it becomes further complicated when employees might be working in multiple kind of like gig-type roles. they may not be working for a singular employer in those types of situations. but there are some challenges in just obtaining that data. >> uh-huh. and do you -- it seems like we're really moving in that direction with the 85 oab5 on the state level. do you have any information on how the companies could get the data needed to establish these regulations? >> you know, ultimately, it would end up in litigation. that would be my take. especially given some of the arguments that we're anticipating and have heard around whether, first, misclassification of worker issue. and, secondly, i think what complicates this further is this

misclassification of employer position. so the relationship is really muddied around that. and clarification in the courts and through the state legislature would be particularly helpful to our efforts. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: any other questions? all right. thank you, mr. mulligan. then i will next call of miles lockier. thank you for being here. >> let's see if i can get my.

>> chairman: are we up and running? >> i -- well, it should be. it's slide one of 10. okay. >> here we go. good morning and thank you for inviting me. ni nammy name is miles lockier, and i am appearing here today in my private capacity and not officially for the labor commissioner. and the views that i express are mine and not necessarily those of the state labor commissioner. with that, let me start by

this: the labor commissioner's office enforces state laws dealing with wages, workers' conditions, and also protections for employees. there are generally two sources of that law, okay? one is the labor code itself, and the other sorgs is whaother isthe i.w.c. the i.w.c.was established about a century ago. a five-member body that essentially had constitutional authority to establish minimum conditions for labor in the state. and there are about 16 or 17 different wage orders that, taken together, they deal with separate industries, separate occupations, but taken together, they cover all workers in the state of california. now, this is important here, in this discussion, because the i.w.c. orders

contain a very specific definition -- very specific destinations of employee and employer. and those definitions have been construed by the california supreme court in the recent dynamics case, to set out a test for determining who is an employee, and who is an independent contractor for purposes of the protections under those wage orders, okay? now, if we go back to the other source of law, the labor code, there there really is no statutory definition for employee and employer. so instead, what the courts have done is they've used for these many, many protections outside the i.w.c. orders, but inside the labor law,

they've -- they've kind of done it in a protective way in a case i'll get to soon, but the differences between the abc test and the multifactor test under borello, are very stark, and you'll see that the protections offered to workers under the much simply, streamlined abc test are very real. and with that, here we have the definitions and they're very straightforward. aperson employed by an employer -- employed means to engage, suffer, or commit to work. and employer is any business entity who employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any other person. so you have multiple ways of getting to an

employment relationship here. you have exercise in control, you have engaging to work -- there are different tests. now, i'll get to the abc test very soon, but what i want to start to emphasize here -- and this is very important because this is go to show the many protections, the social safety net protections that exist under the i.w.c. orders, that to get these protections, you have to be an employee. and they are protections that don't exist for independent contractors. you have a definition of hours worked that is very expansive. you have a requirement that employees must be paid no less than the minimum wage for all hours worked. and that's been interpreted by the courts to mean under state law that you have to be paid no less than minimum wage for each discrete task or

unit of time. unlike federal law, where you have averaging at the end of the week, and you could have huge periods of time when you're subject to an employer's control where you're not paid. breaking it down with each unit of time and task looked at, did you get paid at least minimum wage for that. under the wag wage orders, you have compensation of overtime hours. split shift premium. reporting time pay. record keeping requirements so that workers can establish how many hours they worked and what they were paid. the employers have to keep these records. the employer has to provide any required uniforms and necessary tools and equipment to the employees. you can't require the employees to pay for those. under the wage orders, you have protections, required meal periods, required paid rest periods. no deductions of pay for

cash shortage, breakage or loss, limits on charges for employer-provided meals and lodging. this is all under the wage orders. okay. so in the case of dynamics, last year, the california supreme courts confronted the issue of what is the task for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent worker for getting those protections under the wage orders. the court adopted a test that has been statutory enacted in massachusetts, new jersey, and that's called the abc test. we'll get to that. but what the court said, it under the definition of the wage orders, the court should use the abc test. you start with the presumption that any person providing service

to another is an employee, and then the burden is on the hiring entity to show, no, this is really an independent contractor. under the abc test, it's a three-part test and each part is determinative, that is, the hiring entity has to prove all three parts in order to establish that someone is an independent contractor. if the hiring entity can't prove any one of these parts, you have an employee, not an independent contractor. so part "a," the work is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity. both under the contract and in reality. what that means is you're looking under the contract whether there is a right to control, even if the hiring entity doesn't exercise that right. if the hiring entity has that right, you're not going to have part "a."

