Here are my thoughts on Prop 22, the measure that will clarify the employment status of app-based transportation drivers. If you are looking for a deeper analysis of all the measures on the November 2020 California ballot, you can find them here.
Let me start by saying that in my day job, I work for Lyft, which is one of the sponsors of Prop 22. That said, I believe every word that I’ve written here, and since I have worked in app-based transportation platforms for more than 6 years, I see how it improves people’s lives every day – for both the drivers and the consumers. The views I express here are my own, and NOT that of my employer. Without further ado….
Proposition 22 – Employment status of gig economy drivers – YES!
This is the big momma of all the measures on the California ballot. It’s the one everyone is talking about, because the election result will have major consequences for millions of Californians, including every single person who uses Uber, Lyft and the delivery services. This probably includes you.
Let’s go back eight or nine years when Uber and Lyft were founded in San Francisco. Taxi services were a joke; you called a dispatch number and the cab never came, or it was 30 minutes late, and this made it impossible to plan your evening. People drove intoxicated more often than they do now; getting to and from the airport was a pain; people went out to bars and restaurants less often; and life was just a lot less convenient.
Enter the rideshare platform companies, who enabled you to call a car at the touch of a button. A neighbor with a car and some free time would pick you up and take you where you wanted to go within minutes. You didn’t need to fumble for cash; the apps made payment seamless. It was life changing, for both the drivers and the riders. City dwellers starting getting rid of their cars; streets became safer from drunk drivers; and bars and restaurants thrived.
And – this is just as important – the average Joe or Jill was given the ability to make some money on the side by driving whenever it was convenient for them. Stay-at-home moms, full time students, free spirits and retirees could drive as much or as little as they wanted, with total flexibility to work for multiple gig companies, often simultaneously.
These companies completely upended both the taxi industry and the traditional employment model. Consumers gained the convenience of a ride whenever they wanted, and drivers gained the flexibility that a traditional job would never allow.
As the gig economy has matured, the companies have each wrestled with how to afford the drivers maximum freedom while also giving them traditional employment benefits like a guaranteed wage, health care and worker’s comp insurance. It’s not as easy as it sounds. Giving drivers employment benefits would risk their independent contractor status under state law. It also doesn’t make sense to give full benefits to a driver who doesn’t want to commit to driving a minimum number of hours per week.
Keep in mind that neither Lyft nor Uber is profitable yet, and the companies are locked in a death grip of competition. A majority of drivers work for both companies, and most consumers use both apps. This means that if Lyft raised its prices in order to pay drivers more, consumers would flock to Uber, and more drivers would switch over to Lyft, leading to an imbalance of supply and demand. Neither company can increase driver pay without losing market share, and the companies can’t collude to raise prices without breaking the law. A legislative solution is the only way to make sure that drivers get paid the same wage at both companies.
Over the last decade, the gig economy has flourished. Hundreds of gig companies have sprung up to provide consumers with countless different services (I’ll assemble your IKEA furniture! I’ll help you buy groceries! I’ll give your dog a bath!), some with great success, and some have failed (see: Sidecar, my former employer, R.I.P.). But the workers haven’t been able to share in the bounty of the gig economy because their wages have been primarily market driven.
Taxi companies are also failing because they have been unable or unwilling to catch up to the technology. And unfortunately, the rise of the gig economy has also meant the decline of union membership. Unions haven’t been able to figure out how to organize the drivers, in part because traditional membership requires an “employer” who will collect union dues through a regular paycheck. The unions are also fighting among themselves as to which one gets to (has to?) bring gig workers into the fold.
Let’s talk about unions for a second. In my voter guides, I almost always take the side of labor in my endorsements, and that’s because labor has played a central role in protecting workers and in bringing about the most critical reforms to the workplace. When I worked for the City of Oakland, I was a proud member of IFPTE Local 21, and when I ran for office, unions supported my campaigns, and I proudly displayed the union bug on all my campaign materials.
All that said, I disagree with their position on the classification of gig economy workers. This is an issue where the unions are on the wrong side of history; they are clinging to an outdated version of the employment relationship. They are working very hard to cripple the tech companies that have provided the opportunity for gig work to millions of Californians, hurting the very workers they seek to protect. Instead, I think they should adapt to the modern workplace and organize the millions of gig workers, giving them even more power to influence worker protections.
