7 ms·

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 t

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 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 ago
I 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 ago
It 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 ago
  im already no on 22, where did you get the 2% higher profit figure from?
  - paulmd 6y ago
    Not referring to Uber specifically, or a specific dollar figure, just the general tactic of "if you don't give in to our demands then we'll shut down and really screw all the people who rely on us!". Which is what Uber and Epic are doing. They didn't go under when they had to start doing background checks in Austin. They don't go under when they have to pay benefits in Germany. This is a stunt to make another couple percent profit. At the end of the day that's what this boils down to - they will make a little more money if they succeed, they will make a little less money if they don't, nobody is going under. They're using people's livelihoods as leverage so that they can make a couple percent more profit.
    - SXX 6y ago
      That's funny how you say here that Uber and Epic are equal while in your mind Apple totally deserve it's 30% cut. Say what you want about Epic, but they totally forced Valve to publicly commit to decrease it's cut for every big publisher out there without directly profi ting from it. But yeab ofc it's poor Apple being forced to screw developers a bit less. Unacceptable!
- jariel 6y ago
  Epics concerns are of an utterly and completely different dimension - and to make the statement 'making money off of other's people's work' while the nature of the contention is Apple's 30% fee is rich. The issue with Uber v. California is really an issue of materially new kinds of workforces requiring new and effective kinds of legislation. We just need some responsible leaders to think a little bit, maybe the feds, other states, other countries, and make some simple legislation. There doesn't need to be a referendum, nor does the gov. need to 'negotiate' with anyone per se. Just find something that works for the new world and do it. Subject to change obviously.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  It's what happens when you become powerful. The world is mostly just a few powerful actors playing games with each other, using the not-so-powerful as pawns. The powerless occasionally get angry about that, but it's not like they can do anything about it, because that's what it means to be powerless. Understand that it's not personal, though - big companies and governments are not specifically targeting you when they do something that harms you, they just don't know (or care) that you exist. You're just collateral damage in the games between the big players. Embrace that and you actually have a chance of real freedom. Being invisible is both a boon and a detriment; you occasionally get stomped on for no apparent reason, but it also means that the big players are unlikely to know (or care about) the moves that you do make.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Arelius 6y ago
  While I generally agree, I don't think Epic is an accurate comparison. They obviously knew that Fortnight would get banned from the Appstore, and it was a business decision for them to make. However, it would have been reasonable for them to assume that they would maintain their ability to still develop UnrealEngine, so they can publish source code for other developers to publish games from their own accounts. That overreach was Apple's doing. It appears that the courts agreed as well, requiring Apple to allow Epic to continue UE4 development, while maintaining the Fortnight ban.
  - paulmd 6y ago
    That seems like an after-the-fact justification, I don't think they knew for sure that courts would force apple to allow downstream development. I think that may be courts saving people's bacon from an upstream that was willing to let them burn if that's what made the upstream profit, until the court case is decided.
jameson 6y ago
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_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- nearbuy 6y ago
  I think you reversed the support and opposition numbers by mistake.
- mayop100 6y ago
  The drivers want 22. Overwhelmingly. Let them work!
  - wcfields 6y ago
    Triangle Shirtwaist workers <i>want</i> fewer unlocked doors! Let them work!
  - takeda 6y ago
    That's absolutely untrue. The drivers I know are strongly against it.
    - username90 6y ago
      They could just stop driving for uber if they wanted, I don't why they need politicians to force uber out to do it.
      - takeda 6y ago
        yep, because if you don't like that workplace doesn't provide benefits for you can just quit. Being a driver for Uber or Lyft is hardly a career.
mmanfrin 6y ago
And they include language in the bill that it can't be overturned except by a 7/8ths majority which would make it functionally immune to being overturned, ever.
- yardie 6y ago
  Is that even possible?! I’m not aware of the ÇA constitution but bills in my state descend from the constitution they can’t exceed it. To do that would require a referendum to change the constitution. Which they are trying to do now by making a referendum to make voters vote 2x to pass (ie make laws take a long time and very expensive to vote in).
  - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
    California ballot propositions have the possibility of amending the state constitution (see Prop 13 [1] as one of the historic examples), and once you're allowing that, anything is possible. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
- caymanjim 6y ago
  I'd be surprised if that part passed legal muster. It's like trying to backdoor a constitutional change in how laws are passed.
  - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
    These initiatives amend the state constitution, so they can set any requirements they want. Prop 13 famously added a requirement for 2/3 vote to change it, and this was sustained by the US Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