part "b," the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. i would submit if you have a driver for a transportation network company that offers its services to the public to give them rides, from point "a" to point "b," you have a worker performing work that is not outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. then you have "c," the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed. so, you know, this is a very streamlined, simple test. now, what i want to get to now is what are the protections? and this i really have to edit myself and cut myself short on because there is a labor code here that is this thick. and these are the protections under the labor code, okay? we could be here for the rest of the day. we don't want to do that. so let me just tell you --

and this is important, again, because these are not under the wage orders. so now the abc test didn't apply here. the common law borello test applies. so these are the protections under the labor code not covered in the wage orders. the right to have claims adjudicated by the labor commissioner. if i have a claim and the labor commissioner determines this person you did work for owes you money, but this person proved you're an independent contractor, so we can't award you anything. good luck. go to court, file a breach of contract, do whatever you're going to do. two, and this is gigantic: the labor code has dozens and dozens and dozens of anti-retaliation laws that protect laws from being discharged or denied promotions or not hired for engaging in various

protected activities, for filing wage claims, for whistle-blowing, for refusal to perform unsafe work, for taking time off to visit a child's school or day care centre ar center, or taking time off for medical treatment. if you take off work and say i have go to medical treatment, the person who hired you can legally say, you don't work today, you're fired, i don't care what the reason is. i'll stop there. under -- this is under the unemployment insurance code, the employees get unemployment insurance if they're let go. independent contractors don't. workers compensation insurance, anti-discrimination law, all of the laws that

prohibit discrimination on the base of race, sex, sexual orientation -- i'm missing some categories, i'm sure -- these cover employees, not independent contractors. occupational health and safety laws. reimbursement of necessary business expenses, and the best example is mileage for the use of a personal vehicle. employees are entitled to that, and independent contractors are not. requirement for timely payment of wages, right to sick leave, paid sick leave, now under state law, right to attorneys' fees for prosecuting wage claims -- i'll stop there. you've got the idea. the borello case, that is the case that came out in 1989, california supreme court case, and that is still what's used for determining whether you're an employee or independent

contractor under outside -- not the wage orders, but under the labor code. unlike the three factor test, abc, fare as far as the hiring entity is concerned, one strike and your out, under borello, you have a very involved multifactofactored test. and to be sure, the supreme court said in 1982, the borello test should be applied with deference to the protective legislation, starting witstarting with the ty of circumstances. so you've got to look at all of these factors. and you have litigation that goes on and on and on. and you're looking at this and looking at that. the factors are here. i don't know if it is worth going through each one. i'll say this: the factors

that are in the abc test show up in borello, but there are many other factors that serve to complicate things because some of these factors, in truth, don't really tell you one thing or the other. one of the factors for example is the length of the employment. i get it. one might traditionally say, well, gee, independent contractors get hired for a very short period of time, and employees get hired for a long period of time. really? remember the movie "on the waterfront," the workers were hired to unload the ship for one day. they weren't independent contractors; they were employees. under the borello test, you have all of these factors that add a little light, but in the end tend to create confusion. borello is a more cumbersome test than the abc test.

it results in uncertain and inconsistent legislation. it is more difficult under borello to show commonality. and that's important because when workers try to enforce their rights -- you have to have commonality. they say all of these things are different, you have to weigh all of the factors for each employee, it is much harder to establish commonality. the abc test is far more worker-friendly. now, having said that, let me say this: before the abc test came into being, okay, we've had cases -- borello has been the law since 1989, and it still is. the abc test didn't destroy borello, it is jut

another test, and another way to look at it. before the abc test, cases came before the labor commissioner all of the time, and using this more complicated borello test, the labor commissioner would typically find employee status. there is one case i know of, maybe five years ago, involving uber, where it was an individual wage claim, and it was heard by a labor commissioner hearing officer, and the defense was made, independent contractor, and the labor commissioner found employee status. but, let me tell you, under the abc test, it is streamlined. it eliminates the doubts, and it provides far greater social safety net

