Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emerging Mobility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAFCO begins labor study of emerging mobility firms; early findings flag regulation, portable benefits and public‑private pilots
Summary
LAFCO staff and an intern previewed a literature review and RFP for an emerging‑mobility labor study, highlighting uneven regulation, proposals for portable benefits, and examples of public–private transit partnerships; commissioners urged attention to worker‑classification changes under California law.
Brian Goble, LAFCO executive officer, reported that an RFP for a labor study of emerging mobility services has been posted with a March 15 submission deadline and that a University of San Francisco graduate class will contribute research to the study.
Intern Leah Tro summarized a literature review that identified three preliminary trends: uneven and evolving regulation across jurisdictions, interest in portable benefits for independent contractors, and growing public‑private partnerships in transit operations. She cited examples from New York (data‑sharing mandates), Seattle (misclassification and minimum‑wage rules), London (contractor driver rights and hour limits), and Mexico City (a 1.5% per‑ride fee funding public transit and pedestrian safety).
On portable benefits, Tro described programs that allow workers to carry benefit contributions across gigs. She said proposals typically ask companies to make fixed contributions based on hours worked into portable funds for retirement, paid leave and health benefits; proponents argue this retains worker flexibility while broadening coverage.
The presentation also reviewed pilots where municipalities contract with ride‑hail firms for subsidized on‑demand services (for example Monrovia and Ontario models) and raised questions about classification and municipal liability if drivers remain contractors.
Commissioners praised the work and flagged the California Supreme Court’s ABC test (recently clarified in state law and discussed publicly) as likely to affect the classification of ride‑hail drivers. Commissioner Brennan, a former worker‑rights attorney, said the ABC test makes it less likely that Uber and Lyft drivers would be classified as independent contractors.
Public commenters urged LAFCO to label agenda items more clearly when they concern Uber and Lyft and asked the commission to monitor legislation (including AB 56) that could centralize energy procurement or affect local control of services.
Next steps: Goble said the RFP response process will continue and that the graduate class hopes to report findings to LAFCO in May; the final report of policy recommendations is expected later in the year.