lacker 6y ago
Instead of actively negotiating with the state It isn’t normal for a company to negotiate with the government to figure out how much it pays its employees! If you want rules like minimum wage or mandatory health insurance for all, by all means make those rules and apply them to everyone. But there are so many exceptions to AB5, it’s clear that it isn’t a rule designed to apply fairly to the whole economy, it’s only designed to hit a particular list of companies that one political faction doesn’t like.
threatofrain 6y ago
What's the threat of Uber going away? What's the moat? Wouldn't another company simply fill the vacuum? That is, unless Uber's whole venture is unprofitable.
- jkestner 6y ago
  This was always the plan. Operate at a loss on both riders/drivers until you can turn the screws. In the past, you could say you'll just switch to Lyft, but here they're working together. That should tell you something about who they're competing with. Their drivers.
  - supercollision 6y ago
    I heard one plan was to gain market share and eventually replace drivers with self-driving vehicles altogether, but I should note I'm spreading at least third-degree hearsay.
    - jkestner 6y ago
      No, you're right, that was Uber's plan at one point. They did hire Anthony Levandowski.
    - rhizome 6y ago
      That's the stock-juicing story, but self-driving cars were never going to work. At least not in time to support the company in that way.
- username90 6y ago
  Uber works by making drivers responsible over their time. By making Uber responsible for the drivers time they need to change their business model to that of a normal taxi service where they have more control over the drivers, since being responsible for something you don't have control over isn't a position you want to be in. And when they have to work as a normal taxi service then there is no point to Uber, they can't survive as a taxi service so they just have to pull out.
908B64B197 6y ago
Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Don't tell me these shady day-to-day medallion rental businesses offered benefits to the drivers... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648
- AlphaSite 6y ago
  Im concerned this is a false dichotomy, there could be other apps? That said i doubt they would match Uber and Lyft in quality, usually they are mediocre.
  - Arelius 6y ago
    More importantly, it's unlikely they would match Uber and Lyft in price, since the rides wouldn't be subsidized as such.
    - takeda 6y ago
      I'm sure a non-profit service like in Austin run by the city could, anyway so Uber/Lyft still ride on their funding and driver's aren't paid much of you include their expenses, so it is obvious that either prices should go up or something needs to change to make it sustainable (and by sustainable it probably means self driving cars) if that's the end goal then what are really voting for? Continuing exploiting these people?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  How are you getting from "Uber shouldn't be able to hire its drivers as independent contractors to skirt worker-protection laws" to "we should go back to the medallion system"?
tpmoney 6y ago
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 benefits, give them the benefits. Trying to force Uber et al to book these people as employees is just propagating the issue in the first place.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Would the state offer benefits in proportion to the number of hours worked as a contractor?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  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.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >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.
  - username90 6y ago
    There is a huge demand for gig work and not a great demand for gig workers, exploring more ways to create demand for gig workers is a good thing. Lots of people don't want a stable job and I don't see why we should force them to get one just to feed themselves.
imgabe 6y ago
> 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance > or else > 2. we're turning off our apps in California If you create a law that makes it unprofitable for a company to operate, are you really surprised that the company stops operating?
- vkou 6y ago
  The company always has the option to lower wages, or raise prices on their product. It would, of course, mean that their law-compliant competitors would eat their marketshare. They are trying to tell us with a straight face, that a taxi-in-an-app business is impossible to operate under Prop 22. This is, of course, completely untrue.
  - boucher 6y ago
    To be clear, just so people don't vote mistakenly: these companies want to "operate under Prop 22"; Uber & Lyft are the primary supporters of Prop 22. They do not want to operate under AB5, the current law, which Prop 22 seeks to invalidate. If you want to compel Uber and others to follow the current law (which requires them to give employee benefits to drivers), you should vote NO on Prop 22.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How? Where are all these competitors that offer full-time with benefits driver positions at Uber prices? Why aren't they sucking up the entire pool of available drivers right now? Why do we need a law to force Uber / Lyft to provide benefits if other companies already do it?
    - vkou 6y ago
      > I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How? Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms. As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature. The demand for taxis is not going to go away anywhere. You can operate a taxi company (traditional, or sharecropper) with, or without prop 22. The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.
meatmanek 6y ago
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.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  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.)
  - tomjakubowski 6y ago
    A California ballot proposition is indeed one to amend the state constitution.
    - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
