Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Government IT

California's Gig Drivers Just Secured Collective Bargaining Power with Newly Certified Union (sacbee.com) 122

Posted by EditorDavid from the driving-forward dept.
A union representing Uber and Lyft drivers was just certified by California's Public Employment Relations Board, officially recognizing them as the drivers' bargaining organization.

The Sacramento Bee reports that this new bargaining structure : The move will allow the California Gig Workers Union to help drivers negotiate issues affecting working conditions and benefits. It comes as at least 30% of active drivers expressed support of the union... [California] Assembly Bill 1340 helped bring the union to fruition by allowing the independent contractor drivers to engage in collective bargaining.
"The next step for the union is to negotiate a contract with Uber and Lyft that meets drivers' demands," reports the Los Angeles Times, "including health insurance, support for high gas prices and more transparency around pay: California is the third state to allow ride-hailing drivers to unionize, following Washington in 2022 and Massachusetts in 2024...

The California Gig Workers Union was formed with the support of the Service Employees International Union... "Gig drivers shouldn't have to face the future alone," said SEIU 521 official Riko Mendez in a statement. "As autonomous vehicles rapidly expand, having a union gives the drivers the power to negotiate for fair pay and meaningful say in how new technology shapes their work and our communities' futures."

California's Gig Drivers Just Secured Collective Bargaining Power with Newly Certified Union More | Reply

California's Gig Drivers Just Secured Collective Bargaining Power with Newly Certified Union

Comments Filter:

  • ... referring to them as gig workers. [wikipedia.org] They are employees, with all of the concomitant benefits and payroll deductions. And soon, they will be subject to union fees, and the other perks of representation. Including calls for daily workers at the union hall. You thought it was tough, having to wait for Mr. Friendly [wikipedia.org] to pick you out for a crew. Now it will be a faceless app on your phone.

    • They are employees, with all of the concomitant benefits and payroll deductions.

      That's what the unions and CA Democratic party want.

      Thing is, you poll the actual drivers, most like the flexibility of being able to schedule their own shifts and set their own hours. They like that it's gig work.

    • Can't rake in them fat profits without treating them as throw-away GIG workers.
      Any ide what a CEO must make these days?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Any ide what a CEO must make these days?

        Nearly as much as a union official, I imagine.

        • That's catastrophically stupid, and it would have been so easy to just check first instead of proving yourself to be an S-tier moron.

          You actually think that reality bends itself to be consistent with the weak hyperbole you were spoon fed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      They may be "regular" employees, but the employers have nothing really holding them in state - no investment in dispatchers, vehicles, mechanics, etc. I can easily see the ride share operators having much, much more leverage over the drivers than the drivers will likely have over their employers.

      Steel workers have leverage over the steel mills because they cant just relocate the steel mills, but these virtual, zero infrastructure employers can just shutdown once the workers get appropriate notice.

      • Yeah, that's true. And as a Lyft customer, that's a huge concern of mine. I live in the San Francisco area, so deep in California, and I worry that at some point Lyft will respond to this by moving all the cars and drivers they use to give people like me rides to Nevada.

        The wait time for a driver to come from Nevada is going to suck

        • You don't understand.

          I worry that at some point Lyft will respond to this by moving all the cars and drivers they use to give people like me rides to Nevada.

          Lyft doesn't own cars (and they don't really 'employ' drivers, at least not until this legislation...), and all pulling out of the state - any state - would involve simply shutting off ride requests in a state. Easy-Peasy.

          They have no cars to move.

          They have no drivers to move.

          The real victims of such a move would be the drivers who, in some cases, went out and bought cars just to work for Lyft... they'll still have car payments but no work driving.

          Literally, ride share companies can drop a market/region/state with just a couple quick updates to their smartphone app.

          • Latest estimate I could find is that in San Francisco alone, Lyft gives something like 170,000 rides. Every day.

            People forget that California is a huge market. There's a reason why when California changes its emission standards for vehicles, large automakers don't just go "well, fuck you, I'm not going to sell cars in California." It's a market that is extremely painful to walk away from, and virtually no major company has done that (two exceptions, before someone "well actually"s me: Firearms companie

            • My point was, simply, if the costs get too high, there's nothing keeping them in CA. They don't have employees, they don't own cars, they don't have maint. Facilities, etc - they just have an agreement to skim a certain amount of money off the top of every drive. If the amount they skim gets too low, "the juice might not be worth the squeeze"...

