WEBVTT - The Gig is Up

0:00:15.356 --> 0:00:22.916
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show

0:00:22.956 --> 0:00:25.956
<v Speaker 1>where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news.

0:00:26.356 --> 0:00:31.756
<v Speaker 1>I'm Noah Feldman. It's almost a cliche to say that

0:00:31.796 --> 0:00:36.796
<v Speaker 1>the future of work lies in gig work. That might

0:00:36.876 --> 0:00:40.316
<v Speaker 1>not even be true, at least not if California gets

0:00:40.316 --> 0:00:43.916
<v Speaker 1>its way. The governor there, Gavin Newsom, recently signed a

0:00:43.996 --> 0:00:46.116
<v Speaker 1>law that will have a huge impact on the way

0:00:46.156 --> 0:00:49.716
<v Speaker 1>the gig economy works in the state. The law, referred

0:00:49.756 --> 0:00:52.276
<v Speaker 1>to as a B five, is supposed to make it

0:00:52.396 --> 0:00:55.956
<v Speaker 1>harder for app based platforms like Uber and Lyft to

0:00:55.996 --> 0:01:00.516
<v Speaker 1>classify their drivers as independent contractors rather than as full

0:01:00.556 --> 0:01:05.036
<v Speaker 1>time employees. The law codifies and expands a twenty eighteen

0:01:05.156 --> 0:01:10.036
<v Speaker 1>California Supreme Court decision known as the Dynamics Case. Today,

0:01:10.036 --> 0:01:12.116
<v Speaker 1>on Deep Background, we're gonna do something a little different

0:01:12.116 --> 0:01:14.876
<v Speaker 1>than we usually do. Instead of having just one long

0:01:14.956 --> 0:01:17.316
<v Speaker 1>conversation about a topic, We're going to talk to two

0:01:17.436 --> 0:01:20.716
<v Speaker 1>different people, one at a time, with very different perspectives

0:01:20.716 --> 0:01:24.476
<v Speaker 1>on AB five. The first is Lorina Gonzalez. She's the

0:01:24.556 --> 0:01:28.996
<v Speaker 1>California assemblywoman who actually sponsored the bill. I talked to

0:01:28.996 --> 0:01:31.716
<v Speaker 1>her about why she believes in it and how exactly

0:01:31.756 --> 0:01:34.876
<v Speaker 1>it will work when it goes into effect in January.

0:01:35.756 --> 0:01:38.916
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for joining me. Let's start by

0:01:38.956 --> 0:01:42.876
<v Speaker 1>talking about this important and interesting bill that you've introduced

0:01:42.876 --> 0:01:47.276
<v Speaker 1>into the California legislature called AB five. That's the shorthand,

0:01:47.636 --> 0:01:49.996
<v Speaker 1>I guess AB is Assembly Bill AM I right. Yes.

0:01:52.236 --> 0:01:55.436
<v Speaker 1>AB five is connected to a decision that the California

0:01:55.436 --> 0:01:57.796
<v Speaker 1>State Supreme Court made a couple of years ago, and

0:01:57.796 --> 0:01:59.596
<v Speaker 1>it has to do with the essence of the gig

0:01:59.636 --> 0:02:02.956
<v Speaker 1>economy and how employees should be treated under the law.

0:02:03.076 --> 0:02:05.556
<v Speaker 1>Tell us what we need to know about this law.

0:02:05.996 --> 0:02:09.196
<v Speaker 1>It basically says, look, in order to be in a

0:02:09.316 --> 0:02:13.676
<v Speaker 1>pennant contractor, you have to actually do that type of

0:02:13.716 --> 0:02:18.476
<v Speaker 1>business separately than this organization. You can't be doing the

0:02:18.516 --> 0:02:22.116
<v Speaker 1>business of the company itself. So you know, if the

0:02:22.156 --> 0:02:25.876
<v Speaker 1>company is a delivery company and you're a delivery driver,

0:02:26.916 --> 0:02:29.436
<v Speaker 1>you probably work for the company. And so it's a

0:02:29.436 --> 0:02:33.316
<v Speaker 1>pretty straightforward test. We often describe it as this, if

0:02:33.356 --> 0:02:35.956
<v Speaker 1>you do the work of the company, you probably work

0:02:35.996 --> 0:02:39.196
<v Speaker 1>for them. So that's the essence of the idea. And

0:02:39.236 --> 0:02:41.716
<v Speaker 1>this is why from the standpoint of Uber or Lift

0:02:41.796 --> 0:02:44.636
<v Speaker 1>or any of the other gig economy companies it's a

0:02:44.676 --> 0:02:47.476
<v Speaker 1>disastrous decision for their business plan because it basically says

0:02:47.476 --> 0:02:49.476
<v Speaker 1>that if they're in the business of driving people around,

0:02:50.036 --> 0:02:54.556
<v Speaker 1>then a driver is an employee, is not an independent contractor, right,

0:02:55.196 --> 0:02:57.196
<v Speaker 1>And of course now Uber says they're not in the

0:02:57.236 --> 0:02:59.596
<v Speaker 1>business of driving people around, so this is going to

0:02:59.596 --> 0:03:01.916
<v Speaker 1>be They say they're in the business of connecting people

0:03:01.956 --> 0:03:03.796
<v Speaker 1>to the people who will drive them around, and that

0:03:03.836 --> 0:03:06.316
<v Speaker 1>they're doing the connection. But that's a hard case to

0:03:06.356 --> 0:03:09.076
<v Speaker 1>make out, at least under this test. The core issue

0:03:09.236 --> 0:03:14.196
<v Speaker 1>classification cases is is a given person an employee and

0:03:14.236 --> 0:03:18.196
<v Speaker 1>therefore entitled to the protections of state law for employees,

0:03:18.876 --> 0:03:23.116
<v Speaker 1>or is the person an independent contractor not restricted in

0:03:23.276 --> 0:03:26.756
<v Speaker 1>what he or she can do, but also simultaneously not

0:03:26.916 --> 0:03:30.716
<v Speaker 1>entitled to the protections that state law gives employees. Correct? Correct.

0:03:31.036 --> 0:03:34.836
<v Speaker 1>If you're an employee, you have a number of rights,

0:03:35.396 --> 0:03:37.956
<v Speaker 1>including the right to minimum wage and over time, the

0:03:38.036 --> 0:03:41.836
<v Speaker 1>right to workers compensation and employment insurance. The employer has

0:03:41.836 --> 0:03:44.596
<v Speaker 1>to put in their their required seven point five percent

0:03:44.676 --> 0:03:49.276
<v Speaker 1>to Social Security and to Medicare their contribution. You have

0:03:49.356 --> 0:03:51.636
<v Speaker 1>the right in California to paid sick days and paid

0:03:51.636 --> 0:03:55.036
<v Speaker 1>family leave. You have the right to, of course join

0:03:55.076 --> 0:03:59.916
<v Speaker 1>a union, so there are a number of individual rights. Uh,

0:04:00.276 --> 0:04:06.876
<v Speaker 1>there's there's protections against sexual harassment, there's protections against discrimination

0:04:07.156 --> 0:04:10.836
<v Speaker 1>that employees are are awarded. So that's all the good

0:04:10.836 --> 0:04:13.916
<v Speaker 1>stuff that employees get if they're classified as employees. Why

0:04:13.996 --> 0:04:18.396
<v Speaker 1>do some people want to be classified sometimes as independent contractors. Well,

0:04:18.996 --> 0:04:22.076
<v Speaker 1>some independent contractors really are small businesses and people want

0:04:22.076 --> 0:04:25.396
<v Speaker 1>to operate in that way their tax benefits. Sometimes for

0:04:25.756 --> 0:04:29.836
<v Speaker 1>an individual who has multiple clients, who is writing off

0:04:29.876 --> 0:04:34.156
<v Speaker 1>you know, a home office and gas and expenses where

0:04:34.156 --> 0:04:37.436
<v Speaker 1>they can service multiple clients but with the same sort

0:04:37.476 --> 0:04:40.836
<v Speaker 1>of needs and in which case they really are often

0:04:41.116 --> 0:04:45.196
<v Speaker 1>acting as a small business that a lot of Unfortunately,

0:04:45.436 --> 0:04:48.636
<v Speaker 1>some employees think it's better to be independent contractor because

0:04:48.796 --> 0:04:52.436
<v Speaker 1>they assume they don't need to pay as much in taxes.

0:04:52.476 --> 0:04:56.236
<v Speaker 1>That's often because they don't realize their tax implications and

0:04:56.396 --> 0:05:00.476
<v Speaker 1>aren't paying them. And there's so many small independent contractors

0:05:00.516 --> 0:05:02.236
<v Speaker 1>or have been in California that there hasn't been a

0:05:02.236 --> 0:05:04.276
<v Speaker 1>ton of enforcements, so we know we've lost a lot

0:05:04.276 --> 0:05:08.556
<v Speaker 1>of payroll taxes and taxes that are become the responsibility

0:05:08.676 --> 0:05:12.356
<v Speaker 1>of the contractor when the employer isn't pay for them.

0:05:12.356 --> 0:05:16.876
<v Speaker 1>But that, of course is unfortunate for the small business

0:05:17.116 --> 0:05:20.476
<v Speaker 1>person who doesn't realize they owe these taxes. Often, big

0:05:20.476 --> 0:05:23.156
<v Speaker 1>companies like Uber and Lyft or door Dash and many

0:05:23.196 --> 0:05:26.236
<v Speaker 1>many others, they say, we want to be disruptors. And

0:05:26.716 --> 0:05:28.956
<v Speaker 1>what they mean by disruption is they're not going to

0:05:29.036 --> 0:05:31.716
<v Speaker 1>have to treat the people who work for them as employees.

0:05:32.356 --> 0:05:34.756
<v Speaker 1>And they have a whole theory about why that's a

0:05:34.756 --> 0:05:37.876
<v Speaker 1>good thing, and others have a view about why it's

0:05:37.876 --> 0:05:39.716
<v Speaker 1>a bad thing. But the point is it's a change,

0:05:40.356 --> 0:05:43.596
<v Speaker 1>and the State Supreme Court, I guess, in the Dynamics decision,

0:05:43.836 --> 0:05:46.956
<v Speaker 1>had to set down a rule to help clarify whether

0:05:46.996 --> 0:05:50.436
<v Speaker 1>someone counts as an employee or an independent contractor when

0:05:50.516 --> 0:05:54.476
<v Speaker 1>working for something like one of the gig economy businesses.

