2 ms·

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 stab

by 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stability, when we are literally discussing an article bashing it, and with there being multiple ways of it being still repealed?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.

by slg 6y ago

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.