[908B64B197]

Prop 22 was a reaction to how bad AB5 was really.

I found the paternalism of AB5 to be a little bit problematic. It really assumed that the drivers are too stupid to do their own accounting and figure out if they are making money or not. Pretty sure most drivers wouldn't be driving for $9.21 if a job at the local ice cream parlor could get them almost double on the spot. Yet you still see folks driving 30 hrs per week for years.

[roughly]

This presumes there are alternate jobs available quickly and easily enough to cover immediate needs.

Secondarily, it indeed assumes that the drivers have the skill to understand depreciation of the vehicle, cost of repairs, etc., or expected costs of healthcare over time, which, bluntly, I’d be surprised if most people on this forum could calculate correctly enough. Alternatively, it’s possible that drivers are knowingly mortgaging the car to cover short term needs - in other words, that the math doesn’t pen out and yet people are still engaging because they’re under duress.

Finally, it assumes absent state intervention that there’s any kind of parity in negotiation between the drivers and the company, or any way for them to affect what is a transparently lopsided power dynamic.

[zapita]

If AB5 was bad, then a good reaction would be to lobby the state legislature to amend it. Prop 22 doesn’t just circumvent AB5: it makes it virtually impossible to improve it via the legislative route.

Here is the specific language:

After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter.

This means two things:

1) To make a change that is consistent with the purpose of prop 22 (that is to say, that proponents of prop 22 would agree to), an 7/8 congress majority is required. This is highly unusual, and not a coincidence: to achieve such a majority requires getting the California GOP on board. California Republicans are mostly irrelevant at the state level, but they have endorsed prop 22, and this is their reward: a permanent veto over any incremental changes to a crucial section of California labor law.

2) To make a change that is inconsistent with the purpose of prop 22 (for example to reverse it), a new ballot measure must be adopted. Although that is technically not impossible, in practice it may as well be. Uber and Lyft spent $80m on this ballot measure, and could easily double that if required. Their natural opponents, unions, could barely raise $5m the first time around. They simply don’t have pockets deep enough to compete.

Whether you supported or opposed AB5, it should be common sense that California’s democratically elected congress should have authoroty over California law. Prop 22 establishes a new reality where that is no longer the case: for $80m dollars, you can essentially buy yourself a permanent exemption. That is incredibly dangerous.

[aeternum]

AB5 was terrible, and if prop 22 didn't pass, it was unlikely to be amended.

Lawmakers should be creating laws in the public interest, it's ridiculous that a brand new law like AB5 lacked so much public support that it could be immediately overturned. It's a pretty clear demonstration of legislative incompetence. They knew it was a bad law but rushed it through anyway.

[lern_too_spel]

Loot boxes work for convincing unskilled labor to work below minimum wage.

[pgayed]

“Hi. I find the opinion you're expressing here abhorrent. People can't take care of themselves, learn, grow or adapt. We need government to protect them from the wolves in our society. I will be downvoting you now. Thank you.”