The Brief

Hundreds of thousands of ride-hailing app drivers gained a path to negotiate a first union contract with Uber and Lyft, even as they remain classified as independent contractors, under legislation signed Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

The law was hailed as a milestone for app-based drivers in their years-long battle to expand workplace rights, though critics of the measure said drivers will face serious hurdles to convince the tech giants to raise their pay and benefits.

“We are now empowered to affect the conditions and the wages of the drivers,” said Joseph Augusto, who has driven for Uber and Lyft in the Bay Area for more than 10 years. “We are looking forward to building a union and trying to negotiate with Uber and Lyft. This is a step forward. It’s going to take a lot more work, but this is the beginning.”

Ride-hail drivers in California have formed unions in the past, but the app-based transportation giants weren’t required to bargain with them. AB 1340 by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) will change that starting Jan. 1 for drivers’ unions certified by a state board.

Uber, Lyft and other gig companies successfully fought to classify drivers as independent contractors in a 2020 California ballot measure. Under federal law, most private sector employees have the right to collectively bargain and receive benefits such as minimum wage and overtime; independent contractors typically do not.

The new legislation requires app-based transportation companies and certified unions to negotiate in good faith over issues such as driver deactivations, paid leave and earnings. It also protects gig drivers from retaliation and offers the opportunity to reach an industry-wide contract.

The Public Employment Relations Board is set to enforce the provisions, including by overseeing union elections and bargaining, mediating disputes and determining whether any unfair labor practices occurred.

Uber and Lyft initially opposed the measure, arguing that it would increase the price of rides and exclude most drivers who don’t work a significant number of hours per week. But the companies changed their stance in August, in exchange for significant reductions in insurance requirements through another bill, SB 371.

Opponents to that bill argued that the concessions, which are expected to save the companies money by lowering the underinsured motorist coverage from $1 million to $60,000 per person, will shift the financial burden from serious accidents to vulnerable Californians and hospitals. The companies said the move will help them reduce the price of ride-hail services.

“AB 1340 and SB 371 together represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers — demonstrating how industry, labor, and lawmakers can work together to deliver real solutions,” Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, said in a statement.

According to Uber and Lyft, drivers enjoy the flexibility to set their own schedules and an employee model threatens the companies’ survival. The 2020 ballot measure backed by the companies, Proposition 22, promised drivers would receive at least 120% of the local minimum wage, a health care stipend of up to $426 for those working a certain number of hours and accident insurance.

But many ride-hail drivers say they have seen their real wages slip since, while the companies became profitable. Researchers at the UC Berkeley Labor Center found last year that California passenger drivers made less than the state’s minimum wage, after car expenses and excluding tips.

AB 1340 restricts the organizations that may be certified to represent drivers to those that have experience negotiating a labor contract or that are affiliated with such a union. Supporters of the measure said the requirements will ensure legitimate organizations have the resources to represent what could become a very large statewide bargaining bloc.

Rideshare Drivers United, an organization with more than 20,000 California gig driver members, said the conditions could unduly benefit the Service Employees International Union, a major labor group that sponsored AB 1340 and backed a similar initiative in Massachusetts that voters approved last fall. Jason Munderloh, who began driving for Uber and Lyft in San Francisco 11 years ago, said he is also concerned that the new law does not guarantee the right to strike, a key to union leverage.

“It’s a missed opportunity,” said Munderloh, who volunteers with Rideshare Drivers United. “We’re going to be in what might be a very long fight. We need to start on the right foot. And we need a very strong [law]. And I just don’t see that that’s the way AB 1340 is.”

Munderloh pointed to the difficulties unionized employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act have had in securing a first contract with Starbucks, Amazon and other large corporations. Employer opposition and the lack of financial penalties for unfair labor practices under that federal law make it difficult for some employees to ever win a first union contract, according to researchers.

California’s new legislation allows ride-hail drivers to engage in protected union activities, such as a work stoppage. But the state can’t guarantee the right to strike because of federal antitrust laws, according to Scott Kronland, an attorney with Altshuler Berzon in San Francisco who advised the SEIU on AB 1340.

It’s yet to be seen whether federal courts could see striking ride-hail drivers as businesses banding together to illegally reduce competition, since they are not employees.

“It’s a very complicated bill, but there are significant legal constraints,” said Kronland, who argued a challenge to Proposition 22 on behalf of several drivers and unions. “And basically, this is the best you are going to do with Prop 22 and federal antitrust laws until you can change them.”