for workers. >> chairman: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> there is a thorough grounding in the legal issues. thank you so much for presenting. ken jacobs, u.c. berkeley center for research and education. vice chair stephanie is having ptsd from law school. good morning, supervisors, members of the public, thank you for inviting me today. i'm going to talk briefly about ab5, the bill in sacramento that would codify the dynamics decision. what we know about gig workers and their earnings, in lessons from a recent policy placed in

new york, the li limousine commission on drivers. so what does ab5 do? it codifies the dynamics decision in california law. it is law now for wage orders through the court decision. it codifies that. it clarifies its application with a few exceptions, basically more highly paid, licensed professionals who clearly control their work and control the price of that work. and then it, importantly -- looking at the points just made, it expands the abc test to cover the labor code, so that is a broader set of protections, and it expands it to the unemployment insurance

code. again, making it a more stream-lined way of determination around worker classification. so under that test, i think it is clear, i would argue it is also clear previously, gig workers and labor platform workers would qualify as employees. so what do we know about the gig work force. first i think it is important to note that the share of workers engage in non-employee relationships, engaged in labor platforms is small but growing. the share of workers in non-employee worker arrangements grew about 2% from 2000 to 2016. the vast majority of those are in labor platforms, and the vast majority of those are in transportation network companies. j.p. morgan chase, a sample of their customer

data from 2017, estimated a little less than 2% of families in san francisco receive income from a labor platform, and 93% of those are in transportation. that's of people who live in san francisco. if we go to sho who work in san francisco, there are about 45,000 workers and boweabout 6,000 on the road at peak times. what do we know about their work? a lot of the discussion is acknowledging many of them work part-time, and it is true about 38%, it's their main job. of the rest, they're split evenly between people who have another full-time job, and they're doing a small amount of numbers on top in order to make ends meet or they have another part-time job. it is the case that the majority of drivers work less than 15 hours a week, but if you flip it and

look at who is doing the work, you get a little bit of a different picture. and there we see that about 41% of the work is done by full-time workers. and in the j.p. morgan chase data, they found in among the transportation platforms, about 10% of the workers receive 57% of the earnings. so in terms of where the work is being done, and who is do that work, it is much more concentrated. how much do workers earn? well, there was a study by holland krueger a couple of years ago that said uber drivers earned an average of $27 an hour before expenses. but you need to take in account two things. one is the laws and benefits working as an independent contractor of all of the things that pat mulligan and miles lockier talked about. if we take the key parts

of san francisco's laws, including paid sick leave and the health care security ordinance and then the various protections under state law and the federal share of pay -- the employer share of payroll taxes, an independent contractor what need to earned about $21.50 an hour to equal the minimum wage in san francisco. in terms of operating expenses, we have a wide range, from vehicle registration to appreciation, leasing, gas, taxes -- if you're a t.n.c. driver, that is also cell phone data. and the average rate is 58 cents a mile. it is a good measure of the cost. as supervisor mandelman said earlier, the average

driver earns less than $12an hour after all of the expenses. a recent study of drivers in new york, drivers were earning an average of $14.22 an hour. and 40% of the drivers are on medicaid, and 14% are uninsured. we don't have similar data for california or san francisco, but i think it is indicative of the conditions. now, in looking at the issues, especially around regulating these wages, there are some key issues that need to be taken into account. one is waiting time. under california law, waiting time, when you're engaged under the employer's control, it is work time. if you go in and a waiter or waitress is in a restaurant, they have to be paid whether or not there are costumers in the restaurant at that time. when we look at t.n.c. drivers, it is very similar. someone comes into work, gets in their car, turns on their app, they may

pick up a first passenger and dropped them off, and they're driving back to where they might find more passengers, or they're circling because there aren't places to park, that is work time. they're not going and taking care of a family member or doing other personal activities. in new york, they found that the drivers were ready but without passengers about 40% of the time. and the higher wait times mean greater congestion. people saw the op-ed from the uber and lyft leaders a few weeks ago, and they said they were open to paying for the time after you've accepted a ride and while you're doing the ride. but one of uber's economists have sade previously isaidpreviously, if e that amount of money, that will just bring more drivers in, an and the overall hourly wage is not what you want it to be. dealing with wait time is essential, and even