0:05:54.716 --> 0:05:56.716
<v Speaker 1>And what's the basic rule? I think there are three parts,

0:05:56.756 --> 0:05:58.916
<v Speaker 1>aren't there? There are three parts? But I want to

0:05:58.916 --> 0:06:00.676
<v Speaker 1>step back for a minute, because a lot of people

0:06:00.836 --> 0:06:05.156
<v Speaker 1>do identify this as a kind of a knee jerk

0:06:05.156 --> 0:06:08.716
<v Speaker 1>to the gig economy, when in fact, the Dynamics decision

0:06:08.876 --> 0:06:10.836
<v Speaker 1>had been going through the courts for ten years. It's

0:06:10.876 --> 0:06:14.556
<v Speaker 1>really not what we think of as the Ubernlift Postmates

0:06:14.596 --> 0:06:18.356
<v Speaker 1>since Dart kind of economy. These were delivery drivers that

0:06:18.556 --> 0:06:21.876
<v Speaker 1>that predated a lot of the gig economy work. And

0:06:22.036 --> 0:06:25.556
<v Speaker 1>so although it does affect the gig economy and that

0:06:25.716 --> 0:06:29.396
<v Speaker 1>has been the largest abuses we have seen, it was

0:06:29.596 --> 0:06:33.716
<v Speaker 1>never a decision or a bill that simply was targeted

0:06:33.716 --> 0:06:35.436
<v Speaker 1>at ubern lift. And I think that's important because a

0:06:35.476 --> 0:06:37.436
<v Speaker 1>lot of folks who have been caught up in this

0:06:37.556 --> 0:06:40.356
<v Speaker 1>bill said, well, why are you targeting us? It was

0:06:40.356 --> 0:06:43.596
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be towards ubernlift. No, it's about misclassification in general.

0:06:43.636 --> 0:06:45.476
<v Speaker 1>And if you look at a state like California, where

0:06:45.516 --> 0:06:48.716
<v Speaker 1>misclassification cost about seven billion dollars a year to our

0:06:48.796 --> 0:06:51.676
<v Speaker 1>state and thus to our taxpayers, this is a larger

0:06:51.796 --> 0:06:55.276
<v Speaker 1>decision and a larger issue that affects many more people

0:06:55.356 --> 0:06:58.036
<v Speaker 1>than those in the gig economy. How are you measuring

0:06:58.156 --> 0:07:00.556
<v Speaker 1>the cost to the California's economy when you say seven

0:07:00.556 --> 0:07:02.636
<v Speaker 1>a billion dollars? What's that? What is that number? What

0:07:02.676 --> 0:07:05.276
<v Speaker 1>are you measuring? That comes from? Of course the state

0:07:05.756 --> 0:07:11.276
<v Speaker 1>Labor Commissioner's office, but it includes everything payroll taxes, of course,

0:07:11.436 --> 0:07:16.676
<v Speaker 1>it to workers compensation claims that aren't paid for when

0:07:16.996 --> 0:07:20.316
<v Speaker 1>somebody doesn't have workers compensation. Often doesn't have healthcare either,

0:07:20.396 --> 0:07:21.996
<v Speaker 1>and so when they're hurt on the job, it's we

0:07:22.116 --> 0:07:24.196
<v Speaker 1>as taxpayers pick it up at the emergency room, so

0:07:24.636 --> 0:07:27.836
<v Speaker 1>indigent care. When somebody loses their job, they no longer

0:07:27.876 --> 0:07:30.636
<v Speaker 1>have a job, they don't have unemployment insurance, So we

0:07:30.756 --> 0:07:33.556
<v Speaker 1>often have to pick those types of costs up. When

0:07:34.036 --> 0:07:37.196
<v Speaker 1>somebody isn't being paid enough, obviously we have to pay

0:07:37.236 --> 0:07:41.196
<v Speaker 1>in terms of food stamp, subsidize housing, and subsidize free

0:07:41.276 --> 0:07:43.516
<v Speaker 1>lunch program. So there's a number of ways that we

0:07:43.596 --> 0:07:47.596
<v Speaker 1>subsidize companies who must classify their workers, and it provides

0:07:47.596 --> 0:07:51.396
<v Speaker 1>a cost, of course to the state. As you describe

0:07:51.556 --> 0:07:54.476
<v Speaker 1>a B five, it sort of sounds like no reasonable

0:07:54.556 --> 0:07:57.316
<v Speaker 1>person could disagree with it, and I'm sure that as

0:07:57.356 --> 0:08:01.196
<v Speaker 1>a sponsor of the bill, that's exactly what you believe. Nevertheless,

0:08:01.316 --> 0:08:03.796
<v Speaker 1>in the real world, there are people, including even some

0:08:04.396 --> 0:08:07.716
<v Speaker 1>uber or lift drivers, who are nervous about the possibility

0:08:07.756 --> 0:08:10.196
<v Speaker 1>that they will lose the flexible ability that they value,

0:08:10.476 --> 0:08:13.676
<v Speaker 1>and perhaps are also nervous about thinking of themselves as

0:08:13.716 --> 0:08:16.556
<v Speaker 1>employees when they haven't considered themselves as employees. They've thought

0:08:16.556 --> 0:08:21.156
<v Speaker 1>of themselves to a great extent as independent contractors. What

0:08:21.476 --> 0:08:26.356
<v Speaker 1>would you say to people who have those fears or concerns.

0:08:27.356 --> 0:08:28.956
<v Speaker 1>I take it the part of your job as a

0:08:29.036 --> 0:08:30.596
<v Speaker 1>legislators get the law pass. A part of it is

0:08:30.596 --> 0:08:32.516
<v Speaker 1>also convincing the people who will be affected by the

0:08:32.636 --> 0:08:34.956
<v Speaker 1>law that it will make their lives better and will

0:08:34.956 --> 0:08:37.236
<v Speaker 1>not make it worse. So what would you say? And

0:08:37.396 --> 0:08:39.916
<v Speaker 1>that's true. And I kind of have a unique perspective

0:08:39.956 --> 0:08:41.756
<v Speaker 1>on this because I came out of organized labor. I

0:08:41.836 --> 0:08:44.356
<v Speaker 1>was a labor leader when I was elected to the

0:08:44.476 --> 0:08:47.636
<v Speaker 1>State Assembly, and so I am used to dealing with

0:08:47.796 --> 0:08:51.636
<v Speaker 1>workers who operate out of fear. Often in organizing drives,

0:08:51.676 --> 0:08:56.076
<v Speaker 1>you see it a lot. In contract negotiations, you see it.

0:08:56.436 --> 0:09:00.636
<v Speaker 1>And so I understand and am very empathetic to workers

0:09:00.716 --> 0:09:06.156
<v Speaker 1>being afraid, being ill convinced of things by bosses who

0:09:06.916 --> 0:09:09.276
<v Speaker 1>often lie or mislead those workers. And that's what we've

0:09:09.276 --> 0:09:12.196
<v Speaker 1>seen here, and we try to be very obvious these companies,

0:09:12.236 --> 0:09:16.356
<v Speaker 1>whether it's Uberlift or Postmates, Instacart, whoever it is, they're

0:09:16.396 --> 0:09:19.356
<v Speaker 1>controlling the schedules of these workers. Now, so this so

0:09:19.516 --> 0:09:23.156
<v Speaker 1>called flexibility is an interesting argument, and sometimes you have

0:09:23.196 --> 0:09:25.196
<v Speaker 1>to break it down and have the individual discussions with

0:09:25.316 --> 0:09:29.556
<v Speaker 1>the drivers. They often know, you know Instacart, for example,

0:09:29.676 --> 0:09:32.396
<v Speaker 1>we had a people complaining that if you try to

0:09:32.556 --> 0:09:34.476
<v Speaker 1>not take a job, they won't pass you on to

0:09:34.556 --> 0:09:37.396
<v Speaker 1>the next job. Right you can't reject the job. So

0:09:38.116 --> 0:09:41.836
<v Speaker 1>that's not quite the flexibility they say that they have,

0:09:42.156 --> 0:09:44.956
<v Speaker 1>or that they convince their drivers they have. You can't

0:09:45.036 --> 0:09:48.156
<v Speaker 1>just wake up at two in the morning in an

0:09:48.196 --> 0:09:51.156
<v Speaker 1>industrial area where there are no rides and say you're

0:09:51.316 --> 0:09:55.076
<v Speaker 1>a lift driver and be carting somebody, because if it's

0:09:55.116 --> 0:09:58.156
<v Speaker 1>not available, it's not available. We've seen in New York City,

0:09:58.356 --> 0:10:01.676
<v Speaker 1>even with workers being independent contractors, that uber and lift

0:10:01.756 --> 0:10:05.116
<v Speaker 1>or are now controlling which parts of the city that

0:10:05.196 --> 0:10:08.316
<v Speaker 1>they can give rides in. We know now with the

0:10:08.356 --> 0:10:11.756
<v Speaker 1>way they INCENTI yes, certain areas and ensure that people

0:10:11.956 --> 0:10:17.076
<v Speaker 1>can actually make some money. They push people to certain

0:10:17.116 --> 0:10:19.396
<v Speaker 1>areas of the city during certain times. So there is

0:10:19.436 --> 0:10:21.476
<v Speaker 1>a level of control being operated now, and you often

0:10:21.556 --> 0:10:23.076
<v Speaker 1>have to break it down for the drivers and have

0:10:23.196 --> 0:10:25.276
<v Speaker 1>that discussion. That all makes perfect sense to me. I

0:10:25.316 --> 0:10:27.996
<v Speaker 1>think there's not the dedependence that people necessarily imagine that

0:10:28.076 --> 0:10:30.356
<v Speaker 1>there is. But what about the argument that there will

0:10:30.356 --> 0:10:33.436
<v Speaker 1>be even less independence if the companies now, for example,

0:10:33.556 --> 0:10:36.236
<v Speaker 1>know they have to pay minimum wage for an hour

0:10:36.356 --> 0:10:38.996
<v Speaker 1>that the driver has worked, and then the driver wants

0:10:39.036 --> 0:10:42.076
<v Speaker 1>to say I'm available at a time when statistically it's

0:10:42.116 --> 0:10:45.396
<v Speaker 1>improbable that there will be enough jobs there. I would

0:10:45.396 --> 0:10:46.996
<v Speaker 1>imagine that what I would do if I were the company,

0:10:46.996 --> 0:10:48.596
<v Speaker 1>as I would just say, well, you can't, you can't

0:10:48.636 --> 0:10:50.876
<v Speaker 1>work this hour because we just don't think you're going

0:10:50.956 --> 0:10:53.036
<v Speaker 1>to make enough to get past the minimum wage. And

0:10:53.956 --> 0:10:55.796
<v Speaker 1>so it might be that there's you know that there

0:10:55.876 --> 0:10:57.916
<v Speaker 1>is a limitation to freedom now, but wouldn't there be

0:10:57.996 --> 0:11:02.676
<v Speaker 1>even more limitations once they are a categorization of drivers

0:11:02.756 --> 0:11:06.036
<v Speaker 1>as employees. Well, you know, that's ultimately up to the company,

0:11:06.276 --> 0:11:09.036
<v Speaker 1>and that type of flexibility, whether you're an independent contractor

0:11:09.196 --> 0:11:12.036
<v Speaker 1>or an employees always up to the company. And so

0:11:12.276 --> 0:11:14.436
<v Speaker 1>I think that that's a red herring because I think

0:11:14.596 --> 0:11:18.796
<v Speaker 1>it's happening now, and so M yes, there there are

0:11:18.916 --> 0:11:22.476
<v Speaker 1>people who will say, but you know, what if I

0:11:22.596 --> 0:11:25.396
<v Speaker 1>want to drive for five dollars an hour? We have

0:11:25.516 --> 0:11:27.916
<v Speaker 1>laws in this country. You know, we've heard it plenty

0:11:27.956 --> 0:11:31.196
<v Speaker 1>of times. What if my thirteen year old one wants

0:11:31.276 --> 0:11:34.276
<v Speaker 1>to work, you know, we don't allow that to happen.

