July 23, 2018
TO:

David M. Lanier
Secretary of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
Keely Martin Bosler
Cabinet Secretary to the Governor

CC:

Camille Wagner, Deputy Secretary of Legislative Affairs
Michael Cohen, Director, Department of Finance

FROM:

DoorDash; Lyft; Handy; Postmates; Instacart, Square/Caviar; TaskRabbit;
TSYS & Uber

RE:

Request for Follow-Up Information from June 26, 2018 Meeting Discussing the
the Economic, Financial, and Worker Impacts of Dynamex

Thank you for taking the time to so thoughtfully discuss the California Supreme Court’s
ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc., v. L.A. Superior Court (“Dynamex”) along with the far
reaching and debilitating impacts it will have on the California state budget, our state’s economy,
and approximately 2 million Californians who make their living or supplement their income as
freelancers or independent contractors.
As discussed during our June 26, 2018 meeting, we write to outline: (1) how the Courtcreated ABC standard now imposed on California compares to other jurisdictions around the
country; (2) the consequences for California residents who have chosen flexible work
arrangements as well as those who benefit from the services provided by these workers; (3) how
the Executive branch is uniquely positioned to address this novel and urgent matter; and (4) the
need for a responsive 21st century approach to worker classification.
In sum, the ABC test created by the California Supreme Court is the most restrictive in
the nation, and only California has adopted any form of ABC test by judicial decision, rather
than through a policymaking process. The sweeping impacts of this decision already are being
felt across the state, and these impacts will only become more acute in the months ahead.
Businesses will curtail plans to expand in California and make investments in R&D, consumers
will lose the convenience and affordability of the services on which they have come to rely, and
millions of workers could lose the very thing they value most: flexible and independent work
opportunities which allow them to earn money on their own terms.
The magnitude of this issue requires urgent leadership. While we are working with
legislative leaders on a solution for this year, we believe the Executive branch also has the
unique authority to provide relief from this decision and provide the time that is necessary to
evaluate the impact of this decision and consider policy alternatives. The undersigned companies
are deeply concerned about the immediate and negative effects on the hundreds of thousands of

 workers who have planned their lives around their work arrangements, the billions of dollars of
impact on the state’s budget, and the existential impact that Dynamex poses to a broad swath of
innovative businesses that have powered California’s economic growth. We remain deeply
committed to a robust legislative discussion about how we can collectively invest to protect
worker voices and benefits in a way that best meets the needs of a 21st century worker, scales for
business, and allows Californians from all walks of life to find the work opportunities they want
in the modern economy. Immediate action is needed for California to maintain its role as the
nation’s leader in fostering innovation while providing meaningful protections to workers.
I. California’s Application of the “ABC” Test Is the Most Onerous in the Nation
In Dynamex, the Court upended nearly thirty years of settled California law1 when it
created a new worker classification standard for wage claims. This standard represents the most
restrictive application of an ABC test, and it is the only application of ABC not drawn from the
express language of an existing statute. To be clear, while a handful of states have implemented
less onerous or more narrowly applicable forms of an ABC test, California alone is now
burdened by a restrictive test that does not reflect a policy preference adopted by the political
branches. In fact, this decision runs contrary to dozens of recent pieces of legislation and
regulatory actions in California that have allowed affected businesses in the on-demand economy
to continue to grow, while declining to change classification standards.2
As background, under the Court-created standard in Dynamex, California will now
presume employment for claims arising out of the Wage Orders. To challenge this presumption,
a putative “employer” must establish all of the following:
A. that a worker is free from the control and direction of the “employer” in connection with
the performance of work, under the contract for the performance of such work and in
fact; and
B. that a worker performs work that is outside the usual course of business for the
“employer”; and
C. that a worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation,
or business of the same nature as the work performed for the “employer.”
For context, only four (4) other states have codified an ABC test for wage claims.3 Even
amongst these states, however, three have adopted a more common (and less restrictive) form of
1