              Ride share companies can stop operating in a city, state, etc for any period of time, from hours to days, with nothing more than a simple programming change.

              It is po

            • The thing is they are not employees. They're freelance workers or sort of like self employed franchise operators. Being a gig worker is not a career. It's work when you want to work and for many, an extra income stream with a lot of flexibility.

              Just look at how many people California screwed when they passed union drafted legislation restricting freelance work that hit people like writers and truck drivers hard. This is the unions making the same play they tried through legislation that will end up hurt

      • They may be "regular" employees, but the employers have nothing really holding them in state - no investment in dispatchers, vehicles, mechanics, etc. I can easily see the ride share operators having much, much more leverage over the drivers than the drivers will likely have over their employers.

        Steel workers have leverage over the steel mills because they cant just relocate the steel mills, but these virtual, zero infrastructure employers can just shutdown once the workers get appropriate notice.

        It's also just an app. Much easier to replace than physical infrastructure, and much lower barrier to entry. There won't be a ride-hailing vacuum for long.

    • ... referring to them as gig workers. [wikipedia.org] They are employees

      Uber and Lyft (and a few others) spent over $200M to convince the voters to pass ballot initiative 22 in CA to allow those companies to continue to treat their workers as independent contractors. You can fool a lot of people with $200M (and anyone who claims money does not matter in politics does not understand the importance of fooling more then 50% of the people).

  • This would have been great for the guys starting out when Uber and Lyft were dropping their percentages and basically forcing full time drivers to sleep in their cars with little left after taxes, insurance, gas, and maintainence. When these companies got behind automated technology like Waymo, it was just a matter of time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *

      Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.

      Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.

    • This would have been great for the guys starting out when Uber and Lyft were dropping their percentages and basically forcing full time drivers to sleep in their cars with little left after taxes, insurance, gas, and maintainence. When these companies got behind automated technology like Waymo, it was just a matter of time.

      So you're seriously stating that these LARGE tech companies are using human beings and not self-driving cars because humans are more affordable? FUCK RIGHT OFF, with your bullshit shilling. They hire all these human beings because automation can't do the job. If they could, they would roll it out widely. Tech companies are heavily financed and whoever solves self-driving cars will make a MASSIVE fortune. Yeah, there are limited pilot programs, probably with remote operators at this point. (there are m

      • Calm down satan. I have a right to my opinion and you to yours.

      • They're already "behind automated technologies". No, the gig workers have nothing to lose. They're getting exploited now. You can't outsource their job to Bangladesh.

        You lack imagination - the drivers have no leverage - Lyft, Uber, etc can choose to leave a state and make it happen within a few hours, and, as the drivers aren't really full-time employees of the ride share companies they 'gig' for, they really have no advance warning protection that I can see.

        If drivers demand excessive compensation and ride share companies can't make a profit, the companies will just close up shop.

        What will stop them?

      • Re:If they could, they would (Score:4, Interesting)

        by edi_guy ( 2225738 ) on Monday September 14, 2026 @02:31AM (#66336922)

        The Waymo's , Zoox, and now Telsa Cybertaxis are a real thing in my city. They drive everywhere a human can and are everywhere. There are dozens on any road I drive. And I'm talking congested weird urban streets with hills, twisty roads...delivery trucks double parked, cyclists weaving, everything. And yeah they self park just fine.
        Self driving taxis is a done deal. Proof of concept is complete. Now they are just working on reducing the costs of the vehicles and sensor + and gpu hardware. And dealing with the various city agencies that (rightfully) want to slow the roll to protect jobs. And if you pull up YouTube you can see that China has no such compunction and they basically caught up in a few years time...no doubt by "borrowing" the tech Waymo, Zoox, etc developed and honed.

  • We already had Taxis. They've been around since before cars themselves. Taxis became ludicrously expensive due to fees and over-regulation. The only reason anyone cares about Uber or Lyft is because they offer CHEAPER RIDES. Repeating the same mistakes that largely destroyed the traditional Taxi business isn't going to help anyone.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      We already had Taxis. They've been around since before cars themselves. Taxis became ludicrously expensive due to fees and over-regulation. The only reason anyone cares about Uber or Lyft is because they offer CHEAPER RIDES. Repeating the same mistakes that largely destroyed the traditional Taxi business isn't going to help anyone.

      A huge appeal for ride share over taxis is that the cars showed up quickly when summoned because there were so many "drivers" just waiting for a ride...

