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

31–40 of 387 posts

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

#31

Post by refurb »

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.

Do you have data on slavery? My understanding was the North was pretty anti-slavery and had 3x the population of the south. I'd be interested if there is actual polling data to suggest if a popular vote was held it would have failed.

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

#32

Post by perfunctory »

MattGaiser wrote: post #17

Unless you are an Uber driver (and even then, there is debate among drivers), AB5 would only cause you to face higher prices and reduced availability. Voting for this would be an altruistic act that would come out of people's wallets. No surprise that this passed easily.

Unless you are a slave, abolishing slavery would only cause you to face higher prices ...

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

#34

Post by cody3222 »

perfunctory wrote: post #32
MattGaiser wrote: post #17

Unless you are an Uber driver (and even then, there is debate among drivers), AB5 would only cause you to face higher prices and reduced availability. Voting for this would be an altruistic act that would come out of people's wallets. No surprise that this passed easily.

Unless you are a slave, abolishing slavery would only cause you to face higher prices ...

No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

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

#35

Post by renewiltord »

panic wrote: post #25
renewiltord wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Right, those pieces are there for good reason, but aren't really relevant to the discriminator question: "Can seven-eighths of legislators overturn this proposition?"

And the secondary discriminator question: "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?"

Answers:

1. N 7/8guf znwbevgl va gur yrtvfyngher pnaabg ercrny guvf zrnfher.

2. Va trareny, va Pnyvsbeavn, ab znwbevgl va gur yrtvfyngher pna bireehyr n onyybg cebcbfvgvba jvgubhg ibgre nccebiny.

If you get either of those wrong, the uninformed voter is you.

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

#36

Post by paxys »

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.

Are you talking about prop 22 or AB5?

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

#37

Post by whiddershins »

This ... is insane. I thought everyone agreed AB5 was written to basically target these companies.

Now it’s just disruptively regulating the labor market in random ways while also having a list of exceptions so long no one can keep track of it?

Why not just repeal this law?

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

#39

Post by Anon1096 »

panic wrote: post #25
renewiltord wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The point is, if you point to the 7/8 clause as an attack against the prop 22 by saying that it's incredibly hard to modify, you've just revealed that you're an uninformed voter. Ballot measures normally can't be modified by the legislature at all.

So it's quite ironic that someone against prop 22 is claiming everyone for it is uninformed while referencing said clause.

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

#40

Post by thatswrong0 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #22
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 g…

Same. The exception list is insane. I don't see how you can look at that list and _not_ think these drivers belong there as well. On top of this, most drivers I talked to were voting for it, and despite some cries about brainwashing by the companies via their apps, I'd imagine they do still have their own best interests in mind.
Post reply on HN