[conspire] Ballot Analysis and the 7/8 Clause

[paulz at ieee.org]

 Part of the problem with #22 and the discussion of independentcontractors in general, is there are at least 3 elephants in theroom, and each sees independent contractors as a threat to it’sinterest.
1. There are peopleconcerned about tax collection. They believe that individuals can notbe trusted to report their income and make the estimated payments.  They think it is necessary to have employers who send the tax moneys to the government so people are forced to file a return to get a refund of their money.
2. EDD wants tomaintain its fiefdom. If people are independent contractors, thenEDD doesn’t get a piece of the action.  (As I said in a previous email, an independent contractor needs to get a higher rate than an employee to cover many things including what to live on while finding the next gig.

3. Unions organizers know thatpeople who are independent contractors will be almost impossible toget to join a union.


    On Tuesday, October 27, 2020, 03:13:12 PM PDT, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:  
 
 Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

> I had not seen the 7/8 extra super majority clause.  That is enough to
> raise the hair on the back of my neck.

Quite.  And here, I must give public kudos to the SF Chronicle editorial
writers.  Whoever that was, he/she/they wrote with integrity and
diligence, calling out the 7/8 clause as a serious flaw even while
encouraging Chronicle readers to vote for Prop. 22 anyway.

That's impressive.  I noticed, and I admire it.

I notice, by contrast, that the [Santa Rosa] Press Democrat editorial,
which _also_ urged Yes on 22, said exactly zero about the 7/8 clause.

I just took a moment to cross-check the _other_ Yes on 22 editorials, to
see if they covered the 7/8 clause:

o  San Diego Union-Tribune:  said nothing
o  Palo Alto Daily Post:  said nothing

In my opinion, that omission (for them and the Press Democrat) is
damning.  It means the editorial writer either didn't notice this
affront to the public (probable) or saw fit not to mention it (less
likely, and a cynical guess).  I'm disappointed in Palo Alto Daily Post,
Editor Dave Price is generally top-notch, but this one got past him.

I mentioned that I tend to put a lot of stock in Pete Stahl's analysis
(at peterates.com).  He urged No on 22, _but_ didn't mention the 7/8 
clause.  Maybe Pete read just enough about 22 to urge no, and then
stopped.  That's basically what I did, after all.  I had no idea there
was a _more_ damning reason to vote 'no' other than my 'Uber et alii are
scofflaws' one, until I read SF Chronicle's 'yes on 22' editorial.

So, hey, another entry for the 2020 Is Weird bingo card:  Today's the
day I'm grateful to the San Francisco Chronicle for its competence,
diligence, and integrity.  Who knew?


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20201028/519f7f49/attachment-0001.html>