Mark DeSaulnier and the push to unionise the gig economy

Across California and many other advanced economies, the rise of platform-based work has rewritten the relationship between employer and employee. Apps that deliver food, drive passengers, or dispatch handymen have created millions of jobs while leaving questions about wages, benefits, and basic protections largely unresolved. Mark DeSaulnier has spent years arguing that the answer lies in collective bargaining, not in leaving individual contractors to negotiate alone with billion-dollar platforms.

The conversation resonates far beyond his district. In Sydney and Melbourne, riders for Uber Eats and DoorDash regularly gather in inner-city hubs like Newtown and Fitzroy to swap stories about long waits, vanishing tips, and deactivation without warning. Australian policymakers have been wrestling with the same issues, and the choices made in Sacramento often echo through debates inside Parliament House in Canberra.

The precarious reality of platform work

Gig work promised flexibility, and for many Australians it delivers exactly that. A university student in Brisbane might log on to Airtasker between lectures, while a retiree in Perth can pick up short deliveries to stay active. The trouble starts when that flexibility becomes a substitute for security. A rider who relies on a single platform has no sick leave, no superannuation contributions from the platform, and no obvious channel to challenge unfair treatment.

This is not a fringe concern. Surveys by the Transport Workers Union in Australia have consistently found that nearly half of food-delivery riders work more than thirty hours a week, yet most are classified as independent contractors. When the algorithm cuts their pay rate mid-shift, there is no human to ring. Workers describe the experience as being "managed by a phone," and the phrase has caught on among labour advocates in both California and the eastern states.

Mark DeSaulnier's case for collective bargaining

DeSaulnier's position is straightforward: workers should be able to organise, regardless of how they are classified on paper. He has publicly backed efforts to extend traditional labour rights to independent contractors, arguing that no algorithm should stand between a worker and a union. His record includes supporting measures that would require platforms to negotiate with chosen representatives when workers choose to unionise.

The congressman often points out that the gig economy did not invent exploitation. It merely industrialised it. By applying well-established principles of collective action to a new business model, he believes Congress can restore some balance without killing the flexibility that draws people to platform work in the first place. On Labour Day in the district, he joined workers and union leaders to mark the contribution of those often overlooked by traditional labour celebrations.

Parallels between Sacramento and Canberra

Australian reformers have been circling similar questions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has campaigned for a portable entitlement scheme that would follow workers from gig job to gig job, and the Fair Work Act has been amended several times to clarify who counts as an employee versus a contractor. The debates sound familiar to anyone following California politics: how do you protect a delivery rider without forcing them into a rigid employment relationship they never wanted?

The cultural framing is different but compatible. Australians talk about a "fair go" with the same conviction that Americans invoke the dignity of work. Both traditions accept that markets need rules, and both have produced legislators willing to challenge tech platforms on behalf of workers. DeSaulnier's approach echoes proposals floated by the Transport Workers Union and echoed by Labor figures in New South Wales, where gig reform has become a recurring election issue.

Community action as a lever for policy

Rallies, public hearings, and coordinated outreach matter because legislation rarely moves without pressure. DeSaulnier has built his career on attending union meetings, knocking on doors in working-class neighbourhoods, and showing up at the picket lines that some politicians prefer to avoid. His team frames voter contact as the engine of policy change, not a campaign chore.

That organising instinct has practical consequences. Campaigns that mobilise supporters before Election Day tend to win the policy fights afterwards, because legislators listen to constituents who actually show up. A useful primer on the mechanics of casting an early ballot outlines the kind of groundwork that translates political enthusiasm into real influence.

Hallmarks of an effective local campaign

Comparing worker protections in California and Australia

The comparison below sketches the major differences between the two systems as they currently stand. Both are evolving, but the trajectory is similar: more recognition that platform work is real work.

Feature California (PRO Act framework) Australia (Fair Work framework)
Default classification Employee, with narrow contractor carve-outs Contractor unless meets strict multi-factor test
Right to unionise Explicitly extended to independent contractors Available, but bargaining orders hard to enforce for solos
Minimum standards State and federal wage floors apply broadly Award rates apply only to employees
Recent reforms AB5-style codification, ongoing PRO Act debate "Same job, same pay" amendments, gig inquiries ongoing
Industry focus Rideshare, delivery, app-based tasks Rideshare, delivery, crowd-sourced labour

What supporters can do before the polls

The path from campaign slogan to law is long, and the steps along the way are concrete rather than glamorous.

Practical steps for engaged constituents

For those watching the gig economy debate from Australia, the lessons from a district race in California are still instructive. The candidates who win these fights are the ones who treat union organising as serious politics rather than a side issue, and the constituents who back them early tend to shape the eventual compromise.