Calolfornia

[gotbeer]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

Name them 

Manson, Ramirez, DeAngelo.

[Jason]

8 hours ago, Spin Rate said:

Good. A large chunk of people in prison shouldn't be there anyway.

If someone is still in prison in this state then chances are they are a terrible person

[Taylor]

I see all of you are fans of the War on Drugs.

[Lhalo]

44 minutes ago, Spin Rate said:

I see all of you are fans of the War on Drugs.

I'm with Spinny on this. There are way too many people in prison for drug offenses.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

[Blarg]

13 hours ago, calscuf said:

He doesn’t.  He says shit like that but he still locks the car doors when driving west of the 55 and east of the 405.

Car doors automatically lock but if they didn't, this would be good advice.

[Lhalo]

On 9/24/2020 at 7:20 PM, Adam said:

Prop 22 is the one we are involved in and we have been marketing around it but is such a shit prop that will fuck over every non giant 

Could you explain this a little more? I want an insider's view before I vote on it.

[Adam]

23 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Could you explain this a little more? I want an insider's view before I vote on it.

Prop 22 would classify app-based drivers (rideshare and delivery) as ICs. To qualify as an app-based driver platform, companies need to allow ICs to log in / log off at will and all jobs must be offered via app (on-demand only). This disqualifies routed drivers from IC Status, regardless of the desires of those workers or ICs in any other field like technicians (satellite, fiberoptic cabling, etc.) 

Additionally, companies have to ensure drivers earn 120% of minimum wage in non-tip income. Companies must contribute to healthcare on a sliding scale - 41% (I think) of Covered CA average rate for their demo for people who work 15-25 hours per week and 80% for drivers who work more than 25 hours. They also have to provide injury and disability insurance up to $1M in coverage.

Like all regulation, it's fantastic for big business because they can afford to comply with it while effectively killing the small business owner's ability to compete in the market.

Personally, I think it would be better for freedom if it fails, even though the next 2-4 years will be horrible. There are two live cases right now, where the judges struck down AB5 (temporarily) for companies with a Motor Carrier Permit. There's a reasonable chance all MCs wind up exempt from AB5 once those cases are settled. 

But if it doesn't pass, Uber and Lyft will either make drivers W2s or more likely, just pull out of CA. To make employees work, our fares go up significantly. It will be even harder to retain and attract enough workers.

Only a very small percentage of current Uber/Lyft drivers would stick as employees. I ran through the math with my buddy. He works 60 hours a week right now and makes $1500-$2K after gas and car washes and can write off all miles and other expenses. As an employee getting $13/hr + tips and mileage reimbursement for 40 hours a week and no tax deductions his net income will be about 40% of what it is right now. Even the small percentage of drivers who want to be employees are just idiots, who can't do math or just want to milk the clock for a few hundred bucks a week.  

I think the best bet long term is to hope it fails and have all the gig companies leave CA, which would cause the voters to hold the politicians accountable.

But if it passes, my biggest client will enter California and I'll get rich. haha

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

I think the best bet long term is to hope it fails and have all the gig companies leave CA, which would cause the voters to hold the politicians accountable.

Do you really think that would happen?  I realize if it doesn't pass it could come back in a different form next election but I have very little faith in the voters of the state who approved the bullet train, damn near any bonds that mention school funding and so on.  If prop 15 passes that's going to speed up the exodus of some businesses and individuals from the state.  Like you said most people don't understand the math and the fact that tax increases/new taxes on others or a small raise is going to end up costing them more in the long run. 

[Adam]

6 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Do you really think that would happen?  I realize if it doesn't pass it could come back in a different form next election but I have very little faith in the voters of the state who approved the bullet train, damn near any bonds that mention school funding and so on.  If prop 15 passes that's going to speed up the exodus of some businesses and individuals from the state.  Like you said most people don't understand the math and the fact that tax increases/new taxes on others or a small raise is going to end up costing them more in the long run. 

I think it could. It's my industry so I'm pretty in tune with all the big players. A couple of weeks ago I was told Uber was 50/50 to leave if it passed. I'm not as connected to Lyft. The delivery apps aren't as under the gun because they've not been sued directly by the State.

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

Prop 22 would classify app-based drivers (rideshare and delivery) as ICs. To qualify as an app-based driver platform, companies need to allow ICs to log in / log off at will and all jobs must be offered via app (on-demand only). This disqualifies routed drivers from IC Status, regardless of the desires of those workers or ICs in any other field like technicians (satellite, fiberoptic cabling, etc.) 

