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

91–100 of 172 posts

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

#91

Post by antiutopian »

mayop100 wrote: post #75
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…

Drivers deserve to be able to make their own choices about what work they want to do. Yes on 22!

Who are you and why are you doing this?

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

#92

Post by Cerium »

Even if it was true that everyone wants prop 22 to pass, I refuse to vote for a proposition that make an exemption for a specific industry or activity. If employment law is wrong change it, if it is right leave it. There is nothing unique about any one industry's relationship with employment, especially this one.

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

#93

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

zestyping wrote: post #36
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #23

I have to preface this by saying I'm not defending Uber - I haven't followed the debate around this proposition. But...lots of people in tech, and on this site, have long been pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions. To those of you who have - did you really, honestly think that these companies would not also become vocally active in their own political interests? Did you really think they'd only speak…

Can you say more about what you mean? "Pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions" is not how I would characterize it — at least for my part, I conceive of it as "Pushing companies to behave ethically."

People hold political opinions because they believe they are ethical. I'm sure you can find outliers, but they're an edge case.

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

#94

Post by jzer0cool »

I have also seen it on ubereats (as consumer).

I also at the moment don't have an opinion of this.

Is this understanding correct at a very high level?

Yes 22: * Benefits Uber. * Do not need to provide drivers with health benefits. They are on contract (e.g. hourly) so they can buy their own health benefits. This is similar to other workers like doing "gigs".

No 22 - Benefits Drivers. * Every driver (irregardless of hours worked) are required to receive health benefits.

If above is the case, the two sides seem very polar. Why not have a middle ground where benefits are provided to driver's, given a contract, that they work meet 40hrs per week?

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

#95

Post by boucher »

vkou wrote: post #77
imgabe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance > or else > 2. we're turning off our apps in California If you create a law that makes it unprofitable for a company to operate, are you really surprised that the company stops operating?

The company always has the option to lower wages, or raise prices on their product. It would, of course, mean that their law-compliant competitors would eat their marketshare. They are trying to tell us with a straight face, that a taxi-in-an-app business is impossible to operate under Prop 22. This is, of course, completely untrue.

To be clear, just so people don't vote mistakenly: these companies want to "operate under Prop 22"; Uber & Lyft are the primary supporters of Prop 22.

They do not want to operate under AB5, the current law, which Prop 22 seeks to invalidate.

If you want to compel Uber and others to follow the current law (which requires them to give employee benefits to drivers), you should vote NO on Prop 22.

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

#96

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

yardie wrote: post #44
mmanfrin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they include language in the bill that it can't be overturned except by a 7/8ths majority which would make it functionally immune to being overturned, ever.

Is that even possible?! I’m not aware of the ÇA constitution but bills in my state descend from the constitution they can’t exceed it. To do that would require a referendum to change the constitution. Which they are trying to do now by making a referendum to make voters vote 2x to pass (ie make laws take a long time and very expensive to vote in).

California ballot propositions have the possibility of amending the state constitution (see Prop 13 [1] as one of the historic examples), and once you're allowing that, anything is possible.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

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

#97

Post by jcranmer »

vsareto wrote: post #26
ivalm wrote: post #16

Doing some more exploration on this. Apparently until you click “yes” it would spam you. And if you did click “yes” then your riders would get a message when they take a ride that you support prop 22. https://twitter.com/unicorn__voice/status/131753631910332825...

>Tweet: Thats infuriating, misleading and probably illegal Anyone know what is potentially illegal about this?

My first thought is some form of compelled speech, but I'm not sure there's actually any statute prohibiting someone from compelling someone else to make political statements, even in an employer-employee setting.

There's also a (very weak) argument to be made for defamation, as Uber's way of gathering this information might be reckless disregard of the truth. However, even if it is defamation, showing any damages is going to be extremely tricky, and even meeting the defamation bar seems like the kind of convoluted legal reasoning that tends to lose at court.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

dudul wrote: post #72
makecheck wrote: post #60

We should fight for a system where people can actually be paid enough to live from ONE JOB. (This solves all kinds of other problems, like freeing up time so people can finally live more relaxed lives and invest in themselves, including in their own health.) Yet we live in a society where multiple jobs are often required just to survive. And in that scenario, it is strange to require “your employer” to give you benef…

What do you mean one healthcare plan is "wasted"? If you are offered a healthcare plan by several employers you just enroll in one and that's it. You waive the other ones. Your premium is paid partly with one salary, and your other salary is untouched. Where is the waste?

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by username90 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #64
tpmoney wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways Is that a law of nature or something? An interesting way seeing ideology at work is when people start framing policy choice as the natural state of things. To what degree gig work permeates the economy is entirely in the hands of the lawmakers of California, and if they care about the long term accumulation of human capital they better nip i…

There is a huge demand for gig work and not a great demand for gig workers, exploring more ways to create demand for gig workers is a good thing. Lots of people don't want a stable job and I don't see why we should force them to get one just to feed themselves.

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

#100

Post by EdJiang »

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…

Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect.

1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter." 15-25 hours would require a 50% payment.

https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/

2. The companies are exploring other options to stay in California, which is actually required as part of the appeal which happened recently. The current publicly proposed model is franchising out to local businesses: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/technology/uber-lyft-fran...

Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff

Post reply on HN