In 2019, taxis and unions looked to the state legislature to strike a blow at the gig companies’ business model. The taxi lobby and the unions are powerful players in Sacramento, and they were able to work closely with Democratic legislators to pass Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which changed the classification of millions of independent contractors around the state to grant them employee status. AB5 was a blunt instrument that had many unintended consequences, which is why the Assembly member who authored the bill immediately granted carve-outs to hundreds of businesses that she favored more than the app-based companies.
In response to AB5, Uber, Lyft and other gig transportation companies placed Prop 22 on the ballot. Prop 22 proposes a compromise between the independent contractor model and the traditional employment model. It would guarantee drivers the flexibility that they want, while granting them many of the benefits of employment. These include a minimum earnings guarantee of 120% of minimum wage, health care benefits that drivers would earn with every hour that they drive, and accident insurance that is similar to worker’s comp insurance. The measure also codifies certain safety measures, many of which the companies already provide: annual background checks, safety training, sexual harassment policies, and the criminalization of impersonating a driver.
The proponents of Prop 22 believe that this gives drivers the best of both worlds: the flexibility they want, and the benefits they deserve, without tying them down to a traditional job. The opponents of Prop 22 say that the app-based companies are just trying to escape having to treat their drivers with the dignity of having employee status.
The app-based transportation companies have poured more than $184 million dollars into the Yes on 22 campaign. Why? Because this measure isn’t just about benefits for drivers, it’s about changing the entire business model of these companies, and possibly ending app-based transportation as we know it in California.
As a voter, you are deciding between two very different outcomes. If Prop 22 passes, consumers will notice very little difference in the services they receive. Prices will go up a bit, because drivers will be paid more in earnings and benefits, and the companies’ overhead will go up a little. The companies will be able to serve all the areas they do today. Drivers will get paid more, and they will continue to drive for multiple platforms at once, as they do today.
If Prop 22 fails, things will be very different. All drivers in California will be forced to sign up as employees if they want to keep driving. For most drivers, it will be infeasible to work for multiple companies. Along with the full benefits of employment, they will receive overtime, vacation, and a fixed rate of pay. They will be assigned to shifts, and they will be required to work a minimum number of hours, agreeing in advance to when and where they drive. They will have a supervisor and performance targets, like any other private sector job.
There is no doubt that some gig drivers would benefit from having employee status, because they drive full time and they want the security of a regular paycheck. However, an independent survey of gig drivers released on October 5 revealed that 69% of California respondents want to remain independent contractors compared to only 11.5% who want to be employees. This makes sense, as Lyft reports that 86% of its drivers drive less than 20 hours per week, and many of them already have full time jobs. They are also caregivers for sick family members, or students who drive to cover their tuition, or seniors who enjoy the social connections they make through gig work.
Since only a small minority of drivers (11.5%!!) will choose to be employees, the app-based transportation businesses will shrink dramatically in California if Prop 22 fails. For consumers, this means that wait times will become much longer, because there will be fewer drivers on the road. The companies will limit their services to denser urban areas, because that’s where the drivers will be concentrated, and where the consumers will be willing to pay more. And of course prices will go up, because drivers will be paid more and the companies’ overhead will go up considerably more than it would if Prop 22 passes.
It’s disappointing to see so many Democratic elected officials line up in the “No” camp, including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. I suspect it’s because they are aligned ideologically with unions, and perhaps they haven’t been briefed on the nuance. (Note: Kamala’s brother-in-law Tony West is the General Counsel at Uber – I would love to be a fly on the wall for their dinner table conversations!) And despite the positive changes that some tech companies have brought into our world, there is a significant backlash against Big Tech in the zeitgeist.
Despite what you may hear from the “No” campaign, this is not a partisan issue. In addition to the usual pro-business advocates, many progressive groups and civil rights organizations support Prop 22, including the California NAACP, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, senior rights advocates, and crime survivors groups. Mothers Against Drunk Driving also supports Prop 22 because of the positive impact ridesharing has had on drunk driving in California.
Above all, this argument should not be about what is good for the companies versus what is good for labor unions. It should always be about what is good for the drivers. Prop 22 isn’t perfect, but it will make the drivers’ lives much better. Go ask them yourself! They will tell you to vote yes.
