16 ms·
Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers
- alex_young 6y agoIsn’t there something deeply unethical about telling your employees how to vote?
- nullc 6y agoAt least the app isn't prompting them to submit a photograph of their filled in ballot. Yet.
- AlphaWeaver 6y agoThat would be illegal in most jurisdictions.
- ivalm 6y agoIllegality of action didn’t faze Uber before.
- sokoloff 6y agoWell, they’re not employees, so... /s
- avalys 6y agoNot at all. Coercing employees to vote a certain way, or penalizing them for failing to do so, would be clearly unethical. But I don’t see how a company telling their employees to vote yes on 22 is any different from an activist group telling people to vote no.
- ccortes 6y ago>But I don’t see how a company telling their employees to vote yes on 22 is any different from an activist group telling people to vote no. Well the company pays you every month and the activist group doesn't so I guess that's a big difference.
- dudul 6y agoBut is the company threatening to fire you if you don't vote yes on 22? Are they asking you to prove that you voted yes? I think it's totally inappropriate for sure, but is it that different?
- rbecker 6y agoUber probably saw the backlash to Coinbase trying to remain politically neutral, and decided they had to do this to avoid being seen as unethical. Since there's no such thing as politically neutral.
- acadien 6y agoI 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 benefits. They deserve benefits. Lets fix that. Instead Uber/Lyft and others have chosen absolutely insane negotiating tactics. Literally their only solution is to 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance or else 2. we're turning off our apps in California This is madness. No on 22.
- ivalm 6y agoI wasn’t even against prop 22 originally... Uber improves my QoL! But the campaign they are running is so extremely dirty that it pushed me against prop 22.
- paulmd 6y agoIt is really disgusting how Silicon Valley has embraced the tactic of holding other people's livelihoods hostage while they try to make a few percent more profit. Epic is doing the same thing with the Unreal Engine code. They deliberately violated Apple TOS knowing it would get the account banned, and then they try to leverage all those other developers who are going to lose iOS support against the big bad Apple who is taking away your livelihood, all so they can establish their own store and make a higher percentage of the revenue from the sales other people's work (to be clear: they already make money from the sales of games based on Unreal, they just want to make more). It's not just Uber, it's part of a broader trend tech companies adopting this tactic. It's seriously disgusting, this is the lowest thing to come out of the Silicon Valley techbros in a long time.
- roflchoppa3 6y agoim already no on 22, where did you get the 2% higher profit figure from?
- 6y ago
- ivalm 6y agoAh yes, nothing like an employer telling employees how to vote (and yes, I understand Uber sees them as independent contractors).
- annoyingnoob 6y agoObvious attempt at regulatory capture. Follow the money behind 22, the intentions are obvious.
- jimmies 6y agoI am just an user of Uber (not a driver) and Uber has been showing shit like this on my phone. https://i.ibb.co/7yQLdY6/7865-CBAD-6928-4637-958-C-011736362658.png https://i.ibb.co/7yQLdY6/7865-CBAD-6928-4637-958-C-011736362... I haven't used the app for a year or so. This is fucking ridiculous. I have uninstalled Uber and I will also recommend all my friends to do the same.
- mayank 6y agoA very slightly less obnoxious popup also shows up on Uber Eats orders placed by end consumers before you can place a food delivery order.
- ivalm 6y agoDoing 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/1317536319103328256?s=21 https://twitter.com/unicorn__voice/status/131753631910332825...
- vsareto 6y ago>Tweet: Thats infuriating, misleading and probably illegal Anyone know what is potentially illegal about this?
- ivalm 6y agoIt would be definitely illegal if Uber drivers were employees. As of now I bet it is not illegal.
- meatmanek 6y agoWell, 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-retaliation 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.
- jcranmer 6y agoMy first thought is some form of compelled speech, but I'm not sure there's actually any statute prohibiting someone from compelling someone else to make political statements, even in an employer-employee setting. There's also a (very weak) argument to be made for defamation, as Uber's way of gathering this information might be reckless disregard of the truth. However, even if it is defamation, showing any damages is going to be extremely tricky, and even meeting the defamation bar seems like the kind of convoluted legal reasoning that tends to lose at court.
