4 ms·

This is about pushing voters to approve Prop 22 in november. If Lyft follows suit, it will definitely put a spotlight on the issue!

SilasX 6y ago
Hadn't heard of that and had to look it up. To save anyone else the time, apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. Here's the Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- nilsbunger 6y ago
  AB5 is already a mess of these kinds of exemptions. Prop 22 just proposes another.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  It just adds uber drivers to the already ridiculous list of exempt jobs in this stupid law, like doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, hairstylists, architects, professional engineers, private investigators, psychologists, veterinarians, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, commercial fishermen,...
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Oh, just to clarify (for both you and the sibling[1]), I do not think AB5 was some masterpiece of public policy, and some of its distinctions are really kafkaesque[2]. My uneasiness is more that, you know, if you're gonna do a proposition to fix it, wouldn't you want a more general fix, especially given all the professions it's micromanaging? Like, something better than "okay app-based drivers don't have to deal with that mess"? Perhaps a simpler, general rule for when contractor rules wouldn't apply? Though I guess the politics of it mean that you do have to be super narrow like this just to get it passed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978 [2] ctrl-f for "35" https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Yes, you'd want a better general purpose fix. But solid general purpose laws are the responsibility of the lawmakers. They're the reason there's a crazy exception list, and they deserve the blame for it. The proposition doesn't make it meaningfully worse.
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      A general fix would let legislators off the hook by specifically giving themselves an exception (of which there is already quite a few) the legislators now have to deal with all the unintended, but very predictable, consequences of there shitty law without even getting to say the people wanted it.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions This is why the proposition system in CA is screwed. It's no longer being used in good faith. Almost every proposition is a law written by a lobbyist group who couldn't find a sponsor in the legislature so they take it directly to the people. It truly highlights the folly of direct democracy.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. And no surprise, it was written and pushed by Uber and other app-based gig work companies, and they're going to spend a lot of money to promote it. From your link: > On August 30, 2019, three companies—DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber—each placed $30 million into campaign accounts to fund a ballot initiative campaign should the legislature pass AB 5 without compromising with the companies.... The companies Instacart (Maplebear, Inc.) and Postmates also joined the campaign, each contributing $10 million. Together, the five businesses had provided more than $110 million in support of the ballot initiative. To put that amount in perspective, it's 40% of the amount the Biden campaign plans to spend nationally on ads in Septemter: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/us/politics/biden-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/us/politics/biden-ads.htm....

SilasX 6y ago

Hadn't heard of that and had to look it up. To save anyone else the time, apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. Here's the Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

nilsbunger 6y ago
AB5 is already a mess of these kinds of exemptions. Prop 22 just proposes another.
CountSessine 6y ago
It just adds uber drivers to the already ridiculous list of exempt jobs in this stupid law, like doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, hairstylists, architects, professional engineers, private investigators, psychologists, veterinarians, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, commercial fishermen,...
- SilasX 6y ago
  Oh, just to clarify (for both you and the sibling[1]), I do not think AB5 was some masterpiece of public policy, and some of its distinctions are really kafkaesque[2]. My uneasiness is more that, you know, if you're gonna do a proposition to fix it, wouldn't you want a more general fix, especially given all the professions it's micromanaging? Like, something better than "okay app-based drivers don't have to deal with that mess"? Perhaps a simpler, general rule for when contractor rules wouldn't apply? Though I guess the politics of it mean that you do have to be super narrow like this just to get it passed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978 [2] ctrl-f for "35" https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Yes, you'd want a better general purpose fix. But solid general purpose laws are the responsibility of the lawmakers. They're the reason there's a crazy exception list, and they deserve the blame for it. The proposition doesn't make it meaningfully worse.
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    A general fix would let legislators off the hook by specifically giving themselves an exception (of which there is already quite a few) the legislators now have to deal with all the unintended, but very predictable, consequences of there shitty law without even getting to say the people wanted it.
jedberg 6y ago
> which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions This is why the proposition system in CA is screwed. It's no longer being used in good faith. Almost every proposition is a law written by a lobbyist group who couldn't find a sponsor in the legislature so they take it directly to the people. It truly highlights the folly of direct democracy.
ardy42 6y ago
> apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. And no surprise, it was written and pushed by Uber and other app-based gig work companies, and they're going to spend a lot of money to promote it. From your link: > On August 30, 2019, three companies—DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber—each placed $30 million into campaign accounts to fund a ballot initiative campaign should the legislature pass AB 5 without compromising with the companies.... The companies Instacart (Maplebear, Inc.) and Postmates also joined the campaign, each contributing $10 million. Together, the five businesses had provided more than $110 million in support of the ballot initiative. To put that amount in perspective, it's 40% of the amount the Biden campaign plans to spend nationally on ads in Septemter: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/us/politics/biden-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/us/politics/biden-ads.htm....