Uber and Instacart don’t represent Silicon Valley. Why we’re voting “No” on Prop 22

While the gig model delivers real benefits to customers in terms of convenience and low prices, the paradigm exists in a legal gray area in terms of worker classification, depriving workers of minimum wage protection, workers’ compensation, health insurance, retirement plans, and paid time off.

And importantly, though the nature of work is constantly evolving, Prop 22 requires a seven-eighths supermajority of the California legislature to amend, making it next to impossible to change the law in the future.

New models focus on wealth creation for participants, not just hourly payments or one-time transactions.

Through our collective experiences studying the future of work from various angles—as participants, builders, and investors in the category—we’ve come to believe that the gig economy is broken, and Prop 22 ensures it stays that way.

It’s clear that Uber, Lyft, Postmates, etc. have led to tremendous value creation, but that value has disproportionately accrued to executives, employees, and investors of those companies, rather than to the workers that enable these services to operate on a daily basis.

Under the legal definition of “employee,” gig workers are misclassified as independent contractors

We’re concerned that the gig model is reliant on the misclassification of workers, and fear for the future of work in this country should the model continue to gain steam without significant updates.

So what’s the solution?

Labor laws should reflect the changing nature of work, but Prop 22 is effectively permanent and immutable