# MORE money by Uber & Lyft on Prop 22



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

*Uber, Lyft, others pour $70 million more for Yes on 22 ballot campaign*

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...ers-pour-70-million-more-for-Yes-15544702.php
Gig companies have poured $70 million more into their ballot campaign to keep drivers and couriers as independent contractors - bringing the total funds for Yes on 22 to a breathtaking $181 million, and putting it on track as one of the biggest-ticket California initiatives ever.

"Voters better strap in - they're in for a barrage of ads and sizzle from the pro-22 side," said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University who studies California ballot measures. "This is an incredible amount of money and there's a long ways to go. We're still 60 days out from the election."

McCuan said Prop. 22 could set the mark for the most spending in California initiative history. Proposition 5 in 1998, which authorized gambling on tribal lands, had $300 million in today's dollars, he said. Ballotpedia shows the most expensive measures since then as ranging from $121 million to $154 million (not adjusted to today's dollars).

The No on 22 campaign, which is funded by organized labor, has raised a comparatively modest $4.8 million.

Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash each chipped in $17.5 million more to Yes on 22, according to a Late Contributions form filed with the California Secretary of State on Friday. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash had previously put in $30 million each. Grocery-delivery service Instacart had previously put in $10 million, as had delivery-service Postmates, which Uber recently agreed to buy.

The companies urgently want to avoid having to reclassify their drivers and couriers as employees, which they say would destroy the flexibility their businesses rely on. Employment also would add hundreds of millions of dollars to their costs. Prop. 22 would permanently keep the workers as independent contractors, while entitling them to some wage guarantees and some benefits.

On top of the money, Uber and Lyft have tapped their vast network of contact information for drivers and riders to urge support for Prop. 22. Last month they sent an email blast warning of dire consequences for riders and drivers if it doesn't pass.

The gig companies see the issue as crucial to their future so it's not surprising that they're willing to throw so much money at it, McCuan said.

"It is a pay-to-play scheme in terms of how ballot politics work," he said.

California has sued Uber and Lyft under AB5, the state's new gig-work law, saying they misclassified drivers and deprived them of the benefits and protections of employment. The companies are fighting back in court, but pinning their main hopes on the ballot measure.

"Quite an irony the app companies picked Labor Day (weekend) to dump $70 million more into their campaign for a special exemption from the law to deny their drivers benefits like unemployment insurance and paid sick time in a pandemic," said Mike Roth, spokesman for No on Prop. 22.

The Yes on 22 campaign said the measure would protect hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as the services the companies provide. Uber and Lyft have threatened to leave California, at least temporarily, if they are forced to reclassify drivers as employees.

"These are enormous stakes and we'll ensure every Californian across the state is able to hear our message that drivers do not want to be employees by a 4-to-1 margin and that Prop. 22 will ensure driver independence plus historic new benefits," Yes on 22 spokesman Geoff Vetter said in a statement.

_Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @csaid_


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Are they getting nervous?

Why add money unless they thought they might lose?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

This will quickly become Uber spent 180m. Wonder how long before that post shows up here.....Hum. 

btw, doubtful they are worried. Drivers alone like Prop 22 4 to 1. Haven't seen a poll on likely voters, tho.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> This will quickly become Uber spent 180m. Wonder how long before that post shows up here.....Hum.
> 
> btw, doubtful they are worried. Drivers alone like Prop 22 4 to 1. Haven't seen a poll on likely voters, tho.


If they felt they were winning, why add more money?

They're getting nervous.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

A system that allows a side to spend any amount it wants on campaigns to influence the public is a broken system. It gives an advantage to the side that has more money.

I would rewrite the law to say that both sides can pay as much or as little as they wish into a central campaign pot, with the finds disbursed to each side on a 50/50 basis. That would allow the public to decide ballots on the effectiveness of the campaigns put by each side, rather than by the amount of money each spent.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

My guess, not being particularly knowledgeable is that it's part of a calculated plan to maintain a certain momentum right up to election day. Right or wrong, it's extremely important to them to get their way.



The Gift of Fish said:


> A system that allows a side to spend any amount it wants on campaigns to influence the public is a broken system. It gives an advantage to the side that has more money.
> 
> I would rewrite the law to say that both sides can pay as much or as little as they wish into a central campaign pot, with the finds disbursed to each side on a 50/50 basis. That would allow the public to decide ballots on the effectiveness of the campaigns put by each side, rather than by the amount of money each spent.


I don't think the is any doubt that the system is broken, the supremes got it wrong when they equated money with free speech and allowed unlimited funding of pacs.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> If they felt they were winning, why add more money?


Labor day is traditionally the beginning of the 'election season'. No doubt more money is directly related to 'TV ads' etc. And hopefully a poll or 2 from likely voters. Right now we only know drivers prefer Prop 22 4 to 1. What is needed is a sampling of those who plan on voting in November.

Still only hearing crickets when it comes to how AB5 is better than Prop 22? Guess that team doesn't have any $$$.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> I don't think the is any doubt that the system is broken, the supremes got it wrong when they equated money with free speech and allowed unlimited funding of pacs.


I think that having a Proposition system in the first place should be given a rethink. Why give people the vote on legislation about which they have no clue on the finer details or effects... The average member of the public has no idea about the ins and outs of what Prop 22 means for drivers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Labor day is traditionally the beginning of the 'election season'. No doubt more money is directly related to 'TV ads' etc. And hopefully a poll or 2 from likely voters. Right now we only know drivers prefer Prop 22 4 to 1. What is needed is a sampling of those who plan on voting in November.
> 
> Still only hearing crickets when it comes to how AB5 is better than Prop 22? Guess that team doesn't have any $$$.


Where do you get the 4-1 figure?

Uber?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Why give people the vote on legislation


and why give a single legislator the ability to sponsor a bill when they have no clue about RS ins and outs? Or the fact tiny statistical insignificant amount of drivers wanted to be employees?

Yeah, our government and citizens at work.



observer said:


> Where do you get the 4-1 figure?


Prop 22 many many emails, their web site, journalists quoting the former. No sources quote anything from the 'other' side, so I go with what is available. And hope soon, there will be a poll of likely voters; that will tell the tale.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> and why give a single legislator the ability to sponsor a bill when they have no clue about RS ins and outs? Or the fact tiny statistical insignificant amount of drivers wanted to be employees?
> 
> Yeah, our government and citizens at work.


Did that single legislator pass the bill on their own or did a majority of both chambers AND the governor agree and voted it in to law?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> and why give a single legislator the ability to sponsor a bill when they have no clue about RS ins and outs?


Because sponsoring a bill, by itself, is innocuous. It has no effect on anyone.



observer said:


> Did that single legislator pass the bill on their own or did a majority of both chambers AND the governor agree and voted it in to law?


Exactamundo.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

This bill is more about employee classification than rideshare. Uber and Lyft just happen to be the biggest violators of employee misclassification.



