Juvenile Justice: Care Over Punishment

The share of electeds of color increased after the 2020 elections, reflecting steady progress. However across the region, people of color are still underrepresented in top elected offices with many cities without even a single elected of color.

By Michelle Huang and Kimi Lee of Bay Rising*

The Bay Area is one of the most diverse regions in the nation, but this diversity is not well reflected in the halls of political power, where top local elected officials remain disproportionately White. While racial representation alone does not automatically translate into equitable policies, it matters. Without political representation, it is harder for communities that face discrimination and structural racism to have their issues considered in the policy process. On the other hand, when individuals from traditionally excluded communities are elected to office, they bring critical community knowledge and relationships with them. This can result in better policies and increased trust and a sense of belonging, strengthening multiracial democracy and increasing the vitality of our region. 

Recognizing the importance of political representation to regional equity, the Bay Area Equity Atlas tracks this metric through our Diversity of Electeds indicator. To examine how well the Bay Area’s top elected officials represent the diversity of the region’s population, we assembled a unique dataset on the race/ethnicity and gender of the mayors and councilmembers of the region’s 101 municipalities, and the county supervisors and district attorneys for the region’s nine counties. We have collected data for four points in time to reflect electeds holding office from 2018 to 2021.

This analysis both updates our previous research on the diversity of electeds and provides a new, unique exploration of the diversity of candidates for elected office in cities that have recently switched from at-large to district-based elections. Over the past decade, 33 Bay Area cities have made the switch to district-based elections as a response to the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 and potential lawsuits. District-based elections can be a valuable tool to increase the diversity of the candidate pool for local office, as candidates run specifically in their district rather than campaigning at the city level. This gives residents in each district, especially in historically marginalized communities whose votes are diluted at a city level, more voting power to determine their representation on city council. 

Our key findings include:

• About 34 percent of top elected officials in the Bay Area are now people of color, up from 29 percent in 2019 and 26 percent in 2018. Despite this steady increase, people of color remain highly underrepresented since they make up 60 percent of the total population.
• Across the region, the share of elected officials who are Black increased from 6 percent to 8 percent, but 74 of 101 Bay Area municipalities still have no Black city councilmembers.
• Over the past several years, the share of Asian American electeds has remained around 10 percent, far below the 25 percent of the general population who are Asian American. 
• Latinx electeds gained 16 new positions; however, Latinx people only represent 13 percent of Bay Area elected positions despite comprising nearly a quarter of the region’s population. 
• District-based elections show promise as a way to increase representation compared to at-large elections. Places that switched to district-based elections in recent years are seeing an increase in the diversity of candidates for local office.

Despite notable wins for candidates of color in the last couple of years, the region continues to lag behind widespread political representation for people of color. Campaign finance and election reforms and investments in programs that support people of color in running for elected office as well as increased voter engagement efforts are all needed to ensure that the region’s diversity is truly reflected in local elected offices.

In the November 2020 election, people of color gained 29 additional local and county positions, and now hold 34 percent of elected seats.

In the November 2020 elections, people of color gained 29 additional seats among top elected officials, nudging the total share of electeds of color up from 29 to 34 percent. The region gained 16 Latinx electeds, 8 Black electeds, and two Asian American electeds across counties and cities. Among the region’s 101 cities and towns, 28 gained at least one person of color in their city council representation.

With each election, the Bay Area’s electeds are becoming more diverse and reflective of the region’s demographics: in 2018 (the year we first began collecting this data), 26 percent of electeds were people of color. 

Despite this steady increase in political representation in the region, people of color remain vastly underrepresented in local government. While people of color make up 60 percent of the total population in the region, they hold 34 percent of top elected positions. Focusing on cities and towns, a quarter of Bay Area cities still have no people of color represented in their city government. Sixty-five cities and towns saw no change, and seven cities and towns lost one elected of color.

The share of elected officials who are Black increased from 6 percent to 8 percent at the regional level, but 74 of 101 Bay Area municipalities have no Black city councilmembers.

Progressive policies and bold leadership are required to rectify the decades of anti-Black policies that have created racial disparities in income, employment, and educational outcomes. While representation alone does not always equate with equitable change, having elected officials who share the lived experiences of Black communities is a key step in advancing progressive policies.  