0:11:34.436 --> 0:11:36.276
<v Speaker 1>What if they want to work in a factory and

0:11:36.636 --> 0:11:39.356
<v Speaker 1>make subminimum wage. You know, we have laws for a

0:11:39.436 --> 0:11:41.956
<v Speaker 1>reason so that there's an even playing field. And we

0:11:42.076 --> 0:11:46.956
<v Speaker 1>know that the so called decisions by some workers to

0:11:47.116 --> 0:11:50.716
<v Speaker 1>want to undercut basic labor laws hurt all workers. And

0:11:50.876 --> 0:11:53.676
<v Speaker 1>so you know, the vast majority I think of drivers

0:11:53.716 --> 0:11:56.316
<v Speaker 1>that we talked to want to make above minimum wage.

0:11:56.356 --> 0:12:00.116
<v Speaker 1>Of course they want to have the benefits of employment. Well,

0:12:00.156 --> 0:12:02.676
<v Speaker 1>with that, you have to require rules. And one of

0:12:02.716 --> 0:12:04.956
<v Speaker 1>the things I hear most often, not just from drivers,

0:12:05.036 --> 0:12:08.076
<v Speaker 1>but you know freelancers in general, is if I want

0:12:08.116 --> 0:12:11.076
<v Speaker 1>to be an independent contractor, why can't I just do that? Well,

0:12:11.116 --> 0:12:13.676
<v Speaker 1>you can go start your own business, right, nothing prevents

0:12:13.716 --> 0:12:17.276
<v Speaker 1>you from going in starting your own car business, for example,

0:12:17.356 --> 0:12:19.436
<v Speaker 1>where you can shuttle people back and forth, but there

0:12:19.476 --> 0:12:22.756
<v Speaker 1>are rules that you have to abide by. You can't decide.

0:12:22.796 --> 0:12:24.876
<v Speaker 1>We live in a society where you can't decide I'm

0:12:24.876 --> 0:12:28.196
<v Speaker 1>going to undercut basic labor laws which affect and hurt

0:12:28.276 --> 0:12:31.396
<v Speaker 1>other people because I want to. I mean, you can

0:12:31.676 --> 0:12:34.076
<v Speaker 1>do that. The worker themselves aren't going to be held liable,

0:12:34.116 --> 0:12:37.596
<v Speaker 1>but the companies can't hire people in that kind of situation.

0:12:38.316 --> 0:12:41.116
<v Speaker 1>I know that journalists are not the main constituency that

0:12:41.156 --> 0:12:43.756
<v Speaker 1>you're setting out to protect here. But I'm a journalist

0:12:44.116 --> 0:12:46.036
<v Speaker 1>and so it's on my mind, and I don't think

0:12:46.036 --> 0:12:47.756
<v Speaker 1>I'm alone in this respect. One of the things that

0:12:47.876 --> 0:12:50.876
<v Speaker 1>AB five does is, if I'm not mistaken, it says

0:12:50.956 --> 0:12:53.676
<v Speaker 1>that if you're a freelance writer and you write more

0:12:53.716 --> 0:12:56.756
<v Speaker 1>than thirty five articles in a year for a given publication,

0:12:57.196 --> 0:12:59.316
<v Speaker 1>then you have to be treated as an employee of

0:12:59.396 --> 0:13:02.156
<v Speaker 1>that publication. So I, for example, write a column a

0:13:02.156 --> 0:13:04.316
<v Speaker 1>couple times a week for Bloomberg. If I lived in

0:13:04.356 --> 0:13:06.756
<v Speaker 1>California and Bloomberg was in California, they would have to

0:13:06.796 --> 0:13:08.316
<v Speaker 1>make me an employee. They couldn't treat me as an

0:13:08.356 --> 0:13:11.076
<v Speaker 1>independent contractor as they presently do, right, And I think

0:13:11.436 --> 0:13:14.316
<v Speaker 1>some journalists are worried about this. I mean it strikes me,

0:13:14.436 --> 0:13:17.556
<v Speaker 1>as you know, I actually do feel genuinely like an

0:13:17.556 --> 0:13:20.596
<v Speaker 1>independent contractor sitting in my office. I have a real

0:13:20.716 --> 0:13:23.116
<v Speaker 1>job for a university, and then I also write in

0:13:23.116 --> 0:13:24.836
<v Speaker 1>my column, so I don't feel like I'm an employee

0:13:24.876 --> 0:13:28.996
<v Speaker 1>of the of the entity that publishes my articles. What's

0:13:29.036 --> 0:13:30.916
<v Speaker 1>the what's your response to that? To that number, and

0:13:30.996 --> 0:13:33.996
<v Speaker 1>why did you why not an't make an exemption for journalists. Well,

0:13:34.036 --> 0:13:37.316
<v Speaker 1>I didn't make an exemption for journalists because we worked

0:13:37.396 --> 0:13:41.916
<v Speaker 1>with actual staff journalists. We worked with the unions that

0:13:42.076 --> 0:13:46.116
<v Speaker 1>represent journalists and the publications themselves. And there has been

0:13:46.236 --> 0:13:50.756
<v Speaker 1>a massive abuse of the use of permalancers or freelancers,

0:13:51.076 --> 0:13:54.556
<v Speaker 1>independent contractors in journalism, and most journalists will tell you

0:13:54.676 --> 0:13:57.236
<v Speaker 1>that that that abuse exists. So if you provide a

0:13:57.316 --> 0:13:59.996
<v Speaker 1>full exemption, especially in a time when you kind of

0:13:59.996 --> 0:14:03.116
<v Speaker 1>see this resurgence of unions in the newsroom, you're really

0:14:03.196 --> 0:14:07.796
<v Speaker 1>going to put those efforts at jeopardy. Journalism has changed,

0:14:08.316 --> 0:14:13.396
<v Speaker 1>But that's not a reason to basically get the career

0:14:13.916 --> 0:14:16.556
<v Speaker 1>of journalism. Let me ask you what is really a

0:14:16.596 --> 0:14:18.836
<v Speaker 1>philosophical question. And you know, I understand that you come

0:14:18.876 --> 0:14:21.196
<v Speaker 1>out of labor, so I get I have some inkling

0:14:21.236 --> 0:14:24.236
<v Speaker 1>of where you'll answer me from. But the philosophic question

0:14:24.356 --> 0:14:28.116
<v Speaker 1>is sort of this. To me, there's very little doubt

0:14:28.196 --> 0:14:32.556
<v Speaker 1>that there are lots of industries where unionization is absolutely

0:14:32.756 --> 0:14:37.916
<v Speaker 1>necessary in order that management not exploit workers. And then

0:14:37.916 --> 0:14:40.556
<v Speaker 1>there are some industries where the workers actually have either

0:14:40.596 --> 0:14:44.756
<v Speaker 1>a reasonable amount of bargaining power or significant independence in

0:14:44.796 --> 0:14:47.556
<v Speaker 1>the kinds of judgments and decisions they make, where you know,

0:14:47.596 --> 0:14:49.596
<v Speaker 1>it makes sense if people want to be independent contractors,

0:14:49.636 --> 0:14:52.316
<v Speaker 1>they should be able to. And then in between there's

0:14:52.316 --> 0:14:56.436
<v Speaker 1>the very complicated, messy world in which we actually live,

0:14:56.516 --> 0:14:59.076
<v Speaker 1>where you have to go deep into the weeds when

0:14:59.116 --> 0:15:01.996
<v Speaker 1>it comes to those really hard choices. As I understand it,

0:15:02.076 --> 0:15:05.476
<v Speaker 1>a B five for the most part, sets the presumption

0:15:05.636 --> 0:15:08.476
<v Speaker 1>in favor of a person being an employee, and it's

0:15:08.516 --> 0:15:12.196
<v Speaker 1>pretty hard to get out of that. I'm wondering why,

0:15:12.716 --> 0:15:16.356
<v Speaker 1>in the margin where it's genuinely hard, where it's tricky,

0:15:17.036 --> 0:15:20.556
<v Speaker 1>why not set the default the other way. Why not say,

0:15:20.996 --> 0:15:24.316
<v Speaker 1>let's experiment, let's try new sorts of things out, and

0:15:24.436 --> 0:15:26.476
<v Speaker 1>then over time, if it's not working, we can switch

0:15:26.516 --> 0:15:29.516
<v Speaker 1>it back the other way. Why isn't that sort of

0:15:29.916 --> 0:15:33.636
<v Speaker 1>spur to possible innovation, even though granted we might go

0:15:33.716 --> 0:15:36.476
<v Speaker 1>too far in some instances. So I hate to called

0:15:36.516 --> 0:15:39.716
<v Speaker 1>exemptions because there's no pure exemption. You still have requirements

0:15:40.156 --> 0:15:43.556
<v Speaker 1>to ensure somebody's an independent contractor. But in terms of

0:15:44.356 --> 0:15:48.196
<v Speaker 1>who should be considered that, we think a lot about

0:15:48.596 --> 0:15:52.156
<v Speaker 1>barriers to entry into that profession. So the higher barrier

0:15:52.476 --> 0:15:55.956
<v Speaker 1>into the entry of that profession, the more comfortable we

0:15:56.076 --> 0:15:59.876
<v Speaker 1>are saying this person has individual bargaining power. So for example,

0:15:59.916 --> 0:16:02.756
<v Speaker 1>if you're a doctor, a lawyer, you know, if there

