California Proposition 22

Talk about anything and everything in this section

NO SPAM/ADVERTISING PLEASE IN ANY FORUM

Post Reply
User avatar
Trench
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2207
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 3:19 am
Location: Dallas / Fort Worth
Contact:
United States of America

California Proposition 22

Post by Trench » October 12th, 2020, 5:53 pm

Just curious what any Californians might think, and what any drivers might think, about the current Proposition 22 item on the ballot.

I don't have any skin in the game, other than maybe one day wanting to do some Uber driving work. I had always wanted to be a chauffeur because I liked driving and providing that experience. When Uber and Lyft came around, that seemed the most likely way it would eventually happen, even if just temporarily or as a side job.

From my outside perspective, I can't help but believe that Proposition 22 is 100% corporate self-interest, and we're better off as a society saying "No" to this.

The crafted "pro" position gives dire warnings about how there will be less drivers and less availability. But that seems like a "yeah, only if you make it be that way" situation. I know plenty of "normal jobs" where people don't work every day. It seems like a false argument to say that we can't keep giving people a flexible work schedule if they're not independent contractors. Never mind the question of how great a percentage of the drivers work close to full time anyway.

It was a weird thing to feel like posting about, but Uber keeps blowing up my inbox about it. Well congratulations Uber, I'm thinking about it. And although I like your service, I don't think "gig" should be shorthand for "exploit people on a large scale and call it progress."

https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/arguments-rebuttals.htm

User avatar
BlinkofanEye
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: February 28th, 2018, 8:06 pm
Location: WI
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by BlinkofanEye » October 12th, 2020, 7:03 pm

You're just saying that because you're not a corporation. Work harder loser.
Vote for map al_nas?
Yes (7)
Yes (8)

BangBangOw<CP*SF>
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: May 22nd, 2018, 7:31 pm
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by BangBangOw<CP*SF> » October 12th, 2020, 9:20 pm

After reading all of that, I guess it just depends on where you stand. I found a couple parts to each that I could agree and disagree with. But bottom line I’m not really a huge fan of any of these Uber or lyft companies, and would never use them myself. Just don’t like the idea of someone I don’t know driving me around in their car... plus you don’t get to know who your driver is until they show up... but they won’t show up unless you pay, therefore you’re betting on a sane person to pick you up lol, plus the background checks aren’t perfect, and people impersonate a lot. But I don’t mind the companies exsisting, especially if there’s a market for it. Which there is. Lived in Cali for 14 years but have only been back a few times since 🤷🏼‍♂️

User avatar
Trench
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2207
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 3:19 am
Location: Dallas / Fort Worth
Contact:
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by Trench » October 13th, 2020, 8:17 am

Yeah, "market" is a piece of the puzzle I wrestle with too. On the one hand, the market is definitely there for using ride share. But on the other hand, the "market" of drivers feels more like the calculus of "will there still be sufficient people desperate enough, or newly unemployed enough, to keep driving if we reduced their pay by another $1?"

It seems like the traditional "whatever the market will bear" argument would apply if Uber and whomever else was "a regular company treating the people who drive for them as regular employees", and then the company waged the battle of where they can set their price point and still get people to use them, in competition with other companies also required to do the same thing. But instead, right now its more of a "I'm going to give everyone a price point they can bear by skirting around the idea that anyone even drives for us."

You probably already realize, but every single point you just mentioned about "not being a fan" was true of the system we had before Uber et al, too. Except that in addition to not knowing who your driver was, nor having any guarantee of your safety, taxis also didn't have any app to let you request their services, or to show you where or how soon they would be, and little incentive for convenient payment or good service.

The technology that has been brought to the driving service sector is good. Creating such a high demand product which gives so little security to its employees just feels like it needs some tweaking to find a better balance.

BangBangOw<CP*SF>
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: May 22nd, 2018, 7:31 pm
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by BangBangOw<CP*SF> » October 13th, 2020, 9:29 am

I can agree with you there. Before Uber and companies alike... Taxis wouldnt just be everywhere, usually in concentrated areas like Airports or main downtown drags. I agree it’s good for people who need a ride on the outer parts of cities or if you need to get somewhere pronto but don’t have a ride. Good and bads to both but it has the market backing it up, so I’m sure they’ll work it out... because there’s always money to be made 😄

User avatar
Col. Kilgore
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: December 18th, 2009, 5:53 am
Location: Northern California
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by Col. Kilgore » October 16th, 2020, 9:59 am

California has a decades-long trend of expanding govt and unfavorable business climate, the best thing about this state is the thing the politicians can't control, the weather, and even that they tried their best to foul up with mismanaged lands, forest fires, smoke etc. Let businesses operate, keep Sacramento out of it is the solution to most problems California-related. my 2c.

Qualifications: 48 years living in the (not so) Golden State....
Paul
aka Col. Kilgore

Otto Kontrol
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: December 10th, 2019, 6:38 pm
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by Otto Kontrol » October 16th, 2020, 1:23 pm

As a 53 year resident (60 yo now), I respectfully disagree with some of the Col.'s observations. Yes, we have miss managed forests (most are federal land though) we have more environmentally regulations and yes, even some higher taxes and fees. BUT - what everyone fails to say is HOW do you pay for forest management, education, health care, clean water, clean air, and other services everyone demands they have. We have to tax because it's clear that Americans do not or will not do it on their own. "lower my taxes but give me good roads, police, schools etc."

California is a desirable place to live for so many more reasons then the weather, and yes it is 'poorly' run, but what state isn't?

oTTo's 3c

User avatar
tonawandares
Admin
Admin
Posts: 525
Joined: February 18th, 2014, 7:10 am
Location: Eastern Missouri
United States of America

Re: California Proposition 22

Post by tonawandares » October 17th, 2020, 1:11 pm

Otto Kontrol wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 1:23 pm
As a 53 year resident (60 yo now), I respectfully disagree with some of the Col.'s observations. Yes, we have miss managed forests (most are federal land though) we have more environmentally regulations and yes, even some higher taxes and fees. BUT - what everyone fails to say is HOW do you pay for forest management, education, health care, clean water, clean air, and other services everyone demands they have. We have to tax because it's clear that Americans do not or will not do it on their own. "lower my taxes but give me good roads, police, schools etc."

California is a desirable place to live for so many more reasons then the weather, and yes it is 'poorly' run, but what state isn't?

oTTo's 3c
Missouri isn't.

~ tona

Post Reply