###

“For When You Get Lost,” an award-winning indie film featuring Humboldt County’s majestic scenery and tasty beers, will screen Thursday evening at the Arcata Theatre Lounge, followed by a Q&A session with director Michelle Steffes and screenwriter/co-star Jennifer Sorenson.

Described by Film Threat as “sincere, subversive, and entirely unique,” the movie was inspired by a real-life road trip that took Sorenson through the Pacific Northwest by way of Avenue of the Giants, Eureka and Arcata — with stops at several local breweries.

The Outpost reached Steffes by phone earlier today, and she told us that her low-budget feature debut, which nabbed multiple awards on the festival circuit, including the Comedy Vanguard Audience Award at the 2023 Austin Film Festival, will make its non-festival theatrical premiere in Arcata Thursday evening.

The plot is based on a trip that Sorenson took years ago in an effort to make amends with her father before he died. “And on the way she had these mini-adventures,” Steffes explained.

Early in her trip, Sorenson encountered some bikers who suggested she go through Avenue of the Giants and stop in Arcata and Eureka. 

“So on that trip she went to Lost Coast Brewery, and she was so charmed and taken with the area, she started feeling like life was being cinematic,” Steffes said.

Sorenson had worked at various breweries and beer festivals, getting to know a variety of people in the beer-making community, and when it came time to produce the film version of her story, the crew relied on some of those very same people.

For example, Meredith Maier, co-owner of Six Rivers Brewery in McKinleyville, has “a sassy, judgy cameo” role in the movie, as she recently noted on Facebook. She told the Outpost that a coworker volunteered her for the role after producers put out a call for someone with an expressive face.

“I have a one-word line,” Maier said via Facebook Messenger, adding a smiley-face emoji.

While Sorenson made her real-life road trip solo, for the movie version she gave herself an estranged sister to accompany her and help heal the family’s fractures. The pair makes a bit of an odd couple, with Sorenson’s character, June Stevenson, up for adventure while her sister Cami (played by Elizabeth Alderfer) just wants to get the trip over and get back to real life.

“We kind of call it ‘Sideways for beer,’” Steffes said, referring to Alexander Payne’s Oscar-winning, wine-drenched drama-comedy from 2004.

During the production crew’s time here in Humboldt they shot scenes at Six Rivers Brewery, Lost Coast Brewery and Redwood Curtain Brewing Company, along with a few non-beer-related locations. (Look for a giant redwood hug in the teaser trailer above.)

Steffes described the movie as a “very low budget” labor of love. When Sorenson first brought her the script, she loved it but voiced skepticism that all its scenes — including shots at an airport, on a boat and in multiple breweries — could be filmed on a shoestring budget. 

“She [Sorenson] told me, ‘You haven’t met people in beer culture; they’ll be so supportive.’ And they were,” Steffes said. “They sometimes gave us food. We felt so supported. We absolutely could not have done it without the people in that world.”

With an all-women filmmaking team, “For When You Get Lost” also received support from the nonprofit Women In Film, and it was awarded a ReFrame Stamp for its gender-balanced production, according to industry website Celluloid Junkie. 

Steffes said she thinks there were still tickets available as of Wednesday afternoon, and she’d love to have locals come “pack the house” and ask any questions they may have for her and Sorenson. 

The show starts at 6 p.m. at the Arcata Theatre Lounge. Tickets can be purchased online or at the venue.

###

Eureka’s former mayors are setting aside political differences to combat divisiveness and unite the community. And what better way to do that than with twinkle lights and a little holiday cheer?

At a press conference at the Old Town Gazebo this morning, the league of ex-mayors – Nancy Flemming (1990-2002), Peter LaVallee (2002-2006), Virginia Bass (2006-2010), Frank Jager (2010-2018) and Susan Seaman (2018-2022) – announced a fundraising campaign for the Holiday Lighting Project, which aims to “create a warm and inviting atmosphere” in Old Town that will bring folks together during the holiday season. 

The initiative came about “in response to divisiveness in our community,” including political division over Measure F, the controversial “Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality” initiative. The ballot measure has garnered enthusiastic support from Flemming and Jager, as well as staunch opposition from LaVallee and Seaman.

