3 ms·

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

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?