4 ms·

And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it. This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried t

And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it. This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year. > instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5? > systemic corruption in the Democratic party, Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.
        claudeganon 6y ago
        Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on. I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services) What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None. > not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5? > pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-face-antitrust-suit/ https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f... > The list goes on and on. No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?

lern_too_spel 6y ago

They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

claudeganon 6y ago
Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year. > instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5? > systemic corruption in the Democratic party, Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on. I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services) What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None. > not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5? > pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-face-antitrust-suit/ https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f... > The list goes on and on. No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?