The veto of Assembly Bill 1729 continues a standoff between the governor and state workers who argue they can do their jobs just as well — if not better — from home. Newsom has repeatedly resisted those arguments, insisting that in-person work remains essential to a well-functioning government.

While the bill would not have overturned Newsom’s current policy outright, it would have softened the mandate requiring most state employees to report to the office four days a week, a rule that took effect in July. Under the proposal, state agencies would have had to provide written justification whenever they required staff to work on-site rather than remotely. The bill also called for the Department of General Services to build a public dashboard tracking the costs and benefits of telework across state government.

In his veto message, Newsom said he remains convinced that face-to-face collaboration is central to a productive workplace.

“This measure, by limiting departmental flexibility and encouraging telework to be the default work arrangement, takes the state’s telework policy in the wrong direction,” he wrote.

The governor had embraced remote work during the pandemic, when tens of thousands of state employees shifted overnight to working from home. But by 2024, he had ordered most workers back into offices at least two days a week, later expanding that requirement to four days as part of a broader push toward in-person operations.

Many workers who grew accustomed to telework during the pandemic have pushed back, arguing that remote arrangements save the state money without hurting productivity. A 2025 state audit estimated that expanding telework options could save California roughly $225 million annually in reduced office space and related costs.

Sacramento Democratic Sen. Angelique Ashby, who supported the bill, said allowing more remote work would cut costs tied to office leases and employee parking while also reducing commute times, easing traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, and helping the state recruit and retain talent.

The veto lands at a tense moment for labor relations in state government. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents roughly 100,000 public workers, has been polling its members about authorizing a strike amid ongoing disputes with the administration over both pay and telework rules.

“A blanket mandate does not work for all the jobs that our workers do,” Local 1000 President Anica Walls told CalMatters over the summer, arguing that individual departments — not a single statewide directive — should determine what arrangement works best for their employees.

Not everyone in the Legislature supported the bill, however. A bipartisan group of roughly a dozen lawmakers voted against it. Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat representing Encinitas, argued that requiring agencies to justify in-person work requirements effectively flipped the default toward remote work in a way she considered excessive.

“We had a tremendous upheaval and difficulty around remote classrooms,” Blakespear said during the bill’s final Assembly floor vote in August, pointing to the broader debate over remote learning during the pandemic. “The reality is that people think remote work will improve their mental health, but it substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health.”

With the veto, Newsom’s office-attendance policy remains firmly in place — at least for now — even as tensions with organized labor over the issue show no signs of easing.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Rejects Bill That Would Have Eased Work-From-Home Rules for State Employees appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Proposition 40 would place a 5 percent tax on the fortunes of California’s roughly 200 billionaires, with most of the resulting revenue earmarked for healthcare programs. Backers call it a long-overdue reckoning for the state’s wealthiest residents. But the measure’s path to passage is anything but straightforward, tangled up in union infighting, competing ballot initiatives and a leadership scandal that has handed opponents a ready-made talking point.

The measure is the brainchild of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, yet it has drawn opposition from several other major labor organizations — an unusual alignment that puts unions on the same side as the billionaires Prop. 40 targets. Adding to the turmoil, Dave Regan, the union’s outspoken president, is facing serious misconduct allegations from fellow SEIU leaders, who say an independent probe substantiated claims of bullying, harassment, intimidation and even physical violence. Those officials have called for his resignation, saying their union must hold true to its values around respect and accountability. Regan has denied the accusations, but the controversy has become a liability for the campaign as it fights to win over skeptical voters.

Even if Proposition 40 clears the ballot, its future isn’t guaranteed. Wealthy interests opposing the tax have placed two rival measures before voters: Proposition 41, which would bar new taxes that exceed the state’s existing spending cap, and Proposition 42, which would prohibit any tax on personal property. Under California’s rules, if multiple conflicting measures pass, only the one receiving the most votes takes effect. That means a strong showing for either Prop. 41 or Prop. 42 could effectively cancel out the billionaire tax, regardless of how Prop. 40 fares on its own.

A recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California illustrates just how tight the race has become. Support for Prop. 40 stood at 52 percent among likely voters, with 46 percent opposed — a margin narrow enough that either outcome remains plausible. Meanwhile, both rival measures showed slim leads of their own in the same poll. Notably, those surveyed were given only the official ballot summaries, without any explanation of how the three measures might interact or cancel each other out — a wrinkle that could catch many voters off guard once they’re filling out their ballots.

Mail voting is set to begin within weeks, giving campaigns on all sides a short window to sway an electorate that appears genuinely split.

Absent from the fray, at least publicly, is Gov. Gavin Newsom. Before Prop. 40 even qualified for the ballot, Newsom had voiced concerns that a wealth tax could push high-income residents and businesses out of California, potentially hurting a tax base that already relies heavily on the state’s top earners for income tax revenue. Since then, though, he has softened his stance, suggesting that taxing extreme wealth is better addressed at the federal level rather than through a single state’s ballot measure. Political observers note that Newsom’s shift may reflect his own ambitions beyond Sacramento — a potential presidential run makes alienating the progressive wing of his party over billionaire taxation a risk he seems unwilling to take, even as he stops short of endorsing Prop. 40 outright.

With labor unions divided, competing tax measures on the same ballot, and a scandal complicating the campaign’s messaging, Proposition 40’s fate looks likely to hinge on which side can cut through the noise and reach voters before ballots start arriving in mailboxes.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Millionaire Tax Faces New Hurdles as Proposition 30’s Future Hangs in Balance appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The announcement, made Tuesday, follows a state law passed last year that granted California drivers the right to unionize — a significant shift for workers who have long been classified as independent contractors rather than employees, a distinction that typically excludes them from collective bargaining protections.

The Public Employment Relations Board confirmed last week that the newly formed California Gig Workers Union had gathered signatures from at least 30% of the state’s active ride-hailing drivers, meeting the threshold required to represent drivers statewide. California becomes only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow such organizing, and Illinois passed similar legislation just last week.

Drivers and leaders from the Service Employees International Union gathered at a press conference in Los Angeles to mark the milestone, laying out plans to eventually negotiate over longstanding driver grievances — including sudden deactivation from the apps, stagnant pay, and the opaque algorithms that dictate how much work drivers receive and how much they earn.

Vikaas Shanker, a Fresno-based driver who has emerged as a leader in the new union, described the isolating nature of gig work under the current system. “Uber and Lyft systems silo and separate us drivers from each other,” he said. “As we’ve been engaging in conversations with drivers all across the state … I’ve realized that I’m not on my own in my struggles.”

According to Riko Mendez, chief elected officer of SEIU Local 521 in San José, California is home to roughly 350,000 ride-hailing drivers. Mendez told CalMatters that union organizers have spent recent months preparing members for the bargaining table and hope to sit down with Uber and Lyft before the end of the year.

The formation of the union marks a watershed moment in a yearslong labor fight that has played out largely through ballot measures, court battles and legislative maneuvering, as gig companies have fiercely resisted efforts to reclassify or empower their driver workforce. Whether the union can translate its new legal standing into concrete gains for drivers — particularly around pay transparency and app-based terminations — will likely become clear as bargaining sessions get underway in the coming months.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Gig Workers in California Take Key Step Toward Forming a Union appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a unanimous decision issued Monday, the California Supreme Court found that the state’s long-standing restrictions on courtroom recording devices unfairly penalized residents who lack the money to hire a private reporter — often at a cost of thousands of dollars per hearing.

The ruling is likely to reverberate through courthouses across the Inland Empire and the rest of Southern California, where, like much of the state, a persistent shortage of certified court reporters has left many civil, family and probate hearings without any official record at all.

For years, unions representing court reporters have pushed to keep electronic recording tightly restricted, arguing that only trained professionals can guarantee an accurate, dependable transcript — a document often essential for anyone hoping to appeal a court’s decision. But as CalMatters reported last year, California’s reporter shortage has already left millions of hearings undocumented, forcing many litigants to either pay steep fees for private reporters, wait months for one to become available, or simply proceed without any transcript.

