Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 3, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
F
elicity
Huffman,
who
plays
Lynette
in
“Desperate
Housewives,”
was
sentenced
in
early
September
for
her
role in the college
admissions
scam.
For those of you that
don’t
remember,
that
was
when
the
University
of
Southern California
(and
a
few
other
selective
schools)
vaulted to the front
pages of The Wall Street Journal
and other newspapers for taking
bribes for admissions spots.
Now,
Huffman
has
been
sentenced for her actions in
helping the Trojans beclown
themselves yet again, to 14 days
in the slammer, one year of
probation, a $30,000 fine and
a requirement that she wear
Stanford gear for the next eight
months. That last one is a lie,
but the rest of it is true. Upon
reading her sentence, I was
struck by a couple of things.
First, it seemed like a fair
sentence to me. I obviously
think the actions of the parents
were pretty shameful but, at
the end of the day, these actions
didn’t really hurt anyone. You
could make a case that not
getting into some of those
schools had injurious effects
or devalued your degree and —
indicating the desperate need
for tort reform — you could even
file a lawsuit along those lines.
However,
you
should
do
none of those things because,
ultimately,
Huffman
got
sentenced in a manner that
was pretty fair relative to her
crime. She’s not a murderer –
why treat her like one? This
principle should be applied
to more than just Huffman,
though. For example, when
Tanya McDowell used her son’s
babysitter’s address to register
her son in school, she absolutely
should not have gotten five
years in prison.
McDowell
and
Huffman’s
respective cases illustrate a
number
of
things,
but
two
to
point
out are the obvious
racial
difference
and the inefficiency
of criminal justice.
Both of these crimes
were
committed
by
mothers
and
both were in the
educational
field
and, to be honest,
neither
one
needs
a five-year sentence. I’m open
to the argument that neither
one needs a sentence at all,
which brings me to point out
the obvious inefficiencies here.
Keeping people locked up is not
cheap and, all in all, is a pretty
bad use of state resources.
Decades
of
just
throwing
homeless people behind bars
has yet to yield positive results
and yet we continue as if we
have a collective memory span
than a fruit fly. Instead of
wasting taxpayer resources on
an endless scheme of locking
up nonviolent offenders along
with the less fortunate, there
should be investments made
in
rehabilitation
and
social
services as those have much
better returns on investment for
the community and much better
results for those who utilize
them.
Second, this made me think
about Lori Loughlin and her
case. She reportedly regrets
not taking a plea deal early on
and deciding to go to court,
because she and her husband
got hit with additional charges
after that. And, since Huffman
got prison time, she almost
certainly will as well. It seems
unfair that choosing to go trial
will cause negative impacts
out of the gate, as we all have
a
Sixth
Amendment
right
to a speedy and public trial.
However,
in
practice,
what
happened to Loughlin is the
norm. Defendants who choose
to plead not guilty and go to
trial routinely receive harsher
punishments than those who
take plea deals, and this is a
well known threat to induce
confessions – innocence be
damned.
Huffman
and
Loughlin
(and the rest of the clown car)
did something that’s bad. You
could look at it in a positive
light if you want my against-
the-grain take but not many
people do (for obvious reasons).
Neither of these two women
are convenient avatars for the
injustices that are part and
parcel of the criminal justice
system but that does not mean
that we should ignore the
lessons that we can take from
this event.
First, USC is a bit of a joke.
Second, Huffman getting a
light sentence for a pretty light
crime is a good thing, and if
more people got those kinds of
sentences, it would generally
be a better world and making
these sentences harder to get
through a trial is on the merits,
bad. A nation ruled by lawyers
will
always
be
procedural
hell and there is no reason at
all to encourage that. Third,
Loughlin choosing to go to trial
and appearing to get a harsher
punishment for it is not a good
thing. We all have a right to
a fair trial, and it shouldn’t
be
unnecessarily
abrogated.
People
will
say
that
we
shouldn’t care about Huffman’s
and Loughlin’s run-ins with
justice, and while I see their
point, I disagree. The people
who usually deal with that
system are far less privileged,
far less rich and oftentimes
far less white. If some of the
lessons from these cases can
be applied a little more broadly,
it’d be a much better country for
all of us.
Felicity Huffman and the criminal justice we deserve
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN
AB5 attacks the heart of the gig economy
T
his year’s most important
bill for the future of work
passed in California in
September, and we should all take
note. The law — Assembly Bill 5
— sets a new definition for what it
means to be an employee, and it is
the most direct legislative affront
to the so-called “gig economy”
yet. AB5 sends the right message,
but it now seems too late. The gig
economy and the companies that
have made it are too far and too
powerful.
The timing of this bill is
significant
because
the
gig
economy — where independent
workers are paid by the individual
job instead of a wage or salary — is
growing quickly. By 2027, according
to one model, approximately 50
percent of workers in the United
States will not be tied to a specific
employer. Instead, they will do
some freelance or gig work. It is a
dangerous trend. It signifies the
end of a work culture in which
employees rely on their employers
for social insurance.
The gig economy has grown
because employment has become
more of a burden and finding quick
work has become easier. It has led
companies to do everything in their
power to classify their workers
as independent contractors and
not full employees. For their
employees, employers have to
provide unemployment and health
insurance, pay for parental leave
and overtime, abide by minimum
wage laws and grant the right to
form a union. For independent
contractors, employers are off the
hook for all of it.
