[California Politics] America's Hippie Commune

11617181921

Posts

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Uber? Scummy? Impossible!

    The "keep politics out of x" crowd will probably be mysteriously silent, too

    Ticaldfjam
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    edited September 28
    I mean, some of us just don't really like AB 5... This push toward forcing more companies to offer health insurance plans is the exact opposite direction I want our government to take. I want more government supplied health insurance. Not this bandaid. If the issue is that they're not being paid enough, then raise minimum wage. Or alter minimum wage to factor in personal vehicle usage better.

    notya on
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    I mean, some of us just don't really like AB 5... This push toward forcing more companies to offer health insurance plans is the exact opposite direction I want our government to take. I want more government supplied health insurance. Not this bandaid. If the issue is that they're not being paid enough, then raise minimum wage. Or alter minimum wage to factor in personal vehicle usage better.

    Minimum wage doesn't apply if your employer is pretending you're not actually one of their employees.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    FencingsaxCaptain InertiaIncenjucarShadowfireSleepTicaldfjamMoridin889Hahnsoo1Dee Kaeemp123dispatch.oautono-wally, erotibot300Kasyn
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    They're also almost always making more than minimum wage (before you factor in car costs). But my point is that you could raise their wages in other ways if that was the goal.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    AB5 doesn't have that much to do with health insurance...? The main point is that Uber and others are abusing the contractor system to pay people a lot less than they'd otherwise have to. And also lowers their taxes and benefit requirements, further screwing workers. Health insurance only comes in on the end as part of "benefits".

    Hahnsoo1
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    yeah, I don't think a company legally has to offer health insurance do they?

    I thought 22 was about forcing uber to pay a base wage and follow overtime and safety rules.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    They're also almost always making more than minimum wage (before you factor in car costs). But my point is that you could raise their wages in other ways if that was the goal.

    This would be a massive part of why they do not make minimum wage.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Phoenix-DAngelHedgieschussCaptain InertiaSkeithIncenjucarHavelock2.0ShadowfireMoridin889Hahnsoo1Dee Kaedispatch.oKayne Red RobeSolar
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    edited September 28
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    AB5 doesn't have that much to do with health insurance...? The main point is that Uber and others are abusing the contractor system to pay people a lot less than they'd otherwise have to. And also lowers their taxes and benefit requirements, further screwing workers. Health insurance only comes in on the end as part of "benefits".

    From what I understood, uber would have to pay a penalty if they didn't offer insurance to their full time workers and that getting benefits to these workers was the only real benefit the workers were getting by being classified as fulltime. I don't think I've read anywhere that this would increase uber driver's take home pay. Mainly because they're paid over minimum wage already.

    notya on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    AB5 doesn't have that much to do with health insurance...? The main point is that Uber and others are abusing the contractor system to pay people a lot less than they'd otherwise have to. And also lowers their taxes and benefit requirements, further screwing workers. Health insurance only comes in on the end as part of "benefits".

    From what I understood, uber would have to pay a penalty if they didn't offer insurance to their full time workers and that getting benefits to these workers was the only real benefit the workers were getting by being classified as fulltime. I don't think I've read anywhere that this would increase uber driver's take home pay. Mainly because they're paid over minimum wage already.

    That's..not accurate to say the least. The main concern is pay and taxes.

    Also it's not "part time" vs "full time"

  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    I mean maybe I've misunderstood how AB5 would function then? Can you link me to anything that would show that their pay would increase? Or show me what I'm missing here?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    I mean, some of us just don't really like AB 5... This push toward forcing more companies to offer health insurance plans is the exact opposite direction I want our government to take. I want more government supplied health insurance. Not this bandaid. If the issue is that they're not being paid enough, then raise minimum wage. Or alter minimum wage to factor in personal vehicle usage better.

    The point of AB5 is to establish the Dynamex standard as the legal standard of whether or not someone is an employee. The point of that is that companies should not be allowed to avoid their legal responsibilities to employees by declaring them contractors while functionally treating them as employees, which is what Uber and other gig economy firms have been doing.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    TicaldfjamDee Kae
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    edited September 28
    What legal responsibilities (of Uber) are the uber drivers missing out on except benefits?

    I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that they're functionally being treated as employees. I'm a contractor in another exempted industry from AB5 and the same logic would say that the companies I work for, for many months at a time should be treating me as a fulltime employee. Which I have no interest in.


    Edit: Like, I feel like you guys should not be surprised prop 22 is gonna pass... I'd love to punish Uber for being terrible, but most people just don't understand what and why and how.

    notya on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    What legal responsibilities (of Uber) are the uber drivers missing out on except benefits?

    I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that they're functionally being treated as employees. I'm a contractor in another exempted industry from AB5 and the same logic would say that the companies I work for, for many months at a time should be treating me as a fulltime employee. Which I have no interest in.