      Prop 22 is a state amendment, but not all propositions are. Some are referendums from the legislature that just pass/enact/repeal normal laws, and others are just new laws without being amendments to the state constitution.
  - jonas21 6y ago
    It's not saying the law can't be repealed by majority vote. It's saying the legislature can't change the law without a seven-eights vote. The law can be repealed by voters via another ballot initiative with a simple majority. By default, laws enacted via ballot initiatives in California can't be amended by the legislature without voter approval. California has some of the strongest protections for citizen initiatives in the country, which comes with plusses and minuses depending on your perspective.
gojomo 6y ago
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-goodies. Uber/Lyft tried other accommodations with their haters, & arguably conformed with the laws as they existed. Then, a clumsy bit of legislation (AB5) from a legislator with an implacably anti-Uber/Lyft agenda outlawed what had been legal, for both Uber/Lyft & a bunch of other freelancer-centric industries, destroying lots of work for Californians. Those on the warpath against Uber/Lyft have since added exemptions for other industries that they like. The exemptions now include: * (in AB5) Doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, and hairstylists * (since) Fine artists, Freelance writers, Still photographers, Photojournalists, Freelance editors, Newspaper cartoonists, Translators, Copy Editors, Producers, Cartographers, Musicians with single-engagement live performances, Musicians involved in sound recordings or musical compositions, Insurance inspectors, Real estate appraisers, Manufactured housing salespersons, Youth sports coaches, Landscape architects, Professional foresters I think drivers deserve the same freedom to flexibly contract as those other dozens of professions. I wish Prop 22 were simpler, but it's better than AB5, so I'm an enthusiastic "Yes".
- ivalm 6y ago
  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
  - EdJiang 6y ago
    Drivers providing services via Uber can do all three now in California. Drivers can choose a rate multiplier to advertise their services at, decline as many trips as they want, and can directly connect with riders for scheduled rides. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-secret-project-bolster-its-case-against-ab-californias-gig-worker-law/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-s... Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff
amacneil 6y ago
> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance I've yet to hear a solid argument for why something as personal & private as health insurance should be decided by my employer. Expanding this to gig workers (who typically work multiple jobs) seems like madness to me. I would be far more interested in seeing California lead the country in designing a better model than attempting to shoe horn contract work into an outdated system.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    No, large employers like the tax benefits of employer provided health insurance because it gives them an edge over small employers and makes it harder for employees to hop around jobs. Employees of large companies that mainly employ younger, healthier people with less risky white collar jobs might also like employer sponsored healthcare, because then their insurance pool excludes people with chronic illnesses and those who need more healthcare, as they wouldn’t be employed. It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Large employers seem to vary; some like the current rules, but others don't. I am not sure what the balance is. I see you added to your comment after I'd responded: >"It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars. " It actually makes a huge difference to their business model who is paying, and whether the dollars are pre-tax or post-tax. When the dollars are pre-tax, people try to get the most comprehensive coverage possible, so that everything, even routine expenditures (like eyeglasses) are covered by insurance, which increases insurance company revenue. Additionally, selling to businesses is very different from selling to consumers; with the former, you're in more of an enterprise B2B market, which is totally different from a B2C.
rbecker 6y ago
> 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.
bgorman 6y ago
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.
- Arelius 6y ago
  Isn't Part-Time employee also an option? Not the parent, but personally, I don't think employers should be the providers of healthcare, but we live in a country where that is currently the case. We should have the Universal Healthcare debate/option, but that's not the issue at hand. Perhaps instead of trying to make 22 law, Uber/Lyft should put their weight/support behind a Universal Healthcare initiative.
mayop100 6y ago
Drivers deserve to be able to make their own choices about what work they want to do. Yes on 22!
- antiutopian 6y ago
  Who are you and why are you doing this?
formercoder 6y ago
How is this madness? You can’t compel a business to operate in your state. A game of chicken, perhaps.
chmod600 6y ago
Isn't it primarily the state's responsibility to come up with a reasonable solution? California has nearly unlimited power in this situation, so it's not much of a negotiation. Uber and lyft have one tool left: ask the people to override the assembly. If rideshare is more popular than no rideshare, it'll pass. If you want a more nuanced solution, well, California had a chance to offer one. I don't see it.
- rhizome 6y ago
  Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have a chance to offer a more nuanced solution, too.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Such as?
winrid 6y ago
Why do they deserve benefits? When I'm a consultant or freelancer, I pay my own benefits. How is this different?
- Arelius 6y ago
  I suspect you have more leverage, choice, and likely a higher pay when working as a consultant or freelancer. Having said that, maybe you deserve benefits too?