0:16:03.076 --> 0:16:08.716
<v Speaker 1>is a many years of school, specialized schooling, testing, there's licensing,

0:16:09.276 --> 0:16:11.196
<v Speaker 1>you know, we feel a little more comfortable like that

0:16:11.276 --> 0:16:14.356
<v Speaker 1>individual can make these decisions for themselves and are actually

0:16:14.436 --> 0:16:18.676
<v Speaker 1>making these decisions and not just subject to an employer

0:16:18.876 --> 0:16:22.196
<v Speaker 1>saying this is what we're going to do, right, And

0:16:22.276 --> 0:16:25.316
<v Speaker 1>everybody has to then aqueous to that because there's so

0:16:25.396 --> 0:16:28.556
<v Speaker 1>many other of these type of employees out there who

0:16:28.596 --> 0:16:31.476
<v Speaker 1>are willing to work for less. That's basically how we

0:16:31.636 --> 0:16:33.516
<v Speaker 1>end up with a race to the bottom. And does

0:16:33.556 --> 0:16:34.996
<v Speaker 1>that not worry you as being I mean, it's a

0:16:35.036 --> 0:16:37.476
<v Speaker 1>fascinating line that you're drawing. I'm deeply fascinated by this

0:16:37.556 --> 0:16:39.836
<v Speaker 1>idea that you know, the more education you have, the

0:16:39.956 --> 0:16:41.756
<v Speaker 1>higher the barrier to entry, them more confident we are

0:16:41.796 --> 0:16:43.956
<v Speaker 1>that you have bargaining power. It sounds great, not just

0:16:44.436 --> 0:16:48.996
<v Speaker 1>not just education though, because fine artists are also exempted

0:16:49.556 --> 0:16:52.716
<v Speaker 1>through this process, and fine arts art necessary to become

0:16:52.716 --> 0:16:55.876
<v Speaker 1>an artist. You mean, well, there's a specialize I think

0:16:56.236 --> 0:16:58.676
<v Speaker 1>talent that you have that allows you to have more

0:16:58.876 --> 0:17:01.076
<v Speaker 1>bargaining power. And you ask another question, and I want

0:17:01.116 --> 0:17:02.956
<v Speaker 1>to get to that, why not air on the side

0:17:03.116 --> 0:17:06.396
<v Speaker 1>of and I will put it in my ideological stance,

0:17:06.476 --> 0:17:09.956
<v Speaker 1>why not air on the side of the company instead

0:17:09.996 --> 0:17:14.156
<v Speaker 1>of the worker, so and allow innovation because we're going

0:17:14.196 --> 0:17:17.196
<v Speaker 1>to allow these exemptions and see where it goes from there.

0:17:17.556 --> 0:17:19.596
<v Speaker 1>And I'd say, the reason I haven't done that, and

0:17:19.676 --> 0:17:22.796
<v Speaker 1>I've been very judicious. I feel like in trying to

0:17:22.836 --> 0:17:24.996
<v Speaker 1>write a law that makes the most amount of sense

0:17:25.076 --> 0:17:28.156
<v Speaker 1>for workers is being in the legislature for the past,

0:17:28.676 --> 0:17:31.636
<v Speaker 1>I guess six years now. I know that it is

0:17:31.716 --> 0:17:35.356
<v Speaker 1>always hard to undo an imbalance of power that's in

0:17:35.436 --> 0:17:39.276
<v Speaker 1>favor of corporations and of companies and that hurt workers,

0:17:39.436 --> 0:17:43.196
<v Speaker 1>that it would be much easier to correct things in

0:17:43.316 --> 0:17:47.276
<v Speaker 1>the other way. And so I was protective of workers,

0:17:47.436 --> 0:17:52.796
<v Speaker 1>and that was I think a very intentional decision in

0:17:52.996 --> 0:17:55.436
<v Speaker 1>order to say, yes, we might have to in the

0:17:55.516 --> 0:17:59.356
<v Speaker 1>future and for innovative purposes if you will, or new

0:18:00.116 --> 0:18:03.036
<v Speaker 1>kind of I guess professions that will come up. We

0:18:03.556 --> 0:18:06.076
<v Speaker 1>may need to re examine some of this, but it's

0:18:06.156 --> 0:18:08.556
<v Speaker 1>much easier to say this is the broad labor law

0:18:09.156 --> 0:18:12.596
<v Speaker 1>and deal with it, and that way the power is

0:18:12.756 --> 0:18:14.476
<v Speaker 1>in the hands of the workers. That's a kind of

0:18:14.476 --> 0:18:16.436
<v Speaker 1>structural reform we need in this country in order to

0:18:16.516 --> 0:18:19.516
<v Speaker 1>rebalance kind of the large problems we have with income

0:18:19.516 --> 0:18:22.916
<v Speaker 1>inequality and with workers being exploited at work. And I

0:18:22.956 --> 0:18:26.436
<v Speaker 1>guess the other side would say, unless that scares away business, right,

0:18:26.516 --> 0:18:28.836
<v Speaker 1>because we all want people to have jobs. And then

0:18:28.916 --> 0:18:30.756
<v Speaker 1>the question is, might it be the case that too

0:18:30.836 --> 0:18:35.476
<v Speaker 1>much regulation would create a disincentive for businesses to experiment

0:18:35.596 --> 0:18:38.996
<v Speaker 1>and to do new things. No one, even the companies,

0:18:38.996 --> 0:18:41.156
<v Speaker 1>don't admit that their interest is primarily in promoting the

0:18:41.156 --> 0:18:42.996
<v Speaker 1>interests of the companies. They would say, well, if our

0:18:43.036 --> 0:18:45.036
<v Speaker 1>company does well, we'll create new jobs and that will

0:18:45.076 --> 0:18:51.636
<v Speaker 1>make everybody better off. Yes, where at times of record employment,

0:18:51.716 --> 0:18:56.756
<v Speaker 1>if you will, record low unemployment, and yet at staggering

0:18:56.876 --> 0:19:00.516
<v Speaker 1>rates of income inequality and underemployment, And so it seems

0:19:00.556 --> 0:19:03.156
<v Speaker 1>like the perfect time to say, if you're going to

0:19:03.436 --> 0:19:06.036
<v Speaker 1>offer a job, it should be a real job, a

0:19:06.116 --> 0:19:10.476
<v Speaker 1>sustainable job where somebody can actually live off of having

0:19:10.676 --> 0:19:14.036
<v Speaker 1>just one job. And so I think the timing for

0:19:14.156 --> 0:19:16.476
<v Speaker 1>this is perfect. We also have and this is kind

0:19:16.476 --> 0:19:20.356
<v Speaker 1>of interesting to me. California is a large state. It

0:19:20.396 --> 0:19:22.916
<v Speaker 1>could be, you know, a country in its own However,

0:19:23.116 --> 0:19:25.676
<v Speaker 1>we also have a number of states who number one,

0:19:25.716 --> 0:19:29.276
<v Speaker 1>already had something like an ABC test on the books Massachusetts,

0:19:29.276 --> 0:19:32.596
<v Speaker 1>for example. We see New Jersey enforcing their ABC test

0:19:32.676 --> 0:19:37.076
<v Speaker 1>for unemployment insurance against ubern left their states who already

0:19:37.116 --> 0:19:39.636
<v Speaker 1>have had this but haven't really enforced it as much.

0:19:39.956 --> 0:19:41.756
<v Speaker 1>And then we have states who are going towards it.

0:19:42.276 --> 0:19:44.676
<v Speaker 1>We have the states like New York holding hearings on

0:19:45.156 --> 0:19:49.116
<v Speaker 1>what independent contractor misclassification law would look like if it

0:19:49.156 --> 0:19:52.156
<v Speaker 1>would be the ABC test. So although California is leading

0:19:52.236 --> 0:19:56.636
<v Speaker 1>the way, I anticipate a number of especially left leaning

0:19:56.756 --> 0:19:59.196
<v Speaker 1>states to be going in that direction. And of course

0:19:59.276 --> 0:20:02.596
<v Speaker 1>we have a situation where almost every presidential candidate on

0:20:02.716 --> 0:20:07.196
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic side has endorsed this approach and came out

0:20:07.276 --> 0:20:12.116
<v Speaker 1>supportive of California's AB five of reclassifying workers as employees

0:20:12.556 --> 0:20:15.756
<v Speaker 1>with the right to organize and with really re empowering

0:20:15.956 --> 0:20:19.516
<v Speaker 1>unions to research in the United States. So I think

0:20:19.556 --> 0:20:22.436
<v Speaker 1>the timing on this is perfect because a company can

0:20:22.556 --> 0:20:25.476
<v Speaker 1>try to avoid a California law for so long, but

0:20:26.276 --> 0:20:28.596
<v Speaker 1>operating on a level plane field is important. And the

0:20:28.676 --> 0:20:30.316
<v Speaker 1>last thing I'd say about this, and I think this

0:20:30.476 --> 0:20:32.196
<v Speaker 1>is really important. We heard from a lot of businesses

0:20:32.236 --> 0:20:34.796
<v Speaker 1>who are actually grateful for us doing this. And that's

0:20:34.836 --> 0:20:37.236
<v Speaker 1>because when you are a business that's operating by the

0:20:37.356 --> 0:20:40.276
<v Speaker 1>rules and by the rules that seem very obvious, and

0:20:40.356 --> 0:20:42.516
<v Speaker 1>you're undercut by a company that comes in and says,

0:20:42.596 --> 0:20:44.596
<v Speaker 1>I'm just going to be innovative, I'm going to hire

0:20:44.676 --> 0:20:46.436
<v Speaker 1>you by app and so I no longer have the

0:20:46.516 --> 0:20:49.916
<v Speaker 1>same cost as you do. Well, that's a competitive disadvantage

0:20:49.956 --> 0:20:53.196
<v Speaker 1>that hurts society, it hurts the state, it hurts the worker,

0:20:53.236 --> 0:20:55.476
<v Speaker 1>and it hurts the business that was planed by the rules.

0:20:55.876 --> 0:20:59.316
<v Speaker 1>And so it is time to treat everybody the same

0:20:59.396 --> 0:21:02.916
<v Speaker 1>and fairly. And I think that AB five helps us

0:21:02.956 --> 0:21:05.876
<v Speaker 1>do that. From over here on the other coast, we'll

0:21:05.916 --> 0:21:09.676
<v Speaker 1>watch your bill and your career with great interest and excitement.

