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

21–30 of 58 posts

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

#21

Post by LatteLazy »

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.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress).

And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

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

#22

Post by _jal »

tannedNerd wrote: post #15
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, manufact…

Are you OK with special-interest legislation effectively rewriting the constitution to support their business model?

Do you really believe it has to be one or the other?

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

#23

Post by techsupporter »

LatteLazy wrote: post #21
eplanit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though most states require a "cooling off" period of a year or two before a passed initiative can be modified, and even then a supermajority in the Legislature can still do it).

A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?

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

#24

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

_jal wrote: post #22
tannedNerd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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, manufact…

Are you OK with special-interest legislation effectively rewriting the constitution to support their business model? Do you really believe it has to be one or the other?

Unfortunately, it seems that it does have to be one or the other. AB5 was itself special-interest legislation, with a huge list of exemptions to support the Assembly's favored business models.

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

#25

Post by colejohnson66 »

djrogers wrote: post #14
colejohnson66 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Idk. For me, if I had 20 friends, and 12 agreed to do something, I wouldn’t say they “overwhelmingly agree”. I’d just say a majority. But politics is on a much bigger scale.

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

#26

Post by SllX »

_jal wrote: post #22
tannedNerd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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, manufact…

Are you OK with special-interest legislation effectively rewriting the constitution to support their business model? Do you really believe it has to be one or the other?

I’m happy throwing Prop 22 in the trash after AB5.

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

#27

Post by secabeen »

techsupporter wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though…

> A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?

I expect you know the answer to this. Just look at what happened with the restoration of voting rights to felons in Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_F...

65% of Floridian voters chose to restore voting rights to felons; the Florida legislature chose to add additional restrictions to that restoration that were not in the original proposition, effectively preventing the restoration that Floridians had chosen.

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

#28

Post by Narkov »

djrogers wrote: post #14
colejohnson66 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Nit pick...but in a binary decision (yes/no), the margin is only 9% as every loss on one side is a gain on the other.

For example, a 9% swing results in a tie.

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

#29

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

techsupporter wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though…

The problem is that California very frequently gets into situations where there's a legislative supermajority on the opposite side of the issue from the general public. Just this cycle, AB5 passed the Assembly with 76%, and ACA 5 (the subject of Prop 16) passed with 81%. If the legislature were allowed to repeal ballot propositions, they'd do it in a heartbeat, and the will of the voters would not end up being expressed.

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

#30

Post by tumbleweeds »

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…

The unions now are so different than what they used to be and the typical reported events is clearly not favoring their antics. As a political entity, they're not as great as they could be. As a labor organization, far from ideal but it's one of those things I would like to have the option of joining.

I don't care much about existing unions and their motives, only that I support drivers that want to unionize on their own. This isn't too relevant to AB5 specifically but in general, I am not against what someone wants to organize out of volition. Whether we agree on the reality of unions or not, we can see the whole gig economy needs something to protect the vulnerable. I don't trust private corporations to self-regulate but the crowd has spoken the other way via Prop 22.

I don't know if it's right but neither P22 or AB5 really solves the gig economy issues moving forward.

Post reply on HN