10 ms·

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

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.
- bhl 6y ago
  The difference in my opinion is with gig workers, there’s a contrasting concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, and those companies play a substantial intermediating role in matching “contractors” with customers. From the exemption list, is there any that rival the likes of Uber or Lyft?
rmrfstar 6y ago
So... you're OK with having an exploited underclass of marginally attached gig workers? Or you're not?
- refurb 6y ago
  You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    I don't believe that, but would read any evidence you have that tends to substantiate your claim.
    - creddit 6y ago
      https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-journalist-ab5-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-...
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    People readily choose to let themselves be exploited. That's why minimum wages are compulsory not negotiable by employees. It's why human trafficking is illegal - the victims choose to be trafficked. It's why unions have compulsory membership. Here, individual drivers might be more concerned about losing their jobs or lifestyle (perhaps justifiably) than the consequences of the exploitation.
    - username90 6y ago
      Prop 22 added minimum wage protection and benefits to gig drivers. Thinking that they need to be employees to receive it is conservative thinking.
      - elmalto 6y ago
        Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO
NormenNomen 6y ago
Err, is the "casual use of the gig economy" good? These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. This certainly isn't going to make getting bread on the table any easier except in the extremely short term—and that's assuming a collective, vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  The People have voted and they desire low cost transportation options more so than protecting vulnerable transportation workers. The state will not get its payroll tax. The employees will not get their benefits. Wait till the people get to vote on public sector pension plans...
  - username90 6y ago
    The state gets its payroll tax, being an independent contractor doesn't prevent that. The drivers will get their benefits, prop 22 added benefits to them without making them employees.
    - novok 6y ago
      The big tax loss is all the removal of deductions that the state gets if they’re employees, which nobody talks about with AB5 on the govt side because they know it wouldn’t go over well.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  >vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state Companies withdraw operations when they are unprofitable. That's how business works. Capital get allocated based in margins. The AB5 restrictions make profitability unlikely. That means uber/lyft jobs simply won't exist. Is that a better outcome?
  - mola 6y ago
    Since when is uber profitable?
NeutronStar 6y ago
So if I make a new company I'm not allowed to abuse the law like those?
SilasX 6y ago
Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former, there can be a compromise later that rationalizes the whole system; but post-prop 22, everyone will also have to work around Uber's carveout. [0] Though I don't live there anymore FWIW.
- silexia 6y ago
  People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.
  - jrowley 6y ago
    We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?
    - indymike 6y ago
      Employment and work are not always the same thing.
    - virmundi 6y ago
      Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        > Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers. It is not a priori true that a minimum wage is not utility maximizing, depending on the regime of the supply/demand curve we're on. This is supercharged when you consider the diminishing marginal returns to wealth.
wpietri 6y ago
How does the 7/8th requirement for changing Prop 22 square with your thinking of it as a referendum? Everybody agrees that AB5 is flawed and needs more work. But Prop 22 let money-losing, worker-exploiting companies literally write the law they wanted and made sure nobody could change it. A referendum on AB5 would have forced discussion and improvement. This closes that off.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  The 7/8th requirement is fantastic because we can all stop arguing about it now, unlike Prop 13. I’m glad that this issue has been decided basically once and for all, and I hope someone comes up with a future proposition with the same 7/8 requirement for Prop 13 so we stop arguing over that as well.
  - nullc 6y ago
    I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic. I'll assume not. Prop 13 is the landmark example of a ballot initiative that set super-majority thresholds for legislature. In it's case, the ability to create new taxes-- a property which has been specifically (and unsuccessfully) litigated against: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-dec-26-la-oe-newton-prop13-20111226-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-dec-26-la-oe-new...
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  By default propositions are unchangeable by legislature. 7/8ths is a very high bar but most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it. Further propositions could modify or remove it by a simple majority. For better or worse, this is the system working as intended. The point of the proposition system is to let the people pass laws the legislature refuses to. It would be pointless if the legislature could overturn or gut propositions with a simple majority vote.
  - menage 6y ago
    > most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it. All the other statute initiative propositions on the CA ballot this year included a lower threshold than Prop 22 (ranging from 51% to 75%). However, none of them (including Prop 22) allow the legislature to overturn it even if they achieve the threshold - only to modify "in furtherance of the original purposes" of the proposition.
daveFNbuck 6y ago
If your problem with AB5 is that it has too many exemptions, why did you think that voting for more exemptions would express your concern? I think most people see this as Californians rejecting this type of legislation, not asking for it to be more broadly applied.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  If everyone is exempt, then AB5 is dead
  - daveFNbuck 6y ago
    I thought your goal was to have AB5 without the exemptions. How does killing AB5 by increasing the exemptions get you closer to that goal?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      Nope, my goal is to get rid of it because I think it was passed without considering the consequences. All of the loopholes and exceptions are just bandaids
      - daveFNbuck 6y ago
        So your objection is that it's poorly written, not that it has too many exceptions?

