161–170 of 387 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…
People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.
Here you have a system of ruleset 1 being applied to one group, and ruleset 2 being applied to another. The CA legislature passed AB5, which changed who ruleset 2 to applied to in a very arbitrary way. Prop 22 said, "oh, add this subgroup to 1, permanently, regardless of what the legislature does with anything else". Per my orginal comment, that's not an improvement, even you believe as you do.
Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.
This logic makes no sense at all. For example, everyone wants a bunch of free money - should the Assembly pass a ton of bills that write blank checks with no budget changes to back them up? Everyone loves artificially low property taxes for existing residents, and that's been an unmitigated disaster for the state. The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. Sometimes that means certain groups will not be happy with the bills. It is extremely dubious to claim that Prop 22 is definitely a good thing for California and a strong society.
Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…
According to the companies lobbying its what the drivers want. No one has established it actually is, and in fact some drivers have quit and spoken out about the apps constantly nagging with propaganda. Also as a rider who’s gotten drunk drivers, idiots going reverse on highway when the exit was missed, or pulling up in beater cars where the engine stalls out, I’ll just say there’s a reason taxis were more expensive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
prop 22 prevents drivers from organizing together to negotiate with these companies. Having the freedom to say no to a corporation individually is not at all the same as the ability to create a union and negotiate terms collectively.
These jobs didn't exist a decade ago. Drivers chose to work them in a fair economic transaction (I will trade my time for $X). They can choose to no longer work these jobs the same way that they didn't work them when they didn't exist. When they do this, and they eventually will, supply for these jobs will dry up and wages will naturally rise.
Just because it is a voluntary transaction does not mean it is fair or should never be changed. Same reason why I think a $7.25/hr federal minimum wage is permissible, even though it might proscribe some voluntary transactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.
And the counter-argument would be that the reason for possibilities of direct democracy is for situations like this where unions have achieved regulatory capture, such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.
And the counter-argument would be that the reason for possibilities of direct democracy is for situations like this where unions have achieved regulatory capture, such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
> such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
Much better to have Uber wield its disproportionate influence to display push notifications telling me to vote for Prop 22 every day leading up to the election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy that drivers would prefer to not have benefits, vacation time, over time pay, or any of the other things that come with being employees.
Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home. > They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only requires them to get paid less or have less flexib…
> Having medicare for all and a social safety net is standard in all European countries and other Global North countries. No disagreements that having a robust social safety net is a necessity, but just want to nit-pick a little here and point out that not all European/Global North countries have "Medicare for all" or single payer systems. Germany has a public-private mix, Netherlands has a purely private universal h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…
People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.