- pugworthy 6y agoI have no opinion Prop 22, but readers should be sure to read the subsequent tweets. The message has been changed, but more importantly the popups weren't actually set to pop up every time the driver picked up a ride. Instead, they were set to pop up when they went offline. As a subsequent tweet says, "However, drivers switch between Uber, Lyft and other apps. That means they go offline all the time. That is why drivers were constantly having to click yes or okay."
- jeffbee 6y agoI got a Prop 22 push from Uber despite not having used the app for over a year. Now it's deleted. Congrats, Uber.
- tenaciousDaniel 6y agoI 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 up when it was your own opinions that needed boosting?
- zestyping 6y agoCan 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."
- Swizec 6y agoThere’s a lot of “No bystanders, you’re with us or you’re against us” among the woke elite these days. On every issue. Pushing companies to hire diversely is good. Makes them more ethical and less biased. Pushing companies to add “black lives matter” banners on their corporate landing pages ... eh that’s got nothing to do with ethics.
- kxrm 6y agoI 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.
- tenaciousDaniel 6y agoPeople hold political opinions because they believe they are ethical. I'm sure you can find outliers, but they're an edge case.
- Fordec 6y agoI'm sorry, I'm clearly missing something. When were companies last not engaged in political lobbying for their own interests?
- amadeuspagel 6y agoThis is at least as justified as the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality[1]. Uber has every right to tell their users that the state of california is trying to outlaw their business model, and to try to convince them to vote to save it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neut...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoI dislike Uber to the point where I do not use those services, but I have only some problem with what they are doing. In a very real sense, it is their platform to administer as they see fit. That includes sending notifications. In that sense, why is a popup window so upsetting. Is the issue somehow related to voting ( as in, my company probably shouldn't send a mass email saying to vote for Trump/Biden ) that makes people so upset? That I could understand, but that does not appear to be a complaint here. What am I missing here?
- lukeschlather 6y agoI think the CANSPAM act probably needs to be updated to include app notifications. If Uber sent this sort of thing as an email they would be legally obligated to include an unsubscribe link but they can just hijack your entire phone to send you unsolicited political messages at their discretion. It's obviously the sort of communication CANSPAM defines as spam, but it's via a notification rather than email.
- slg 6y agoThere is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1] >Amending Proposition 22 would require a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent with, and furthering the purpose of, Proposition 22 would need voter approval. These ride sharing companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and engaging in shady tactics targeted at both their drivers and customers so they can give their employees fewer benefits all while completely circumventing the state legislature. This is a absolute perversion of democracy. [1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- amadeuspagel 6y agoDirect democracy wouldn't work if the legislature could just overturn anything the people had voted for with a majority. It would be an endless back and forth between representatives voting for something, the people voting against it, and the represantives voting for it again. So unless you see direct democracy as "an absolute perversion of democracy" I don't know what your problem is.
- slg 6y agoThere is a difference between making it harder to amend the result of direct democracy and making it nearly impossible. Many propositions are difficult to amend and require something as high as 67% of the legislature to change. That is at least achievable with broad support. However requiring 87.5% is in no way normal and some are calling it unprecedented[1]. It is high enough to make any changes practically impossible without another proposition. The reason this is a perversion of democracy is because it is fundamentally a handful of companies banding together to buy their own law. They are only able to do it because of the huge amount of money they have. This is literally the most expensive ballot measure ever. They are straight lying to the public about who support it and hoping they can convince enough people to vote yes. It is a perfect combination of abusing the US's lax laws on corporate political speech and California's lax laws on propositions. [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/uber-lyft-ballot-measure-opposed-by-labor-groups https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/uber-lyft...
- 29athrowaway 6y agoI think the proposal should be: If you commit to work for the platform more than X number of hours in a regular basis, you are eligible for benefits. That means that you have a quota of worked hours to meet. If you can't commit to work for X number of hours in a regular basis, then you can work whenever you want, without benefits. And... the company commits not take any measures to keep the number of hours for an individual worker below the benefit threshold. This is the way things already work on many occupations.