SHalester said:


> and why give a single legislator the ability to sponsor a bill when they have no clue about RS ins and outs? Or the fact tiny statistical insignificant amount of drivers wanted to be employees?
> 
> Yeah, our government and citizens at work.
> 
> ...


Lol, so yea, you got your info from.

Uber.

Ok.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Did that single legislator pass the bill on their own or did a majority of both chambers AND the governor agree and voted it in to law?


she wrote the bill; it passed and gov signed it into law. Not one voter had a say. All true statements, yes? Kinda the reason Calif HAS the proposition option; to correct IQ challenged law makers.

Not a single document has been produced to show the 'group' who wanted AB5. A few videos of a few ICs protesting.

So, where was the huge outcry for AB5? (rhetorical, there wasn't any).


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

observer said:


> Where do you get the 4-1 figure?
> 
> Uber?


It's probably close to accurate, 4 to 1 wanting to be ic's as oppessed to employees with a set schedule but not the same as in favor of prop 22. It's all in how you ask the question. i would rather be an ic any day of the week but not uber's version of ic.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> she wrote the bill; it passed and gov signed it into law. Not one voter had a say. All true statements, yes? Kinda the reason Calif HAS the proposition option; to correct IQ challenged law makers.
> 
> Not a single document has been produced to show the 'group' who wanted AB5. A few videos of a few ICs protesting.
> 
> So, where was the huge outcry for AB5? (rhetorical, there wasn't any).


Legislators are voted in to office to WRITE LAWS, aye?

True statement, aye?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

SHalester said:


> she wrote the bill; it passed and gov signed it into law. Not one voter had a say. All true statements, yes? Kinda the reason Calif HAS the proposition option; to correct IQ challenged law makers.
> 
> Where was the huge outcry for AB5? (rhetorical, there wasn't any).


It's not about what the voters want or don't, it's about the law. There used to be a clear definition of what exempt employees and ic's were, companies have been bending and breaking those rules.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Disgusted Driver said:


> It's probably close to accurate, 4 to 1 wanting to be ic's as oppessed to employees with a set schedule but not the same as in favor of prop 22. It's all in how you ask the question. i would rather be an ic any day of the week but not uber's version of ic.


That I agree with.

Ubers new "third worker classification" is neither.

Drivers get none of the benefits of being an employee with few if any benefits of being an IC.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> Labor day is traditionally the beginning of the 'election season'. No doubt more money is directly related to 'TV ads' etc. And hopefully a poll or 2 from likely voters. Right now we only know drivers prefer Prop 22 4 to 1. What is needed is a sampling of those who plan on voting in November.
> 
> Still only hearing crickets when it comes to how AB5 is better than Prop 22? Guess that team doesn't have any $$$.


Uber does have a more effective propaganda machine; there's no doubt about that. Money and spin are unfortunately going to be what decide this vote, I think. Right now I'd put the chance of an Uber victory at around 60%.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

What the state should do is deregulate rideshare and require each driver to be licensed individually and able to do rideshare on their own or able to contract with a TNC of their choosing.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Disgusted Driver said:


> It's not about what the voters want or don't,


that must be rhetorical too as the voters will have a say on what they want, well those who actually vote on Prop 22. I suspect many will just skip over it and not bother to read the pro/con blither in the booklet.

I'd bet the knowledge of Prop 22 among general pop is very very low at this point and onward.

and based on the suit that was filed by pro Prop 22 (they lost) the write up in the ballot booklet is not kind to Prop 22. Makes it seem like it is 'anti employee'. That could doom it right there.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

BTW, both Uber and Lyft had PLENTY to say about AB5 before it was written in to law.

PLENTY.

They were rejected every time.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Right now I'd put the chance of an Uber victory at around 60%.


yeah, maybe. depends on if voters actually pick yes/no.

TV ads have already started for Prop 22. I FF through them, but imagine there is a lot of spin from both sides. Kinda like political ads in general. Gotta love DVRs; FF right through them.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...t-drivers-core-ride-share-business-california


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> BTW, both Uber and Lyft had PLENTY to say about AB5 before it was written in to law.


uh oh. that will start a thread shift. the evil evil side of our political system; the lobbyist groups. <yawn>

Still kinda waiting for anybody to defend AB5 staying as-is; crickets. Huh.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If Uber drivers aren't "core to its business", why are they sponsoring Prop 22?


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Labor day is traditionally the beginning of the 'election season'. No doubt more money is directly related to 'TV ads' etc. And hopefully a poll or 2 from likely voters. Right now we only know drivers prefer Prop 22 4 to 1. What is needed is a sampling of those who plan on voting in November.
> 
> Still only hearing crickets when it comes to how AB5 is better than Prop 22? Guess that team doesn't have any $$$.


Read the article 4.8 million vs 180 million . Drivers can't afford to spend $100,000,00 to defend ourselves. Uber owes like $400,000,000 in taxesans penalties from Ab5 so what's $100,000,000 to get rid of it !


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> uh oh. that will start a thread shift. the evil evil side of our political system; the lobbyist groups. <yawn>
> 
> Still kinda waiting for anybody to defend AB5 staying as-is; crickets. Huh.


You must not have read my response on why AB5 is better than Prop 22.

Here's a refresher.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/ubers-prop-22-earnings-guarantee-explained.411939/page-4#post-6499813


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> If Uber drivers aren't "core to its business", why are they sponsoring Prop 22?


for tone balance and accuracy Uber is 1/4 of Prop 22.

AND, yeah, the whole ABC test: all RS, Food delivery Gigs all fail that test.

Should have been dealt with when Uber et al were created; it wasn't. Why? Would have been much simpler to deal with back then. No state, (well NY did do something much sooner than CAlif) really bucked much; they allowed it to happen. See no evil, hear no evil.......

And pray tell me why not every single RS gig was 'named' in the Calif suit? Huh. Those dealing with kid rides ie HopSkipDrive and others? Not named, not threatened. What about the other food delivery companies not directly named? Heck, even UE is not named. Ever wonder why they are escaped scrutiny?

Politicians are hypocrites at their core. And we elect them. Over and over and over again.

Left with when I drive adults I should be an employee. When I drive kiddos it is AOK to still be an IC. OK, got it. Not confused at all.



Escoman said:


> Uber owes like $400,000,000 in taxesans penalties from Ab5 s


show me where a judge has issued an order on penalties. Even the current judge action that was stayed. was just to make us employees; no verbiage on anything else. 
But yeah, if your point this was and is about money, I agree.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> for tone balance and accuracy Uber is 1/4 of Prop 22.
> 
> AND, yeah, the whole ABC test: all RS, Food delivery Gigs all fail that test.
> 
> ...


Legislators were stupid.

Uber should have never been allowed to flout the law.

