I ran a poll yesterday on Prop 22. And I am surprised by its response here, though in CA in general it appears like its going to pass with NO. The arrogance is deafening, extract the last drop of blood off poor. Don’t give them a liviable wage and absolutely no benefits at all. Its a know fact that gig economy is all about corporations and hardly pays a living wage. Uber/Lyft has poured over $184.3M into it to keep drivers as contractors and not having to classify them as employees to avoid paying liviable wages and benefits. Welcome to greed and oppression. Note: I am here with open mind, this is my opinion and willing to learn and change if you can convince me otherwise.
No, actually means “we support fulltime employees proposal”. I think you meant why “Yes”. I don’t support it and I oppose it for sure for two main reasons: many drivers don’t want to be an fte, because it comes with restrictions and most importantly, Uber and Lyft are not charities, they’d simply leave CA. If gov wants to help drivers, give them money or insurance directly (not by ruining some companies with BS policies)
They are not asking for a handout, they were awarded that right by CA supreme court. But Uber/Lyft made it a ballot initiative with expectations of somehow fooling the people of CA. Please educate yourself.
CA Supreme Court supported this in general. Then the assembly bill 5 created exclusions. Why are there so many exclusions in the law? Search for AB5 exclusions and let me know why these guys don’t deserve a livable wage.
@Uber you talking about Borello test?
AB5 is terrible. Bans freelance work, but carves out a heap of exemptions (e.g. accountants, insurance agents, fishermen working on American ships...). If freelance work is so terrible, why are these carveouts necessary? I'd rather we repeal AB5 directly, but a Yes on Prop 22 is a good start.
I think AB5 is excellent. It rightfully assign the proper classification, and avoids exploitation of contractors. Why Yes on 22 though?
Lol. How bored are you?
I think if it gets voted NO there are a few possible outcomes - there will be a great compromise that will happen after the fact which more or less maintains the current status quo with a small degree of additional benefits. The contractors will largely stay in the same position. - implementation will get deferred until infinity in which there will be some new ruling or compromise I think the people will have a hard time making such a large change to the status quo. The businesses are hardly sustainable as they are and a large cost increases will cause them to stop operating in the state which will be a huge lifestyle and economic change in the state.
Yes, excellent points.
If it is a NO, all tech enabled marketplaces in CA will go into a death spiral.
Exploitation is a problem, but making workers full-time employees is not the solution. I think most drivers want to be independent, just get in their cars whenever, turn on the apps and make some money. As employees, they would have a schedule set by their employers. "Report at SFO airport 5am and work for 8 hours", I'm sure most people would balk at that. There has to be a better way to ensure a livable wage? Maybe enforce an hourly minimum wage even when it's through micro gigs?
Makes sense. Thanks!
Just ensure a minimum time and distance rate for taxis. It worked historically. Prop 22 Yes actually also ensures minimum wage for drivers.
I guess I would agree with the concept of required benefits if the companies were forcing people to work full time and all the other constraints associated with being any FTE....but are they? Just because they have standards for participating doesnt make them FTEs in my mind. How is it different than a seller using amazon to sell their product or service and paying a commission (other than the fact that Uber determines pricing of service).
Why did you put that in brackets? That’s the crux of the matter - its Uber/Lyft that sets the pricing and not the service provider (as you might say).
I get that's it's a difference by why is it the "crux"? If drivers had the option of either taking the Uber proposed price or setting their own, and then Uber simply favored any driver that used their algorithm set pricing, then the benefits issue is moot...? And that aside, I still dont get who is responsible if a driver works for 6 different companies?
I was going to vote Yes but now I will vote NO because of that 7/8ths clause they put in there.
A no in 22 means more expensive fare, less restaurant on doordash/ubereats. How do you even beat the pandemic w/o Doordash and others?
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1257
Offer evaluation: Amazon or Broadcom
Tech Industry
Yesterday
742
East Asian Men don’t talk to me bc I’m Vietnamese
Personal Finance
Yesterday
2737
Should I marry a lazy girl?
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1597
Horrible Netflix ML interview experience
AMA
Yesterday
1159
I have worked at TikTok US core tech for 3 years. AMA.
I’m sure your condescending and arrogant generalizations will get people to change their minds!
I will let the people decide. But you seems to have sold your soul. Thank you for your contribution.
The people spoke in your other post and that wasn’t good enough for you.