California committee advances bill allowing rideshare drivers to organize and bargain collectively

Assemblymember Mia Bonta and Assemblymember David Chiu presented AB 1340 to the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement, asking senators to allow rideshare drivers — also described in the bill as transportation network company drivers — the choice to organize and designate representatives for collective bargaining with companies such as Uber and Lyft.

The bill’s authors said AB 1340 aims to give hundreds of thousands of drivers the right to self‑organize and to create a formal mechanism to resolve disputes and improve working conditions. “All work has dignity,” Assemblymember Wicks said in her opening remarks, adding the bill’s purpose “is to provide transportation network drivers the opportunity, the choice to self organize and designate representatives of their own choosing in order to bargain collectively with transportation network companies.” Assemblymember Berman told the committee the bill “simply provides rideshare drivers a seat at the table.”

Nut graf: Supporters said AB 1340 would expand the right to organize to a large group of gig workers and provide a pathway for drivers to seek fairer pay, protection against arbitrary deactivation, and a collective voice. Opponents argued the bill conflicts with voter‑approved Proposition 22, which preserves independent‑contractor status and contains benefits guarantees for app‑based drivers.

Most testimony in the hearing came from drivers and labor representatives. Stockton driver Nick Kavler said he was deactivated from airport driving after a license‑plate issue and lost about 30% of his income; he testified that drivers lack meaningful recourse and that collective representation would protect due process. “We are at the mercy of these companies like Uber and Lyft, and our livelihoods hang in the balance,” Kavler said. Los Angeles driver Jesus Guerrero described being injured on the job and receiving no effective company support for medical care; he said the state often covered his treatment costs and a union would provide backup and accountability.

SEIU and other labor groups testified in support; Rideshare Drivers United and other grassroots driver organizations asked the committee for a stronger bill in some respects (for example, to preserve rights to strike and avoid company‑controlled arrangements). Several drivers said they drive long hours for diminishing pay and want transparency about how rider fares are allocated.

Uber and Lyft testified in opposition. Lyft’s director of state and local policy said AB 1340 would “directly contradict” Proposition 22, which the witness described as preserving independent contractor flexibility while guaranteeing specific benefits; he cited a company economic report asserting a majority of drivers prefer contractor status with flexibility. An Uber representative also said the bill would undermine Proposition 22 and warned of higher costs and reduced rider affordability.

Committee consideration and votes: Senator Cortese moved AB 1340 out of committee to the Committee on Transportation. The committee roll call recorded Smallwood‑Cuevas — aye; Strickland — no; Cortese — aye; Durazo — aye; Laird — aye. The motion passed and the bill was referred to Transportation.

Why it matters: The bill would change how drivers and platform companies negotiate in California and engages open legal and policy tensions created by Proposition 22 and subsequent litigation. Proponents framed AB 1340 as a workers’ rights measure; opponents framed it as a threat to flexibility and the voter mandate under Prop 22.

What the committee did next: The measure passed the committee with the vote recorded above and was sent to the Committee on Transportation for further consideration.