I don't think the legislators will ever make that mistake again.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

SHalester said:


> she wrote the bill; it passed and gov signed it into law. Not one voter had a say. All true statements, yes? Kinda the reason Calif HAS the proposition option; to correct IQ challenged law makers.
> 
> Not a single document has been produced to show the 'group' who wanted AB5. A few videos of a few ICs protesting.
> 
> So, where was the huge outcry for AB5? (rhetorical, there wasn't any).


Voters elected the Legislature, therefore the voters had a say. When the bill was up for vote, you had a second chance to voice your opinion by calling your reps. In November you have a third chance. Not that your voice counts as much as the union money that pulls the strings of Democrats in Sac.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

EastBayRides said:


> Voters elected the Legislature, therefore the voters had a say.


u r kidding, right? And voters elected dear leader President too. Well, actually not, the electoral college did. But you get my point.

And in calif the voters can overturn, change, etc any law via proposition(s). Now if they would only not re-elect the dumb ones over and over again.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Jo3030 said:


> *Uber, Lyft, others pour $70 million more for Yes on 22 ballot campaign*
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...ers-pour-70-million-more-for-Yes-15544702.php
> Gig companies have poured $70 million more into their ballot campaign to keep drivers and couriers as independent contractors - bringing the total funds for Yes on 22 to a breathtaking $181 million, and putting it on track as one of the biggest-ticket California initiatives ever.
> ...


MERICUH !

BEST ELECTIONS MONEY CAN BUY !


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Jo3030 said:


> *Uber, Lyft, others pour $70 million more for Yes on 22 ballot campaign*
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...ers-pour-70-million-more-for-Yes-15544702.php
> Gig companies have poured $70 million more into their ballot campaign to keep drivers and couriers as independent contractors - bringing the total funds for Yes on 22 to a breathtaking $181 million, and putting it on track as one of the biggest-ticket California initiatives ever.
> ...


180 days of change is now over $180 million to stay the same.

As my history teacher taught, follow the money.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

Disgusted Driver said:


> It's probably close to accurate, 4 to 1 wanting to be ic's as oppessed to employees with a set schedule but not the same as in favor of prop 22. It's all in how you ask the question. i would rather be an ic any day of the week but not uber's version of ic.


Me too. It's a fraud of a question.

Would you like Uber to treat you as a actual indipendent contractor? Or would you rather be treated as a employee and be called a IC?

4 to 1 drivers are fed up with being treated like a employee and called a IC, and would rather have more control over the work and be treated as indipendent contractors.

Between being a third category compared to being a actual contractor, I'm sure 4 to 1, drivers would rather be actual contractors than a 3rd category.

I am a part of the 4 to 1.

But I want to be a independent contractor over a 3rd category, or treated as a employee and called a contractor.

So 4 to 1 drivers prefer being real contractor compared to a 3rd category or employees.


----------



## Areyousure (Feb 4, 2016)

How many drivers in California? $180million is a good chunk of change


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> u r kidding, right? And voters elected dear leader President too. Well, actually not, the electoral college did. But you get my point.
> 
> And in calif the _*CORPORATIONS WITH BIG MONEY*_ can overturn, change, etc any law via proposition(s). Now if they would only not re-elect the dumb ones over and over again.


FTFY.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

In the end I think people will vote with their wallets and support Uber and Lyft.


----------



## JanGoGO (Sep 8, 2020)

Looks interesting


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> FTFY.


....how would you explain Prop 13? Kinda wrecks your theory some (a lot). Just saying.

If Prop 22 is no good, does that mean AB5 is golden?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> Where do you get the 4-1 figure?
> 
> Uber?


Here is where they are getting the 4 to 1 ratio - Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services campaign website

And here is the No on Prop 22 campaign website


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ....how would you explain Prop 13? Kinda wrecks your theory some (a lot). Just saying.
> 
> If Prop 22 is no good, does that mean AB5 is golden?


Prop 13?

You mean the one written by Howard Jarvis and funded by the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association for which he just happened to be the lobbyist.

That prop 13?

Follow the money.

It means that Prop 22 is written for the benefit of Uber and Lyft not drivers.




jocker12 said:


> Here is where they are getting the 4 to 1 ratio - Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services campaign website
> 
> And here is the No on Prop 22 campaign website


I figured as much.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Follow the money.


oh good grief. Really? Research how popular the Prop 13 was. Follow the polls. :thumbup:

wait. are you suggesting drivers aren't 4 to 1 in favor of Prop 22? Can you link your info? I really need to see more polls on prop 22. I'll wait.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ....how would you explain Prop 13? Kinda wrecks your theory some (a lot). Just saying.
> 
> If Prop 22 is no good, does that mean AB5 is golden?


I remember when Prop 13 passed. My dad was all for it since he owned several rental units and homes.

All Prop 13 did was transfer taxes from property owners to all taxpayers through increased local taxes.

The ones that benefitted most were apartment owners and big corporations that owned property.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

SHalester said:


> u r kidding, right? And voters elected dear leader President too. Well, actually not, the electoral college did. But you get my point.
> 
> And in calif the voters can overturn, change, etc any law via proposition(s). Now if they would only not re-elect the dumb ones over and over again.


I'm quite clear on how elections work, and I am aware that you have just as much right as do I to continue making bad decisions every election day. Or is your point that voting is pointless? That I can not argue against.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> oh good grief. Really? Research how popular the Prop 13 was. Follow the polls. :thumbup:
> 
> wait. are you suggesting drivers aren't 4 to 1 in favor of Prop 22? Can you link your info? I really need to see more polls on prop 22. I'll wait.


I never said it was unpopular. You keep moving the goalposts when you can't back up your claim.

You were inferring that Prop 13 was not funded by big money.

Me too how bout you back up your 4 to 1 claim with real unbiased statistics.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> All Prop 13 did was transfer taxes from property owners to all taxpayers through increased local taxes.


yeah, you got that totally wrong. Weren't you in school back then? Here in Calif? Had you been, you would have known what happened to schools after prop 13 was passed. Yes, property owners (my parents) were happy, but not the schools. fact, not opinion.

and yes to this day prop 13 had a very big hole that corporations are abusing even today. Any effort to close said hole is a 3rd rail. Wonder why?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> yeah, you got that totally wrong. Weren't you in school back then? Here in Calif? Had you been, you would have known what happened to schools after prop 13 was passed. Yes, property owners (my parents) were happy, but not the schools. fact, not opinion.
> 
> and yes to this day prop 13 had a very big hole that corporations are abusing even today. Any effort to close said hole is a 3rd rail. Wonder why?


I remember the change.

No more field trips. No more pencils. No more paper.

As I wrote above (probly written while you were writing your response), my dad was a happy camper. At the time he owned around 20 apartments and 3 or 4 homes.

Yupp companies like Disney and other large property owners benefitted greatly.

