California – Minh Quang Duong

life

Approved progressive measures on ballots that folks should know more about

November 4, 2020by MQDuong1 Comment

I don’t think there is anything else in the world that has captured our attention today and yesterday more than the Presidential race. Not the Senate races. Not the House of Representatives races. Not even Covid. Everything else has to take a backseat, but there are measures or propositions on the ballots that I personally support and think should be called out more. I hope you will find them helpful.

Florida voters approved a significant raise in the minimum wage.

I am not a huge fan of Florida, but this move is awesome! Florida voters approved the raise of the minimum wage from $8.56 per hour to $15 per hour from now till at least 2026. For every working individual, that’s double what they are getting paid now. Imagine the relief that these hard-working people and their family will have from this measure. Critics of this measure would tell you that it’s hurting their business and keeping the wages low would stimulate business and the trickle down economics. Have you ever known the trickle down economics work before? Me neither! If business owners can retain more profits at the expense of employees, there is no way that they will let it go. That’s not in the human nature. The only way to improve the livelihood of workers is to make the minimum wage high enough. Is $15 per hour sufficient? I don’t know. But it sure is a hell lot better than $8.56/hour.

The City of Portland in Maine banned the use of facial recognition, imposed a rent control and raised the minimum wage

The City of Portland in Maine also lifted the minimum wage to $15/hour, but it also did two other things: ban the use of facial surveillance technology and impose more rental protections for renters. In addition to limiting an annual increase in rent to the rate of inflation, the measure also mandates the creation of an oversight body that handles rental disputes and shortens the length of unofficial leases. All of these are legislations truly by and for citizens. It’s not uncommon to hear about renter abuses by landlords. If you read any rental agreements, the clauses embedded in those agreements aren’t particularly in the best interest of renters. Although it likely won’t solve all potential issues, the new approved measure is a step in the right direction and tips the scale a bit more in favor of renters.

Paid and Medical Leave in Colorado

It’s still mind-blowing to me that paid and medical leave isn’t universal in America. But the state of Colorado took a step in the right direction by approving the measure that requires companies to pay workers 12 paid weeks for childbirth and family emergencies which include medical occasions. There is not much else to elaborate on this. I’ll just let State Senator Faith Winter take it from here:

I am happy for the workers of Colorado. The new law will ensure that mothers don’t have to return to work mere days after giving birth, she said, and that cancer patients can take time to heal.
Source: CPR

Data privacy expansion and voting rights restoration for folks on parole in California

California’s voters approved a proposition called Prop 24 built on the California Consumer Privacy Act. The proposition will allow consumers an ability to limit how businesses can use their data such as race, location and health information. There will also be a new body that oversees the adoption of the law and the new proposition. In my opinion, our privacy is our right. Companies such as Internet Service Providers shouldn’t be able to exploit our own data and sell it to advertisers without our consent. Sadly, that’s what is happening across the country. Along with other egregious violations of our privacy. Hence, I do think this is a good proposition to have in effect.

Another approved proposition is the restoration of voting rights for folks on parole. Called Proposition 17, it gives people back the rights to vote after they serve their sentences. I mean, everyone makes mistakes. Just because there is a stain in a person’s record should rid you of one of his or her basic human rights, especially in a democracy. It baffles me so much that there are many states in the country where folks are deprived of their voting rights simply because they made a mistake in the past. Well, the way to integrate them back into a society is firstly to let them be a human, with human rights. It’s reported that the proposition will help 50,000 Californians have their voting rights back. 50,000!

Find other ballot measures here

Business

Likely competition for Uber/Lyft in California. Grocery delivery is growing. Apple’s response to Epic’s lawsuit

August 23, 2020by MQDuongLeave a Comment

Potential competition for Uber/Lyft in California

The two poster children of ride hailing companies in the US, Uber and Lyft, are having a legal fight with the state of California. The outcome of that battle remains to be seen, but if they lose, the companies already threatened to leave the state. Meanwhile, CNBC reported that at least 2-3 ride hailing startups talked about potentially swooping in to replace Uber and Lyft if they depart. One of those startups that I found interesting is Alto. Alto is a ride hailing startup that mainly operates in Dallas and Fort Worth. What differentiates Alto from their two bigger peers is that Alto’s drivers are salaried employees with benefits. Also, drivers don’t have to worry about gas or maintenance costs. Here is what their recruitment page says

Some critics of AB5, the law that can potentially cause Uber/Lyft to leave California, say that the law is flawed in that it kills the flexible schedule that drivers, classified as contractors, enjoy. That is a valid point. Some do prioritize a flexible schedule over everything else. I have seen myself several drivers who just drive on the weekends to get some more money on this side gig. These drivers likely wouldn’t appreciate entering an employment contract that would likely require them to work more than they want. Clearly, in this case, AB5 likely won’t work.