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.
bhl 6y ago
The difference in my opinion is with gig workers, there’s a contrasting concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, and those companies play a substantial intermediating role in matching “contractors” with customers. From the exemption list, is there any that rival the likes of Uber or Lyft?

rmrfstar 6y ago

So... you're OK with having an exploited underclass of marginally attached gig workers? Or you're not?

refurb 6y ago
You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  I don't believe that, but would read any evidence you have that tends to substantiate your claim.
  - creddit 6y ago
    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-journalist-ab5-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-...
- lopmotr 6y ago
  People readily choose to let themselves be exploited. That's why minimum wages are compulsory not negotiable by employees. It's why human trafficking is illegal - the victims choose to be trafficked. It's why unions have compulsory membership. Here, individual drivers might be more concerned about losing their jobs or lifestyle (perhaps justifiably) than the consequences of the exploitation.
  - username90 6y ago
    Prop 22 added minimum wage protection and benefits to gig drivers. Thinking that they need to be employees to receive it is conservative thinking.
    - elmalto 6y ago
      Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO

NormenNomen 6y ago

Err, is the "casual use of the gig economy" good? These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. This certainly isn't going to make getting bread on the table any easier except in the extremely short term—and that's assuming a collective, vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
The People have voted and they desire low cost transportation options more so than protecting vulnerable transportation workers. The state will not get its payroll tax. The employees will not get their benefits. Wait till the people get to vote on public sector pension plans...
- username90 6y ago
  The state gets its payroll tax, being an independent contractor doesn't prevent that. The drivers will get their benefits, prop 22 added benefits to them without making them employees.
  - novok 6y ago
    The big tax loss is all the removal of deductions that the state gets if they’re employees, which nobody talks about with AB5 on the govt side because they know it wouldn’t go over well.
anonuser123456 6y ago
>vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state Companies withdraw operations when they are unprofitable. That's how business works. Capital get allocated based in margins. The AB5 restrictions make profitability unlikely. That means uber/lyft jobs simply won't exist. Is that a better outcome?
- mola 6y ago
  Since when is uber profitable?

NeutronStar 6y ago

So if I make a new company I'm not allowed to abuse the law like those?

SilasX 6y ago

Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former, there can be a compromise later that rationalizes the whole system; but post-prop 22, everyone will also have to work around Uber's carveout. [0] Though I don't live there anymore FWIW.

silexia 6y ago
People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.
- jrowley 6y ago
  We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?
  - indymike 6y ago
    Employment and work are not always the same thing.
  - virmundi 6y ago
    Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers. It is not a priori true that a minimum wage is not utility maximizing, depending on the regime of the supply/demand curve we're on. This is supercharged when you consider the diminishing marginal returns to wealth.

wpietri 6y ago

How does the 7/8th requirement for changing Prop 22 square with your thinking of it as a referendum? Everybody agrees that AB5 is flawed and needs more work. But Prop 22 let money-losing, worker-exploiting companies literally write the law they wanted and made sure nobody could change it. A referendum on AB5 would have forced discussion and improvement. This closes that off.

remote_phone 6y ago
The 7/8th requirement is fantastic because we can all stop arguing about it now, unlike Prop 13. I’m glad that this issue has been decided basically once and for all, and I hope someone comes up with a future proposition with the same 7/8 requirement for Prop 13 so we stop arguing over that as well.
- nullc 6y ago
  I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic. I'll assume not. Prop 13 is the landmark example of a ballot initiative that set super-majority thresholds for legislature. In it's case, the ability to create new taxes-- a property which has been specifically (and unsuccessfully) litigated against: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-dec-26-la-oe-newton-prop13-20111226-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-dec-26-la-oe-new...
bcrosby95 6y ago
By default propositions are unchangeable by legislature. 7/8ths is a very high bar but most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it. Further propositions could modify or remove it by a simple majority. For better or worse, this is the system working as intended. The point of the proposition system is to let the people pass laws the legislature refuses to. It would be pointless if the legislature could overturn or gut propositions with a simple majority vote.
- menage 6y ago
  > most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it. All the other statute initiative propositions on the CA ballot this year included a lower threshold than Prop 22 (ranging from 51% to 75%). However, none of them (including Prop 22) allow the legislature to overturn it even if they achieve the threshold - only to modify "in furtherance of the original purposes" of the proposition.

daveFNbuck 6y ago

If your problem with AB5 is that it has too many exemptions, why did you think that voting for more exemptions would express your concern? I think most people see this as Californians rejecting this type of legislation, not asking for it to be more broadly applied.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
If everyone is exempt, then AB5 is dead
- daveFNbuck 6y ago
  I thought your goal was to have AB5 without the exemptions. How does killing AB5 by increasing the exemptions get you closer to that goal?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Nope, my goal is to get rid of it because I think it was passed without considering the consequences. All of the loopholes and exceptions are just bandaids
    - daveFNbuck 6y ago
      So your objection is that it's poorly written, not that it has too many exceptions?