0:21:09.716 --> 0:21:11.836
<v Speaker 1>So thank you very much for joining in. Good luck

0:21:11.876 --> 0:21:21.036
<v Speaker 1>with everything that you're doing. Thank you. Of course, not

0:21:21.276 --> 0:21:24.396
<v Speaker 1>everyone thinks that AB five is fair or that it's

0:21:24.396 --> 0:21:28.156
<v Speaker 1>a smart economic move. Uber Lyft and DoorDash have launched

0:21:28.236 --> 0:21:31.596
<v Speaker 1>a ninety million dollar campaign in support of a ballot

0:21:31.636 --> 0:21:35.876
<v Speaker 1>initiative that would ask California voters essentially to allow them

0:21:36.116 --> 0:21:38.756
<v Speaker 1>not to be covered by the law in exchange for

0:21:38.876 --> 0:21:43.276
<v Speaker 1>providing some improved conditions for their drivers. As part of

0:21:43.316 --> 0:21:46.396
<v Speaker 1>this measure, the companies are promising to provide lots of

0:21:46.476 --> 0:21:50.076
<v Speaker 1>their drivers with benefits they don't currently have, like minimum

0:21:50.116 --> 0:21:54.676
<v Speaker 1>wage standards and some healthcare stipends, without officially turning them

0:21:54.716 --> 0:21:59.196
<v Speaker 1>into employees. I spoke to Adrian Durban, a spokesperson for Lyft,

0:21:59.436 --> 0:22:01.916
<v Speaker 1>about what it would be like if all lift drivers

0:22:02.036 --> 0:22:05.836
<v Speaker 1>suddenly became employees rather than contractors, and why the companies

0:22:05.876 --> 0:22:09.716
<v Speaker 1>are so reluctant to let that happen. Adrian, I'm so

0:22:09.876 --> 0:22:12.796
<v Speaker 1>pleased that you were able to join us. Describe from

0:22:12.996 --> 0:22:18.036
<v Speaker 1>the perspective of Lift your employer just how disastrous is

0:22:18.156 --> 0:22:22.276
<v Speaker 1>AB five for your business model. Sure well, thanks so

0:22:22.396 --> 0:22:25.156
<v Speaker 1>much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

0:22:25.876 --> 0:22:28.076
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think when we're talking about the issue

0:22:28.116 --> 0:22:31.116
<v Speaker 1>of AB five, it's important to take a step back

0:22:31.276 --> 0:22:34.556
<v Speaker 1>and think about what does the driver community on the

0:22:34.636 --> 0:22:38.236
<v Speaker 1>lift platform look like. Ninety one percent of drivers who

0:22:38.556 --> 0:22:41.436
<v Speaker 1>drive with Lift drive less than twenty hours per week,

0:22:41.876 --> 0:22:44.836
<v Speaker 1>and actually seventy six percent drive less than ten hours

0:22:44.916 --> 0:22:48.276
<v Speaker 1>per week. These are people who are using the platform

0:22:48.356 --> 0:22:51.636
<v Speaker 1>to earn extra income on a schedule that works for them.

0:22:51.676 --> 0:22:54.596
<v Speaker 1>A lot of people are they have other jobs and

0:22:54.636 --> 0:22:58.156
<v Speaker 1>they're earning extra income to supplement that or their students

0:22:58.356 --> 0:23:02.276
<v Speaker 1>or their caregivers or retirees, and they either aren't able

0:23:02.316 --> 0:23:04.756
<v Speaker 1>to work full time or have no interest in working

0:23:04.836 --> 0:23:07.676
<v Speaker 1>full time, so they're coming to lifts and other platforms

0:23:07.756 --> 0:23:10.156
<v Speaker 1>like it to earn extra money on a schedule that

0:23:10.196 --> 0:23:14.036
<v Speaker 1>works for them. And what they tell us overwhelmingly that

0:23:14.156 --> 0:23:16.476
<v Speaker 1>the most important thing to them, in addition to earning

0:23:16.916 --> 0:23:20.596
<v Speaker 1>income is that flexibility. So what we've been focused on

0:23:21.916 --> 0:23:26.676
<v Speaker 1>here in California is protecting that flexibility while strengthening the

0:23:26.796 --> 0:23:30.076
<v Speaker 1>platform and making it better for drivers in terms of

0:23:30.316 --> 0:23:36.196
<v Speaker 1>providing additional benefits, protections and guarantees for let's say the

0:23:36.236 --> 0:23:39.316
<v Speaker 1>seventy six percent of your drivers who drive for less

0:23:39.356 --> 0:23:41.956
<v Speaker 1>than ten hours a week. Yeah, what happens to them

0:23:42.596 --> 0:23:45.156
<v Speaker 1>if they are deemed to be employees? Is there any

0:23:45.196 --> 0:23:47.276
<v Speaker 1>reason they just can't continue to work those same hours

0:23:47.356 --> 0:23:50.116
<v Speaker 1>but just get different, different pan different benefits. Sure, I'm

0:23:50.156 --> 0:23:53.756
<v Speaker 1>glad you asked that question. So if ultimately drivers were

0:23:53.836 --> 0:23:56.996
<v Speaker 1>classified as employees, a couple of things would happen. First,

0:23:57.156 --> 0:24:00.116
<v Speaker 1>we wouldn't need nearly as many drivers as currently are

0:24:00.556 --> 0:24:03.796
<v Speaker 1>working on the platform, we would have to behave like

0:24:03.956 --> 0:24:07.956
<v Speaker 1>every other major employer that has employees for their workforce.

0:24:08.396 --> 0:24:12.076
<v Speaker 1>And what that means is drivers would be put on

0:24:12.556 --> 0:24:16.156
<v Speaker 1>set schedules, on shifts. And let me explain why that's

0:24:16.236 --> 0:24:17.916
<v Speaker 1>why that's the case. Yeah, why would you tell why

0:24:17.916 --> 0:24:19.916
<v Speaker 1>would you have to do that? That's the big question. Yeah. So,

0:24:20.076 --> 0:24:24.316
<v Speaker 1>under an employment model, drivers would earn would start earning

0:24:24.356 --> 0:24:26.436
<v Speaker 1>their wage from the moment they turn the app on

0:24:27.076 --> 0:24:29.996
<v Speaker 1>until they to the moment they turn the app off. Currently,

0:24:30.076 --> 0:24:32.916
<v Speaker 1>what happens is that drivers get paid during what we

0:24:32.996 --> 0:24:35.636
<v Speaker 1>call booked time, which is when they have they're on

0:24:35.716 --> 0:24:38.196
<v Speaker 1>their way to pick up a passenger, or they have

0:24:38.276 --> 0:24:40.996
<v Speaker 1>a passenger in the car. Under an employment model, they

0:24:40.996 --> 0:24:42.716
<v Speaker 1>would be paid for the entire time they have the

0:24:42.796 --> 0:24:45.396
<v Speaker 1>app on. So you can imagine why we would have

0:24:45.516 --> 0:24:48.876
<v Speaker 1>to put drivers onto shifts. For the same reason that

0:24:49.236 --> 0:24:52.276
<v Speaker 1>companies like Starbucks don't allow their baristas to just come

0:24:52.316 --> 0:24:54.756
<v Speaker 1>in and work whenever they feel like it, for however

0:24:54.876 --> 0:24:56.676
<v Speaker 1>long they feel like it. They need to match their

0:24:57.236 --> 0:25:00.476
<v Speaker 1>supply of workers to the demand that exists at a

0:25:00.516 --> 0:25:03.196
<v Speaker 1>particular time. So when Starbucks, obviously they have more barista's

0:25:03.236 --> 0:25:05.276
<v Speaker 1>working in the morning, when lots of people are buying coffee,

0:25:05.636 --> 0:25:07.716
<v Speaker 1>not so many in the late afternoon and evening when

0:25:07.756 --> 0:25:12.556
<v Speaker 1>people are not buying coffee, So we would be really

0:25:12.636 --> 0:25:16.156
<v Speaker 1>forced to implement a similar model. If we didn't do that,

0:25:16.316 --> 0:25:19.636
<v Speaker 1>you can imagine the situation where drivers would sign up

0:25:19.676 --> 0:25:22.916
<v Speaker 1>for as many apps as possible. Right now, many drivers

0:25:22.956 --> 0:25:25.196
<v Speaker 1>do work for multiple apps, and they can do that

0:25:25.236 --> 0:25:27.156
<v Speaker 1>at the same time. They can turn on Uber and

0:25:27.356 --> 0:25:30.156
<v Speaker 1>Lyft and DoorDash and just wait for the next ride

0:25:30.196 --> 0:25:32.516
<v Speaker 1>request to come in. Under an employment model, if you

0:25:32.596 --> 0:25:34.596
<v Speaker 1>were paying for the entire time they had the app on,

0:25:35.156 --> 0:25:38.676
<v Speaker 1>then there would be nothing to prevent somebody from turning

0:25:38.716 --> 0:25:40.716
<v Speaker 1>on all the apps, going to an area where there

0:25:40.796 --> 0:25:44.516
<v Speaker 1>wasn't going to be any demand, and getting paid wages

0:25:44.796 --> 0:25:46.996
<v Speaker 1>from each of those companies while not doing any work.

0:25:47.476 --> 0:25:50.116
<v Speaker 1>So you can understand why that wouldn't make sense. So

0:25:50.596 --> 0:25:52.996
<v Speaker 1>under an employment model, we would have no choice but

0:25:53.196 --> 0:25:56.796
<v Speaker 1>to put drivers on scheduled shifts, which is something they've

0:25:56.916 --> 0:26:01.476
<v Speaker 1>told us overwhelmingly they oppose. So I hear what you're saying,

0:26:01.676 --> 0:26:04.236
<v Speaker 1>and certainly from the standpoint of your seventy six percent

0:26:04.236 --> 0:26:06.556
<v Speaker 1>of drivers who worked through than ten hours a week

0:26:06.916 --> 0:26:09.316
<v Speaker 1>for them, if many of them were no longer are

0:26:09.436 --> 0:26:12.236
<v Speaker 1>working according to their own schedules, there might be a

0:26:12.276 --> 0:26:15.836
<v Speaker 1>significant change for them. What about from the company's perspective, however,

0:26:15.996 --> 0:26:18.716
<v Speaker 1>I mean, just because seventy six percent of your drivers

0:26:18.756 --> 0:26:20.316
<v Speaker 1>work through then ten hours a week, doesn't mean that

0:26:20.756 --> 0:26:23.916
<v Speaker 1>seventy six percent of the rides that you organize are

0:26:24.036 --> 0:26:25.956
<v Speaker 1>by those drivers. In fact, it must be the other

0:26:26.356 --> 0:26:30.676
<v Speaker 1>the other way around. What what percentage of the rides

0:26:30.756 --> 0:26:34.156
<v Speaker 1>that you arrange are being given by drivers who work

0:26:34.316 --> 0:26:37.796
<v Speaker 1>more than twenty hours a week. I don't have that data.

