5 ms·

This Amazon union vote is one of the few things I see around me in the world where things have a chance of heading in the right direction. Truly hoping it succe

This Amazon union vote is one of the few things I see around me in the world where things have a chance of heading in the right direction. Truly hoping it succeeds and creates a nucleation event to stop our march into ever-more-innovative methods of worker exploitation.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I felt this was about Uber being told they had to treat drivers like employees in California too, and look how that turned out: A dystopian rule that lawmakers can't overturn to enable worker exploitation.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Well, that's electoral politics for ya. Without organized labor power to stand up to capital, things are close to a one-way ratchet.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  These kinds of takes are always weird to me. Shouldn't it matter, at least a little, that the rule was what a 17-point majority of voters wanted? You don't have to personally agree with every democratic outcome, but it almost sounds like you're saying the results of a vote aren't legitimate if they go the wrong way.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    This is just an anecdote, but perhaps other people can comment, since the plural of anecdote is data... I personally know several people who voted for the proposition under the impression that it was a pro-worker proposition that would guarantee benefits for drivers. There were 3 other people for whom I explained the context around it (including the fact that it was preempting a flawed bill from the legislature) before they mailed their ballots in and they changed their vote. I also know several people who think that we should eliminate the rules for treating workers as employees in general, and they voted for the bill as well, so there's definitely some support. Its definitely clear from my point of view that a significant fraction of the people who voted for the proposition did so because they misunderstood what they were voting for. OTOH that's probably true about all ballot measures ever, and probably most legislation as well.
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      I mean, that’s exactly what these companies spent $204,222,779.20 on. And that’s just what was spent. All of these companies also advertised for free in their apps and on their mailing lists as well. Valuable space that would have likely cost millions more. Advertising works.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Well, this is where we see inequality as a force that perverts democracy. The side of capital has an enormous quantity of resources (by definition) that they use to influence electoral outcomes. So in a way, yes, the votes aren't very legitimate when the side of capital out-spends the side of labor by thirteen to one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-proposition-22-uber-lyft-independent-contractors https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-...
    - gradys 6y ago
      Do you think there's any chance that this was actually what a majority of Californians wanted? You seem very confident that you know better what the voters wanted than they did. While differences in spending surely have some effect, spending isn't the only way to get the word out. I didn't measure, but I feel pretty confident that no more than 60% of the total communication about Prop 22 that I heard from any source was pro. I think it could have been a minority actually. For every PR firm the pro side hired, there were thousands of unpaid activists on the con side (which does say something positive about the con side!). I noticed you brought out the "lawmakers can't repeal" line. This is true, but also effectively standard for ballot measures in CA. In fact the default is that you can't repeal or change the law under any circumstances. This was one point that initially swayed me to vote "against", but once I learned that this was basically how all ballot measures work (including ones you support, I'm sure), I swung back to voting "for". For me, this was a difficult call, but I voted "for" on the basis of the net good for the entire pool of current drivers, admittedly at the expense of the smaller number of drivers who would have been able to drive under a better deal had this passed. The net effect this would have had on driver welfare is far from obvious, so it always bugs me when people assert that the only reason this passed by a 17 point margin is that people were tricked and confused by the ride sharing companies.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        Hope you're happy with your decision, oh champion of the downtrodden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/18/uber-lyft-doordash-prop-22-drivers-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/18/uber-lyft-do...
- pitaj 6y ago
  Classifying gig workers as employees was a terrible idea. Not to mention the law that did so had so many exclusions it was ridiculous. Generally, we should be moving away from linking health insurance and other benefits to employment.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Have you taken a look at a public health insurance exchange recently? Buying your own health insurance is a terrible deal. I'm self-employed so have had to deal with this myself. Nothing solidifies deep disdain for any politician who doesn't support Medicare for All faster than looking at that webpage of health insurance plans.
    - pitaj 6y ago
      There are a lot of reasons health insurance is way too expensive, but one of them is that many individuals are shielded from the true price because it's provided through their employer. This essentially removes downward price pressure from individuals. Having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. It makes switching jobs far more difficult and stressful, and makes losing your job that much more of an issue.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        Yes, I agree having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. The conclusion is "therefore M4A", not "therefore everyone should buy their own insurance on a public exchange, paying half as much as their rent". You can use COBRA to stay on your job's health insurance when you leave it, which is not notably more expensive than the public exchange plans. The insurance market model for healthcare coverage is such a fractally broken failure that if you're still stuck on the stage of twisting some knobs and adjusting some levers in the hope that second-order market effects will improve things then there really is just nothing that will convince you to move on.
      - jandrese 6y ago
        Normally people create downward pressure on prices by not buying the product when it becomes overpriced. However with healthcare there is a captive market. Are you not going to get a cast put on a broken leg because the doctor wants to charge too much? Are you going to just opt out of cancer treatments and die? Healthcare is an area where market forces are inherently perverted because people often don't have a choice of not buying the service. This is why every sensible country uses a socialized system instead. Not only does it provide better service, but without the perverse market incentives and multiple layers of middlemen infesting the system it is much less expensive.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  Elected officials not being able to turn over laws passed by popular vote is dystopian? It's kind of the opposite.
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    Not OP, but the dystopian part about it to me is that it’s essentially a few corporations pooling their money together to buy a law that overrules one passed by elected officials. The previous law was one that could be iterated on and improved. Instead, we now have something equally (or even more) imperfect and unlikely to change.
    - fallingknife 6y ago
      The people voted on it. If that isn't the highest authority, then it isn't Democracy. If corporations can buy elections, then they also would have bought the elections for the state legislature, so, if you decide to go down the path of claiming manipulation to de-legitimize results you don't like, there is no way out.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I felt this was about Uber being told they had to treat drivers like employees in California too, and look how that turned out: A dystopian rule that lawmakers can't overturn to enable worker exploitation.