Seaman

“When we reached out about this [project] and called all the mayors to participate, every one of them signed on immediately because they liked the idea of identifying a project that we could work on together to demonstrate solidarity and continued love for our city,” Seaman said at today’s press conference. “Even now, several of us are working on opposite sides of current [ballot] measures. … We recognize that we can advocate for what we believe in, and also continue to find ways to work with anyone who wants to make our community better.”

Bass, who also served as the Fourth District representative on the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors for 12 years, acknowledged how politics have changed over the years, noting that campaigns were “actually friendly back in the day.” 

“When Peter and I were running for [Eureka] City Council … it was such a different time,” she said. “We were just two people with diverse views, offering our views to the community. Fast forward several years to now, whether it was the advent of the internet and social media, I saw more division come out of that. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because by division I mean groups of people banding together [over] similar philosophies, but those groups were able to work together.”

Bass

The shift from division to divisiveness “will destroy our community if we don’t do something to change it,” Bass continued. “And is lighting going to fix that? No, but it shows that five different mayors … are working together because we believe that we need to do something to help turn things around.”

The mayors hope to raise $20,000 by the end of September. If they can meet that goal, city staff will deck out the Old Town Gazebo and nearby trees with strings of white twinkle lights, garlands, wreaths and “giant” light-up ornaments. The string lights will stay up year-round. 

Jager emphasized his support for the project as well, adding that “anything we can do to help our downtown and Old Town area and the business people here to thrive is really important.”

Jager

“I just want to really thank Susan for getting us all together,” he added. “It’s described as ‘like herding cats’ because we’ve all got different things going on, and it’s difficult to get everybody together but you’ve managed to do it, Susan, and I’m really proud of you.”

LaVallee also shared his love for Eureka. “This is just a wonderful city,” he said. “I just love being here. … To me, to have the former mayors supporting this project in our city is just what we need to do.”

Flemming added that the lighting “will be visible all the way up to Highway 101,” inviting locals and visitors to Old Town and downtown businesses. “We’ll have music, I’m sure, and [it will] very much help our small merchants and the small shops here to be successful during the holidays,” she said.

There is a tiered list of sponsorship opportunities – linked here – for people interested in donating, ranging from “Elf Level” to “Santa Level” sponsorships.

Check out the press release below for more information from the City of Eureka:

As a response to the divisiveness in our community and nation, Eureka’s former Mayors are coming together in a show of solidarity and love for the city they served. Nancy Flemming (1990-2002) Peter LaVallee (2002-2006); Virginia Bass (2006-2010); Frank Jager (2010 – 2018) and Susan Seaman (2018-2022), five politicians with clear differences in the visions we have for Humboldt’s County Seat, have set aside those differences to focus on demonstrating that we can work together to continue to support our hometown. This initiative is being approached in partnership with the City of Eureka. Eureka’s Economic Development department, Eureka Main Street, Public Works and Humboldt Bay Fire are underway to prepare for the displays while the mayor’s group is working on fundraising, with a goal of raising $20,000 in 2024.

Our goal is to unite the community, fostering a sense of connection and pride in our shared spaces. By enhancing the charm of Eureka’s Old Town with twinkle lights and dazzling displays, we aim to create a warm and inviting atmosphere that draws people together. This project will inspire gathering, support for local businesses, and showcase the power of community spirit.

Join us in making this vision a reality!

Please make checks payable to Eureka Main Street, nonprofit ID #95-4705180, and mail them to the Main Street office at 108 F Street, Eureka, CA 95501, Attn: Main Street. Reach out with questions to lightupeureka@gmail.com or (707) 441-4178.

Comes now word that Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a big name from the years of the Trump presidency and the all-but-guaranteed future Senator from the state of California, is lurking about town. A little bird wrote us this morning to notify us that Schiff was spotted at a Eureka dining establishment last night.

Schiff’s Insta provided photographic proof that the representative have the good sense to make a pit stop in Willits, and tells us that he’s up here on a Jared Huffman-organized tour of the usual Humboldt issues: Redwoods, offshore wind and tribal relations.