0:26:37.796 --> 0:26:40.876
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we disclose that data. You're right, very important.

0:26:40.876 --> 0:26:43.036
<v Speaker 1>It would be pretty important for understanding the question. I mean,

0:26:43.036 --> 0:26:45.956
<v Speaker 1>because you can imagine a person on the other side saying, look,

0:26:45.996 --> 0:26:48.316
<v Speaker 1>you're you're right. We concede the point that for the

0:26:48.396 --> 0:26:50.036
<v Speaker 1>ten hours a week drivers, this may not be what

0:26:50.116 --> 0:26:53.356
<v Speaker 1>they want, But we care more about the drivers who

0:26:53.396 --> 0:26:57.156
<v Speaker 1>are effectively treating their job as a you know, with

0:26:57.396 --> 0:26:59.956
<v Speaker 1>with lift or with uber or with or dash as

0:27:00.036 --> 0:27:02.316
<v Speaker 1>a effectively as a full time job, and we're trying

0:27:02.316 --> 0:27:04.596
<v Speaker 1>to improve things from them, even admitting we're doing it

0:27:04.636 --> 0:27:06.836
<v Speaker 1>at the expense of the part time employees, because after all,

0:27:06.876 --> 0:27:09.796
<v Speaker 1>that's what you know what labor offen and advocates for.

0:27:10.036 --> 0:27:12.676
<v Speaker 1>You know, labor unions are often in favor of improving

0:27:12.756 --> 0:27:14.996
<v Speaker 1>the standards of living for people who are full time

0:27:15.036 --> 0:27:17.556
<v Speaker 1>employees at the expense of part time employees, and I

0:27:17.596 --> 0:27:19.596
<v Speaker 1>think they usually are willing to not always, they're usually

0:27:19.596 --> 0:27:22.036
<v Speaker 1>willing to be open about that. What I can tell

0:27:22.076 --> 0:27:24.396
<v Speaker 1>you is that even among the drivers who work more

0:27:24.476 --> 0:27:26.436
<v Speaker 1>than twenty hours a week, they still tell us that

0:27:26.476 --> 0:27:29.876
<v Speaker 1>they value the flexibility quite a bit, in fact, more

0:27:29.916 --> 0:27:33.796
<v Speaker 1>than anything other than their income. So even if you're

0:27:33.836 --> 0:27:36.196
<v Speaker 1>working full time, one of the things that they love

0:27:36.196 --> 0:27:38.796
<v Speaker 1>about this type of work is that, you know, if

0:27:38.836 --> 0:27:41.956
<v Speaker 1>you have if you have children and you need to

0:27:41.996 --> 0:27:43.436
<v Speaker 1>take your kid to the doctor, you don't need to

0:27:43.476 --> 0:27:46.396
<v Speaker 1>get permission from your boss to take time off. If

0:27:46.436 --> 0:27:49.356
<v Speaker 1>you decide you want to watch a World Series game

0:27:49.876 --> 0:27:51.836
<v Speaker 1>because your favorite team is in the World Series, you

0:27:51.916 --> 0:27:54.356
<v Speaker 1>can decide I'm not going to work at that time.

0:27:55.036 --> 0:27:57.996
<v Speaker 1>So even the drivers who are working more than twenty

0:27:58.036 --> 0:28:03.276
<v Speaker 1>hours a week value the flexibility and the ability to

0:28:03.476 --> 0:28:05.996
<v Speaker 1>set their schedule, even if they're working, you know, as

0:28:06.036 --> 0:28:08.796
<v Speaker 1>you said, more than twenty hours a week. So what

0:28:08.876 --> 0:28:12.956
<v Speaker 1>we're what they've also told us and this goes for drivers,

0:28:13.196 --> 0:28:15.596
<v Speaker 1>no matter how many hours they work. They are looking

0:28:15.636 --> 0:28:19.916
<v Speaker 1>for additional protections and benefits, and that's what we've put

0:28:19.996 --> 0:28:22.796
<v Speaker 1>on the table here in California. So we've proposed a

0:28:22.876 --> 0:28:26.756
<v Speaker 1>minimum wage floor so that they are guaranteed that they'll

0:28:26.756 --> 0:28:29.596
<v Speaker 1>earn at least a certain amount every hour that they

0:28:29.636 --> 0:28:32.516
<v Speaker 1>are working. We are also putting on the table a

0:28:32.636 --> 0:28:35.956
<v Speaker 1>healthcare benefit, and then on top of the healthcare, we're

0:28:35.956 --> 0:28:42.636
<v Speaker 1>also putting in place other benefits, so occupational accident insurance coverage,

0:28:42.676 --> 0:28:44.716
<v Speaker 1>so if you get injured on the job, you'll be

0:28:44.836 --> 0:28:47.836
<v Speaker 1>compensated for that, which is not something that they currently exists,

0:28:47.836 --> 0:28:50.596
<v Speaker 1>and we recognize that that's that's an issue for drivers,

0:28:50.676 --> 0:28:53.516
<v Speaker 1>so we've put that on the table. And you're proposing

0:28:53.596 --> 0:28:57.636
<v Speaker 1>this in the form since the California legislature already passed

0:28:57.836 --> 0:29:00.796
<v Speaker 1>eighty five and it's been signed into law. You're proposing

0:29:00.836 --> 0:29:04.236
<v Speaker 1>this as a referendum that would seek essentially an exemption

0:29:04.356 --> 0:29:07.956
<v Speaker 1>for participating companies from the law that was passed by

0:29:08.156 --> 0:29:11.356
<v Speaker 1>the legislature. Am I get that right? Yeah, So it's

0:29:12.156 --> 0:29:15.356
<v Speaker 1>what's referred to as a ballot initiative, and we are

0:29:15.396 --> 0:29:19.276
<v Speaker 1>in the process right now of getting the title in summary,

0:29:19.716 --> 0:29:21.556
<v Speaker 1>which is what they call it, and that will happen

0:29:21.636 --> 0:29:23.636
<v Speaker 1>sometime before the end of the year, and then we

0:29:23.716 --> 0:29:26.076
<v Speaker 1>would go out and collect signatures to qualify for the

0:29:26.116 --> 0:29:28.676
<v Speaker 1>ballot in November of twenty twenty. I would say that

0:29:28.756 --> 0:29:30.556
<v Speaker 1>there's a bit of a distinction. I wouldn't call it

0:29:30.676 --> 0:29:33.916
<v Speaker 1>an exemption from AB five. There's actually quite a few industries.

0:29:33.996 --> 0:29:37.956
<v Speaker 1>More than fifty industries were actually exempted outright from AB five.

0:29:38.476 --> 0:29:40.596
<v Speaker 1>What we are saying is, let's create a new model.

0:29:41.076 --> 0:29:43.036
<v Speaker 1>The initiative that we are going to put on the

0:29:43.116 --> 0:29:47.796
<v Speaker 1>ballot is based on feedback that we've received from thousands

0:29:47.836 --> 0:29:50.916
<v Speaker 1>of drivers, and this is across multiple platforms about Okay,

0:29:51.236 --> 0:29:53.756
<v Speaker 1>what do you like about this work and what would

0:29:53.756 --> 0:29:56.196
<v Speaker 1>you like to see improved? And again, what they tell

0:29:56.276 --> 0:29:59.356
<v Speaker 1>us overwhelmingly that what they love about it is the flexibility,

0:29:59.876 --> 0:30:02.796
<v Speaker 1>which goes out the window under an employment model. But

0:30:03.076 --> 0:30:06.756
<v Speaker 1>they want they want more guarantees around pay, they want healthcare,

0:30:07.076 --> 0:30:11.716
<v Speaker 1>they want injury protect action, they want discrimination protection, they

0:30:11.796 --> 0:30:15.876
<v Speaker 1>want an ability to appeal if they are deactivated by

0:30:16.076 --> 0:30:18.476
<v Speaker 1>by the companies for whatever reason. Those are all the

0:30:18.596 --> 0:30:21.196
<v Speaker 1>things that are included in this ballad initiative and again,

0:30:21.236 --> 0:30:23.356
<v Speaker 1>it's based on the feed the feedback that we got

0:30:23.396 --> 0:30:26.036
<v Speaker 1>from them. May I just ask, so you know, what's

0:30:26.076 --> 0:30:30.036
<v Speaker 1>fascinating to me is clearly somebody who is working a

0:30:30.156 --> 0:30:32.636
<v Speaker 1>relatively small number of hours is going to value flexibility,

0:30:32.676 --> 0:30:35.396
<v Speaker 1>and even someone's working a lot of hours unquestionably will

0:30:35.396 --> 0:30:39.156
<v Speaker 1>get some benefit out of the fact of work our flexibility.

0:30:39.556 --> 0:30:42.316
<v Speaker 1>I assume though, that the more of your income you

0:30:42.476 --> 0:30:47.076
<v Speaker 1>rely on a ride sharing app to earn, the more

0:30:47.196 --> 0:30:49.796
<v Speaker 1>that your flexibility is constrained by when there are actually

0:30:50.036 --> 0:30:52.156
<v Speaker 1>rides available out there. You might say, you know, in

0:30:52.316 --> 0:30:54.756
<v Speaker 1>my perfect preferences to work between two and five in

0:30:54.796 --> 0:30:56.676
<v Speaker 1>the morning, but there just aren't that many rides out

0:30:56.716 --> 0:30:59.036
<v Speaker 1>there relative to cars, so I'm not going to work

0:30:59.116 --> 0:31:01.676
<v Speaker 1>those hours. So I guess what I'm wondering is what

0:31:01.796 --> 0:31:06.836
<v Speaker 1>would you say to supporters of the bill who would say, yeah,

0:31:06.916 --> 0:31:11.316
<v Speaker 1>we recognize that there's some sacrifice of flexibility, but in

0:31:11.636 --> 0:31:16.796
<v Speaker 1>an increasingly gig based economy, as more and more companies

0:31:16.996 --> 0:31:21.716
<v Speaker 1>come up with models like this, effectively, the results of

0:31:21.916 --> 0:31:26.796
<v Speaker 1>this this new disruptive employment model are to leave people

0:31:27.196 --> 0:31:31.236
<v Speaker 1>without the kinds of protections that are traditionally afforded to

0:31:31.996 --> 0:31:35.596
<v Speaker 1>to full time employees. I mean that's like, that's not

0:31:35.716 --> 0:31:38.236
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to describe an argument that's the most reasonable argument,

0:31:38.316 --> 0:31:42.276
<v Speaker 1>not an emotionally driven argument, a rational logical argument that

0:31:42.516 --> 0:31:46.756
<v Speaker 1>that says, you know, look, flexibility will be a cost.