under -- it is an area we can expect even under abc, there is the potential for future litigation. so looking at what the new york taxi and limousine condition did, they said up pay standard, $22.50 an hour, and the employer share of payroll taxes, and they adjusted that for the percentage of time people were actually driving, then have the adjustments go on a company basis, and it brought it up to a little less than $30 an hour, and they do the same for the expenses, in terms of the per mile rate for driving. the taxi and limousine commission, estimated they earned $172 million after the policy went into affect. they haven't yet done an hourly basis. but the average trips per

day did continue to increase. so in terms of lessons for san francisco, ab5 is very important in codifying this law and expanding it in terms of the labor code. and, of course, under san francisco's own laws, as pat mulligan mentioned earlier, they should already been covered given the dynamics' decision, but clear rules are going to need to be set to avoid a constant, ongoing stream of litigation around both waiting times and operating expenses. the commission provides one example of how this could be done. there are other ways it could be done. access to company data will be essential. they require the companies to provide individual data on the drivers, which allows them to do the analysis, to look at the issues like wait-time earnings, and it is a good model to look at, what data should be required. and finally, that is going to require work. if moving in that direction, additional resources would be needed

for an additional enforcement agent see agency. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, mr. jacobs. next up we have rebecca staff with gig workers rising. gig workers rising. >> say it three times real fast. [laughter] >> thank you. good afternoon, board of supervisors, the speakers before me, thank you. and thank you to those that are here today, including my fellow drivers and gig workers. my name is reba ka rebecca martinez. i'm a leader with gig workers rising, and most importantly, i have experienced driving for uber and lyft for over a year and a half. so how do uber and lyft

drivers fit into our workforce? most of the speakers before me touched a lot on what i had prepared as well, but i'm going to try to go over it again. uber and lyft drivers make up approximately 1% of the u.s. workforce. here in san francisco, it is estimated there were 45,000 drivers in 2017, with an estimated 6,000 on the road during peak hours. uber and lift are quick to point out that the majority of their drivers are part-time. but as some of the previous speakers mentioned, half of drivers work full-time hours, and for one out of two drivers, this is their only job. it is also important to highlight that full-time drivers are providing close to 50% of rides requested through the app. with the continued rate decreases for drivers, full-time has gone from a 40-hour work week to 70 to 80 hours to survive. so mo who makes up the gig

workers? among those who say income from gig platforms are essential, 64% are people of color, 57% have household incomes under $30,000. 51252% have a high school degree or less, and 45% need to control their own schedule. i know a few of the speakers before me touched on this. how much do drivers make? according to glass door -- or how much do uber drivers make? according to glass door, $125,000 plus a year, free catered lunches, a couple hundred in credit each month to use on their uber rides. the drivers make an average, after expenses, $9.21 an hour. that's just for some quick math. the study that we looked

at, according to the economic policy institute, said after expenses, they're making about $10.81. that's about $4.13 per hour less than the san francisco minimum wage. if you look at that annually, that's $8,260 less per year than the minimum wage standards in san francisco. so how does gig workers rising fit into all of this? gig workers rising is a community of app and platform workers coming together to improve our work and livelihoods. in the last year, we amassed thousands of drivers and gig workers across the state of california to stand united for fair treatment against these tech companies. we've delivered petitions to uber and lyft with over 6,000 signatures, demanding clear and transparent policies and processes for deact vationsde-actde-activations.

we visited our legislators in sacramento, and today we stand before you, the board of supervisors for san francisco, to share our truth. so drivers supported by gig workers rising are organizing to demand several things. there are some issues that you may hear that drivers are often divided on. classification could be one of them. so us drivers, whether we agree on that or not, can all agree on several things, and that's where our demands come from. one is a living wage. regardless of your part-time or full-time, when you're working, you deserve to earn a living wage. two, transparency. this goes all the way through to how their algorhythms figure out how they're going to pay us and other things. third is benefits. as some of the speakers before me touched on, we have no access to a lot of