There's a proposition this year to change that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/202...sition 15,education and other public services.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

observer said:


> I remember when Prop 13 passed. My dad was all for it since he owned several rental units and homes.
> 
> All Prop 13 did was transfer taxes from property owners to all taxpayers through increased local taxes.
> 
> The ones that benefitted most were apartment owners and big corporations that owned property.


If you are going to give landowners a statewide "rent" control using Prop 13, then tenants should also have been given the same rent control. Prop 13 has caused the creation of the world's worst tax structure. I dream of a day when we have only two items on the ballot: (1) repeal Prop 13 and (2) reform the ballot measure system. Oh, wait. there is a 3rd.... repeal AB5.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

EastBayRides said:


> If you are going to give landowners a statewide "rent" control using Prop 13, then tenants should also have been given the same rent control. Prop 13 has caused the creation of the world's worst tax structure. I dream of a day when we have only two items on the ballot: (1) repeal Prop 13 and (2) reform the ballot measure system. Oh, wait. there is a 3rd.... repeal AB5.


Repeal of the Prop 13 commercial property exemption is on the ballot this November.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/202...sition 15,education and other public services.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> You keep moving the goalposts when you can't back up your claim


excuse me? Where did I move any goal posts? Maybe you confused with some other member. My opinion on AB5/Prop 22 have been consistent for the better part of a year.

Still seem to be missing the support of AB5 details; crickets. It is AB5 or Prop 22; there is no 3rd choice if one continues with RS.

Next.

Oh, there is one aspect I had an opinion change recently and posted a such here. If Prop 22 fails and AB5 is fully enforced and I'm 'selected' to be an employee if I can get my shift and days, I'll try it for a while to see. Open mind (not many of those on THIS forum). As a very PT'mer I doubt I'll be selected, interviewed or however they do it, but if I am, I'll give it a go. I prefer to remain retired from being an employee and I don't need the income to begin with. But I'd do it...for a while.

If Prop 22 passes, not a lot changes in my situation. Tho, I'm a bit worried about the 57 cents mileage going to maybe 27 cents since 30 cents for mileage is part of Prop 22. Tax loss is required to offset other income.........



observer said:


> No more field trips. No more pencils. No more paper.


oh much much much worse than that. After school sports took a giant hit. Middle schoolers (me) now had to compete with HS kids.

And school buses? All gone, for good. Classes sizes increased until a bill was passed to deal with that, much later.

anyway, thread drift. Not my fault.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> excuse me? Where did I move any goal posts? Maybe you confused with some other member. My opinion on AB5/Prop 22 have been consistent for the better part of a year.
> 
> Still seem to be missing the support of AB5 details; crickets. It is AB5 or Prop 22; there is no 3rd choice if one continues with RS.
> 
> ...


I've been wondering the same about the .30 since it's a cap.

Will the feds let you deduct the other .27 or will you be considered an employee under Trumps tax changes.

It used to be you could deduct whatever your employer didn't reimburse. Not sure how the new federal tax laws will affect this.
Drivers may be out the other 27 cents.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Drivers may be out the other 27 cents.


THAT part of Prop 22 worries me. I need the deduction to clear the income. I don't want any income to accidentally throw us into the next tax rate bucket.  that would epic-ally suck.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

SHalester said:


> ...there is no 3rd choice if one continues with RS.


Courts still have a chance make Prop 22 and AB5 irrelevant before Election Day.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

observer said:


> Are they getting nervous?
> 
> Why add money unless they thought they might lose?


It is an obscene amount of money to throw at a ballot initiative indeed, but it is merely a drop in the bucket compared to what happens if they actually lose. Their entire exploitative model is on the line and the amount of owed back taxes/benefits alone is staggering. I think it is just a "take no chances" gambit. These companies have never exactly had any problem incinerating money in the past. When it is in defense of their very existence (in California anyway), no amount would surprise me.

That said, just how big of a fail would it be if Prop 22 goes down??


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

mrpjfresh said:


> It is an obscene amount of money to throw at a ballot initiative indeed, but it is merely a drop in the bucket compared to what happens if they actually lose. Their entire exploitative model is on the line and the amount of owed back taxes/benefits alone is staggering. I think it is just a "take no chances" gambit. These companies have never exactly had any problem incinerating money in the past. When it is in defense of their very existence (in California anyway), no amount would surprise me.
> 
> That said, just how big of a fail would it be if Prop 22 goes down??


I think this issue won't stop here. It's going to go federal.

The government can't afford to have companies carve out their own tax exemptions.

Those taxes have to be made up by other taxpayers while the company benefits.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

EastBayRides said:


> Courts still have a chance make Prop 22 and AB5 irrelevant before Election Day.


not really. AB5 is it. Current court case that has made it the farthest is stayed until Sept/Oct when the whole shabang starts up again.

Courts can't touch Prop 22 until =after= it wins and only if somebody files against it.

No other court is going to step on the current process until it plays out.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

It's all money down the drain, Uber is used to doing that, let them.

Not a single driver trusts them anymore and thanks to this forum they know they will change things up the second they win, simple bait and switch and if by grace and act of god they pull it off, those drivers will be responsible for their own selected slavery.


----------



## Areyousure (Feb 4, 2016)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.la...uber-lyft-most-expensive-initiative?_amp=true
*Uber and Lyft just made their campaign to keep exploiting workers the costliest in history*

Their position is clear. No on 22


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

SHalester said:


> Drivers alone like Prop 22 4 to 1. Haven't seen a poll on likely voters, tho.


Those are the same drivers who believed RS company propaganda stating the lowering of per mile payments would actually allow them to make MORE money overall.

"The less Uber and Lyft charge pax means more pax will order more rides because the trips are so inexpensive. More rides equals more money for me!"

&#128580;


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

mrpjfresh said:


> That said, just how big of a fail would it be if Prop 22 goes down??


 50 % chance Biden gets elected. AB5 goes federal. Then what.


----------



## Da Ub (Oct 29, 2016)

4 to 1 drivers want to be independent contractors 
Neither option available makes us independent contractors

AB5 is bad
Prop 22 is worse (real Drivers check what your engaged time is.

AB5 is the lesser of the 2 evils so I will stick with it.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Da Ub said:


> 4 to 1 drivers want to be independent contractors
> Neither option available makes us independent contractors
> 
> AB5 is bad
> ...


With Prop 22 there minimum wage you will be paid but for those who do far better than minimum wage (most ants) you will continue to earn far more than minimum wage.

With AB5 as an employee you earn minimum wage before deductions without the ability to earn a higher amount per hour.

Prop 22 is truly the lesser of two evils because you will still have the ability to choose when you work and where you work along with being able to refuse rides you don't want to take.

Being an employee means you are doing the Wal*Mart pickups and Ghetto rides all day long for minimum wage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Da Ub said:


> AB5 is the lesser of the 2 evils so I will stick with it.


