[skohan]

> What they lack in economic resources, they make up for in political power via bureaucratic control.

This would seem to imply equal footing, wouldn't it?

> Unions != Labor. Workers == Labor. This is the key point I'm trying to make.

So I'm not sure how this is relevant to the prop 22 discussion - did the legislation have anything to do with unionization? As far as I know it was only about extending existing labor protections to gig workers.

And there's a distinction there, to be sure, albeit a pedantic one. Outside of organized labour, how exactly do these "workers" exert any power in the work place or politics?

[sk4rekr0w]

On point 1 - I think unions have dramatic political power in America. Corporations have both political power and economic resources. I generally think unions don't lose to corporations because of lack of power. I don't think that corporations vs. workers is currently a fair fight. To your point, my phrasing doesn't make that clear.

Prop 22 is strongly linked with AB5 - the entire push was by union leaders and the leaders of both AB5 and No on 22 (e.g. Lorena Gonzalez) regularly tweet things like "#AB5IntoAUnion."

I actually think there is no currently effective system. I believe in collective bargaining, but I just think that unions as a tool have become increasingly concerned with political representation and political power rather than worker representation. Using AB5 as a case study, there are virtually n=0 freelancers in California (incl. myself) that are happy with the law. It's a universally despised policy by workers and businesses alike, loved by unions...