- If passed, California’s Prop. 22 would classify gig workers, like Uber and Lyft drivers, as independent contractors instead of employees, meaning they might have more flexibility in their schedules but are not given standard full benefits like healthcare and sick leave.
- Uber, Lyft, and other apps have shelled out a whopping $200 million into a ‘Yes on 22’ campaign. Meanwhile, its opponents have spent about $20 million, with prominent figures like presidential candidate Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris speaking out against it.
- Currently, California voters are split. A UC Berkeley poll found that 46% of voters said they were voting yes, 42% were voting no, and 12% were undecided
- Experts think that no matter which way the vote goes, this could be the start of a national debate about gig workers in America, how companies treat them, and how that work is regulated.
What is Prop. 22?
While California’s divisive Proposition 22 might only be on the ballot in one state, the impacts of it could be felt nationwide.
Prop. 22 exempts app-based rideshare and delivery companies from providing certain workers with benefits by classifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. It comes one year after a law known as AB5 was passed in the state requiring gig workers to be treated as employees, and aims to carve an exception for major rideshare and similar companies.
Supporters of Prop. 22 include those companies, like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. They say that the measure gives drivers flexibility in their schedules, as well as minimum earnings benefits, even though it does not provide the full standard benefits employees would receive. They also say it protects jobs and that prices could increase if Prop. 22 fails.
However, opponents argue that these companies should not be allowed to skirt around rules to avoid giving their workers full benefits. Those who have come out against the proposition include the California Labor Federation and Sen. Kamala Harris. The prop has even made national headlines, with presidential candidate Joe Biden and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also coming out against it.
National Implications for Prop. 22
It’s a split issue among California voters. According to a late October poll from UC Berkeley, 46% said they were voting yes, 42% were voting no, and 12% were undecided. But the decision is large, as experts think its implications will reach beyond the borders of the state.
For example, if Prop. 22 passes, other companies could be prompted to follow Uber and Lyft’s independent contracting model.
“I think you’ll see platform-based companies in other service industries either try to fit themselves into the exception [to AB5], or, if Proposition 22 is successful, try to do the same thing,” attorney Jason Morris told CBS News.
He is not alone in thinking this. New York Times reporter Kate Conger, who has covered Prop. 22, thinks this is the first page of a national dialogue around gig workers.
“No matter the outcome of Proposition 22, it’s just the beginning of what I think will become a national debate over regulating gig work. Companies like Uber and Lyft are already beginning to lobby for similar changes at the federal level,” she said.
“It also raises questions about how traditional employers will manage their workforces in the future,” Conger continued. “Will we see employers shift their employees to a gig work model in order to take advantage of the reduction in costs that Uber and Lyft have long enjoyed?”
High-Budget Campaign from ‘Yes on 22’
The ‘Yes on 22’ campaign has spared no expense when it comes to rallying support for the proposition. Politico reported that the campaign has spent over $200 million on the effort, with virtually all of that money coming from five companies: Uber, Lyft, Postmates, Instacart and DoorDash. Their opponents have raised just around $20 million in comparison.
‘Yes on 22’ ads are plastered all over the state and aired constantly on television. One of their biggest claims is that drivers support the proposition by a 4-1 margin, but that statistic has been called into question. According to a fact check from the Sacramento Bee, that claim is true but only in part.
The campaign cites a poll from a blog called The Rideshare Guy, as well as other polls commissioned by Uber. While those do show that 70-80% of drivers support Prop. 22, the Bee writes that these polls are not “scientific.” The survey was not done by a random sampling of drivers, just by those who were signed up for the site’s digital newsletter. Uber’s poll also had slanted questions that may have pushed the results.
“They have highly biased and problematic surveys from which they are getting this data from,” UC Hastings law professor Veena Dubal told the Bee.
Uber and other companies have also faced criticism for pressuring their employees into supporting the measure. Drivers ended up suing Uber for bombarding them with messages about Prop. 22 in the app while they were driving, asking them to pledge their support. A judge ended up siding with Uber over the matter.
