5 ms·

California legislators made this kind of argument earlier this year as they tried to force Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. California voters reje

by Meekro 6y ago

California legislators made this kind of argument earlier this year as they tried to force Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. California voters rejected that. Uber drivers themselves overwhelmingly wanted to keep their contractor status. Maybe they don't consider themselves exploited?

diurnalist 6y ago
There is some speculation (I haven't seen where the data for this preference for contractor status comes from other than "drivers surveyed") that the high preference is influenced by dark patterns in the ride-sharing apps, where the drivers are presented with in-app notifications very frequently until they indicate support. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-prop22-suit/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-pr... I'm sure many would not consider themselves exploited and prefer to be contractors, but I'm personally skeptical that the breakdowns of this opinion are as reported by the companies.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Incredible that anyone reports this stat as useful. It's blatantly coercive. What driver wouldn't fear algorithmic reprisal from not indicating support?
season2episode3 6y ago
Or maybe Uber et al outspending their opponents on political advertising by hundreds of millions of dollars had something to do with it? Not to mention constant advertising for free in their apps. They had the “no on prop 22” people hopelessly outgunned. Even the idea that Uber drivers themselves wanted to keep their contractor status is questionable given that they collected those statistics via polls in the driver app. There is/was legitimate concern that Uber et al would collect that info and retaliate. There is no recourse for this on the workers’ behalf because they don’t have a union! This is a TEXTBOOK example of why gig workers need to be given the right to collectively bargain. Now, thanks to prop 22, overturning its provisions needs a 7/8 majority in the state legislature. Aka, not gonna happen, and that’s by the design of some really cynical lawyers. More generally, the prop 22 campaign is an indictment of the referendum process, and how easily it can be abused in the absence of sensible campaign finance laws.
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  Your assumption seems to be that the side that spends more money wins - the prop 16 vote, with the YES side spending 20 million and the NO side spending just 1.5 million would seem to refute that idea. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr... Is it possible that maybe the voters actually have their own opinions regarding these ballot propositions? So maybe Californian voters think that drivers should have the right to decide for themselves whether to work with Uber or not?
  - dom2 6y ago
    Yes on 22 spent nearly $300 million on the campaign, along with utilizing their established network of apps to tell CA residents to vote yes on 22. The comparison isn't at all equivalent. Uber et al used their vast resources to essentially purchase a law and it's astounding to me that anyone would defend them for it.
  - bmm6o 6y ago
    OP didn't say that it was a certainty, so a single case isn't really relevant either way.
- will4274 6y ago
  Every analysis ever has basically concluded that money in politics only matters up until the point of name recognition. Once voters know about both sides of an issue, you actually have to convince them. That's why money is really only interesting for obscure offices (like judges)
- cactus2093 6y ago
  The biggest thing you're ignoring is that Prop 22 brings real, tangible benefits to workers compared to what they have today. It has companies pay I believe 41% of their healthcare costs, whereas previously this was 0%. And it includes the 120% of minimum wage provision, on top of vehicle maintenance costs. This is real money that real drivers and couriers will be "topped up" in certain cases, that they simply weren't being paid before. The choices were 1. the previous system where drivers were purely contractors, 2. the AB5 world where the vast majority of them can't work at all anymore but the ones that remain are full-time employees, without the flexibility that attracted many of them to this work in the first place as opposed to, say, getting a job at a traditional taxi company, or 3. a compromise where the work stays fundamentally the same but pays more in many cases. Most of the people I saw opposing prop 22, which I'm guessing includes the above commenter, and certainly included the legislator behind AB5, were just bystanders who viewed it as yet another a philosophical showdown of unionized full-time work vs anything goes exploitation. Even though that framework is a poor fit for the details of this particular situation. The people with skin in the game saw it differently, the details actually mattered to them and they voted accordingly. > overturning its provisions needs a 7/8 majority in the state legislature. Given that prop 22 overturns a law that had recently been passed by the current sitting legislature, there wouldn't have been any point to doing it if it could just be immediately repealed by the same people. Prop 22 can be still be overturned with just a >50% vote by a future ballot proposition.
bergstromm466 6y ago
> Uber drivers themselves overwhelmingly wanted to keep their contractor status. Only after the ride shares corps spent over two hundred million dollars misrepresenting Prop 22. That's one fifth of a billion dollars... to write themselves a law. [1] Asking in good faith, do you genuinely believe what you wrote above? [1] https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-labor-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by Meekro 6y ago

diurnalist 6y ago

There is some speculation (I haven't seen where the data for this preference for contractor status comes from other than "drivers surveyed") that the high preference is influenced by dark patterns in the ride-sharing apps, where the drivers are presented with in-app notifications very frequently until they indicate support. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-prop22-suit/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-pr... I'm sure many would not consider themselves exploited and prefer to be contractors, but I'm personally skeptical that the breakdowns of this opinion are as reported by the companies.