In the region as a whole, the share of elected officials who are Black increased from 6 percent to 8 percent, and is now slightly above the share of the region’s population that is Black (6 percent). Twelve cities/towns gained at least one Black elected, and the city of Hercules in Contra Costa County elected two new Black officials. 

However, the majority of Bay Area cities — 74 out of 101 — have no Black elected officials. This means that 88,000 Black Bay Area residents (one in five Black residents) have no Black official representing them in city council. These include the residents of American Canyon, Brentwood, East Palo Alto, Lafayette, and Richmond, the five cities/towns that lost Black officials in the 2020 elections.

Over the past several years, the share of Asian American electeds has remained around 10 percent, far below the 25 percent of the general population who are Asian American.**

During the pandemic, there has been a disturbing increase in violence against Asian American residents, especially among those who are working class, older, and with low English proficiency. Visibility and political representation is one way in which Asian American residents can assert public voice and power. However, Asian American communities are vastly underrepresented among Bay Area elected officials.

Twelve cities added an Asian American elected to their city council (with Santa Clara seeing the highest increase at two electeds). At the same time, 10 cities also saw a decrease in Asian American electeds. In four of these cities, the position was replaced by a White elected. While Vallejo lost two of its three Asian American electeds, other people of color won those positions. Since 2018, Vallejo’s city council has remained firmly at 43 percent White in a city that is only 24 percent White. 

Overall, 65 Bay Area cities and towns do not have any Asian American electeds, even though 761,800 Asian American residents, or 40 percent of the region’s Asian American population, live in these cities. Most notably, San Jose, home to one in five of the region’s Asian American residents, does not have a single Asian American city councilmember.

The Asian American community in the Bay Area is large and diverse, and not all ancestry groups are represented equally by electeds. Those with Chinese and Filipino ancestry make up 8 and 4 percent of the region’s population, respectively, but each of these groups only make up 3 percent of the region’s electeds. Residents with Indian, Korean, and Vietnamese heritage are also underrepresented by one to two percentage points. And there are no electeds with Pacific Islander ancestry. 

Latinx electeds gained 16 new positions; however Latinx people only represent 13 percent of Bay Area elected positions despite being nearly a quarter of the region’s population.

The Latinx population is one of the fastest-growing groups in the Bay Area, and Latinx representation in local government has also increased in recent years. Eighteen cities and towns saw an increase of at least one elected official who is Latinx. Healdsburg added two new Latinx elected officials, and Redwood City, which has had a majority White city council since at least 2018 when we began data collection, elected two new Latinx city councilmembers and one new Asian American city councilmember, making the city council majority people of color. 

Despite this increase in Latinx electeds, this progress has not occurred evenly across the region and Latinx residents remain woefully underrepresented in office. About one in four Bay Area residents are Latinx, but just 13 percent of electeds are Latinx. One in five Latinx residents in the region live in the 55 municipalities without a single Latinx elected official.

Shifting from At-Large to District-Based Elections Shows Promise as a Strategy to Diversify Candidates for Elected Office

Over the past three years, a wave of Bay Area cities have shifted from at-large to district-based elections. Twenty-six out of the 33 cities that use district-based elections in the Bay Area have created district-based positions since the 2018 elections. While some cities, including Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, and Woodside, have had district-based councilmembers since the late 1970s, this shift is largely influenced by the passing of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 which encourages municipalities to adopt district-based elections to increase fair representation of different racial groups in city government. District-based elections lower the cost of entry for candidates by allowing them to focus time, money, and resources on the constituents of a smaller geography compared to running a costly citywide campaign. Creating city council districts also increases the voting power of specific racial/ethnic communities whose votes may be diluted in a citywide election, especially in localities where they are the minority.

To examine the near-term results of changing to district-based elections, we analyzed 20 of those 33 cities and compared the racial/ethnic composition of candidates in the two election cycles prior and up to two election cycles after switching to city district-based elections. Using information available on campaign websites, voting guides, and social media, we collected the race/ethnicity and gender of the candidates and sent email confirmations to candidates offering them the opportunity to edit their information. We were able to collect data for 708 out of 967 candidates. We focused on the 20 cities for which we had data for more than half of the candidates. It is important to note that it is too soon to fully assess the impact of the switch to district elections in these cities, since many sitting officials were elected prior to the switch to district-based elections; however, this early look provides some insights.

