301–310 of 387 posts
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.
Also in those developed countries without minimum wage, they have national healthcare. So a poor comparison in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…
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.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The oligarchy wins again.
No matter how you feel about AB5, allowing an industry to write laws and then coerce its workers into acting as campaign volunteers whether they agree with the law or not is a horrible precedent. This is not how our laws should be made, and we will come to regret this.
The CA law was created directly to change Uber, Lyft, etc and was backed by lobbying groups with lots of funding. So this exemption being funded by Uber is just as bad.
I’d rather laws be created based on actual first principles with goals to help the people. I think this ping pong game of lobby/counter lobby is not good for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I cannot “make my own Uber”. I don’t have a bottomless pit of Saudi Oil money to throw into this unprofitable space. 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.
Uber and Lyft became so popular precisely because there are so many insensibly-regulated jurisdictions that made even this start-your-own-taxi-service illegal in order to create artificial scarcity. Highly-regulated medallion taxi services suck - both independent taxis as well as Uber are a threat to them because they're comprehensively better for customers. You literally have to legislate good service away for medallion taxis to work. And that's exactly what AB5 was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prop 22 is written such that it can only be modified by 7/8 vote of the legislature in the future. Its funders made sure to protect their "investment" from the normal political process of push/pull/debate/change. In the words of one political science professor: > “I’ve looked at a lot of ballot measures over the years,” said Moylan, adding that a two-thirds majority is common. > But a seven-eighths “super, super, sup…
Most Propositions in CA can't be modified by the legislature at all. So, while 7/8th is a very high threshold, it still means that it is theoretically possible for the legislature to draft new labor laws that override Prop 22.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…
How does the 7/8th requirement for changing Prop 22 square with your thinking of it as a referendum? Everybody agrees that AB5 is flawed and needs more work. But Prop 22 let money-losing, worker-exploiting companies literally write the law they wanted and made sure nobody could change it. A referendum on AB5 would have forced discussion and improvement. This closes that off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's your evidence: > Earlier this month, before California users of the app could call for a ride, they had to “confirm” they’d seen a message that described how wait times and prices would rise if Prop 22 wasn’t passed > Last week, Uber users complained on social media about in-app notifications stating that “Prop 22 will save lives,” in an apparent violation of Apple’s app developer agreement > “Almost every tim…
Coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. Maybe we could disagree on whether this was a misinformation campaign, but it's still certainly not coercion. Still doesn't even seem like misinformation to me, the reality was that every driver who did not want to work full-time on the company's schedule would lose the ability to work if AB5 stands. (And if the companies shut down oper…
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swim...
No matter how you feel about AB5, allowing an industry to write laws and then coerce its workers into acting as campaign volunteers whether they agree with the law or not is a horrible precedent. This is not how our laws should be made, and we will come to regret this.
They were free to not participate in any of that, just as anyone else.
If you take on a job from a customer and it has certain terms to be paid, and you agree to those terms, that isn’t coercion: it’s work.
It’s possible that you view the very nature of the societal work-for-money as coercive, which has its own argument, as people need food and shelter to survive. If that’s the argument, make that one. In that’s not the argument for this being “coercive”, however, then I can’t really see it, as they could have simply not done the thing you claimed they were being coerced into doing.
They’re independent, remember: they can just not sign in to the app if it demands they do things with which they are uncomfortable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the city, rich tech workers (predominant population in Marina and Fidi areas) voted for it and pretty much every other population voted against.
"Rich tech workers" live everywhere in the city, and all the most expensive neighborhoods (Pac Heights, Presidio, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Ashbury) actually all voted no. My takeaway is that neighborhoods without access to public transit and where people still need to commute to work voted yes.
Those are neighborhoods with some of the highest concentration of affluent tech workers, even if there are other expensive neighborhoods.
Many other areas of the city without public transit voted no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. Maybe we could disagree on whether this was a misinformation campaign, but it's still certainly not coercion. Still doesn't even seem like misinformation to me, the reality was that every driver who did not want to work full-time on the company's schedule would lose the ability to work if AB5 stands. (And if the companies shut down oper…
Drivers were forced to watch political ads before they could start working. They were forced to read pro-prop-22 messages before they could start working. Some of these messages warned (some might say threatened ) that the drivers would lose their jobs if Prop 22 passed. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swim...
And again, a threat implies it is done maliciously. You think it would be better if the companies just stayed quiet, and then just out of blue one day said "sorry we're shutting down operations, you're all out of jobs"?