...what about the part neither Uber or Lyft will 'hire' all the current active drivers in Calif? Your take on that?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fusion_LUser said:


> With AB5 as an employee you earn minimum wage before deductions without the ability to earn a higher amount per hour.


*"without the ability to earn a higher amount per hour."*

Says who?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Says who?


um, er, ah, how would that work: an employee making more than the hourly rate? Bonuses? Performance raises?

If AB5 is it; all multipliers, qwests, Pro points, set your own surge etc all go bye bye. the whole idea of 'pings' go away to. They become dispatch 'orders'. U/L why would they need to 'encourage' their work force if we are employees? For moral?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> um, er, ah, how would that work: an employee making more than the hourly rate? Bonuses? Performance raises?
> 
> If AB5 is it; all multipliers, qwests, Pro points, set your own surge etc all go bye bye. the whole idea of 'pings' go away to. They become dispatch 'orders'. U/L why would they need to 'encourage' their work force if we are employees? For moral?


Says who?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Says who?


Who says not? <sigh>


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Who says not? <sigh>


There is no restriction in AB5 for Uber to pay more than minimum wage.

Companies are always allowed to pay more but not less than minimum wage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> There is no restriction in AB5 for Uber to pay more than minimum wage.


I think you got your reply backwards. There is nothing in AB5 that says they can make more than the minimum wage. Just reread and still sounds like you are asking 'about paying more'.

Bottom line U/L will have no reason to pay more than the prevailing minimum wage for the region of calif that the driver either lives or drives in. At least in the beginning it will be the minimum required. And the driver will have zero way make more. Maybe OT on approval. Just like a normal, everyday 'employee'.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> I think you got your reply backwards. There is nothing in AB5 that says they can make more than the minimum wage. Just reread and still sounds like you are asking 'about paying more'.
> 
> Bottom line U/L will have no reason to pay more than the prevailing minimum wage for the region of calif that the driver either lives or drives in. At least in the beginning it will be the minimum required. And the driver will have zero way make more. Maybe OT on approval. Just like a normal, everyday 'employee'.


There is nothing in AB5 that says drivers can't be paid more than minimum wage.

Nothing.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> There is nothing in AB5 that says drivers can't be paid more than minimum wage.


and there is nothing that states they will be. So, who does that leave the decision to? You guess first.

Circle debate inhibitor engaged.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> and there is nothing that states they will be. So, who does that leave the decision to? You guess first.
> 
> Circle debate inhibitor engaged.


Uber and Lyft.










The same ones who will decide what to pay under Prop 22.

Double,


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

observer said:


> *"without the ability to earn a higher amount per hour."*
> 
> Says who?


Both Uber and Lyft have stated that ants will be limited to minimum wage as employee's. It's been posted several times here on UP and if you haven't seen it by now, you are probably the only one!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Both Uber and Lyft have stated that ants will be limited to minimum wage as employee's. It's been posted several times here on UP and if you haven't seen it by now, you are probably the only one!


Uber and Lyft would never state that drivers will be limited to minimum wage under Prop 22 either.

The reality however is that Uber and Lyft would LOVE to pay minimum wage.

Or less.

But, no one is requiring them to pay minimum wage. They could pay more if they wanted to pay more.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> With Prop 22 there minimum wage you will be paid but for those who do far better than minimum wage (most ants) you will continue to earn far more than minimum wage.


I agree at the moment for Top 20% Uber drivers and inflexible schedule people prop 22 would be better than employee rights.

Not for Lyft drivers though. Lyft only drivers are going bust. They would all benefit more under minimum wage and mileage expense protection. It is really really bad with Lyft. I'm talking about top drivers in Northern California barely hitting minimum wage after expense, not counting tip.

I truly believe with prop 22 Uber will due us like Lyft. Once the law is off their back, they can just keep on boarding the most desperate people, and homeless people, etc while bringing rates down.

I think prop 22 will be better in the short run to some drivers, while being bad for all drivers within max 2 years.

One thing about if AB5 stands, then prices will go up and bus riding Walmart Passengers will go back to the bus. With the higher fairs the passenger demographics will change as well. We will have workers compensation and no deductible for car damage, so driving becomes less risky for drivers families.

We could also get private insurance and compete with Uber rates with AB5 since prices will be dramatically effected.

But I think prop 22 is passing since there is so much money behind it, and people want cheap rides.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Jo3030 said:


> *Uber, Lyft, others pour $70 million more for Yes on 22 ballot campaign*
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...ers-pour-70-million-more-for-Yes-15544702.php
> Gig companies have poured $70 million more into their ballot campaign to keep drivers and couriers as independent contractors - bringing the total funds for Yes on 22 to a breathtaking $181 million, and putting it on track as one of the biggest-ticket California initiatives ever.
> ...


How come foreigners investors as UBER &LYFT ARE pumping money to make laws at their own convenience in USA to rise money .. Corporation should follow the rules of law .. they enjoy having drivers 70 /h week online at every corners and making under 1000 $ gros income after expenses under minimum wages and they rise billions ..



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I agree at the moment for Top 20% Uber drivers and inflexible schedule people prop 22 would be better than employee rights.
> 
> Not for Lyft drivers though. Lyft only drivers are going bust. They would all benefit more under minimum wage and mileage expense protection. It is really really bad with Lyft. I'm talking about top drivers in Northern California barely hitting minimum wage after expense, not counting tip.
> 
> ...


Every body wants cheep ride at drivers expenses I'm not against ab5 ..it will be better government setting up minimum fare and how much interest Uber&lyft can take from total fare no more then 0.5% them problem are fixed . automatically they increase the price higher to make more money


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Guys if min wage went federal i'd go back to doing uber/lyft and I wouldn't bother taking out a taxi.

If they put in a 100% acceptance rule (crazy not to) i'd just accept everything and make more on the mileage getting to pickups than i'd make driving a cab, then more mileage with the customer...

Every ping would be worth taking on the mileage alone, and 100% of miles/time would be paid.


For Florida it would pay .575 a mile plus 14.2c a minute.

This is higher than the current rate with a customer in the car by a fairly wide margin in time, slightly higher on mileage.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

SHalester said:


> um, er, ah, how would that work: an employee making more than the hourly rate? Bonuses? Performance raises?
> 
> If AB5 is it; all multipliers, qwests, Pro points, set your own surge etc all go bye bye. the whole idea of 'pings' go away to. They become dispatch 'orders'. U/L why would they need to 'encourage' their work force if we are employees? For moral?


Some "ifs" Uber and Lyft fear the most:
If AB5 stays and Prop22 goes down the toilet and...
if Uber and Lyft survive the shock and stay in California and...
if Uber and Lyft also survive all other states gradually passing AB5 like laws to clarify "gig economy" workers status... UNIONIZING is coming, to give employees further negotiating power.