Most cities saw an increase in the share of candidates of color after implementing district-based elections.

Out of the 20 cities with sufficient candidate data, 12 cities saw an increase in the share of candidates who were people of color after changing to district-based elections; seven cities saw a decrease; and one city saw no change. 

Livermore saw the highest increase in the share of candidates who are people of color, from 0 to 50 percent. Redwood City saw the second highest increase, from 18 percent in the 2015 and 2018 election cycles to 56 percent in the 2020 election. Half Moon Bay went from having no candidates of color to over a third of candidates being people of color. In Fremont, the number of people of color running for city council more than doubled, from six to 13. Martinez had no candidates of color in the election cycles immediately before and after the switch.

The diversity of candidates is of course impacted by the size of the overall candidate pool. In Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, and San Francisco, the absolute number of candidates of color increased while their share within the candidate pool decreased. Menlo Park saw an increase of four more candidates of color, but the overall candidate pool also increased by 10 people in the period after switching to districts. Our analysis suggests that switching to district-based elections does not have an immediate impact on the absolute number of candidates who run for office: after the switch, the overall candidate pool increased in six cities and decreased in 13 cities.

We also explored whether the growth of populations of color in these cities appeared to play a role in producing more diverse candidate pools. From 2010 to 2019, the 20 cities have seen modest growth in the share of the population composed of people of color (ranging from zero to nine percentage points growth). We found no patterns of correlation between citywide demographic change and changes in the diversity of candidates. Redwood City, for example, saw one of the largest increases in candidates of color but virtually no growth in percentage of residents of color between 2010 and 2019.

Prior to its implementation of district-based voting, Half Moon Bay had an all-White city council since we started collecting data on electeds in 2018. After the change, in the 2020 election, the city’s first Latinx councilmember won the seat for District 3 in the heart of the city, defeating the incumbent mayor with 63 percent of the vote.

The 2020 election was the first election since Redwood City created city council districts. At least one person of color ran for office in each of the four districts that were up for election, and a person of color won the position in all four districts. This is vastly different from the 2018 election, when all candidates were White, and the 2015 election, in which only two people of color ran for office. 

Policies to Increase Pathways to Political Representation

The recent trend toward more diverse and representative local government is promising. While the scope of our data collection does not include age, sexual orientation, or immigration status, the November 2020 election saw many historic wins from young people, progressive leaders, LGBTQ folks, and immigrants. For example, Lissette Espinoza-Garnica was elected to city council in Redwood City, making them the first nonbinary elected official in the Bay Area. San Francisco also elected Myrna Melgar and Connie Chan, who are immigrant women, as supervisors.

There is still much work left to do. Representation of Latinx and Asian American residents in elected office has a long way to go in order to fairly reflect the region’s diversity. Especially in the context of rising anti-immigrant and anti-Asian violence across the nation, having local electeds with knowledge of the experiences of these communities is key to fostering trust between local government and residents. Strengthening the leadership pipeline of Black residents into positions of power across the region, and not in just a few cities, is another essential step to build community power and advance anti-racist policies. 

Building a more equitable Bay Area requires dismantling barriers that have historically kept people of color, low-income and working-class communities, immigrants, and other marginalized groups from political power. With so few people of color in elected positions, young people of color have little legacy of electoral leadership, or elders teaching them why it matters and how to do it. For some immigrants who came to this country after living in military dictatorships and other oppressive government regimes, there is trauma associated with elections and rampant corruption. Language access continues to present a barrier, and many immigrant families are focusing intensively on work and education, leaving little time for political involvement. Working-class people in the region are already stretched to make rent, find affordable childcare, and secure living-wage jobs, especially amidst a pandemic. When polling stations or ballot drop-off boxes are not conveniently located or if early voting and mail-in voting options are limited, it is no surprise that many would choose to prioritize meeting the demands of their life over casting a ballot.

