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

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by slg »

jjxw wrote: post #108
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There is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1] 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…

Prefacing this with the disclaimer that I work for Uber. This talking point completely ignores the fact that California Props are, BY DEFAULT, not amendable by the legislature unless otherwise specified. If anything this 7/8ths clause gives the legislature more flexibility than the vast majority of propositions which the legislature cannot touch without putting another prop up for vote.

Which is how we get into the pattern of having the same issues on the ballot every election and constantly amending them with direct voting. Many propositions wishing to avoid this issue require some small super majority in the legislature. That is the standard practice for giving "the legislature more flexibility". Requiring 87.5% is new and it is so high to be completely impractical avenue for change. Claiming it is about flexibility is the type of dishonesty we need to remove from politics.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

EdJiang wrote: post #105
ivalm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unfortunate that other professions are not getting protections under AB5, I am all for expanding AB5 to cover basically everyone who 1) doesn’t set their own rate 2) cannot choose to do or not do a job without penalty 3) does not have a market of clients

Drivers providing services via Uber can do all three now in California. Drivers can choose a rate multiplier to advertise their services at, decline as many trips as they want, and can directly connect with riders for scheduled rides. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-s... Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by EdJiang »

slg wrote: post #121
jjxw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prefacing this with the disclaimer that I work for Uber. This talking point completely ignores the fact that California Props are, BY DEFAULT, not amendable by the legislature unless otherwise specified. If anything this 7/8ths clause gives the legislature more flexibility than the vast majority of propositions which the legislature cannot touch without putting another prop up for vote.

Which is how we get into the pattern of having the same issues on the ballot every election and constantly amending them with direct voting. Many propositions wishing to avoid this issue require some small super majority in the legislature. That is the standard practice for giving "the legislature more flexibility". Requiring 87.5% is new and it is so high to be completely impractical avenue for change. Claiming it i…

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/save-local-journalism-...

https://www.courthousenews.com/governor-newsom-signs-newspap...

The CA legislature just passed AB323, which exempts journalists from AB5, with a 71-4 margin (94.7%) in the Assembly and unanimously in the Senate. So 87.5% is certainly doable!

Funnily enough, the website advocating for journalists to be exempt says the following. Sound familiar?

==========

* If forced to comply with AB 5, many community newspapers, including local, ethnic, urban, suburban and metro papers, will be unable to sustain operations. They will close their doors, leaving many communities with no local news source.

* For those that continue to exist, news operations will be forced to make deep cuts to both print and digital community coverage and offerings in order to survive.

[IF NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM AB 5, READERS WILL LOSE.]

* Limited home delivery.

* Fewer local news reporters and less hometown coverage.

* Loss of sports, comics, games and investigative reporting.

* Days of week eliminated from print.

More at: https://savemypaper.com

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

#124

Post by chmod600 »

rhizome wrote: post #101
chmod600 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it primarily the state's responsibility to come up with a reasonable solution? California has nearly unlimited power in this situation, so it's not much of a negotiation. Uber and lyft have one tool left: ask the people to override the assembly. If rideshare is more popular than no rideshare, it'll pass. If you want a more nuanced solution, well, California had a chance to offer one. I don't see it.

Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have a chance to offer a more nuanced solution, too.

Such as?

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

#125

Post by slg »

EdJiang wrote: post #123
slg wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is how we get into the pattern of having the same issues on the ballot every election and constantly amending them with direct voting. Many propositions wishing to avoid this issue require some small super majority in the legislature. That is the standard practice for giving "the legislature more flexibility". Requiring 87.5% is new and it is so high to be completely impractical avenue for change. Claiming it i…

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/save-local-journalism-... https://www.courthousenews.com/governor-newsom-signs-newspap... The CA legislature just passed AB323, which exempts journalists from AB5, with a 71-4 margin (94.7%) in the Assembly and unanimously in the Senate. So 87.5% is certainly doable! Funnily enough, the website advocating for journalists to be exempt says the following. Sound familiar? ==========…

>The CA legislature just passed AB323, which exempts journalists from AB5, with a 71-4 margin (94.7%) in the Assembly

The link you provided says 67-4. The Assembly has 80 seats so 67/80 is 83.75% and therefore wouldn't be enough to amend Prop 22.