The case decided this week arose from a challenge brought by advocacy organizations representing survivors of domestic violence, who argued that the current system amounts to a “two-tiered” form of justice — one where wealthier litigants can secure an official transcript while everyone else is left without recourse.

“The continued failure of the superior courts to provide indigent litigants with a means of obtaining an official verbatim record deprives them of ‘meaningful access to the judicial process,’” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote in the court’s opinion, referencing earlier legal precedent. In legal terms, “indigent” refers to someone unable to afford private legal representation or court-related expenses.

Attorneys representing the reporters’ unions had warned that electronic recordings can suffer from poor audio quality and are no substitute for a trained professional capturing testimony in real time. They also argued that court administrators have been too slow to fill vacant reporter positions, worsening the shortage rather than solving it.

Scott Kronland, the attorney who represented the unions in the case, said the ruling could actually help the reporting profession by pressuring courts to lift hiring freezes. “Court reporter schools are full and have waiting lists,” he said in a statement. “Superior courts must hire those court reporters.”

Still, Guerrero’s opinion made clear that the court viewed some record — even an imperfect one — as preferable to none. “A verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all,” she wrote.

The scope of the problem is substantial. Since 2023, more than 3 million court proceedings statewide have taken place without any transcript, according to data from California’s Judicial Branch. Many of those hearings involve sensitive matters such as domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, child custody and support disputes, marital dissolution, debt collection, workplace and housing discrimination claims, and probate guardianship cases.

Under the state’s current priority system, serious criminal cases — such as felony trials — receive first access to available court reporters, often leaving other types of hearings unrecorded on especially busy days. The vast majority of California’s major civil cases proceed without a reporter present, and more than half of family law and probate hearings go undocumented as well.

That leaves many litigants with an unenviable choice: spend upward of $3,000 to hire a private reporter, delay proceedings for months in hopes that a court reporter becomes available, or move forward without any record — and without the ability to appeal if something goes wrong.

In her opinion, Guerrero pointed out that federal courts, many other states and even certain categories of California cases already permit electronic recording, arguing that this track record shows the technology can serve as a workable substitute when reporters aren’t available. Under existing state law, recording is currently allowed only in misdemeanor cases, infractions and civil suits seeking less than $35,000 in damages.

Several legal advocacy groups and constitutional law scholars filed briefs supporting expanded use of recording technology, citing potential savings for courts and warning that the current system effectively cuts off lower-income residents from full participation in the justice system.

“The overriding principle should be to protect the people’s access to justice, which is a fundamental element of individual liberty,” wrote David Carrillo of UC Berkeley School of Law and Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group in one such filing.

Court reporter unions, which lobbied successfully years ago to get recording banned in most California courtrooms, have continued fighting efforts to loosen those restrictions. In 2023, union pressure helped kill a bill that would have permitted recording in all civil cases. A similar union-backed measure introduced last year by Assemblymember Diane Papan, a Democrat from San Mateo, would have allowed courts to use recording devices for a three-year trial period. But the state’s Judicial Council criticized the bill for including so many restrictions that judges would have had little real authority to use the technology. The measure stalled in the Senate and was later withdrawn by Papan before a vote could be taken this summer.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents many of California’s court reporters, remains one of the most politically influential labor groups in the state, having contributed more than $16.6 million to political campaigns since 2016, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Papan’s own campaigns have received at least $70,500 from SEIU and its affiliated unions during that period. She did not respond to a request for comment following the court’s ruling.

Meanwhile, courts throughout California have ramped up recruitment efforts, offering higher pay and hiring bonuses in hopes of attracting more reporters to the profession. According to the Judicial Branch, the median total compensation for a California court reporter — including benefits — now tops $200,000 annually. State law also requires that hearing transcripts be purchased directly from court reporters, who retain that revenue themselves.

