Everyone keep in mind this is a short term win for the drivers. Ultimately when self driving taxis take off, all of these workers will be unemployed. So we’re back to the drawing board on what for them?
California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
371–380 of 387 posts
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#372A 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.
> then pretending that this is something the legislature can update
Where did the pretending happen?
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Untrue, the South was more populous than the North during the ratification of the Constitution -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... In fact, it was the slave owning southern states that wanted the Senate to be apportioned proportionally, rather than equally (this was the Virginia Plan). The Virginia Plan created a two-chamber legislature with proportional representation based on populati…
The South had more people, but far fewer voters (partially because of slavery, partially because they had more restrictive rules even for white males). The Senate was done for small states, but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South.
> but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South
No it wasn’t. Under both the Northern proposed New Jersey Plan as well as the Southern proposed Virginia Plan, the President would have actually been elected by Congress. There were concerns that having Congress elect the President would jeopardize separation of powers. So the Electoral College was created, with one elector for each member of Congress. It had nothing to do with protecting the interests of slave-holding states, but instead was designed to make the Presidency more independent of Congress. The fact that the President would be elected by States as opposed to people directly was uncontroversial. What was controversial was whether the apportionment of those votes should be proportional to the population (where both chambers of Congress had proportional votes) or whether it should be the degressive proportionality that we have today (where the upper house has equal representation). The slave-states wanted the former, not the latter, owing to their population advantage.
Also, degressive proportionality as a concept is fairly uncontroversial in the context of Federal electoral systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality
It’s what’s used to allocate seats in the European Parliament, who vote to elect the President of the European Commission, who is the Head of Government of the EU. In many ways, the structure of the EU is identical to that of the US, especially prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber and Lyft claim that they would exit. But I don't see much reason to believe that. And if they did, well, it would be a great opportunity for other companies. The barrier to entry for rideshare is very low; the main reason we have only two options is that they've been burning money trying to establish their monopoly/duopoly position.
And I see no reason why they would stay. The only reason they work is that they used gig drivers being paid per ride instead of using people with a wage. Without that they are just a regular taxi service with no advantage over the competition, meaning they will have to exit and you are left with the taxi services you had before uber/lyft. They have no experience at all managing a fleet of employees driving, that is m…
They would stay because they have a strong brand and a lot customers who will pay the higher price a living wage requires. They'll stay because they make money. They have giant advantages over taxi companies.
It amazes me that in this hub of free enterprise and cheerleading for free markets, people act like companies will fall over the instant they hit a complication.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you imagine fixing, for example, minimum wage without "going after private companies"?
They will be providing more than minimum wage as per prop22. The real issue is that the state should provide health insurance.
There are significantly more issues than health insurance. Let me quote myself:
> with no health insurance, no maternity leave to speak of, no safety nets, no guarantees in the form of liveable minimum wages...
Many of those are "going after private companies".
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you really comparing America of 1800s to the Western European states of today?! I am really replying to the statement that you made: "That "myth" is what America was built on and what made it great. " > I lived without ANY freedoms. Taken away by the (communist) government Ah yes, because there are exactly two possible modes of living in this world: communism and corporate cronyism called FREEDOM in the US. Mea…
And still people actually living in Africa don’t know how to escape faster to Europe or, yes, even USA. Because, you know, freedom. Maybe you should tell them how awful it really is and how much better they had it before.
Many places in the world being worse than the US doesn't mean that the US is the FREEDOM heaven.
Riddle me this: why would the wealthiest nation in the world needs charity orgs to provide healthcare for its citizens? Something that no other developed nation in the world does. How is that FREEDOM?
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole concept of being able to pass laws and then being unable to repeal them by the same margins as before as always seemed totally insane to me. Basically the definition of an unstable system and totally undemocratic.
To add to what the other commenter said, it also could add stability, rather than instability. Imagine a popular opinion that’s right around 50%, fluctuating by epsilon every year. If every time it went from 50+epsilon to 50-epsilon, the law changed, it would be too hard to get anything done, so a little bit of friction isn’t a terrible thing (a little bit). A system where it takes a 7/8 vote has this anti-fickleness…
[Opinionated wall of text...I don't really mean this as an attack on you, but I figured I'd add the disclaimer after noticing how long it got :) ]
Honestly if a law has such variable support that both it and its complement could have majority support at any time, then why should either version have any precedence? This _is_ an example of unstable system. Passing A then ~A or passing ~A then A could have extremely varied outcomes just given random statistical variation.
Besides you saying "it gets hard to get things done" doesn't really square with the fact that the vast majority of things in most electoral systems don't jump back and forth even though there isn't any hurdle like this to keep it from happening. So it must not happen for other other reasons like being seen as someone who's just quickly flipping an old law or just throwing up votes and then counter votes just isn't very popular.
In fact, in this case the 7/8ths does _not_ apply to another proposition as the GP explained to me. So in fact there is nothing holding back another proposition next time saying the exact opposite (and it only needs the same support as this time) except the historical realization that it passed with enormous support and is backed by powerful interests.
This system _is_ stable because I misunderstood it and because the requirements to repeal are the same as to pass. If it weren't that way it really would be unstable and frankly undemocratic.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did. Which was why they were able to hold out until 1860 when the writing was on the wall. Since slavery didn't die on it's own and was the underpinning of the economy of many states violence was somewhat bound to happen. You can't just expect to make any sizeable minority of your nation's economy non-viable and not have all the people's lives you just ruined start shooting. You might be able to get away with it…
>rather than a perpetual slow boil conflict that turns into a low intensity shooting war every few decades like you see in other parts of the world. End of Reconstruction, Bloody Summer, Brown v Board and the subsequent CRM, the War on Drugs, Trayvon Martin et al. I'd say we're on schedule. Enjoy the gritty crunch, it tastes just like chicken.
And this is part of why it's a cycle instead of a one-and-done pain point: people who try to bury how much work we have yet to do.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?
Umm... why would they be scared? It's not like I was being aggressive about - I was just curious, and I was already casually chatting with them.
Here are two important facts about the world:
1. Poor people cannot miss a paycheck. Getting fired means not paying rent, not eating, or not repairing the car you depend on for your livelihood.
2. Bosses spy on employees. This country has a rather nasty history of labor spies, and that tradition is undergoing an unfortunate revival. Poor people seem to know more about that history than comfortable-but-not-rich people. Not sure why.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna need a big fat "citation needed" on the idea that this isn't a job to people. It doesn't square with, again, the drivers actually in my life. It sounds exactly like uncritically re-spewing the bullshit of these employers.
Suppose that Uber is allowed to exist as a "second job" for the people who need it for that, or who otherwise need greater flexibility or other advantages that they can't get from a company when working as an employee. If the people you know don't actually want or need those advantages, why are they doing that job instead of working at Walmart or a gas station or a hundred other jobs where you are an employee?
Uber does exist as a second job. The people deserve protections just as much as with their first job. It ain't a fuckin hobby like you're implying or you wouldn't get paid at all.
It's honestly disgusting. The term "contractor" is just a regression, in true American fashion, to disguising abuse of labor as both necessary and progressive. There is no benefit to the term if it does not implying a mutually arrived at negotiated payment—do you really think that slavery would be any less heinous with a "flexible schedule"?
It's fucking disgusting and makes me deeply ashamed to be associated with the tech community. Americans have never needed to read "Black Reconstruction" more.