Assemblymembers Lorena Wicks and Mark Berman asked the Senate Transportation Committee on May 20 to advance AB 1340, legislation that would give rideshare drivers a pathway to organize and designate representatives to bargain collectively with transportation network companies (TNCs) while preserving their status as independent contractors.

The bill’s sponsors say AB 1340 would let drivers — who the authors and witnesses described as numbering in the hundreds of thousands — choose to form a union or other representative body to negotiate wages, benefits and workplace conditions without changing their classification as independent contractors.

AB 1340’s nut graf: Supporters framed the bill as a narrow, choice-based measure that leaves classification unchanged while creating a mechanism for drivers to collectively negotiate terms that affect pay, benefits and deactivation appeals. Opponents said it would conflict with the voter-approved Proposition 22 and undermine the flexibility drivers value.

Assemblymember Wicks, the bill’s author, told the committee that AB 1340 “provides rideshare drivers…with the choice to organize, join a union, and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and workplace conditions.” Assemblymember Mark Berman said the bill “simply provides rideshare drivers a seat at the table” and urged members for an aye vote.

Multiple drivers spoke in support. Mike Robinson, who said he has driven for Lyft since 2015, testified he once earned about $700 a week driving full time but now averages about $500 before vehicle-related expenses; after a cancer diagnosis in February 2023 he said “there was nothing to fall back on. No meaningful health care benefits, no sick leave, nothing.” Darushke Mobareke, a San Jose driver since 2014, said drivers want flexibility but that “drivers like me will have a chance of getting a living wage” and protections against retaliation.

Representatives of Lyft and Uber testified in opposition. Malcolm McFarland II, representing Lyft, said AB 1340 “directly contradicts the will of 10,000,000 California voters” who approved Proposition 22 and that the company “supports policy proposals that guarantee driver independence and flexibility.” John Finley, representing Uber Technologies Inc., similarly said the bill would “undermine the independence of tens of thousands of app-based drivers” and risk increasing costs for riders.

Authors and supporters responded that AB 1340 does not change employee/contractor classification. Assemblymember Wicks and a legislative attorney for the sponsors explained the bill relies on the state-action immunity pathway (a doctrine in antitrust law) and related authorities to provide drivers a collective bargaining pathway while preserving independent-contractor status under Proposition 22 and federal labor law.

Committee action: Committee members moved the bill and the clerk later recorded that AB 1340 was passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee to the Committee on Appropriations for further consideration (recorded on the hearing transcript as moved/passed to appropriations). The transcript shows extended public testimony in support and opposition and a question-and-answer period in which members pressed authors and industry representatives about Prop 22, worker flexibility and legal risk.

Why it matters: AB 1340 seeks to create a new procedural route for organizing in an industry that has repeatedly been the site of litigation and ballot measures about worker classification. If it advances, it will likely draw additional legal and policy scrutiny because of the interaction with Proposition 22 and federal labor law.

What’s next: The committee moved AB 1340 to the Appropriations Committee for fiscal review and possible amendment; the bill’s supporters said they would continue outreach and technical discussions.