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

Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#101

Post by rhizome »

chmod600 wrote: post #80
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Isn't it primarily the state's responsibility to come up with a reasonable solution? California has nearly unlimited power in this situation, so it's not much of a negotiation. Uber and lyft have one tool left: ask the people to override the assembly. If rideshare is more popular than no rideshare, it'll pass. If you want a more nuanced solution, well, California had a chance to offer one. I don't see it.

Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have a chance to offer a more nuanced solution, too.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#102

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

caymanjim wrote: post #56
mmanfrin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they include language in the bill that it can't be overturned except by a 7/8ths majority which would make it functionally immune to being overturned, ever.

I'd be surprised if that part passed legal muster. It's like trying to backdoor a constitutional change in how laws are passed.

These initiatives amend the state constitution, so they can set any requirements they want. Prop 13 famously added a requirement for 2/3 vote to change it, and this was sustained by the US Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#103

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #62
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how does that even work? You can make a law that says the law can't be repealed by a majority vote? They're not proposing an amendment to the state constitution are they? (Excuse me if I'm not quite so read up on this topic—I don't live in California.)

A California ballot proposition is indeed one to amend the state constitution.

Prop 22 is a state amendment, but not all propositions are. Some are referendums from the legislature that just pass/enact/repeal normal laws, and others are just new laws without being amendments to the state constitution.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#104

Post by mantap »

Fordec wrote: post #59
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #23

I have to preface this by saying I'm not defending Uber - I haven't followed the debate around this proposition. But...lots of people in tech, and on this site, have long been pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions. To those of you who have - did you really, honestly think that these companies would not also become vocally active in their own political interests? Did you really think they'd only speak…

I'm sorry, I'm clearly missing something. When were companies last not engaged in political lobbying for their own interests?

I believe their point is that we should all call out political campaigning by corporations even if it is for a cause we agree with. Because it is a grave threat to democracy to have trillion dollar entities running campaigns of any sort.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#105

Post by EdJiang »

ivalm wrote: post #70
gojomo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to contract with each other flexibly, without swallowing big cookie-cutter compensation/benefit templates dictated by the state, herding people into 20th-century interest-groups. If the legislature of the State of California wants some of its citizens to get certain "benefits", it can and should provide them directly, not hold other voluntary activity hostage unless it subsidizes their list-of-g…

It is unfortunate that other professions are not getting protections under AB5, I am all for expanding AB5 to cover basically everyone who 1) doesn’t set their own rate 2) cannot choose to do or not do a job without penalty 3) does not have a market of clients

Drivers providing services via Uber can do all three now in California. Drivers can choose a rate multiplier to advertise their services at, decline as many trips as they want, and can directly connect with riders for scheduled rides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-s...

Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#106

Post by Arelius »

paulmd wrote: post #11
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

It is really disgusting how Silicon Valley has embraced the tactic of holding other people's livelihoods hostage while they try to make a few percent more profit. Epic is doing the same thing with the Unreal Engine code. They deliberately violated Apple TOS knowing it would get the account banned, and then they try to leverage all those other developers who are going to lose iOS support against the big bad Apple who…

While I generally agree, I don't think Epic is an accurate comparison.

They obviously knew that Fortnight would get banned from the Appstore, and it was a business decision for them to make.

However, it would have been reasonable for them to assume that they would maintain their ability to still develop UnrealEngine, so they can publish source code for other developers to publish games from their own accounts. That overreach was Apple's doing.

It appears that the courts agreed as well, requiring Apple to allow Epic to continue UE4 development, while maintaining the Fortnight ban.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#107

Post by Arelius »

AlphaSite wrote: post #31
908B64B197 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very…

Im concerned this is a false dichotomy, there could be other apps? That said i doubt they would match Uber and Lyft in quality, usually they are mediocre.

More importantly, it's unlikely they would match Uber and Lyft in price, since the rides wouldn't be subsidized as such.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#108

Post by jjxw »

slg wrote: post #40

There is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1] >Amending Proposition 22 would require a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent wi…

Prefacing this with the disclaimer that I work for Uber.

This talking point completely ignores the fact that California Props are, BY DEFAULT, not amendable by the legislature unless otherwise specified. If anything this 7/8ths clause gives the legislature more flexibility than the vast majority of propositions which the legislature cannot touch without putting another prop up for vote.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#109

Post by Arelius »

username90 wrote: post #55
threatofrain wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the threat of Uber going away? What's the moat? Wouldn't another company simply fill the vacuum? That is, unless Uber's whole venture is unprofitable.

Uber works by making drivers responsible over their time. By making Uber responsible for the drivers time they need to change their business model to that of a normal taxi service where they have more control over the drivers, since being responsible for something you don't have control over isn't a position you want to be in. And when they have to work as a normal taxi service then there is no point to Uber, they ca…

Could you point me to where and how AB5 would require Uber become responsible for their drivers time? It seems to not be the case to me.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#110

Post by acadien »

EdJiang wrote: post #100
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect. 1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the appl…

I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree. (1) you posted above completely miss-states the facts. From the voter pamphlet text itself;

"A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees."

If you drive full time you deserve full time benefits. That means more than a 50% payment of ACA (which is downright offensive to suggest someone can live off of while making minimum wage).

Post reply on HN