4 ms·

For those who maybe clicked through to the comments before reading or didn't make it several paragraphs into the article, this is a direct result of Prop 22 whi

by slg 6y ago

For those who maybe clicked through to the comments before reading or didn't make it several paragraphs into the article, this is a direct result of Prop 22 which was passed on the backs of a nearly $200m campaign by Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare companies. This is one of the exact results predicted by opponents of Prop 22. Also there is basically no way for Prop 22 to be amended or repealed through the state legislature. These companies effectively bought a law and are already repeating the benefits at the expense of the workers of California. Expect other industries to follow this path in coming elections.

mc32 6y ago
Wait... how come before AB 5, companies didn't do this, why wait till AB 5 was passed then repealed by Prop 22 before doing this (are they clairvoyant)? In other words, had AB 5 not passed, this would likely have happened anyway as a progression towards off-loading "non-core" competencies to third parties as has continued to happen across industries (an iconic example is janitorial services which used to be handled in-house but were off-loaded starting in earnest in the early 90s?)
- slg 6y ago
  Companies are unwilling to upend their business based on laws that are highly controversial and the likely subject of future changes. Prop 22 provides the stability that these companies need to drop their full time employees and commit to outsourcing this work to rideshare drivers.
  - Jommi 6y ago
    How on earth can you say prop22 has provided any stability, when we are literally discussing an article bashing it, and with there being multiple ways of it being still repealed? Explain yourself.
    - slg 6y ago
      Prop 22 is much more stable than AB5 because the requirements to change it are much more difficult to reach.
      - Jommi 6y ago
        We are not talking about stability of AB5, but rather the situation before it. It was trivial for most other industries to get excemptions to AB5 (there are tens, if not close to 100 excemptions now). So what really changed with prop22 comapared to before AB5?
        mushbino 6y ago
        Prop22 requires a 7/8 majority in the house to overturn (practically impossible).
        Jommi 6y ago
        You should research this more. Having even a possibility for voting to amend a law is not the normal. Usually proposition can't be overturned at all.
        mushbino 6y ago
        https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-amendment-threshold-proposition-22/ https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-a...
        slg 6y ago
        Answered here[1] [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641580
  - mc32 6y ago
    Let's suppose AB 5 provided cloudy outlook... before AB 5 that was not the case. There was no such law... did they somehow secretly know what was happening 5 years down the road and said, uhh, let's wait this out. No, they could have done this before AB 5. They did not. This seems to say that this move would have happened if conditions allowed it and the situation was right for business. What that means is sure AB 5 would have nixed this option. However, the trend before AB 5 was to off-load "non-core" competencies. Prop 22 re-instated the previous status, it did not introduce an altogether new status. Prop 22 indicated the people preferred the original status to the new status introduced by AB 5, so we're back to where we started before AB 5.
    - slg 6y ago
      The rideshare industry likely couldn't have supported this 5 years ago and it was clear that something like AB5 was going to happen for years. Prop 22 provides unprecedented clarity on how ridesharing will be legislated in California for the foreseeable future.
      - mc32 6y ago
        Let's suppose you're right, Uber and Lyft and DD all knew this and despite this knowledge thought, you know what, yeah it's uncertain but let's set CA as our HQ and concentrate our efforts there anyway... Vons and Pavilions are not the same as Uber, Lyft, etc. I think they did it because they thought it was time to change their delivery logistics and were not waiting for concretization of the law around this. Put another way, Vons' business model isn't centered around this law. It's incidental.
        slg 6y ago
