The case centers on the death of Emily Normandin-Parker, a 23-year-old UCLA graduate, who was killed in August 2023 on State Route 73 after wandering into traffic while intoxicated. According to the arbitration findings, driver Vu Tran had picked up Normandin-Parker and her friend, Luna Moore, from a bar. When Moore became sick in the vehicle, Tran pulled over at a gore point — the narrow triangular strip of pavement near a freeway off-ramp — where an argument broke out between Tran and Moore. During the confrontation, Normandin-Parker stepped into traffic and was fatally struck.

Retired judge Richard Stone, who oversaw the arbitration, said conflicting and at times questionable testimony from both Tran and Moore made it difficult to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that night.

Normandin-Parker’s parents, Carol Normandin and Ken Parker, along with Moore, sued both Tran and Uber in Orange County Superior Court in September 2023. The parties later agreed to settle the dispute through arbitration rather than a jury trial. In his ruling issued this summer, Stone awarded $20 million each to Normandin and Parker, and $300,000 to Moore.

A central issue in the case was whether Proposition 22 — the 2020 ballot measure funded by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other gig-economy companies that classified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees — also protected Uber from being held responsible for a driver’s negligent conduct. Stone determined that it did not.

In his written decision, Stone said nothing in the ballot language presented to voters ahead of the 2020 election suggested that approving Prop. 22 would also eliminate ride-hailing companies’ liability for harm caused by their drivers. The measure, he wrote, focused on employment classification and benefits, not corporate accountability for a driver’s actions on the road.

“There is no reference in key voter materials to the liability of app-based transportation companies,” Stone wrote. “Not a word.”

The arbitrator also dismissed Uber’s argument that the company should be treated strictly as a “transportation network company” under the state’s Public Utilities Code rather than as a common carrier, which carries a stricter legal duty to ensure passenger safety. Stone noted that courts have previously found ride-hailing companies can be classified as common carriers even while also being regulated as transportation network companies. He further ruled that Proposition 51 — which normally limits a defendant’s liability to their proportional share of fault — did not apply here, concluding Uber bore full responsibility for its driver’s conduct.

Uber has denied wrongdoing and says it plans to contest the ruling. Company spokesperson Gabriela Condarco-Quesada said Uber does not believe it should be held legally responsible for what happened that night, pointing again to Prop. 22 as legal protection. She added that the company’s “thoughts continue to be with the Normandin-Parker family.”

Ken Parker rejected that characterization, telling CalMatters that Uber has never taken responsibility or apologized to the family. He described the company’s conduct throughout the legal process as dismissive, saying Uber attempted to prevent the family from publicly discussing the arbitrator’s decision. Parker and Normandin spoke publicly about their daughter’s death this week on Good Morning America.

In earlier court filings, Uber argued that the tragedy stemmed from the extreme intoxication of Normandin-Parker and Moore rather than any failure on the part of the driver. The company also said Tran held a valid driver’s license and had cleared Uber’s background screening process, adding that because he was an independent contractor, the company had no further obligation to provide additional training. Uber said this week that Tran, who no longer drives for the platform, had completed thousands of trips without previous incidents involving unsafe drop-offs or rider injuries.

Attorneys representing Normandin-Parker’s parents said evidence introduced during arbitration showed Uber had received prior complaints regarding Tran’s driving behavior before the fatal incident.

Uber reported more than $14 billion in revenue and upward of $2 billion in net income during its most recent quarter, which ended in June.

Parker said the settlement funds will support the Emily Normandin-Parker Foundation, established by the family last year in their daughter’s memory. He said the foundation intends to push for greater corporate accountability within the ride-hailing industry, potentially through legislative advocacy, regulatory reform or public pressure campaigns.

In closing his ruling, Stone expressed hope that Uber would use the case as an opportunity for reflection and reform.

“I hope that Uber will learn from this tragic incident … and change the pertinent policies and procedures accordingly,” he wrote. “Should it fail to do so, it no doubt engages in that approach at its own substantial risk.”

CalMatters reached out to the law firm representing Tran but had not received a response as of publication.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Uber Ordered to Pay $40 Million Over Death of Passenger Stranded on Highway 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.

Consumer Watchdog says Uber failed to make clear to legislators that it largely insures itself through a subsidiary, even as the company argued that insurance mandates were driving up fares for riders and costs for drivers. The law, Senate Bill 371, lowered Uber’s required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.