0:31:46.876 --> 0:31:50.796
<v Speaker 1>We acknowledge that, but the benefit outweighs the cost. Yeah,

0:31:50.876 --> 0:31:53.036
<v Speaker 1>And what I would say to that is that is

0:31:53.076 --> 0:31:55.676
<v Speaker 1>that we disagree that it outweighs the cost. When you

0:31:55.756 --> 0:31:59.436
<v Speaker 1>ask drivers what matters, they tell us flexibility. I would

0:31:59.436 --> 0:32:02.396
<v Speaker 1>also say that the under the proposal that we put forward,

0:32:02.796 --> 0:32:05.156
<v Speaker 1>the more you work, the more the more benefits would

0:32:05.156 --> 0:32:08.236
<v Speaker 1>accrue to you. So someone who works less than ten

0:32:08.276 --> 0:32:10.276
<v Speaker 1>hours a week is not going to qualify for healthcare,

0:32:10.676 --> 0:32:12.796
<v Speaker 1>but someone who works more than fifteen or twenty five

0:32:12.836 --> 0:32:15.956
<v Speaker 1>hours a week will, So you'd get more. The benefits

0:32:16.196 --> 0:32:19.276
<v Speaker 1>kind of scale depending on how much you're actually you're

0:32:19.276 --> 0:32:24.716
<v Speaker 1>actually working. So we've tried to devise a proposal that recognizes,

0:32:25.316 --> 0:32:26.876
<v Speaker 1>you know, some of the points that you're making, which

0:32:26.916 --> 0:32:29.436
<v Speaker 1>is that you know, if you drive more, then you

0:32:29.476 --> 0:32:31.516
<v Speaker 1>should you should get more. And that's that's what this

0:32:31.636 --> 0:32:36.876
<v Speaker 1>proposal actually does. Let's say you don't win, you know,

0:32:36.956 --> 0:32:39.196
<v Speaker 1>you get this, you get the signatures it goes on

0:32:39.316 --> 0:32:42.436
<v Speaker 1>the ballot and it doesn't garner a majority of California voters.

0:32:42.956 --> 0:32:45.036
<v Speaker 1>What will that mean in practice? I mean, as you said,

0:32:45.076 --> 0:32:47.636
<v Speaker 1>you'll have to move to more of an employment model.

0:32:48.596 --> 0:32:52.436
<v Speaker 1>Would would Lift still continue to do business in California? Um? Yes,

0:32:52.676 --> 0:32:54.996
<v Speaker 1>I mean, let's let's be clear at one thing. What

0:32:55.236 --> 0:33:00.916
<v Speaker 1>what AB five does is not to automatically reclassify drivers

0:33:00.916 --> 0:33:03.516
<v Speaker 1>as employees. What it is is it's a It's it's

0:33:03.636 --> 0:33:08.076
<v Speaker 1>legislation that codifies and extends the so called ABC tests

0:33:08.196 --> 0:33:11.836
<v Speaker 1>for contractor classification. And that's actually been been an effect

0:33:11.876 --> 0:33:15.236
<v Speaker 1>in California since April of last year with the Dynamics

0:33:15.396 --> 0:33:18.716
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court ruling. So, you know, I think there's a

0:33:18.756 --> 0:33:21.436
<v Speaker 1>misperception out there about what AB five actually does because

0:33:21.476 --> 0:33:25.156
<v Speaker 1>of the way it's been characterized in the media and elsewhere,

0:33:25.276 --> 0:33:27.236
<v Speaker 1>and that people often refer to it as the bill

0:33:27.316 --> 0:33:30.956
<v Speaker 1>that makes Lift and Uber drivers employees. It doesn't do that.

0:33:31.196 --> 0:33:34.276
<v Speaker 1>It puts in place a new and kind of more

0:33:34.596 --> 0:33:38.796
<v Speaker 1>more stringent test to decide whether somebody is an employee

0:33:38.876 --> 0:33:41.476
<v Speaker 1>or a contractor. But under that test, under that test,

0:33:41.556 --> 0:33:43.516
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we could walk through the elements, but is

0:33:43.516 --> 0:33:47.276
<v Speaker 1>it would it be your your position that your drivers

0:33:47.356 --> 0:33:50.436
<v Speaker 1>do qualify as independent contractors under that test. I mean,

0:33:50.476 --> 0:33:55.516
<v Speaker 1>the three elements are basically degree of control of the employee, UM,

0:33:55.836 --> 0:33:59.676
<v Speaker 1>whether the employee is working outside the main business of

0:33:59.876 --> 0:34:05.556
<v Speaker 1>the company, and whether they're in a customarily independent, you know,

0:34:05.996 --> 0:34:08.716
<v Speaker 1>line of work. And so I can imagine arguments on

0:34:08.956 --> 0:34:11.276
<v Speaker 1>all three of those things. But under the under the

0:34:11.356 --> 0:34:14.476
<v Speaker 1>law and under the state Supreme Court decision, you guys

0:34:14.516 --> 0:34:17.356
<v Speaker 1>would have to prove that you met all three of

0:34:17.396 --> 0:34:19.636
<v Speaker 1>those things in order for your drivers not to QUALFI

0:34:19.876 --> 0:34:20.796
<v Speaker 1>is that what you would do? You would take it

0:34:20.796 --> 0:34:22.396
<v Speaker 1>to accord and try to make that argument. Yeah. Well,

0:34:23.076 --> 0:34:24.996
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to point out that the ABC

0:34:25.156 --> 0:34:28.396
<v Speaker 1>test does actually exist in other states where we operate successfully.

0:34:28.556 --> 0:34:32.756
<v Speaker 1>So again, it doesn't just because AB five becomes law

0:34:33.276 --> 0:34:38.756
<v Speaker 1>doesn't immediately mean that drivers are classified as employees fight however,

0:34:38.996 --> 0:34:43.676
<v Speaker 1>I think that. Yeah, but we also are recognizing that

0:34:44.676 --> 0:34:47.876
<v Speaker 1>the status quo is not sufficient, and we want to

0:34:47.996 --> 0:34:52.076
<v Speaker 1>make things better. We want to strengthen the protections for drivers.

0:34:52.156 --> 0:34:56.276
<v Speaker 1>We want to add benefits and minimum wage guarantees. I mean,

0:34:57.036 --> 0:35:01.396
<v Speaker 1>we think there's an opportunity here to modernize labor laws

0:35:01.476 --> 0:35:04.436
<v Speaker 1>that we're you know, basically written decades ago, and on

0:35:04.556 --> 0:35:07.316
<v Speaker 1>our current system we have it's a binary choice. You're

0:35:07.356 --> 0:35:11.276
<v Speaker 1>either an employee or you're an independent contractor. But we're

0:35:11.316 --> 0:35:14.676
<v Speaker 1>trying to create is a new model that protects the

0:35:14.756 --> 0:35:18.476
<v Speaker 1>independent status and the flexibility, but provides many of the

0:35:18.556 --> 0:35:21.636
<v Speaker 1>benefits that employees get. There are many other countries that

0:35:21.836 --> 0:35:25.196
<v Speaker 1>have a third model, and we see no reason why

0:35:26.396 --> 0:35:28.076
<v Speaker 1>why we couldn't do so here. We think that the

0:35:28.116 --> 0:35:31.636
<v Speaker 1>proposal we've put on the table really strikes strikes the

0:35:31.756 --> 0:35:34.796
<v Speaker 1>right balance between protecting what's what's so great about this

0:35:34.876 --> 0:35:37.996
<v Speaker 1>work for so many people while providing additional guarantees and

0:35:38.116 --> 0:35:41.716
<v Speaker 1>benefits and protections. Well, I'm super grateful to Adrian for

0:35:41.796 --> 0:35:45.196
<v Speaker 1>your time and for your explanation, and I'm sure we'll

0:35:45.196 --> 0:35:46.836
<v Speaker 1>be hearing much more about the story going forward. So

0:35:46.916 --> 0:35:48.756
<v Speaker 1>I really want to thank you for presenting your point

0:35:48.756 --> 0:35:58.156
<v Speaker 1>of view. Thanks No who's right ultimately about the utility

0:35:58.196 --> 0:36:02.156
<v Speaker 1>and value of a B five? After listening to Lorina Gonzalez,

0:36:02.476 --> 0:36:06.316
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty hard not to feel that many drivers who

0:36:06.396 --> 0:36:09.436
<v Speaker 1>make their living driving for Uber or Lift or door

0:36:09.516 --> 0:36:11.836
<v Speaker 1>Dash would have a lot to gain if they were

0:36:11.876 --> 0:36:16.436
<v Speaker 1>actually treated as employees who got benefits on the other hand,

0:36:16.556 --> 0:36:20.556
<v Speaker 1>the Lift spokesman Adrian Durban also makes a plausible case

0:36:20.796 --> 0:36:23.396
<v Speaker 1>that there are people who do not drive full time

0:36:23.636 --> 0:36:26.796
<v Speaker 1>for the companies who might no longer be able to

0:36:26.956 --> 0:36:31.596
<v Speaker 1>enjoy the benefits of a part time gig job. Balancing

0:36:31.636 --> 0:36:35.796
<v Speaker 1>those interests, the interests of the full time drivers against

0:36:35.876 --> 0:36:38.956
<v Speaker 1>those of part time drivers is not a simple matter,

0:36:39.556 --> 0:36:43.756
<v Speaker 1>But that's why we have legislatures. The California legislature has

0:36:43.796 --> 0:36:46.956
<v Speaker 1>passed a law that clearly opts to prefer the full

0:36:46.996 --> 0:36:50.396
<v Speaker 1>time drivers and make sure that they become protected employees

0:36:50.836 --> 0:36:54.356
<v Speaker 1>over the interests of part time drivers. Now, what remains

0:36:54.396 --> 0:36:57.636
<v Speaker 1>to be seen is how the public in California will

0:36:57.716 --> 0:37:00.956
<v Speaker 1>react when it's asked on a ballot initiative whether the

0:37:01.116 --> 0:37:04.596
<v Speaker 1>law should be changed. That's something worth watching closely in

0:37:04.636 --> 0:37:06.596
<v Speaker 1>the future. Not only will it tell us a lot

0:37:06.636 --> 0:37:08.756
<v Speaker 1>about this debate, but it will probably tell us something

0:37:09.156 --> 0:37:12.516
<v Speaker 1>very important about the future of the gig economy nationwide.

