That is absolutely not true. At least I know for a fact that it's not true for interpreters and translators, who are the people I work with. But it's also not true in other industries that hire contractors. There are plenty of jobs available for the most common languages, but most prefer to work as contractors because they make more money and can work flexible hours. And for the less common languages, it is really unrealistic for a contractor to expect to be hired. Most interpreters for exotic languages do other things and supplement their income with interpreting when they find work, and they can charge good money because there are not many of them. For example, an independent contractor who speaks a rare Mayan language can ask over $1000.00 for one morning, because it's so hard to find them. But they will work maybe once a month, at the most, because the demand is not there. It is a travesty that legislators refused to exclude linguists from the law. They did so under pressure from the labor unions, and yet even the union reps in the interpreter union (CFI) will concede that it is ridiculous, I am in friendly terms with the union rep at the court and she strongly agrees on this, but she told me that they can't be vocal against it because the parent unions that are over them (who know very little about the industry) strongly support the bill. I am speaking from personal experience, but I can give you some links that go beyond what I can personally tell you. This talks about interpreters and translators mobilizing against AB5. https://www.gazettes.com/news/gover...cle_9b555232-88d9-11ea-bafc-cb422e9f0a75.html This from ATA, the largest national association of Interpreters and translators. https://www.atanet.org/pressroom/statement_ATA_position_on_California_AB5.pdf https://www.ata-divisions.org/PLD/i...g-translators-and-interpreters-in-california/ https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/515069206/translators-and-interpreters-unite-to-demand-ab5-exemption https://slator.com/industry-news/ca...ers-scramble-to-contain-damage-caused-by-ab5/ Sign language interpreters are also being negatively impacted by AB5, adversely affecting the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion...ters-are-among-ab-5s-many-california-victims/
I was a contractor over at FB and it was every contractors desire to turn into a FTE (which I am now at another company). I agree that there's a lot of contractor abuse going on, and in Cali it's basically a way for companies like Facebook and Google to pawn off work on lower wage workers, and have more flexibility in dumping workforce whenever they feel like - and they get around contractor protection by calling them Vendors (like a cleaning service, except you do Data Analytics and Software Engineering). But the law was WAY WAY too wide brushed. It's going to hammer too many people that were never intended harm.
It took some time, but it looks like finally some common sense prevailed in the legislature, at least when it comes to linguists. https://slator.com/industry-news/ca...eters-win-exemption-from-gig-worker-bill-ab5/ Many interpreters and translators I work with are breathing a sigh of relief.
As I said ... New poll finds shaky support for Proposition 16 to restore affirmative action in California https://www.latimes.com/california/...a-proposition-16-ppic-affirmative-action-poll https://archive.is/xvweq
My default on California propositions is to vote no because I feel like it's a bad vehicle for creating law. I haven't really looked at this year's slate of props. Anything that you all feel passionately about should be a "yes" ?
If I were going to pick one that I really wanted to pass, it would be Proposition 15. It's a start at undoing Proposition 13 which has screwed over the state budget for more than forty years. I expect to vote for propositions 16, 17, 18 and 22, but don't feel as strongly about those. I expect to vote against propositions 19, 20 and 23. If I were to pick one that I really wanted to fail, it would probably be proposition 20. I haven't done my homework or care strongly about the rest.
I went through my sample ballot today, and I've got my choices for everything except: Proposition 21 Proposition 23 Proposition 24 https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions What is BigSoccer's view?