The issue matters to riders and drivers across Southern California, where Uber is widely used for commuting, airport trips, medical appointments and nightlife transportation. During legislative hearings, Uber told lawmakers that state-required insurance was a major factor in ride costs, particularly in Los Angeles County.

Ramona Prieto, Uber’s director of public policy, told the Assembly Insurance Committee last July that government-mandated insurance accounted for roughly 45% of ride-hailing fares in Los Angeles County and about one-third of fares elsewhere in California. She said those costs were being passed on to people who depend on rideshare service.

But Consumer Watchdog’s May report, based on Uber’s public financial filings, found that nearly 95% of the company’s risk is insured by Aleka Insurance, an Uber subsidiary. The group also said Uber’s insurance reserves doubled from 2023 to 2025, reaching $12.46 billion.

Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab denied that the company misled lawmakers, saying legislators understood that California’s rideshare insurance requirements were unusually costly and were increasing expenses for both riders and drivers.

Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, said he was not aware Uber largely self-insures because that information was not disclosed to the committee. In an emailed statement, Alvarez said the proper level of Uber’s reserves is an actuarial question, but whether lawmakers received a clear picture of where riders’ insurance dollars were going before voting on the bill is “a separate, and more troubling, question.”

The new law includes disclosure requirements and calls for a study of its effects. Alvarez said he hopes that review will examine how captive-insurance structures, such as Uber’s arrangement with Aleka, affect rate-setting for companies like Uber so future decisions are made with fuller information.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

CalMatters contacted several lawmakers involved in the bill’s consideration. Some did not respond, and none agreed to discuss whether they knew about Uber’s self-insurance structure or whether they planned to question the company about Consumer Watchdog’s findings. A spokesperson for Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Bay Area Democrat, said her office had asked Uber about the report and that the company dismissed it as not credible while being “less than forthcoming.”

Campaign finance records in the CalMatters Digital Democracy database show Cabaldon has received a campaign contribution from Uber. Five of eight lawmakers contacted by CalMatters, including Alvarez, also have received Uber contributions. Bonta has not.

The insurance bill was linked to another major labor measure that allowed ride-hailing drivers to unionize. Consumer Watchdog also said Uber misrepresented the insurance issue to unions. The Service Employees International Union California did not provide a response. Lorena Gonzalez, head of the California Labor Federation and a former state lawmaker, said she was not surprised by the allegation, citing her long history of conflict with the company over labor issues.

Consumer Watchdog argued in its report that Uber’s nearly $12.5 billion in reserves is far more than necessary. The group estimated the company would need between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion, based on the number of rides Uber provided last year and California commercial auto insurance costs. Unlike profits, insurance reserves are not taxed.

The group also said Uber has moved about $4 billion of its insurance reserves into cash over the past couple of years, citing the company’s financial filings.

Arab rejected the report’s conclusions, saying Consumer Watchdog was treating speculation about complex insurance accounting as fact. He said Uber’s reserves are actuarial estimates of potential unpaid losses and related expenses.

Ben Armstrong, an actuary who reviewed Uber’s filings for Consumer Watchdog, said Aleka functions as a captive insurer, meaning it is a wholly owned subsidiary that allows Uber to manage its own insurance risk, profits and investments with limited public transparency. Armstrong said he does not have access to the kind of financial detail typically available for other insurers, but the filings suggest Uber may be reserving far more than it needs.

Large companies often use captive insurance arrangements. Lyft and DoorDash also have insurance subsidiaries, according to public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of the end of last year, Lyft reported about $2.2 billion in insurance reserves and DoorDash about $1.1 billion.

Opponents of SB 371 warned during the legislative process that reducing coverage would weaken protections for passengers and drivers if an Uber vehicle is struck by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and a former deputy commissioner at the state Department of Insurance, opposed the bill and said Uber has long sought to lower its costs by reducing insurance obligations.

The state law is not Uber’s only effort to reduce liability. The company also qualified a proposed initiative for the November ballot that would limit attorney contingency fees and recovery of medical costs in California car crash cases. Consumer Watchdog, attorney groups and some medical providers opposed the measure. Uber has agreed to withdraw it if lawmakers approve a compromise bill.

In Congress, California lawmakers are divided over another proposal involving ride-hailing liability. Rep. Vince Fong, a Bakersfield Republican, introduced language in May that would override state laws holding companies such as Uber responsible for harm to people or property connected to rideshare trips. Fong described the proposal as an affordability measure, saying companies are facing frivolous lawsuits that drive up insurance costs.