Apparently no public appearances are scheduled, which nowadays seems to be the norm for D.C. and Sacramento types who visit our shores. Get in, privately press the flesh and get the hell out is the standard itinerary when it comes to matters Humboldt. Oh well!

UPDATE, 1:26 p.m.: A City of Eureka press release sent just now has a bit more information:

The City of Eureka will be performing smoke testing of the sanitary sewer system at the locations shown in the included map in Eureka beginning at 8:00am, on Wednesday, September 4th and will continue for through December 4th. This testing involves introducing a non-toxic smoke into sewer manholes where it is forced through the sewer mains and laterals to locate defects in the system. Smoke will be visible in the area, and may travel to nearby sewer lines as well. There is no need to contact the Police or Fire Department, they have already been notified.

Traffic will remain open during testing; however, smoke may be visible exiting manholes. Please use caution while driving in the area. In addition to manholes, smoke will be visible coming from building vents and external cleanouts. This smoke is non-toxic, will not leave a residue, and will dissipate shortly after the test. Smoke should not enter buildings unless there is defective plumbing or dry drain traps. It is recommended that you flush all toilets and run water down all sinks, tubs, laundry drains, and floor drains prior to testing. Door hangers will be distributed before the testing occurs, notifying of the testing. This work will be performed between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm, WEATHER PERMITTING.

The City of Eureka’s Contractor, Total Flow, will be on site with information, should there be any questions.

The patience and cooperation of residents and business owners in the vicinity of the testing zone is greatly appreciated. Repairing and maintaining our sewer collection systems is vital to the health and safety of our residents.

###

Via the  Humboldt Bay Fire socials:

Smoke testing on sanitary sewer lines in the City of Eureka has started and will continue through October.

Smoke tests are done to find damaged pipes, improper connections, and areas where unwanted water may enter the sanitary sewer collection system.

During testing, the smoke may be seen coming from roof vents, building foundations, catch basins, clean-outs, downspouts, sewer laterals, and manhole covers. The smoke is clean and non-toxic to humans, pets, and plants.

Last night, the Eureka City Council narrowly passed a Vacant Building Ordinance that will allow the city to collect hefty fines from property owners with long-standing vacancies in residential and commercial buildings. 

The intent of the ordinance is to fix Eureka’s blight problem, not to punish landlords who can’t seem to find an interested renter. Given that goal, exceptions to the penalty are written into the ordinance. Owners looking to rent, sell or lease their property “in good faith” are exempt from the fine, as well as those with a permit to renovate or demolish the building. People with extenuating circumstances may also seek an exemption. 

Otherwise, folks who let properties sit empty for 90 days or more will be subject to a fine of $1,000 per month. After a year, the fine jumps to $5,000 per month.

“The fine is intended to be punitive,” City Attorney Autumn Luna clarified during last night’s meeting. “Fines are intended to be an amount that is enough to discourage people from violating the law.”

The ordinance also includes a monitoring and maintenance element that aims to keep empty buildings in good shape pending occupation. Property owners of vacant buildings will need to submit a “vacant building plan” explaining how long their building will be vacant and why. Under the ordinance, owners are required to upkeep buildings’ landscaping and exterior appearance and clear away trash and graffiti. The city will monitor vacant buildings quarterly and collect  monitoring fees. Those fees, which will be set at a later meeting, will be lower than the fines and aren’t punitive; they’re meant to cover the city’s monitoring expenses.

After tweaking the ordinance during a couple of meetings last month, the council passed it without new changes last night. That said, the council was divided. While some members voiced satisfaction with the ordinance, others worried about its punitive nature and wondered whether it will effectively tackle Eureka’s blight issue. The ordinance will replace the city’s existing Vacant and/or Boarded Building Ordinance in the municipal code.

The council agreed that blight is an issue across the Eureka’s neighborhoods and commercial districts, tarnishing neighborhood pride and disincentivizing visitors from exploring local businesses.

Business owners are frustrated, Councilmember Leslie Castellano said, because vacant buildings along the 101 corridor near Old Town signal to visitors that there aren’t open businesses nearby. 

“In the spirit of trying something out and learning from what we try, I completely support this,” Castellano said.

Councilmember Scott Bauer said he continues to wonder why so many buildings are vacant, and expressed uncertainty in prescribing a solution when the cause isn’t fully understood. 

