Thread by @sashaperigo

@h_bash Okay, so I have two thoughts.

I want to address the "this harms the majority of drivers" statement, and then I also have a strong case for why you shouldn't vote for Prop 22 even if you *don't* like AB 5.

(1/n)

@h_bash The claim that the majority of drivers don't work the 30 hours a week needed to qualify for benefits and would therefore be uninterested in being classified as employees is misleading.

(2/n)

@h_bash The studies that say the majority of drivers don't drive 30 hours a week are calculating those numbers based on every driver who has ever driven a single ride. Many of these studies are also funded by the corporations bankrolling the proposition.

(3/n)

@h_bash A much more representative way of looking at this data is looking at the *work being done*. So on any given day, or month, what percent of the drivers who are driving drive at least 30 hours a week?

(4/n)

@h_bash An independent study commissioned by The Cityand completed by @chrisbenner and @jwjnational took this approach.

In SF, 71% of drivers drive the 30 hours a week needed to qualify for benefits. Half of drivers work > 40 hours!
transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/upl…

(5/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational This study is really fascinating, so I'm going to share some more of the findings:

✔️ 53% of drivers rely on their app work as their primary source of income

✔️ 52% have been working with their company for > 2 years (longer average tenure than software engineering!)

(6/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational ✔️ 33% of drivers support children on their wages

✔️ 32% reported sleeping in their cars before or after work

✔️ 28% are still accepting rides during COVID specifically because they need the $$

(7/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational So to restate, these are the demographics of the people who are driving for Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. on any given day.

It's clear from these statistics that these are absolutely full-time workers. In other words, these apps rely on full-time drivers every day.

(8/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational Say you're still not convinced, and you think AB 5 is bad for drivers.

I still don't think voting for Prop 22 is in your best interests, and here's why!

(9/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational Uber and Lyft are advertising Prop 22 as a straight repeal of AB 5, but that's completely inaccurate.

Prop 22 does a couple things. It exempts gig companies from AB 5, and it ties our legislators' hands even much weaker labor laws in this industry in the future.

(10/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational Prop 22 establishes a batshit, completely unprecedented 7/8ths voting threshold that legislators would have to meet in order to pass any labor law related to this industry.

This fucks over ALL Californians.

(11/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational The 7/8ths threshold is ANOTHER weird loophole that California legislators would have to work around in perpetuity to do their job.

(12/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational And the 7/8ths threshold doesn't just affect bills as far-reaching as AB 5.

Under this restriction, California couldn't pass a requirement that Uber and Lyft pay into unemployment insurance for their drivers. So taxpayers have to keep paying to subsidize the company!

(13/n)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational Whether you like AB 5 or not, Prop 22 is bad governance.

Prop 22 has received $181M in funding, more than any other CA ballot prop ever. If we pass it, we'll be signalling to companies that they can buy their way out of following the law, and that's a bad precedent!

(14/14)

@h_bash @chrisbenner @jwjnational Oh as an addendum, freelancer writers (🙋🏻‍♀️), musicians, coaches, and dozens of other industries that got caught in the crossfire are now exempt from AB 5:
sfchronicle.com/business/artic…