By Helena Verhuyck, PhD researcher on the Platform Economy at University of Antwerp
This blog is produced as a part of the Reshaping Work Fellowship Programme. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Reshaping Work or organisations that have supported the programme.
What happens when labour protections grow stronger, but labour itself is displaced by machines? And can California remain a worker rights advocate while simultaneously automating those very workers out of existence?
In the United States, California is often hailed as a pioneer in advancing worker rights. From Assembly Bill 5’s ambitious reclassification of gig workers to strong minimum wage laws and pioneering health and safety standards, this state is considered a progressive reference point in U.S. labour policy. But, simultaneously, it is also the birthplace of some of the most disruptive technology companies reshaping the very notion of work. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in San Francisco, where companies like Waymo operate fully autonomous ‘robotaxis’, now completing over a million rides a month without a single driver behind the wheel. Thus, even as California extends protections for workers, the concept of “worker” is becoming destabilized by technological innovation. Some Californians have even resorted to vandalizing Waymo vehicles, burning and tagging them with graffiti as a symbolic rejection of a system that privileges corporate innovation over public well-being and job security.
California’s worker-tech tension
California’s duality is especially visible in the gig economy. On the one hand, California led the way in tackling false self-employment with Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which sought to reclassify many (platform) workers as employees with full labour protections. On the other hand, California-based gig platforms including Uber, Lyft and Doordash lobbied hard against AB 5 to avoid potential requalification. The following year, Proposition 22 was passed, a ballot initiative which carved gig drivers out of AB 5’s employee-friendly reclassification framework. Proposition 22 was the most expensive ballot measure in California history, estimated at around $224 million — money that could have otherwise been spent on workers. This shows how California is both progressive in protecting vulnerable workers, yet is vulnerable itself to intense lobbying by the very platforms it seeks to regulate.
Recently, in October 2025, California governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1340, a landmark bill giving ride-hail drivers the right to collectively organize and bargain, despite their independent contractor status. Wary of repeating the intense corporate backlash that followed AB 5, lawmakers spent over a year negotiating the bill with gig platforms. What sealed the deal and eventually got the platforms on board was an economic trade-off: a reduction in platform insurance requirements in exchange for drivers’ organising rights. This resulting bill is seen as a historic compromise between labour advocates and gig companies after years of legal battles.
However, AB 1340 arrives just as autonomous vehicle deployment begins scaling up. In a future of robo-taxis and drone deliveries, one may wonder whether there will be many drivers left to organize in the future.
Distant utopia or (future) global reality?
This phenomenon isn’t just a distant utopia confined to the United States. American firms like Waymo and Tesla are eyeing European markets, and Chinese players like Baidu and Momenta are partnering with Uber and Lyft to launch robotaxi pilots in the UK and Germany in 2026. Meanwhile, to keep up with Chinese and American technology development, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has urged all Member States to develop self-driving cars. Even though autonomous vehicles are not (yet) legal for public use in most of Europe, she argues that AI could improve road safety and bolster industrial competitiveness.
But with this push for autonomous vehicles come serious concerns, including — but not limited to — the net loss of jobs. For example, the UK government projects 38,000 new autonomous-vehicle-related jobs, but fails to account for over tenfold the number of taxi and private hire jobs that could be lost. European labour markets have stronger worker protections and union density than the U.S., but it remains to be seen whether these are sufficient to absorb large-scale automation shocks.
Conclusion
The tug-of-war between California’s labour advocates and big tech platforms, exemplified by AB 5, Proposition 22 and now AB 1340, reveals California’s broader juxtaposition: one foot firmly planted in worker advocacy, the other racing toward an automated, post-labour economy. This paradox is embedded within a bigger, overarching tension between embracing technological innovation and regulating big tech companies. The adoption of AB 1340 shows that compromises between these big tech platforms and unions are not impossible, yet also reveals that California’s criticism of being a “business-dominated legislature” is not fully unfounded — if the government wants to adopt legislation, this has to happen through negotiation and trade-offs. The richer and more powerful these platforms become, the more influence they will wield over politics and legislation. It is therefore more crucial than ever to ensure rules are in place to tame big tech platform power and keep it within bounds.
California, despite some attempts through proposed legislation and union lobbying, still lacks robust safeguards to prevent large-scale driver displacement. Therefore, policymakers need to think ahead before autonomous vehicles entrench themselves too deeply into the market: if automation is to serve the public good, it must be paired with some important safeguards: job transition plans, retraining funds, autonomous vehicle taxation to support displaced workers, and rules on surveillance. This way, the transition to automation can happen gradually and intentionally, rather than resulting in a slow death of platform drivers.
The future of work may be autonomous, but the future of workers still hinges on the choices we make today.