    Edit: Like, I feel like you guys should not be surprised prop 22 is gonna pass... I'd love to punish Uber for being terrible, but most people just don't understand what and why and how.

    Making sure that they make minimum wage after costs, for one. There's also paying into Social Security, unemployment benefits, etc. Basically, there's a lot of little costs that companies are expected to shoulder for employees - which is why corporations try to pass off employees as contractors, and in turn why the government sets rules on who is an employee.

    And it doesn't matter that you don't have an interest in being an employee. The reality is that things like the Dynamex standard came about because corporations abuse the contractor definition, which in turn hurts workers.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    DoodmannIncenjucarFencingsaxshrykeSpoitDee Kae
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Unemployment insurance etc etc. Having everyone as contractors eliminates whole swaths of funding for personal and general safety nets.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246036870.html

    California officially goes "fuck it, we'll do it ourselves" and will make generic versions of drugs.

    Insulin is explicitly mentioned.

    IncenjucarSealHavelock2.0ShadowfireDoodmannFencingsaxOrcaGONG-00SaarSkeithForarshrykeMadicanSpecial KTicaldfjamMoridin889AimHahnsoo1Dee Kaeemp123TNTrooperKayne Red RobeKruite
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    SUSA with a bunch of prop polls! All numbers are Yes-No-Uncertain

    15 (split roll): 49-21-30
    16 (affirmative action): 40-26-34
    17 (restore voting rights): 55-19-26
    19 (property tax transfer): 56-10-34
    20 (redefine crime types): 35-22-43
    21 (rent control): 46-27-27
    22 (exempt car apps): 45-31-25
    23 (dialysis): 49-23-28

    would've liked a poll on 25, too, but looks like we're trending towards the typical "mostly good stuff, a couple what were they thinking"

    e: Link: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d15fdb0d-701d-495c-a67f-e17bfcc3bf92

    Jragghen on
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246036870.html

    California officially goes "fuck it, we'll do it ourselves" and will make generic versions of drugs.

    Insulin is explicitly mentioned.

    Does it count as seizing the means of production if you just decide to build your own?

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    PDF link: https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/60day-gen-2020/historical-reg-stats.pdf

    Motor Voter registration is paying off, 85% of potentially eligible voters are registered, up from 73% in 2016.

    Special KFencingsaxSkeithemp123
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Okay, actually dug through the props a bit via ballotpedia. Annoyed to find the privacy one isn't actually cut and dry.

    Anyone have thoughts on 23 (dialysis)?

    Also, disappointed in my city council options

  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    I don't know enough on the dialysis prop to judge it properly, so I'll probably leave it blank

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    adytum
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Is there a list of the props (and what they actually mean) in the thread somewhere?

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Is there a list of the props (and what they actually mean) in the thread somewhere?

    https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/42666129/#Comment_42666129

    From back in July, but trust Ballotpedia over me.

  • Havelock2.0Havelock2.0 Registered User regular
    Just got my mail in ballots

    Any clear thoughts on 16? Repealing the discrimination bit from the CA Constitution seems like a Very Bad Idea regardless of the stated intent of those introducing the proposition

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited October 6
    I live this podcast a lot and trust their voter guide:

    https://thelapod.com/posts/la-podcast-voter-guide-2020-general-election/

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    Gim
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Just got my mail in ballots

    Any clear thoughts on 16? Repealing the discrimination bit from the CA Constitution seems like a Very Bad Idea regardless of the stated intent of those introducing the proposition

    I thought it repeals the ban on affirmative action.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Just got my mail in ballots

    Any clear thoughts on 16? Repealing the discrimination bit from the CA Constitution seems like a Very Bad Idea regardless of the stated intent of those introducing the proposition

    The thing that eventually came down for me was a collection of a) looking at who supports/opposes, and b) internalizing that regardless of anything else, federal anti-discrimination law still applies, so "whites only" would still not be allowed. The fact that even the ACLU is on the "yes" side when this feels like a quintessential example of where they would be on the other side for "reasons" is what sealed the deal for me.

    Doodmann
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Just got my mail in ballots

    Any clear thoughts on 16? Repealing the discrimination bit from the CA Constitution seems like a Very Bad Idea regardless of the stated intent of those introducing the proposition

    I thought it repeals the ban on affirmative action.