Prior to Dynamex, the California Supreme Court applied a balancing-of-factors test to differentiate independent
contractors from employees. Even when considering the remedial intention of California legislation specifically
intended to protect workers, the Court reasoned that, “[e]ach service arrangement must be evaluated on its facts, and
the dispositive circumstances may vary from case to case.” See S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc., v. Dept. of Industrial
Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354-55. The so-called Borello factors are neither arcane nor biased in favor of
industry; rather, they emerged from a melding of common law with uniquely Californian sensibilities.
2
See, e.g. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16550 (SB 182, chaptered 2017); Cal. Gov. Code § 19822.4 (AB 229, chaptered
2015); Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.8, 2753 (SB 459, chaptered 2011); Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 5430 – 5443 (includes
AB 2763, chaptered 2016); Cal. Pub. Util. Comm. Decision 13-09-045 (issued September 19, 2013) on Rulemaking
12-12-011 (filed December 20, 2012).
3
Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Vermont.

 the B prong, requiring an employer to show either that the work is provided outside the
company’s usual course of business or that the work is performed outside the company’s places
of business.4 Of the 14 states that apply a form of statutory ABC test for non-wage related
purposes (e.g., for determining eligibility for unemployment benefits), 12 have adopted this
expanded form of the B prong,5 and the other 2 states have declined to extend ABC beyond
unemployment.6
Contrary to some of the positions presented by organized labor, there has been no
national trend toward adopting an ABC test within the wage context or otherwise. In fact, an
increasing number of states have recently enacted more flexible tests that are context- and/or
industry-specific (or are considering carving out certain forms of independent contractor
relationships from classification scrutiny).7 In fact, only Massachusetts, with an economy onefifth the size of California’s, considers application of an ABC test comparable to that created by
the California Supreme Court. In Massachusetts, however, application of the B prong has been
preempted for certain industries pursuant to the primacy of the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), which prohibits states from enacting or enforcing policies
“related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier.”8
In sum, the Dynamex decision represents a departure from three decades of California
wage and hour law, imposes on the state’s uniquely innovative economy an unprecedented
judicially-created classification standard, and breaks significantly from the overwhelming
majority of states in how it assesses employee/independent contractor distinctions.
II. Application of the “ABC” Test Will Undercut California’s Workers

4

Illinois, 820 ILCS 115/2(1)-(3); Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat § 48-1229(1)(a)-(c); and Vermont, 21 V.S.A. §
341(1)(A)-(C).
5
Alaska, Alaska Stat. § 23.20.525(a)(8)(A)–(C) (unemployment); Arkansas, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-210(e)(1)-(3)
(unemployment); Delaware, Del. Code Tit. 19 § 3302(10)(K)(i)-(iii) (unemployment); Hawaii, Haw. Rev. Stat. §
383-6(1)–(3) (unemployment); Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1472(12)(E)(I)-(III) (unemployment); Maryland,
MD Code, Lab. & Emp., § 8-205(a)(1)-(3) (unemployment); Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085(1)-(3)
(unemployment); New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 282-A:9(3)(a)-(c) (unemployment); Oklahoma, Okla. Stat. tit.
40, § 1-210(14)(a)-(c) (unemployment); Tennessee, Tenn. Ann. Code § 50-7-207(e)(1)(A)-(C) (unemployment);
Washington, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 50.04.140(a)-(c) (unemployment); and West Virginia, W. Va. Code § 21A1A-16(7)(A)-(C) (unemployment). New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 43-21-19(i)(6)(A)-(C)(unemployment), has extended an
ABC test with this expanded B prong beyond the state’s unemployment statute, see Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220
N.J. 289 (2015), but in 2013, Governor Chris Christie vetoed its statutory expansion via the Truck Operator
Independent Operator Act.
6
Indiana, see Company v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 86 N.E.3d 204, 212 (Ind. 2017); and New Mexico, see
Korba v. Atl. Circulation, Inc., 148 N.M. 137, 139 (2010)
7
For example, in 2012, Kansas amended its unemployment law test from an “AB” test to an “A” test focusing
solely on right of control. See 2012 Kansas Laws Ch. 166 (H.B. 2792); K.S.A. 44-703. New York and Pennsylvania
apply a version of the ABC only to the construction industry. Additionally, in 2017, Florida passed a law to make it
easier for certain app-based businesses to defend against state-law misclassification suits. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §
627.748(9). Similarly, in April 2018, Arizona amended its statutory definition of employee, but did not include any
amendments related to the ABC test, drivers, or app-based hiring entities. See 2018 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 171 (S.B.
1500) (WEST); A.R.S. § 23-613.01.
8
See 49 U.S. Code § 14501(c)(1). By contrast, to date, California courts and the Ninth Circuit have declined to
apply FAAAA preemption to wage claims.