the benefits provided to workers. and last and most important is a voice at work. san francisco is home base for several of these tech companies who came here to disrupt, break laws first and ask for forgiveness second. we are asking the san francisco supervisors to stand with drivers and gig workers to ensure we get the basics that all workers are entitled to. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. and thank you for your work. we have a lot of public comment, i believe. i'm going to call some names. i'm going to repeat how public comment works. so every speaker gets two minutes. we ask that you state your first and last night clearly, that you speak directly into the microphone, which i do not always do. we ask that if you have prepared a written statement, that you leave it with our clerk for inclusion, or leave a copy

with our clerk for inclusion in the file. no applause or booing is permitted. in the interest of time, we urge speakers to avoid repetition of prior statements. and so i'm going to -- the names i have here: omar alcamari, annette river rivaro, demarus romero. don alvo. kim...javier de mond. al alluti. [names called]

>> hi, everyone. i work for uber and lyft since 2015. i started working with company, and i live in san francisco, so it was a great take. we were going to the airport for $50, but now, after seven years working, with just make $17 going to the airport. it changed from $1.95 to 60 cents per mile. i spent working with uber and lyft -- i bought three cars because this is the only thing i can do. the only thing i get is diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. we are fighting for our rights. now we are with gig workers, and we are fighting for our rights. they give drivers false information.

they give us messages through the e-mails saying it is about our flexibility, which we know ab5 is not about flexibility. it is about our rights. this city -- uber and lyft starts here and they have their headquarters here. it is a shame to have all of these drivers suffering, with families, in the most expensive city in the world. we trust you and we know you're going to do the right thing. thank you so much. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> buenas diaz. [speaking spanish] >> good morning, i am a domestic work worker. and i'm a member of the

gig workers. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i live in work in san francisco. i'm here to support the resolution of ab5. the misclassification of workers at independent contractors must end because all workers need major protections. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i am proud to be supporting other gig workers who also, as domestic workers, are organizing to fight

against misclassifications, including baby-sitters, home care workers and house cleaners are recognized as the original gig workers because we maintain two to three jobs as a time, and many times we work without employment benefits and without legal protections. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: as income inequality in san francisco rises, we are struggling to survive, searching for ways to have health care and other basic needs.

[speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: in 2017, the franchise council passed a bill of rights for domestic workers in california. san francisco already recognizes that at state and federal level, domestic workers are excluded and without a safety net. they are exposed to dangerous conditions every day. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: today i'm here representing all domestic workers to support the resolution that supports ab5. thank you. >> chairman: muchos gracias. next speaker. >> my name is yvette

barro, and i'm a driver for both uber and lyft. the other night i got my keys and headed to the door as my fiance jumped in front of me and asked what was the matter. as i broke down, all i could say is, i can't do this anymore. this is what my last two years have come down to, if it is not the pay cuts, it is the threatening messages. if it is not that, it is the manipulation tactics used to control where they have advertised as my business. i left my job to go to school full-time in order to make more money. one of my goals after school was to help my parents retire. due to the pay cuts, i have had to stop going to school because i cannot even afford pay my bills, let alone tuition and books. regardless of the fact i'm spending more time on the road with less money in my bank account. not only can i not help my parents retire, i have convinced my dad to drive for uber, and now his situation has gotten worse.

due to the lack of decent pay, he can no longer drive home after a day's work. he has to sleep in his car. even worse, he sleeps sitting up and in pain due to the nerve damage in his leg. he capito can't even afford health care or my mother who is going blind from diabetes because he makes too much to qualify for medi-cal, and not enough to pay for health plans, which he has tried and failed due to the costs. uber and lyft have preyed on low and middle class families like mine. they advertise life and sold us unattainable dreams because they knew where they were taking their business. and where they were taking their business never included the drivers. we have always been a means to an end. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is adona laval, and i'm a lyft driver. you have heard plenty of

testimonies that lyft does not may insurance. we find it is very difficult to afford health insurance. we do not get paid time off nor overtime. we are not paid for the time we drive without a passenger or even for the time we drive to pick up the passenger. both add up to hours and many miles of unpaid driving daily. i'm here to tell you what it is like for me personally to exist in these working conditions. i feel trapped, like one of those caged hamsters running on a wheel. i feel if i work normal hours, i do not earn enough to exist in the bay area. and certainly not enough to cover my son's medical insurance, school expenses, etc. if i work longer hours,