Additionally, companies have to ensure drivers earn 120% of minimum wage in non-tip income. Companies must contribute to healthcare on a sliding scale - 41% (I think) of Covered CA average rate for their demo for people who work 15-25 hours per week and 80% for drivers who work more than 25 hours. They also have to provide injury and disability insurance up to $1M in coverage.

Like all regulation, it's fantastic for big business because they can afford to comply with it while effectively killing the small business owner's ability to compete in the market.

Personally, I think it would be better for freedom if it fails, even though the next 2-4 years will be horrible. There are two live cases right now, where the judges struck down AB5 (temporarily) for companies with a Motor Carrier Permit. There's a reasonable chance all MCs wind up exempt from AB5 once those cases are settled. 

But if it doesn't pass, Uber and Lyft will either make drivers W2s or more likely, just pull out of CA. To make employees work, our fares go up significantly. It will be even harder to retain and attract enough workers.

Only a very small percentage of current Uber/Lyft drivers would stick as employees. I ran through the math with my buddy. He works 60 hours a week right now and makes $1500-$2K after gas and car washes and can write off all miles and other expenses. As an employee getting $13/hr + tips and mileage reimbursement for 40 hours a week and no tax deductions his net income will be about 40% of what it is right now. Even the small percentage of drivers who want to be employees are just idiots, who can't do math or just want to milk the clock for a few hundred bucks a week.  

I think the best bet long term is to hope it fails and have all the gig companies leave CA, which would cause the voters to hold the politicians accountable.

But if it passes, my biggest client will enter California and I'll get rich. haha

In the end, the problem is AB5.  There are probably more exemptions than there are targetable industries.

The dumbshits in Sacramento probably saw this as a way to get at Uber and Lyft.  Without even thinking that there are a shit ton of independent contractors out there other than Uber and Lyft that it affects.  

[Adam]

4 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

In the end, the problem is AB5.  There are probably more exemptions than there are targetable industries.

The dumbshits in Sacramento probably saw this as a way to get at Uber and Lyft.  Without even thinking that there are a shit ton of independent contractors out there other than Uber and Lyft that it affects.  

They want their unemployment premiums, auto-withholdings and to appease their financiers in the insurance and finance space.

AB5 was a direct result of silicon valley saying fuck you to expanded insurance requirements.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

14 minutes ago, Adam said:

I think it could. It's my industry so I'm pretty in tune with all the big players. A couple of weeks ago I was told Uber was 50/50 to leave if it passed. I'm not as connected to Lyft. The delivery apps aren't as under the gun because they've not been sued directly by the State.

To clarify I mean do you think it's likely that voters would hold politicians accountable?  If it doesn't pass I definitely wouldn't be surprised to see Uber leave and I wouldn't blame them.  Ride shares came along providing a better product at a cheaper price than cabs which smell like cigarettes, bad cologne and farts that have been drilled into the drivers seat for years.  I'm not surprised CA regulations and laws could end up chasing them out and in the end both the workers and users of the service are worse off for it. 

[Adam]

1 minute ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

To clarify I mean do you think it's likely that voters would hold politicians accountable?  If it doesn't pass I definitely wouldn't be surprised to see Uber leave and I wouldn't blame them.  Ride shares came along providing a better product at a cheaper price than cabs which smell like cigarettes, bad cologne and farts that have been drilled into the drivers seat for years.  I'm not surprised CA regulations and laws could end up chasing them out and in the end both the workers and users of the service are worse off for it. 

Oh. If Tammy the 13th century african feminism major can't get an uber to her non-gendered significant other's loft, she's gonna be pissed. 

[Adam]

3 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

To clarify I mean do you think it's likely that voters would hold politicians accountable?  If it doesn't pass I definitely wouldn't be surprised to see Uber leave and I wouldn't blame them.  Ride shares came along providing a better product at a cheaper price than cabs which smell like cigarettes, bad cologne and farts that have been drilled into the drivers seat for years.  I'm not surprised CA regulations and laws could end up chasing them out and in the end both the workers and users of the service are worse off for it. 

You can never underestimate the hypocrisy of a leftist.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Just now, Adam said:

Oh. If Tammy the 13th century african feminism major can't get an uber to her non-gendered significant other's loft, she's gonna be pissed. 