Even with those financial incentives, many courts are struggling to fill open positions. Los Angeles County’s Superior Court, for example, is currently offering a $50,000 signing bonus along with a $25,000 referral fee for employees who help recruit a new court reporter. Despite those efforts, the court reported 92 vacant reporter positions as of this summer — an improvement from 106 vacancies a year earlier, according to a public dashboard tracking the shortage.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Supreme Court: Courts Must Record Hearings When No Court Reporter Is Available appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Since July 1, California state employees have been required to report to their offices four days a week under an executive order Newsom signed earlier this year. The mandate covers roughly 108,000 of the state’s more than 245,900 workers — those who previously had some flexibility to work remotely. The rest, including prison staff, firefighters, law enforcement personnel and custodial workers, were already required to be on-site full time.

The policy has put Newsom at odds with labor unions that have historically been reliable allies. Members helped him survive a 2021 recall attempt and have campaigned for him in past elections. Now, some of those same unions are pushing back hard, arguing the governor is ignoring evidence that remote work is just as productive — if not more so — than showing up in person.

“It’s confusing to people when they think that they’ve done a great job to be told, ‘Well we don’t think it’s good enough and you should incur going back into the office,'” said D’Arcy McLeod, who chairs the bargaining team for the Professional Engineers in California Government.

Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents about 96,000 state workers and is currently negotiating a new contract, contends that remote work cuts costs for both the state and its employees while easing traffic congestion and pollution. The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board in May and is backing a legislative proposal that would let individual state agencies set their own telework rules rather than follow a single statewide policy.

“A blanket mandate does not work for all the jobs that our workers do,” said SEIU 1000 President Anica Walls. “Let the departments decide.”

The governor’s order does include some carve-outs. Workers who live 50 miles or more from their office, or whose jobs require them to be elsewhere — telehealth providers and inspectors, for example — can request exemptions. The state also reimburses public transit costs for commuting employees. Union leaders say those provisions don’t go far enough.

California’s approach stands apart from many other states, including several with strong union presence. Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Washington all continue to allow some degree of remote work for state employees. Nevada and New Mexico require five days in-office, while Utah asks for two.

Texas, meanwhile, took a path opposite of what one might expect given its Republican leadership. Abbott banned remote work for state employees in early 2025, not long after President Trump ordered federal workers back to their desks. But after a multi-agency review found that telework hadn’t hurt productivity and had actually helped retain employees, Abbott reversed course and signed legislation this summer allowing telework across state agencies.

That contrast hasn’t been lost on union leaders. Ted Toppin, executive director of the engineers’ union, noted that Newsom has long championed technological innovation in government, even authoring a book on the subject.

“It strikes me as interesting and ironic that Texas would have a more modern, flexible and efficient take on state employee telework,” Toppin said.

A state audit released last year estimated that expanded telework could save California as much as $225 million annually. Despite those findings, Newsom signed his return-to-office order in March 2025, requiring most affected employees back at their desks at least four days a week.

Speaking to reporters in May, Newsom said he understood workers’ frustrations but believes in-person work strengthens workplace culture, encourages collaboration and accountability, and supports small businesses that rely on foot traffic from office workers, particularly in downtown Sacramento.

McLeod said he was struck that Newsom held firm even after state officials who testified before auditors reportedly praised the quality of remote work during and after the pandemic.

“Every single Newsom appointed official that testified for the state auditor indicated that the work that was being delivered during telework was substantially of higher quality and more efficient,” McLeod said.

The standoff echoes tensions between labor and California’s previous two governors. Arnold Schwarzenegger clashed with public employee unions over ballot measures aimed at curbing their influence and later imposed unpaid furloughs during the recession. Jerry Brown, meanwhile, pushed through pension reforms that required workers to contribute more toward their retirement benefits and was known for tight-fisted contract negotiations.

Newsom, by contrast, had cultivated goodwill with public employee unions — offering targeted concessions during the pandemic, approving one-time bonuses, and negotiating contracts that sweetened deals for workers in hard-to-fill positions.

The fight over return-to-office rules threatens to undo some of that goodwill. Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio, who has advised public employee unions on pension matters, said Newsom’s stance is puzzling for a politician widely believed to have national ambitions.

“It’s political malpractice to come across as anti-labor,” Maviglio said. “The only thing you’ll be able to say is that ‘I stood up to state workers,’ which isn’t particularly helpful in a Democratic primary where labor is the key constituency nationwide for Democrats.”

