unionize

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law a deal that will allow hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize and bargain collectively while still being classified as independent contractors.

The legislation — a rare compromise between labor groups and Silicon Valley gig economy companies — grants collective bargaining rights to Uber and Lyft drivers, and follows years of political and legal battles over the job status of rideshare and delivery drivers.

The new law does not apply to other types of gig workers, including those who deliver food through apps like DoorDash.

Besides the collective bargaining deal, Newsom is also expected to sign a law backed by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements.

Newsom, with his signing of the deal, drew a contrast with Trump’s posture towards workers and labor unions, with his administration banning collective bargaining at half a dozen federal agencies earlier this year.

“Donald Trump is holding the government hostage and stripping away worker protections. In California, we’re doing the opposite: proving government can deliver,” Newsom said in a statement. “That’s the difference between chaos and competence.”

Labor leaders from Service Employees International Union California, a powerful union that has been working for years to organize app-based drivers, say the deal is one of the largest expansions of private sector unions in 90 years, allowing hundreds of thousands of California gig drivers to gain a seat at the bargaining table.

It does so by exempting workers from the state and federal antitrust laws that normally prohibit collective action by independent contractors.

“The gig economy isn’t going away, but worker exploitation doesn’t have to be part of it.” David Green, SEIU 721 President and Executive Director.

Ramona Prieto, Uber’s Head of Public Policy for California, said in an emailed statement that the compromise “lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers — demonstrating how industry, labor, and lawmakers can work together to deliver real solutions.”

Experts say the prospect of a union gives some gig workers their first-ever outlet to vent frustrations about workplace conditions. But how exactly does it work? And what are rideshare companies getting in return?

Here’s what you need to know:

What would it take for drivers to form a union?

Under federal law, employees in the U.S. can unionize by holding an election or reaching a voluntary agreement with their employers for a specific union to represent them.

The process for California Uber and Lyft drivers under the collective bargaining law, called Assembly Bill 1340, would be somewhat different.

A group can seek to be the bargaining representative for active drivers by collecting signatures from at least 10% of them. At that point, a group would be able to petition for access to names and contact information for all active drivers in California from the state’s Public Employment Relations Board, which is designated to oversee the unionization process.

With that contact list, the process of organizing drivers would in theory become easier. Once a group signs up 30% of active drivers, they could petition the board for union certification. If more than one organization is in the process of gathering signatures, an election would be held to determine which would represent drivers.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who co-authored the bill with Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), said the new process means drivers will be able to”bargain for better pay and protections, and help build a future where the gig economy works for the people behind the wheel.”

The law outlines a formula as to which drivers qualify as “active” based on a median number of rides they completed during the prior six month period, which determines who would be eligible to vote in the election.

It’s unclear at this point how many active drivers California has, as the number fluctuates, and rideshare companies do not release the information. Uber and Lyft will be required to submit data on active drivers to the state labor board on a regular basis under the new law.

That path to collective bargaining mirrors a ballot initiative approved by Massachusetts voters last fall that was also backed by SEIU, which allows drivers to form a union after collecting signatures from at least 25% of active drivers in the state.

Drivers affiliated with SEIU who supported the California bill said they spend long hours on the road, as many as 10 to 12 a day, but are not given the same protections as other workers. They say the law gives them an opportunity to negotiate their pay and other terms of their agreements with the companies.

“Drivers have had no way to fight back against the gig companies taking more and more of the passenger fare, or to challenge unfair deactivations that cost us our livelihoods,” said Ana Barragan, a gig driver from Los Angeles in a statement. “We’ve worked long hours, faced disrespect, and had no voice, just silence on the other end of the app.”

Some driver advocates have worried the law may not be strong enough to ensure that drivers can reach a fair contract.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who studies the effect of technology on workers, had said the legislation does not clarify whether drivers would be protected if they collectively protested or went on strike, and doesn’t require that the companies provide data about wages.

“These are the crux of what makes a union strong and the very, very bottom line of what members need and want,” Dubal said. “That they couldn’t achieve those things — that’s a win for Uber.”

Michael Reich, a professor of economics and co-chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC Berkeley who has closely studied the gig economy and advised on driver-related legislation, called a potential driver union “a golden opportunity” and the pair of laws “a good deal for both sides.”

What did gig economy companies get out of the deal?

The insurance bill, backed by Uber and Lyft and introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo), would reduce the amount of insurance that companies like Uber and Lyft are required to provide for rides.

Uber said in a blog posted to its website, that the law helps to address “one of the biggest hidden costs impacting rideshare passengers and drivers in California.”