I haven't done my homework on Props 21 or 24 yet. But here's my thinking on 23. If you go back to page 13 to find the discussion about the propositions in the November 2018 election, you'll find this gem: Proposition 8 failed two years ago. Proposition 23 is basically the same thing. A labor union is still trying to unionize workers at dialysis clinics, and the dialysis companies are fighting the unions. The regulations are different this time (still unrelated to unionization), but the play is the same - accept unions or we'll make it more expensive for you to do business. My first thought is, we still don't need to have a statewide vote on this issue. If the industry and unions can't work out their shit through normal channels, they should go on Judge Judy or something, not make voters study up on their pet issue to decide. And normally I'm a big fan of unions and sticking it to the big companies, but making us vote on this is not how to gain my support. Second, the Ballotpedia link has a number of newspaper editorials, from the conservative Orange County Register to the slightly less conservative Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, and their points are that these demands for reform are not coming from patients or the insurance companies, they're coming from the unions. Patients haven't said boo about this. I imagine that it's not awesome being a patient who needs dialysis on a regular basis, but in theory there's a free market for health care and a choice of dialysis clinics to choose from, likely ranging from the moderately awful to the truly awful - I know that when my dad broke his hip a couple of years ago and had to spend a month in a rehab facility, there weren't any great options to choose from, just options that ranged from crappy to crappier - and your insurance will choose for you which one you can afford. The insurance companies also aren't weighing in on this - if there were runaway costs at the existing clinics and reform was needed, the insurance companies would be there to help themselves save money, but they're staying out of this. So I'm voting no. It's an abuse of the proposition system for industries to try to get the people to vote on stuff that doesn't affect them. Other industries have done it in the past - we've had many insurance industry specific propositions, and everyone's favorite, the ones that defined how much space chickens need on their farms, but the way to stop industries from doing this is to vote their crap down.
No, No, Maybe. While rent control works great for people who live in a community when it is implemented and decreases turnover, most studies I’ve seen indicate it increases the rent new residents have to pay as property owners try to offset costs. So it could be a good mechanism for preventing gentrification, but it is a short term gain. For the areas in California that are struggling with housing prices, there are much better ways to lower housing prices, the biggest being eliminating or reducing single family housing zones and eliminating or significantly raising height restrictions. Smurfquake already covered the dialysis prop.. The union is using CA’s proposition system to try and bully dialysis companies into allowing unions. On that count alone, it should be voted against. For the Privacy Prop, giving people control over their own information is a good thing, but I’d have to do actial research to find out what CA is doing. The EU’s privacy laws seem to be pretty good from what I’ve seen and if CA’s law is modeled after the EU law that could be a good thing
For the rent control one, my instinct is "no" - housing in California is messed up, but rent control or the lack thereof is not the root cause. The root cause is people who have houses who don't want more bigger houses or more dense housing in their neighborhoods.
So, here's an update ... Proposition 21 - leaning no Proposition 23 - leaning no Proposition 24 - no idea My reasoning: Proposition 21 - I tend to be a rent control skeptic. It's a bandaid policy for real affordable housing problems. Proposition 23 - I don't think this should be on the ballot as a proposition. So I should vote no. Proposition 24 - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sometimes bandaids are just what you need, seeing as my first aid kit is half-full of them. The problem is it's too late - housing prices are going down. And that's not a temporary thing. So it's not going to have any sort of impact for the foreseeable future.
I think I will vote YES on Proposition 24. That's my thinking after reading this article: The Fight Over the Fight Over California’s Privacy Future - Wired Magazine https://www.wired.com/story/california-prop-24-fight-over-privacy-future/ California voters should read the article. It's not a slam dunk either way. But the article does a good job laying things out.
Then again on 24, there's this: Why EFF Doesn’t Support California Proposition 24 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24 Maybe I'll just leave it blank.
OK, here's the answer key, or at least how my wife and I are voting this time. Prop 14 - stem cell bond measure - YES. Prop 15 - remove Prop 13 property tax protection for industrial and commercial property - YES. Prop 16 - re-establish affirmative action - YES Prop 17 - let people on parole vote - YES Prop 18 - let 17 year olds vote in primaries if they will turn 18 by the general election - YES Prop 19 - let certain homeowners transfer property tax basis to a more expensive home - NO Prop 20 - reclassify certain crimes as "violent" so people can't be paroled - NO Prop 21 - remove statewide limitations on rent control - NO Prop 22 - ensures most Uber drivers are independent contractors - NO Prop 23 - regulation of kidney dialysis clinics - NO Prop 24 - internet data privacy law update - YES Prop 25 - end money bail system - YES Open for discussion, but can't change my votes at this point, so go ahead and tell me where I screwed up.
I might change my mind on prop 24 if somebody can explain to me in one simple paragraph how exactly it works and how it's going to improve our privacy. I'm strongly in favor of better privacy laws, but I tried to make sense of this proposition and I still have no idea what it's trying to do, let alone how.