  - winrid 6y ago
    The answer is no, if I'm freelancing the company I work for should not pay me benefits. I could be working for five companies at once. Should they all be giving me Healthcare? Should any app that pays you a few bucks for doing small jobs pay you Healthcare now?
EdJiang 6y ago
Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect. 1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter." 15-25 hours would require a 50% payment. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/ https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/ 2. The companies are exploring other options to stay in California, which is actually required as part of the appeal which happened recently. The current publicly proposed model is franchising out to local businesses: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/technology/uber-lyft-franchise-california.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/technology/uber-lyft-fran... Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff
- acadien 6y ago
  I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree. (1) you posted above completely miss-states the facts. From the voter pamphlet text itself; "A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees." If you drive full time you deserve full time benefits. That means more than a 50% payment of ACA (which is downright offensive to suggest someone can live off of while making minimum wage).
  - EdJiang 6y ago
    The text I quoted is directly from the ballot measure. If you click my link then click on "Text of Proposed Law (PDF)" in the sidebar, you will find: > 7454. Healthcare Subsidy. (a) Consistent with the average contributions required under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a network company shall provide a quarterly health care subsidy to qualifying app-based drivers as set forth in this section. An app-based driver that averages the following amounts of engaged time per week on a network company’s platform during a calendar quarter shall receive the following subsidies from that network company: > (1) For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter. > (2) For an average of at least 15 but less than 25 hours per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 50 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter.
lhorie 6y ago
> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance That wasn't my understanding of it. This[1] says: > Companies that employ drivers through apps — among them, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Instacart — would instead keep workers classified as contractors and be able to offer narrower benefits, including pay at least 120% of minimum wage, health care subsidies and accident insurance. > Benefits under Prop. 22 would be tied to drivers’ “engaged time” completing passenger routes, excluding any wait time on apps between rides. So if I understand right, current status quo is that companies aren't obligated to pay squat, "yes" on prop 22 commits to certain pay guarantees (which I assume means some increase in price to cover for those costs), and "no" on prop 22 means companies have to use employee model (which they argue means large increases in prices, as well as reduction of coverage due to needing to follow taxi density logistics) I tend to think about Uber in a similar way as McDonalds (i.e. lots of competition, but strong worldwide presence and strong brand), and I suspect that it will be more or less fine regardless of the outcome because of its strengths. Personally, I've had enough bad experiences with taxis that I can see the appeal for these companies wanting to maintain high driver volume. I guess what remains to be seen is whether "yes" would provide someone working 40 hours a week to get the same level of compensation as an employee would, while still allowing casual drivers to pocket extra money in between part time jobs or whatever. The 120% of minimum wage + the possibility to earn linearly more given more hours certainly seems like a better outcome than an employee that makes exactly minimum wage for a maximum of exactly 40 hours, and hopefully other benefits are equally sensible, rather than a loophole for undercutting drivers. It would be great to get more clarity on how the rest of benefits numbers work out. [1] https://calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-22-gig-workers-ab-5 https://calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-22-gi...
jerry80 6y ago
I really don't understand why drivers should be considered employees, or even independent contractors, to Uber. Maybe someone can fill me in. To me, Uber seems more like a marketplace that connects buyers and sellers of a particular service (rides). If I sell something on eBay, should eBay consider me an employee and give me benefits? What about if I sell my service on Fiverr or Upwork? How is that Upwork any different than Uber? As an aside, I fell like the whole idea of benefits being tied to employers is a horrible anti-pattern. It reminds me of the old days when you got paid in company dollars to spend at the company store.
- umvi 6y ago
  The difference is that on ebay you get to set the price of what you are selling. With Uber you don't. Uber gets to decide how much the ride costs, not you.
  - jerry80 6y ago
    So if Uber implemented a bid/ask type pricing system that the driver had control over, people would drop the employee demand? I don't buy it.
    - umvi 6y ago
      No, if uber implemented bid/ask pricing then their case that drivers are independent contractors would hold more water
apta 6y ago
Instead of CA requiring private companies to cover health costs, they should step in to lower them and to provide coverage for the residents, it's as simple as that.
maerF0x0 6y ago
It seems to me Prop22 is aiming to address the issue on the wrong policy. To me the minimum wage policy should be updated to include healthcare insurance as compensation, and possibly raise the minimum wage as well. That way those companies w/o health insurance have to pay more $$ per hour and those with health insurance are equally competitive to those who do not.