    It's a bit more broad than that.
    Proposition 16 is a constitutional amendment that would repeal Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.[1]

    Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting

    It's the "within the limits of federal law" that's kinda bearing a lot of the weight there. And may end up bearing much less with the current court make up, so if one wants to hedge their bets regarding that, it's understandable.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Just got my mail in ballots

    Any clear thoughts on 16? Repealing the discrimination bit from the CA Constitution seems like a Very Bad Idea regardless of the stated intent of those introducing the proposition

    https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

    Here's Ballotpedia's bit on it. Apparently, it repeals an earlier amendment which prevents affirmative action. Lots of Dem supporters, some Rep opposition.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Havelock2.0
  • Havelock2.0Havelock2.0 Registered User regular
    ok thanks folks

    I was reading it wrong w/re to what it does

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Anyway, where I think I've landed:
    14: No. I support the research, I wouldn't mind if it passes, but I'm going to lean on the side of no for right now because of how fucked budgets are with covid and because of how it's structuring the oversight.
    15: yes
    16: yes
    17: yes
    18: yes
    19: no. Once more, I won't be heartbroken if it passes, but I was mixed bag on it and when I saw real estate companies pouring in their money to campaign for this I kinda eeeeeeh'd out, particularly because of what the LA Times editorial pointed out that it gives an unfair advantage when PURCHASING homes to older individuals because they can price in lower taxes that younger people cannot, thereby giving them a competitive edge on offer price, which is kinda bullshit.
    20: No. DNA submission killed this one for me.
    21: yes
    22: no
    23: Yes. Only one still liable to change.
    24. No. This one's a surprising one for me, but the thing is such a mixed bag I'd rather it not be present and get a better improvement. The fact that the EFF didn't bother to choose a side is how mixed bag it is. Beyond that, the fact that there's not opposition from big tech kinda speaks volumes.
    25. Yes

    DoodmannHavelock2.0
  • Havelock2.0Havelock2.0 Registered User regular
    donezo

    holy butts ballotpedia is the best

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
    JragghentyrannusIncenjucarCaptain InertiaFencingsax
  • Havelock2.0Havelock2.0 Registered User regular
    BLUE WAVE

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    wow just finished reading a bunch of stuff about 25, that shit really is a mess huh

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
    GimDoodmann
  • madparrotmadparrot Registered User regular
    Time to squeeze Devin Nunes with this one:

    http://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-california-fire-disaster-assistance/index.html
    The Trump administration has rejected California's request for a disaster declaration for six destructive wildfires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres across the state, including a massive central California wildfire that has become the single largest in state history.
    "The request for a Major Presidential Disaster Declaration for early September fires has been denied by the federal administration," Brian Ferguson, a spokesperson for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, confirmed to CNN. The state plans to appeal the decision.

    Rep Nunes, do you agree with the president's decision to screw over your own state to the tune of a half billion?

    emp123FencingsaxIncenjucar
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    madparrot wrote: »
    Time to squeeze Devin Nunes with this one:

    http://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-california-fire-disaster-assistance/index.html
    The Trump administration has rejected California's request for a disaster declaration for six destructive wildfires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres across the state, including a massive central California wildfire that has become the single largest in state history.
    "The request for a Major Presidential Disaster Declaration for early September fires has been denied by the federal administration," Brian Ferguson, a spokesperson for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, confirmed to CNN. The state plans to appeal the decision.

    Rep Nunes, do you agree with the president's decision to screw over your own state to the tune of a half billion?

    Really should be asked of all of them, especially Kevin McCarthy since he's House Minority Leader.

  • akajaybayakajaybay Registered User regular
    edited October 16
    I'm trying to figure out if Prop 21 is a sneaky one or not. Like Rent Control...sounds good, but this is basically more about putting rent control in the hands of local districts and out of the state's hands which seems like it may be a workaround for some areas to be worse than the state guidelines....

    edit: Ballotpedia cleared that up...looks sound. Can't be too careful sometimes.

    akajaybay on
  • KorrorKorror Registered User regular
    I disagree with you about rent control being good but I think the current situation (as I understand it) is that the state currently prohibits rent control on new construction (anything built after Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act passed in 1995) and this would allow local areas to bypass that sort of.

    Sort of because this won't change anything at the moment it's passed. The main change is that it moves the no rent control cutoff from 1995 to 15 years from the current date. There is also an additional change which lifts the prohibition on rent control on condos/houses and changes it to allowing rent control on condos/houses if the landlord owns more than 2 properties.

    I think rent control is bad because it screws over future renters in favor of current renters so I voted No here but I expect that you are capable of making up your own mind on this issue. To me, it feel like a "screw you I've got mine" kind of policy, where people vote for stuff that directly benefits them at the cost of society. I don't blame people for doing it but it's not a good thing in the long run.

    Battlenet ID: NullPointer
    Doodmannshryke
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    I voted for it because it didn't implement anything itself, but allows local municipalities greater flexibility if they so desire.

    Doodmann
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    edited October 16


    "UPDATE: In a reversal, the White House has now approved California’s request for federal disaster relief for wildfire recovery, Gov. Gavin Newsom said. https://bit.ly/3m6LgOv"

    Newsom must have begged Trump for us.




    notya on
    emp123
Sign In or Register to comment.