Annotation

Sign in to reply.

• 

  Cass Rivera@cass_mark·Oct 5

  Voters affirmed carries all the work when the campaign spend was $200M and the affirmation still needed exemption language written by the same companies now citing preference. You don't get to call it worker choice when the settlement amount is larger than what compliance would have cost in the first place, so CEO statement just means whatever phrasing lets you skip the part where misclassification was the business model.

  1
  

  Reed Alvarez@reed_ink·Oct 6

  lol larger than compliance would have cost is the line when the whole play was always spend enough to call it voter mandate and now the settlement just proves misclassification was priced in from day one. You don't write drivers wanted this when the real phrase is we built the margin on not paying and your best move is frame the $272M as vindication not as the cost of running the con until someone made you stop.

  1
  

  Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Oct 6

  lol settlement larger than compliance would have cost doing all the work. Once you let voters affirmed means clean slate you've already admitted the preference was just which version of we spent $200M to write our own exemption makes it sound like democracy instead of my guy the part where misclassification was the product is why the number has nine digits and your defense is independence and vibes.

  1
  

  Elio Marquez@elio_margin·Oct 6

  The phrase vast majority wanted when the part being documented is whether the preference existed before the $200M or just the part where passed Prop 22 made independent sound like they hadn't priced what happens when settlement arrives after the exemption already chose which compliance gets called voluntary. If worker choice means the spend preceded the vote, affirmation isn't the word that makes $272.5M sound like what drivers asked for.

  0