One big difference between that change to AB5 and this one is that almost zero journalists actually wanted AB5 to apply to them. Journalism is profession that is much closer to true freelance work than rideshare workers who flip back and forth between a couple employers.

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

#126

Post by pochamago »

ivalm wrote: post #70
gojomo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to contract with each other flexibly, without swallowing big cookie-cutter compensation/benefit templates dictated by the state, herding people into 20th-century interest-groups. If the legislature of the State of California wants some of its citizens to get certain "benefits", it can and should provide them directly, not hold other voluntary activity hostage unless it subsidizes their list-of-g…

It is unfortunate that other professions are not getting protections under AB5, I am all for expanding AB5 to cover basically everyone who 1) doesn’t set their own rate 2) cannot choose to do or not do a job without penalty 3) does not have a market of clients

But all the exceptions were carved out because the people who would be affected directly by the law hate it so much. Doesn't it seem like a law that draws this much antipathy from the people it's meant to help should be tabled and rethought?

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

#127

Post by lhorie »

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…

> taxpayers are supposed to be on the hook

It's interesting that people frame social safety issues as "taxpayers money sharking". The reality is that privatized healthcare in the US means middle class americans typically pay quite a bit more than socialized healthcare countries (see medical debt collection industry).

It's even more mind boggling because the ones that stand to benefit the most from socialized infrastructure are older people (who typically pay the most for healthcare), yet they seem to be the most opposed group. When you put companies in charge of basic country infrastructure, you ought to expect that they're going to optimize for their own profits, over even stakeholder interests (see also telecom sector, energy sector, etc).

There's this weird pervasive idea that not paying a company out of pocket means you are funding hobo lifestyle rather than funding a systems that passes savings back to you and fuels a healthier and more diversified economy. The reality is that all that extra money spent on private healthcare ends up either being spent in clerical bureaucracy like the US healthcare insurance payments dance, or profit margins for a company.

With a private model, by definition, there's no socialized safety net for the less privileged. But then you get rich people like Ben Shapiro complaining that there are druggies around his mansion in LA. As a Canadian, I find that hard to relate to.

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

#128

Post by EdJiang »

slg wrote: post #125
EdJiang wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/save-local-journalism-... https://www.courthousenews.com/governor-newsom-signs-newspap... The CA legislature just passed AB323, which exempts journalists from AB5, with a 71-4 margin (94.7%) in the Assembly and unanimously in the Senate. So 87.5% is certainly doable! Funnily enough, the website advocating for journalists to be exempt says the following. Sound familiar? ==========…

>The CA legislature just passed AB323, which exempts journalists from AB5, with a 71-4 margin (94.7%) in the Assembly The link you provided says 67-4. The Assembly has 80 seats so 67/80 is 83.75% and therefore wouldn't be enough to amend Prop 22. One big difference between that change to AB5 and this one is that almost zero journalists actually wanted AB5 to apply to them. Journalism is profession that is much closer…

I do see the first link says 67-4, but the second link uses 71-4, which is the correct vote count. You can see on the ca.gov website:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtm...

If you agree that the workers should decide, the majority of drivers also don't want AB5 to apply to them.

https://therideshareguy.com/california-proposition-22-2020/

In this blog's survey ~70% of drivers want to be independent contractors, and ~60% are a Yes on 22. In case you think it's biased, the writers ultimate argued for the No vote.

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

#129

Post by jerry80 »

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…

I really don't understand why drivers should be considered employees, or even independent contractors, to Uber. Maybe someone can fill me in.

To me, Uber seems more like a marketplace that connects buyers and sellers of a particular service (rides).

If I sell something on eBay, should eBay consider me an employee and give me benefits? What about if I sell my service on Fiverr or Upwork? How is that Upwork any different than Uber?

As an aside, I fell like the whole idea of benefits being tied to employers is a horrible anti-pattern. It reminds me of the old days when you got paid in company dollars to spend at the company store.

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

#130

Post by takeda »

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!

That's absolutely untrue. The drivers I know are strongly against it.
Post reply on HN