About prop #22. (San Francisco, Berkeley: 2014, apartment, to rent)

[ackmondual]

Originally Posted by Bert_from_back_East

Rideshare drivers should remain independent contractors, so that they may have the flexibility to work whenever and for however long they want to. Most eligible private citizens drive for Uber, Lyft and other rideshare companies because they have a full-time job or part-time job with a set or standardized work schedule that is not subject to change. If drivers remain independent contractors of rideshare companies, then they will retain the flexibility to drive around their normal work schedules. As someone who briefly drove for Uber and Lyft five years ago, I can attest to the fact that flexibility is the most critical aspect of rideshare work. If drivers are converted from independent contractors to employees, I am not confident that the flexibility aspect of rideshare work will be retained.

Don't the ride share programs set the rates they're allowed to charge? That's something independent contractors would be able to do, but can't b/c that's up to Uber, Lyft, etc.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by Caligirl8

IMO if you are complaining about being an Uber driver then don’t be one and find something else.

100% correct

[wannagettaway]

NO on 22!

Uber and Lyft (and their subsidiaries) are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to try to pass this law and they wouldn't be spending that much money if they didn't think it was going to save them ten times as much in taxes and fees.

Uber is a TERRIBLE company that has caused nothing but grief for the few people I know who've made the mistake of working for them and their headquarters employees are just more of those overpaid techies who have been driving the California housing market through the roof. They say this will mess up their business model and they may move out of the State, well, GOOD RIDDANCE! Maybe if enough of these tech companies finally leave California can become affordable again.

Originally Posted by Caligirl8

I’m still looking into 22 and deciding how I’ll vote. I wish they would just decide to get rid of AB5 instead. As an independent contractor myself, AB5 has very little benefit on most IC. I have seen so many people hurt by this over the past year unfortunately. This has pushed them to move out of state or get a lower paying job sadly. IMO if you are complaining about being an Uber driver then don’t be one and find something else.

How does AB5 impact you? I do freelance work as an independent contractor on the side and so far AB5 hasn't impacted me at all. I guess I lucked out a little bit by being in one of the carve-out groups (design/technical) and only contracting for very small companies but I know a few other folks who freelance and it hasn't been a benefit or problem for any of us.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by wannagettaway

How does AB5 impact you? I do freelance work as an independent contractor on the side and so far AB5 hasn't impacted me at all.

You're apparently in the minority.

Newsom and the Democrats kill Uber, Lift, newspaper deliveries and other gig jobs :
https://www.city-data.com/forum/cali...eliveries.html

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Every parent feels that way at first until you realize they are mostly all, or will be, fairly good drivers. Much more so than the blue hairs, illegals and entitled sports car drivers.

Yeah, but being a great driver doesn't keep the blue hairs, drunks, and idiots from crashing into THEM. I look forward to the day when human drivers are banned from the transportation grid.

[V8 Vega]

If I reach the age where I can't drive anymore I'd like to use Uber, Lift but if 22 fails they will be as expensive as a taxi.

[citizensadvocate]

I am pretty much torn on this as I do not want to support the mafia of these giant app companies who got to do what ever they want and pay or not pay they want and sanctioned by courts just because they and the court sided on the magic words Independent Contractors. States had been extremely lax on their deceptive practices all these years. Its practically the wild west, There is no labor or pay guarantee for the work gig workers done and no consumer protection for either gig workers or paying customers should things go wrong. Innocent third parties are also endangered by them as the gig companies are allowed to escape liability when things go wrong and allowed to shift liability to the cash stripped gig workers who often have very limited "cash" or savings in the bank. The insurance liability gap these gig based companies had caused had left count less individuals holding the bag who had an unfortunate run in with app workers such as the pedestrian/bicyclists who suffered being struck by an "uber" driver who had his app on but not taking a trip thus Uber's liability insurance didn't cover the poor sap hit.

Flixbus.com is among the worst examples of a gig based company, look at Flixbus never again Facebook page and you can see all the nightmare stories, even if you don't go there, try to book and ride Flixbus you will find out. I am surprised this "company" is allowed to exist in well developed countries with developed consumer protection systems.

I be curious as is it really mandatory to lose flexibility should AB5 go into effect? Or is this a poly invented by Uber Lyft and other gig companies. I know some jobs have flexible terms such as human sign advertisement, yet can still classify as employees and still have the tax calculation done for them.

If I vote no I may be supporting app workers getting fired or impossible to get hired as a new worker. Thus making it hard to use these apps I depend on especially grocery delivery during the pandemic.

If I vote yes I am essentially supporting Gig companies wild west behavior to exploit gig workers, customers, and innocent bystanders.

I be curious whether AB5 only affect gig workers or as feared gardners, nannies, or other contractors that fix houses as well?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

If I vote yes I am essentially supporting Gig companies wild west behavior to exploit gig workers, customers, and innocent bystanders.

Actually, this is supposed to support them. The one Lyft driver I know says he's voting for it. From what I understand, most drivers for these companies want the flexibility of their jobs, which this is supposed to protect. They won't, however, get paid sick leave, unemployment, or health care. Apparently the flexibility of the job is more important than job benefits.

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

I be curious whether AB5 only affect gig workers or as feared gardners, nannies, or other contractors that fix houses as well?

Prop 22 only applies to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other app-based delivery and transportation companies (including those who provide medications, etc to people).

[citizensadvocate]

The biggest question is whether its necessary to repeal AB5 in order to maintain flexibility or is it just a poly by these app companies to keep their get out of liability free card should disputes happen with gig workers, customers, or third parties.
I am surprised the liability issue is overlooked, currently these apps seem to be exempt from liability if things happen to their workers, customers, or innocent third parties, meaning carrying liability insurance that covers all situations that personal policies don't is not required and each app even if they have it at all severely limit the cases they will cover. Which can easily leave third parties holding the bag while app giant walk away scott free.

Look at thie Flixbus Never Again website
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1475571836083576/
This "bus company" based in Germany unlike other long distance bus companies are based on "gig" based model and look at how much they get away with. They operate in California and parts of the US as well but irrespective of the country they operate in obviously they are running under wild west terms and passengers are left with pretty much no redress should things go wrong.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

The biggest question is whether its necessary to repeal AB5 in order to maintain flexibility or is it just a poly by these app companies to keep their get out of liability free card should disputes happen with gig workers, customers, or third parties.
I am surprised the liability issue is overlooked, currently these apps seem to be exempt from liability if things happen to their workers, customers, or innocent third parties, meaning carrying liability insurance that covers all situations that personal policies don't is not required and each app even if they have it at all severely limit the cases they will cover. Which can easily leave third parties holding the bag while app giant walk away scott free.

Look at thie Flixbus Never Again website
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1475571836083576/
This "bus company" based in Germany unlike other long distance bus companies are based on "gig" based model and look at how much they get away with. They operate in California and parts of the US as well but irrespective of the country they operate in obviously they are running under wild west terms and passengers are left with pretty much no redress should things go wrong.

In trades like construction, where independent contractors are used they are usually required to have business liability insurance for their activities. If just an individual, the general contractor has it. Only when a homeowner hires a "gig" worker is it not required and even then if they know better they require it or do not hire them as they can still suffer liability from the workers actions.


Since Uber and others actually handle the arrangements, they should have liability insurance for any problems since they are directly involved. The workers can be independent, but the company should still carry the insurance.