 Today, based on conservative estimates, nearly 2 million Californians9 (or more than
10% of the state’s workforce10) choose to work independently, either full time or to supplement
their primary income. These include freelancers who work in the most dynamic sectors of the
state’s economy, such as engineers, software developers, designers, therapists, insurance agents,
accountants, financial advisers, consultants, writers, hair stylists, editors, drivers, doctors, and
artists. In fact, almost half of all millennials currently freelance.11 Even franchises are operated
under an independent contractor relationship, and California also has over 76,000 franchise
locations that support nearly 730,000 jobs. With the advancement of technology, this diverse
California workforce will have even more opportunities to choose independent work in the near
future. Accordingly, and in order to remain an economic leader and incubator for transformative
technology, the regulatory structure in California must be responsive to how people are choosing
to work and do business in the 21st century.
In Dynamex, the Court considered facts concerning approximately 300 workers at one
company within one sector of one industry. Despite the decision’s sweeping application, the
Court neither addressed nor considered, for example, franchises, doctors, engineers, accountants,
hair stylists, or a myriad of other freelance workers in the state. As a result of the decision in
Dynamex, however, these varied industries will have to reevaluate their business models,
eliminate many of the freedoms afforded to workers who choose to offer their services in these
industries, and force workers into more stringent and less flexible work arrangements—
assuming, of course, that their business models can continue to operate.
While the full cross-sector and downstream impacts Dynamex has on the economy are yet
to be fully realized, one initial conservative estimate highlights that the reclassification of
workers under the new “ABC” standard has the potential to immediately affect the livelihood of
300,000 California workers.12 As support for this projection, trial courts in California have
already begun to apply Dynamex broadly and retroactively to facts and claims outside those
specifically addressed in the original decision. For example, on July 18, 2018, in part citing the
confusion created by inconsistent classification standards, the Superior Court for Orange County
extended Dynamex to PAGA actions generally and to derivative wage and hour claims for
business expenses (Lab. Code § 2802) and wage deductions (Lab. Code § 221).13
9

This conservative number is based upon the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2018 release of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2018) Contingent Worker Survey which does not capture the number of workers who supplement their
incomes through online or app-enabled work.
10
Employment Development Department, “Monthly Labor Force Data For Counties, May 2018,” State of
California, June 15, 2018, available at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf.
11
Edelman Intelligence, “Freelancing in America 2017,” commissioned in partnership by Upwork and Freelancers
Union, available at https://www.upwork.com/i/freelancing-in-america/2017/.
12
R Street Institute’s “Economic Costs & Policy Alternatives to Dynamex” (2018). As a result of Dynamex, former
independent contractors will have fewer work opportunities, lower earnings, reduced spending power, and stalled
economic mobility, while shrinking the taxable income & revenue base of the state. Even small businesses and local
retailers which have leveraged on-demand technologies to expand into new locations, expand their sales reach, hire
more, raise wages, or make capital expenditures based on the sales generated from online platforms will lose a vital
revenue stream, and additional taxes that had been collected on incremental sales will evaporate. Available at
https://www.rstreet.org/2018/06/13/economic-costs-and-policy-alternatives-to-californias-dynamex-decision/.
13
See Johnson vs. VCG-IS, LLC, et al., Ruling on Motion in Limine, No: 30-2015-00802813-CU-CR-CXC (Cal.
Sup. Ct. Orange County, July 18, 2018).