ivalm 6y ago

I 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 ago

It 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 ago
im already no on 22, where did you get the 2% higher profit figure from?
- paulmd 6y ago
  Not referring to Uber specifically, or a specific dollar figure, just the general tactic of "if you don't give in to our demands then we'll shut down and really screw all the people who rely on us!". Which is what Uber and Epic are doing. They didn't go under when they had to start doing background checks in Austin. They don't go under when they have to pay benefits in Germany. This is a stunt to make another couple percent profit. At the end of the day that's what this boils down to - they will make a little more money if they succeed, they will make a little less money if they don't, nobody is going under. They're using people's livelihoods as leverage so that they can make a couple percent more profit.
  - SXX 6y ago
    That's funny how you say here that Uber and Epic are equal while in your mind Apple totally deserve it's 30% cut. Say what you want about Epic, but they totally forced Valve to publicly commit to decrease it's cut for every big publisher out there without directly profi ting from it. But yeab ofc it's poor Apple being forced to screw developers a bit less. Unacceptable!
jariel 6y ago
Epics concerns are of an utterly and completely different dimension - and to make the statement 'making money off of other's people's work' while the nature of the contention is Apple's 30% fee is rich. The issue with Uber v. California is really an issue of materially new kinds of workforces requiring new and effective kinds of legislation. We just need some responsible leaders to think a little bit, maybe the feds, other states, other countries, and make some simple legislation. There doesn't need to be a referendum, nor does the gov. need to 'negotiate' with anyone per se. Just find something that works for the new world and do it. Subject to change obviously.
nostrademons 6y ago
It's what happens when you become powerful. The world is mostly just a few powerful actors playing games with each other, using the not-so-powerful as pawns. The powerless occasionally get angry about that, but it's not like they can do anything about it, because that's what it means to be powerless. Understand that it's not personal, though - big companies and governments are not specifically targeting you when they do something that harms you, they just don't know (or care) that you exist. You're just collateral damage in the games between the big players. Embrace that and you actually have a chance of real freedom. Being invisible is both a boon and a detriment; you occasionally get stomped on for no apparent reason, but it also means that the big players are unlikely to know (or care about) the moves that you do make.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Arelius 6y ago
While I generally agree, I don't think Epic is an accurate comparison. They obviously knew that Fortnight would get banned from the Appstore, and it was a business decision for them to make. However, it would have been reasonable for them to assume that they would maintain their ability to still develop UnrealEngine, so they can publish source code for other developers to publish games from their own accounts. That overreach was Apple's doing. It appears that the courts agreed as well, requiring Apple to allow Epic to continue UE4 development, while maintaining the Fortnight ban.
- paulmd 6y ago
  That seems like an after-the-fact justification, I don't think they knew for sure that courts would force apple to allow downstream development. I think that may be courts saving people's bacon from an upstream that was willing to let them burn if that's what made the upstream profit, until the court case is decided.

jameson 6y ago

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_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

nearbuy 6y ago
I think you reversed the support and opposition numbers by mistake.
mayop100 6y ago
The drivers want 22. Overwhelmingly. Let them work!
- wcfields 6y ago
  Triangle Shirtwaist workers <i>want</i> fewer unlocked doors! Let them work!
- takeda 6y ago
  That's absolutely untrue. The drivers I know are strongly against it.
  - username90 6y ago
    They could just stop driving for uber if they wanted, I don't why they need politicians to force uber out to do it.
    - takeda 6y ago
      yep, because if you don't like that workplace doesn't provide benefits for you can just quit. Being a driver for Uber or Lyft is hardly a career.

mmanfrin 6y ago

And they include language in the bill that it can't be overturned except by a 7/8ths majority which would make it functionally immune to being overturned, ever.

yardie 6y ago
Is that even possible?! I’m not aware of the ÇA constitution but bills in my state descend from the constitution they can’t exceed it. To do that would require a referendum to change the constitution. Which they are trying to do now by making a referendum to make voters vote 2x to pass (ie make laws take a long time and very expensive to vote in).
- nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
  California ballot propositions have the possibility of amending the state constitution (see Prop 13 [1] as one of the historic examples), and once you're allowing that, anything is possible. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
caymanjim 6y ago
I'd be surprised if that part passed legal muster. It's like trying to backdoor a constitutional change in how laws are passed.
- nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
  These initiatives amend the state constitution, so they can set any requirements they want. Prop 13 famously added a requirement for 2/3 vote to change it, and this was sustained by the US Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

lacker 6y ago

Instead of actively negotiating with the state It isn’t normal for a company to negotiate with the government to figure out how much it pays its employees! If you want rules like minimum wage or mandatory health insurance for all, by all means make those rules and apply them to everyone. But there are so many exceptions to AB5, it’s clear that it isn’t a rule designed to apply fairly to the whole economy, it’s only designed to hit a particular list of companies that one political faction doesn’t like.

