Local Blogs

By Steve Levy

About this blog: I grew up in Los Angeles and moved to the area in 1963 when I started graduate school at Stanford. Nancy and I were married in 1977 and we lived for nearly 30 years in the Duveneck school area. Our children went to Paly. We moved ... (More)

View all posts from Steve Levy

I am Voting No on Prop 22

Uploaded: Oct 9, 2020

Prop 22 exempts app-based transportation and delivery service drivers from the requirements of AB 5. In plain English Prop 22 exempts drivers for Lyft, Uber,
Doordash and similar companies from being classified as employees. The EDD website says that a person is an employee unless ALL of the ABC conditions are met. I am not a labor lawyer but to me these drivers do not meet all of the conditions below. So legally they are employees.

A. The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
B. The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
C. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

Prop 22 is about money and fairness. Under AB 5 drivers would be covered by unemployment insurance and state and local labor laws regarding minimum wages and other protections. This will most likely lead to an increase in the cost of rides and deliveries. Under Prop 22 the companies have promised some additional benefits of a lesser amount (for example, their minimum wage promise only relates to hours AFTER drivers receive calls, not waiting time) and will also lead to cost increases.

There is a long history of companies structuring arrangements to avoid paying employment related taxes and avoid abiding by minimum wage rules. I find that unfair in relation to all the companies that treat employees as employees and support extending labor protections to these drivers.

I do think there are cases where AB 5 should be clarified to exclude long-standing arrangements where the workers do meet the ABC test and may have been mistakenly included in AB 5; but not for these drivers.

Comments

Posted by No on 22, a resident of Monta Loma,
on Oct 9, 2020 at 5:24 pm
No on 22 is a registered user.

Agree completely. More so that Uber just put this proposition forward for themselves, not even to solve greater problems that still need to be addressed.

Do not let corporations buy your vote.

Report Objectionable Content

Posted by Jennifer, a resident of another community,
on Oct 9, 2020 at 6:36 pm
Jennifer is a registered user.

I'm annoyed that this is on the ballot. I couldn't care less about this prop. I'm not foolish enough to take Uber, Lyft, etc. Why is this being presented to the voters? This is an employer -- employee issue, and I will be leaving it blank... for the first time in my life. I only care about propositions that affect me as a taxpayer.

Report Objectionable Content

Posted by Steven Goldstein, a resident of Old Mountain View,
on Oct 10, 2020 at 12:11 am
Steven Goldstein is a registered user.

I am just surprised about this.

I agree with you Steve completely. I actually worked for Lyft between jobs and it was horrible.

I was lucky to make $100 a day after 8 hours. I was stuck sitting in my car for hours at a time every day doing nothing. You also had no choice to drive to wherever the app sent you, no matter what, if you refused you would risk being dropped from the service.

Please let me me know your position on the Microsoft case of 1996 and the Dynamex case of 2018 and finally your position on AB5?

I actually have a HRM BS. in Bus. Admin. degree, and knew that a lot of my work here has violated the IRS rules regarding contractors but I was waiting until the courts finally made a final decision.

I know that a lot of tech companies are using COVID/Fires/and AB5 to relocate their work out of state, but I also know that the IRS standards have not changed and eventually all states will have to be the same. In fact at least 4 I believe already do.

I have had my differences with you, I hope you saw I was trying not to disrespect you. But in this case, I thank you so much for your understanding.

Report Objectionable Content

Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Oct 10, 2020 at 4:33 am
Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

THANK YOU!! I am voting NO too, and I encourage everyone else to do so as well.

Huge companies put this on the ballot in order to avoid their legal obligations to treat their employees fairly. What is worse is that they have engaged in an unethical campaign of lies, putting their words in fake employees' mouths. No one would prefer not to have health insurance. No one feels freed from the inability to have sick pay. No one does not want protection from illegal termination.

The California Supreme Court decided correctly that all employees deserve the opportunity to have health insurance, sick days, and protection from discrimination. Prop 22 would take ALL that away from them.

As an attorney who has served as General Council for other large internet companies, I assure you that Uber and Lyft are lying. And, as a lawyer with almost 3 decades of experience, including many years as an employment law specialist, I wholly reject Uber and Lyft's purported legal arguments. They are driven by one goal: greed. They have a right to have greed. But we as voters have a right to stand up for fairness!

Steve, I appreciate your well-written and well-reasoned column.

Report Objectionable Content

Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Oct 10, 2020 at 2:39 pm
mauricio is a registered user.

At its heart, 22 is an anti union initiative. This should be an easy NO vote for any decent person who doesn't buy the corporate BS we are subjected to 24/7.

Report Objectionable Content

Local Blogs

I am Voting No on Prop 22

Stay informed.

Index