I know there are many "ifs", but drivers as it stands today, no matter if they remain "independent" contractors or become employees, would be slowly crushed by the same corporations that temporarily reshaped drivers' terms in California only because their "heads" are on the guillotine.

_Ideally, organized labor is an equal counterbalance to corporate power. _

and...

_If we ever hope to reverse our 40-year climb in inequality and re-create the middle class and wrench our society back toward fairness, working people need to be able to exercise power in the context of the entire economy, not just in isolated places. _

and...

_Unions need to be everywhere capital is, or capital will win and labor will lose. _

and...

_In the long run, successful unionization of an industry creates self-sustaining labor power that can grow, as dues money from well-paid new union members is pooled and directed to where it's most needed. _

and most importantly...

_Ask someone trying to cobble together a living as an Uber driver or Instacart worker how well the power of a tech industry completely unchecked by labor power is serving them. Either we organize tech, or it will organize the rest of us to serve it. _

see

https://inthesetimes.com/article/union-tech-industry-labor-2020


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Guys if min wage went federal i'd go back to doing uber/lyft and I wouldn't bother taking out a taxi.
> 
> If they put in a 100% acceptance rule (crazy not to) i'd just accept everything and make more on the mileage getting to pickups than i'd make driving a cab, then more mileage with the customer...
> 
> ...


Dirty taxi still have very high fare for long trips it come allot much more then luxurious limousine if someone take 2 hour drive . Uber should balance the long trips when someone come back empty from long trip


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fool me once?

Shame on you.

Fool me twice?

Shame on me.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

SHalester said:


> not really. AB5 is it. Current court case that has made it the farthest is stayed until Sept/Oct when the whole shabang starts up again.
> 
> Courts can't touch Prop 22 until =after= it wins and only if somebody files against it.
> 
> No other court is going to step on the current process until it plays out.


In other words, you do not understand what is happening but have a lot of opinions on it.

There are two court pathways. An appeal was filed by Uber before the AG went after them in another court. The judge in the second case granted a stay and expedited the appeal in the first court case. The first judge can rule in the appeal that AB5 is unconstitutional, thereby making Prop 22 moot and making the second court case moot.


SHalester said:


> not really. AB5 is it. Current court case that has made it the farthest is stayed until Sept/Oct when the whole shabang starts up again.
> 
> Courts can't touch Prop 22 until =after= it wins and only if somebody files against it.
> 
> No other court is going to step on the current process until it plays out.


You are confounding the various court actions. AB5 was passed and Uber/Lyft sued the state to be exempted. Uber/Lyft lost the case but appealed. Upon winning the case, the state then sued Uber for failing to comply with AB5. The state won that case, too, but a second judge issued a stay until the original appeal is given its hearing. That stay also expedited the appeal.

If Uber/Lyft win the appeal, they are exempt from AB5 and Prop 22 is moot. One argument they are making in the appeal is that AB5 is outright unconstitutional. If AB5 is ruled unconstitutional, then Prop 22 is moot.

This exposes the greatest conflict with the ballot measure process. People who do not even understand an issue are given a chance to directly vote on the issue. Yet AB5 is a clear demonstration that the same voters are equally ill equipped to elect a Legislature that we can trust to make sound decisions for us.



SHalester said:


> oh good grief. Really? Research how popular the Prop 13 was. Follow the polls. :thumbup:
> 
> wait. are you suggesting drivers aren't 4 to 1 in favor of Prop 22? Can you link your info? I really need to see more polls on prop 22. I'll wait.


Likely voter polling from August: 41% YES, 26% NO
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/california-proposition-22-voting-intention-9-august/


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

EastBayRides said:


> In other words, you do not understand what is happening


so you say. Maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the current status of the suit where U/L have been named. I suggest researching some to confirm everything I posted on the status of the only case that matters. We will wait, ok?



EastBayRides said:


> f Uber/Lyft win the appeal, they are exempt from AB5 and Prop 22 is moot.


I think that is the only part your got right. But, your research wasn't complete. The possibility of U/L succeeding is slim under either judge. And the stay was conditional.

fight goes on, that is true. Betters would be nuts to think U/L are going to sway the judge(s).


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> A system that allows a side to spend any amount it wants on campaigns to influence the public is a broken system. It gives an advantage to the side that has more money.
> 
> I would rewrite the law to say that both sides can pay as much or as little as they wish into a central campaign pot, with the finds disbursed to each side on a 50/50 basis. That would allow the public to decide ballots on the effectiveness of the campaigns put by each side, rather than by the amount of money each spent.


Wishful thinking.



observer said:


> What the state should do is deregulate rideshare and require each driver to be licensed individually and able to do rideshare on their own or able to contract with a TNC of their choosing.


Wouldn't that require a massive new bureaucracy to manage everything?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> Wishful thinking.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that require a massive new bureaucracy to manage everything?


Possibly. But they already license thousands of TCPs.

The other thing they could do is kick it back to individual cities to regulate, like it should be.

Taxis have always been overseen by municipal authorities, not state.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

goneubering said:


> Burger King said:
> 
> 
> > I would rewrite the law to say that both sides can pay as much or as little as they wish into a central campaign pot, with the finds disbursed to each side on a 50/50 basis. That would allow the public to decide ballots on the effectiveness of the campaigns put by each side, rather than by the amount of money each spent.
> ...


Oh wow why am I not surprised that funds need to be distributed equally? So basically all one side has to do is sit around and wait for the other side to raise a bunch of money and they get half, right?

Here's an idea, how about all Uber/Lyft ants have their earnings put in to one big pot and then at the end of the week it is disbursed to each driver equally? Everyone earns the same amount this way!


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

SHalester said:


> so you say. Maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the current status of the suit where U/L have been named. I suggest researching some to confirm everything I posted on the status of the only case that matters. We will wait, ok?
> 
> I think that is the only part your got right. But, your research wasn't complete. The possibility of U/L succeeding is slim under either judge. And the stay was conditional.
> 
> fight goes on, that is true. Betters would be nuts to think U/L are going to sway the judge(s).


Even if you agreed with 100% of what I wrote, you would contradict anyway.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

EastBayRides said:


> Even if you agreed with 100% of what I wrote, you would contradict anyway.


Not true. Post something I agree with, and I'll agree with it. Kinda simple, aye?    

It's an online disucssion group; not join hands and sing hymns.


----------



## Gigworker (Oct 23, 2019)

observer said:


> There is nothing in AB5 that says drivers can't be paid more than minimum wage.
> 
> Nothing.