On October 30, Uber engineer Eddy Hernandez wrote a piece explaining his decision to leave the company over the pressure they were putting on employees when it came to Prop. 22, which he disagrees with.
“Inside the company, pushing back against Prop 22 was like trying to stop a bullet. Leadership made it a company-wide initiative, which meant that Prop 22 was part of employees’ performance and promotion reviews,” Hernandez wrote.
“On top of that, internal messaging communicated an expectation of loyalty toward Uber above all else,” he continued. “Unlike drivers, I did not have to deal with constant in-app pop-ups asking me to commit myself to voting Yes on Prop 22. But if I as an engineer with considerable power, influence, and access to Uber leadership felt coerced into silence about Prop 22, how did drivers feel?”
See what others are saying: (Los Angeles Times) (Business Insider) (San Francisco Gate)
Manhattan City Council Candidate Says He’s “Not Ashamed” After BDSM Video Leaks Online
While many applauded the candidate’s response, others suspect the entire ordeal may have been manufactured for publicity.
BDSM Video Leaks
Zack Weiner, a 26-year-old candidate for Manhattan’s City Council, has caught a flood of attention in recent days after responding to a BDSM video of himself that leaked online.
According to the New York Post, which first reported on the leak Saturday, the video was published by an anonymous Twitter account earlier this month.
“My magnificent domme friend played with Upper West Side city council candidate Zack Weiner and I’m the only one who has the footage,” the tweet reportedly read.
The video was flagged to the Post by Weiner’s campaign manager, Joe Gallagher, the news outlet said. The tabloid also claimed it showed Weiner gagged while “subjecting himself to various abuses by a leather-bound woman who pours wax on him and clips his nipples with clothespins.”
The footage was filmed at Parthenon studio in Midtown, which the Post described as known for its high-quality BDSM dungeons, and Weiner actually confirmed the video’s authenticity to the outlet, saying it was filmed at that location in 2019 with a former girlfriend that he met during a Halloween party.
Weiner Says He’s “Not Ashamed”
Weiner took to Twitter on Saturday to address the private video head on.
“Whoops. I didn’t want anyone to see that, but here we are,” he wrote.
“I am not ashamed of the private video circulating of me on Twitter. This was a recreational activity that I did with my friend at the time, for fun. Like many young people, I have grown into a world where some of our most private moments have been documented online.”
“While a few loud voices on Twitter might chastise me for the video, most people see the video for what it is: a distraction. I trust that voters will choose a city council representative based on their policies and their ability to best serve the community,” he continued.
In his comments to the Post, he added, “I am a proud BDSMer. I like BDSM activity.” He also said he had no idea how the footage surfaced, saying “It’s definitely a violation of trust.”
Praise and Suspicions
Many people online have applauded Weiner for refusing to apologize for private consensual acts. One, for example, tweeted, “Yeah – as long as this was between 2 (or more) consenting adults – I don’t care one bit. If this info ALONE would cause you to vote for somebody else, then I am FAR MORE worried about YOUR participation in Government than his!”
In fact, many have said they would vote for him after learning of the video and slammed critics, as well as the tabloid, for “kink-shaming.”
It’s worth noting that the Post’s article described Weiner as someone who “has mostly been a nonentity in the race for the Upper West Side’s 6th District.” It pointed to the fact that he has no endorsements and that his campaign barely raised $10,000 — most of which allegedly came from himself and his campaign manager.
Because of this, along with Gallagher’s contact with the Post, some have speculated that the entire ordeal may have been some kind of stunt manufactured for publicity.
See what others are saying: (New York Post) (Insider) (HITC)
Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to Affordable Care Act
In the 7-2 decision, the justices argued the Republican-led states that brought the challenge forth failed to show how the law caused injury and thus had no legal standing.
SCOTUS Issues Opinion on Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the third Republican-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act to ever reach the high court.
The issue at hand was the provision of the law, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires people to either purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty: the so-called individual mandate.
The individual mandate has been one of the most controversial parts of Obamacare and it has already been before SCOTUS, which upheld the provision in 2012 on the grounds that it amounted to a tax and thus fell under Congress’ taxing power.