camgunz 6y ago
Incredible that anyone reports this stat as useful. It's blatantly coercive. What driver wouldn't fear algorithmic reprisal from not indicating support?

season2episode3 6y ago

Or maybe Uber et al outspending their opponents on political advertising by hundreds of millions of dollars had something to do with it? Not to mention constant advertising for free in their apps. They had the “no on prop 22” people hopelessly outgunned. Even the idea that Uber drivers themselves wanted to keep their contractor status is questionable given that they collected those statistics via polls in the driver app. There is/was legitimate concern that Uber et al would collect that info and retaliate. There is no recourse for this on the workers’ behalf because they don’t have a union! This is a TEXTBOOK example of why gig workers need to be given the right to collectively bargain. Now, thanks to prop 22, overturning its provisions needs a 7/8 majority in the state legislature. Aka, not gonna happen, and that’s by the design of some really cynical lawyers. More generally, the prop 22 campaign is an indictment of the referendum process, and how easily it can be abused in the absence of sensible campaign finance laws.

ghufran_syed 6y ago
Your assumption seems to be that the side that spends more money wins - the prop 16 vote, with the YES side spending 20 million and the NO side spending just 1.5 million would seem to refute that idea. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr... Is it possible that maybe the voters actually have their own opinions regarding these ballot propositions? So maybe Californian voters think that drivers should have the right to decide for themselves whether to work with Uber or not?
- dom2 6y ago
  Yes on 22 spent nearly $300 million on the campaign, along with utilizing their established network of apps to tell CA residents to vote yes on 22. The comparison isn't at all equivalent. Uber et al used their vast resources to essentially purchase a law and it's astounding to me that anyone would defend them for it.
- bmm6o 6y ago
  OP didn't say that it was a certainty, so a single case isn't really relevant either way.
will4274 6y ago
Every analysis ever has basically concluded that money in politics only matters up until the point of name recognition. Once voters know about both sides of an issue, you actually have to convince them. That's why money is really only interesting for obscure offices (like judges)
cactus2093 6y ago
The biggest thing you're ignoring is that Prop 22 brings real, tangible benefits to workers compared to what they have today. It has companies pay I believe 41% of their healthcare costs, whereas previously this was 0%. And it includes the 120% of minimum wage provision, on top of vehicle maintenance costs. This is real money that real drivers and couriers will be "topped up" in certain cases, that they simply weren't being paid before. The choices were 1. the previous system where drivers were purely contractors, 2. the AB5 world where the vast majority of them can't work at all anymore but the ones that remain are full-time employees, without the flexibility that attracted many of them to this work in the first place as opposed to, say, getting a job at a traditional taxi company, or 3. a compromise where the work stays fundamentally the same but pays more in many cases. Most of the people I saw opposing prop 22, which I'm guessing includes the above commenter, and certainly included the legislator behind AB5, were just bystanders who viewed it as yet another a philosophical showdown of unionized full-time work vs anything goes exploitation. Even though that framework is a poor fit for the details of this particular situation. The people with skin in the game saw it differently, the details actually mattered to them and they voted accordingly. > overturning its provisions needs a 7/8 majority in the state legislature. Given that prop 22 overturns a law that had recently been passed by the current sitting legislature, there wouldn't have been any point to doing it if it could just be immediately repealed by the same people. Prop 22 can be still be overturned with just a >50% vote by a future ballot proposition.

bergstromm466 6y ago

> Uber drivers themselves overwhelmingly wanted to keep their contractor status. Only after the ride shares corps spent over two hundred million dollars misrepresenting Prop 22. That's one fifth of a billion dollars... to write themselves a law. [1] Asking in good faith, do you genuinely believe what you wrote above? [1] https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-labor-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/200-million-uber-lyft-write-own-...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]