Comment on Colorado’s governor vetoes landmark ban on rent-setting algorithms
MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 10 months agoCO resident here:
Polis didn’t veto the bill because he wanted to have rent raised in Colorado, he vetoed the bill because what it was making illegal is already illegal here. Passing this new law would have done nothing except increase the number of laws on the books. Over the last few years Polis has made it a priority to remove superfluous laws from the books.
If this is causing Democrats to lose support, it’s not because of the policy, it’s because of the headline-only-reactions and refusal of so many voters to actually think about what it is they’re presented with
So a law already exists, but it clearly isn’t being enforced, so they passed a new one with teeth. But this DINO wants the old, weak law to supercede the new, useful law, and the corp that it was meant to stop congratulates him.
When people say both sides are the same, this is what they mean.
Democrats have always been like that so DINO doesn’t make sense. Progressive is the only label that aligns with good politics these days
And when Polis vetoed a act that would have removed a superfluous block on unionization, did that also help make the law all smooth and happy?
There’s enough nuance to that veto I disagree on that being superfluous a law existing on the books. It takes 50% of employees to vote in favor of forming a union. That part was not going to change under that bill. The repeal (and it’s subsequent veto) was entirely on the vote threshold to allow a union to charge all employees union dues regardless of membership status.
Now there’s is an argument that the law indirectly disincentives unions since in combination with another law unions in CO must act on behalf of all employees, regardless of membership status, so a union must do more work on less money since 50% of employees are needed to create a union for 100% of employees, but 75% of employees are needed to force all 100% of employees to pay for that extra representation. Most people if given the opportunity will act selfishly and won’t join the union and still reap the benefits. In that event, it’s pretty likely a union wouldn’t have the funds to perform necessary negotiations and representation ultimately leading the union to fail.
But that’s a set of laws and human behavior acting in concert, not a single law that on its own is entirely captured by another.
That law doesn’t strike you as messy, anti-union, and convoluted? As opposed to merely having the union gain that power when the employees vote to unionize? Are we afraid that without that law, we’ll see the return of the 1930s unions that fought guerilla wars in southern Colorado to take over company towns?
I mean, in this case wasn’t it clear it was the headline that was wrong?
Had the bill passed nothing would have changed in Colorado. The bill was simply virtue signalling and grandstanding, taking no real action to the very real problem of rental prices in Colorado.
My criticism of the original comment is that this is not an instance of Democratic policy that is making people distance themselves from the party. If a person does distance themself from the party over an action like this, they did it because of the headline and how that headline made them feel in the moment
The national lawsuit against RealPage was filed in January. It may be years before that lawsuit resolves and there’s no guarantee that RealPage will be found liable. In the meantime, “anticompetitive pricing costs renters in algorithm-utilizing buildings an average of $70 a month”. Does that not warrant prompt action even if it might merely help millions of people on a 2-year timeframe?
Yup, if it doesn’t make people upset they don’t share it and ads don’t get viewed.
orcrist@lemm.ee 10 months ago
If it already existed, and actually worked, a second law would change nothing … No reason to veto … So your analysis must be wrong. Sorry!