Rep. Derek Tran, a Democrat from Cypress in Orange County, sent a letter this month with 33 other California Democratic members of Congress urging House leaders to remove the provision from a major transportation and infrastructure bill. The lawmakers warned that the language could sharply limit legal recourse for victims in injury, sexual assault and fatality cases involving rideshare companies.

Fong’s office did not respond to questions about the opposition from other California lawmakers.

Uber says California riders are already saving millions of dollars under the new insurance law, though the company has not provided documentation. It is required to submit a formal report on savings to the governor and Legislature by Feb. 1, 2027.

Third-party data does not yet show a broad drop in fares. Gridwise, a company that provides an app used by rideshare drivers to track earnings and expenses, reported that average California customer fares so far this year were slightly higher or roughly the same as last year in most months. The exception was May, when the average fare per mile was $4.67, down from $4.70 the previous May. Gridwise says its data is based on hundreds of millions of trips.

The law also directs the state Department of Insurance to work with the California Public Utilities Commission on a study of the effects of lowering the required insurance coverage. That report is due by Dec. 31, 2030.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmaker Says Uber Withheld Key Details in California Insurance Law Push appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Several high-profile proposals are already positioned for the ballot or moving through final negotiations, with major political, labor and business groups weighing whether to fight expensive campaigns or settle disputes before voters are asked to decide.

Among the measures already eligible is a Republican-backed proposal requiring voter identification. Another would impose a tax on billionaires to support health care services, an effort backed by a major health care workers union.

A major affordable housing proposal also appears likely to go before voters after Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers reached agreement on an $11.25 billion bond measure. The plan would dedicate $10 billion to building, buying and preserving affordable housing. Another $1.25 billion would go toward helping veterans purchase homes.

Newsom’s administration says the bond could help more than 40,000 people buy homes while also creating or preserving tens of thousands of affordable units. The Legislature must still approve the bill to place the bond on the ballot, and Newsom is expected to sign it if lawmakers do so.

One expensive ballot fight that appears to have been avoided involved Uber and personal injury attorneys.

Since last fall, Uber had spent millions of dollars backing a proposed initiative that would have limited contingency fees for personal injury lawyers and restricted the amount crash victims could recover for medical costs. The proposal would have applied broadly to crashes in California, not only those involving Uber rides.

Trial attorney groups, doctors and medical providers strongly opposed the proposal and responded with their own measure aimed at increasing Uber’s liability in cases involving sexual misconduct against riders and drivers.

Instead, the two sides appear to have reached a compromise through legislation. The bill would limit medical cost recoveries in cases involving medical liens but would not cap attorneys’ contingency fees. Uber would be required to strengthen driver background checks and remove drivers from the platform if they have been convicted of certain violent crimes or found guilty of driving under the influence.

In other statewide developments, California is again suing the Trump administration over the state’s authority to enforce stricter air pollution standards.

The lawsuit focuses on four waivers previously granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama and Biden administrations. Those waivers allowed California to enforce its own vehicle and engine emissions rules. For more than five decades, California has had special authority under the federal Clean Air Act to set tougher standards because of the state’s severe air pollution problems.

Earlier this month, the EPA reclassified the waivers as “rules” rather than “orders,” a change that makes them subject to congressional review. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday the move was designed to give Congress a path to block the state’s clean-air policies.

“Trump and his EPA overreach is illogical, politically motivated and illegal,” Bonta said. “This is nothing more than Trump’s latest effort to circumvent the law, to punish California for defying his plans to drag us backward.”

The case is California’s 72nd lawsuit against the Trump administration during Trump’s second term. The state argues the EPA does not have authority to reclassify the waivers. California is also pursuing a separate lawsuit over three other waivers that were reclassified and later revoked in June 2025 with congressional approval.

In education news, Alberto Carvalho has resigned as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District amid an FBI investigation apparently tied to a failed artificial intelligence chatbot contract he had promoted.

Carvalho, who was widely credited with helping guide the nation’s second-largest school district through the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, announced his resignation Sunday. The Los Angeles Times first reported the decision.

“Placing students first has always guided my work,” Carvalho wrote in an open letter. “Because I believe our schools must remain focused on students and learning without distraction, I am resigning as superintendent of LAUSD.”

Carvalho, a formerly undocumented immigrant, had also become a prominent defender of immigrant students as the Trump administration increased immigration enforcement. Under his leadership, the district created a 24-hour hotline, hosted workshops on immigrant families’ legal rights, offered free legal help through local nonprofits and established a virtual academy for students afraid to leave home because of deportation concerns.