which i have done plenty, i end up with many more car maintenance costs, gas costs, my health deteriorates, and i put myself, my passengers, and others at greater risk of accident due to fatigue. since lyft incentives have traditionally be tied to number of rides rather than time on the road, i'm constantly encouraged to push myself past my limits, to keep running faster and faster in the lyft hamster we'll. the main difference between a hamster and myself is the hamster doesn't have the illusion that if he runs fast enough, he will not get anywhere. i do not ask for hand-outs, but i ask you to support this resolution so drivers get their fair share. >> chairman: thank you. >> good morning, my name is ann black, and i'm 62

years old, i have a bachelor's degree and i have been a lyft driver for four years. i decided to stop because i cannot earn a living wage. lyft is not transparent with the money it makes. i have no voice i can talk to anybody at lyft about. drivers deserve a living wage, benefits, transparency, and a real voice at work. as lyft has continued to cut pay, and with the influx of drivers, my earnings dramatically decreased. lyft took from me surge pricing, bonuses, and incentive, and my wage plummeted well below minimum wage after expenses. after two years of driving, i started experiencing horrible headaches that would keep me in bed sometimes for days. i was diagnosed with osteoarthritis, spinal stenosis, and

osteoporosis, which i was told was due in part to sitting long periods of time. i paid out of pocket for physical therapy and acupuncture, but could only go when i made enough that week to cover the added expense. anxiety and depression from the stress and isolation is a problem that many drivers, including myself experience. my anxiety stems from a fear of being de-activated, getting random parking fines, moving violations, accidents, debt accumulation, and, of course, making enough money to live each day. what a driver must have a way to voice our grievances, and lyft and uber have pitted us against each other. we must have the ability to stand together as drivers and not be afraid of de-activation or retaliation. we must have a seat at the table when it comes to decisions that affect drivers the most. >> chairman: thank you.

>> thank you. >> chairman: next speaker. >> ola, buenos días. [voice of interpreter]: my name is evica chavez, and i'm a member of the gig workers. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i live and work in san francisco. i'm here to support the resolution in favor of ab5. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: all workers need protections under employment laws. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]:

in 2016, as a result of the support of the san francisco city council, we were victorious in being able to get the bill of rights for domestic workers approved at the state level. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: the bill of rights was also follows: [speaking spanish] p[voice of interpreter]: it be extends overtime overpay to domestic workers and personal assistance sho who care for and support thousands of people in california. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: while the intent of the

legislation was to improve working conditions for domestic workers, many domestic workers continue to be disclassified as contract workers. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: we are misclassified as contractors. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: and as independent contractors, we are denied the right to overtime pay and other protections available to us at the local and state level. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i'm here to support the resolution in favor of ab5, the misclassification

of independent contractors. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: the misclassification must end because all workers deserve protections under our labor laws. thank you. >> chairman: gracias. i'm going to call more names. [names called] >> good morning. my name is grant nichols, and i'm vised of local 1021. we represent 60,000 workers, non-profit agencies, health care

programs and schools throughout northern california. including about 20,000 of us here in san francisco. i want to thank the gate workers who have been providing powerful testimony this morning. we stand in solidarity with you and your fight to have a real voice on the job. so your demands for better pay and basic rights at work can be heard. and speaking out against corporations like lyft and uber, the workers here today have launched a national movement to hold gig companies accountable. by organizing and joining together, gig workers are exposing how these companies are reaping all of the benefits and profits, without paying workers their fair share. we sit here in a city that lyft and uber call home, also our home, but by who's laws they refuse to follow. these corporations are acting as if the same rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to them. including the rules that demand they treat their workers with dignity and

respect. i want to thank the supervisors and members of the board and of this committee who have called for this hearing, and who are shining a light on corporations' unconscionable business practices. this is just the first step. i urge you to stand on the side of justice by ensuring that companies like lyft and uber will not longer cut corners, follow the labor laws, and respect their workers. have a great rest of your day and gay pride week and please support the workers. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> my name is rashid dosane, and i lived here in the city for 12 years, and i've been working for lyft and uber for six years. and one time just happened i had to stop for one month in the six years for health reasons. and then that month, i had

