Read on Twitter
Because nobody asked, #YesOnProp22 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ§”" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="—ïž" title="Nach rechts zeigender Pfeil mit KrĂŒmmung nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Nach rechts zeigender Pfeil mit KrĂŒmmung nach unten">
The Dynamex worker classification test was a bad court ruling. The California legislature, by passing #AB5, agreed with me. They didnât codify Dynamex, but gave a long list of carve-outs to existing industries to let them continue to classify workers based on the Borello test.
If Dynamex was perfect the litany of special interest carve-outs would not have been necessary.
Special interest exemptions are a bad way to legislate.
Special interest exemptions are a bad way to legislate.
In software development we have a concept of âcode extensibilityâ. Itâs the idea that the code you write should be designed so that it does not impede any number of unknowable future requirements. Good laws are written the same way. To extend the metaphor, AB5 has a bad algorithm
The law is a simple decision tree:
bool specialInterest = didLobbyLorenaSuccessfully(company);
if (specialInterest) {
applyBorello();
}
else {
applyDynamex();
}
bool specialInterest = didLobbyLorenaSuccessfully(company);
if (specialInterest) {
applyBorello();
}
else {
applyDynamex();
}
Uber and the SEIU held talks about what a third classification of worker could look like because they recognized this was shoddy code. Our labor laws in California are old and, in their history, have very rarely been meaningfully updated by the legislature.
This was an opportunity to catch the law up to the state of society today. Instead the Building Trades stepped in and killed these good faith negotiations.
We have 2 choices: full employee or contractor, gig companies had their hands tied. They couldnât implement things like portable benefits packages because too much interference and blam theyâre employers under outdated laws which turns their business model on its head.
What we should do is have a future-proof law that wonât inhibit companies being created.
Imagine if somehow insurance salesmen did not exist today but someone was thinking about it and wanted to go into business tomorrow. They wouldnât have their special AB5 carve-out and looking at the Dynamex test might decide it doesnât even make sense for them to go into business
But because they are grandfathered in, insurance salesmen arenât going anywhere today. Thatâs the issue with the way this unequal legislation was written. (Substitute insurance salesmen for that unknowable future industry)
Prop 22 wonât be the end of the discussion if it passes. What it will be is a level-set so that people have to come back to the negotiating table and figure out whatâs best for workers and consumers in a way that wonât stifle new companies from getting off the ground.
This is barely about Uber and Lyft. Theyâve proven theyâre willing to lose billions of dollars just to hold onto their market share so that one day they can make a ton of money with fleets of autonomous vehicles.
Whether or not Prop 22 passes thatâs still their vision, weâre just waiting for the tech to catch up. Which is why we need a UBI but thatâs another thread.
California is known for its innovation, let& #39;s not start stifling it.
California is known for its innovation, let& #39;s not start stifling it.
This got a little attention & I feel the need to clarify something. What we need is either a third category of worker or a universal worker classification test. #RepealAB5 is dumb because then we& #39;re just left with Dynamex and the only replacement I see on the table is AB2075
AB2075 is also dumb because all it does is codify the Borello test for everyone, which I think quite obviously was not working great either. I& #39;m not a messaging guy but I wish y& #39;all would push like #RethinkWork or reimagine or something Dems can actually engage with