The FBI searched Carvalho’s home and office in February, shortly after the district renewed his contract. He had been on leave since then. Acting Superintendent Andrés Chait will continue leading the district while the school board searches for a permanent replacement.

Also in California education, the state prison system has distributed 30,000 laptops to incarcerated students over the past three years. Nearly half of those students are enrolled in community college courses. As more instruction and coursework move online, professors and incarcerated students are weighing whether remote learning can provide the same benefits as in-person classes.

In opinion and commentary, CalMatters columnist Dan Walters wrote that California’s Proposition 50 could help House Democrats gain some of the five congressional seats it was designed to influence, but its impact on control of Congress will depend on political developments in other states. Independent Los Angeles journalist Victoria Valenzuela argued that lawmakers should limit same-day visitation denials at California prisons for people who have made significant efforts to see incarcerated loved ones.

Original source: CalMatters

The post November Ballot Comes Into Focus as Measure Deadline Passes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The final days before ballot measures can be withdrawn have become a familiar part of California politics. Interest groups often spend heavily to qualify initiatives, then use the threat of an expensive statewide campaign to negotiate policy changes at the Capitol. State leaders, in turn, frequently prefer compromise over leaving controversial questions to voters.

This year’s last-minute bargaining has already produced one major agreement: Uber and California trial lawyers have agreed to stand down from competing ballot measures that could have cost each side tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, lawmakers are moving forward with proposals of their own, including a major affordable housing bond and a plan to let California save more money during strong budget years.

For Inland Empire voters, the November ballot could include measures affecting housing, health care, state finances and the legal rules surrounding ride-hailing crashes.

Uber had qualified a ballot measure that would have limited attorney contingency fees and restricted the amount crash victims could recover for medical costs. The proposal would not have been limited to Uber-related crashes. Trial attorney groups, meanwhile, qualified a competing measure aimed at increasing Uber’s liability in cases involving sexual misconduct against riders and drivers.

Instead of taking those measures to voters, both sides reached a deal through Senate Bill 623. The legislation would limit medical cost recoveries in cases involving medical liens, which are arrangements that allow injured people to receive treatment while their legal cases are pending. The bill would apply only to crashes involving Uber and other ride-hailing services.

The compromise does not include Uber’s proposed limits on contingency fees, a provision critics said could have made it harder for crash victims to obtain legal representation. The bill also would bar attorneys from recommending medical providers with whom they have direct ties.

Uber, under the agreement, would be required to strengthen driver background checks and renew them annually. Drivers convicted of certain violent crimes or driving under the influence within the past seven years would be disqualified.

Consumer Attorneys of California had raised about $77 million for its ballot campaign, compared with about $78 million Uber had set aside for its effort. The attorneys group and Uber declined to comment beyond a joint statement saying the agreement “protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

Consumer Watchdog, which had opposed Uber’s measure, said the compromise was reasonable. Jamie Court, the group’s president, told CalMatters the bill “doesn’t do harm to the average Uber rider (who has health insurance).”

If approved by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill would take effect next year.

Another major measure appears likely to reach voters: an $11.25 billion affordable housing bond. Newsom and legislative leaders have agreed on language for Senate Bill 417, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.

The measure would ask voters to authorize $10 billion in borrowing for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and preservation. An additional $1.25 billion would be set aside to help veterans purchase homes.

The Newsom administration says the bond could help more than 40,000 people buy homes, create or preserve tens of thousands of affordable units and support construction jobs.

“California’s future depends on whether people can afford to put down roots, raise a family, and build a life here,” Newsom said in a statement.

The issue is especially significant across Southern California, where high rents and home prices continue to strain working families. A recent report found that nearly 40,000 affordable housing units planned across California are ready for construction but remain stalled because of a lack of funding.

The housing bond is not yet officially headed to the ballot. Lawmakers must approve it by Thursday, and Newsom must sign it.

The largest unresolved fight centers on a proposed billionaire wealth tax backed by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the state’s largest health care workers union.

The union’s proposal would place a one-time 5% tax on California’s roughly 200 billionaires. SEIU-UHW estimates it would raise about $100 billion, primarily for health care, with some funding reserved for schools and food programs.

Union leaders say the money is needed to offset federal health care cuts that led California to reduce Medi-Cal, the state health insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities.