 Undoubtedly, the distribution of these costs will not fall evenly across every sector of
California’s economy, penalizing firms well beyond tech, including banking, real estate,
insurance, personal services, and even journalism. Furthermore, a retroactive application of the
decision means that small businesses leveraging flexible work may be liable for practices
previously deemed compliant with California law that predate Dynamex, rendering some
business models unviable and erasing the ability for workers to profit from the services they
offer to such businesses. Moreover, the businesses that choose to utilize independent contractors
will face heightened costs for doing business in California, which could lead to reduced pay
scales or higher consumer costs for firms to stay afloat, chilling the approximately 53.3% of all
venture capital investment that has poured into California businesses in 2017.14
Perhaps most counterintuitively, the decision has the potential to disproportionately
impact some of our most vulnerable populations. For example, workers with prior criminal
convictions benefit from the flexible workplace arrangements on online platforms who use
background checking standards that balance trust and safety standards without blanket
discrimination against criminal histories, in keeping with the spirit of the Administration’s ‘ban
the box’ efforts.
Similarly, the U.S. Department of Labor reports that immigrant and minority populations
have increased their labor force participation rates from 2005 to 2018 due to more flexible work
opportunities. According to a Pew Research Survey, certain communities of color are between
two and three times more likely to have earned money through an online platform.15 And these
workers are much more likely to say that they do this type of work because they need to be able
to have control over their work schedules. By enabling flexible work arrangements, this state can
continue to safeguard economic opportunities for workers of all backgrounds.
As discussed in greater detail in Section IV, we are eager to kickstart discussions on how
California can modernize worker classification laws while strengthening the social safety net for
affected workers. hose conversations require an inclusive, collaborative process that brings
workers, unions, legislators, thought leaders, and other stakeholders to the table. But without
short-term relief in the form of a “pause,” the Court-created ABC test will hurt workers and
decimate businesses in the interim.
III. The Power of the Executive Branch
As set forth below, the Governor is in a particularly strong position to take action to stay
the implementation of this new test. The Governor’s exercise of traditional executive authority is
especially justified here given the unprecedented way in which this new test has been
promulgated and the lack of an alternative process—such as using the Administrative Procedure
Act (“APA”)—for altering the Wage Orders that are the subject of the Dynamex decision.

14

PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree 4th Quarter Report 2016, Updated Feb 2017, available at
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/technology/moneytree/explorer.html#/.
15
Pew Research Center, “Labor platforms: technology-enabled ‘gig work’” (November 26, 2016), available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/labor-platforms-technology-enabled-gig-work/.

 A. The Wage Orders Were Promulgated by an Executive Agency that Does Not
Currently Exist
California’s Wage Orders are regulations that were promulgated by the Industrial
Welfare Commission (“IWC”). The IWC was established in 1913 as a body of five members
appointed by the Governor—with two members being representatives of labor, two members
from management, and one public or neutral member—and was authorized by the Legislature to
formulate Wage Orders governing employment in California.16 The IWC, however, was
defunded by the Legislature, effective July 1, 2004.17 Nonetheless, its Wage Orders, last
amended over 15 years ago ( before many of our industries even existed), remain in effect.18
During its existence, the IWC promulgated the Wage Orders pursuant to a process
defined by statute—which was distinct from and less onerous than the APA process.19 By statute,
the IWC would constitute “wage boards” to recommend policies, hold public hearings, and then
adopt or amend those recommendations into the Wage Orders.20 The last significant revamp of
the Wage Orders was in response to the “Eight-Hour-Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility
Act” passed by the Legislature, and effective January 1, 2000. Pursuant to that legislation, the
IWC updated the Wage Orders pursuant to its traditional process, which gave interested parties
the ability to challenge the IWC’s orders.
B. Impacted Parties Have a Statutory Right to Seek the Adoption, Amendment, or
Repeal of a Wage Order—But that Reconsideration Process is Broken Without a
Functional IWC
An integral part of the statutory scheme underlying the IWC’s promulgation of the Wage
Orders was the ability for any interested party to “petition the [IWC] requesting the adoption,
amendment, or repeal of” the orders.21 For example, after the IWC promulgated new orders in
response to the Eight-Hour-Day Restoration law, several labor organizations petitioned the IWC
to amend Wage Order 9, governing the transportation industry.22 The IWC then followed its
procedures to consider the petition and ultimately implemented several amendments.23
Because the IWC had “a carefully balanced membership and a neutral public member to
break ties between employer and employee representatives,” the IWC considered different
interests and could be “sought out and petitioned to take action by representatives of labor,
management, or members of the public who are concerned about matters within its
jurisdiction.”24 Historically, the IWC’s “carefully balanced membership” received petitions from
16

See Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 429, 433-34; Labor Code §§ 70-71.
See id., at 434 n. 2.
18
See id.
19
See Labor Code §§ 1173, 1178, 1178.5.
20
See id. §§ 1178, 1178.5.
21
Labor Code § 1176.1, see also id. § 1176.3.
22
See Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”), History of Wage Orders,
https://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/Stementastothebasis_WageOrder9.pdf.
23
See id. (describing the IWC’s investigation under Labor Code sections 1173, 1178, and 1178.5, and its ultimate
amendments).
24
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 63 Cal.App.4th 982, 992-94 (1998).
17

 labor and industry, in response to judicial decisions or executive requests.25 Because the IWC is
now defunct, however, the prior remedy of amending the Wage Orders that was contemplated by
the Labor Code—and vested in the Executive branch through the IWC—is not currently
available.26
C. The Governor Is Vested With Broad Executive Power, Including the Power to Issue
Executive Orders
As the elected enforcer of the laws of the state, the Governor is of course vested with the
“supreme executive power” by the California Constitution (art. V, § 1), which includes the
authority to issue executive orders. Such orders “need not be predicated upon some express
statutory provision, but may properly be employed to effectuate a right, duty, or obligation which
emanates or may be implied from the Constitution or to enforce public policy embodied within
the Constitution and laws.”27 As part of these broad executive powers, the Governor always has
the power to direct the executive branch’s application of a particular law.28 And, indeed, this
office and others before it have exercised this authority in the employment law context for the
benefit of the state.29
By way of example only, the Governor could direct executive agencies not to implement
the new test.30 Executive stays can be justified by the need to “assess the potential for economic
impact on California business enterprises and individuals” and “the increased costs associated
with California’s regulatory environment.”31 Such a stay could be paired with order(s) for the
submission of a report on the impact of Dynamex on the California economy,32 or for the
appointment of an executive advisory body to advise on the proper application of Dynamex.33
In addition a call for an appropriations from the executive branch to the legislature to
refund and/or reconstitute the IWC would would allow impacted parties to avail themselves of
the IWC and its hearing processes, as originally contemplated by statute. While this alone would

25

See id. at 986-89 (describing history of IWC).
While the Executive branch is still charged with making ministerial updates to the Wage Orders through the DIR
and with enforcement through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), the DIR is not permitted to
otherwise change Wage Orders beyond updating them where there is a legislative change or an automatic update
required by prior legislation. See Labor Code § 1182.13.
27
63 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 583 (1980) (affirming that Executive Order, which ordered agencies “within the Executive
Branch of state government” not to discriminate based on sexual preference, was properly issued by Governor Jerry
Brown).
28
Id.
29
See, e.g., Executive Order S-2-03 (ordering suspension of certain regulations that had not been promulgated
pursuant to the APA, such as guidelines and manuals, followed by review of such regulations; ordering stay of
proposed regulations; and ordering suspension or postponement of effective date of regulations not yet in effect); cf.
California Labor Federation, 63 Cal.App.4th at 400 (describing executive order suspending IWC daily overtime
rules in response to Northridge earthquake, followed by Governor’s petition to the IWC to reconsider those rules).
30
See also Labor Code § 90.5 (Director of the DLSE sets enforcement priorities); id. § 90.6(b)(3) (DLSE has power
to enforce Wage Orders).
31
See, e.g., Executive Order S-2-03.
32
Id.
33
Id.
26

