Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

351–360 of 387 posts

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

#351
post #346
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. When you turn 65, you have the option to enroll either in "Original Medicare", which is what we usually think of when we talk about "single payer healthcare in America", or you can enroll in Medicare Advantage (aka Medicare "Part C"), where the premiums that would go to the CMS instead go to private insurers like Humana, United, Oscar Health, and Clover. These plans replace Original Medicare, also cover Par…

"Medicare Advantage plans are, on average, of higher quality than the public "Original Medicare"[3]." I thought the difference between Medicare advantage type plans is that it is an HMO type of deal where you can't pick your own specialized treatment centers and have to jump through a lot of hoops for complex medical issues and drugs as opposed to original PPO resembling Medicare (80% costs) + medigap part F? (remain…

> I thought the difference between Medicare advantage type plans is that it is an HMO type of deal where you can't pick your own specialized treatment centers and have to jump through a lot of hoops for complex medical issues and drugs as opposed to original PPO resembling Medicare (80% costs) + medigap part F? (remaining 20%) + part D for drugs.

Nope, Medicare Advantage plans are usually just PPO plans on a nationwide insurance marketplace that covers the Part A, Part B, and Part D benefits. By default, "Original Medicare" is just a government run version of that which only covers Parts A and B. That plan is also not "free", per se, as the beneficiaries still have to pay a monthly premium — it's just that the monthly premium covers Part B benefits, and Part A benefits are all covered by FICA taxes. I think(?) there are also some HMO MA plans. Seniors are now on average choosing Medicare Advantage instead of "Original Medicare" more often because they happen to like the varieties/options. If you don't care about those options, you're still entitled to Original Medicare just like you did with your parents.

The closest the tech community has probably gotten to Medicare Advantage, as a concept, is Chamath's recent SPAC taking Clover Health public. They're an up and coming MAdv payer, and appear to be growing pretty quickly. Oscar Health, another hip tech company, has a big Medicare Advantage business as well.

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

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that, without the 7/8 clause, it would be impossible to legislatively overturn or modify prop 22. It would have required a public referendum to do so. Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Also, please bear in mind that CA legislature has already exempted wide and arbitrary swathes of industry from AB5, seemingly based on each indus…

> Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Public initiatives are far more easy to pass than legislative ultra majorities, which is why they are often used to bypass requirements for mere supermajorities in the legislature in CA. It's true that the 7/8 out doesn't make it harder to pass change since it can still be overturned by vote of the people,…

AB5 passed with approximately 3/4 of the vote from both houses of the state legislature, so even a 3/4 threshold would have placed Prop 22 at immediate risk of being overturned by the legislature.

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

#353
post #141
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this link [1] the legislature can't change what the voter's passed through an initiative unless they send it back to the voter's again. So as per earlier comments, I'd interpret that as the 7/8th's vote requirement actually reducing the burden on the legislature. As long as they can get 7/8ths of the votes, they don't need to bring it back to the voter's again . "The California State Legislature may not…

Yes, it technically reduces the criteria for direct adjustments, but: Proposition 22 imposes the same 7/8th requirement across a _massive_ scope, not just the specific text amended by the proposition itself but also for any statute that prohibits ridesharing apps from "performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service" or "otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers". Additionally,…

So it's less about altering the proposition itself but rather a built in guard to prevent the legislature from circumventing the will of the people?

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?

Umm... why would they be scared? It's not like I was being aggressive about - I was just curious, and I was already casually chatting with them.

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

#355
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information. Headlines are not arguments...

I didn't realize we were arguing.

A proposal can be an argument.

"Legal Definition of argument. 1: a reason or the reasoning given for or against a matter under discussion — compare evidence, proof. 2: the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing especially: oral argument."

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

#356

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.

Many people I talked to were completely misinformed on what this measure entailed. All 5 people I talked to about this proposition thought a yes on 22 would guarantee minimum-wage and health-care for gig workers. Tiny sample size, and perhaps lots of other people were similarly corrected by other friends before voting, but I found that rather odd.

It does guarantee minimum wage.

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

#357
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison? There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working. But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In t…

I think there is an important point that people miss too often about how systems can still be coercive even if there is an illusion of choice. E.g. prisoner's dilemma type situations.

But this is also the same sort of logic that leads to conclusions like "taxation is theft": same thing, you either pay your taxes or you get punished, so it's not a real choice.

(As an aside I do have hopes that UBI can be a big reduction in this power imbalance.)

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

#358

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…

Slavery was very satisfying to users and slaves, as shown by how long it persisted. Q.E.D. On the contrary, the average Uber driver lasts what, six months or so? Before they quit? Seems like they are profoundly dissatisfied, and only doing this work as a way to ward off starvation and eviction.

> Slavery was very satisfying to users and slaves

Where did this site go so wrong? I thought this was a place for intelligent discussion.

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

#359
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Bills are patches. A patch and its inverse are both patches.

Specifically for California, some ballot measures are harder to change/repeal than to pass in the first place[1]. I don't think Congress can write bills that are harder to repeal, but I know some states can. There are also states that abuse their own constitutions to accomplish the same thing, for example if a supermajority is required to amend the constitution. 1. https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/cali…

I agree with that, but still:

- Bill can undo bill

- Ballot measure can undo ballot measure

- Constitutional amendment can undo Constitutional amendment

so we still have proper inverses.

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

#360
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you have to go 100 years in the past for your examples speaks volumes. Today's companies pay employees hundreds of thousands while enticing them with onsite massages and ping pong tables. People have choices and it’s thanks to a healthy, diverse job market, not due to government intervention. You want to help workers? Go ahead and build companies that offer well paid, decent jobs. Don’t rob people of th…

How many drivers is Uber paying hundreds of thousands of dollars plus massages and ping pong tables to? We're talking about people not even getting health care coverage, and who may actually be losing money on the balance, due to the depreciation of their cars, insurance premiums, maintenance, and other costs which they, rather than their employer, have to bear, thanks to Prop 22. The point I was making, however, was…

How many drivers is Uber sending to work in mines or in unsafe garment factories?

But more to your point: are you sure you know better than the people entering arrangements if they are exploited or not? Are you sure you are taking into consideration all their particular situation and their current life trade offs to take their decision for them? Are you sure you are so smart and all knowing that you absolutely know what this way their life will be better in the long term?

Secondly, are you sure there are no drawbacks and downsides for the society when you take away people's options through the power of law? No unexpected results or side effects? No historical precedents where this attitude backfired?

Finally, are you sure you are fighting a good cause and not helping someone else’s plans? Have you asked who and why wrote AB5? Have you asked how many exceptions it came with and how many more where added afterwards? Have you wondered if this is even proper governance?

Post reply on HN