      • Re:Cost... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dsgrntlxmply ( 610492 ) on Sunday September 13, 2026 @06:00PM (#66336656)
        Mostly because the online dispatch system works more reliably than trying to phone a taxi desk, especially if you are away from familiar situations, getting someone who is unintelligible, and who misunderstands the pickup and dropoff points.

        • Taxis were artificially constrained to keep taxi medallions expensive.

          Ride share has a dynamic model that can (virtually) bring on as many drivers as needed, then reduce availability to keep rates high.

          • There's only a few big cities where that is true, though, and then traffic congestion is a real problem without clear regulatory answers.

            • A city may or may not have actual, high-value medallions, but I bet most cities of any significant size has a taxi commission and a means to keep private citizens from starting their own personal taxi service/ride share company...

              • For example in my city you have to demonstrate to the commission that your plan includes the capability to serve the entire city (no redlining allowed). And you have to designate a color scheme for your company's vehicles.
                If your application follows all the rules it can't be denied. There are not limits to the permits issued.

        • Lots of taxi companies have apps, though, and many already did.

          Personally, I've never heard of a taxi company hiring people to answer the phones that weren't long-time locals.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by flink ( 18449 )

            None of them did back in 2012 when Lyft and Uber were getting big, at least not where I was.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Mostly because the online dispatch system works more reliably than trying to phone a taxi desk, especially if you are away from familiar situations, getting someone who is unintelligible, and who misunderstands the pickup and dropoff points.

          In most countries, taxi services automated their dispatch years ago... This is not an excuse to support illegal services that are both against competition and seek to reduce the rights of workers.

          Ever since I've lived in the UK, you've been able to book taxis and minicabs online. It is more recent to Australia but Australia is hopelessly stuck in the past.

      • A huge appeal for ride share over taxis is that the cars showed up quickly when summoned because there were so many "drivers" just waiting for a ride...

        Ride sharing also covered far wider service areas than taxis. The canonical example was it was really easy to get a taxi in Manhattan but quite difficult in the Bronx or Queens. Ride sharing covered the non-Manhattan boroughs much better.

        Financially speaking, the big innovation of the sharing economy was changing the capital structure. Taxis, limos, and rental cars were owned by the taxi/limo/car rental company, which meant they need to come up with the capital to buy them. Ride sharing used capital assets

        • Ride sharing also covered far wider service areas than taxis. The canonical example was it was really easy to get a taxi in Manhattan but quite difficult in the Bronx or Queens. Ride sharing covered the non-Manhattan boroughs much better.

          NYC only has so many taxis, and the easiest place to pickup rides and keep busy is to operate in Manhattan, not in the Bronx or Queens...

    • Re:Cost... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kwerle ( 39371 ) <kurt@CircleW.org> on Sunday September 13, 2026 @06:20PM (#66336676) Homepage Journal

      Way more than cheaper rides.
      * App to summon
      * Automatic driver mapping to pickup
      * Predictable arrival for pickup
      * Predictable arrival for drop off
      * No BS routing and you knew the cost before pickup/dropoff.

      Back in the day I called for cabs ahead of time and had them fail to show up 25% of the time. I've never lived in a dangerous area, so that wasn't it. They just were not reliable or predictable. Uber saw a huge opening for a service and they took it. They also saw a huge opportunity for destroying the existing market solution in an anti-competitive and illegal way and took that, too - banking on the notion that government would not act fast enough to stop them. And they were right.

    • Taxis became ludicrously expensive due to fees and over-regulation.

      In most places the biggest regulation on taxis is fare limits. The regulation is why they were cheap and provided lots of jobs.

      Otherwise the companies involved tend to engage in a lot of price fixing, leaning heavily on customers that need to get to their destination.

  • "The next step for the union is to negotiate a contract with Uber and Lyft that meets drivers' demands," reports the Los Angeles Times, "including health insurance, support for high gas prices and more transparency around pay

    Good luck with that - the ride-share operators have zero investment in California, so if they cant negotiate a contract the operators are happy with they can just leave the state.

    I wonder what protections the gig workers have if a Lyft or an Uber decides to leave the CA market, do they have to give certain notice?

    I don't think this is really going to turn into the victory the drivers think this is...

  • Only 30%? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by smoot123 ( 1027084 )

    So, that means that 70% of drivers didn't express any interest in union representation. That means a minority of drivers are forcing their preference on the majority. Seems unjust to me.

