, vacation, sick time, the same as every other employer in the state of California, workers’ compensation. And we got injured at work a lot.”

Vargas was a working student at Fresno City College when a family emergency caused him to move back to Los Angeles. At first, the flexibility the apps offered worked out. He could pull 50-hour shifts over weekends and take care of his family during the week.

He needed income, and he thought the flexibility might let him go back to school one day. Soon, he was working for over six different companies — Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon, Postmates — still not making enough to get by.

DoorDash would pay him for the distance between a restaurant and the delivery point, but not for travel to and from home. He said he once got paid $7.49 for being on standby for 24 hours, waiting to be called for a food delivery.

“That’s my valuable time on their platform. It’s like we’re paying the companies to give us work,” he said. “As independent contractors, we have no say. And we want a better share of the profits. They have control over the app, the algorithm, and how the profits get moved around.”

The case before the California Supreme Court has already gone through two courts. In 2021, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Prop 22 was invalid because it intrudes on the Legislature’s exclusive authority to create workers’ compensation laws. In 2023, an appeals court ruled that the measure could stand.

The Supreme Court files its written opinion within 90 days of oral arguments, and a final decision is rendered 30 to 60 days after the opinion is filed.