Newsom has opposed the tax and has increased pressure on the union to drop the proposal. Other labor groups, including the California Teachers Association, and health care organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association have also opposed the measure and run digital ads against it.

Billionaires and Silicon Valley business leaders are also fighting the proposal, arguing it could reduce state revenue over time by prompting wealthy residents to leave California.

SEIU-UHW recently suggested a scaled-back 2% version of the tax, but Newsom rejected it, calling the proposal “poorly designed.”

In an interview with The Lever, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said it was still possible Newsom could find a compromise, but he expressed skepticism.

“We’re prepared to go forward, and we will be on the ballot in November,” Regan said.

Lawmakers are also expected to vote this week on a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow California to put more money into reserves when state revenues are strong.

Under current law, deposits into the state’s rainy day fund are capped at 10% of general fund tax revenue. Newsom and legislators have discussed increasing that limit for years.

The proposal comes as California faces a multiyear budget deficit despite rising revenues. State leaders are looking for ways to stabilize finances in a system that depends heavily on income taxes and capital gains from high-income residents, making the budget especially vulnerable when the economy weakens.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Leaders Race to Reach Deal as Billionaire Tax Ballot Deadline Nears appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The negotiations, unfolding in Sacramento in the final days before ballot measures can be withdrawn, could shape what Californians see when they vote this fall. For Inland Empire voters and residents across Southern California, the outcome could affect issues ranging from housing and health care to state budget reserves and rideshare safety.

The last-minute bargaining is a familiar feature of California politics. Interest groups often spend millions to qualify ballot initiatives, then use the threat of a statewide campaign to press lawmakers for policy concessions. State leaders, meanwhile, frequently prefer negotiated agreements over unpredictable and costly ballot fights.

Top Democrats have already announced one major compromise: a deal between Uber and California trial lawyers that would pull a pair of competing initiatives from the ballot. Lawmakers also appear ready to place an $11.25 billion affordable housing and veterans homeownership bond before voters. Still unresolved is a proposed tax on billionaire wealth, backed by the state’s largest health care workers union, which Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to keep off the ballot.

Uber and attorneys had been preparing for a costly November showdown before reaching an agreement through the Legislature.

Uber had qualified a measure that would have limited attorney contingency fees and restricted how much crash victims could recover for medical expenses in California — not only in crashes involving Uber rides. Attorney organizations responded with their own initiative, aimed at increasing Uber’s liability in cases involving sexual misconduct against passengers and drivers.

The compromise is contained in Senate Bill 623. Under the bill, recoveries for medical costs would be capped in certain cases involving medical liens, which allow injured people to receive treatment while a legal claim is pending without paying upfront. The measure would apply only to crashes involving Uber or other ride-hailing services. It would not include Uber’s proposed restrictions on contingency fees, which critics said could have made it harder for injured people to find legal representation.

The legislation also would bar attorneys from referring clients to medical providers with whom they have direct financial ties.

Uber, in turn, would be required to strengthen and annually renew driver background checks. Drivers convicted of specified violent crimes or driving under the influence within the previous seven years would be disqualified.

A group of medical providers that had spent money opposing Uber’s initiative did not respond to multiple requests for comment, according to CalMatters. Consumer Attorneys of California, which had raised about $77 million for its campaign, also declined to comment beyond a joint statement with Uber. Uber had committed about $78 million to its effort.

“This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures,” the statement said.

Consumer Watchdog, which had opposed Uber’s measure, described the compromise as a balanced outcome. Jamie Court, the group’s president, told CalMatters the bill “doesn’t do harm to the average Uber rider” who has health insurance.

If approved by lawmakers and signed by the governor, the bill would take effect next year.

At the same time, a major affordable housing bond is moving closer to the November ballot. Newsom, the Assembly and the Senate have agreed on language for Senate Bill 417, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.

The measure would ask voters to authorize $10 billion in borrowing for affordable housing construction, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation. An additional $1.25 billion would go toward helping veterans purchase homes.

If voters approve the bond, Newsom’s administration says it could help more than 40,000 people buy homes, support the creation or preservation of tens of thousands of affordable units and generate well-paying construction jobs.

“California’s future depends on whether people can afford to put down roots, raise a family, and build a life here,” Newsom said in a statement.

The proposal comes as California continues to struggle with a severe housing shortage and high costs that have strained families across the state, including in fast-growing Inland Empire communities. A recent report found that nearly 40,000 planned affordable housing units in California are ready to move forward but remain stalled because of funding gaps.

