Are CA gig workers getting promised pay and benefits?

California voters passed Proposition 22 four years ago. The ballot initiative, backed by Uber, Lyft and other gig companies, promised the state’s more than 1 million gig workers new benefits, such as guaranteed minimum earnings, health care stipends, occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance. Gig workers have long turned to the state labor commissioner with wage complaints; since Prop. 22 passed, those complaints include ones related to that law.

But the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling that upholds Prop. 22 effectively ensures that Uber and other ride-hailing and delivery platforms can continue to treat their workers as independent contractors. That means the labor commissioner can no longer handle wage claims from gig workers, who are not considered employees. 

Gig companies — some of which have tacked on new customer fees to help provide workers with Prop. 22 benefits — say the law is working as intended, though they share few details. According to interviews with gig workers and wage claims filed with the state that were examined by CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay, those benefits haven’t been as helpful as advertised and aren’t always delivered in a timely manner (or in some cases, allegedly not at all). 

Laura Robinson, a delivery worker who has worked for different gig companies, waited months to receive occupational accident insurance from Instacart. And a wage claim she filed with the labor commissioner recently helped her get a settlement from another platform, Curri. But it took a lot of legwork and persistence on her part. Also, she said she was frustrated about not knowing exactly where to turn and how long it took to get a resolution. 

Robinson: “(Prop. 22) is not helpful if it’s not enforced or applied.”

Now, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, no state agency is directly in charge of enforcing Prop. 22 — unless local prosecutors or the state attorney general decide to file lawsuits. So gig workers with individual claims, like Robinson, have even less recourse if they have a dispute with gig companies.

For more on this issue, read Levi’s story.

It’s by no means a surprise, but a second bid to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom ended with a whimper. 

The campaign acknowledged that since February it only collected 100,000 of the 1.3 million signatures required by Tuesday’s deadline, so it didn’t bother submitting them. Anne Dunsmore of Rescue California criticized the state GOP for not helping the effort, telling CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff that “our biggest hurdle was the California Republican Party. Period.”

Dunsmore also said while the campaign gave voice to voters frustrated with Newsom, the passion died down in recent weeks: “When it was very obvious that he was not going to be on the presidential ticket, that’s when everybody really calmed down.” 

Meanwhile, Newsom, who easily beat back the 2021 recall effort, advanced the special session on gas prices he called Saturday night by unveiling legislation Tuesday with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. The bill, which they say will prevent gas price spikes, is very similar to a bill that Senate leader Mike McGuire, who opposes the session, said his chamber was ready to approve. 

As for the election that is actually happening, CalMatters’ award-winning Voter Guide is now updated for November. Mail ballots go out to all registered voters in early October, and you have until Oct. 21 to register to vote online. 

The key components to the guide:

Ballot props: What you need to know on all 10 propositions, including our one-minute videos and quizzes to help you decide your vote. 

Key races: Details on the candidates and dynamics of key races for the U.S. House, state Assembly and state Senate. As in 2022, California could help determine which party controls Congress, and the legislative contests could decide whether Democrats keep their supermajority.

Voting FAQ: Information and resources to make sure you’re all set to cast your ballot and have it counted. There’s also a form to ask questions, which we’ll try to answer. 

In addition to the guide, we’re also reaching out to voters who may get their information elsewhere. We have a TikTok and an Instagram reel on Prop. 3 on same-sex marriage; a TikTok and Insta on Prop. 32, which would increase the state minimum wage; and a TikTok and an Insta reel on Prop. 6, which would ban forced labor in prisons.

You can keep up with all CalMatters Election 2024 coverage by signing up for 2024 election emails.

One of the more contentious bills to make it over the finish line in the final hours was a late proposal to regulate where new warehouses can be built, writes CalMatters Inland Empire issues reporter Deborah Brennan. 

The bill would require local governments to place a buffer between warehouses and “sensitive” residential areas such as schools, apartment buildings and nursing homes. The measure would also establish new rules for trucking routes that would “avoid residential areas.” 

With the continuing popularity of e-commerce, the Inland Empire experienced a recent boom in warehouse development, which has been encroaching on low-income neighborhoods, clogging roads and spewing air pollution. In a bill analysis, its co-author — Democratic Assemblymember Juan Carrillo of Palmdale — said the measure requires warehouse developers to “build a better product, operate responsibly, and be good neighbors to the communities they set up shop in.”

But the proposal faces strong opposition from several business and local government groups. In addition to the extra costs developers may incur from either complying with the new rules or paying penalties if they do not, they argue that local economies could suffer. Opponents also criticized lawmakers for the bill’s last-minute push. The California Chamber of Commerce supports the measure, however, calling it “a valuable compromise” due to more far-reaching bills, lawsuits and local moratoriums.

Read more about the warehouse bill in Deborah’s story.

Speaking of last-day bills: The Legislature passed a proposal by Sen. Scott Wiener to require certain vehicles built or sold after 2030 to be outfitted with a “passive intelligent speed assistance system” to limit speeding accidents. 

Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, in a statement: “Rising levels of dangerous speeding are placing all Californians in danger, and by taking prudent steps to improve safety, we can save lives.”

But Senate Republicans are not happy with the measure and are urging the governor to veto it. They argue that “the real focus should be on increasing law enforcement … and appropriately punishing those who blatantly disregard traffic laws.”

The speed assistance system would alert drivers whenever they drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The bill includes a handful of exemptions, such as emergency vehicles, certain trucks, motorcycles and mopeds. Since July, all new cars sold in the European Union are required to have a similar system.

After 15 years of efforts and spending to expand access, an estimated 94% of California residents have health insurance. Find out how the state achieved this milestone — and who remains left out — in our new explainer by CalMatters interns Arfa Momin and Shaanth Nanguneri.