“I think it’s an interesting concept, but being someone that craves data – as a scientist, I think data is important – I did a lot of research, and I and talked with people who I consider experts, and nobody could give me a good reason, a tax reason, to keep a building vacant,” he said. “I couldn’t find it.” 

Bauer asked staff for opinions on whether the ordinance will accomplish its intent. 

Director of Public Works Brian Gerving said his department of four staff coordinate between 600 and 800 code enforcement efforts per year, and adding more to the load is “a bit of a concern for me.” 

“However, if it’s going to achieve something meaningful, that’s great,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that these new provisions would get at the root causes of those vacancies. I don’t know that this is the best tool for that, but if it’s what council is asking staff to do, then we’ll certainly do it.”

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach asked whether there is a better tool.

“That’s the harder question to answer, and I I don’t know that there is a better tool,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that this is the right one, but I can’t offer up an alternative at this point, because […] I don’t know that we have the right data on what the root causes of all these vacancies are.”

Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach listed several hangups with details in the ordinance.

The monitoring plan will require property owners to submit a timeline for occupying the building, which Contreras-DeLoach said is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. 

She also worried that maintenance requirements spelled out in the ordinance – which aim to prevent trespassing by replacing broken windows, for instance – are too heavy-handed. 

“I think this sounds good on the surface, but it’s almost like we don’t know or are cognizant of what property owners are facing in Eureka, which is a high level of property crime and windows being busted out,” said Contreras-DeLoach. Windows are expensive and replacing them can take time, Contreras-DeLoach said, adding that she herself has been robbed three times. 

She also listed some concerns about the monitoring element of the ordinance, which requires property owners to implement security at vacant properties. Some options are open-ended, allowing the city to decide what security is sufficient on a case-by-case basis.

“I’m uncomfortable passing anything where we’re not being very specific about what powers we’re giving ourselves and what we’re asking of code enforcement,” she said. 

Overall, Contreras-DeLoach said she finds it problematic that the ordinance aims to address both residential and commercial buildings at once, because different types of buildings sit vacant for different reasons.

During public comment, one person appeared in support of the new rules and two firmly against them. 

“I don’t know that you can tell someone what they must do with their property,” said one public commenter. “That’s like saying I must drive my car or I must ride my bicycle. I don’t think that it is productive to demand that real estate be returned to use when there is so much lack of interest in the space being utilized.”

Meanwhile, community member Raelina Krikston called the ordinance “a proactive and essential measure for our community’s development […] one tool in a toolbox that addresses some of the most egregious issues that our current ordinances have been ineffective in improving.” 

Krikston suggested directing funds from the fines toward the local housing trust fund or other similar initiatives, an idea that council members G. Mario Fernandez and Castellano later supported during discussion.

Before making a motion, Councilmember Kati Moulton reiterated the harmful impacts of blighted buildings on neighborhood health and business success. 

“If someone is simply leaving their property fallow, not to be used, that is a disservice to the community as a whole,” Moulton said. The timeline for satisfying the rules – paired with exceptions for those making an effort to sell, rent, renovate or demolish their property – add up to a fair ordinance, she said. 

“I want our code enforcement to have this – the potential for an ordinance with some teeth at the far end of this process. It’s not a short process. There’s many steps to get through before the teeth come into play,” Moulton said. 

The motion passed 3-2, with Bauer and Contreras-DeLoach dissenting. 

Cal Poly Humboldt issued the following message to the campus community on Tuesday. The arrestee, Joshua Adam Flowers, has a long history of prior arrests on a variety of charges, most frequently public intoxication.

Joshua Adam Flowers

On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at approximately 7:32 a.m., it was reported to the University Police Department that an unknown male subject attempted to forcibly take a backpack from a Cal Poly Humboldt employee while they were walking through the Jolly Giant Commons (JGC) parking lot. The victim was able to summon for assistance as the male subject fled the area. The reporting party provided an excellent description of the suspect, which enabled officers to swiftly take action.