Myriad institutional barriers hinder people of color from getting involved in government elections. Over the last few years, wealthy donors have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into local races, making it very difficult for someone without private wealth to successfully run a campaign, especially for at-large elections. Lack of adequate translation or interpretation for non-English speakers makes it difficult to fully comprehend what is on the ballot or what is being proposed. Black and Brown people have been the target of the criminal justice system, with over-policing and high rates of incarceration, which also pushes their communities away from political engagement. The displacement crisis in the region also deters involvement: people who are housing insecure or who are new to an area are not inclined to run for office. Lack of access to childcare makes it harder for mothers to find time to run. Childcare as a campaign expense is a new concept and was just recently approved as an allowable expense. In addition, lifelong politicians and political parties serve as gatekeepers and often choose their successors rather than supporting grassroots leaders connected to community organizations.

Bay Area funders and policymakers must address these barriers and advance policy changes and programs that result in more candidates from underrepresented communities getting elected to city and county elected offices, especially in communities where people of color are severely underrepresented. Below are some of the concrete actions that government officials, agencies, and the private sector can take to increase election accessibility and voting power.

• Local city and county governments should pass structural reforms including public campaign financing and campaign finance reform to curtail corporate contributions, secret Super PACs, and “pay-to-play” politics.
• Cities should consider shifting from at-large to district-based elections. Cities should use independent commissions to ensure that districts are drawn and distributed in an equitable and just manner.
• Local and national philanthropies and corporations should fund equity-oriented leadership development programs that prepare people from underrepresented communities of color to effectively engage in public policy.
• Funders, political leaders, and donors should invest in training and support systems for candidates from underrepresented communities to run electoral campaigns, as well as community-based programs that support new elected officials from underrepresented communities once they are in office.
• Policymakers and funders should support voting reforms and civic engagement efforts that increase voter registration and turnout among underrepresented communities, especially in local elections.
• Local boards of elections should ensure that polling locations and ballot drop-off boxes are distributed fairly across their jurisdictions and increase accessibility to early voting and mail-in voting options.

* Kimi Lee, director of Bay Rising, serves on the Equity Campaign Leaders Advisory Committee of the Bay Area Equity Atlas. Bay Rising is the only regional civic engagement organization that organizes with working-class people and people of color as voters in the Bay Area year-round. Bay Rising is the umbrella network for San Francisco Rising, Oakland Rising, and Silicon Valley Rising, and represents over 30 grassroots organizations in the Bay Area.

** Data for Asian Americans in the overall population refers to the Asian or Pacific Islander racial/ethnic category.

The analysis was updated on September 30, 2021 to reflect corrections in the race/ethnicity data for two councilmembers in Concord and San Rafael. The previous analysis reported that Concord had one city council member of color and it was corrected to none. And it reported that San Rafael had no Asian American city council member and it was corrected to one.

A survey of more than 500 drivers reveals that California rideshare drivers, particularly Latinx drivers, are struggling to access health insurance and a safe workplace.

By Eliza McCullough and Brian Dolber of Rideshare Drivers United*

In 2020, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other tech industry giants led a referendum campaign to exempt themselves from classifying their workers as employees under a California state law known as AB5. Spending a record-shattering $220 million, the companies argued that Proposition 22 would protect California’s app-based workers’ “flexibility” while providing benefits, including health insurance stipends, and safety trainings. Proposition 22 passed on the November 2020 ballot, with 58 percent of the vote. 

In fact, the companies’ victory stripped drivers of basic employment rights, including health-care benefits, an hourly minimum wage, and health and safety standards. Labor law professor Veena Dubal called Proposition 22 “the most dangerous law to workers since Taft-Hartley,” which dramatically restricted unions, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for employment standards across industries. 

While the industry campaign focused on Prop 22’s worker protections, these protections are narrowly defined in the law and are not equal to the legal protections given to employees. Drivers are eligible for a partial stipend to cover health insurance premiums, and only if they meet multiple qualifications. [1] Prop 22 also required that companies administer safety trainings to all drivers, which must include information about how to report instances of sexual harassment or assault. This requirement, however, is much weaker than protections employees have under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. With the outbreak of the coronavirus, the loss of guaranteed health insurance and workplace safety standards have caused unprecedented health risks for drivers.