    If drivers had an option to join the union or directly work with the company, that would be a different kettle of fish. But they won't, their choice will forcibly taken away from them.

    I find it hypocritical. Progressives in this state hate monopolies, unless its a labor monopoly which shovels huge amounts of cash to the Demo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      That means a minority of drivers are forcing their preference on the majority.

      I think they still need a vote to accept that union as their collective bargaining representative. That does not appear to have happened yet. And that's where the 70% have their say.

      • When there is a vote to certify who is eligible to vote? Is it anyone who signed up as a driver? Will the driver with 1 ride or even 0 rides have the same vote as someone with 5000 rides? This seems ripe for abuse.

      • I think they still need a vote to accept that union as their collective bargaining representative. That does not appear to have happened yet. And that's where the 70% have their say.

        Could be. I read through the article and it wasn't clear to me whether there was going to be another vote to actually join the union. The impression I got was the union is now authorized to negotiate a contract. It would find it odd to negotiate a contract if the union couldn't guarantee to deliver the drivers.

        But maybe that's how it works. The union and companies negotiate a contract, then the union goes to the drivers with a proposition "if enough of you join the union and accept this contract, then it go

    • Re:Only 30%? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@@@worf...net> on Sunday September 13, 2026 @10:42PM (#66336830)

      Unionizing takes several steps. First, you have to sign enough interest cards to even begin the process. 30% is about right - you show there's a significant interest in people joining the union. Then you have the certification push - that is, a general vote on if you want to join the union or not. That takes a simple majority - if it fails, then no union. It's basically 30% of people saying they're interested in joining a union.

      As for a "monopoly on labor" you have to realize the power mismatch that's going on here. Basically gig workers are disposable - they have no power at all the employment relationship. It's take it or leave it. (This applies to most other workplaces as well). The company holds all the power and your option is to either starve or work at whatever the company says they'll pay you.

      Unions basically try to combat that power inequity. Progressives aren't against monopolies, they're against unfairness. The key is fairness - everyone has a fair shot at getting a job. The fact you're about to be homeless shouldn't be a determining factor in what you'll accept for a job.

      Trump's vision of how the 50s and 60s were - that was the era of the strong union where the C-suite was paid less than 20 times the janitor. Where even the janitor was paid enough to own a home.

      Of course, that's why we're never going to return to those times unless the politicians start reversing course on greed and start giving workers power through unions. Union busting is basically why they make up only 10% of the workforce in the US today through right to work laws and other things.

      Progressives aren't generally in favor of monopolies because they generally lead to unfairness. But in the unbalanced power dynamic of employer-employee relations where for most employees they have little to no power to dictate working conditions, a monopoly on labor suddenly becomes a powerful thing to equalize the power dynamic and strike a fairer deal.

      • Unionizing takes several steps. First, you have to sign enough interest cards to even begin the process. 30% is about right - you show there's a significant interest in people joining the union. Then you have the certification push - that is, a general vote on if you want to join the union or not. That takes a simple majority - if it fails, then no union. It's basically 30% of people saying they're interested in joining a union.

        Thanks for clarifying what TFA did not. The article did seem to indicate the union could start negotiating a contract now. Does that come after being certified?

        As for a "monopoly on labor" you have to realize the power mismatch that's going on here.

        I get it. That's been the argument for over 100 years. I'm just pointing out that people are inconsistent. Progressives hate monopolies when they are a company using market power to raise prices for consumers (which is actually quite rare) but love unions when they do the exact same thing. The union is sticking it to The Man, woot!

        Personally, I disli

    • I find it hypocritical. Progressives in this state hate monopolies, unless its a labor monopoly which shovels huge amounts of cash to the Democrats.

      It's weird mental gymnastics to call a union a "labor monopoly" to support drawing a false equivalence. Monopolies are generally disliked, not just by D people, because they prevent free competition, which is a staple of US economic and social policy. It's about protecting consumers and entrepreneurs. A union is about protecting workers. Both anti-monopoly laws and labour unions are about protecting people from nefarious effects of a completely unregulated market. The fact that the same people who want to h

      • Re:Only 30%? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Sunday September 13, 2026 @11:13PM (#66336858)

        It's weird mental gymnastics to call a union a "labor monopoly"

        A labor union wants to be, and often is, the exclusive provider (that is, seller) of labor to a company or industry. How's that not a monopoly?

        That you might think it's for a good cause and/or justified doesn't change the economics. They're legally protected exclusive sellers which drive up the price of their product (labor) above market clearing levels.

