Thread by @adamconover

Vote #NoOnProp22, not just because it takes essential rights away from workers who need them, but because it would send a message to every corporation in the country that they can just buy their way out of following the law. (thread)

Uber, Lyft and DoorDash started their $200 million dollar proposition fund before AB5 was even passed, in an effort to threaten the legislature to cut them a sweetheart deal. When legislators stood their ground, they said they "spend what it takes to win."

The Yes on Prop 22 campaign is now spending $200 million dollars ramming deceptive advertising down Californians' throats. For instance, they claim that Prop 22 will guarantee that drivers make minimum wage, when the opposite is true.

https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1316483377311019011

They also trumpet endorsements from MADD; what they don't tell you is that Uber is one of MADD's biggest donors, and has a history of making large donations to the group in exchange for positive coverage from the non-profit. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…

The fact is that Prop 22 is a simple story: 3 massive companies don't like a state law, so they're spending $200 million to buy their way out of it. If we let it happen, every industry from fossil fuels to gambling will have a green light to do the same. We must vote #NoOnProp22

And before I forget: P22 requires that any future attempt to amend it receive a 7/8ths majority, effectively making this special handout to Uber & Lyft IRREVOCABLE. This is anti-democratic in the deepest sense: it means that only Uber, not voters, can determine what our laws are.

Under current CA law, gig workers have the right to:

* unemployment insurance
* overtime
* sick leave
* workplace discrimination protection
* the right to collectively bargain

Proposition 22 *REMOVES* all of these rights, and replaces them with nothing.
theweek.com/articles/94279…

Another piece of misinfo: Uber & Lyft's ads imply that unless Prop 22 passes, they will have to give all drivers regular, 9-5 hours. Untrue: Nothing in existing CA law would prevent them from continuing to offer flexible, on-demand hours. This is a completely false threat.