Currently, the companies must carry $1 million in coverage per rideshare driver for accidents caused by other drivers who are uninsured or underinsured. The companies have argued that current insurance requirements are so high that they encourage litigation for insurance payouts and create higher costs for passengers.

But beginning next year, passenger trips will instead be covered by $60,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per rideshare driver and $300,000 per accident.

Uber said it will maintain $1 million in liability insurance to cover injuries or property damage in accidents caused by their rideshare drivers, as well as insurance that covers the cost to repair the driver’s car, regardless of who is at fault for the damage.

The companies are also required to maintain $1 million in occupational accident coverage under gig economy law Proposition 22, which is supposed to help drivers with medical bills if they’re injured while driving, no matter who is at fault, Uber said.

What led to this point and how does Prop. 22 factor in?

After the California Legislature in 2019 rewrote employment law in 2019, clarifying and limiting when businesses can classify workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft went to the ballot in California, bankrolling an initiative to exempt their drivers.

When California voters passed Proposition 22, the ballot measure the companies funded in 2020, drivers were classified as independent contractors who, under federal law, do not have the right to organize. Proposition 22 had language that explicitly barred drivers from collectively bargaining over their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

But SEIU California argued that court decisions over Prop. 22 left an opening for the state Legislature to create a process for drivers to unionize, setting the state for lawmakers to introduce the collective bargaining bill. Uber and Lyft initially opposed the bill, until a deal was hammered out and announced in August.

Times staff writer Laura Nelson contributed to this report.

For two years, labor organizers tried to unionize employees at a trio of celebrated California national parks, but they couldn’t reach critical mass.

Then came mass firings of National Park Service employees in February under the Trump administration. Many employees were reinstated, but litigation concerning the legality of the firings winds on. The park service has lost about a quarter of its staff since Trump reclaimed the White House, and that’s on top of a proposed $1-billion budget cut to the agency.

This summer the scales tipped. More than 97% of employees at Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks who cast ballots voted to unionize, with results certified last week. More than 600 staffers — including interpretive park rangers, biologists, firefighters and fee collectors — are now represented by the National Federation of Federal Employees.

Steven Gutierrez, national business representative with the National Federation of Federal Employees, said it took mass firings to “wake people up.”

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“Culture is hard to change,” said Steven Gutierrez, a national business representative for the union. “It takes something like this administration firing people to wake people up, to say, ‘Hey, I’m vulnerable here and I need to invest in my career.’”

The unionized employees work at some of California’s most celebrated and highly visited national parks. Yosemite is famous for its awe-inspiring valley, while Sequoia and Kings Canyon are known for their giant sequoia trees.

Amid that beauty is a workforce that is frustrated and fearful. Two employees at Yosemite National Park described rock-bottom morale amid recent turmoil — and a sense that the union could provide an avenue for change. Both are union representatives and requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

“With this administration, I think there’s a lot more people who are scared, and I think the union definitely helps towards protections that we really want,” said one employee.

National Park Service Ranger Anna Nicks walks through a grove of sequoia trees in Sequoia National Park in May 2024.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Despite staff being depleted by buyouts and a hiring freeze, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has ordered parks to remain “open and accessible.” As a result, the employee said visitors may not notice something is off.

“There’s a lot of folks doing multiple jobs and just trying to hold up the park,” she said, adding that she believes that the union will help ensure people get paid properly for the work they do and that their duties don’t shift.

The employees stressed that many workplace problems they want to see fixed — including low pay and squalid living conditions — predate Trump’s second stint in the White House. But recent developments have exacerbated the situation.

Because pay hasn’t kept pace with inflation, one employee said he’s unable to pay rent and lives out of his car for most of the year. Meanwhile, he said, those in park housing face safety threats such as hantavirus-carrying rodents that invade living spaces, caving-in roofs and unstable decks. Understaffing has plagued Yosemite for years.

“People that you see working here, they’re really at their wit’s end,” he said. “Personally speaking, it’s just a lot of work to handle. Years ago, we had twice as many people doing this work.”

Staffers are “worried about their futures,” he added.

The National Park Service did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement to a Senate appropriations subcommittee in May, Burgum said the Trump administration remains committed to supporting the parks, while looking for ways to cut costs.

