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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by lotsofpulp »

tpmoney wrote: post #37
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 seems to me like this would have been the perfect opportunity to become the first state to decouple benefits from employment. Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways, and set up state sponsored benefit plans for gig workers. Start a mini UBI that covers 4 weeks PTO at the median California wage, open up medicaid eligibility, etc. If the problem is these people don't have benefit…

No state is able to afford healthcare (including mental) and/or UBI because benefit recipients would end up flooding into the state, and payers would probably end up leaving if the costs got too high, especially if they had an alternative such as other states not offering those benefits.

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

#62

Post by tomjakubowski »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #52
meatmanek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than "maintain the status quo". It prohibits the state legislature from making any amendments to prop 22 without a 7/8ths majority, and requires any such amendment be "consistent with, and furthers the purpose of" prop 22.

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 You can make a law that says the law can't be repealed by a majority vote?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.

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

#63

Post by rbecker »

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…

> 2. we're turning off our apps in California

In places where Uber/Lyft are absent, other apps quickly fill their place. All they have is network effects - they're not nearly as irreplaceable as they'd like you to think.

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

#64

Post by Barrin92 »

tpmoney wrote: post #37
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 seems to me like this would have been the perfect opportunity to become the first state to decouple benefits from employment. Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways, and set up state sponsored benefit plans for gig workers. Start a mini UBI that covers 4 weeks PTO at the median California wage, open up medicaid eligibility, etc. If the problem is these people don't have benefit…

>Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways

Is that a law of nature or something? An interesting way seeing ideology at work is when people start framing policy choice as the natural state of things.

To what degree gig work permeates the economy is entirely in the hands of the lawmakers of California, and if they care about the long term accumulation of human capital they better nip it in the bud right now.

I completely and entirely disagree with the idea that taxpayers are supposed to be on the hook for ever increasing benefits. Promote the creation of firms that are able to take stakeholder interests into account and invest into stable long-term employment rather than trying to make Snowcrash a reality.

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

#65

Post by nearbuy »

jameson wrote: post #12
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…

The sheer dollar amount of contribution comparing support (~10 mil) vs opposition (~$184 mil) shows how much power imbalance exists between workers vs. corporations. The drivers are the essential part of their business so those who work full-time should be entitled to get benefits. Period. Source(s): https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

I think you reversed the support and opposition numbers by mistake.

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

#66

Post by bgorman »

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…

Uber will have to redo its software systems to account for the concept of full time drivers. This is why they will turn off the app, it takes time to make changes to comply with the new law.

Regarding your other point, why do you think employers should be the providers of healthcare in the first place? This isn't the way it works in most countries.

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

#67

Post by meatmanek »

vsareto wrote: post #26
ivalm wrote: post #16

Doing some more exploration on this. Apparently until you click “yes” it would spam you. And if you did click “yes” then your riders would get a message when they take a ride that you support prop 22. https://twitter.com/unicorn__voice/status/131753631910332825...

>Tweet: Thats infuriating, misleading and probably illegal Anyone know what is potentially illegal about this?

Well, if drivers were considered employees, then they'd be protected from their employer retaliating against them for political activity:

> But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following: > > 1. Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office; > 2. Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or > 3. Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/harassment/political-reta...

Good thing we passed a law that forces Uber/Lyft to treat their drivers as employees.

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

#68

Post by bgorman »

makecheck wrote: post #60

We should fight for a system where people can actually be paid enough to live from ONE JOB. (This solves all kinds of other problems, like freeing up time so people can finally live more relaxed lives and invest in themselves, including in their own health.) Yet we live in a society where multiple jobs are often required just to survive. And in that scenario, it is strange to require “your employer” to give you benef…

How about everyone just gets paid dollars from their employer, and then purchases health insurance on the free market? Getting health care from an employer makes no sense. I don't get my shoes, clothing, car or food from my employer.

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

#69

Post by kxrm »

zestyping wrote: post #36
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…

Can you say more about what you mean? "Pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions" is not how I would characterize it — at least for my part, I conceive of it as "Pushing companies to behave ethically."

I think it is far too complicated to define what ethical behaviors a company should be pushed into.

This particular situation has multiple sides so defining one side as ethical implies that the other sides of the debate are not.

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

#70

Post by ivalm »

gojomo wrote: post #49
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…

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

Post reply on HN