        You are establishing weird timelines on these decisions. Uber, Lyft, etc set themselves up in California because they consider themselves tech companies. The state of California likely couldn't have cared less about the special class of workers they employed until the group reached a critical mass which obviously didn't happen before these companies were founded. I don't know specifically when they reached critical mass, but it was likely within the last 5 years. At that point it became clear that the state needed to do something. AB5 was one of those attempts. Companies like Albertsons who could benefit from these businesses weren't willing to commit to embracing them until there was stability in the industry. For all the faults of Prop 22, it provides stability through its incredibly high requirements for repeal or amendments. Companies like Albertsons now have the stability they desired and will embrace these rideshare companies to save a few bucks by shifting a greater financial burden onto individual drivers.
- mayneack 6y ago
  Grocery delivery has grown by a massive amount since AB 5 was passed.
Jommi 6y ago
Untrue. 1) This has always been allowed, but AB5 made it illegal. Then a shitton of industries got granted exceptions to it, and ride-hailing + food-delivery did the same. 2) Prop22 can be be amended only by a seven-eighths vote of the Legislature or a new ballot measure — AND state labor laws can be superseded by federal laws and regulations for enterprises that affect interstate commerce. Please stop spreading false information.
- slg 6y ago
  I answer point one here[1]. Point two is why I threw a "basically" in that sentence. Yes, you are technically correct that the state can change it with a 7/8ths majority. However requiring a supermajority that high is a nearly unprecedented requirement for the legislature and it is one that is going to be nearly impossible to achieve. I honestly don't know what you consider "false information" here beyond me saying "basically no way" for something to happen when it is realistically unfeasible. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641377
  - Jommi 6y ago
    You realize many laws don't allow any legislative input at all right? By default, a law enacted by ballot measure can only be changed by another law enacted by ballot measure. You can go learn something about it from here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-and-referendum-processes.aspx#/ https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initia...
    - m4eta 6y ago
      The will of the people will not be superceded. Why would we allow legislature to overpower a ballot measure? We voted. The only thing people can be upset about is their lack of educating themselves on what they were voting for in the ballot measure. People cannot be coddled when it comes to their vote. Any undue influence would rot the inside and then why have a democracy?
      - 6y ago
Anon1096 6y ago
>Prop 22 which was passed on the backs of a nearly $200m campaign You mean, passed on the backs of nearly 10 million voters. I always find it strange to tout the line of how much money was spent in an election, as if to say that the voters have no agency or culpability. Clinton spent nearly 2 times what Trump did and still lost. Money does not equal votes if the people don't support an issue.
- slg 6y ago
  Money buys votes at the margin. Everyone agrees on this including the people who supported Prop 22 otherwise they wouldn't have spent some $175m more than their opponents.
  - Anon1096 6y ago
    That doesn't mean the voters were brainwashed into supporting something they otherwise wouldn't have.
    - slg 6y ago
      Why do you think these companies spent roughly $175m more than their opponents if they didn't think it would help them win?
    - bsder 6y ago
      Many were practically blackmailed. Uber/Lyft/DoorDash etc. threatened to summarily shut down in the middle of a pandemic if Prop 22 didn't get passed. Uber and Lyft actually did this in Austin, but since it wasn't in the middle of a pandemic people had other options and could make adjustments. And then Uber and Lyft went crying to the state government to override Austin because Austin started generating alternatives and we found out that Uber/Lyft don't really have an unassailable position but they have LOTS of VC cash to spend on lobbying and advertising. Unfortunately, making the kind of adjustments that people in Austin did borders on impossible right now, so this kind of threat was quite effective.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
seany 6y ago
but why is that a problem?