Utilizing the detailed witness description and conducting a thorough review of campus CCTV footage, UPD, with the assistance of the Arcata Police Department, successfully located the suspect in the 1600 block of G Street. After further investigation, 45-year-old Joshua Adam Flowers was arrested for Attempted Robbery and transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where his bail was set at $25,000. Based on this incident, Flowers is banned from the Cal Poly

Campus for the next 7 calendar days. If you see Flowers on campus, please alert UPD immediately at 707-826-5555. 

The University Police Department would like to thank the witness for their prompt and accurate report, as well as the Arcata Police Department for their cooperation and support in bringing this case to a swift resolution.

We take the safety and security of our campus community very seriously and encourage anyone who witnesses or experiences suspicious activity to report it immediately. If you have any additional information regarding this case, please contact the University Police Department at 707-826-5555.

In response to this incident, which is being classified as an attempted robbery, UPD and the Clery Compliance Office are providing the following prevention and awareness tips to all members of our campus community:

Campus Safety Crime Tips

• Avoid putting music headphones in both ears so that you can be more aware of your surroundings, especially if you are walking alone. Knowing where you are and who is around you may help you find a way to get out of a bad situation. Notify law enforcement immediately to report suspicious behavior: 9-1-1.
• Consider sharing your location or social plans with friends or loved ones, either through the Rave Guardian App or other means.
• If walking feels unsafe, consider calling some friends or UPD Dispatch for a safety escort at 707-826-5555.
• Make sure you can grab your cell phone easily and that it is fully charged.
• Park or walk in lighted areas when possible. If you notice lights are out or unlighted areas around campus, please share this information with Facilities Management at 707-826-4475.
• Trust your instincts. If a situation or location feels unsafe or uncomfortable, consider leaving the area if you can.
• Try not to load yourself down with packages or bags as this can make you appear more vulnerable.
• Walk with purpose. Even if you don’t know where you are going, act like you do.

Campus & Community Resources

We recognize this announcement may affect the emotional well-being of our campus community. The  identified resources below are available should a member of our campus community need them:

• Campus Advocate Team (staffed by the North Coast Rape Crisis Team, for students and employees): 24/7, free, 707-445-2881
• CARE Services (for students)
• Counseling & Psychological Services (for students): 707-826-3236
• TimelyCare (available 24/7, for students)
• Employee Assistance Program (for employees)

Additional Ways to Report Information

• UPD: 707-826-5555 (5555 from any campus landline) or 9-1-1 (emergencies)
• Rave Guardian app
• Emergency blue light phones around the main campus
• Title IX Report Form for situations involving sexual misconduct

Nearly four years after California voters approved better wages and health benefits for ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, no one is actually ensuring they are provided, according to state agencies, interviews with workers and a review of wage claims filed with the state.

Voters mandated the benefits in November 2020 when they approved Proposition 22. The ballot initiative was backed by gig-work companies that wanted to keep their workers classified as independent contractors and were resisting a 2019 state law that would have considered them employees. Prop. 22 stipulated that gig workers would remain independent contractors but be treated better.

The state Industrial Relations Department, which handles wage claims, now tells CalMatters it does not have jurisdiction to resolve those related to Prop. 22, citing a July 25 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law and therefore maintains that gig workers are not employees. That effectively passes enforcement responsibility on to the state attorney general, whose office was noncommittal when asked about its plans, saying that it does not adjudicate individual claims but does prosecute companies that systematically violate the law.

The lack of enforcement leaves in limbo workers who in many cases have already been waiting for months or years for the state to resolve their complaints. Workers have filed 54 claims related to Prop. 22 since it went into effect in December 2020. At least 32 of them are unresolved, state records obtained by CalMatters show, although at least two of those are due to workers not following through.

Of the unresolved claims, one goes back to 2021, several are from 2022 and 2023, and about half are from this year, through May.

Emails included with the claims show that the Industrial Relations Department told one worker it was severely understaffed, and seven others, starting in 2022, that it did not have jurisdiction to help them since they were independent contractors rather than employees.

Although the number of claims filed with the state represent just a fraction of the more than 1 million gig workers in California, they give a glimpse into what happens when workers turn to the state for help instead of the companies that backed Prop. 22.