AB 1340 became possible after the California Court of Appeals in that case struck down language that prevented state lawmakers from authorizing collective bargaining rights.

David Weil, a professor of social policy and economics at Brandeis University, said he was skeptical that a deal embraced by the tech giants would significantly benefit drivers in the long run, even if workers are able to get to the bargaining table. Uber and Lyft control their drivers’ ever-changing rates, what rides they have access to and how much riders will pay by crunching data through an algorithm that works to maximize the companies’ profits, he added.

“Uber and Lyft, because of their vast control of information and algorithms, are always in a position where they have the advantage. … To borrow a gambling term, it’s always going to be the house that always wins relative to the drivers,” said Weil, who led the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division during the Obama administration. “They’re not going to surrender their ability to set prices and their ability to hold all the cards.”

This comes as Uber and Lyft continue to negotiate a settlement with California, as well as the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, which sued the companies over the alleged withholding of wages for thousands of drivers during a period of time before Proposition 22 passed.

Drivers like Munderloh are demanding that the state and cities get an agreement that recoups billions of dollars in back wages and benefits, as well as raises driver pay going forward.

“The best way for drivers to improve what we’re being paid is actually the wage theft lawsuit that’s going on,” he said. “And the union struggle that we’re having here with AB 1340 is a longer-term issue.”

On Monday, Los Angeles travels back in time. Well, sort of.

The Varnish, the famed speakeasy hidden behind a secret door at the back of Cole’s French Dip, will be reconstituted for one night only as part of a special pop-up at Firstborn in Chinatown.

(Meanwhile, Cole's itself will be open through the holiday season, with its last night of regular service planned for Dec. 31.)

The iconic bar, which shuttered in 2024 after a 15-year run, holds a special place in the hearts of many Angelenos, who believe it's where L.A.’s modern cocktail revival truly began. The event reunites three bartenders who all came up through The Varnish’s famously exacting school of cocktail-making. Kenzo Han (recently named Esquire’s Bartender of the Year) cut his teeth there before moving into roles that established him as one of L.A.’s most respected classic-cocktail technicians. Wolf Alexander and Miles Caballes emerged from the same pipeline.

One night only

Kenzo Han, bar director at Firstborn and former Varnish bartender, is hosting two fellow Varnish alumni for the Monday pop-up.

(

Ron De Angelis

)

Han is now Firstborn’s bar director, where he leads a tight, classics-leaning bar program. The restaurant sits inside Mandarin Plaza, where chef Anthony Wang turns out playful comfort dishes with Chinese and American influences. It’s a lively, unfussy neighborhood hangout just off Broadway, surrounded by neon, noodle shops and family-style restaurants.

The Varnish connection

All three bartenders trace their lineage back to Sasha Petraske, who, in 2009, co-founded The Varnish with Eric Alperin and Cedd Moses, the owner of Cole’s French Dip.

Petraske traded '90s flash for pre-Prohibition craft: fresh citrus over sour mix, precise technique over bottle tricks, elevating cocktails from party fuel to art form.

Miles Caballes brings his Varnish training back to the bar for one night.

(

Courtesy Firstborn

)

Wolf Alexander, another Varnish alum, demonstrates the precise technique that defined the speakeasy's approach.

(

Courtesy Firstborn

)

The Varnish became the city’s clearest expression of Petraske’s cocktail philosophy, where his playbook of precision, restraint and quiet hospitality took root on the West Coast. (Petraske passed in 2015.)

Han, Alexander and Caballes all trained in that environment, absorbing the Petraske rules of clean builds, tight technique and no-nonsense cocktails.

What to expect

For one night only, from 6-10 p.m., the trio will channel that tradition through a Varnish-style menu: curated classics only, no custom builds, with all cocktails priced at $20. Two featured drinks nod directly to the bar's lineage. The Spring Blossom — created at The Varnish — combines mezcal, French aperitifs, including Suze and Lillet Blanc, mole bitters and a grapefruit twist. Death & Taxes features scotch, gin, sweet vermouth, Benedictine (a herbal liqueur), Angostura and orange bitters, finished with a lemon twist.

On the food side, chef Anthony Wang is reviving his cult-favorite Blood Orange Chicken Sando ($20), served with radicchio, alongside a limited run of his Shanghainese-style McRib ($24) — a playful, sweet-and-sour riff built around tender ribs and “all the stuff” that made the original such a guilty pleasure.

