211–220 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.
Ah, the myth of American freedom: with no health insurance, no maternity leave to speak of, no safety nets, no guarantees in the form of liveable minimum wages...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, they can have no minimum wage because they have organized labor. But if you’re a 1099 for Uber and you attempt to organize a union, you’ll just get fired. Without the ability to form a union, or wage protection, workers are going to be racing to the bottom.
You can make your own Uber. There is nothing stopping people from doing that. Lyft and Uber are all powered by VC money. There is nothing stopping a communalist approach to software and profit distribution.
The only people that have the money to compete have no desire to put workers first. They are just trying to establish a monopoly and drive existing, successful, more efficient and sustainable forms of transit out of business.
This is a huge win for all, including drivers. If a driver decides they don't like how they're paid or the benefits they get, they have complete control to not do the job and work elsewhere.
Really huge win for those without health insurance in the US. In any other country having a job with no benefits is not an issue, except here, where getting sick and going bankrupt are fine with everyone. Of course with such low unemployment, all the driver who have no desire to work in this job can just start as programmers and make huge salaries. Maybe they can take your job since you can just drive an Uber and be…
Very telling geographic distribution for Prop 22 in San Francisco, at least: https://electionmapsf.com/#
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great Free to be forced to work off medical debt because they didn't have health insurance, yeah?
In which case the state should cover their health benefits, make a vote for that, not for a private employer.
Very telling geographic distribution for Prop 22 in San Francisco, at least: https://electionmapsf.com/#
Not being from San Francisco what conclusion am I meant to draw from this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.
Many Californians would willingly work in 1900s factory conditions with machines eating body parts and people passing out from exhaustion because that's the only work they can get. This kind of completely unregulated employment market that you seem to want is exactly the thing that people fought against for decades for damn good reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.
> there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great Free to be forced to work off medical debt because they didn't have health insurance, yeah?
Free to make our own choices and support the consequences like adults, not children.
This FREEDOM is what America was built on and what keeps it enduring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the only place that literal text appears, but there are several other references to it (“subdivision (a)”) — > (3) Any statute that prohibits app-based drivers from performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service while allowing other individuals or entities to perform the same rideshare service or delivery service, or otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers based on th…
The point is, if you point to the 7/8 clause as an attack against the prop 22 by saying that it's incredibly hard to modify, you've just revealed that you're an uninformed voter. Ballot measures normally can't be modified by the legislature at all. So it's quite ironic that someone against prop 22 is claiming everyone for it is uninformed while referencing said clause.
We all know this. The point is that the alternative is one that can be overturned more reasonably. "Ah, but you see this one is slightly easier to modify" is crap, IMO. The choices weren't only "literally no way" or "7/8ths".
A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.
The whole episode, but especially comments here on HN: I'm getting a strong "Omelas" vibe.