Gig Economy Study Bill Advances

State lawmakers advanced a bill that would study — but not take any immediate action on — whether or not Uber and Lyft drivers and other gig economy ​“independent contractors” should be classified instead as employees.

That proposed legislation is House Bill No. 6343: An Act Concerning A Study Of Gig Workers.

On Thursday afternoon, state legislators on the Labor and Public Employees Committee, including New Haven State Rep. and Committee Co-Chair Robyn Porter, voted 9 – 3 to move a substitute version of the bill out of committee and towards the full state House of Representatives for further debate and a potential future vote. The committee meeting was live-streamed on YouTube.

The proposed bill, which is co-sponsored by Porter, would require the state labor commissioner to conduct a study of gig workers in the state, ​“including, but not limited to, internet-based food delivery drivers and ridesharing service providers.”

No later than Jan. 1, 2022, the commissioner shall then report to the state legislature’s labor committee on the results of the study and on any recommendations for legislation that would ​“prevent companies from improperly classifying such workers as independent contractors instead of employees.”

Local labor-organizing rideshare drivers have stepped up their advocacy as of late for the state legislature to find a way to make companies like Uber and Lyft provide their drivers with ​“protections and basic benefits” like minimum pay, worker’s compensation, sick and vacation time, overtime, retirement, and auto insurance and maintenance support.

During Wednesday’s committee deliberations, Danbury State Sen. and Committee Co-Chair Julie Kushner (pictured) endorsed the study bill as a necessary first step towards crafting, proposing, debating, and voting on a gig economy worker classification bill next session.

“This is an evolving workplace issue and the traditional relationships don’t necessarily exist,” she said. ​“We need to make sure that as a legislature and as a state, that we are transforming and looking forward to how we regulate those relationships so that there are workers rights and so that workers are protected as they would be in a more traditional work setting.”

The study bill that made it out of committee represents a significant shift from an earlier version of HB 6343, which initially set out to reclassify gig economy independent contractors as employees, rather than just study the issue.

A separate bill that remains in committee, Senate Bill 1000, would leave rideshare drivers as independent contractors, but would guarantee their right to form unions and bargain collectively, even at an industry-wide level. That bill has split organized labor, drivers, and big tech (read more here.)

“We’ve done a lot of work, particularly on the drivers piece of the gig economy, this session,” Kushner added on Thursday. ​“I think we’ve had very productive discussions with how we might best move forward. … There’s still work to be done on it.”

Sampson: ​“I Am Fearful Of This Committee”

Wolcott State Sen. Rob Sampson (pictured) pushed back on the study version of the bill that ultimately made it out of committee.

“I am fearful of this committee and what it might do with information that is achieved through such a study,” he said. ​“I believe in freedom, and I believe that’s what benefits these employees and their employers the most.”

“They are entering into a business arrangement of their own free will,” he said about gig economy workers.

He called on the labor committee to stay out of regulating such workplace relationships, and to ​“let capitalism and free trade and commerce occur, out of respect for our constituents, which are free citizens who we work for.”

Yale Law Clinic Dropped From Bill

While the version of the bill that made it to the committee on Thursday had already been changed to call for a study rather than for more immediate worker reclassification, the version that made it out of committee notched another textual change.

The committee bill initially required the state labor commissioner to work with Yale Law School’s Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic to conduct the study and formulate recommendations.

The version that made it out of committee dropped Yale Law School’s clinic from the bill, and instead orders the labor commissioner to work with, as Kushner put it, ​“the chairs of the labor committee, with workers, and with other stakeholders.”

“I think the effort is there to make it clear that it needs to have numerous voices at the table.”

Trumbull State Rep. Dave Rutigliano praised the committee decision to drop the Yale law clinic by name.

“I’m glad it’s not some elitist group from Yale solely” that will be working with the labor commissioner on the study and recommendations, he said.

Rutigliano wound up being the only Republican on the committee to support the study bill.

“I am totally sympathetic for the workers. They want to come and go as they please,” he said. ​“But I’m also cognizant of these giant employers not paying into the system that the rest of us are paying into.”

Because rideshare drivers and other gig economy workers are classified as independent contractors who work on demand, they are not covered by minimum wage laws or many other state and federal workplace protections, like unemployment insurance.

Greenwich State Rep. Harry Arora (pictured), who ultimately voted against the study bill, lamented that the proposed legislation does not explicitly require Republican lawmakers to be a part of the study.

“It just makes me sad that you would say just the chairs, and not minority opinion,” he said. ​“We’re going to bring some opinion in there which would help.”

“The goal is to get this done and get it done right and get something productive out of it,” Kushner replied. She said she’s open to discussing the proposed legislation and, if it passes, the ultimate study results and recommendations with Republican members of the committee.

“I do not think at this moment we should change the structure of the bill as is,” she concluded.”

To Reclassify Or Not To Reclassify

Although the bill had not yet been changed from a reclassification bill to a study bill at the time of its Feb. 18 public hearing, testimony submitted in favor and against such an action offers a preview of arguments to come if Connecticut lawmakers do look to require that gig economy workers be treated as employees.

“Ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft are among the most egregious employers who intentionally misclassify their employees,” Connecticut AFL-CIO President Sal Luciano wrote in favor of the earlier version of the bill.

“The gig economy has been criticized for using technology to evade worker protections such as rights to minimum wages and paid leave and healthcare in order to shift costs onto workers. While in traditional industries, workers may enjoy the benefits of trade unions, healthcare provisions, minimum wage, contract termination and working hours rights, employees within the GIG economy are often paid as independent contractors. While companies like Uber and Lyft make profits these workers often make poverty level wages. Gaps in federal and state laws have left these workers without meaningful protections.”

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199, which represents roughly 26,000 healthcare workers in Connecticut, agreed.

“As times change and large corporations figure out ways around the labor laws we have fought for in America, we have to change as well,” their written testimony reads in support of an earlier version of the bill. ​“This bill is a start. This bill would make sure that workers are keeping more in their paychecks, as well as extending DOL and basic NLRB protections to them.”

Big tech companies like Uber and DoorDash, meanwhile, warned that classifying their drivers as employees would throw off the flexibility that many of their workers find appealing.

“HB 6343, if passed, would force thousands of single parents, college students, retirees, and those whose traditional employment has been eliminated due to COVID-19 to seek roles that may not be available, take too long to secure, or fail to afford them the flexibility they want, during the worst economic crisis in decades,” Uber Technologies Public Policy Manager Hayley Prim wrote in opposition to the earlier version of the bill.

“Accessible and flexible work opportunities can provide immediate and sustainable earning opportunities and also act as a short, medium, or long term economic bridge to traditional employment, education, or other goals.”

DoorDash Head of Government Relations (U.S. East) David London agreed.

“Attempting to reclassify gig workers as employees is not the solution,” he wrote. ​“As independent contractors, Dashers and other gig workers in Connecticut currently enjoy the flexibility to easily earn supplemental income by working a handful of hours whenever and wherever they want, in a way that accommodates their existing work, family, school, and other obligations.”