Workers say in the claims, and in interviews with CalMatters, that companies such as Uber, Lyft and Instacart failed to provide higher wages and health care stipends under the law, and that the companies’ representatives sometimes act confused or take a long time to handle their requests for Prop. 22 benefits. The gig companies have touted the law as something that has boosted pay and benefits, and have said it has helped gig workers hang on to work they can do whenever they want.

Laura Robinson is among the workers who have had to aggressively pursue what they believe they’re owed under the law. For the past year, she has filed claims with the state and fought two different gig-work companies for different benefits promised under Prop. 22.

She was making a delivery for Instacart a year ago, she said, when a driver making a U-turn hit her, totaling her car. Now, she said, she has lingering back pain, and has only been able to make a total of a few deliveries over the past several months.

Robinson, who lives in Irvine, tried to get Instacart to retroactively provide her with occupational accident insurance as required under Prop. 22.

Laura Robinson in her home in Irvine on May 20, 2024. Robinson, who was in a car accident last year while working for Instacart, was recently informed she will receive occupational accident insurance after months of effort. Photo by Zaydee Sanchez for CalMatters

When she first contacted Instacart about the collision, “four or five different (representatives) told me on chat ‘we don’t provide insurance,’ but I told them this is California,” Robinson said. “Finally someone said ‘oh yeah, I know what you’re talking about.’ ” Robinson had some difficulties documenting the accident, because, she said, the responding Torrance Police Department officer rode away on his motorcycle without writing a report. But after about seven months, she finally heard back from Zurich, Instacart’s insurance provider. She received a lump sum, and monthly payments for the time that she has been largely unable to work, according to bank statements and emails from Zurich to her, which she shared with CalMatters.

Instacart spokesperson Charlotte Healow said all the company’s shopper support agents should know about “shopper injury protection” and that there is information in the app about how to go about filing claims. But Robinson showed CalMatters several screenshots of her chats with support agents who either thought she was asking about health insurance or who told her someone would email her back about her situation — which eventually happened, though it took a few tries.

Robinson said she had also struggled to get a smaller gig platform, food delivery app Curri, to comply with the law. Under Prop. 22, ride-hailing and delivery gig companies are supposed to pay her 120% of minimum wage for the time she spends driving, making up for any shortfall in the pay she receives, but Curri had not done so, she said. Not knowing where to turn, she asked a few different state agencies for help, including the attorney general’s office. She even lodged a complaint with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s National Consumer Complaint Database. After several months, the Industrial Relations Department scheduled a hearing for her case for Aug. 29. Last week, the department told her the company decided to settle and pay her what it owed, according to emails and a release she signed that she shared with CalMatters. Curri’s marketing director referred CalMatters to the company’s legal department, which did not return three emailed requests for comment.

Robinson saw the upside of Prop. 22 after it passed. She liked being able to continue setting her own hours and saw a bump in her earnings delivering for Grubhub due to the law. But she is now frustrated about how tough it was to figure out who’s supposed to be upholding it.

“It’s not helpful if it’s not enforced or applied,” she said.

Robinson said the deputy labor commissioner she was in touch with throughout the process of pursuing her claim against Curri told her last week that because Prop. 22 was upheld by the state Supreme Court — effectively ensuring gig workers cannot be considered employees — the department would no longer be handling similar cases because it does not have jurisdiction over independent contractors.

What gig workers are complaining about

The Prop. 22-related wage claims reviewed by CalMatters were part of a larger set of nearly 200 claims that gig workers filed with the Industrial Relations Department since the law took effect in December 2020. Citing the California Public Records Act, CalMatters sought all wage claims in that timeframe involving gig companies, but the state did not provide any claims against DoorDash, which is one of the biggest of the app-based gig companies. A department spokesperson could not explain why.

Most of the claimants sought delayed or unpaid wages, including adjustments owed under Prop. 22. Others sought health care stipends required under the gig-work law, and one driver said he sought occupational accident insurance but did not receive it.

The claims also shed light on the mechanics of how app companies are allegedly withholding wages. In them, some gig workers claimed that they were deactivated — kicked off or fired by the app — before receiving all their wages.