 not reverse the foundational concerns workers, businesses, and the budget face as a result of this
decision, it would offer all stakeholders a forum to seek critical clarifications.
D. The Governor’s Authority to Act through Executive Order is Particularly
Appropriate Where The APA Process Was Not Utilized and the Alternative Process of
Appealing to the IWC is Broken
Typically, the California Administrative Procedures Act governs the procedure for
adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations.34 Here, in contrast, because the Wage Orders
were promulgated outside of the APA process, the typical procedure for challenging APA
regulations is not implicated.
Nor would an executive order staying the new ABC test impinge on the Legislature’s
prerogative. Of course, the Governor is “not empowered, by executive order or otherwise, to
amend the effect of, or to qualify the operation of existing legislation.”35 Here, however, the
ABC test is not part of any legislation—either directly or indirectly. Rather, the Legislature
empowered the executive branch, via the IWC, to promulgate the Wage Orders, and the Court
simply imposed a radically new interpretation on those executive branch regulations.
To the extent the Legislature specifically directed the IWC to amend portions of the
Wage Orders, those directives never encompassed the issue at hand—how to define when an
individual is an employee or an independent contractor. And the historical remedy of proceeding
through the IWC is now broken. The Governor, therefore, is well within his power to determine
how this wholesale re-interpretation of the applicable Wage Orders should be enforced, and
whether this sea change should be stayed until impacted parties have a viable channel to seek
amendment or reconsideration of the applicable Wage Orders.
In sum, the Wage Orders are a creation of the executive branch. The Wage Orders were
promulgated pursuant to a unique executive branch process, which should include an amendment
process but which is currently broken. The Governor, in exercising his constitutionally-mandated
“supreme executive power,” has the authority to stay the application of the ABC test, which was
promulgated by the Court in Dynamex—not by the Legislature nor through any administrative
procedure.
To reach an outcome that protects the rights and wellbeing of workers while preserving
the flexibility these workers depend upon, we believe that the best course of action is to suspend
the effects of Dynamex until the numerous business, labor, and other interested parties can come
together to properly define when an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. This
decision should be made through a public process that adequately considers the far-reaching
consequences to Californians, and the fundamental economic changes of the last decade.

34

See Gov’t Code § 11340 et seq.
63 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 583 (1980); see also Prof’l Engineers in Cal. Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989
(2010) (holding that Governor Schwarzenegger could not unilaterally authorize two days of furlough for state
workers).
35

 IV. California has the Opportunity to Lead the Country in a Social Compact for a 21st
Century Workforce
We acknowledge that this is a politically contentious issue. However, avoiding or
delaying action on this issue itself would be an active choice to allow a massive shift in policy,
without input from elected officials, to unfold, stifling innovation and threatening the livelihoods
of millions of working Californians. There must be time afforded to make lawmakers fully aware
of the potential impacts in their communities, and more importantly, to inform the workers
themselves.
The realities of work in our country have shifted drastically in the last several decades.
New industries have democratized access for many Americans, and with these advances have
come greater choice and flexibility around work. This has highlighted the need for a social
contract that can keep pace with the swift evolutions in technology and the economy. As the
Department of Labor highlights in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ contingent worker
supplemental survey (CWS): 5.9 million individuals held temporary jobs in 2017 and 10.6
million independent contractors worked in alternative work arrangements without full time
employment.36 And according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, a majority of millenials
prefer alternative and flexible work arrangements.37
This is an opportunity for all stakeholders to come to the table and create a lasting
framework for the future of work in California. Unfortunately, the Dynamex decision has the
potential to displace millions of workers. Its impacts are already being felt by enterprises as far
reaching as franchises, trucking, taxicabs, hairstyling, medicine, and the on-demand economy. A
dynamic and vibrant economy requires policy solutions that are tailored to the unique
circumstances of different industries. The facts of a single, discrete court case do not represent
the myriad of work relationships that make up the world’s fifth largest economy. This requires a
deliberative and inclusive process, one in which legislators, labor unions, trade associations,
consumer advocates, and business all play a vital role.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Legislature and the
Administration suspend the application of the Dynamex decision until all parties impacted by this
decision can work together to develop a balanced test for determining worker classification that
reflects the needs of California’s vast economy and diverse workforce, while still investing in
worker protections.

36

Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/conemp.pdf.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, “NextGen: A Global Generational Study,” study conducted by the University of
Southern California and the London Business School (2013), available at https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hrmanagement-services/publications/assets/pwc-nextgen.pdf.
37