In other words, had AB 5 not passed, this would likely have happened anyway as a progression towards off-loading "non-core" competencies to third parties as has continued to happen across industries (an iconic example is janitorial services which used to be handled in-house but were off-loaded starting in earnest in the early 90s?)
No, they could have done this before AB 5. They did not. This seems to say that this move would have happened if conditions allowed it and the situation was right for business.
What that means is sure AB 5 would have nixed this option. However, the trend before AB 5 was to off-load "non-core" competencies. Prop 22 re-instated the previous status, it did not introduce an altogether new status.
Prop 22 indicated the people preferred the original status to the new status introduced by AB 5, so we're back to where we started before AB 5.
Vons and Pavilions are not the same as Uber, Lyft, etc. I think they did it because they thought it was time to change their delivery logistics and were not waiting for concretization of the law around this.
Put another way, Vons' business model isn't centered around this law. It's incidental.
Companies like Albertsons who could benefit from these businesses weren't willing to commit to embracing them until there was stability in the industry. For all the faults of Prop 22, it provides stability through its incredibly high requirements for repeal or amendments. Companies like Albertsons now have the stability they desired and will embrace these rideshare companies to save a few bucks by shifting a greater financial burden onto individual drivers.
Having someone else do your deliveries and such has been a thing for a long time. Companies have gone back and forth depending on who's doing the bean counting and what they think is crucial to business. Sometimes they would split it. Some in-house some hired out.
2) Prop22 can be be amended only by a seven-eighths vote of the Legislature or a new ballot measure — AND state labor laws can be superseded by federal laws and regulations for enterprises that affect interstate commerce.
Please stop spreading false information.
Point two is why I threw a "basically" in that sentence. Yes, you are technically correct that the state can change it with a 7/8ths majority. However requiring a supermajority that high is a nearly unprecedented requirement for the legislature and it is one that is going to be nearly impossible to achieve.
I honestly don't know what you consider "false information" here beyond me saying "basically no way" for something to happen when it is realistically unfeasible.
You can go learn something about it from here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initia...
>But a seven-eighths "super, super, super-duper majority," she said, "is new as far as I’m aware."[1]
It is relatively standard for propositions to include some ways for the legislature to amend the law. It isn't a full legal requirement, but it is common. The a 7/8 majority is nearly impossible to reach on anything but the most milquetoast bills. That requirement was seemingly included so they supporters of the bill could feign that it was flexible while not really conceding any possibility of it being changed. If Prop 22 is going to be amended or repealed, it basically has to be done through the popular vote.
[1] - https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-a...
>No surprise, many ballot measures do not say otherwise. Compared to that default, Prop. 22’s high bar for amendments actually gives the Legislature more influence than the norm.
-
>If Prop 22 is going to be amended or repealed, it basically has to be done through the popular vote.
And how exactly is this a bad thing?
Having a way to directly amend the law via some majority is completely optional. There is no need to ever include that in the ballot proposition. Why are you choosing to completely ignore this clear fact?
>It is relatively standard for propositions to include some ways for the legislature to amend the law. It isn't a full legal requirement, but it is common.
I do my due diligence, but it’s not easy to get a full understanding of how I want to vote. It’s a significant amount of work, and a lot of people will not spend the time.
You mean, passed on the backs of nearly 10 million voters.
I always find it strange to tout the line of how much money was spent in an election, as if to say that the voters have no agency or culpability. Clinton spent nearly 2 times what Trump did and still lost. Money does not equal votes if the people don't support an issue.
Uber/Lyft/DoorDash etc. threatened to summarily shut down in the middle of a pandemic if Prop 22 didn't get passed.
Uber and Lyft actually did this in Austin, but since it wasn't in the middle of a pandemic people had other options and could make adjustments. And then Uber and Lyft went crying to the state government to override Austin because Austin started generating alternatives and we found out that Uber/Lyft don't really have an unassailable position but they have LOTS of VC cash to spend on lobbying and advertising.
Unfortunately, making the kind of adjustments that people in Austin did borders on impossible right now, so this kind of threat was quite effective.
That election is a bad example since:
- Trump was already a TV and Twitter celebrity brand.
- Hillary Clinton was an unlikeable candidate who was ill, financially corrupt (received large Saudi contributions to her foundation) and avoided reporters for 2 months during the campaign (similar to Biden in 2020)
I've seen estimates that Trump added $2 billion in value to Twitter, so Trump also got some advantage out of that relationship.
What's interesting is that SV ad companies denied knowing that Trump was underspending until their end of quarter, then blamed their poor results on that saying, "Who knew?"
In fact, anybody who read a newspaper knew, so it was odd hearing that nonsense from people paid millions to know that.