If you want learn more, I encourage you to read two competing newspaper endorsements: the San Francisco Chronicle which went ”yes” on 22, and the Los Angeles Times which went “no.” The two opinions do an excellent job of examining the nuance of gig work and in particular, the frailties of AB5.
In the June primary, Kevin De Leon squeaked his way into the general election with 12% of the vote against Dianne Feinstein, who beat the rest of a crowded field with 44%. It is theoretically possible for DeLeon to beat Feinstein in November, however, DeLeon is running to Feinstein’s left, and general elections tend to vote more moderate than primaries.* Moreover, progressives who have been watching the Kavanaugh hearings are happy enough with Feinstein given her role in attacking the nominee. She hasn’t pulled any punches with Kavanaugh or the old white men who control the Senate, IMO.
Notably, this is one of the few races between two Democrats in November, and it’s a tossup. Eleni Kounalakis got 24% of the vote in June, to Ed Hernandez’s 20%. Given the energy and enthusiasm behind women candidates this fall (including my own!), my money is on Kounalakis.
If Democrat Ricardo Lara wins, he’ll be the first openly gay person elected to statewide office in California. But he’s got a tough fight ahead of him. Lara received 40.5% of the vote in June to (Republican-until-recently) Steve Poizner’s 41%, so it’s neck and neck. Poizner has an edge because he has held the office before (2007-11) and has lots of name recognition statewide. He’s also gotten some big endorsements recently, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. However, the 3rd place finisher in June was a Democrat (Asif Mahmood – 13%), so it’s likely that his votes add to Lara’s total, not Poizner’s. It might be a squeaker. See my 
Board of Equalization (Dist. 2) – Malia Cohen
Prop 1 is a general obligation bond. As a refresher, general obligation bonds are essentially loans that the state takes out and then repays with interest over time. The bonds are repaid from the state’s General Fund, and that’s why they have to be approved by the voters. The General Fund also pays for essential services like health care, road repairs, and law enforcement, so we want to be careful about how we’re obligating it to other purposes.
Prop 2 is not a set-aside. But it does AMEND a previously approved set-aside (Prop 63) to make its funding more flexible. Prop 2 is a technical measure that merely allows the state government to use revenue from the existing “millionaire’s tax” for homelessness prevention.
On its surface, Prop 3 seems like a good idea. It would issue nearly $9 billion in bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects, including groundwater supplies and storage, dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. Who doesn’t love all of those things? Especially in the Trump era, when the federal government is wiping out all the programs that support water sustainability.
California has 13 regional children’s hospitals that provide specialized care to children and young adults up to age 21 who are suffering from serious and life-threatening diseases such as leukemia, sickle cell disease, cancer, and cystic fibrosis. Prop 4 is a $1.5 billion general obligation bond that will support the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of these children’s hospitals. They promise to use the money to acquire the latest technology and life-saving medical equipment.
On its face, this seems like a good idea: making it easier for homebuyers who are older or disabled to transfer their existing tax assessments, so that they don’t have to pay higher taxes on their new home.
Prop 6 is very bad. If passed, it will repeal the gas tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, AND make it much harder for California to impose gas taxes and vehicle fees in the future.
I’m mad at you, Prop 7. Here I am, researching the pros and cons of daylight savings time, when I could be phone banking for Jacky Rosen for Senate, or painting my daughter’s toenails. Seriously, though, this one has to go down as one of the silliest ballot measures on record.
If you’re thinking there must be a salacious back story here, you’d be right. 
For as long as I’ve been involved in politics in San Francisco, repealing Costa-Hawkins has been the holy grail of progressive housing policy. Costa-Hawkins exempts properties built in 1995 or later from rent control, and it also prevents cities with pre-existing rent control laws from extending them to newer units. San Francisco’s ordinance, for example, remains limited to housing built before 1980. And Costa-Hawkins exempts single-family homes from rent control while guaranteeing property owners the right to raise rents to market value when units are vacated.
Proposition 11 is yet another highly technical measure that has no business being on the ballot. It would allow ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during paid breaks. And just like Prop 8, it’s here because of a bitter dispute between a union and an employer.
Prop 12, if passed, would ban the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet. Again, this is a highly technical measure – why is this even on the ballot? Because it makes a necessary amendment to a previous ballot measure. And a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by ballot measure. GRRR. When will it all end? We need to overhaul our initiative process.*
Remember: Nancy represents one of the most progressive districts in the country, and conservatives nationwide are constantly vilifying her based on her “San Francisco values.” And yet, not only has Pelosi refused to be marginalized, but she has earned the support of enough of her colleagues to become the most powerful woman in Congress. A remarkable feat indeed.
tech bro” seat. The candidate who can best represent all of the district’s constituencies should win. Period.
I really like Phil Ting. Suuuuuper nice guy, and also good at what he does. Ting represents the west side of San Francisco, which is considerably more conservative than the side I live in. And yet he’s been a consistent vote for legislation supported by San Franciscans citywide. He has pushed for closing the Prop 13 loophole that allows corporations to avoid paying their fair share of property taxes; he has promoted the building of separated bike lanes statewide, making biking safer and easier; and he has pushed for BART to reform its safety procedures. He is also virtually unopposed.
This was a tough decision for me. Both Carol Kingsley and Daniel Flores are strong candidates for this office. When the San Francisco Democratic Party interviewed each of them at our endorsement meeting in March, I was impressed with both. They would bring very different qualities to the bench.
There aren’t any current teachers from San Francisco Unified on the school board, and there won’t ever be. The school board oversees the school district and negotiates teacher contracts, and so this would be a direct conflict of interest. This is why it’s important to elect Trevor McNeil – because he brings a very important perspective to the Board of Education, that of a third-generation educator. Trevor currently teaches 7th grade with the San Mateo-Foster City School District. Previously he was a substitute, tutor, and paraprofessional at San Francisco Unified, teaching in almost every neighborhood in our city. I have worked with him for two years on the DCCC. He’s passionate about his students and about education policy, and he works very, very hard. He’s also a conciliator, which is needed on the school board, as there is considerable tension right now between the teachers union and the school board. I’m hoping that Trevor will help bring the two sides together. His long list of endorsers is 
Emily is a parent of two girls in the SF public schools and an alumna. She has worked hard on anti-bullying initiatives, reforming the school meals program, supporting foreign language and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs, and the new Common Core Standards. Her day job is as the Executive Director of the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women, and so she brings a feminist perspective to the board, which I appreciate.
I met Shamann the first time he ran for the Board of Education two years ago, and I was very impressed. I’m enthusiastically supporting him because he’s a native San Franciscan who has long worked with students through workforce and mentorship programs, mostly in the Bayview, giving him a unique perspective on the needs of students, particularly students of color. He’s young, he’s smart, he’s a parent, and he has boundless energy and passion for the schools.
If I had a fourth vote, incumbent Hydra Mendoza would get it. She works hard on important issues like improving access to technology in the public schools, improving academic standards, and increasing parent engagement. I have enjoyed working with her over the years. She is a close ally of the Mayor’s – her day job is as the Mayor’s Senior Advisor on Education – which can be either good or bad depending on the issue. But the reason why she didn’t get a top-three endorsement from me is because she waited until the filing deadline to decide whether she wanted to run for re-election, and this tells me that her passion for serving on the school board is waning.
Stevon is a third-generation San Franciscan and resident of the Bayview. He has a few 
Mark is married to a San Francisco public school teacher and he also has many years of involvement in the public schools. He currently serves as Co-Chair of the Community Advisory Committee of an annual $50 million public fund that benefits the school district. He also has a civil rights background, having served for 5 years on the Human Rights Commission’s LGBT Advisory Committee, where he worked on an LGBT anti-discrimination program in the public schools. He has tutored students, and has been involved in multiple committees and political organizations. And also: super nice guy.
Brigitte is one of the few candidates running for the college board with experience as a teacher. For over 20 years, she was a professor at San Francisco State University, which is where many City College students transfer. She is also a community college success story. As the first in her family to seek higher education, she worked her way up from community college in LA County to undergraduate and graduate degrees from Berkeley. For these reasons, her perspective on the board would be a valuable one.
I supported Amy when she ran for College Board two years ago, and I am proud to support her again. Bacharach understands the value of community college, because it enabled her to get her college degree, and ultimately her PhD. She is smart, competent, and willing to make the tough calls, particularly in centralizing decision-making in CCSF’s administration.
