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

41–50 of 58 posts

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

#41

Post by renewiltord »

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.

Based on reading HN, maybe 1 in 10 commentators here know what the 7/8th clause was, but this is truly the most magical misinterpretation I have seen.

Here are some fun incorrect varieties:

* Prop 22 needs 7/8 of legislators to vote against to repeal

* Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californian voters to vote against to repeal

* Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californians to modify

And now, this profound version

* Californian legislators can pass laws that require 7/8 majorities to repeal and AB5 is one of them

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

#42

Post by Xixi »

lhorie wrote: post #31
techsupporter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people? Isn't that exactly what you should expect from a democrat state though? (i.e. democracy = popular vote; republic = elected representatives)

Direct democracy = popular vote, representative democracy = elected representatives.

China, Russia, USA, France and Switzerland are all republics: two are dictatorships, two are representative democracies, and one is a direct democracy. Canada, UK, Japan and Belgium are all constitutional monarchies, and all of them are considered democratic. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are monarchies, but certainly not democratic.

Democracy is a scale, probably better used as an adjective: the more democratic, the more power is wielded by the people.

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

#43

Post by triceratops »

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…

It's not a terrible idea for a law by referendum to require a higher legislative bar for repeal, as other replies have pointed out. But you do bring up a good point. Maybe the supermajority requirement should phase out after a certain number of years (in addition to a cooling off period).

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

#44

Post by triceratops »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #25
djrogers wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your friends are more likely to agree with you (and each other) on things because that's one of the reasons you're friends. I can think of very few things, other than the basics like "murder is bad", that 58% of the general public agrees on.

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

#45

Post by thaumasiotes »

slg wrote: post #34
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 is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable o…

> but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this.

No, it's not an unprecedentedly high burden. You just admitted that the default burden is much higher!

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

#46

Post by clra »

supernova87a wrote: post #38

AB5/2257 were so ridiculous in practice , I couldn't bring myself to agree with the principle they stood for. And aside from that, if a party can sue over a proposition saying that it unconstitutionally hobbles the legislature from doing its job, doesn't that defeat the notion of propositions in general? That's the whole point of propositions. The ABs had a list of exceptions a mile long, I suppose put there by the l…

Pretty much this. Regardless of how you feel about Uber/Lyft drivers' ability to access benefits, if the bill that does it has this many exemptions, you should oppose it on that basis alone.

The long exemption list is a naked method of making sure that AB5 only targets its intended victims — Uber and Lyft, without actually having to mention them by name. If this law is generally a good idea, then why should it have required any exemptions at all?

The ethical version of AB5 would have been to have California (and the broader US) move have a single payer healthcare system, paid for by taxes, as it already is for a huge portion (but not all) of the population. That way, everyone gets access to health care, and everyone pays for it.

But that's hard to do, so California's cynical lawmakers "solve" the problem by passing the buck in a much simpler way: pass regulation to target their scapegoats du jour (as an assemblyperson, I get _my_ healthcare from the state, but it's _those guys_ who are bad! yeah!) with laser precision through special carveouts. Thus AB5 is born.

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

#47

Post by thaumasiotes »

underseacables wrote: post #10
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…

A similar issue can be found in occupational licensure laws. Carve outs for everyone, and they keep coming. There is a serious effort underway to require a license for florists, interior designers, and hair braiders, and the exemptions and carve outs have gotten so bad that it’s hard to justify these licenses as beneficial to protect the public.

> the exemptions and carve outs have gotten so bad that it’s hard to justify these licenses as beneficial to protect the public.

I don't follow the logic. If there were no exemptions or carveouts, it would be even harder to claim that the licensures were beneficial.

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

#48

Post by jancsika »

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…

> AB5 has really soured me on some of the labor rights stuff.

You have an earlier comment on HN where you sharply criticized police unions, teachers unions, and even Google employees' early attempts at unionization/collective actions.

Did you previously have a more favorable view of those unions/actions which AB5 made you rethink?

Edit: typo

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

#49

Post by slg »

Anon1096 wrote: post #37
slg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable o…

It's worth point out that AB5 passed 61-16 in the state house, a 79 percent yay vote. So with your proposed 3/4 supermajority it could still be overruled by the legislature. And of course this means 2/3 is even less of a hurdle. source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-b...

AB5 versus Prop 22 is not a binary choice. It is possible to work on compromises between the two and not everyone who voted for one would inherently be against the other and vice versa.

Also in the legislative world there is a huge difference between 61-16 and what would be a 68-9 requirement to meet a 7/8 cutoff. The goal for these cutoffs should be to make it difficult to achieve, not practically impossible.

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

#50

Post by slg »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
slg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable o…

> but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. No, it's not an unprecedentedly high burden. You just admitted that the default burden is much higher!

Sure, if you want to be pedantic. However the specific 7/8 number was unprecedentedly high compared to numbers used in previous propositions to the extent that it probably shouldn't have even been included in a honest piece of legislation.
Post reply on HN