A waterfall is reflected in water in the meadow in the Yosemite Valley as the snowpack melts in April 2023.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

“Since becoming Interior Secretary, I’ve traveled to National Parks, historic sites, and wildlife refuges to learn and hear from leadership on the ground,” Burgum said. “We’re instituting changes to get more people actually working in the parks and are looking forward to what Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly forecasted to be an ‘outstanding summer.’ ”

The unionization vote comes as the Trump administration seeks to strip federal employees of labor protections many have long enjoyed. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that directs certain federal agencies — including NASA, the National Weather Service and the Bureau of Reclamation — to end collective bargaining agreements with unions representing federal employees.

The Department of Veterans Affairs previously moved to terminate protections for more than 400,000 of its workers. The president’s overall effort on this front is being fought in court, although federal judges have so far sided with the administration.

As labor unrest mounts, Americans and foreign tourists are visiting national parks like never before. In 2024, there were a record 332 million visits to national parks, including 4 million to Yosemite. Crowds continued to stream into national parks over Labor Day weekend.

Groups that advocate for public lands say that short staffing is quietly adding to long-standing problems.

Preventative Search and Rescue Program Coordinator Anna Marini gives the Lutter family children junior guide books after they finished a hike in August 2024 in Joshua Tree National Park.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“It’s clear staffing shortages are directly impacting park operations across the system,” the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Assn. said in a statement Wednesday.

“Parks like Joshua Tree and Yosemite are struggling with search and rescue, law enforcement and even basic medical services, while some parks have no maintenance staff at all. Seasonal roads, trails and campgrounds like those at Sequoia and Kings Canyon remain closed due to unaddressed damage.”

The union voting took place July 22 to Aug. 19, and included permanent and seasonal employees. The National Federation of Federal Employees represents workers at several other national parks, including Yellowstone and, in Ohio, Cuyahoga Valley, as well as those in the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

A union sign hailing federal workers is displayed at Sequoia National Park.

(Steven Gutierrez)

Federal employees don’t have the right to strike, Gutierrez said, meaning that much of employees’ advocacy has to happen in Washington, D.C. He said the union can bring workers face to face with congressional leaders to explain why their jobs matter — including the tourism dollars they help generate.

Next steps will include hammering out labor contracts for Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon, which can provide job protections.

Gutierrez said he’d like to see one drafted by December but acknowledged that it can be a long process.

“If Trump puts his fingers into it, it’s going to take longer,” he said.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers on Friday announced a landmark deal with Uber and Lyft to allow hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize and bargain collectively while still being classified as independent contractors.

The compromise between labor unions and the Silicon Valley companies, backed by Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would advance a collective bargaining bill through the Legislature along with a bill backed by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements.

The deal is a major development in the years-long tussle between organized labor and Silicon Valley over rights for independent contractors.

Labor leaders from Service Employees International Union California, a powerful union that has been working for years to organize app-based drivers, said the deal is the largest expansion of private sector collective bargaining rights in California history.

“Labor and industry sat down together, worked through their differences, and found common ground,” Newsom said in a statement. The agreement, he said, will “empower hundreds of thousands of drivers while making rideshare more affordable for millions of Californians.”

With support from Rivas and McGuire, both bills are expected to sail through the Legislature before the session ends in mid-September. The agreement does not apply to other types of gig workers, including those who deliver food through apps like DoorDash.

The two bills “represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, in a prepared statement.

The deal marks a new chapter in nearly a decade of tension between technology companies and state lawmakers over the employment status of the tens of thousands of Californians who do gig work for app-based companies.

“This moment has been a long fight for over a decade in the making,” said Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California.

After the California Legislature in 2019 rewrote employment law in 2019, clarifying and limiting when businesses can classify workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft went to the ballot in California to exempt their drivers.

When California voters passed Proposition 22, the ballot measure funded by Uber and Lyft, in 2020, drivers were classified as independent contractors and, under federal law, do not have the right to organize. Prop. 22 also explicitly barred drivers from collectively bargaining over their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

But SEIU California argued that court decisions over Prop. 22 left an opening for the state Legislature to create a process for drivers to unionize.

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced the collective bargaining bill, AB 1340, which Uber and Lyft initially opposed.

The bill allows drivers to negotiate their pay and other terms of their agreements with the companies and exempts workers from the state and federal antitrust laws that normally prohibit collective action by independent contractors.

Under federal law, employees in the U.S. can unionize by holding an election or reaching a voluntary agreement with their employers for a specific union to represent them.

The process for California Uber and Lyft drivers would be somewhat different. The bill says drivers can select a bargaining representative by collecting signatures from at least 10% of active drivers, then petitioning the state’s Public Employment Relations Board for a certification.