ahelwer 6y ago
Well, that's electoral politics for ya. Without organized labor power to stand up to capital, things are close to a one-way ratchet.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
These kinds of takes are always weird to me. Shouldn't it matter, at least a little, that the rule was what a 17-point majority of voters wanted? You don't have to personally agree with every democratic outcome, but it almost sounds like you're saying the results of a vote aren't legitimate if they go the wrong way.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  This is just an anecdote, but perhaps other people can comment, since the plural of anecdote is data... I personally know several people who voted for the proposition under the impression that it was a pro-worker proposition that would guarantee benefits for drivers. There were 3 other people for whom I explained the context around it (including the fact that it was preempting a flawed bill from the legislature) before they mailed their ballots in and they changed their vote. I also know several people who think that we should eliminate the rules for treating workers as employees in general, and they voted for the bill as well, so there's definitely some support. Its definitely clear from my point of view that a significant fraction of the people who voted for the proposition did so because they misunderstood what they were voting for. OTOH that's probably true about all ballot measures ever, and probably most legislation as well.
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    I mean, that’s exactly what these companies spent $204,222,779.20 on. And that’s just what was spent. All of these companies also advertised for free in their apps and on their mailing lists as well. Valuable space that would have likely cost millions more. Advertising works.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Well, this is where we see inequality as a force that perverts democracy. The side of capital has an enormous quantity of resources (by definition) that they use to influence electoral outcomes. So in a way, yes, the votes aren't very legitimate when the side of capital out-spends the side of labor by thirteen to one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-proposition-22-uber-lyft-independent-contractors https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-...
  - gradys 6y ago
    Do you think there's any chance that this was actually what a majority of Californians wanted? You seem very confident that you know better what the voters wanted than they did. While differences in spending surely have some effect, spending isn't the only way to get the word out. I didn't measure, but I feel pretty confident that no more than 60% of the total communication about Prop 22 that I heard from any source was pro. I think it could have been a minority actually. For every PR firm the pro side hired, there were thousands of unpaid activists on the con side (which does say something positive about the con side!). I noticed you brought out the "lawmakers can't repeal" line. This is true, but also effectively standard for ballot measures in CA. In fact the default is that you can't repeal or change the law under any circumstances. This was one point that initially swayed me to vote "against", but once I learned that this was basically how all ballot measures work (including ones you support, I'm sure), I swung back to voting "for". For me, this was a difficult call, but I voted "for" on the basis of the net good for the entire pool of current drivers, admittedly at the expense of the smaller number of drivers who would have been able to drive under a better deal had this passed. The net effect this would have had on driver welfare is far from obvious, so it always bugs me when people assert that the only reason this passed by a 17 point margin is that people were tricked and confused by the ride sharing companies.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Hope you're happy with your decision, oh champion of the downtrodden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/18/uber-lyft-doordash-prop-22-drivers-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/18/uber-lyft-do...
pitaj 6y ago
Classifying gig workers as employees was a terrible idea. Not to mention the law that did so had so many exclusions it was ridiculous. Generally, we should be moving away from linking health insurance and other benefits to employment.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Have you taken a look at a public health insurance exchange recently? Buying your own health insurance is a terrible deal. I'm self-employed so have had to deal with this myself. Nothing solidifies deep disdain for any politician who doesn't support Medicare for All faster than looking at that webpage of health insurance plans.
  - pitaj 6y ago
    There are a lot of reasons health insurance is way too expensive, but one of them is that many individuals are shielded from the true price because it's provided through their employer. This essentially removes downward price pressure from individuals. Having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. It makes switching jobs far more difficult and stressful, and makes losing your job that much more of an issue.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Yes, I agree having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. The conclusion is "therefore M4A", not "therefore everyone should buy their own insurance on a public exchange, paying half as much as their rent". You can use COBRA to stay on your job's health insurance when you leave it, which is not notably more expensive than the public exchange plans. The insurance market model for healthcare coverage is such a fractally broken failure that if you're still stuck on the stage of twisting some knobs and adjusting some levers in the hope that second-order market effects will improve things then there really is just nothing that will convince you to move on.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      Normally people create downward pressure on prices by not buying the product when it becomes overpriced. However with healthcare there is a captive market. Are you not going to get a cast put on a broken leg because the doctor wants to charge too much? Are you going to just opt out of cancer treatments and die? Healthcare is an area where market forces are inherently perverted because people often don't have a choice of not buying the service. This is why every sensible country uses a socialized system instead. Not only does it provide better service, but without the perverse market incentives and multiple layers of middlemen infesting the system it is much less expensive.
fallingknife 6y ago
Elected officials not being able to turn over laws passed by popular vote is dystopian? It's kind of the opposite.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Not OP, but the dystopian part about it to me is that it’s essentially a few corporations pooling their money together to buy a law that overrules one passed by elected officials. The previous law was one that could be iterated on and improved. Instead, we now have something equally (or even more) imperfect and unlikely to change.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    The people voted on it. If that isn't the highest authority, then it isn't Democracy. If corporations can buy elections, then they also would have bought the elections for the state legislature, so, if you decide to go down the path of claiming manipulation to de-legitimize results you don't like, there is no way out.