If Uber had to pay you for sitting around waiting for a ride, why would they pay you more than minimum wage ? What would happen if the driver didn't accept the request, after having to pay the driver to wait for a ride ? Is Uber supposed to keep paying a driver to wait for a ride, if the driver doesn't accept the request ? Should Uber give the driver 3 warnings and than get rid of the employee ? Would Uber have to pay the driver to get back to where the driver started his day ? Would Uber make the driver drive an hour away just to start their shift ? Would Uber have to pay you time and mileage if you needed to find a bathroom , if you became an employee ? Do Drivers's really want to be an employee ? Do Drivers's really want to be told when to work, and where to work ?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Gigworker said:


> Do Drivers's really want to be an employee


some seem to want to be employees. Not 100% certain they understand what being an employee will mean. Guess will find out soon if Prop 22 passes how many don't want to be employees....


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09...t-for-gig-worker-measure-with-many-undecided/


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

get ready? the pro Prop 22 TV ads started weeks ago.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> get ready? the pro Prop 22 TV ads started weeks ago.


Yea, and that's why they doubled their money.

They know they may lose.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> They know they may lose.


it's close, that is true. With just drivers, slam dunk win. With general voters, it's a maybe.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

Gigworker said:


> What would happen if the driver didn't accept the request, after having to pay the driver to wait for a ride ? Is Uber supposed to keep


As a employee, then you get orders send your way, it's not a request. Maybe it would need 90% acceptance to allow for glitches and errors.

If your getting paid to be a driver by the hour, then you need to take the order sent to you.

Prices will be higher, so much less low income Walmart, etc. They would return back to public transit. Rider demographics will change. Maybe towards the end of your shift you don't get long orders.

If you need to use the bathroom, you can stop at a gas station that you pass. If you get a order, you'll have a few minutes, or maybe you have to use a brake.

Going to bad parts of town was a issue since we had high deductible and risked our safety. With 0 deductible, worker compensation, there is no risk issue. But drivers would not be able to discriminate.

At the end it seems neither prop 22 nor AB5 is a set in stone final result. Both will get heavy pushback for needed modification.

Both have issues and don't address the true needs of drivers.



SHalester said:


> some seem to want to be employees. Not 100% certain they understand what being an employee will mean. Guess will find out soon if Prop 22 passes how many don't want to be employees....


I really don't think drivers are cornering Uber/Lyft specifically because they want to be employees.

They started off by wanting better conditions, they wanted actual worker rights be it full contractor Rights or employee rights.

A worker with rights has better work conditions than a worker without rights.

Many drivers did not feel they have true contractor rights and this was their way to corner Uber/Lyft to change their business model so drivers could have real contractor rights.

AB5 was to bring them to the negotiating table. Maybe a exemption if drivers get much more control and Uber makes modifications.

But I really don't think drivers given a choice to have more control or be employees, they would say I want to be a employee.

Uber never tried to negotiate with the politicians and driver groups pushing AB5.

Instead they put a lowball offer hoping the voters would bite. This way it's on their terms and they don't have to negotiate with the drivers or politicians.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Many drivers did not feel they have true contractor rights


.....I believe a few might feel that way. And they are quite confused if they feel AB5 brings any type of protections, it doesn't. Calif is an at-will employer; you can be fired for any legal reason.

No, AB5 wassn't born from RS drivers complaining in mass.

bring whom to the negotiating table? Uber and who else?


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

SHalester said:


> it's close, that is true. With just drivers, slam dunk win. With general voters, it's a maybe.


I don't think it is close.

Think you need to factor in that in ubers
demographic which the 20 to 32-year-olds make up around about 33% of registered voters but only about 20% of those who actually turn up on polling day. So I think there's a pretty good chance that those who claim that they will support uber won't actually show up at the polls?

Of those 30+ % of those undecided if we look at a number of registered Democrat voters being about 2 to 1 more in number more than GOP and those voting along party lines the chance of Uber and friends getting anywhere near 50% of the vote needed is romote.

You could also factor in GOP supporters who would likely support Uber who will look at the election as hopeless and not even bother to vote. Uber needs Trump to sweep California. Not likely.

Uber and friends threw 100 million more at the vote out of desperation they know it's looking bad. They needed to be showing 60% now not 30 something %.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Don't most blue voters hate big corp and want governemnt handouts? Sounds like a landslide for no on 22.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

everythingsuber said:


> I don't think it is close.


well, the only poll so far says 39% are a yes, around 29% are a no and 25% undecided. That is the very definition of close. Undecided, will decide it. Then it will be decided. Right¿ 



everythingsuber said:


> So I think there's a pretty good chance that those who claim that they will support uber won't actually show up at the polls?


yeah, I think you have that backwards. This election it will be a landslide record of voters vs other Prez elections, and maybe vs ANY other voting day period. Thank President for that.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> well, the only poll so far says 39% are a yes, around 29% are a no and 25% undecided. That is the very definition of close. Undecided, will decide it. Then it will be decided. Right¿
> 
> 
> yeah, I think you have that backwards. This election it will be a landslide record of voters vs other Prez elections, and maybe vs ANY other voting day period. Thank President for that.


Depends on which poll is correct.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.me...r-gig-worker-measure-with-many-undecided/amp/
39% yes, to 36% no.

Uber/Lyft better dump more money.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Somewhere between 52-58% of TNC drivers are immigrants. In California some of those have a drivers license but are not documented. They have a car with insurance and use a fake ss # when signing on. Not sure how many immigrants are registered to vote or want to have their identity verified at the polls

One researcher found that over 50% of new drivers do not understand what an independent contractor is.

The first poll I was aware of was published on the 21st in the SF Chronicle.That was the Redfield and Wilton Poll. It showed 41% supported it, 29% opposed it and 34% were undecided.

The next poll out on Wednesday was flagged here and was from The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll and shows that 39% of the 5,900 likely voters surveyed from Sept. 9-15 would side with the companies and vote yes on Proposition 22, compared with 36% who said they would vote no and 25% still undecided. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus two points.

Now 2 days later the issue is tied. That is quite a swing in 5 days.

For the last 3 days I have participated in a phone bank organized by Rideshare Drivers United and it is targeted to registered Democrats in California. I know that is is sort of preaching to the choir. I was given the LA area to make calls and over the three days, and that short time there was a significant shift in voter awareness and more of the persons that I spoke with were already knowledgeable and had decided to vote NO. I made over 600 phone calls, many went to voicemail but in those three days only 2 people said they would vote YES.
For those that seemed ambivalent about the issue I reminded them that the public has to pick up the costs when ICs lose their pay, can't make rent, pay their bills or need an ambulance and emergency services. I told them that they too had a dog in the fight.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Depends on which poll is correct.


too soon to tell, really. The proposition pamphlet just dropped a week ago with most Californian's; takes a bit to read and I doubt everyone has yet. 
Need a poll mid October to be accurate.

In pro Prop 22 Uber emails Uber has now directly said maybe 20-30% of active drivers would be hired under an AB5 reality. Ouch, if true.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

This will be my daughters first time voting since she just turned 18 last year.

It's really interesting to see how much of an interest she and her friends have in this election.