To understand whether drivers are accessing benefits, we conducted a survey of California-based drivers who are members of Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), asking them about their access to health insurance, health insurance stipends, and safety trainings. The survey was conducted between May 19 and June 12, 2021, and was completed by 531 drivers. Given the racial inequities apparent in the survey data, we sought to better understand the experiences of drivers of color with follow-up interviews. We conducted 10 interviews with uninsured drivers of color who have driven since January 2021. Two of these interviews were conducted in Spanish, with primarily Spanish-speaking drivers. See the endnotes for the Spanish version of quotes from these interviews.

Our survey revealed the following:

• Just 10 percent of respondents are receiving a stipend while 40 percent of respondents either never heard about their ability to qualify for the stipends or weren’t sure if they had received notification. 
• Drivers are either turning to public health-care options or forgoing health insurance altogether: Twenty-nine percent of respondents rely on Medi-Cal. Sixteen percent of all respondents are uninsured which is double the national uninsurance rate. 
• Latinx respondents are less likely to know about the stipends and are also more likely to be uninsured. 
• One in six respondents have not received a safety training from a rideshare or delivery company.

Many drivers we interviewed expressed frustration with the challenges in getting insurance under Prop 22, and most saw it as part of a larger pattern of deception and disregard for the workforce by Uber and Lyft. In some cases, drivers reported significant hardship in obtaining medical care. 

To immediately improve access to health care and workplace safety, we recommend removing health-care stipend restrictions, improving transparency of stipend rollout, targeting outreach to drivers who are more likely to be uninsured, and improving implementation of safety trainings. Long-term policy changes are also needed to create a rideshare industry that provides quality jobs. California legislators should repeal Prop 22 and other state legislators should prevent the passage of Prop 22 clones. The federal government also has an important role to play in ensuring just working conditions and a living wage for all gig workers through policies such as the PRO Act as well as a single-payer, national health insurance program.

A majority people-of-color and immigrant workforce.

Among our survey respondents, 65 percent are people of color, 52 percent were born outside the US, and 37 percent speak a language other than English as their primary language. Eighty-five percent of respondents drive for Uber, 68 percent drive for Lyft, and 59 percent of respondents drive for a food delivery service (like Uber Eats, Postmates, or DoorDash). Sixty-six percent of respondents drive for more than one platform and 75 percent have driven since January 1, 2021 when Prop 22 took effect. Fifty-one percent of respondents were over the age of 50 and 21 percent of respondents were over age 60, making their access to health insurance particularly important. There is no quality source of driver demographic data to assess the representativeness of this sample. However, a recent study of San Francisco drivers shows that like our respondent population, the majority of drivers are people of color, immigrants, over 30 years old, and drive for multiple platforms.

Uber and Lyft are failing to adequately notify their drivers about their ability to qualify for health insurance stipends.

Forty percent of drivers surveyed do not recall being notified about the stipends, with large differences across racial/ethnic groups. Latinx drivers are least likely to know about the stipends: about half of Latinx drivers don’t recall receiving any notification or aren’t sure.

One 31-year-old male Latinx driver in Los Angeles noted, “No one ever reached out and said what it was.” The lack of communication from the companies does not surprise him. “To be honest, they don’t care about drivers. I knew [the promises of Prop 22 weren’t] going to come true.” 

Those who were notified said they received emails or text messages from the companies. Information alone, however, has not meant accessibility. For example, one 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles, said, “I received an email with the information. On the app there is also the hours tallied that you need in order to qualify for the voucher. I also worked DoorDash during the pandemic. I was jumping all over the platforms, Uber, LYFT, DoorDash. With Uber I have to spend 20 hours with a passenger to qualify, weekly. They lied to drivers about the medical insurance because I'm out here working and I don’t have insurance.” [2] Narrow eligibility requirements, on top of poor communication, has made accessing insurance stipends difficult for many drivers, especially drivers of color. 

 

 

Many drivers are ineligible because they have seen their income decline during the pandemic, and thus have reduced their hours. One 49-year old male driver in Los Angeles, and his 18-year old son, have both been without insurance for nine months for this reason. “The pricing has gone down to 50 cents [per mile], so I’m very rarely driving these days,” he said. 

While he did not vote for Prop 22, he supported it. “I thought I’d get free insurance,” he said. “I feel stressed.” He says his son had a medical emergency, and he had to rely on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program, to cover expenses. “I’m worried about me. I’m almost 50 and I don’t know what’s going to happen if I just keep driving for Uber and Lyft.” 

