[conspire] Ballot Analysis and the 7/8 Clause

[paulz at ieee.org]

 Thank you Rick for your efforts.  
I looked at RM's references.  On almost every issue the SMCdems and SMCreps had the opposite view.  The one exception was 24, regarding consumer privacy, they both recommend no.  Meanwhile, Rick is voting yes.  Hum, how might Rick know more about computers and privacy than our political "experts"?
I'm voting yes.
Regarding 22 and the 7/8 clause.  If this passes, sometime in the future Uber will itself will likely want some change.  Even the US Constitution has a less stringent restriction on amendments.  
    On Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 01:05:11 AM PDT, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:  
 
 Quoting Paul Zander (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 the room, and each sees independent contractors as a threat to
> its interest.
> 
> 1. There are people concerned about tax collection. They believe that
> individuals can not be 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 to maintain its fiefdom. If people are independent
> contractors, then EDD 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 that people who are independent contractors
> will be almost impossible to get to join a union.

Yes, quite.  Although it's more than a stretch to imagine California EDD 
as a mover and shaker in statewide electoral politics.  (In my former
profession as a staff accountant, I had a fair amount to do with them,
and, man, they are nowheresville in state power politics, which is as 
things should be.)


Heh, through utterly meaningless but nonetheless compelling serendipity, 
I just got through including the phrase "elephant in the room" in my
revised "RM partisan analysis" comments about Prop. 22.  (I'm now
calling the page "completed" a second time, having finally slogged
through the information resources I marshalled for readers'
delectation.)

For the masochistic^W interested, these ones have substantively new or
expanded comments:

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/election-2020-11-03.html#prop14
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/election-2020-11-03.html#prop15
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/election-2020-11-03.html#prop16
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/election-2020-11-03.html#prop17
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/election-2020-11-03.html#prop22

The only eyebrow-raiser in my additions that semi-competes with the 
earlier "7/8 Clause" revelation (about Prop. 22) is that Prop. 14 (the
stem-cell one) has one _like_ that but not quite as ballsy -- a
supermajority of 70% in both Legislature houses declared required for
any subsequent revision to California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine's funding.  Oh, and I supplement that with mentioning that
CIRM's Board of Directors has, over the past 15+ years, given money
grants in conflict of personal interest more frequently than not.

And, well, screw all of _that_, too.


Anyway, I'm finally making out my _own_ ballot, to be hand-delivered to
San Mateo County Elections Office tomorrow (Wednesday).

-- 
Cheers,                          "2020 is pulling out more plot devices than 
Rick Moen                        a TV series on the brink of being canceled."
rick at linuxmafia.com                          (Seen on Reddit, Oct. 2, 2020.)
McQ! (4x80)

_______________________________________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20201028/0039bfec/attachment.html>