SACRAMENTO – In response to tonight’s appellate court ruling, app-based rideshare and delivery drivers reaffirmed their commitment to passing Prop 22 to save app-based jobs and services.

“The stakes are now clear. The voters need to pass Prop 22 more than ever. This ruling means that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be wiped out right after the election, as well as the services millions rely on. Passing Prop 22 will save my ability to work as an independent contractor. If Sacramento politicians have their way and Prop 22 doesn’t pass, those jobs and services will be gone for good.” – Rodolfo Valdivia, a single father and app-based rideshare driver from Woodland Hills.

“Sacramento politicians are trying to put me out of work and risking my family’s future. I don’t understand why politicians are trying to make it harder for families like mine to get by during a pandemic and recession. I decided to vote Yes on Prop 22 because it would allow me and my fellow drivers to retain the flexibility we need while ensuring we get the benefits and protections we deserve. I’m not only voting Yes because it will improve my job, I’m voting Yes because it will save it.” – Dave Thomasson, a professional musician and app-based rideshare driver from West Covina.

“It’s up to the voters to protect our ability to work as independent contractors. This lawsuit that threatens my job is part of a coordinated effort by Sacramento politicians to attack our ability to choose the way we earn our living. We now know the only way to stop them, and save our jobs, is for the voters to pass Prop 22.” – Jan Krueger, a retiree and app-based rideshare driver from Sacramento.

share

The Latest News

Opinion

Appeals Court Should Stop Assault on Gig Workers

In November 2020, nearly 10 million Californians voted to support Proposition 22, a ballot measure [...] Read more
Press Releases

In Case You Missed It: California Attorney General and PADS Coalition File Opening Briefs in Defense of Prop 22

Yesterday, the California Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) filed its opening brief in the California Court [...] Read more