Hacker News Reader

Comment by jvanderbot | Hacker News Reader

The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own.

Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.

View on HN

And you will be asked to vote on the kidney dialysis thing again and again. It's already been on the ballot 3-4 times. The voting public doesn't care for it and it's been soundly defeated each time.

I'm not really sure who's bankrolling it.

Labor unions seem to put that kidney dialysis measure on the ballot for every election, then they are outspent by more than 100-to-1 by the kidney dialysis companies on TV ads, and the measures never pass.

Money wins, and the unions could spend more but they don't in this case.

I don't see any of the propaganda on this either way. Based purely on what I read on the ballot and in the state issued supplementary booklet (I forget what it's actually titled) I did not read any compelling argument to vote for this.

Remember, unions are fundamentally limited to a warchest of some fraction of their memberships pooled income, while companies are propped up by investors YOLO'ing.

Unions by defintion have to focus on doing more outreach in ways that don't translate to throwing money at a problem and making it go away. Capital wielders will always have the advantage in that department.

So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing.

It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it.

Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight for something like that with the only real goal to boost their profits well another special interest fights against it to save theirs.

Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process.

> hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process

Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.

So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate

Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.

> It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it.

All because the (licensed) employees wanted safer conditions for their patients?

Something I find suspect is how spending hundreds of millions is profitable unless you're raking in many times that amount per year.

I suspect they're guarding massive profits as opposed to advocating for patient access and choice

it's a good point. From my understanding it was the difference between having a business and not having a business.

So, more a fight for survival than a fight for just profitability.

Though my memory is fuzzy… We were talking about this over Thanksgiving dinner after several drinks and haven't discussed it since

I am so tired of the kidney dialysis centers voting. I think I vote on one every time I've voted for at least 4-5 years

Reply on news.ycombinator.com