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

California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 387 posts

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#21

Post by vmception »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Do you think it passes the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the US constitution? Treating some companies' employees differently than others?

Because I hope it does.

I also unfortunately have to hope that the ride-share companies give the benefits they suggest, but I also want the US to unbundle this from companies to begin with, across the whole republic.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#22

Post by Rebelgecko »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long.

On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...)

I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the gig economy. It would've required uber to reduce the # of drivers and/or start assigning them shifts

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#23

Post by sanbor »

db48x wrote: post #7
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.

In 2016 there was a proposition to abolish death penalty and another to expedite it. Expediting death penalty proposition won.

Another proposition was to legalize weed production. That one also won. If all the weed supporters would have also voted for abolishing death penalty...

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#24

Post by andromeduck »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

Exactly! Democracy is a process used to encourage deliberation - it's a means rather than an ends.

That's why we have a constitution, three branches of government, an electoral college for the executive, and had indirectly elected senators. It was all to force deliberation and buy enough time for saner minds to prevail through the moral panics of the day.

The system is broken because the process was corrupted decades ago with the greatest of intentions.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#25

Post by panic »

renewiltord wrote: post #16
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. It's a litmus test for who speaks in an uninformed manner. Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22: > After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the mem…

That’s the only place that literal text appears, but there are several other references to it (“subdivision (a)”) —

> (3) Any statute that prohibits app-based drivers from performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service while allowing other individuals or entities to perform the same rideshare service or delivery service, or otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers based on their classifcation status, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b).

> (4) Any statute that authorizes any entity or organization to represent the interests of app-based drivers in connection with drivers’ contractual relationships with network companies, or drivers’ compensation, benefts, or working conditions, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b).

> (d) Any statute that imposes additional misdemeanor or felony penalties in order to provide greater protection against criminal activity for app-based drivers and individuals using rideshare services or delivery services may be enacted by the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurring, without complying with subdivisions (a) and (b).

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#26

Post by LatteLazy »

xiphias2 wrote: post #18
LatteLazy wrote: post #15

Maybe people just really like ubers?

You mean cheap Ubers of course. I also don't think direct democracy lost here. Most people don't want Uber prices to go up. Democracy always sucks for the minority / people who don't have voting rights.

Well I certainly like cheap ubers!

I'm a brit so luckily for me, a lot of the issues in california don't really apply here (drivers have healthcare because everyone here has healthcare etc). It's unfortunate that we have no direct democracy, but do have good safety nets (at least comparatively). Meanwhile Cali has no such nets but does allow majority rule in this way.

I actually also like the Uber model because its honest (between the participants at least) . I hardly ever used taxis before, not just because of the price but also because of the service. "Your car is 10 minutes away" actually meant "your car has to complete 3 other 20min journeys before coming to you". "about £10" meant "£26 after a weird journey and no we don't take credit cards or give change". I imagine the same applied for drivers: people would misbehave in your car because there was no penalty for doing so. Dispatchers favoured other drivers because you were new.

The whole thing was a race to the bottom for everyone. Uber with a rating system and an algorithm that minimises waits has fixed that issue. That's their "killer feature" to me.

But I can see how people have issues with their model.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#27

Post by refurb »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Did you know that CA has been busy passing special exemptions to AB 5 for a ton of professions ever since it first passed?

Here is an example of professions as of September, but I know they passed additional exemptions in October as well.

https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wag...

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#28

Post by [deleted] »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

[deleted]

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#29

Post by argonaut »

db48x wrote: post #7
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.

Prop 11 required EMTs to remain on-call during paid breaks (I suppose you could spin it as eliminated non-on-call paid breaks). Most major newspapers endorsed it. There was very little opposition ($0 spent in opposition).

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#30

Post by argonaut »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Allowing 7/8th vote in the legislature to modify actually makes it (marginally) easier to modify, since ballot propositions by default cannot be modified by the legislature at all, only by another ballot proposition.
Post reply on HN