Not everyone sees it that way. Will Swaim, chief executive of the libertarian-leaning California Policy Center, argues the dispute reflects a broader question about who controls government workplace policy. SEIU 1000 has donated at least $2 million to sitting state lawmakers, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, and is simultaneously pressing its case through both contract talks and a bill now before the state Senate.

“That’s simply undemocratic,” Swaim said. “I don’t know anybody out there who believes that in their jobs they could tell their boss, ‘I’m not coming to the office, no matter what you want.’ It just doesn’t fly.”

Walls, the SEIU president, rejected that framing, saying employers should be willing to adapt to their workforce — especially a governor widely seen as considering a future run for president.

“As a state employee I would have trouble voting for someone who would be the boss of federal employees when I know he hasn’t shown to be a stellar employer to state employees,” Walls said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s Office Mandate for State Workers Outpaces Rules in Texas, Other States appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Teachers Association traces its roots to 1863, when state schools chief John Swett organized the California Educational Society with 100 members, all of them men. Over time, that organization grew into the CTA, now a union representing more than 300,000 members and widely viewed as one of Sacramento’s most influential political forces.

Long before California public employees won collective bargaining rights about 50 years ago, the CTA had already built substantial power at the Capitol. Through member dues, the union has spent heavily on campaign contributions, lobbying and ballot measures that affect public education funding.

Its signature victory came in 1988 with the passage of Proposition 98, which created a constitutional funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges. The measure helped offset the erosion of local property tax revenue following Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that capped property tax increases.

Today, Proposition 98 remains central to every state budget negotiation. Each year, lawmakers and the governor first determine how much money the formula requires for schools and community colleges before dividing the rest of the state’s revenue among other programs. If school funding is reduced, the state is generally required to restore the money later.

But education is no longer the only major budget priority competing for dominance. Medi-Cal, California’s health coverage program for low-income residents, now serves about 14 million people — more than one-third of the state’s population.

California is spending nearly $200 billion on Medi-Cal in the current fiscal year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2026-27 budget would increase that amount to $217 billion. Most of the funding comes from the federal government, but the state’s share still totals roughly $50 billion, making Medi-Cal one of California’s largest commitments.

That has created growing tension as federal support declines and state leaders face pressure to fill the gap. Much of that pressure is coming from SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, a union that represents about 120,000 members and has become one of the CTA’s strongest rivals in Sacramento.

The conflict is rooted in a basic budget reality: more money for schools can mean less flexibility for health care, and vice versa, unless voters or lawmakers approve new taxes.

The rivalry is already visible in this year’s governor’s race. The Service Employees International Union, the parent organization of SEIU-UHW, is supporting former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a leading Democratic candidate. The CTA is backing billionaire Tom Steyer, who has repeatedly promised to pursue a long-standing teachers union goal: changing Proposition 13 to remove commercial property tax limits, a move that could raise more money for schools.

The unions are also split over budget proposals, including how California pays for preschool. The state Senate’s budget plan would move preschool funding into the Proposition 98 portion of the budget, which could free up money for health care programs. The CTA opposes that approach, viewing it as a diversion of school funding.

Their largest fight, however, is headed for the ballot. SEIU-UHW is sponsoring a measure that would impose a 5% tax on the wealth of California’s roughly 200 billionaires, with nearly all of the revenue dedicated to supporting health care.

CTA leaders oppose being left out of a potential new stream of tax revenue. They also fear the health care measure could weaken support for their own proposed ballot initiative, which would make permanent a surtax on the incomes of California’s highest earners. Voters first approved that tax in 2012, and keeping it in place could preserve as much as $15 billion a year in revenue.

The dispute marks an unusual public divide between labor organizations that often share allies and policy goals. But as California’s budget pressures grow, the state’s two heavyweight unions are increasingly competing for the same dollars — and for the political power to decide where those dollars go.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Major Unions Battle Over Campaign Cash, Political Influence This Election Season appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, which would largely be used to offset federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people.

“California’s health is at stake,” said Liz Perlman, executive director of a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a major labor union. “Hospitals are closing and people will die. Why? So billionaires can get another tax cut that they don’t need.”

