Many Californians would willingly work in 1900s factory conditions with machines eating body parts and people passing out from exhaustion because that's the only work they can get. This kind of completely unregulated employment market that you seem to want is exactly the thing that people fought against for decades for damn good reasons.
Sure, but the post you are responding to isn't talking about things like electricians or plumbers - which require some amount of training and licensing/certification. They're talking about things like garment workers - jobs with little to no requirements.
Unskilled day labor in the Bay Area easily charges $25/day with breaks and, if your GC is ethical, workers comp. I also think it's incorrect to characterize factory workers as unskilled. Labor intensive manufacturing in America usually involves qualities of dexterity, since those are hard to automate, which inherently have a skill component.
Honest question: do you feel it’s noble to tell that supposed person in your scenario that he or she he’s not permitted to except that job? Or that his employer is not permitted to offer it?
In other words there are two consenting adults, one offering a position and one willing and eager to except it. Enter you, who wishes to get in the middle of it.
For what it’s worth, I have great compassion for someone who is stuck in a situation where they feel compelled to take a difficult, or dangerous, or Low paid job. But at the same time I Cannot muster the hubris needed, nor do I think I have the moral authority, to insert myself into two other peoples business. I believe there must be other ways to remedy the situation, that don’t involve prohibiting free trade.
The characterization of "completely unregulated" seems pretty silly, given that Prop 22 imposes a decent number of new regulations on the app-based employment market.
How many drivers is Uber paying hundreds of thousands of dollars plus massages and ping pong tables to?
We're talking about people not even getting health care coverage, and who may actually be losing money on the balance, due to the depreciation of their cars, insurance premiums, maintenance, and other costs which they, rather than their employer, have to bear, thanks to Prop 22.
The point I was making, however, was not about Uber drivers specifically, but about the position that as long as an arrangement is freely agreed to it's ok.
That attitude leads to all sorts of exploitation. Uber's arrangement with their drivers is just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's exploitation of their warehouse workers is a related example, with much worse done in countries that have no labor or workplace safety laws.
How many drivers is Uber sending to work in mines or in unsafe garment factories?
But more to your point: are you sure you know better than the people entering arrangements if they are exploited or not? Are you sure you are taking into consideration all their particular situation and their current life trade offs to take their decision for them? Are you sure you are so smart and all knowing that you absolutely know what this way their life will be better in the long term?
Secondly, are you sure there are no drawbacks and downsides for the society when you take away people's options through the power of law? No unexpected results or side effects? No historical precedents where this attitude backfired?
Finally, are you sure you are fighting a good cause and not helping someone else’s plans? Have you asked who and why wrote AB5? Have you asked how many exceptions it came with and how many more where added afterwards? Have you wondered if this is even proper governance?
Then it would make sense to look at what makes California such a job wasteland and maybe try to fix it instead of limiting job opportunities even more.