The 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles noted, “Drivers feel duped. These companies spent so much money on propaganda. They control the platform. As drivers we have no control. These changes from the companies look cute until the truth is revealed. The hours needed to qualify are too much for what is fair. They lied to us. Uber has been making too many changes without input from drivers.” [3]

One 66-year-old male driver in the San Diego area says he does not drive enough to receive a stipend because he took on an additional job to make ends meet. He says he is fortunate to live in Tecate near the US-Mexico border. He crosses the border to receive affordable care. “Some of the best doctors are in Mexico,” he said. “If you wait 15 minutes it’s too long.”   

Among survey respondents who have driven since Prop 22 took effect and don’t receive health insurance through a public program or their spouse, only 19 percent are actually receiving health-care stipends. People who identify as multiracial or a racial group outside of those listed on the survey were least likely to receive a stipend. Even if only 50 percent of drivers are meeting Prop 22’s engaged-time qualifications (an estimate we think is conservative), a shockingly low share of drivers are receiving health care stipends. 

Some drivers also said that the stipends are too low to cover expenses. One 53-year-old male driver in Sacramento has been uninsured since 2010 and has had significant medical expenses over the years, including dental work and kidney stones. But he says even with the stipend, an insurance plan is still too expensive because the stipend only covers a portion of the premium. “I refuse to pay for something like that,” he said. “I’m not going to pay to live. I can’t afford it.” He noted that his car payments eat up much of his income, making insurance unaffordable.

Latinx drivers are the least likely to be insured among all racial/ethnic groups: a quarter of Latinx drivers do not have health insurance.

The lost right to health insurance caused by Prop 22 has forced many drivers to forgo health insurance: sixteen percent of drivers are uninsured, which is twice as much as the national uninsurance rate. Latinx drivers are most likely to lack insurance, with a quarter of respondents indicating that they are uninsured. 

One 25-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles, said, “I do not have health insurance, I haven't had it since I worked with Uber. I've worked three years here in the US, the whole time I've been with Uber.” [4]

The 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles noted he has been without insurance for a year and a half. He said, “I'm diabetic. I have to prepare my medicine. If I don't pay I have to take on debt with the hospitals. I went to the hospital in Glendale, my bill was $900. I went recently and qualified for emergency medical care. I have gone to the emergency room twice in a year.” [5]

We found that drivers are most likely to rely on the public system: nearly one-third of respondents get health insurance through Medi-Cal. This finding indicates that many drivers are also struggling financially as Medi-Cal is primarily reserved for people below 138 percent of the poverty line. We also found that half of all respondents receive insurance through Medi-Cal, Medicare, or a partner or spouse, which automatically disqualifies them from receiving health-care stipends. Through these narrow requirements, Prop 22 allows Uber and Lyft to save billions on the health insurance costs that they were required to pay before the legislation was enacted.

Uber and Lyft are failing to provide drivers with adequate safety protections.

In lieu of legally mandated health and safety protections guaranteed to employees, Proposition 22 mandates safety training for app-based workers. Ninety-three percent of our 531 respondents had driven since January 1, 2021, when Proposition 22 took effect. Therefore, Uber and Lyft are required to provide these drivers with safety trainings. However, the companies have failed to provide a training to one in six drivers who responded to our survey. We also found that drivers who identify as multiracial or as a racial category not included in the survey were least likely to have received a training than drivers of other racial groups. This oversight is particularly harmful to women and LGBTQ drivers, who are more likely to experience harassment and violence while working. Without adequate training on how to respond to and report instances of harm, drivers are at risk of danger while on the job. 

Policy changes are urgently needed to increase workplace safety and access to health care for rideshare drivers.

Our study reveals that the rollout of protections outlined in Proposition 22 is unpredictable, uneven, and inadequate. Rather than rectifying the problems app-based drivers face, Prop 22 has intensified drivers’ vulnerability to health and safety risks as well as feelings of confusion and disillusionment. This has been particularly acute among Latinx drivers, who are the least likely to know about the health-care stipends and be insured. Rideshare companies and regulatory agencies must take immediate steps to improve access to health care and workplace safety for drivers. 