That path to collective bargaining mirrors a ballot initiative approved by Massachusetts voters last fall that was also backed by SEIU, which allowed drivers to form a union after collecting signatures from at least 25% of active drivers in the state.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who studies the effect of technology on workers, said the compromise reached by California lawmakers may not be strong enough to ensure that drivers can reach a fair contract.

The bill does not clarify whether drivers would be protected if they collectively protested or went on strike, she said, and doesn’t require that the companies provide data about wages.

“These are the crux of what makes a union strong and the very, very bottom line of what members need and want,” Dubal said. “That they couldn’t achieve those things — that’s a win for Uber.”

Uber driver Margarita Peñalosa, 45, of Los Angeles, said she realized she needed a union after being temporarily deactivated from the app, and losing three days of income, when a passenger who reeked of marijuana left behind a lingering smell in her car that other riders then complained about.

“That experience made me realize how powerless we can be,” she said. She said she hoped that a collective bargaining process would create a “clear, fair appeals process” for rider complaints.

A Southern California group that counts some 20,000 drivers as members said they had lobbied for provisions to strengthen the bill — including protections that would give drivers the right to strike and more enforcement resources for the state board tasked with overseeing the process — but had been largely shut out of negotiations.

“We were not invited into conversations about this, and we were banging on the door,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United.

Representatives from SEIU and Wicks’ office met multiple times with Rideshare Drivers United about their proposals and discussed why some weren’t included, said someone familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to speak publicly. For example, that person said, strike protections could open up the bill to attack for potentially violating antitrust laws.

“While we always give fair consideration to suggested amendments, not all are ultimately viable,” Wicks said. She added that her office heard from dozens of constituents and advocates over months of public debate, and “any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.”

Despite the weaknesses in the law, Moore said, she still hopes that it will help, since right now, she said, drivers “have no labor rights and our wages are in the dungeon.”

“We will do what we can with duct tape and a few paper clips and a little extra wax to actually wage a fight,” she said.

The insurance bill, backed by Uber and Lyft and introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo), would reduce the amount of insurance that companies like Uber and Lyft are required to provide for rides.

Currently, the companies must carry $1 million in coverage per rideshare driver for accidents caused by other drivers who are uninsured or underinsured. The companies have argued that current insurance requirements are so high that they encourage litigation for insurance payouts and create higher costs for passengers.

The agreement instead calls for $60,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per rideshare driver and $300,000 per accident.

Cabaldon said that the changes would eliminate “outsized insurance requirements that don’t apply to any other forms of transportation, such as taxis, buses, or limos.”

One of California’s largest agricultural employers plans to close a Central Valley grape nursery by the end of the year after laying off hundreds of employees, including many supportive of a United Farm Workers effort to unionize the workforce.

Wonderful Co., owned by billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, plans to shut down the majority of the nursery in Wasco, northwest of Bakersfield, and donate the farm to UC Davis, representatives for the company and the university confirmed this week.

The move comes as Wonderful Nurseries remains locked in a battle with the UFW after the union last year petitioned to represent workers growing grapevines, using a new state “card check” law that made it easier for organizers to sign up workers. Company officials said their decision was unrelated to that.

“The decision to wind down Wonderful Nurseries was purely a business decision and in no way, shape or form related to our ongoing litigation with the UFW or the fraud so many farm workers reported by the union,” Wonderful Co. spokesman Seth Oster said.

In February, Wonderful Nurseries President Rob C. Yraceburu said in an email to employees that the state’s agricultural industry has seen tens of thousands of orchard and vineyard acres abandoned or removed. The table and wine grape industry is in a major downturn, meaning nurseries such as theirs have seen “significantly decreased sales and record losses, with no expectation of a turnaround anytime soon.”

Yet some labor experts and Wonderful employees are questioning the timing of the layoffs, which started just five months after the UFW won a key legal victory in its effort to organize the workforce.

Victor Narro, a labor studies professor at UCLA, said the closure and donation to UC Davis should be scrutinized.

“The question is, what’s the reason they’re doing it?” he said. “Is it really, in the end, to avoid unionization of the workforce? Or is it really that they’re making a sound financial decision?”

The UFW has not directly accused the Resnicks of retaliating against workers supportive of the union by closing the farm. But it has raised questions about the timing of both the layoffs and this week’s confirmation the nursery would be closed.

The entrance to Wonderful Nurseries on March 25, 2024, in Wasco, Calif.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

At its seasonal peak, the 1,400-acre nursery employs about 600 workers who would have been part of the bargaining unit, but now only 20 still work at the facility, said Elizabeth Strater, director of strategic campaigns for the union. Overall, about 100 employees now work there, according to the company.