- username90 6y ago> If you commit to work for the platform more than X number of hours in a regular basis, you are eligible for benefits. That means that you have a quota of worked hours to meet. That is in Prop 22, it is a compromise where drivers who drives a lot are eligible for benefits.
- jtchang 6y agoWhy is it uber cannot offer their drivers a choice of whether they want health insurance or not? Couldn't they have headed off this whole thing by providing health benefits at a discount to the drivers? Some drivers may indeed want to stay independent but still have health insurance.
- username90 6y agoThat is already covered in prop 22 since it forces rideshare companies to give discount health benefits to drivers who drive a lot. It seems like a much better solution than AB5.
- makecheck 6y agoWe 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 benefits because you only need one of them to do so. If you have two healthcare plans, one is “wasted”. It probably makes more sense for each of your employers to somehow cover 50% of the plan cost. I doubt Uber/Lyft even want to pay partial benefits though, since their whole profitability seems to be defined in terms of drivers being taken advantage of.
- bgorman 6y agoHow 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.
- dudul 6y agoWhat do you mean one healthcare plan is "wasted"? If you are offered a healthcare plan by several employers you just enroll in one and that's it. You waive the other ones. Your premium is paid partly with one salary, and your other salary is untouched. Where is the waste?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- refurb 6y agoWe should fight for a system where people can actually be paid enough to live from ONE JOB. So when a college kid wants a weekend job, that won't be allowed?
- username90 6y agoProp 22 ensures minimum wage and health benefits for drivers without making them employees, why would you be against that?
- autocorr 6y agoIt doesn't seem right that heavily VC dependent companies have dumped more than 200 million USD into pushing prop 22[1]. I mean, they're questionably profitable and spending 0.2 giga-dollars on lobbying just this prop? [1] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- Cerium 6y agoEven if it was true that everyone wants prop 22 to pass, I refuse to vote for a proposition that make an exemption for a specific industry or activity. If employment law is wrong change it, if it is right leave it. There is nothing unique about any one industry's relationship with employment, especially this one.
- thatswrong0 6y agoAB5 already has a bunch of exceptions. Idealism is great, but not practical
- jzer0cool 6y agoI have also seen it on ubereats (as consumer). I also at the moment don't have an opinion of this. Is this understanding correct at a very high level? Yes 22: * Benefits Uber. * Do not need to provide drivers with health benefits. They are on contract (e.g. hourly) so they can buy their own health benefits. This is similar to other workers like doing "gigs". No 22 - Benefits Drivers. * Every driver (irregardless of hours worked) are required to receive health benefits. If above is the case, the two sides seem very polar. Why not have a middle ground where benefits are provided to driver's, given a contract, that they work meet 40hrs per week?
- apta 6y agoIf Uber/Lyft/DD are forced to shut down, then there won't be any more drivers/delivery people to benefit. It's not for nothing that CA decided to back down after Uber and Lyft threatened to stop service in CA after their AB5.
- abeppu 6y agoI don't know the details, but doesn't California have requirements on for public reporting of spending on political advertising above a certain amount? Uber/Lyft are already on the record as having paid for a bunch of advertising around 22 through more typical channels, but I wonder -- how would/should Uber price ads through notifications within its own app?
- nullc 6y agoThere are many reasons to vote NO on 22, beyond the tasteless tactics being used to promote it. One example I haven't seen discussed much is that it requires that any future changes Business and Professions Code chapter 10 require a seven-eighths vote and that the changes be "consistent with and furthers the purpose of" the chapter. So not only is this a gross law that special cases particular businesses, but it's a nearly impossible to overturn suicide pact to do so.
- reportgunner 6y agoIs there any relation to Catch 22 ?
- maerF0x0 6y agoI would be interested in knowing how much of a wealth transfer this is to the drivers vs how much californian employee equity will be destroyed (think of all the Uber employees who are paid equity)? Maybe it's better to just increase payroll tax by 1% (or N) and direct transfer it to the lowest paid workers in the state?