The records also indicate the state had trouble holding app companies to account in a timely fashion. In emails about the claims, some workers frequently asked for updates about their cases and complained about limited communications from the state. This prompted one supervisor in the Industrial Relations Department’s San Francisco office to respond by email on May 30, 2024, seemingly noting that gig workers’ complaints were just a fraction of the array of worker complaints the state fields: “I am working with 40% staff shortage. There are over 3,000 cases, most of which are older than yours, and only seven people (total) to handle them.” The department did not respond to requests for comment on whether this shortfall persists.

Monetary wage claims ranged from about $2 to nearly $420,000. Most — 54% — were against ride-hailing and delivery giant Uber and 25% were against its rides competitor Lyft. There were 17 claims against grocery-delivery app maker Instacart, seven against food-delivery platform Grubhub, four against Target-owned delivery service Shipt and three against UPS-owned delivery service Roadie.

The Industrial Relations Department has long tried to resolve gig workers’ wage disputes. The labor commissioner, who heads the department’s Labor Standards Enforcement Division, still has pending wage-theft lawsuits against Uber and Lyft that it filed in 2020 on behalf of about 5,000 workers with wage claims going back to 2017.

Those cases predate Prop. 22, originating during a period when gig workers were misclassified and should have been considered employees under California law, the labor commissioner argues in the wage-theft suits. After Prop. 22 passed, opponents challenged it and the case ended up before the California Supreme Court, which upheld the law in July, effectively affirming that drivers are independent contractors, not employees. A department spokesperson, Peter Melton, said the ruling means the department can no longer handle claims about missing wage adjustments under the earnings guarantee, unpaid health care stipends or other aspects of the law.

Department representatives made similar statements to workers even before Prop. 22 was upheld, the claims records show. An email response, dated March 26, 2024, from the department to an Uber driver stated: “The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces employment law. We cannot enforce Prop 22 earnings because they aren’t ‘wages’ earned by ‘employees’.”

This echoes the position lawyers for Uber and Lyft took in some of the records when responding to wage claims. They asked the state to dismiss such claims, writing in one email: “As of December 16, 2020, drivers using Lyft’s platform are considered independent contractors by statute and, thus, cannot seek relief under the Labor Code.”

“Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints…(he) brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law.”
— California Attorney General’s Office

Now that the department has disavowed responsibility for Prop. 22 claims, the question remains: Who will enforce the law?

Scott Kronland, the attorney for Service Employees International Union California who unsuccessfully argued before the state Supreme Court that it should throw out Prop. 22, told CalMatters: “I’ve also heard from drivers that they’re not getting the things they’re promised by Prop. 22.”

Kronland said their recourse, after the ruling, is to press local prosecutors or the attorney general, who have the ability to hold companies liable for unlawful business practices under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. Still, he said “enforcement is something the Legislature could clarify.”

In an unsigned email response to CalMatters’ questions after the state Supreme Court decision, including whether it planned to pursue Prop.-22-related cases against gig-work companies, the attorney general’s office said gig workers can submit complaints at oag.ca.gov/report. The email added: “Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints by holding administrative hearings like (the Department of Industrial Relations), DOJ brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law, for example through widespread violations of wage and hour standards. Reports or complaints of employer misconduct are an important part of our work.”

When CalMatters previously asked the attorney general’s office for copies of any wage complaints it had received from gig workers thus far, a spokesperson responded that the office was representing the state in its effort to defend Prop. 22 before the California Supreme Court — and referred CalMatters back to the Industrial Relations Department.

What gig companies share about Prop. 22’s impact

Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.

To better understand the impact of Prop. 22, CalMatters asked each of the four largest gig companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart — the following:

• How much they have spent on delivering on each of Prop. 22’s four main promises:
  • 120% of minimum wage earnings guarantee
  • Health care stipends
  • Occupational accident insurance
  • Accidental death insurance
• How many gig workers have received each of the promised benefits.
• Whether they have passed on costs to consumers, and if so, where they account for those customer fees in their public financial filings.
• How they handle complaints or issues related to their promises.

Lyft said 85% of California Lyft drivers who have driven for the company since Prop. 22 went into effect have received at least one wage “top up” — the additional money drivers receive under the earnings guarantee — through the end of the fourth quarter of 2023, though spokesperson Shadawn Reddick-Smith would not provide specific numbers of Lyft drivers in the state. None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the wage guarantee.