threatofrain 6y ago

What's the threat of Uber going away? What's the moat? Wouldn't another company simply fill the vacuum? That is, unless Uber's whole venture is unprofitable.

jkestner 6y ago
This was always the plan. Operate at a loss on both riders/drivers until you can turn the screws. In the past, you could say you'll just switch to Lyft, but here they're working together. That should tell you something about who they're competing with. Their drivers.
- supercollision 6y ago
  I heard one plan was to gain market share and eventually replace drivers with self-driving vehicles altogether, but I should note I'm spreading at least third-degree hearsay.
  - jkestner 6y ago
    No, you're right, that was Uber's plan at one point. They did hire Anthony Levandowski.
  - rhizome 6y ago
    That's the stock-juicing story, but self-driving cars were never going to work. At least not in time to support the company in that way.
username90 6y ago
Uber works by making drivers responsible over their time. By making Uber responsible for the drivers time they need to change their business model to that of a normal taxi service where they have more control over the drivers, since being responsible for something you don't have control over isn't a position you want to be in. And when they have to work as a normal taxi service then there is no point to Uber, they can't survive as a taxi service so they just have to pull out.

908B64B197 6y ago

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Don't tell me these shady day-to-day medallion rental businesses offered benefits to the drivers... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648

AlphaSite 6y ago
Im concerned this is a false dichotomy, there could be other apps? That said i doubt they would match Uber and Lyft in quality, usually they are mediocre.
- Arelius 6y ago
  More importantly, it's unlikely they would match Uber and Lyft in price, since the rides wouldn't be subsidized as such.
  - takeda 6y ago
    I'm sure a non-profit service like in Austin run by the city could, anyway so Uber/Lyft still ride on their funding and driver's aren't paid much of you include their expenses, so it is obvious that either prices should go up or something needs to change to make it sustainable (and by sustainable it probably means self driving cars) if that's the end goal then what are really voting for? Continuing exploiting these people?
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
How are you getting from "Uber shouldn't be able to hire its drivers as independent contractors to skirt worker-protection laws" to "we should go back to the medallion system"?

tpmoney 6y ago

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 benefits, give them the benefits. Trying to force Uber et al to book these people as employees is just propagating the issue in the first place.

germinalphrase 6y ago
Would the state offer benefits in proportion to the number of hours worked as a contractor?
lotsofpulp 6y ago
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.
Barrin92 6y ago
>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.
- username90 6y ago
  There is a huge demand for gig work and not a great demand for gig workers, exploring more ways to create demand for gig workers is a good thing. Lots of people don't want a stable job and I don't see why we should force them to get one just to feed themselves.

imgabe 6y ago

> 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance > or else > 2. we're turning off our apps in California If you create a law that makes it unprofitable for a company to operate, are you really surprised that the company stops operating?

vkou 6y ago
The company always has the option to lower wages, or raise prices on their product. It would, of course, mean that their law-compliant competitors would eat their marketshare. They are trying to tell us with a straight face, that a taxi-in-an-app business is impossible to operate under Prop 22. This is, of course, completely untrue.
- boucher 6y ago
  To be clear, just so people don't vote mistakenly: these companies want to "operate under Prop 22"; Uber & Lyft are the primary supporters of Prop 22. They do not want to operate under AB5, the current law, which Prop 22 seeks to invalidate. If you want to compel Uber and others to follow the current law (which requires them to give employee benefits to drivers), you should vote NO on Prop 22.
- imgabe 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How? Where are all these competitors that offer full-time with benefits driver positions at Uber prices? Why aren't they sucking up the entire pool of available drivers right now? Why do we need a law to force Uber / Lyft to provide benefits if other companies already do it?
  - vkou 6y ago
    > I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How? Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms. As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature. The demand for taxis is not going to go away anywhere. You can operate a taxi company (traditional, or sharecropper) with, or without prop 22. The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

meatmanek 6y ago

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.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
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.)
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  A California ballot proposition is indeed one to amend the state constitution.
  - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
    Prop 22 is a state amendment, but not all propositions are. Some are referendums from the legislature that just pass/enact/repeal normal laws, and others are just new laws without being amendments to the state constitution.
- jonas21 6y ago
  It's not saying the law can't be repealed by majority vote. It's saying the legislature can't change the law without a seven-eights vote. The law can be repealed by voters via another ballot initiative with a simple majority. By default, laws enacted via ballot initiatives in California can't be amended by the legislature without voter approval. California has some of the strongest protections for citizen initiatives in the country, which comes with plusses and minuses depending on your perspective.