The bond is not yet officially on the ballot. The Legislature must pass the bill by Thursday, and Newsom must sign it.

The biggest unresolved fight centers on a proposed tax targeting California’s wealthiest residents.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West is pushing a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state’s roughly 200 billionaires. The union says the measure would raise about $100 billion, with most of the money going to health care and smaller portions set aside for schools and food programs.

SEIU-UHW argues the revenue is needed to offset federal health care cuts that have forced California to reduce spending in Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities.

Newsom has emerged as a strong opponent of the proposal and has intensified pressure on the union in recent days. He has been joined by other influential organizations, including the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association, which have run digital ads opposing the tax.

Opposition has also come from billionaires and Silicon Valley figures, who argue the measure would backfire by encouraging wealthy residents to leave California and reducing state revenue over time.

Last week, SEIU-UHW suggested a scaled-back version of the tax at 2% instead of 5%. Newsom quickly rejected the idea, calling it “poorly designed.”

In an interview with The Lever, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said Newsom might still find a way to negotiate a compromise but expressed skepticism.

“We’re prepared to go forward, and we will be on the ballot in November,” Regan said.

Lawmakers are also expected to vote this week on a proposed constitutional amendment that would let California save more money during strong budget years.

The state currently cannot deposit more than 10% of general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund. Newsom and legislators have discussed raising that limit for years, and the idea has gained urgency as California faces a multiyear budget deficit despite rising revenues.

California’s finances are especially sensitive to swings in the economy because the state relies heavily on income taxes and capital gains from its highest-earning residents. Supporters of the proposed change say allowing the state to build larger reserves could help cushion future downturns.

As the deadline nears, California leaders are trying to narrow the list of high-stakes measures headed to voters. But unless a late deal emerges, the billionaire tax could remain one of the most closely watched fights on the November ballot.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Leaders Still Seek Deal to Keep Billionaire Tax Off Ballot as Deadline Nears appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO | Politico

Uber, the ride-hailing and delivery giant that launched in San Francisco, is prepping a massive cash infusion to shake up politics in California, according to plans revealed first to POLITICO.

The company is dropping $30 million into its existing state committee — called the Uber Innovation PAC — all of which it plans to spend on candidates and causes in 2024, people familiar with its plans said. That will make it one of, if not the largest, single-funded state PACs this election cycle, injecting a decidedly pro-business bent into the mix.

In addition to its sheer size, Uber’s incoming money bomb is notable given moves by other major corporations to pull out of California, citing complaints over its voluminous regulations and a broader climate that can be unfriendly to large businesses.

Uber’s rollout includes a $250,000 check to support Proposition 1 on the March ballot, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s effort to revamp and fund the state’s mental health system. Prop 1 is Newsom’s biggest priority in the primary and so far faces minimal opposition and spending against it.

The PAC’s new money is the latest sign that booming tech companies with ties to Silicon Valley are growing significantly in their political clout and sophistication — following years of being naive and even adverse to the ways of Sacramento.

That dynamic is expected to increase, lobbyists and industry representatives tell POLITICO, with the rise of artificial intelligence and lawmakers’ plans to introduce bills to regulate AI and other fledgling industries. The PAC money also comes as the company works to flex its muscle in statehouses across the U.S., plunging millions into gig-economy ballot measures to reshape the ride-sharing industry by enshrining drivers as independent contractors.

A court last year mostly upheld California’s Proposition 22, which passed with room to spare in November 2020. Unions spent big against the measure and have fought it in the courts. There’s a lot at stake for the company in California beyond its battles with unions over employee classifications. Uber has a growing share of electric vehicles and has set aggressive zero-emission targets in the U.S., Canada and European cities. And it’s coping with spiraling insurance industry woes.

Uber itself started lobbying in California’s Capitol about a decade ago and has a record of donating to candidates and campaigns. Uber’s PAC, for example, supported Newsom as he beat back a recall attempt in 2021.

The Prop 22 fight grew out of the company’s unsuccessful battle against Assembly Bill 5 — carried by Lorena Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker now leading the Labor Federation, and signed by Newsom in 2019 — that would have upended Uber’s business model by compelling the company to reclassify its drivers as employees. Uber did not reveal any more early recipients of its new cash, beyond saying it would contribute to California statehouse campaigns and issues.

In a statement from the PAC’s organizer, the company said it plans to “amplify thoughtful candidates and campaigns that are willing to take on the tough challenges that our state’s collective future faces.” The effort is being led by Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy and communications for the western region.

