Posted on 10/30/2020 1:42:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
On November 3rd, California voters will decide whether Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that would exempt ride sharing apps and food delivery companies from the draconian labor regulations of AB.5, should become state law.
Proposition 22 would allow ride share apps like Uber, as well as food delivery companies like DoorDash and Grubhub, to continue to classify its workers as independent contractors, but mandate a minimum level of compensation and the provision of certain benefits for individuals who work a set number of hours. Proposition 22 would also mandate advanced training and protections for drivers. Most importantly, the proposition on Tuesday’s ballot would allow contractors to retain the flexible work conditions that rideshare drivers and food delivery people overwhelmingly support.
Its passage would provide an important exemption to ride share apps and food delivery companies that would allow them to continue to operate and provide an essential source of income for over 209,000 Californians. Additionally, the passage of proposition 22 would allow rideshare apps to continue to provide affordable transport to the significant number of Californians who do not own an automobile.
Arguably the strongest case for the passage of Proposition 22 is the substantial numbers of rideshare app drivers who prefer their status as independent contractors as opposed to employees. A June 2020 survey of rideshare app drivers by Edelman Intelligence found “more than 7 in 10 app-based drivers in California support the ballot measure that would protect their right to be independent contractors.” More importantly, the same survey revealed that 88 percent of app-based drivers said they joined rideshare apps because “they needed a job where they could choose when or where to work.”
The significant satisfaction app-based drivers have toward their work environment largely destroys the argument put forward by opponents of Proposition 22 who erroneously contend contract labor is an employment structure that exploits drivers.
Opponents of the proposition also miss the profoundly damaging effects the rejection of this ballot measure could have for both the Californian economy and California’s consumers. The Edelman Survey from June 2020 found that if California law prevented rideshare app drivers from selecting their schedules, 84 percent of drivers would stop driving. A recent estimate put the decrease in drivers would fall 76 percent from its present 209,000 to only 51,000.
The reduced number of drivers would not only lower the incomes of drivers who drive to make extra money, but the loss of drivers would be profoundly damaging to California consumers as the cost of their trips would noticeably increase. A recent estimate produced by Uber found that if Proposition 22 fails to pass, the cost of riding would “increase 25-111% across different parts of California to cover increased costs.” The increased cost of riding Uber would likely fall onto rural consumers as “larger cities would be able to support lower prices…where sparse demand makes it more costly to sustain a business under an employment model.”
Uber estimates that markets such as San Francisco would see price increases of around 20-30 percent, while the Inland Empire region, which is home to around 4.5 million Californians, would see prices rise between 110-120 percent.
These kinds of price increases would be profoundly damaging for California’s consumers. The substantial price increases would likely price many riders out of the market, making it affordable for only the wealthiest Californians.
Discussing this possibility, Uber estimated the cost increase could cause demand to fall between 23-59 percent, “with the greatest impacts in sparse areas.” This would only further contribute to the coastal urban divide that presently exists in California.
A UC Berkeley poll found 39 percent of voters supported the ballot measure while 36 percent opposed the measure. Another 25 percent of voters are undecided and will ultimately decide the fate of the measure.
Citizens and workers deserve better. While the electoral outcome is murky, if Proposition 22 fails, there will be blatantly clear and profoundly damaging effects for consumers, as well as those who derive income from rideshare and delivery apps.
In some ways, the Uber driving gig reminds me of a reverse mortgage on one’s car. The amount Uber drivers are paid, after a reasonable deduction for car wear and tear, is quite low. (Remember, even the IRS lets you deduct around 50 cents per mile as an operating cost). If you’ve got an underused car, Uber-driving allows you to monetize some of its value, just like a reverse mortgage does for a house.
I’m not saying its “bad,” just that the economics of the deal seem to be largely undiscussed.
Another little nightmare hiding in the weeds if Biden wins is AB5 going nationwide.
Are they swarming to California for reparations?
despite the millions spent by unions, prop 22 is barely treading water. consumers are not fooled. they like cheap rideshare plus everybody knows this is a second job for most drivers and they all want flexible hours.
Prop 22 gonna lose big time, along with prop 16.
Neither side can keep their damn noses out of other people's
business.
I’m voting no on 22 because I want the Uber/Lyft drivers to become mad enough to join with all the other contractors and freelancers to overturn AB 5 entirely.
That is a risky move given the state you live in.
The fact that Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. didn't even bother to mention in their commercials all the HUNDREDS of other freelance lines of work that AB 5 killed simply astounds me.
All 1099 contracting jobs (without lobbyists, that is) got murdered. Photographers, journalists, transcribers, home health workers, musicians, wedding planners, all project-based jobs, made illegal by AB 5.
Why was this totally ignored in the commercials? It would have only helped their cause.
Why was this totally ignored in the commercials? “
Why we indeed. AB5 was one of the most obscene attacks on individual rights l can remember and the rats want to take it nationwide. Meanwhile half the country doesn’t seem to have a clue what is heading right at them
And the press has been virtually silent about it.
I’m pretty sure the press supports stuff like this.
AB22 is limited to drivers. That’s why they didn’t.
I know, but one would think linking interests would be smart.
You have it backwards.
Prop 22 will restore the ability of Uber drivers to be private contractors. Prop 22 will undo the damage that AB.5 has done to part time gigs.
“...would not be a necessity if Democrats like Lorena Sanchez were not elected to office.”
I think you mean Loretta Sanchez who is currently unemployed. Loretta’s never been elected to California State government so she’s not the problem this time.
On the spectrum of California Democrats that runs from liberal to revolutionary communist, Loretta is at least on the liberal end and less likely to torch your house than some others are.
yup, my mistake. The problem with all these initiatives is that the state always mislabels them and the TV adverts are never accurate. But indeed, YES on 22 is the correct position if you value rideshare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.