The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently forced the hand of the California Trucking Association (CTA) to appeal a wrong-headed decision regarding independent driver rights to the U.S. Supreme Court.
California passed what is known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) that mandates wide-reaching independent contractors cannot enjoy the right to choose between freight companies. After the law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, it caused widespread upheaval across traditional gig industries and independent truckers. California lawmakers prioritized tax revenue flowing directly from business owners over working people by radically changing the independent contractor guidelines.
Backed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and other pro-worker organizations, the CTA launched a civil lawsuit called California Trucking Association v. Bonta to exempt CDL holders from losing their live-work freedom. Lower court judges recognized that the hard-working American drivers who kept the supply chain open during the pandemic had every right to work for themselves. But with the crisis in the rearview, a 3-judge panel at the notoriously anti-worker 9th Circuit overturned the win in a 2-1 vote.
Past decisions by the 9th Circuit reportedly included overturning a $102 million victory by Walmart workers after a lawsuit claimed thousands of employees were being underpaid. The West Coast court has earned a reputation for supporting government and big business over everyday people.
Although the CTA was quick to appeal to the full 11-judge bench, it received the same anti-trucker rhetoric. According to trucking news reports, the Golden State group lost the day but petitioned to set aside disrupting the independent truck driving sector until the judicial process runs its course.
“If the mandate issues, then CTA’s members will have to restructure their businesses to comply with AB 5, risk severe civil or even criminal sanctions, or cease doing business due to the financial inability to purchase equipment and hire employee drivers,” the CTA argued. “A stay of the mandate is needed to maintain the status quo while CTA contests the validity of California’s far-reaching worker-classification rule in the Supreme Court.”
“ATA is pleased that the 9th Circuit has blocked enforcement of California’s restrictive independent contractor law while the California Trucking Association appeals the Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States,” ATA spokesman Sean McNally reportedly said. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will ultimately not only take the case but will see the wisdom of CTA’s argument and reverse the 9th Circuit’s ruling.”
Laws such as AB5 represent a direct attack on qualified truck drivers’ ability to decide whether they prefer working for a freight outfit or forming a small business of their own. Some independent truckers have already left California due to the state’s trend to eliminate live-work freedoms. Unless organizations such as the ATA and CTA prevail at the high court, AB5 laws could spread and have a chilling effect on the trucking industry.
Sources: California Trucking Association to Take AB 5 Case to Supreme Court, The Essentials – California Employment Law Update,
First, this seems to be another step towards a communist government. The AB5 ruling is already having a tremendous impact of goods being available for purchase far beyond California. Second, it seems to be a slippery slope for additional restrictions to follow.
Wait, who is on the workers side here? Isn’t this about freight companies classifying workers as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage, health benefits, and being responsible for on the job injuries? We are bought and sold.
Just as I was surprised when OOIDA didn’t fight self-driving trucks and when they supported life long tracking of workers in our job history.
There is nothing wrong with being a workerbee for someone else’s fortune, big or small. But there are some of us who would prefer to be the captain of our own rowboat and do so without the so called perks called benefits. Some of us choose wisely and do pretty good, some of us choose poorly and barely survive. Nevertheless, the law in question does not apply to those who choose employment, it pertains to those who choose self-employment and as such is unacceptable. For a while longer this is America, a country where you can wake up tomorrow and decide to take your future into your own hands. If you are teachable not knowing everything, ask questions from credible people, listen, work effectively, refuse status quo, invest in yourself, take care of you equipment, learn from your mistakes, turn personal deficiencies into assets (personal growth), you can do fairly well for yourself. If you were never taught this or don’t get it, fine, there’s room for both of us. But don’t for a moment think that everyone wants to be taken care of or have someone do our thinking for us. Hopefully you are young and just need some time to realize what a great country we are trying to throw away. America was the land of opportunity, not security, and it worked pretty well for those who aren’t lifelong victims. Regardless, the law relates to removing choice which seems to be the major theme for most left leaning people. Shouldn’t choice be for those who lean to the right also?
On point. I’m with you on this. People are communist in California
One more reason to disassociate oneself from California.
Keep voting Democrats you friggin idiots
If enough drivers find other employment besides driving like I did, the ones remaining will get paid what they are worth. When I drove, the pittance I got paid couldn’t keep a miser out of the poorhouse. I quit along with many other drivers. Now there’s not enough and they are paying two or three times as much. It’s called supply and demand.
My understanding of AB5, as far as trucking, does not inhibit a driver’s ability to become independent. As long as the driver is free
A.to accept loads from other companies, brokers etc. they can remain independent. Even if a driver accepts loads for one source primarily he/she must be free to operate independently. Pick the route they choose, fuel where they want, take breaks as they see fit (so long as they conform to DOT rules).
B. The driver can accept loads outside of a primary company’s normal business practices. i.e. a driver that normally hauls refrigerated freight and uses a company’s trailer, can drop the trailer, pick up another company’s flatbed and haul a load for company B.
Where this law affects drivers, and where the State is wanting to classify a driver as an employee is the company ‘lease’ driver.
While both the company and driver can argue independence, those drivers cannot accept a load outside the company’s. They cannot use their trucks for any other purpose than to haul that company’s freight and they are not allowed to use any trailer outside of the company’s.
These are the drivers this bill targets. While they are classified independent, they truly are not.
These drivers are basically serfs for that company.
I don’t see anywhere that a driver is blocked from buying a truck and hauling freight from one broker that also may rent or lease a trailer to that driver. (such as Landstar).
The only place I can see where this may be counter to logic is an on call driver. One were a company can call the driver and ask, “can you haul this load next tuesday (using our truck and trailer)?” Even tho that driver may be able to accept work of that nature from other companies, California will require him/her to be classified as an employee.
I am retired, so I have no dog in this fight. But I have driven as an independent, as a company driver, and a lease driver.
Someone point out where I’m wrong.
Here is a link to the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5
“Backed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and other pro-worker organizations..”
Who the hell wrote this article? *facepalm*