The blood orange chicken sandwich at Firstborn from chef Anthony Wang.

(

Ron De Angelis

)

Expect a casual, walk-in-only atmosphere where guests can grab a seat at the bar and let the cocktail nostalgia wash over them.

Whether you were a Varnish regular or only heard the stories, this pop-up is a rare chance to see that style alive again — familiar faces, bespoke cocktails and the kind of muscle-memory bartending that defined an era of L.A. drinking culture. For newer drinkers, it’s a glimpse of the cocktail philosophy that shaped the city as we know it.

It’ll likely get busy early, and the food specials may run out fast — but that’s part of the charm. The Varnish’s legacy has always been about small rooms, sharp precision and moments you catch only if you’re paying attention.

In the city of Los Angeles, neighbors or homeowner groups who choose to fight approvals of new housing are required to pay a fee when filing an appeal.

Right now, that fee is $178 — about 1% of the amount the city says it costs to process the appeal. But that fee soon will go up.

On Wednesday, the L.A. City Council voted to increase the fee to $229 but rejected a proposal by the city administrative officer that would have raised the cost for appellants to more than $22,800, or 100% of the cost.

Some advocates for making housing easier to build argued the city should have adopted the higher fee.

“Appeals of approved projects create delays that make it harder to build housing and disincentivize future housing from being proposed,” said Jacob Pierce, a policy associate with the group Abundant Housing L.A.

At a time when L.A.’s budget is strained, Pierce said, if someone thinks a project was wrongly approved, “They should put their money where their mouth is and pay the full fee."

The City Council unanimously approved another new fee structure put forward by the city’s Planning Department.

While fees will remain relatively low for housing project opponents, developers will have to pay $22,453 to appeal projects that previously had been denied.

A November report from the city administrative officer said setting fees higher to recover the full cost of processing would have aligned with the city’s financial policies. Generally, fees are set higher when applicants are asking for a service that benefits them alone.

“When a service or activity benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount,” the report said.

Pierce said he hoped a City Council committee would reconsider the higher fee proposal next year. With the city falling far short of its goal to create nearly a half-million new homes by 2029, he said the city needs to discourage obstruction of new housing.

“Slowing down the construction of housing is expensive for all of us,” Pierce said.

Los Angeles could become the first city in the U.S. to ban ink cartridges that can be used only once.

The L.A. City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve the creation of an ordinance that prohibits their sale. The move comes after more than a year of debate over the terms.

Why the potential ban

This builds upon the city’s effort to reach zero waste, including phasing out single-use plastics. You’re likely familiar with some of those efforts — such as only getting plastic foodware by request and banning single-use carryout bags at stores. Multiple plastic bans have been suggested, like for single-use vapes and bag clips, but now it’s ink’s turn.

The cartridges are tough to dispose of because of the plastic, metal and chemicals inside, according to the city. They’re also classified as regulated waste in the state because they can leach toxic substances into the environment, such as volatile organic compounds and heavy metals.

That poses a problem. L.A.’s curbside recycling program can’t recycle the cartridges, and while its hazardous waste program can take them, a significant portion end up in landfills.

Major printer manufacturers and some ink retailers have take-back programs for used cartridges so they can get refilled. However, L.A. Sanitation says there are certain single-use cartridges that don’t have recovery programs. These are usually cartridges that work with a printer but aren’t name brand.

How outlawing them could work

LASAN has spent months figuring out what a ban would cover — and it hasn’t been without pushback. The city’s energy and environment committee pressed the department back in September on how effective a ban would be.

Ultimately, the committee moved it forward with a promise that LASAN would come back with more details, including environmental groups’ stance, concrete data to back up the need and a public education plan.

The department’s current recommendation is that the ordinance should prohibit retail and online establishments from selling any single-use ink cartridge, whether sold separately or with a printer, to people in the city. Retailers that don’t follow the rules would get fined.

So what does single-use mean here? The ban would affect a printer cartridge that:

• is not collected or recovered through a take-back program
• cannot be remanufactured, refilled or reused
• infringes upon intellectual property rights or violates any applicable local, state or federal law

Any cartridges that meet one of these points would fall under the ban, though you still could get them outside L.A.

The proposed ordinance will go to the committee first while LASAN works on a public education plan.

If it ends up getting approved by the full council, the ban likely would go into full effect 12 months later.