That; however, doesn’t change the fact that Uber and Lyft’s refusal to classify drivers as employees can put drivers as disadvantage. Some drivers put in a lot of working hours, but do not earn enough after they take into account gas, car maintenance expenses and dead miles (hours when they drive around without any rides). Because they are not employees, they don’t have benefits like paid time off or insurance either.

There are two separate camps in this argument with virtually conflicting interests. Whether AB5 alone is a sufficient fix remains to be seen, but the existence of companies like Alto and its willingness to enter California’s market offer proof that there is an alternative model to what Uber and Lyft stand for.

Online grocery continues to grow amid the pandemic

Since March, Covid-19 has pushed online grocery to new heights that few could have predicted. According to Brickmeetsclick, even though growth has plateaued in June, online grocery sales reached $7.2 billion and an incredible 85 million orders.

Recent market developments suggest that the trend is likely to continue in the upcoming months. Shipt announced the drop of membership requirements and instead let customers pay $10 for a single order, $9 per delivery for 3 orders and $8 for 5 orders. Additionally, Walmart and Instacart recently partnered to provide same-day delivery in four markets across California and Oklahoma. Last Thursday, DoorDash entered the grocery delivery market with DashPass, a $10/month subscription which allows customers to order and receive groceries in about an hour. Last month, Uber joined the party with their own grocery delivery option through the main Uber and Uber Eats apps. Moreover, FreshDirect unveiled its expansion into New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

Grocers and delivery services are working in tandem to facilitate more online grocery spend. Grocers let customers receive orders at their front door, pick up and drive up at stores. Delivery services lower barriers and compete with one another to acquire users. In the near future, this battle will be very fierce and the biggest beneficiary will be the end consumers.

Apple’s legal issues with Epic Games

Apple responded to Epic Games’ lawsuit over the App Store policies. In the response, Apple offered reasons why the court should let Apple continue to ban Epic Games’ apps while the legal battle rumbles on, including:

Epic’s alleged harm is not irreparable. Epic’s apps will be reinstated on the App Store if the game maker removes its own payment option, the cause of its violation of the terms of services, and adheres to the guidelines that Epic agreed to from day one.
Epic’s alleged harm is its own doing. The game maker first asked Apple for a special treatment by creating an Epic Store inside the App Store. Then, it asked Apple to open up the App Store by allowing more payment options. After the requests were declined, Epic Games decided to circumvent the App Store policies by offering its own payment scheme, suing Apple and launching a coordinated PR attack.
Apple does not engage in anti-competition practices and the App Store policies are to make sure that 1/ consumers’ privacy and safety are protected and 2/ Apple gets paid for its investments

The legal document is here and if you’re interested in this kind of stuff, you should have a read.

Personally, I don’t think Epic will win this legal battle. The App Store is Apple’s investment and intellectual property. Hence, Apple is entitled to enforcing the policies on the app marketplace, the same policies that Epic Games has agreed to when it launched its apps on the App Store. Whether Apple is wielding too much power is another matter for discussion, but if you created a marketplace and invests a lot of resources into it, it’s pretty difficult to understand the sentiment that you’re not allowed to benefit from your own investments or to enact and enforce policies that you see fit.

Plus, what happened, based on the emails exchanged between Apple and Epic, seems pretty distasteful and bully-like from the latter. On 6/30/2020, Tim Sweeney wrote to Apple the following, which is part of a longer email. His requests were rejected by Apple on 7/10/2020:

On 8/13/2020, Epic wrote to Apple, declaring its intention not to follow the App Store guidelines and to take legal actions if Apple retaliated. Apple subsequently wrote to Epic twice, informing the app maker of its violations and asking it to remedy the situation. Epic Games instead sued Apple for enforcing rules on…Apple’s own app marketplace.

Since I am not a lawyer, I’ll leave the argument on legal standings to the court and the lawyers from both sides, but from a common sense perspective, I don’t see a chance for Epic here. Hey app from Basecamp had trouble with Apple before. Instead of raising a legal fuzz, Basecamp raised the issue publicly on Twitter and engaged in discussions with Apple to resolve conflicts, which it did. And Hey didn’t even demand to have its way in the App Store like Epic Games did. That’s the way to do it, not the course of actions and manner that Epic Games pursued here.

This legal battle will leave Epic’s reputation tainted while also not doing Apple’s any favor.