KevinH said:


> Somewhere between 52-58% of TNC drivers are immigrants. In California some of those have a drivers license but are not documented. They have a car with insurance and use a fake ss # when signing on. Not sure how many immigrants are registered to vote or want to have their identity verified at the polls
> 
> One researcher found that over 50% of new drivers do not understand what an independent contractor is.
> 
> ...





SHalester said:


> too soon to tell, really. The proposition pamphlet just dropped a week ago with most Californian's; takes a bit to read and I doubt everyone has yet.
> Need a poll mid October to be accurate.
> 
> In pro Prop 22 Uber emails Uber has now directly said maybe 20-30% of active drivers would be hired under an AB5 reality. Ouch, if true.


And the propositions. I've overheard them discussing each one.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> It's really interesting to see how much of an interest she and her friends have in this election.


...one would think they would be motivated just on the Prez selection....


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

SHalester said:


> No, AB5 wassn't born from RS drivers complaining in mass.
> 
> bring whom to the negotiating table? Uber and who else?


Well technically AB5 was done in response to the court decision Dinamax.

So, yes drivers had nothing to do with that.

Rideshare Drivers United, a driver group formed after rate cuts of 2017 has been fighting for more Rights as contractors for a while now.

They decided they would go with a ABC test over prop 22 once it became clear they had to pick a side.

Uber was talking about adding public transit schedules, scooters, other items to the app to the point it would satisfy part B. They also did what needed to be done for part A.

Uber said confidently that they would pass the ABC test.

At the end Prop 22 does not protect anyone outside app workers, however a proper modification to part B will really help independent contractors.

Uber should come to the table with itself and negotiate a deal to make enough modifications on part B until they can pass as a technology company.

Maybe they can ask a lawyer and a consultant or something and get a blueprint on changes needed to pass ABC in court.

Then they can, along with everyone else try to work on a modified Part B to protect ALL REAL CONTRACTORS.

If they don't want to like Lyft, why should voters save them!



KevinH said:


> For the last 3 days I have participated in a phone bank organized by Rideshare Drivers United and it is targeted to registered Democrats in California. I know that is is sort of preaching to the choir. I was given the LA area to make calls and over the three days, and that short time there was a significant shift in voter awareness and more of the persons that I spoke with were already knowledgeable and had decided to vote NO. I made over 600 phone calls, many went to voicemail but in those three days only 2 people said they would vote YES.
> For those that seemed ambivalent about the issue I reminded them that the public has to pick up the costs when ICs lose their pay, can't make rent, pay their bills or need an ambulance and emergency services. I told them that they too had a dog in the fight.


I got you!

I'll try to do that in the next few weeks.

I missed their call few weeks ago and haven't had a chance to volunteer. I will since it's so close, and I believe it is in the best interest of everyone and the Transportation industry.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ...one would think they would be motivated just on the Prez selection....


They are but she's actually been interested in voting since before Trump. I've taken her to vote with me.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Still only hearing crickets when it comes to how AB5 is better than Prop 22?


It's like asking would you rather have a burger made of horse manure rather than a burger made cow manure.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Paul Vincent said:


> It's like asking would you rather have a burger made of horse manure rather than a burger made cow manure.


Do you trust in Uber or the State govt ? Hang yourself from a rope or have Dara out a gun to your head ! Pick your poison. My opinion is anything Uber says is good is incredibly bad. If these companies are spending $180,000,000 it isn't because they live drivers and want to help. So I voted no on 22.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Escoman said:


> Do you trust in Uber or the State govt ? Hang yourself from a rope or have Dara out a gun to your head ! Pick your poison. My opinion is anything Uber says is good is incredibly bad. If these companies are spending $180,000,000 it isn't because they live drivers and want to help. So I voted no on 22.


No pro 22 UBER COULD NOT BE TRUSTED BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES


----------



## Nutsi Pelosi (Sep 21, 2020)

Gby said:


> No pro 22 UBER COULD NOT BE TRUSTED BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES


Absolutely



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Well technically AB5 was done in response to the court decision Dinamax.
> 
> So, yes drivers had nothing to do with that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Larrison (Jun 7, 2018)

I am DVRing all the commercials so I can rewatch them for hours and hours&#128512;



Nutsi Pelosi said:


> Absolutely


FYI Dynamex HQed in Hayward was reguarded as one of the worst messenger companies to work for
I know because I worked for them twice driving then years later biking

The companys name is pronounced 'Dynamics' but the San Francisco bike messengers stuck with the 'Dyna-Mex' pronunciation especially the Hispanic ones&#128512;

Pissed off sales peeps would dry snitch you to dispatch for the dog house


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

observer said:


> What the state should do is deregulate rideshare and require each driver to be licensed individually and able to do rideshare on their own or able to contract with a TNC of their choosing.


That would be the best, but who would fund the ballot initiative for that? Surely not Uber, Lyft nor the taxi companies who have an oligopoly to defend.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> That would be the best, but who would fund the ballot initiative for that? Surely not Uber, Lyft nor the taxi companies who have an oligopoly to defend.


I'm thinking there doesn't need to be another initiative.

The state could just say, we are going to create a driver classification for independent contractors that want to form their own companies.

The way I read it Prop 22 only applies to TNC and food drivers.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

observer said:


> I'm thinking there doesn't need to be another initiative.
> 
> The state could just say, we are going to create a driver classification for independent contractors that want to form their own companies.
> 
> The way I read it Prop 22 only applies to TNC and food drivers.


It is simple the State should implement minimum payment ..minimum amount per minute and mileage and maximum commission Uber can take from drivers.. No more then 10% because are not transportation company they are software company just contact Rider and drivers... The rating it is fine for job performance but fare rate drivers should have mandatory camera on during on for any false accusations should tob justify if are false claims passenger should be punished by court not by Uber ..


----------



## Nutsi Pelosi (Sep 21, 2020)

There is a plan.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Gby said:


> It is simple the State should implement minimum payment ..minimum amount per minute and mileage and maximum commission Uber can take from drivers.. No more then 10% because are not transportation company they are software company just contact Rider and drivers... The rating it is fine for job performance but fare rate drivers should have mandatory camera on during on for any false accusations should tob justify if are false claims passenger should be punished by court not by Uber ..


The state won't be able to do anything if Prop 22 passes.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> too soon to tell, really. The proposition pamphlet just dropped a week ago with most Californian's; takes a bit to read and I doubt everyone has yet.
> Need a poll mid October to be accurate.
> 
> In pro Prop 22 Uber emails Uber has now directly said maybe 20-30% of active drivers would be hired under an AB5 reality. Ouch, if true.


That low % sounds right to me.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

observer said:


> The state won't be able to do anything if Prop 22 passes.


Really how NYC did drivers most be stupid to accept pro 22


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

observer said:


> The state could just say, we are going to create a driver classification for independent contractors that want to form their own companies.


That would be a perfect solution. Remove the middle man.


----------