The California Secretary of State still has to verify the signatures and officially place the measure on the ballot. Backers say they collected more than 1.5 million signatures, well over the roughly 875,000 they needed. California allows ballot initiative campaigns to pay people per signature they gather. The cost of gathering petition signatures can vary widely, but it typically runs around $15 for each signature.

If the measure goes before voters in November, it could prompt one of the costliest ballot fights ever and will draw national attention as a litmus test for voter attitudes on raising taxes on the rich. An effort to oppose the tax has already raised millions and led to proposals designed to nullify the tax. Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has campaigned in support of the idea.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Silicon Valley tech moguls are adamantly opposed. They warn it will drive California’s wealthiest residents out of the state. Nearly half of California’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. Some have already purchased properties out of state in case it passes.

“After playing with matches since October the SEIU has succeeded in lighting a ‘Tax the Rich’ wildfire by getting enough signatures,” said David Lesperance, a tax consultant who’s advised some of his wealthy clients who left California because of the proposal. “The many billionaire targets of their efforts have already responded by executing fire escape plans by relocating to other states.”

Brian Brokaw, a longtime Newsom adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said the measure was poorly constructed and would deal a huge blow to the state’s budget.

“Enacting a so-called wealth tax in just one state wouldn’t target a small group — it would impact all 40 million Californians,” he said in a statement. “This proposal trades a short-term revenue bump for long-term losses.”

At least 25 billionaires listed among Forbes magazine’s 2025 rankings of the world’s 500 wealthiest people either lived in California or had some significant ties to the state, based on a review by The Associated Press. But determining whether they were full-time residents or just frequent visitors could turn into a matter of dispute, since many of them own property elsewhere.

The big tax and spending cuts law President Donald Trump signed last year will cut more than $1 trillion nationwide over a decade from Medicaid and federal food assistance.

The post Billionaire tax proposal in California is on track to qualify for the ballot, backers say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging California’s gig economy law Proposition 22 have made good on their promise to take the case to the state’s highest court.

The Service Employees International Union and a group of rideshare drivers on Friday petitioned the California Supreme Court to review a recent appeals court ruling that largely upheld the 2020 law, the union said.

Proposition 22, which has been in effect since December 2020, allows giant ride-hailing and delivery companies, including Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The companies spent upwards of $200 million funding the voter initiative in a move to legalize their business model. Californians approved the ballot measure with a clear majority. SEIU’s attorneys argue primarily that Proposition 22 unconstitutionally revokes the state legislature’s authority over California’s workers’ compensation system.

“Uber, Lyft and Doordash have used Prop. 22 to carve out gig workers from our state’s workers compensation system and deprive those same workers of paid sick leave, meaningful health care coverage, overtime pay and more,” said David Huerta, President of SEIU California and SEIU United Service Workers West in an emailed statement on Friday. SEIU, SEIU California and a handful of drivers first brought the lawsuit in January 2021.

They sought to take the case directly to the California Supreme Court, filing a petition for review that was quickly declined, but left open the option for plaintiffs to pursue the case in a lower court — which plaintiffs did. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch in August 2021 dealt a blow to gig companies with a ruling that deemed Proposition 22 unconstitutional and unenforceable.

An appeals court last month largely reversed the lower court ruling, upholding the law almost in its entirety. The union said it timed its petition with the first International Gig Workers Congress, a convening of drivers and delivery workers from across 15 countries scheduled in Los Angeles for Monday.

The California Gig Workers Union, a statewide gig worker group affiliated with union locals SEIU 721 and SEIU 1021 in Southern California and Northern California, respectively, organized the event and plans to hold rallies next week in downtown Los Angeles as well as outside Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco.

A coalition of gig companies that backs Proposition 22, Protect App-based Drivers & Services, celebrated the appeals court ruling last month and has said invalidating the law would infringe on voters direct democracy rights.

The California Supreme Court, once it receives a petition, has 60 days to decide whether to review the case, but can request a 30-day extension.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Labor union SEIU appeals Prop. 22 challenge to California Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.