Drearily, an appeals court has dismissed Uber’s challenge to California’s anti-gig-work law.
According to the 9th Circuit, the ride-sharing company couldn’t show that the California anti-freelancer law AB5, which took effect in 2020, unfairly targeted Uber while allowing other types of contract work to continue unhindered.
In fact, the many exceptions to AB5 — determined by abundance or lack of political pull of various groups — mean that Uber is hardly alone in suffering from uneven application of the law.
But suppose AB5 had in fact been evenly imposed on everybody. Suppose every single gig worker in California, without exception, had been forced to become a regular employee of all of his clients — with all the additional costs for employers that this entails — or else lose all work altogether.
This would be worse, not better.
Inconsistent tyranny is bad for the victims. Absolutely consistent and uniform tyranny is bad for the victims — which would be greater in number.
Maybe the 9th’s misjudgment won’t stand. If the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe the high court will unambiguously affirm our right to contract with each other in order to make a living and get stuff done.
Meanwhile, the fate of Uber also hinges on another court case, one determining the fate of Proposition 22, a 2020 California initiative affirming Uber’s right to contract with drivers.* A labor union says Prop 22 is unconstitutional. The state supreme court is deciding whether this is so.
It is not so.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Citizens in Charge, a pro-initiative and referendum group, for whom I serve as president, filed an amicus or friend of the court brief with the California Supreme Court in this case.
Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Leave Us Alone to Do Our Work”
Since this case originates in California, what is the likelihood that another court would see a similar case? Usually cases before the Supreme Court have had different rulings in different appellate courts. What state outside the ninth circuit has passed a similar law?
Fifteen state Attorneys General threw their weight behind the State of California in this case, so we may expect that similar action is planned in those states if the US Supreme Court does not strike it down and if the federal government does not pre-empt such action by effecting it at a national level. See for example New Jersey Senate Bill 4204.
The US Department of Labor is attempting to suppress the gig market, so the US Supreme Court may be drawn into this fight even if the Court would rather let the Ninth Circuit Court make a hash of things.