Yraceburu told employees there will be a phasedown in shutting the grape nursery. Workers, including those employed by farm labor contractors, will have an opportunity to apply for other Wonderful worksites, he said. A company spokesman said no other Wonderful farm is facing a similar reduction in workforce.

The nursery has been operating at a significant loss for several years, Oster said, but he did not say for how long or just how much it has lost.

It was not immediately clear whether UC Davis will recognize the farmworkers union once the university takes control of the nursery.

In a statement, UC Davis spokesperson Bill Kisliuk said the university is grateful for the gift, which includes the Wasco facility combined with a $5-million startup donation. The university will form an implementation committee to plan the use of the facility, Kisliuk said.

Although the university has a long history of respecting labor agreements, he said, the academic use of the site will be significantly different from the current commercial operation.

“This gift expands and builds upon one of the world’s leading agricultural research programs and will catalyze discovery and innovation,” he said. “We look forward to working with the Wonderful Company to successfully transfer the Wasco facilities and property to the University later this year.”

The Resnicks are big donors to state politicians and charities, but their philanthropy has been the target of recent union organizing efforts. In late July, UFW and other labor organizers gathered outside the Hammer Museum, the recipient of more than $30 million in donations from the Resnicks, who have a building named after them. The gathering came after the union released a video that appeared to show a Wonderful employee paying other workers to participate in an anti-union protest.

In the video, the worker, who has been a forefront anti-union advocate and has organized protests, is seen handing out $100 bills from the trunk of a car and encouraging workers to sign a sheet. In a separate video, she can be heard saying that she was directed to first feed everyone, hand out $100 and then they would receive an additional $50.

The unedited versions of the videos were shown during a hearing before an administrative law judge for the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board, where Wonderful Co. has challenged the UFW’s petition to represent the nursery employees. The board oversees collective bargaining for farmworkers in the state and also investigates charges of unfair labor practices.

Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Now that Wonderful is closing its Wasco grape nursery, it is unclear what will happen in the proceedings, because there will soon be no workers to unionize. But the board could issue a ruling that would affect future disputes.

The UFW and Wonderful Co. have traded accusations over the last year: The company accused the union of using $600 in COVID-19 federal relief funds to trick farmworkers into signing the authorization cards. The company submitted nearly 150 signed declarations from nursery workers saying they had not understood that by signing the cards they were voting to unionize.

The UFW has rejected those accusations and, with the video, is suggesting that workers were paid to protest against the unionization effort at the height of the back-and-forth a year ago.

Rosa M. Silva, a Wonderful Nurseries worker for the last six years, said tensions have long been running high at the nursery, with some co-workers saying they don’t have a right to ask for raises or benefits. She said she believes that the company would rather shut down the nursery to avoid negotiating with them, a claim that Wonderful has forcefully rejected.

In July, Silva took a day off work and rallied outside the Hammer Museum. Protesters handed out fliers that read: “Tell Wonderful Company’s billionaire owners: Respect the farm workers. Stop spending money fighting the United Farm Workers.”

“This is my message to the Resnicks: if you can give millions to this art museum, which a majority of your workers will never visit, why can’t you also pay your workers something fair?” she said at the protest. “If you care so much about being respected by artists and lovers of art, why can’t you respect the people who plant, grow and harvest the products you sell?”

The UFW filed its petition with the labor board in February last year, asserting that a majority of the 600-plus farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco had signed the authorization cards and asking that the UFW be certified as their union representative.

At the time, it appeared to be the UFW’s third victorious unionization drive in a matter of months — following diminishing membership rates over the last several years.

Under the law, a union can organize farmworkers by inviting them to sign authorization cards at off-site meetings without notifying their employer. Under the old rules, farmworkers voted on union representation by secret ballot at a polling site designated by the state labor board, typically on employer property. The state law has since revitalized the union’s organizing efforts, and it has gone on to organize other farms.

Wonderful has sued the state to stop the card-check law. A ruling by a Kern County Superior Court judge that found the certification process under the card-check law as “likely unconstitutional” was superseded in October by an appellate court, which is still reviewing the case.

Ana Padilla, executive director of the UC Merced Community and Labor Center, said the Central Valley has been blanketed with anti-union messaging ever since the passage of the card-check law.

She also questioned the timing of shutting down the Wasco nursery. “Layoffs, store closures and offloading organized worksites are all part of the anti-unionism playbook,” she said.

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.