• Companies must remove restrictions on the health-care stipend. The stipend should cover 100 percent of the average monthly premium for a Covered California Bronze plan. Drivers’ total work time, rather than engaged work time, should be counted when calculating stipend qualification. 
• Regulatory agencies must improve transparency of stipend rollout by requiring that companies report the percentage of drivers who receive stipends disaggregated by race and ethnicity on a quarterly basis to ensure that everyone who can qualify for a stipend is actually receiving one. 
• Uber, Lyft, and other companies need to provide targeted outreach to drivers who are more likely to be uninsured. Information about how to qualify for and receive a health-care stipend should be available in multiple languages and formats. 
• Rideshare companies must improve implementation of safety trainings by ensuring that all drivers receive trainings and providing public data on the percentage of drivers who have completed trainings. These trainings should also highlight information about how to report instances of sexual assault or harassment.

While these changes will immediately improve working conditions for millions of drivers, long-term policy action must be taken to create a rideshare industry that benefits everyone. 

• California legislators must repeal Prop 22 and reclassify rideshare drivers as employees, restoring all labor rights stripped with its passage. Uber, Lyft, and other gig companies are already funding campaigns for legislation identical to Prop 22 in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and other states nationwide. 
• State policymakers and labor advocates must protect crucial rights for drivers and prevent the passage of this legislation. 
• Even without the reclassification of drivers as independent contractors through this legislation, current protections are not enough: federal policymakers must ensure just working conditions and a living wage for all gig workers through policies such as the PRO Act. 
• Policymakers should establish a single-payer, national health insurance program alongside expanded pathways to citizenship to provide everyone in the US with comprehensive coverage to ensure that workers across all industries have access to free, quality health care. 

* Brian Dolber is an Associate Professor of Communication at California State University San Marcos, and an organizer with Rideshare Drivers United. Rideshare Drivers United is an independent association of US rideshare drivers coming together to demand higher pay and workplace rights for all rideshare drivers.

This survey is the first in a series of analyses co-produced by the National Equity Atlas and Rideshare Drivers United examining the impacts of Prop 22 on rideshare drivers. The authors thank Sarah Treuhaft and Michelle Huang of PolicyLink, Carla Tapia of Rideshare Drivers United, and Justin Scoggins of Equity Research Institute. 

Notes

(1) Proposition 22 requires rideshare and delivery companies to pay a monthly stipend of 82 percent of the average monthly premium for a Covered California Bronze plan (the lowest tier of plans available through the statewide exchange) for drivers averaging more than 25 hours per week in engaged time. Engaged time is defined as time drivers spend from when they get a ride to when they drop a passenger at their destination and does not include time spent in between rides. For drivers averaging at least 15 but less than 25 engaged hours, companies are required to pay a stipend of 41 percent of the average premium. Drivers who work less than 15 hours of engaged time per week do not qualify for a stipend and the same goes for drivers who receive health insurance through Medicare or Medi-Cal, their partner or spouse, or another job. 

(2) “Recibí un correo electrónico con la información. En la aplicación también están las horas contabilizadas que necesita para calificar para el cupón. También trabajé en la aplicación durante la pandemia. Estaba saltando por todas partes las plataformas, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash. Con Uber tengo que pasar 20 horas con los pasajeros para calificar, semanalmente. Mintieron a los conductores sobre el seguro médico, porque estoy aquí trabajando y no tengo seguro.”

(3) “Los conductores se sienten engañados. Estas empresas gastaron mucho dinero en propaganda. Controlaban la plataforma. Como los conductores no tienen control. Estos cambios de las empresas se ven lindos hasta que se revela la verdad. Las horas necesarias para calificar son demasiadas para lo que es justo. Nos mintieron. Uber ha estado haciendo demasiados cambios sin imputación de los conductores“

(4) “No tengo seguro de salud, no lo he tenido desde que trabajé con Uber. He trabajado tres años aquí en los Estados Unidos, todo el tiempo que he estado con Uber.”

(5) “Estoy sin seguro y soy diabético. Tengo que preparar mi medicamento. Si no pago tengo que endeudar con los hospitales. Fui al hospital en Glendale, mi factura era de 900 dólares. Fui recientemente y calificé para emergencia médical. He ido a la sala de emergencias dos veces en un año.”