to pay my insurance, i had to pay my car finance, and no one is paying me for this month. and i had my car -- i sold my car. and now i don't have any car. i financed all of the cars. so thank you, gig workers, for supporting us for living wages and transparency. i am for ab5, and thank you for supporting us. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i'm cory helmonds with the national brother hood of teamsters. i'm here to support the gig workers who are sharing their horror stories about being misclassified as being independent contractors by companies like uber and lyft in san francisco. every employee should have the right to a basic livable wage, minimum wage. they should have the right to workers comp and social

security benefits. that's why teamsters is in support of assembly bill 5, and we support it here in san francisco. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is javier bermonds, and i'm a member of local 1021. last month's uber strike was an indictment by the public. gate workers are classified as independent contractors, and allow the companies to avoid minimum wage, unemployment, workers compensation. this is disrepect fulful to the historical gains of the labor movement. just this week my friend, who drives in the bay area for lyft, she was in an accident and injured her arm severely and was

telling me she hasn't even considered taking a day off from driving from lyft because it is simply not an option for her if she wants to stay housed and to be able to live in a comfortable way. and i think she really highlights, to me, the precarious nature of people who work in the gig economy. so i think supporting ab5 will serve as recognition that workers' rights should be prioritized over extreme deregulation and unchecked power of businesses that employ gig and domestic workers. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm a fifth generation san francisco bay area kid. i used to be able to work a regular 40-hour work

week. i used to be able to go home, feel good, feel happy, be able to eat, hang out with my friends, go out to dinner and work out. now i have no time to do any of that. by the time i get home, i'm exhausted. because now i'm putting in 60 to 80 hours a week, making the same money i made two years ago. i used to enjoy this gig. i used to feel like a team. now, pardon the expression, i feel like a slave. i'm constantly stressed. i'm losing weight. i have no energy. i'm just too exhausted. i was almost too exhausted to come to this, but i knew i owed to all of these people here, to represent them. we need to stand up for ourselves, and tell you guys what is going on because in your position you hear black and white, black and white, black and white, but you don't note what it is likknowwhat it is lie around the wheel. to have a company tell you, hey, by the way, you can't drive this morning until you agree to this

non -- i'm sorry, i'm losing my thought process. imagine for a second you wake up and you start to go to work, and you can't turn on your app until you agree to something, some changes to everything. they tell you what you can and can't do. you have no say in it. and so, what, are you going to not accept it and not drive? or are you going to say, okay, i accept and i drive, because you have to work. and there is no notice. it's that morning, you wake up, and all of a sudden there are changes to the app, changes to your pricing, and if you don't accept it, you can't drive. so you press accept and you drive. uber and lyft are deceptive. there is price fixing, and there is collusion between uber and lift. [buzzer] >> chairman: thank you. next speaker.

>> okay. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i am a driver for uber and lyft. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: i've been in this work for about two plus years. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter]: my income, since i first started working for uber and lyft has been decreasing every year.[speakingn language] [voice of interpreter]: with think that companies like uber and lyft should treat us with similar im comincome that employees would have.

[voice of interpreter]: they don't give us a ton of reason or push back when they decrease our income.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: we are like many other workers. when others are rushing through the morning commute to get to work, we are already working. and when they are getting off work, we are also working for them, to get them home.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: but during other times of the day, our income is quite low. and there is no way of ash assuring we're making a minimum wage.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]:

we need workers to protect our rights.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: we know there are so many people in san francisco who work in these treas of giindustries of gig workers, whether it is 20,000 or more workers, and we all have families and lives coming into these industries for different reasons.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: i hope as workers, we all get qua equal and fair treatment.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: we would like that our income not only be protected, but as the cost of living rises, it also rises.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]:

as uber and "life in the and ly, our expenses are quite high, whether it is paying for insurance for our cars are health insurance.[speaking n language] [voice of interpreter]: so i'm here today to support ab5. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, i'm a workers rights attorney and state policy director for the national domestic workers alliance. it advances the rights of domestic workers nationwide, and it has over 200,000 members. they have supported the enactment of nine workers bill of rights and one municipal ordinance. despite these gains, our members are still extremely vulnerable to