Instacart spokesperson Healow said the company has paid out about $40 million in health care subsidies to its delivery workers, which she said number in the tens of thousands in the state. She also said about 11% of California shoppers have become eligible for a health care stipend since Prop. 22 took effect, and that 28% of those eligible shoppers have redeemed their subsidy.

To qualify for the health care stipends, workers must work at least 15 hours a week each quarter, and be enrolled in health insurance that is not provided by an employer or the government. Because the gig companies won’t share how many workers have received the stipends, CalMatters asked the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, if it had data that might help shed some light. Seven percent of the 1.6 million people who used Covered California reported doing gig work in a 2023 survey, said a spokesperson for the exchange, Jagdip Dhillon.

DoorDash spokesperson Parker Dorrough said that just 11% of eligible couriers used the health care stipend in the fourth quarter of 2023 but that 80% of DoorDash’s delivery workers had health care coverage through another source, such as their full-time job or spouse.

None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the stipend. Lyft’s Reddick-Smith said 80% of California Lyft drivers already have health care coverage, including 13% who bought their own coverage (this second group is the set of drivers who qualified for the stipend).

None of the four companies provided the numbers of workers who have used occupational accident or accidental death insurance.

None of the companies would disclose how they account for the fees they charge customers for Prop. 22 expenses, nor are the fees included in their publicly available financial filings. Instacart said it does not charge customers for expenses associated with Prop. 22. Lyft said its per-ride service fee includes a 75-cent “California Driver Benefits Fee.” Uber charges customers a “CA Driver Benefits” fee for each ride and delivery in the state and spokesperson Zahid Arab said the company has “invested more than we collected in fees.”

Uber published a blog post after CalMatters’ questions, saying it has “invested” more than $1 billion in Prop. 22 benefits. Arab would not break down these benefits further.

As for complaints related to the promises, each of the companies said workers should contact support agents, whom they can usually get in touch with in the app; an Instacart spokesperson said workers can make some claims directly in the company’s app.

Seeing little from Prop. 22

Ride-hailing driver Sergio Avedian last year helped raise public awareness of the lack of Prop. 22 enforcement. Specifically, he homed in on one narrow issue: Under the law, gig-work companies were supposed to adjust for inflation each year the reimbursement they pay to drivers for mileage. Avedian said no such adjustment had taken place for two consecutive years. And as a podcaster and contributor to the Rideshare Guy, a popular gig-work blog, he had a high profile. Avedian and a fellow eagle-eyed driver started pestering the state’s treasurer’s office, which had not published the adjusted rates as stipulated under Prop 22. The office eventually did so and, the Los Angeles Times reported, put the state’s gig workers on track to get back pay for the mileage expenses — pay potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, a year later, Avedian is curious about gig-company math again. He has asked Uber some of the same questions CalMatters did — including how the company accounts for the driver-benefits fee it adds on to each ride or delivery. The company’s response to him was similar — it provided few specifics.

Besides his concern about the issue as a driver, Avedian said “as a consumer who is paying into the Prop. 22 fund on every trip or delivery, I would like to know the accounting of where my money is going.”

“We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”
— Yasha Timenovich, ride-hailing driver

When the gig companies were campaigning for Prop. 22, they implored voters to “help create a better path forward for drivers.”

But Avedian and other gig workers in California say their paths have not changed much. Many still complain about low wages, little transparency from the companies and lack of worker protections.

Yasha Timenovich said he has worked as a ride-hailing driver for a decade, first with Uber, now with Lyft.

“I work 12, 13, 14 hours a day,” said Timenovich, who drives in the Los Angeles area. “But the time I sit and wait at LAX is not accounted for.” He said he has to work long hours to try to make sure he has enough earnings. “We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”

He also said he must obtain health insurance through Medi-Cal, California’s health care coverage for low-income residents — which in turn means he doesn’t qualify for the health care stipend. He said every driver he knows “is on Medi-Cal because they can’t afford health insurance. I don’t know anyone who has (the stipend).”

Many drivers voted for Prop. 22, he said. But “what we were told was a lie.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.