gojomo 6y ago

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-goodies. Uber/Lyft tried other accommodations with their haters, & arguably conformed with the laws as they existed. Then, a clumsy bit of legislation (AB5) from a legislator with an implacably anti-Uber/Lyft agenda outlawed what had been legal, for both Uber/Lyft & a bunch of other freelancer-centric industries, destroying lots of work for Californians. Those on the warpath against Uber/Lyft have since added exemptions for other industries that they like. The exemptions now include: * (in AB5) Doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, and hairstylists * (since) Fine artists, Freelance writers, Still photographers, Photojournalists, Freelance editors, Newspaper cartoonists, Translators, Copy Editors, Producers, Cartographers, Musicians with single-engagement live performances, Musicians involved in sound recordings or musical compositions, Insurance inspectors, Real estate appraisers, Manufactured housing salespersons, Youth sports coaches, Landscape architects, Professional foresters I think drivers deserve the same freedom to flexibly contract as those other dozens of professions. I wish Prop 22 were simpler, but it's better than AB5, so I'm an enthusiastic "Yes".

ivalm 6y ago
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
- EdJiang 6y ago
  Drivers providing services via Uber can do all three now in California. Drivers can choose a rate multiplier to advertise their services at, decline as many trips as they want, and can directly connect with riders for scheduled rides. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-secret-project-bolster-its-case-against-ab-californias-gig-worker-law/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/06/ubers-s... Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff

amacneil 6y ago

> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance I've yet to hear a solid argument for why something as personal & private as health insurance should be decided by my employer. Expanding this to gig workers (who typically work multiple jobs) seems like madness to me. I would be far more interested in seeing California lead the country in designing a better model than attempting to shoe horn contract work into an outdated system.

nickff 6y ago
Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  No, large employers like the tax benefits of employer provided health insurance because it gives them an edge over small employers and makes it harder for employees to hop around jobs. Employees of large companies that mainly employ younger, healthier people with less risky white collar jobs might also like employer sponsored healthcare, because then their insurance pool excludes people with chronic illnesses and those who need more healthcare, as they wouldn’t be employed. It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Large employers seem to vary; some like the current rules, but others don't. I am not sure what the balance is. I see you added to your comment after I'd responded: >"It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars. " It actually makes a huge difference to their business model who is paying, and whether the dollars are pre-tax or post-tax. When the dollars are pre-tax, people try to get the most comprehensive coverage possible, so that everything, even routine expenditures (like eyeglasses) are covered by insurance, which increases insurance company revenue. Additionally, selling to businesses is very different from selling to consumers; with the former, you're in more of an enterprise B2B market, which is totally different from a B2C.

rbecker 6y ago

> 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.

bgorman 6y ago

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.

Arelius 6y ago
Isn't Part-Time employee also an option? Not the parent, but personally, I don't think employers should be the providers of healthcare, but we live in a country where that is currently the case. We should have the Universal Healthcare debate/option, but that's not the issue at hand. Perhaps instead of trying to make 22 law, Uber/Lyft should put their weight/support behind a Universal Healthcare initiative.

mayop100 6y ago

Drivers deserve to be able to make their own choices about what work they want to do. Yes on 22!

antiutopian 6y ago
Who are you and why are you doing this?

formercoder 6y ago

How is this madness? You can’t compel a business to operate in your state. A game of chicken, perhaps.

chmod600 6y ago

Isn't it primarily the state's responsibility to come up with a reasonable solution? California has nearly unlimited power in this situation, so it's not much of a negotiation. Uber and lyft have one tool left: ask the people to override the assembly. If rideshare is more popular than no rideshare, it'll pass. If you want a more nuanced solution, well, California had a chance to offer one. I don't see it.

rhizome 6y ago
Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have a chance to offer a more nuanced solution, too.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Such as?

winrid 6y ago

Why do they deserve benefits? When I'm a consultant or freelancer, I pay my own benefits. How is this different?