Fang earned the support of (the extremely powerful) SEIU Local 1021 when he walked a picket line with BART workers last year. To me, it seemed like a craven political tactic, and it essentially neutralized some of Fang’s biggest political enemies. Fang also has a lot of support from SF’s old guard: Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Ed Lee, Jeff Adachi, and many others. But I’m guessing this has more to do with Fang’s longevity in office: he has been friends with all these people for a few decades now, and has probably supported all of their campaigns. This is the power of incumbency.
The SF transit system is at a breaking point. This measure will authorize the city to issue $500 million in general obligation bonds to fund transportation infrastructure projects, like safety, circulation, streetscaping, and Muni’s many years of deferred maintenance needs. The measure was carefully crafted so that it benefits motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. It needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass.
Prop C will extend the city’s Children’s Fund and Public Education Enrichment Fund for the next 25 years, dividing the city’s general Rainy Day Reserve into a City Rainy Day Reserve and a School Rainy Day Reserve. Much of the money from the two funds renewed by this measure goes towards supporting public schools and public school programs.
This measure would impose a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on “sugary beverages” in San Francisco, the proceeds from which would go towards nutrition, physical activity, and health programs in public schools, parks, and elsewhere in the city. It is estimated to bring in revenue of about $31 million per year, and it is primarily aimed at decreasing the consumption of these sugary drinks. It needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass.
Everyone loves Prop F. Even the people who normally oppose every real estate development proposal in San Francisco. Seriously. Environmental groups, the Bay Guardian, former Mayor Art Agnos, neighborhood organizations near the project…everyone.
If approved, Proposition G would impose an additional transfer tax on the sale or transfer of multi-unit properties that have been owned for less than five years. The idea is to make it much more expensive for real estate speculators to buy and flip large apartment buildings after evicting the entire building, thus contributing to the City’s eviction epidemic and housing crisis.
Prop J will raise the minimum wage in San Francisco to $15 per hour by 2018 from the current rate of $10.78 per hour. It was spearheaded by Mayor Ed Lee and referred to the ballot by the Board of Supervisors as a compromise between labor and business interests.
If approved, the measure would establish a City policy that would prohibit the city from: (1) charging parking meter fees on Sundays and holidays, or outside the hours of 9am-5pm; (2) putting new meters in neighborhoods without consent from the affected residents and businesses; and (3) increasing parking garage, meter or ticket rates for at least five years, with increases tied to the CPI after that. The measure would also require the city to enforce traffic laws equally for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Thankfully, it is not binding legislation and it wouldn’t directly change any city laws. But it’s still a terrible idea for several reasons.
District 2 (Marina, Pacific Heights, Sea Cliff) is of the wealthiest and most conservative districts in the city. And while I’ve disagreed with incumbent Mark Farrell on some issues, he has proven to be a smart and effective, humble and accessible. He has worked hard to address homelessness, and he has done a decent job as chair of the Board’s Budget Committee.
Tang votes with the more conservative forces in City Hall because she represents one of the more conservative districts in town. But! She knows the neighborhood very well, having been raised there, and having served as an aide in that district for years. She is focused the neighborhood’s needs, such as public transportation and public safety. She is a smart, level head in City Hall. She should be re-elected.
Jane has been an effective Supervisor who hasn’t shied away from controversial topics that she knew might anger her base. And for that she has my respect. She also represents a tough district – it includes one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city (Tenderloin), as well as some of its most influential technology companies (Twitter, Autodesk), and fastest growing neighborhoods (China Basin, Mission Bay).
Scott has grown on me. I supported one of his opponents four years ago, but since then I have had the pleasure of working closely with Scott, both at the Board of Supervisors and on the 
Malia is the only incumbent running for re-election this year with serious opposition. And I kind of feel bad for her – the district she represents is the most diverse in the city. From Potrero Hill to the Bayview, to Dogpatch, Viz Valley and Mission Bay – the district includes rich, poor, new, old, and every ethnic group. In a single day, she will visit the family of a shooting victim, cut the ribbon on a new restaurant on Third Street, and participate in negotiations over a new large-scale real estate development. She’s done a good job of balancing all of these diverse interests, her 
Vote Alix 