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

Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#11

Post by diebeforei485 »

random5634 wrote: post #3

Without getting into the merits of the whole are ride hail drivers employees thing, I do have close experience with AB5. AB5 - union drafted, is an absolute unworkable travesty. A key tell - for a "principled" law - they had to keep on adding so many carveouts and exceptions (and there are lots missed still). I know folks - who are actively trying to do the right thing - tearing their hair out over AB5. AB5 has reall…

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash.

Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22.

Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#12

Post by colejohnson66 »

djrogers wrote: post #6
Simulacra wrote: post #2

For those of us who are not familiar with California's proposition system, have there been others like this that have been successfully challenged in court?

The most famous ballot prop ever struck down was Prop 187, passed (overwhelmingly) in 1994 and struck down as unconstitutional.

"Overwhelmingly" is a stretch, I'd say. According to Wikipedia,[0] it passed with 58.93% of the vote.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#13

Post by diebeforei485 »

gumby wrote: post #9

I do very much hope they win, but I can't see their strategy working (by definition a constitutional change overrides legislative powers). But IANAL. If they do win it may positively affect certain other unreasonable constraints that won referenda.

Looks like they've already lost- https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

They can try to re-file in a lower court.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#14

Post by djrogers »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #12
djrogers wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most famous ballot prop ever struck down was Prop 187, passed (overwhelmingly) in 1994 and struck down as unconstitutional.

"Overwhelmingly" is a stretch, I'd say. According to Wikipedia,[0] it passed with 58.93% of the vote. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...

59-41 is an 18% swing, and would be considered an overwhelming majority in most political endeavors. Both modern and contemporaneous accounts of that particular election refer to the results as such, but feel free to attach whatever modifier you wish.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#15

Post by tannedNerd »

gumby wrote: post #9

I do very much hope they win, but I can't see their strategy working (by definition a constitutional change overrides legislative powers). But IANAL. If they do win it may positively affect certain other unreasonable constraints that won referenda.

- Why so we can go back to political carveouts of AB5?

- Why are you ok with only these freelancers being allowed in California? "Recording arts, music, performing arts. landscape architecture, translation of documents, copy editing and illustrations, registered professional forestry real estate appraising ,home inspections , insurance underwriting inspections, auditing, and risk management and loss control, manufactured housing sales, international and cultural exchange services, competition judging, digital content and feedback aggregation, master class performance." https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ab2257-not-much-better-tha...

So you are ok with California government deciding who can and can't be a freelancer?

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#17

Post by northisup »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #12
djrogers wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most famous ballot prop ever struck down was Prop 187, passed (overwhelmingly) in 1994 and struck down as unconstitutional.

"Overwhelmingly" is a stretch, I'd say. According to Wikipedia,[0] it passed with 58.93% of the vote. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...

as far as votes go, anything over a 1-2% margin is usually considered "overwhelming"

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#18

Post by eplanit »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #11
random5634 wrote: post #3

Without getting into the merits of the whole are ride hail drivers employees thing, I do have close experience with AB5. AB5 - union drafted, is an absolute unworkable travesty. A key tell - for a "principled" law - they had to keep on adding so many carveouts and exceptions (and there are lots missed still). I know folks - who are actively trying to do the right thing - tearing their hair out over AB5. AB5 has reall…

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22. Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment.

This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#19

Post by mikeyouse »

eplanit wrote: post #18
diebeforei485 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22. Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

Sorry to interrupt your soapbox, but the law passed with the 7/8 supermajority clause was Prop 22 - which was loudly and explicitly opposed by the unions "who control California" and who supported the original AB5 law that it superseded.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#20

Post by [deleted] »

eplanit wrote: post #18
diebeforei485 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22. Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN