17 ms·

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pre

by nullc 6y ago

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

t413 6y ago
My understanding is that a ballot measure must be modified only by ballot measure. Adding in a 7/8ths clause is a way of allowing, with difficulty, the legislature to change things.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  That's just a way to pretend it can be modified by the legislature. The only thing that gets 7/8th majorities is renaming post offices.
andromeduck 6y ago
It's only a special exception of they don't repeal AB5!
roenxi 6y ago
The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Exactly! Democracy is a process used to encourage deliberation - it's a means rather than an ends. That's why we have a constitution, three branches of government, an electoral college for the executive, and had indirectly elected senators. It was all to force deliberation and buy enough time for saner minds to prevail through the moral panics of the day. The system is broken because the process was corrupted decades ago with the greatest of intentions.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Do you have data on slavery? My understanding was the North was pretty anti-slavery and had 3x the population of the south. I'd be interested if there is actual polling data to suggest if a popular vote was held it would have failed.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I thought part of the point of the strange election process we have was to "ensure" that southern states would have a vote even in the face of a more populous north…
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        They did. Which was why they were able to hold out until 1860 when the writing was on the wall. Since slavery didn't die on it's own and was the underpinning of the economy of many states violence was somewhat bound to happen. You can't just expect to make any sizeable minority of your nation's economy non-viable and not have all the people's lives you just ruined start shooting. You might be able to get away with it if the people losing out are an evenly distributed minority but if there's a huge block where they are the overwhelming local majority it's gonna get ugly. The alternative path out of slavery would have been to boil the frog but with the uneven geographic distribution of slavery that wouldn't have been reasonably possible to do socially (e.g. convince people to spend more any more money treating slaves better until wage labor is competitive and slavery can be legislated away without a war). You might be able to boil the frog legislatively but the weak government structures of the 19th century were not well equipped for that kind of thing and that requires a lot of support anyway. In order to get the nation bootstrapped the founders intentionally put off any action for several decades. Something calamitous was kind of bound to happen. Frankly I think we were kind of lucky we got off with a "one and done" war over it (yes I know there was a bunch of background violence after the fact) rather than a perpetual slow boil conflict that turns into a low intensity shooting war every few decades like you see in other parts of the world.
sieabahlpark 6y ago
> It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one. Well I'm sure you'll get over it when you consider that overreach and imperfect laws don't operate in a vacuum.
- nullc 6y ago
  Fair enough, I certainly have sympathy for the comment above about "using it as a referendum on AB5", although I think it is an extremely poor tool for that.
db48x 6y ago
Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  Prop 8 to ban gay marriage comes to mind. (It passed only a few years back...)
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I think it's easy to spin things however you want If prop 11 was rejected, someone could go on HN and say that they're disgusted with how CA voters decided that EMTs shouldn't receive extra mental health care. Or that voters said that it's better to let someone die than require an EMT to postpone their (still paid!) break by 1 hour
- sanbor 6y ago
  In 2016 there was a proposition to abolish death penalty and another to expedite it. Expediting death penalty proposition won. Another proposition was to legalize weed production. That one also won. If all the weed supporters would have also voted for abolishing death penalty...
- argonaut 6y ago
  Prop 11 required EMTs to remain on-call during paid breaks (I suppose you could spin it as eliminated non-on-call paid breaks). Most major newspapers endorsed it. There was very little opposition ($0 spent in opposition).
- beeper-beeps 6y ago
  It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?” The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote. This is why politicians should exist, to be responsible for these decisions and to be accountable afterwards (in theory). Direct democracy lets everyone wash their hands of any responsibility.
renewiltord 6y ago
The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. It's a litmus test for who speaks in an uninformed manner. Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22: > After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter Seven-eighths to overturn, eh? Now where did you go get that? Now secondarily, one might ask if someone "disappointed with the public" is sufficiently informed about ballot propositions in the first place. For instance, if you're a California voter and you can't answer "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?", then can you really be considered an informed voter? Or, more directly, you are clearly expressing discontent with California voters while being the problem since you are clearly uninformed about Prop 22 and about how ballot props work (and perhaps about why they have to work that way).
- panic 6y ago
  That’s the only place that literal text appears, but there are several other references to it (“subdivision (a)”) — > (3) Any statute that prohibits app-based drivers from performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service while allowing other individuals or entities to perform the same rideshare service or delivery service, or otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers based on their classifcation status, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b). > (4) Any statute that authorizes any entity or organization to represent the interests of app-based drivers in connection with drivers’ contractual relationships with network companies, or drivers’ compensation, benefts, or working conditions, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b). > (d) Any statute that imposes additional misdemeanor or felony penalties in order to provide greater protection against criminal activity for app-based drivers and individuals using rideshare services or delivery services may be enacted by the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurring, without complying with subdivisions (a) and (b).
vmception 6y ago
Do you think it passes the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the US constitution? Treating some companies' employees differently than others? Because I hope it does. I also unfortunately have to hope that the ride-share companies give the benefits they suggest, but I also want the US to unbundle this from companies to begin with, across the whole republic.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  We already have discriminated for a century on pay: tipped vs non-tipped wages. Also, they’re not modifying it to single out Uber and Lyft, but “gig economy workers”. Requiring someone who fulfills certain requirements to be classified as an employee isn’t unconstitutional.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2257 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the gig economy. It would've required uber to reduce the # of drivers and/or start assigning them shifts
- thatswrong0 6y ago
  Same. The exception list is insane. I don't see how you can look at that list and _not_ think these drivers belong there as well. On top of this, most drivers I talked to were voting for it, and despite some cries about brainwashing by the companies via their apps, I'd imagine they do still have their own best interests in mind.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Hey, no need to be snide.
    - thatswrong0 6y ago
      Umm... why would they be scared? It's not like I was being aggressive about - I was just curious, and I was already casually chatting with them.
      - rmrfstar 6y ago
        Here are two important facts about the world: 1. Poor people cannot miss a paycheck. Getting fired means not paying rent, not eating, or not repairing the car you depend on for your livelihood. 2. Bosses spy on employees. This country has a rather nasty history of labor spies, and that tradition is undergoing an unfortunate revival. Poor people seem to know more about that history than comfortable-but-not-rich people. Not sure why.
refurb 6y ago
Did you know that CA has been busy passing special exemptions to AB 5 for a ton of professions ever since it first passed? Here is an example of professions as of September, but I know they passed additional exemptions in October as well. https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wage-hour-law/california-adds-more-exemptions-to-controversial-independent-contractor-statute https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wag...
- nullc 6y ago
  I'm aware-- and if Prop22 just grafted the ride-share businesses into those lists or overturned AB5 I'd have less to complain about it. Instead, Prop22 acts as a generalized shield against any act of the legislature which limits or imposes specific restrictions on rideshare app businesses by requiring a 7/8th's vote and requiring that they be "consistent with the purpose" of the prop22 amended law.
  - refurb 6y ago
    According to this link [1] the legislature can't change what the voter's passed through an initiative unless they send it back to the voter's again. So as per earlier comments, I'd interpret that as the 7/8th's vote requirement actually reducing the burden on the legislature. As long as they can get 7/8ths of the votes, they don't need to bring it back to the voter's again. "The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally." [1]https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California#Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
    - nullc 6y ago
      Yes, it technically reduces the criteria for direct adjustments, but: Proposition 22 imposes the same 7/8th requirement across a _massive_ scope, not just the specific text amended by the proposition itself but also for any statute that prohibits ridesharing apps from "performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service" or "otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers". Additionally, any law that would unionize app-based drivers is similarly subject to this requirement. The threshold is so high that the legislature is effectively barred, and rather than just having the limitation apply to the measure itself is a generalized shield against legislation. For example: No sex offenders on ridesharing apps? 7/8ths vote required. Separate tax for road wear created by inefficient routing by ridesharing apps? 7/8ths vote. (Prop13 and Prop26 eat your heart out!) Additional liability insurance requirements for rideshare drivers? 7/8ths vote. Law requiring ridesharing apps to automatically forward user's reports of assaults by drivers to the police? 7/8ths vote. Essentially Prop22 acts as a fairly generalized shield against new laws that would interfere with the core activity of particular set of businesses. In addition to the 7/8th requirement all amendments or other statutes that trigger Prop22's oversight are also required to be "consistent with the purpose" of Prop22 ("...to protect the individual right of every app-based ride share and delivery drivers to have the flexibility to set their own hours for where, when, and how they work..."). And if there is a really good cause to impinge the right of 'app-based' rideshare drivers to drive whatever hours whereever, or however they want? It seems like the answer even with unanimous support of the legislature is: Tough luck, time for another ballot initiative but this time it'll have the ride-share companies spending a hundreds of millions against it instead of for it and it'll still be a sweet deal at twice the price. Have these companies shown themselves to be such good citizens, going out of their way to protect the public interest, that they could be trusted with this near diplomatic immunity level of protection? Of course not. However... the drafting of Prop22 does allow laws restricting app-based rideshare so long as these laws impose criminal penalties. I wonder what would happen if the legislature became as shameless at exploiting legal loopholes as Uber has been? "Overwork app-based drivers? CEO right to jail! Under-pay app-based drivers? Right to jail, right away. Driving too fast: jail. Slow: jail. You make an appointment with the rider and a driver doesn't show up, believe it or not, jail, right away." It would be quite interesting as a television drama ... but I wouldn't expect such absurdity to be a good use of our public resources. :) If I had to bet the courts won't allow Prop22 to have quite that expansive an effect, it's simply too offensive. The end result is that the state will inevitability end up in a pile of time wasting litigation with Uber arguing that the people of California really intended to make them as exempt from the law as they've been acting as though they were for all these years.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
argonaut 6y ago
Allowing 7/8th vote in the legislature to modify actually makes it (marginally) easier to modify, since ballot propositions by default cannot be modified by the legislature at all, only by another ballot proposition.
paxys 6y ago
Are you talking about prop 22 or AB5?
encoderer 6y ago
It is a terrible response to a terrible law.
CogitoCogito 6y ago
The whole concept of being able to pass laws and then being unable to repeal them by the same margins as before as always seemed totally insane to me. Basically the definition of an unstable system and totally undemocratic.
- makomk 6y ago
  As I understand it, this can be repealed in the same way and with the same margins as it was passed by getting majority support for another ballot proposition repealing it. The 7/8ths provision only applies to attempts by the legislature to mess with it.
  - CogitoCogito 6y ago
    Okay that makes much more sense. Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  To add to what the other commenter said, it also could add stability, rather than instability. Imagine a popular opinion that’s right around 50%, fluctuating by epsilon every year. If every time it went from 50+epsilon to 50-epsilon, the law changed, it would be too hard to get anything done, so a little bit of friction isn’t a terrible thing (a little bit). A system where it takes a 7/8 vote has this anti-fickleness property, where 7/8+epsilon can pass, but 7/8-epsilon can’t undo (though 7/8 is way too much friction).
  - CogitoCogito 6y ago
    [Opinionated wall of text...I don't really mean this as an attack on you, but I figured I'd add the disclaimer after noticing how long it got :) ] Honestly if a law has such variable support that both it and its complement could have majority support at any time, then why should either version have any precedence? This _is_ an example of unstable system. Passing A then ~A or passing ~A then A could have extremely varied outcomes just given random statistical variation. Besides you saying "it gets hard to get things done" doesn't really square with the fact that the vast majority of things in most electoral systems don't jump back and forth even though there isn't any hurdle like this to keep it from happening. So it must not happen for other other reasons like being seen as someone who's just quickly flipping an old law or just throwing up votes and then counter votes just isn't very popular. In fact, in this case the 7/8ths does _not_ apply to another proposition as the GP explained to me. So in fact there is nothing holding back another proposition next time saying the exact opposite (and it only needs the same support as this time) except the historical realization that it passed with enormous support and is backed by powerful interests. This system _is_ stable because I misunderstood it and because the requirements to repeal are the same as to pass. If it weren't that way it really would be unstable and frankly undemocratic.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
apta 6y ago
Many of those pro-voters are drivers who voted for what they want. Let's not pretend to know better than the people working in the field.
jessaustin 6y ago
...disappointed with the public... The whole episode, but especially comments here on HN: I'm getting a strong "Omelas" vibe.
pianoben 6y ago
Bear in mind that, without the 7/8 clause, it would be impossible to legislatively overturn or modify prop 22. It would have required a public referendum to do so. Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Also, please bear in mind that CA legislature has already exempted wide and arbitrary swathes of industry from AB5, seemingly based on each industry's political clout. While I wish for better worker protections than prop 22 provides, AB5 was bad legislature and implemented in a less-than-above-board way. disclosure: I do work for a gig company, opinions are my own, etc. personally I want all the workers unionized, everywhere.
- on_and_off 6y ago
  wow, it went from almost impossible to just improbable, everything is great then.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's just a strange way to conceptualize the process. The whole concept of a ballot proposition is to give voters the final say on policy questions - if legislators could easily overturn propositions, what would be the point?
    - jldugger 6y ago
      I assumed the idea was to allow popular but divisive issues to be decided upon without attaching the name of specific legislators to the issue.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Both factors are relevant, but the final say thing is pretty characteristic of California. For bond measures, it's actually mandated by the state constitution - once the legislature passes a bill for a new bond program, they have to create a ballot proposition to ask voters for approval.
  - 6y ago
SllX 6y ago
I voted for it to tank the legislative achievement in AB5. It’s not the total repeal I would have preferred, but damned if I’m going to let AB5 stay intact. Now the legislature faces the choice of letting the gimped version of AB5 stand without hitting their prized targets or repeal what’s left.
aeternum 6y ago
The legislature already took a stance that was counter to the will of the people rather than do their job. Now we have a worse law on the books that can't be removed. Maybe next time legislatures will take the time to listen to what people want and write a decent law initially.
sizzle 6y ago
The way they blanketed my parents neighborhood with advertisement that senior citizens would no longer be able to get there groceries and meds delivered to their door makes me think they played dirty and misled the masses on the real issue of worker employment benefits. I bet if you asked those individuals who voted what the issue was at hand they could not even tell you the implication of the passing prop 22 on drivers. How is this a just system?
wdr1 6y ago
> then pretending that this is something the legislature can update Where did the pretending happen?

by nullc 6y ago

t413 6y ago

My understanding is that a ballot measure must be modified only by ballot measure. Adding in a 7/8ths clause is a way of allowing, with difficulty, the legislature to change things.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
That's just a way to pretend it can be modified by the legislature. The only thing that gets 7/8th majorities is renaming post offices.

andromeduck 6y ago

It's only a special exception of they don't repeal AB5!

roenxi 6y ago

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Exactly! Democracy is a process used to encourage deliberation - it's a means rather than an ends. That's why we have a constitution, three branches of government, an electoral college for the executive, and had indirectly elected senators. It was all to force deliberation and buy enough time for saner minds to prevail through the moral panics of the day. The system is broken because the process was corrupted decades ago with the greatest of intentions.
- refurb 6y ago
  Do you have data on slavery? My understanding was the North was pretty anti-slavery and had 3x the population of the south. I'd be interested if there is actual polling data to suggest if a popular vote was held it would have failed.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I thought part of the point of the strange election process we have was to "ensure" that southern states would have a vote even in the face of a more populous north…
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      They did. Which was why they were able to hold out until 1860 when the writing was on the wall. Since slavery didn't die on it's own and was the underpinning of the economy of many states violence was somewhat bound to happen. You can't just expect to make any sizeable minority of your nation's economy non-viable and not have all the people's lives you just ruined start shooting. You might be able to get away with it if the people losing out are an evenly distributed minority but if there's a huge block where they are the overwhelming local majority it's gonna get ugly. The alternative path out of slavery would have been to boil the frog but with the uneven geographic distribution of slavery that wouldn't have been reasonably possible to do socially (e.g. convince people to spend more any more money treating slaves better until wage labor is competitive and slavery can be legislated away without a war). You might be able to boil the frog legislatively but the weak government structures of the 19th century were not well equipped for that kind of thing and that requires a lot of support anyway. In order to get the nation bootstrapped the founders intentionally put off any action for several decades. Something calamitous was kind of bound to happen. Frankly I think we were kind of lucky we got off with a "one and done" war over it (yes I know there was a bunch of background violence after the fact) rather than a perpetual slow boil conflict that turns into a low intensity shooting war every few decades like you see in other parts of the world.

sieabahlpark 6y ago

> It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one. Well I'm sure you'll get over it when you consider that overreach and imperfect laws don't operate in a vacuum.

nullc 6y ago
Fair enough, I certainly have sympathy for the comment above about "using it as a referendum on AB5", although I think it is an extremely poor tool for that.

db48x 6y ago

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
Prop 8 to ban gay marriage comes to mind. (It passed only a few years back...)
Rebelgecko 6y ago
I think it's easy to spin things however you want If prop 11 was rejected, someone could go on HN and say that they're disgusted with how CA voters decided that EMTs shouldn't receive extra mental health care. Or that voters said that it's better to let someone die than require an EMT to postpone their (still paid!) break by 1 hour
sanbor 6y ago
In 2016 there was a proposition to abolish death penalty and another to expedite it. Expediting death penalty proposition won. Another proposition was to legalize weed production. That one also won. If all the weed supporters would have also voted for abolishing death penalty...
argonaut 6y ago
Prop 11 required EMTs to remain on-call during paid breaks (I suppose you could spin it as eliminated non-on-call paid breaks). Most major newspapers endorsed it. There was very little opposition ($0 spent in opposition).
beeper-beeps 6y ago
It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?” The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote. This is why politicians should exist, to be responsible for these decisions and to be accountable afterwards (in theory). Direct democracy lets everyone wash their hands of any responsibility.

renewiltord 6y ago

The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. It's a litmus test for who speaks in an uninformed manner. Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22: > After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter Seven-eighths to overturn, eh? Now where did you go get that? Now secondarily, one might ask if someone "disappointed with the public" is sufficiently informed about ballot propositions in the first place. For instance, if you're a California voter and you can't answer "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?", then can you really be considered an informed voter? Or, more directly, you are clearly expressing discontent with California voters while being the problem since you are clearly uninformed about Prop 22 and about how ballot props work (and perhaps about why they have to work that way).

panic 6y ago
That’s the only place that literal text appears, but there are several other references to it (“subdivision (a)”) — > (3) Any statute that prohibits app-based drivers from performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service while allowing other individuals or entities to perform the same rideshare service or delivery service, or otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers based on their classifcation status, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b). > (4) Any statute that authorizes any entity or organization to represent the interests of app-based drivers in connection with drivers’ contractual relationships with network companies, or drivers’ compensation, benefts, or working conditions, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b). > (d) Any statute that imposes additional misdemeanor or felony penalties in order to provide greater protection against criminal activity for app-based drivers and individuals using rideshare services or delivery services may be enacted by the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurring, without complying with subdivisions (a) and (b).

vmception 6y ago

Do you think it passes the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the US constitution? Treating some companies' employees differently than others? Because I hope it does. I also unfortunately have to hope that the ride-share companies give the benefits they suggest, but I also want the US to unbundle this from companies to begin with, across the whole republic.

colejohnson66 6y ago
We already have discriminated for a century on pay: tipped vs non-tipped wages. Also, they’re not modifying it to single out Uber and Lyft, but “gig economy workers”. Requiring someone who fulfills certain requirements to be classified as an employee isn’t unconstitutional.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Rebelgecko 6y ago

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2257 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the gig economy. It would've required uber to reduce the # of drivers and/or start assigning them shifts

thatswrong0 6y ago
Same. The exception list is insane. I don't see how you can look at that list and _not_ think these drivers belong there as well. On top of this, most drivers I talked to were voting for it, and despite some cries about brainwashing by the companies via their apps, I'd imagine they do still have their own best interests in mind.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Hey, no need to be snide.
  - thatswrong0 6y ago
    Umm... why would they be scared? It's not like I was being aggressive about - I was just curious, and I was already casually chatting with them.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      Here are two important facts about the world: 1. Poor people cannot miss a paycheck. Getting fired means not paying rent, not eating, or not repairing the car you depend on for your livelihood. 2. Bosses spy on employees. This country has a rather nasty history of labor spies, and that tradition is undergoing an unfortunate revival. Poor people seem to know more about that history than comfortable-but-not-rich people. Not sure why.

refurb 6y ago

Did you know that CA has been busy passing special exemptions to AB 5 for a ton of professions ever since it first passed? Here is an example of professions as of September, but I know they passed additional exemptions in October as well. https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wage-hour-law/california-adds-more-exemptions-to-controversial-independent-contractor-statute https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wag...

nullc 6y ago
I'm aware-- and if Prop22 just grafted the ride-share businesses into those lists or overturned AB5 I'd have less to complain about it. Instead, Prop22 acts as a generalized shield against any act of the legislature which limits or imposes specific restrictions on rideshare app businesses by requiring a 7/8th's vote and requiring that they be "consistent with the purpose" of the prop22 amended law.
- refurb 6y ago
  According to this link [1] the legislature can't change what the voter's passed through an initiative unless they send it back to the voter's again. So as per earlier comments, I'd interpret that as the 7/8th's vote requirement actually reducing the burden on the legislature. As long as they can get 7/8ths of the votes, they don't need to bring it back to the voter's again. "The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally." [1]https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California#Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
  - nullc 6y ago
    Yes, it technically reduces the criteria for direct adjustments, but: Proposition 22 imposes the same 7/8th requirement across a _massive_ scope, not just the specific text amended by the proposition itself but also for any statute that prohibits ridesharing apps from "performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service" or "otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers". Additionally, any law that would unionize app-based drivers is similarly subject to this requirement. The threshold is so high that the legislature is effectively barred, and rather than just having the limitation apply to the measure itself is a generalized shield against legislation. For example: No sex offenders on ridesharing apps? 7/8ths vote required. Separate tax for road wear created by inefficient routing by ridesharing apps? 7/8ths vote. (Prop13 and Prop26 eat your heart out!) Additional liability insurance requirements for rideshare drivers? 7/8ths vote. Law requiring ridesharing apps to automatically forward user's reports of assaults by drivers to the police? 7/8ths vote. Essentially Prop22 acts as a fairly generalized shield against new laws that would interfere with the core activity of particular set of businesses. In addition to the 7/8th requirement all amendments or other statutes that trigger Prop22's oversight are also required to be "consistent with the purpose" of Prop22 ("...to protect the individual right of every app-based ride share and delivery drivers to have the flexibility to set their own hours for where, when, and how they work..."). And if there is a really good cause to impinge the right of 'app-based' rideshare drivers to drive whatever hours whereever, or however they want? It seems like the answer even with unanimous support of the legislature is: Tough luck, time for another ballot initiative but this time it'll have the ride-share companies spending a hundreds of millions against it instead of for it and it'll still be a sweet deal at twice the price. Have these companies shown themselves to be such good citizens, going out of their way to protect the public interest, that they could be trusted with this near diplomatic immunity level of protection? Of course not. However... the drafting of Prop22 does allow laws restricting app-based rideshare so long as these laws impose criminal penalties. I wonder what would happen if the legislature became as shameless at exploiting legal loopholes as Uber has been? "Overwork app-based drivers? CEO right to jail! Under-pay app-based drivers? Right to jail, right away. Driving too fast: jail. Slow: jail. You make an appointment with the rider and a driver doesn't show up, believe it or not, jail, right away." It would be quite interesting as a television drama ... but I wouldn't expect such absurdity to be a good use of our public resources. :) If I had to bet the courts won't allow Prop22 to have quite that expansive an effect, it's simply too offensive. The end result is that the state will inevitability end up in a pile of time wasting litigation with Uber arguing that the people of California really intended to make them as exempt from the law as they've been acting as though they were for all these years.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

argonaut 6y ago

Allowing 7/8th vote in the legislature to modify actually makes it (marginally) easier to modify, since ballot propositions by default cannot be modified by the legislature at all, only by another ballot proposition.

paxys 6y ago

Are you talking about prop 22 or AB5?

encoderer 6y ago

It is a terrible response to a terrible law.

CogitoCogito 6y ago

The whole concept of being able to pass laws and then being unable to repeal them by the same margins as before as always seemed totally insane to me. Basically the definition of an unstable system and totally undemocratic.

makomk 6y ago
As I understand it, this can be repealed in the same way and with the same margins as it was passed by getting majority support for another ballot proposition repealing it. The 7/8ths provision only applies to attempts by the legislature to mess with it.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  Okay that makes much more sense. Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
To add to what the other commenter said, it also could add stability, rather than instability. Imagine a popular opinion that’s right around 50%, fluctuating by epsilon every year. If every time it went from 50+epsilon to 50-epsilon, the law changed, it would be too hard to get anything done, so a little bit of friction isn’t a terrible thing (a little bit). A system where it takes a 7/8 vote has this anti-fickleness property, where 7/8+epsilon can pass, but 7/8-epsilon can’t undo (though 7/8 is way too much friction).
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  [Opinionated wall of text...I don't really mean this as an attack on you, but I figured I'd add the disclaimer after noticing how long it got :) ] Honestly if a law has such variable support that both it and its complement could have majority support at any time, then why should either version have any precedence? This _is_ an example of unstable system. Passing A then ~A or passing ~A then A could have extremely varied outcomes just given random statistical variation. Besides you saying "it gets hard to get things done" doesn't really square with the fact that the vast majority of things in most electoral systems don't jump back and forth even though there isn't any hurdle like this to keep it from happening. So it must not happen for other other reasons like being seen as someone who's just quickly flipping an old law or just throwing up votes and then counter votes just isn't very popular. In fact, in this case the 7/8ths does _not_ apply to another proposition as the GP explained to me. So in fact there is nothing holding back another proposition next time saying the exact opposite (and it only needs the same support as this time) except the historical realization that it passed with enormous support and is backed by powerful interests. This system _is_ stable because I misunderstood it and because the requirements to repeal are the same as to pass. If it weren't that way it really would be unstable and frankly undemocratic.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

apta 6y ago

Many of those pro-voters are drivers who voted for what they want. Let's not pretend to know better than the people working in the field.

jessaustin 6y ago

...disappointed with the public... The whole episode, but especially comments here on HN: I'm getting a strong "Omelas" vibe.

pianoben 6y ago

Bear in mind that, without the 7/8 clause, it would be impossible to legislatively overturn or modify prop 22. It would have required a public referendum to do so. Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Also, please bear in mind that CA legislature has already exempted wide and arbitrary swathes of industry from AB5, seemingly based on each industry's political clout. While I wish for better worker protections than prop 22 provides, AB5 was bad legislature and implemented in a less-than-above-board way. disclosure: I do work for a gig company, opinions are my own, etc. personally I want all the workers unionized, everywhere.

on_and_off 6y ago
wow, it went from almost impossible to just improbable, everything is great then.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's just a strange way to conceptualize the process. The whole concept of a ballot proposition is to give voters the final say on policy questions - if legislators could easily overturn propositions, what would be the point?
  - jldugger 6y ago
    I assumed the idea was to allow popular but divisive issues to be decided upon without attaching the name of specific legislators to the issue.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Both factors are relevant, but the final say thing is pretty characteristic of California. For bond measures, it's actually mandated by the state constitution - once the legislature passes a bill for a new bond program, they have to create a ballot proposition to ask voters for approval.
- 6y ago

SllX 6y ago

I voted for it to tank the legislative achievement in AB5. It’s not the total repeal I would have preferred, but damned if I’m going to let AB5 stay intact. Now the legislature faces the choice of letting the gimped version of AB5 stand without hitting their prized targets or repeal what’s left.

aeternum 6y ago

The legislature already took a stance that was counter to the will of the people rather than do their job. Now we have a worse law on the books that can't be removed. Maybe next time legislatures will take the time to listen to what people want and write a decent law initially.

sizzle 6y ago

The way they blanketed my parents neighborhood with advertisement that senior citizens would no longer be able to get there groceries and meds delivered to their door makes me think they played dirty and misled the masses on the real issue of worker employment benefits. I bet if you asked those individuals who voted what the issue was at hand they could not even tell you the implication of the passing prop 22 on drivers. How is this a just system?

wdr1 6y ago

> then pretending that this is something the legislature can update Where did the pretending happen?