Except Tammy is one of the people who signed the sheet outside of the local whole foods in support of making them employees in the first place which led to the proposition ending up on the ballot.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

6 minutes ago, Adam said:

You can never underestimate the hypocrisy of a leftist.

For sure I've just yet to see them draw a line especially when they think they're sticking it to big business.  We live in OC which has some right leaning areas and it amazes me when I see people on the left talking about how they need to get control of those and vote the reps out.  Highest state income tax, one of the least friendly business states, highest gas taxes, some of the worst roads, one of the highest poverty rates, poor performing K-12 schools and the list goes on.  I put that on both parties equally because one failed and basically gave up in the state but the last thing we need is more elected officials who are essentially cheerleaders.   

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 hours ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Except Tammy is one of the people who signed the sheet outside of the local whole foods in support of making them employees in the first place which led to the proposition ending up on the ballot.

I hope 22 fails just so Tammy and the rest can get a first hand look at cause and effect.

It really feels like bad legislation in response to previously bad legislation.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

30 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I hope 22 fails just so Tammy and the rest can get a first hand look at cause and effect.

It really feels like bad legislation in response to previously bad legislation.

I'd agree but until they rectify it you've got a lot of gig workers who use it to supplement their income not doing that job, it impacts a lot of restaurants and bars and we the consumers suffer.  I haven't taken an uber for a while not by design but I still hope it's an option because I really can't put into words my disdain for the taxi industry.  Who would have thought the government would fuck something up and make it more complicated than it needs to be.   

[Angel Oracle]

Apologize for interrupting the gig discussion.

WTF is Newsom doing, wanting people to wear masks at the restaurant tables, and only take off to eat?   How many are going to want to pull down mask to eat or drink, pull it up, rinse repeat?

[Jay]

Didn't we all know, years ago when Uber first came about, that it wouldn't last? Originally I thought that Taxi companies would somehow lobby to kill it. Turns out it's just going to die from the virus known as California.

 

[NrM]

well.. maybe this will speed up driverless car legalization and adoption

 

[Make Angels Great Again]

49 minutes ago, NrM said:

well.. maybe this will speed up driverless car legalization and adoption

 

 

 

[Adam]

On 10/15/2020 at 8:41 AM, calscuf said:

You doofus’ act like the concept of classifying workers as employees or independent contractors is a new idea.  It’s been happening for 100+ years.  Dynamex just simplified the test and AB5 codified it.  If you want to make an exception for rideshares, fine.  But understand it’s an exception to the law which had been around forever.  And while I don’t specifically know about the employee/independent contractor tests in other states, I have to assume it’s similar and the rideshares are either breaking the law or the local government’s turn a blind eye or both.

Having a test for employee vs. independent contractor isn’t a right/left issue.  

But you can all go back to fellating each other if that makes you feel good.

1.) AB5 does simplify it but it also makes it more difficult for companies to defend the classification of ICs based on how these matters are ultimately adjudicated. Prior to Dynamex CA used the Borello test, which is essentially the IRS guidelines - applying 20 factors rather than just 3. The ABC test only uses 3 factors. With 20 a company can be really strong on 15-16 factors and be found to have properly classified workers. Under the ABC test they gotta go 3 for 3, which is challenging considering how CA regulatory agencies and leftist judges apply the law. Georgia uses the ABC test also, but it's far easier to satisfy the test based on how it is applied there.

2.) Approximately 25 States use the ABC test or a variation of it - Some just consider A and B, others consider just A and C. 20 States or so continue to use the IRS guidelines. Some States have their own test. WI has a 9 point test. Oregon has a 5 point test, of which you need to pass at least 3.

3.) It isn't a right/left issue. It's a freedom issue. Individuals should be allowed to work as ICs if they want to.

4.) tdawg says you're a faggy c*nt

[Blarg]

These rules blew up freelance editors about a while ago. By removing the IC status you couldn't write off many business expenses and still received no benefits like health care because you were daily hire. That's why I incorporated and get paid as a loan out. I am still paying taxes as a W-2 of my company but also expenses are now deductible. I just have to do more paperwork and I really suck at QuickBooks.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

On 7/11/2017 at 9:53 PM, Jason said:

Unfortunately I know this to be the case. I'd like to have some hope though

you could move to somewhere more to your liking