In the statement, Prieto added, “that includes electrification, supporting small business, repairing the state’s broken insurance markets rife with litigation abuse, ensuring a competitive business climate and protecting access to flexible work amidst record inflation and economic uncertainty.”

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

The post Uber to counter California’s labor muscle with $30M political spend appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

JOE BIDEN HAS been president for only four months, but he’s already been hailed as the country’s most pro-labor leader since Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He wants to make it easier for workers to unionize and would raise the national minimum wage to $15. He opposed Proposition 22, the California ballot measure that allowed gig platforms like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to continue treating their workers as independent contractors. In March, he backed the (doomed) union drive in a Bessemer, Alabama, Amazon warehouse. “Unions put power in the hands of workers,” he said then. “They level the playing field.”

Tuesday, though, Biden frustrated some worker advocates when he announced a deal with the ride-hail companies Uber and Lyft to get more Americans to vaccination sites—despite his unease with their business model. The program, to start on May 24, will point users on the apps to nearby vaccination sites and will cover $15 rides in either direction. Lyft says that, based on previous rides to vaccination sites, it expects the amount to cover “most, if not all” of fares to and from the sites.

Biden, it turns out, has other priorities, and a self-imposed deadline: He wants Americans to feel safe attending normal(ish) Fourth of July barbecues. The White House has set a goal of getting 70 percent of US adults at least one Covid-19 shot by the summer holiday. At this point 59 percent of Americans have received at least one dose of vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The vaccine is the key to getting us all moving again, and we’re proud to do our part to move the country forward,” John Zimmer, the cofounder and president of Lyft, said in a statement. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi called the partnership a “proud moment for me, for Uber, and for our country.”

But labor activists said Tuesday the deal put the White House at odds with some of its leaders’ stated principles. “If this is something that this administration has OK’d, it does not bode well for what we will see in terms of enforcement actions,” says Veena Dubal, a professor of labor law at the UC Hastings College of the Law.

So far, the Democratic administration has signaled support, tepidly, for changing the rules on worker classification. Today, all states allow companies like Uber and Lyft to treat their drivers and delivery people as independent contractors, who can sign in to work on the app any time but are not entitled to traditional benefits like health care insurance and workers’ compensation. Last week, labor secretary Marty Walsh told Reuters, “In a lot of cases, gig workers should be classified as employees.” He nominated David Weil, a former Obama appointee and Uber critic, to head the department’s Wage and Hour Division. The Labor Department last week also repealed a Trump administration rule that labor advocates had feared would be used to maintain gig workers’ independent contractor status. The department did not respond to a request for comment.

The CDC has pinpointed lack of transportation as a factor in preventing people, and especially vulnerable populations, from getting the vaccine. After listening sessions with local groups and agencies held earlier this year, the agency recommended governments work with community and faith-based organizations, Medicaid and Medicare programs, transportation companies, and ride-hail services to get more shots into arms. A number of cities, states, and transit agencies already offer free transportation programs to vaccination sites.

The ride-hail partnership likely won’t help everyone. Some local agencies say their biggest challenge is transporting older or homebound adults. In 2018, just 24 percent of Americans aged 50 and older said they had used a ride-hail service. Public health officials have also begun to stress the importance of reaching people in rural areas, where vaccine rates lag and where ride-hail service can be especially hard to come by.

But the deal gives the ride-hail companies another way to show they’re an irreplaceable part of the national infrastructure, in a moment where regulation could put their business models at risk.

For years, Uber and Lyft have tried to become one-stop shops for all Americans’ transportation—and for Uber, delivery—needs. Khosrowshahi has pinned Uber’s hopes on becoming the “Amazon for transportation.” To that end, both companies have extended hands—and wheels—to governments. Both have formed partnerships with local transit agencies, with Uber actually taking over the operation of some smaller systems and selling software to others in the US and Canada. Lyft’s bike-share arm operates the largest systems in the country, with contracts ensuring its continued (and in some cases, exclusive) relationship with cities. In November, the General Service Administration announced the companies had jointly won a five-year contract worth up to $810 million that allows federal employees to use Uber and Lyft when traveling. The feds said they had negotiated 2 to 4 percent discounts, beyond what the companies offered other large commercial customers.