by slg 6y ago

mc32 6y ago

Wait... how come before AB 5, companies didn't do this, why wait till AB 5 was passed then repealed by Prop 22 before doing this (are they clairvoyant)? In other words, had AB 5 not passed, this would likely have happened anyway as a progression towards off-loading "non-core" competencies to third parties as has continued to happen across industries (an iconic example is janitorial services which used to be handled in-house but were off-loaded starting in earnest in the early 90s?)

slg 6y ago
Companies are unwilling to upend their business based on laws that are highly controversial and the likely subject of future changes. Prop 22 provides the stability that these companies need to drop their full time employees and commit to outsourcing this work to rideshare drivers.
- Jommi 6y ago
  How on earth can you say prop22 has provided any stability, when we are literally discussing an article bashing it, and with there being multiple ways of it being still repealed? Explain yourself.
  - slg 6y ago
    Prop 22 is much more stable than AB5 because the requirements to change it are much more difficult to reach.
    - Jommi 6y ago
      We are not talking about stability of AB5, but rather the situation before it. It was trivial for most other industries to get excemptions to AB5 (there are tens, if not close to 100 excemptions now). So what really changed with prop22 comapared to before AB5?
      - mushbino 6y ago
        Prop22 requires a 7/8 majority in the house to overturn (practically impossible).
        Jommi 6y ago
        You should research this more. Having even a possibility for voting to amend a law is not the normal. Usually proposition can't be overturned at all.
        mushbino 6y ago
        https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-amendment-threshold-proposition-22/ https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-a...
      - slg 6y ago
        Answered here[1] [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641580
- mc32 6y ago
  Let's suppose AB 5 provided cloudy outlook... before AB 5 that was not the case. There was no such law... did they somehow secretly know what was happening 5 years down the road and said, uhh, let's wait this out. No, they could have done this before AB 5. They did not. This seems to say that this move would have happened if conditions allowed it and the situation was right for business. What that means is sure AB 5 would have nixed this option. However, the trend before AB 5 was to off-load "non-core" competencies. Prop 22 re-instated the previous status, it did not introduce an altogether new status. Prop 22 indicated the people preferred the original status to the new status introduced by AB 5, so we're back to where we started before AB 5.
  - slg 6y ago
    The rideshare industry likely couldn't have supported this 5 years ago and it was clear that something like AB5 was going to happen for years. Prop 22 provides unprecedented clarity on how ridesharing will be legislated in California for the foreseeable future.
    - mc32 6y ago
      Let's suppose you're right, Uber and Lyft and DD all knew this and despite this knowledge thought, you know what, yeah it's uncertain but let's set CA as our HQ and concentrate our efforts there anyway... Vons and Pavilions are not the same as Uber, Lyft, etc. I think they did it because they thought it was time to change their delivery logistics and were not waiting for concretization of the law around this. Put another way, Vons' business model isn't centered around this law. It's incidental.
      - slg 6y ago
        You are establishing weird timelines on these decisions. Uber, Lyft, etc set themselves up in California because they consider themselves tech companies. The state of California likely couldn't have cared less about the special class of workers they employed until the group reached a critical mass which obviously didn't happen before these companies were founded. I don't know specifically when they reached critical mass, but it was likely within the last 5 years. At that point it became clear that the state needed to do something. AB5 was one of those attempts. Companies like Albertsons who could benefit from these businesses weren't willing to commit to embracing them until there was stability in the industry. For all the faults of Prop 22, it provides stability through its incredibly high requirements for repeal or amendments. Companies like Albertsons now have the stability they desired and will embrace these rideshare companies to save a few bucks by shifting a greater financial burden onto individual drivers.
mayneack 6y ago
Grocery delivery has grown by a massive amount since AB 5 was passed.

Jommi 6y ago

Untrue. 1) This has always been allowed, but AB5 made it illegal. Then a shitton of industries got granted exceptions to it, and ride-hailing + food-delivery did the same. 2) Prop22 can be be amended only by a seven-eighths vote of the Legislature or a new ballot measure — AND state labor laws can be superseded by federal laws and regulations for enterprises that affect interstate commerce. Please stop spreading false information.

slg 6y ago
I answer point one here[1]. Point two is why I threw a "basically" in that sentence. Yes, you are technically correct that the state can change it with a 7/8ths majority. However requiring a supermajority that high is a nearly unprecedented requirement for the legislature and it is one that is going to be nearly impossible to achieve. I honestly don't know what you consider "false information" here beyond me saying "basically no way" for something to happen when it is realistically unfeasible. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641377
- Jommi 6y ago
  You realize many laws don't allow any legislative input at all right? By default, a law enacted by ballot measure can only be changed by another law enacted by ballot measure. You can go learn something about it from here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-and-referendum-processes.aspx#/ https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initia...
  - m4eta 6y ago
    The will of the people will not be superceded. Why would we allow legislature to overpower a ballot measure? We voted. The only thing people can be upset about is their lack of educating themselves on what they were voting for in the ballot measure. People cannot be coddled when it comes to their vote. Any undue influence would rot the inside and then why have a democracy?
    - 6y ago

Anon1096 6y ago

>Prop 22 which was passed on the backs of a nearly $200m campaign You mean, passed on the backs of nearly 10 million voters. I always find it strange to tout the line of how much money was spent in an election, as if to say that the voters have no agency or culpability. Clinton spent nearly 2 times what Trump did and still lost. Money does not equal votes if the people don't support an issue.

slg 6y ago
Money buys votes at the margin. Everyone agrees on this including the people who supported Prop 22 otherwise they wouldn't have spent some $175m more than their opponents.
- Anon1096 6y ago
  That doesn't mean the voters were brainwashed into supporting something they otherwise wouldn't have.
  - slg 6y ago
    Why do you think these companies spent roughly $175m more than their opponents if they didn't think it would help them win?
  - bsder 6y ago
    Many were practically blackmailed. Uber/Lyft/DoorDash etc. threatened to summarily shut down in the middle of a pandemic if Prop 22 didn't get passed. Uber and Lyft actually did this in Austin, but since it wasn't in the middle of a pandemic people had other options and could make adjustments. And then Uber and Lyft went crying to the state government to override Austin because Austin started generating alternatives and we found out that Uber/Lyft don't really have an unassailable position but they have LOTS of VC cash to spend on lobbying and advertising. Unfortunately, making the kind of adjustments that people in Austin did borders on impossible right now, so this kind of threat was quite effective.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

seany 6y ago

but why is that a problem?