        That's all well and good. Remember the downside is they drive up the price of goods for everyone else in the society so they're not an unalloyed good.

        • "A labor union wants to be, and often is, the exclusive provider (that is, seller) of labor to a company or industry. "

          Labor Union do not provide exclusively labor to companies. What they do is have the power of collective bargaining, job protection, safety - which is utterly different to being "exclusive provider of job".
          You may confusing normal labor union, with hiring hall union (e.g. in construction/actors/voice actor). That is a widely different type of union. Most union are NOT hiring hall union.

    • So, that means that 70% of drivers didn't express any interest in union representation. That means a minority of drivers are forcing their preference on the majority. Seems unjust to me.

      Yep.

      Unions like SEIU pull this carp all the time. And the politicians they contribute to help them do it.

  • Too late, in face of robotaxis? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schweini ( 607711 ) on Sunday September 13, 2026 @06:12PM (#66336668)
    Good for them, but I guess too late?
    I was in San Francisco recently, and I was told that Waymo's prices just dropped beneath Uber's prices, which to me seemed to me like an important tipping point.
    Tech is only going to get cheaper, and humans are only going to get more expensive - unionized, even more so.
    I took quite a couple of Waymos on that trip, and was shocked how quickly one becomes used to the whole driverless thing. It works well enough. And I doubt there's a competetive way to get that genie back into the bottle.

    • Good for them, but I guess too late? I was in San Francisco recently, and I was told that Waymo's prices just dropped beneath Uber's prices, which to me seemed to me like an important tipping point. Tech is only going to get cheaper, and humans are only going to get more expensive - unionized, even more so. I took quite a couple of Waymos on that trip, and was shocked how quickly one becomes used to the whole driverless thing. It works well enough. And I doubt there's a competetive way to get that genie back into the bottle.

      EIU I suspect Lyft/Uber drivers will at best become surge capacity as Waymo expands if Waymo stays cheaper; resulting in drivers chasing fewer rides with little pricing power. As a result, the ability to make a living as a driver will be even worse than today. I also suspect the fight will shift to the political arena with drivers hoping the political clout of the SEIU will save them by getting laws passed to limit Waymo and / or raise their costs and thus prices. For example, I've seen where taxis tried

      • Futile, at best temporary solution. It would be like a cooks' union demanding that nobody cook/microwave food at home, instead always buy food from a restaurant, or at the very least force grocery stores to raise prices so that home cooking at home is more expensive (e.g. frozen TV dinner minimum price $20).

  • The robots to take their jobs.

  • And so much for the "less expensive" uber/lyft rides now that the UNIONS will jack up rates so they can get THEIR cut!

  • This unionization was probably sponsored and paid for by Waymo and Tesla since this will accelerate Uber and Lyft moving to robotaxis. Congratulations!

  • What exactly defines a “gig” amount of hours worked to define the “gig driver”, and is there a reason this bill doesn’t define the gig worker instead of just those with a job behind a steering wheel?

    Pretend your answers are being defending in a courtroom. Because that’s where the next gig might be.

    Side note: I hope those arguing for more protections do not price themselves right out of the market. It’s going to be a PPV amount of irony to hear about THAT phone cal

  • In Michigan, for example, they "organized" home care "workers" ... who are overwhelmingly just relatives of disabled people. (The state saves a bundle by providing some funds to pay family members for taking care of their own disabled family members.)

    How did SEIU do that, you ask, when state law says that the "employer" in this program is the disabled person himself? Why, they got the state Dems to change the law, so that solely for the purpose of collective bargaining, the "employer" is the state! Easy p

  • hmm (Score:2)

    by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
    no text
  • So now low tips and you have to pay union dues.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      Dear right-wing shithead, you have no clue what you're talking about.

      THE FACT is that union dues are typically 1%-2% of your income, not 30% (like the Apple tax).

  • This new contract is good news for Waymo.

  • FSD works shockingly well. It's game over for human drivers. Unless they can force the continued use of buggy whips through government legislation, this union is simply going to hasten their fall.

    • I've had one for some time, but literally NOBODY believes how well it works .. not until a test drive or two. I'm surprised a bunch of idiots didn't reply you saying "omg, its not really driving itself .. you're supervising it" ..or that you're intervening but your brain deletes it from your memory. Slashdot luddites in particular are adamant that cars can never drive themselves -- there are too many "variables".

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close