Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#81

Post by dudul »

ccortes wrote: post #58
avalys wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Coercing employees to vote a certain way, or penalizing them for failing to do so, would be clearly unethical. But I don’t see how a company telling their employees to vote yes on 22 is any different from an activist group telling people to vote no.

>But I don’t see how a company telling their employees to vote yes on 22 is any different from an activist group telling people to vote no. Well the company pays you every month and the activist group doesn't so I guess that's a big difference.

But is the company threatening to fire you if you don't vote yes on 22? Are they asking you to prove that you voted yes?

I think it's totally inappropriate for sure, but is it that different?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#82

Post by amacneil »

tpmoney wrote: post #37
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

It seems to me like this would have been the perfect opportunity to become the first state to decouple benefits from employment. Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways, and set up state sponsored benefit plans for gig workers. Start a mini UBI that covers 4 weeks PTO at the median California wage, open up medicaid eligibility, etc. If the problem is these people don't have benefit…

I don't even see why the state should fund anything here. Healthcare is available for contract workers already (obamacare/covered CA). PTO is irrelevant for contract work, and not just rideshare/gig contracts (the whole point is that you can accept work when it is convenient for you).

The only potential area of "benefits" I can see that might need some rethinking for the gig workforce is sick leave (I don't want rideshare drivers continuing to work while sick just so that they can make rent, so it would be nice if they could accumulate some amount of sick leave proportionate to the number of hours they drive).

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#83

Post by lotsofpulp »

nickff wrote: post #73
amacneil wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance I've yet to hear a solid argument for why something as personal & private as health insurance should be decided by my employer. Expanding this to gig workers (who typically work multiple jobs) seems like madness to me. I would be far more interested in seeing California lead the country in designing a better model than attempting to shoe horn cont…

Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.

No, large employers like the tax benefits of employer provided health insurance because it gives them an edge over small employers and makes it harder for employees to hop around jobs. Employees of large companies that mainly employ younger, healthier people with less risky white collar jobs might also like employer sponsored healthcare, because then their insurance pool excludes people with chronic illnesses and those who need more healthcare, as they wouldn’t be employed.

It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#84

Post by winrid »

acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Why do they deserve benefits? When I'm a consultant or freelancer, I pay my own benefits. How is this different?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#85

Post by jonas21 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #52
meatmanek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than "maintain the status quo". It prohibits the state legislature from making any amendments to prop 22 without a 7/8ths majority, and requires any such amendment be "consistent with, and furthers the purpose of" prop 22.

Wait, how does that even work? You can make a law that says the law can't be repealed by a majority vote? They're not proposing an amendment to the state constitution are they? (Excuse me if I'm not quite so read up on this topic—I don't live in California.)

It's not saying the law can't be repealed by majority vote. It's saying the legislature can't change the law without a seven-eights vote. The law can be repealed by voters via another ballot initiative with a simple majority.

By default, laws enacted via ballot initiatives in California can't be amended by the legislature without voter approval. California has some of the strongest protections for citizen initiatives in the country, which comes with plusses and minuses depending on your perspective.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#86

Post by amacneil »

nickff wrote: post #73
amacneil wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance I've yet to hear a solid argument for why something as personal & private as health insurance should be decided by my employer. Expanding this to gig workers (who typically work multiple jobs) seems like madness to me. I would be far more interested in seeing California lead the country in designing a better model than attempting to shoe horn cont…

Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.

Seems like something California could invest their energy into (at least for state taxes, which would spark a conversation nationally) rather than trying to outlaw contract work :)

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#87

Post by wcfields »

mayop100 wrote: post #79
jameson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sheer dollar amount of contribution comparing support (~10 mil) vs opposition (~$184 mil) shows how much power imbalance exists between workers vs. corporations. The drivers are the essential part of their business so those who work full-time should be entitled to get benefits. Period. Source(s): https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

The drivers want 22. Overwhelmingly. Let them work!

Triangle Shirtwaist workers want fewer unlocked doors! Let them work!

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#88

Post by nickff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #83
nickff wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.

No, large employers like the tax benefits of employer provided health insurance because it gives them an edge over small employers and makes it harder for employees to hop around jobs. Employees of large companies that mainly employ younger, healthier people with less risky white collar jobs might also like employer sponsored healthcare, because then their insurance pool excludes people with chronic illnesses and tho…

Large employers seem to vary; some like the current rules, but others don't. I am not sure what the balance is.

I see you added to your comment after I'd responded:

>"It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars. "

It actually makes a huge difference to their business model who is paying, and whether the dollars are pre-tax or post-tax. When the dollars are pre-tax, people try to get the most comprehensive coverage possible, so that everything, even routine expenditures (like eyeglasses) are covered by insurance, which increases insurance company revenue. Additionally, selling to businesses is very different from selling to consumers; with the former, you're in more of an enterprise B2B market, which is totally different from a B2C.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#89

Post by nickff »

amacneil wrote: post #86
nickff wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.

Seems like something California could invest their energy into (at least for state taxes, which would spark a conversation nationally) rather than trying to outlaw contract work :)

I really wish they would, but the current political climate seems to be more about stoking rage than engaging in nuanced conversations about trade-offs.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#90

Post by amadeuspagel »

slg wrote: post #40

There is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1] >Amending Proposition 22 would require a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent wi…

Direct democracy wouldn't work if the legislature could just overturn anything the people had voted for with a majority. It would be an endless back and forth between representatives voting for something, the people voting against it, and the represantives voting for it again. So unless you see direct democracy as "an absolute perversion of democracy" I don't know what your problem is.
Post reply on HN