Lyft has made other inroads in health care, with a division dedicated to programs that allow medical providers and insurance companies to pay for patients’ rides. The company is working with at least 35 state Medicaid programs or Medicaid-managed care organizations to give rides to those on the plans. On a call with investors last week, Zimmer, the Lyft president, said the company would continue to invest in its health care programs. The goal is simple: Whoever you are, whatever you need—including now a shot—reach for our apps.

AARIAN MARSHALL | Contributed

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

The post Biden Makes a Deal with Uber and Lyft in the Name of Vaccines appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Uber saw record demand in the first quarter as its food delivery business grew while lockdowns ended and more customers hailed rides

The San Francisco-based company said Wednesday that its bookings jumped 24% to $19.5 billion __ an all-time high __ in the January-March period. That was far ahead of the $18 billion Wall Street was anticipating, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

Uber said its delivery bookings rose 166% from the same period last year. Mobility __ or ride-hailing __ bookings were down 38%, but that was narrower than the year-over-year losses the company saw most of last year.

“Uber is starting to fire on all cylinders, as more consumers are riding with us again while continuing to use our expanding delivery offerings,” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a statement. Uber announced in February that it was buying the alcohol delivery service Drizly.

Uber’s revenue fell 11% to $2.9 billion, partly due to a $600 million charge for back payment of workers in the United Kingdom. Without that charge, Uber reported $3.5 billion in revenue, topping Wall Street’s estimate of $3.27 billion.

The company reported a net loss of $108 million for the period, or 6 cents per share. Analysts had forecast a 56-cent loss.

Uber’s shares rose about 1% in after-hours trading.

Uber has said that demand is increasing faster than its supply of drivers. Last month, the company said it planned to spend $250 million on sign-up bonuses and other incentives to lure drivers.

Its rival Lyft also showed signs of post-pandemic recovery in its first-quarter earnings report Tuesday, saying demand outstripped its expectations.

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

The post Uber demand jumps as delivery grows, ride-hailing recovers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This has been the largest such test of fully autonomous vehicles by any major automaker before 2020 when several companies have said they plan to begin building and deploying such vehicles in higher volumes. Google’s Waymo unit, in comparison, has been testing about 60 self-driving prototypes in four states.

Most of the specially equipped versions of the Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle used by San Francisco-based Lyft, which was testing them in its ride-sharing fleet in several states, one of the sources said. GM has no immediate plans to sell the Bolt AV to individual customers, according to automotive news.

GM executives have said in interviews and investor presentations during the past years; they intend to mass-produce autonomous vehicles and deploy them in ride services fleets. However, GM officials have not revealed details of the scale of production or the timing of the deployment of those vehicles.

GM has previously stated they do not provide specific details on potential future products or technology rollout plans. They have said that their AV technology will appear in an on-demand ride-sharing network application sooner than you might think.”

In my email, to Lyft they declined to comment.
GM’s crosstown rival Ford Motor Co. has said it plans to begin building its first self-driving vehicles at a suburban Detroit plant in late 2020, for deployment in on-demand ride-sharing fleets in 2021. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is providing a small number of Chrysler Pacifica minivans to Waymo, which is converting them for self-driving tests.

GM’s Maven car-sharing operation likely will be involved with Lyft in developing a commercial ride-sharing business around self-driving vehicles such as the Bolt AV, GM executive Mike Ableson stated in a November interview.

I’m assuming the cost of these autonomous vehicles the very early ones, will be six figures; there aren’t very many retail customers that are willing to go out and spend that kind of money. However, it is said that CEO Mary Barra already started building a fully autonomous version of the Bolt EV at its Orion Township plant north of Detroit. Detroit.
GM has tested about 40 Bolt AVs in San Francisco and Scottsdale, Ariz., and plans to extend testing.

GM paid $500 million for a minority stake in Lyft, the second-largest U.S. ride-sharing firm after Uber. It is also said that GM discussed with Lyft founders Logan Green and John Zimmer the prospect of jointly developing a ride-sharing business with self-driving cars.

To make this successful, it is going requires the ability to engineer autonomous systems, to build self-driving vehicles in volume and to deploy them in a ride-sharing fleet. GM in early 2016 acquired Cruise Automation, a San Francisco startup, to help it accelerate the development of self-driving cars. GM also launched a car-sharing business, Maven, which has provided vehicles to Lyft.

I know that Cruise, Lyft, Maven, GM, Ford Chrysler, and a lot of smart people all need to come together to make this happen in the world of self-driving cars.
As for me, I like human Uber drivers.

Good Driving
The Hemet Car Guy

The post Greetings from the Hemet Car Guy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.