Business

AB5 threatens the existence of gig companies like Uber & Lyft

September 1, 2019by MQDuongLeave a Comment

Yesterday, Gizmodo reported that AB5, a bill that is aimed to force gig companies to treat their workers as employees instead of independent contractors as they are now, passed California’s Senate Appropriations Committee and will go to a full vote in the Senate next month. If passed, it is expected to be signed into law by the Governor.

AB5 stems from a decision by a California Supreme Court decision in 2018, which essentially decrees that “Workers must be treated as employees, not independent contractors, if their jobs are central to a company’s core business or if the bosses direct the way the work is done.”, according to LA Times. According to the ruling, ride-hailing businesses cannot exist without drivers and drivers have to follow certain standards to be able to operate on their platforms. Hence, they should be treated as employees.

Ride-sharing companies exist as middlemen between riders and drivers, managing the supply of drivers and demand for rides. Drivers no longer have to drive around to pick up riders. Surge pricing gives drivers incentives to go out at unpopular hours like early in the morning. The argument that these companies make against AB5 is that drivers have flexibility to choose when and where to work, and as a result, shouldn’t be classified as employees. Well, even as employees, drivers can surely negotiate with Uber or Lyft that right. One of my colleagues moved from Omaha to Austin to work remotely so that she can be with her husband. What is at stake here is the bottom lines.

Gig companies like Uber or Lyft haven’t made any money despite treating their workers as independent contractors. If the proposal is signed into law, it will mean higher operational costs as these companies will need to pay minimum wages and be responsible for other benefits to their employees. Any chance of profitability will become even slimmer.

To be fair to Uber and Lyft, what they have done so far is perfectly legal as up to now there is no law that regulates the industry. They just take advantage of the situation and the bargaining power that they have over drivers. On the driver side, each cannot fight with these companies. They need lawmakers.

Regarding lawmakers, they have reasons to help both drivers and ride-sharing companies, especially in the US. Regulators that are more concerned about the well-being of drivers, their constituents as well, will support proposals such as AB5. Those who are more concerned about the power of lobbyists and about staying in power will fight against AB5. Since California is a progressive state, there seems to be more proponents than opponents of AB5. I am not sure the same can be said in other less progressive states or the federal administration.

Neither am I sure that collectively laws such as AB5 will benefit our society, but personally I am for it. Drivers should be protected against the abuse of these gig companies. Eventually, it has been proven that there is demand for services such as Uber or Lyft. I am confident there will be startups wanting to tap into the demand. As for Uber or Lyft, they will either adapt and innovate to survive and thrive or fall into the category of “thanks for being the trailblazers, but perhaps your time is up” companies.

Business, life, Optimism

California’s attempt to increase diversity in the boardroom

September 2, 2018by MQDuongLeave a Comment

California may reportedly be the first state in the country that requires a publicly listed company to have female members in its Board of Directors to a certain extent. The bill, if passed, is aimed to improve the gender diversity as women are absent at the board level of 25% of the public traded companies. While the move may have a good intention, I doubt that it’s necessary.

Gender equality has received a tsunami of attention in the past couple of years with the #Metoo and feminism movements. Speaking of businesses alone, we have a lot of female leaders in various industries nowadays such as Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg, Indra Nooyi, Diane Greene, Stephanie McMahon, Dhivya Suryadevara – the new 39-year-old CFO of GM or the first ever black female CEO of BP, stationed in South Africa, – Priscillah Mabelane, just to name a few. Then we have Angela Merkel or Michelle Obama in politics, Serena Williams in sports or Miley Cyrus and Alicia Keys in entertainment, just a few examples. The best way to ensure the gender equality, in my opinion, is to treat each gender equally, keep the narrative going to avoid complacency and return to the status quo, and encourage girls or female professionals that they can achieve the same as their male counterparts without the relying on social pressure. Those wonderful female leaders, among so many others around the world, should give them hope and inspiration.

The bill by California’s government may create backlash as companies may argue that a female candidate is only chosen over a male peer simply to avoid a regulatory fine. In reality, an appointment decision varies from one case to another. Nonetheless, the bill, if passed, may unnecessarily leave a taint on a female’s appointment.

The gender scale should be balanced, on its own. Sure, it has been tipped to one side for far too long (I personally benefited from the inequality), but it’s a good thing that things are naturally heading towards equilibrium. Forcefully tipping the scale to the other side in the name of equality may not be any different from the male dominance in the past. In other words, how would a female professional feel if she was hired only because of the law and not because of her qualifications? Personally, I believe that fairness trumps unnecessary partiality.

Females are more empowered than ever. Unfortunately, there are still industries and companies with gender inequality, but the tide will go against them soon. I believe that those companies will soon realize that they cannot afford the inequality anymore and that gender equality is for their own good.