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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Here's Ballotpedia's bit on it. Apparently, it repeals an earlier amendment which prevents affirmative action. Lots of Dem supporters, some Rep opposition.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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"
Posts
The "keep politics out of x" crowd will probably be mysteriously silent, too
Minimum wage doesn't apply if your employer is pretending you're not actually one of their employees.
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
I thought 22 was about forcing uber to pay a base wage and follow overtime and safety rules.
This would be a massive part of why they do not make minimum wage.
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"
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.
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.
California officially goes "fuck it, we'll do it ourselves" and will make generic versions of drugs.
Insulin is explicitly mentioned.
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
Does it count as seizing the means of production if you just decide to build your own?
Motor Voter registration is paying off, 85% of potentially eligible voters are registered, up from 73% in 2016.
Anyone have thoughts on 23 (dialysis)?
Also, disappointed in my city council options
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/42666129/#Comment_42666129
From back in July, but trust Ballotpedia over me.
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://thelapod.com/posts/la-podcast-voter-guide-2020-general-election/
I thought it repeals the ban on affirmative action.
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.
It's a bit more broad than that.
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.
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.
I was reading it wrong w/re to what it does
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
holy butts ballotpedia is the best
http://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-california-fire-disaster-assistance/index.html
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.
edit: Ballotpedia cleared that up...looks sound. Can't be too careful sometimes.
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.
"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.