0:37:18.756 --> 0:37:28.396
<v Speaker 1>And now are sound of the week. Those are people

0:37:28.556 --> 0:37:31.036
<v Speaker 1>rallying in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC

0:37:31.316 --> 0:37:35.436
<v Speaker 1>this week on the occasion of the Justice's consideration of

0:37:35.556 --> 0:37:39.836
<v Speaker 1>the legal future of DHAKA, the deferred Action for childhood

0:37:39.916 --> 0:37:44.196
<v Speaker 1>Arrivals program. You all know that program. DACA was announced

0:37:44.396 --> 0:37:48.196
<v Speaker 1>first under President Barack Obama, and its essential goal was

0:37:48.236 --> 0:37:50.916
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that people who were brought to United

0:37:50.956 --> 0:37:54.516
<v Speaker 1>States as children by parents who might have become undocumented,

0:37:54.556 --> 0:37:57.796
<v Speaker 1>and who themselves became undocumented and therefore unable to stay

0:37:57.796 --> 0:38:00.476
<v Speaker 1>in the country legally would be allowed to remain in

0:38:00.516 --> 0:38:03.436
<v Speaker 1>the country and even allowed to work. Those are the

0:38:03.476 --> 0:38:08.156
<v Speaker 1>people we've come to call dreamers. During President Obama's administration,

0:38:08.676 --> 0:38:11.836
<v Speaker 1>a very similar program to DACA, one that was aimed

0:38:11.836 --> 0:38:15.556
<v Speaker 1>at parents, was challenged in court and ultimately struck down

0:38:15.876 --> 0:38:18.516
<v Speaker 1>by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

0:38:19.156 --> 0:38:21.516
<v Speaker 1>that went to the Supreme Court that time, and the

0:38:21.596 --> 0:38:24.916
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court split four to four after the untimely death

0:38:25.116 --> 0:38:29.036
<v Speaker 1>of Justice antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court, a tie

0:38:29.196 --> 0:38:31.476
<v Speaker 1>goes to the decision below, So the four to four

0:38:31.556 --> 0:38:34.516
<v Speaker 1>decision left in place the decision that had been made

0:38:34.556 --> 0:38:38.196
<v Speaker 1>by the Court of Appeals striking down the parent version

0:38:38.436 --> 0:38:43.596
<v Speaker 1>of DACA. When Donald Trump became president, he expressed in

0:38:43.676 --> 0:38:46.676
<v Speaker 1>a tweet, of course, that it was a great idea

0:38:46.876 --> 0:38:50.196
<v Speaker 1>for dreamers to be able to stay in the United States. Nevertheless,

0:38:50.396 --> 0:38:55.636
<v Speaker 1>he issued an order putting an end to the DACA program. Why, well,

0:38:56.116 --> 0:39:00.036
<v Speaker 1>his order said the DACA program was unlawful and would

0:39:00.076 --> 0:39:05.076
<v Speaker 1>not be able to be defended in court. Of course, immediately,

0:39:05.396 --> 0:39:08.636
<v Speaker 1>DACA advocates went back to the courts and they challenged

0:39:08.676 --> 0:39:12.836
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's suspension of the order. Sure enough, a lower

0:39:12.916 --> 0:39:15.716
<v Speaker 1>court and then a quarter of appeals held that Donald

0:39:15.756 --> 0:39:20.276
<v Speaker 1>Trump was not able to reverse Barack Obama's decision. And

0:39:20.436 --> 0:39:23.716
<v Speaker 1>that's the issue before the Supreme Court. Now, Now, if

0:39:23.756 --> 0:39:26.996
<v Speaker 1>this all sounds legal and confusing, it is, and here's why.

0:39:27.956 --> 0:39:31.076
<v Speaker 1>Logically speaking, what you would expect is that if a

0:39:31.236 --> 0:39:34.436
<v Speaker 1>president like Barack Obama has the power to create a

0:39:34.516 --> 0:39:38.516
<v Speaker 1>program like DOCCA, then the next president, Donald Trump, should

0:39:38.516 --> 0:39:42.396
<v Speaker 1>have the same power to end the program. In order

0:39:42.476 --> 0:39:46.956
<v Speaker 1>to avoid that legal argument, those who supported DOCA told

0:39:47.036 --> 0:39:49.636
<v Speaker 1>the courts that Donald Trump had not done a sufficient

0:39:49.756 --> 0:39:54.836
<v Speaker 1>job of explaining his decision. If they say Trump had

0:39:54.876 --> 0:39:57.676
<v Speaker 1>simply announced that he didn't like the DOCCA program because

0:39:57.716 --> 0:39:59.316
<v Speaker 1>he thought the dreamers shouldn't be able to stay in

0:39:59.356 --> 0:40:02.636
<v Speaker 1>the United States, that would have been permissible. But they

0:40:02.756 --> 0:40:06.436
<v Speaker 1>argued in court because Trump insisted that he had no

0:40:06.636 --> 0:40:09.516
<v Speaker 1>choice but to rescind the program because it violated the law.

0:40:10.276 --> 0:40:14.036
<v Speaker 1>He was stating an untrue fact, because although the Supreme

0:40:14.116 --> 0:40:17.716
<v Speaker 1>Court had indeed said that a similar program that had

0:40:17.756 --> 0:40:20.516
<v Speaker 1>been struck down by the Court of Appeals would remain

0:40:20.636 --> 0:40:25.156
<v Speaker 1>struck down, the Supreme Court had not absolutely foreclosed the

0:40:25.316 --> 0:40:30.236
<v Speaker 1>legality of the DACA program. What will the justices do

0:40:30.756 --> 0:40:35.156
<v Speaker 1>with that ruling? At oral argument, it sure sounded like

0:40:35.276 --> 0:40:37.996
<v Speaker 1>there were five votes to support Donald Trump's decision to

0:40:38.116 --> 0:40:42.836
<v Speaker 1>rescind DACA. Crucially, the four four split that the Court

0:40:42.916 --> 0:40:45.516
<v Speaker 1>had reached in reviewing the Court of Appeals decisions several

0:40:45.596 --> 0:40:50.836
<v Speaker 1>years ago almost certainly included Chief Justice John Roberts on

0:40:50.996 --> 0:40:53.236
<v Speaker 1>the side of the people saying that the parent version

0:40:53.316 --> 0:40:56.516
<v Speaker 1>of DACA was unlawful. We can't say that with one

0:40:56.596 --> 0:40:59.316
<v Speaker 1>hundred percent certainty, because in a four four decision, the

0:40:59.436 --> 0:41:04.196
<v Speaker 1>justices don't necessarily state who voted which way. But it's

0:41:04.316 --> 0:41:06.596
<v Speaker 1>almost certain that the four liberals would have voted to

0:41:06.716 --> 0:41:09.956
<v Speaker 1>say that Barack Obama had the right to shudaka, and

0:41:10.076 --> 0:41:13.996
<v Speaker 1>the four conservatives would have said that he didn't. Consequently,

0:41:14.396 --> 0:41:17.396
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice Roberts, who is essentially the swing vote these days,

0:41:17.836 --> 0:41:21.116
<v Speaker 1>is basically likely to be the swing vote here, and

0:41:21.236 --> 0:41:24.676
<v Speaker 1>it seems relatively likely that he's going to vote to

0:41:24.876 --> 0:41:28.676
<v Speaker 1>uphold Donald Trump's decision. If the Supreme Court does that,

0:41:28.876 --> 0:41:32.316
<v Speaker 1>it will create a legal situation in which Dreamers will

0:41:32.436 --> 0:41:36.436
<v Speaker 1>actually stand the risk of being deported from the United States.

0:41:37.236 --> 0:41:41.196
<v Speaker 1>Of course, Donald Trump could go easy on enforcement, or

0:41:41.636 --> 0:41:44.916
<v Speaker 1>it's conceivable he could reach some kind of a compromise

0:41:45.116 --> 0:41:48.716
<v Speaker 1>where he allows Dreamers to remain. The difficulty is that

0:41:48.836 --> 0:41:51.156
<v Speaker 1>in an election season, it will be very hard for

0:41:51.236 --> 0:41:54.116
<v Speaker 1>Trump to take a stand other than a strongly anti

0:41:54.236 --> 0:41:58.996
<v Speaker 1>immigrant stand, and at a time when Congress is considering

0:41:59.116 --> 0:42:03.196
<v Speaker 1>his impeachment, it is vanishingly unlikely that he would reach

0:42:03.316 --> 0:42:08.876
<v Speaker 1>a legislative compromise over the question of DHAKA. All this

0:42:09.196 --> 0:42:13.236
<v Speaker 1>means that we're headed for a genuinely sad and worrisome

0:42:13.516 --> 0:42:18.196
<v Speaker 1>moment for Dreamers. Ultimately, their best hope may be that

0:42:18.356 --> 0:42:21.796
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump is not reelected and that a new president

0:42:22.596 --> 0:42:27.476
<v Speaker 1>readopts some version of DACA. But here's the twist. Depending

0:42:27.556 --> 0:42:30.916
<v Speaker 1>on how the Supreme Court decides this case, it might

0:42:31.436 --> 0:42:36.836
<v Speaker 1>actually imply or even hold that no president has the

0:42:36.916 --> 0:42:41.836
<v Speaker 1>authority to adopt the DCA program at all. The devil

0:42:41.956 --> 0:42:44.716
<v Speaker 1>is in the details. So when the Supreme Court decides

0:42:44.796 --> 0:42:46.796
<v Speaker 1>this case, we're going to have to dig deep read

0:42:46.836 --> 0:42:50.196
<v Speaker 1>the opinion and try to determine whether, under its logic,

0:42:50.436 --> 0:42:53.916
<v Speaker 1>a democratic president in the future could reissue the DOCCA

0:42:53.996 --> 0:42:57.956
<v Speaker 1>program in some new form. I promise you that when

0:42:58.036 --> 0:43:00.476
<v Speaker 1>that happens, you'll hear about it on your Sound of

0:43:00.516 --> 0:43:07.476
<v Speaker 1>the Week. Deep Background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries.

0:43:07.756 --> 0:43:10.476
<v Speaker 1>Our producer is Lydia jenne Hot, with engineering by Jason

0:43:10.556 --> 0:43:14.716
<v Speaker 1>Gambrel and Jason Roskowski. Our showrunner is Sophie mckibbon. Our

0:43:14.756 --> 0:43:17.716
<v Speaker 1>theme music is composed by Luis GERA special thanks to

0:43:17.756 --> 0:43:21.316
<v Speaker 1>the Pushkin Brass, Malcolm Gladwell, Jacob Weisberg, and Mia Lobel.

0:43:21.756 --> 0:43:23.956
<v Speaker 1>I'm Noah Feldman. You can follow me on Twitter at

0:43:24.076 --> 0:43:26.956
<v Speaker 1>Noah R. Feldman. This is Deep Background.