They actually do š. It's so predictable what these companies do, but so many people fall for it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Albertson's lays off all full-time union delivery drivers in California, replacing them with gig workers who get no benefits in response to to Prop 22
- Thread starter TacomaSCDisaster
- Start date
They actually do š. It's so predictable what these companies do, but so many people fall for it.
Fffffuck businesses so much.Because any time you tried to book an Uber or Lyft, the apps showed you this.
I hope the execs get a lot of visitors outside their homes.
I have a dual French American (from california) citizen friend who's been enjoying the French social state during covid and who voted for prop 22 against my protesting because he didn't want to "lose" uber.
That makes sense. Vote for it because you can say you support the drivers (according to the ads) but really because you don't want to pay more for ridesharing.
And guess what Uber and Lyft did after Prop 22 passed.Because any time you tried to book an Uber or Lyft, the apps showed you this.
They raised prices anyway.
1) They were easily manipulated by a massive campaign to vote for it; and
2) because they care about themselves/bottom line.
He hasn't lived in the US for most of his life, he's just anti worker rights because by virtue of being in IT he doesn't think he's a worker.
Plus a major case of West Wing brain.
Fuck Albertson's for the stunt they are pulling! I rarely shop there anyways, but this discouraged me from shopping there even more! But also fuck Uber and Lyft for pushing that pro-prop 22 propaganda!
You've got to be shitting me!
You've got to be shitting me!
It's only a problem because you don't have free health care, free education, shitty unemployment benefits, etc., so you hand over the responsibility of building a safety net to corporations and then are surprised when it doesn't provide enough to live comfortably and safely.
Just print the money needed to fund a proper safety net, and tax appropriately to raise funds if needed.
By not doing so, you are making people ever more dependent on employment and hence pushing corporations to encroach on government responsibilities, to the great pleasure of most government officials who really don't want to have to work hard to solve society's problems, too complicated, don't want to be called socialists.
You're fighting a losing battle if you keep trying to get crumbs out of corporations, guaranteed.
Wait, what?
To make sure I'm understanding what you're saying, you're saying this is a good thing because it's going to force people not to be dependent on W-2 employment, and be dependent on 1099 employment? And that's good because people on 1099 employment are getting screwed over and they'll complain and force the government eventually to do something about it (move towards socialism)?
So, basically acceleration? Burn it all down? Make it so shitty we protest?
Because idiots don't do their research and were bombarded with yes on prop 22 commercial
Money. They got the NAACP head of CA to say freelance was good for minorities.
CA legislature really screwed the pooch with AB5 which, when passed, initially made the vast majority of contract work illegal.
Instead of repealing AB5 and trying again with a more well thought out law, the legislature doubled down on AB5, and then started handing out exemptions to specific industries that lobbied for them.
As an example of how bad it was at first AB5 essentially made freelance writing illegal as passed, and tanked the amount of work writers based in CA got. Companies refused to even take pitches from CA writers because of AB5.
Prop 22 came about in the middle of a lot of AB5 pushback and rode that wave. Now, add the pandemic on top of that, and it allowed the question of "contract work for all or paid work for some" to be part of the voting. Neither AB5 or Prop 22 was good law, but voters were told to choose.
What it does illustrate is how poor job opportunities are for entry level workers. Gig work is bad because the work pie is small and the desire for work is large. There is no constraint on the number of workers, so when there is $1000 of work and 10 workers everyone is well paid. When 100 workers sign up, everyone sits around.
Neither AB5 or Prop 22 fix this. Both are band aids that disguise the underlying systemic issues.
Truckers were already exempt from AB5 under a different lawsuit and a temporary injunction.
Also worth noting, in SF (home of Lyft and Uber), the vast majority of taxi drivers are gig workers. This benefits the cab company owners and the City. After AB5 passed, SF made a show of going after Lyft and Uber, but was happy to keep the cab companies operating as-is. Even local government was willing to put their finances first.
Clearly if you're not making enough money to live and pay for your own benefits from gig work, you're not hustling enough.
/s
/s
Not sure where the burning is in providing everyone with free healthcare, free education, security, housing, food, to ensure that everyone has a quality of life guarantee that is commonly accepted as adequate. I guess considering you have none of that after over two centuries of declaring independence, you could indeed call that accelerationism. I would call it catching up.
But I guess instead you can put an arbitrary limit on your capacity to put in place such guarantees, and then instead try to obtain an equivalent by creating a dependency on highly volatile corporations with limited resources and no obligation to employ anyone. It's the equivalent of being a gold bug, but, I guess, good luck.
That's the spirit! It will definitely change with that attitude. But go ahead, shift the responsibility from the government to corporations and see how that goes. You should already have your answer.
aww that organization helped me a LOT during my case against the drunk driver who maimed me. shame to see they went down this path.
I'm literally just asking you to clarify what your position is because I want to be sure I am understanding what you're saying.
You still haven't. I have no idea what you're going on about because I can't figure out what your argument, or premise, is to begin with. You're running wild with conclusions, though, that seem totally unrelated to my question.
What's funny is that Uber Eats still charges a "driver benefits" fee on deliveries. So, are they actually providing benefits or just up charging?
What is there to clarify? Why is it a problem that companies wouldn't provide a living wage, or even a minimum wage, if there is a government-provided guaranteed standard of living for everyone regardless of employment?
My position is pretty clear: print the money to fund the needed standard of living that everyone should have. You don't have a gold-backed currency, stop acting like it.
What does that have to do with supporting prop 22?
(Also, what does your first paragraph have to do with prop 22? I'm not getting how those two ideas connect to each other.)
Last edited:
I remember these. "It's not that we are anti-union. We just don't think one is necessary at Wal-Mart."
Vons, Pavilions to Fire āEssential Workers,ā Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors - Knock LA
California begins to see the devastating effects of Proposition 22.knock-la.com
Any sort of labor movement in the US had been weakened some time ago and unions are often kneecapped in this country, but this feels like a pretty devastating blow. Workers are losing their bargaining power at an alarming rate and the impending rise of automation might destroy it completely sooner rather than later.
Late stage capitalism, baby. "ThE OnLY sYsTeM tHaT wOrKs."
It is interesting you say this right as Google workers announce their plans to unionize. So it doesn't seem dead yet.
Union power, that is. We'll have to see what comes of this. And I believe Amazon workers are currently planning to unionize.
Prop 22 requires a limited form of benefits for contract drivers.
Less than employees. More than previously.
Very interesting. I've long suspected a lot of the online spend is Monopoly Bucks. The ad people don't want to say their ads aren't doing anything, and companies don't want to risk months of their revenue making the bet this guy did (turning off 66% of ad spending and hoping it works out).
The 200 mil prop 22 campaign broke my spirit. That a few large companies could so brazenly and openly manipulate the public. Lobbying isn't limited to just DC and capital city kickback deals anymore. It's directly injected into your eyeballs. Owner class is winning the psyop war.
Because any time you tried to book an Uber or Lyft, the apps showed you this.
That is predatory. Were they punished for this? This isn't illegal?
So you're position is you support paying people less than minimum wage and reducing benefits... before the government safety net is in place to make up for it.
Brilliant.