Arelius 6y ago
I suspect you have more leverage, choice, and likely a higher pay when working as a consultant or freelancer. Having said that, maybe you deserve benefits too?
- winrid 6y ago
  The answer is no, if I'm freelancing the company I work for should not pay me benefits. I could be working for five companies at once. Should they all be giving me Healthcare? Should any app that pays you a few bucks for doing small jobs pay you Healthcare now?

EdJiang 6y ago

Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect. 1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter." 15-25 hours would require a 50% payment. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/ https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/ 2. The companies are exploring other options to stay in California, which is actually required as part of the appeal which happened recently. The current publicly proposed model is franchising out to local businesses: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/technology/uber-lyft-franchise-california.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/technology/uber-lyft-fran... Disclaimer: I work @ Uber but I do not work on driver-related stuff

acadien 6y ago
I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree. (1) you posted above completely miss-states the facts. From the voter pamphlet text itself; "A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees." If you drive full time you deserve full time benefits. That means more than a 50% payment of ACA (which is downright offensive to suggest someone can live off of while making minimum wage).
- EdJiang 6y ago
  The text I quoted is directly from the ballot measure. If you click my link then click on "Text of Proposed Law (PDF)" in the sidebar, you will find: > 7454. Healthcare Subsidy. (a) Consistent with the average contributions required under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a network company shall provide a quarterly health care subsidy to qualifying app-based drivers as set forth in this section. An app-based driver that averages the following amounts of engaged time per week on a network company’s platform during a calendar quarter shall receive the following subsidies from that network company: > (1) For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter. > (2) For an average of at least 15 but less than 25 hours per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 50 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter.

lhorie 6y ago

> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance That wasn't my understanding of it. This[1] says: > Companies that employ drivers through apps — among them, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Instacart — would instead keep workers classified as contractors and be able to offer narrower benefits, including pay at least 120% of minimum wage, health care subsidies and accident insurance. > Benefits under Prop. 22 would be tied to drivers’ “engaged time” completing passenger routes, excluding any wait time on apps between rides. So if I understand right, current status quo is that companies aren't obligated to pay squat, "yes" on prop 22 commits to certain pay guarantees (which I assume means some increase in price to cover for those costs), and "no" on prop 22 means companies have to use employee model (which they argue means large increases in prices, as well as reduction of coverage due to needing to follow taxi density logistics) I tend to think about Uber in a similar way as McDonalds (i.e. lots of competition, but strong worldwide presence and strong brand), and I suspect that it will be more or less fine regardless of the outcome because of its strengths. Personally, I've had enough bad experiences with taxis that I can see the appeal for these companies wanting to maintain high driver volume. I guess what remains to be seen is whether "yes" would provide someone working 40 hours a week to get the same level of compensation as an employee would, while still allowing casual drivers to pocket extra money in between part time jobs or whatever. The 120% of minimum wage + the possibility to earn linearly more given more hours certainly seems like a better outcome than an employee that makes exactly minimum wage for a maximum of exactly 40 hours, and hopefully other benefits are equally sensible, rather than a loophole for undercutting drivers. It would be great to get more clarity on how the rest of benefits numbers work out. [1] https://calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-22-gig-workers-ab-5 https://calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-22-gi...

jerry80 6y ago

I really don't understand why drivers should be considered employees, or even independent contractors, to Uber. Maybe someone can fill me in. To me, Uber seems more like a marketplace that connects buyers and sellers of a particular service (rides). If I sell something on eBay, should eBay consider me an employee and give me benefits? What about if I sell my service on Fiverr or Upwork? How is that Upwork any different than Uber? As an aside, I fell like the whole idea of benefits being tied to employers is a horrible anti-pattern. It reminds me of the old days when you got paid in company dollars to spend at the company store.

umvi 6y ago
The difference is that on ebay you get to set the price of what you are selling. With Uber you don't. Uber gets to decide how much the ride costs, not you.
- jerry80 6y ago
  So if Uber implemented a bid/ask type pricing system that the driver had control over, people would drop the employee demand? I don't buy it.
  - umvi 6y ago
    No, if uber implemented bid/ask pricing then their case that drivers are independent contractors would hold more water

apta 6y ago

Instead of CA requiring private companies to cover health costs, they should step in to lower them and to provide coverage for the residents, it's as simple as that.

maerF0x0 6y ago

It seems to me Prop22 is aiming to address the issue on the wrong policy. To me the minimum wage policy should be updated to include healthcare insurance as compensation, and possibly raise the minimum wage as well. That way those companies w/o health insurance have to pay more $$ per hour and those with health insurance are equally competitive to those who do not.