The California labor laboratory is at it again. Actually, the Golden State is running slightly behind its coastal sibling, New York, in the quest to claim jurisdiction over labor disputes while the NLRB lacks a quorum. Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen already made clear that he isn’t impressed by these states taking action, which he called an attack on the Board’s “core jurisdiction” while threatening to sue New York.
The Board made good on that threat while alleging that New York is attempting to “unlawfully usurp” federal power by putting the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in charge of private-sector labor disputes. Of course, states do not have this authority, but that isn’t stopping them from putting Garmon preemption to the test.
Case in point: California went there, too. This month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288, which is purportedly triggered by the Board’s lack of quorum to issue binding decisions, along with the lack of funding that’s currently a factor due to the government shutdown.
This bill won’t stand, long term. Eventually, the NLRB’s quorum will be restored, although that timeline remains foggy due to Sen. Josh Hawley possibly thwarting an upcoming Senate HELP Committee vote on Board nominees Scott Mayer and James Murphy.
Yet when the NLRB can once again issue rulings, the feds will have a hefty clean-up on whatever actions New York and California have taken on labor disputes. If these states manage to, say, certify union petition votes, adjudicate ULP charges, or issue their own “binding” guidance, get ready for lengthy legal fallout for employers.
Meanwhile, the California governor wasn’t done taking swings at the feds.
A double-edged rideshare sword: Newsom signed legislation that gives up to 800,000 rideshare drivers a path to unionize. “In an era when the federal government is abandoning employees,” reads his announcement. “California is expanding workers’ voice and agency in the economy.”
Yet this isn’t a law that could work out well for these workers. As we have discussed, the SEIU-lobbied AB 1340 does not reclassify these drivers as employees. They remain independent contractors but can organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and other working conditions.
In doing so, this bill virtually guarantees that these drivers will lose some freedoms associated with gig work if they do unionize, which will require living under a union constitution.
Additionally, a skeptical driver spoke with CBS News to discuss this legislation’s flaws, which include not clarifying what wages will be during contract negotiations. The drivers also expressed concern at how rideshare drivers are “really facing AI and Algorithmic discrimination in a way that no one has,” and AB 1340 does nothing to address this matter.
On a more business-friendly note, Newsom also signed SB 371, which limits the amount of uninsured motorist insurance that Uber and Lyft must carry for rideshare drivers.
Conclusion: These California shenanigans are largely the work of SEIU lobbying with the goal of–as with the state’s recent creation of a Fast Food Council–creating illusory unions through sectoral bargaining of industries. Such faux-unions make no guarantees for workers in improving workplace conditions, but workers will be asked to opt into paying dues.
Also, keep an eye out for similar rideshare organizing tactics in several other states, including Massachusetts, which recently took that plunge in allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize.