However, as part of the sweeping 2017 tax bill, the Republican-held Congress set the penalty for not having health care to $0. As a result, a group of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, arguing that because their GOP colleagues made the mandate zero dollars, it no longer raised revenues and could not be considered a tax, thus making it unconstitutional.
The states also argued that the individual mandate is such a key part of Obamacare that it could not be separated without getting rid of the entire law.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Majority Opinion Finds No Injury
In the majority decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Republican states had no grounds to sue because they could not show how they were harmed by their own colleagues zeroing out the penalty.
“There is no possible government action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injury — the costs of purchasing health insurance,” he wrote, adding that the states “have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo.”
Breyer also argued that because of this, the court did not need to decide on the broader issue of whether the 2017 tax bill rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional and if that provision could be separated from the ACA.
The highly anticipated decision will officially keep Obamacare as the law of the land, ensuring that the roughly 20 million people enrolled still have health insurance. While there may be other challenges to the law hard-fought by conservatives, this latest ruling sends a key signal about the limits of the Republican efforts to achieve their agenda through the high court, even with the strong conservative majority.
While the court has now struck down challenges to Obamacare three times, Thursday’s decision marked the largest margin of victory of all three challenges to the ACA.
For now, the ACA appears to be fairly insulated from legal challenges, though it will still likely face more. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) vowed to keep fighting Obamacare, adding that the individual mandate “was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press)
Utah Student With Down Syndrome Left Out of Cheer Squad’s Yearbook Photo
The move marks the second time in three years that Morgyn Arnold has been left out of the school’s yearbook. Two years ago, it failed to include her in the class list.
Two Photos Take, One Without Morgyn Arnold
A Utah school has apologized after a student with Down syndrome at Shoreline Junior High was excluded from her cheerleading squad’s yearbook photo.
The squad took two official team portraits this year. The first included 14-year-old Morgyn Arnold, who had been working as the team manager but attended practices and cheered alongside her other teammates at every home game. The second imsgr did not include her and ended up being the photo the school used across social media and in its yearbook.
Arnold was heartbroken by the decision and her family believed it was made because of her disability.
In social media posts about the move, Arnold’s sister, Jordyn Poll, noted that Arnold “spent hours learning dances, showing up to games, and cheering on her school and friends but was left out.”
“I hope that no one ever has to experience the heartbreak that comes when the person they love comes home from school devastated and shows them that they’re not in the picture with their team,” she continued.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Poll also said this marked the second time in three years that her sister has been left out of the yearbook. Two years ago, the school failed to include her in the class list.
School Apologizes After Backlash
After Poll’s public call out picked up attention, the school said it was “deeply saddened by the mistake.”
“Apologies have been made to the family, and we sincerely apologize to all others impacted by this error,” it added. “We are continuing to look at what has occurred, and to improve our practice.”
The district issued a similar statement, claiming it was looking into why this occurred to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But Poll said this isn’t the same response her family received when they initially contacted school administrators. Instead, Poll told the Tribune that an employee at the school “blatantly said they didn’t know what we were expecting of them and there was nothing they could do.”
The school has since contacted them again “to make the situation right.”
Meanwhile, Poll stressed that her sister’s teammates had nothing to do with the decision, defending the girls as amazing friends who have done everything to make Arnold feel included.
In fact, they too were disappointed to see that she was not featured in the image or even named as a member of the team in the yearbook.
Arnold’s family decided to speak up about the issue so that this school and others can improve the ways they interact with and include students with disabilities. Different forms of exclusion happen at schools across the country, and this story has prompted other parents of kids with disabilities to share similar experiences.
This kind of thing happens all the time. I can't count the number of times our son has been excluded, or nearly excluded, from events and pictures and related social activities in his 8 years of school. I know this fury.— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 16, 2021
A staff attorney at the Disability Law Center of Utah told the Tribune that it receives about 4,000 complaints each year. Some complaints stemmed from students with disabilities being separated into other classrooms without their peers. Others include name-calling or not allowing students on a team or in a club.
Thankfully, Arnold has not let this situation bring her down. According to her family, she has already forgiven everyone involved and plans to continue cheering alongside her friends.