Specifically, AB5 clearly lays out
the criteria for classifying a worker
as an independent contractor, in
contrast to the vague federal law
under which most states operate.
AB5
says
that
independent
contractors are those who are not
under company control, whose
work is not the core part of the
company’s business and that has
an independent business in the
industry.
This law will have enormous
consequences for gig workers
across the state and their employers,
but most saliently for Uber and
Lyft. Under AB5, drivers will get
all the employee benefits they have
missed as independent contractors.
The National Employment Law
Project estimates that it is 30
percent cheaper for employers to
hire someone as an independent
contractor than as an employee,
a
potentially
crippling
blow
for companies that are already
running deficits.
But they will not go down
without a fight. Uber and Lyft are
up in arms over AB5 because it has
the potential to reverberate around
the country. The rival companies
recently united to pour $90 million
into a lobbying campaign to fight
the bill and its implementation –
and their efforts underscore how
they cannot be trusted to give fair
deals to their drivers.
Their campaign has three parts.
The first is the standard libertarian
messaging
that
government
regulation is limiting business.
They are not wrong. Uber and Lyft
will suffer as companies, drivers
may not have as much flexibility and
wait times and ride fares will likely
rise. However, tech companies that
rely on the gig economy should see
AB5 as a challenge that needs to
be faced. If forcing the companies
to comply with standard labor law
is a gut punch, Uber and Lyft’s
business model needs to become
more resilient.
The second part of the campaign
has been to try and mobilize
drivers against AB5. But this
effort has been full of deceit and
intimidation. In early June, drivers
were asked to sign petitions to
support flexible hours without
realizing
they
were
fighting
against employee classification.
Some drivers were also under
the impression that signing the
petition was mandatory, including
drivers for whom English is a
second language.
The tech companies’ negotiating
tactics
show
how
necessary
confrontational
organizing
is.
Drivers have been protesting how
the companies take excessive
portions of fares for years, but Uber
and Lyft did nothing because their
independent contractors did not
have the capacity to collectively
organize. Only after AB5 picked
up
steam
in
the
California
legislature did Uber roll out a
compromise plan, even though its
concessions were weak. Uber and
Lyft marketed the proposal as a
$21 minimum wage, but since
that wage only applies to drivers
who are actively picking up or
with passengers, drivers would
still be making below California
minimum wage.
It is easy to frame AB5 as an
unequivocal win. But under the
law, Uber and Lyft can still make
the working lives of their drivers
terrible, and have suggested
that they will. First, they have
suggested that they will just
ignore the new law. More likely
and thus more concerning is what
kind of retribution the companies
will deliver to their drivers. The
biggest question is what will
happen to driver flexibility. Lots
of Uber and Lyft drivers say that
without the ability to choose their
own hours, they would not work.
This is especially true for drivers
who work other jobs, quasi-
retirees who will not commit
to working different hours and
students with irregular schedules.
When AB5 comes into effect,
Uber and Lyft say they may have
to start setting hour minimums
or preventing certain drivers
from logging on in low-traffic
areas. The bill’s supporters have
countered that AB5 does compel
Uber and Lyft to implement such
restrictions. If they do, it would be
by their own volition.
There is a way to address the
ambiguities of AB5 as well as
Uber and Lyft’s public relations
campaign
against
the
bill
that will send a clear message
to the gig economy. Instead
of mandating drivers have a
different relationship with their
employers, they should be able to
choose whether to be classified
as employees or independent
contractors. The drivers putting
in 50 hours in the car per week
are employees who deserve the
rights that label entails. But
the drivers who are actually
independent
contractors
could
retain the flexibility they need.
If the vast majority of drivers
choose to be employees instead of
independent contractors, it would
send an unequivocal statement of
opposition to the gig economy, one
that Uber and Lyft cannot muddle.
Solomon Medintz can be reached
at smedintz@umich.edu.
Anik Joshi can be reached at anikj@
umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850
words. Send the writer’s full name and University
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
JOIN EDITBOARD
Join The Michigan Daily! Come to Editboard meetings
Monday and Wednesday from 7:15 to 8:45 at the
Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Engage in discourse about
important issues and become a journalist!
L
ast year, a coalition of
University of Michigan
faculty
and
students
launched the One University
(1U) campaign, with the goal of
advocating for more equitable
funding across U-M’s three
campuses.
The
campaign’s
efforts
culminated
in
May
with the opportunity to speak
directly to the Board of Regents
at their meeting in Dearborn,
after which the board did not
implement the changes that
1U sought out. Despite this
setback,
the
movement
has
built considerable momentum,
with several regents expressing
support
and
multiple
state
lawmakers publishing an op-ed
advancing the 1U’s viewpoint.
1U’s
argument
is
simple:
The University’s Ann Arbor
campus is substantially better-
funded than either of the Flint
or Dearborn campuses
– a
problem exacerbated by the fact
that Ann Arbor students tend
to be from significantly more
advantaged backgrounds. The
argument of those who oppose
the coalition’s view, such as
University
President
Mark
Schlissel, is also simple: The
three campuses have different
purposes and different goals,
and the funding stream reflects
that. While I’ve always found
the “different goals” argument
to be a dismissive response to
a highly consequential issue, I
also have been hesitant to fully
embrace 1U’s mission.
Most of the people I had heard
advocate for 1U were either
students at Flint and Dearborn
— who only had things to gain
— and Ann Arbor students like
me, who come from wealthier
backgrounds
and
would
therefore
be
well-insulated
from the impacts of budget cuts.
On the other hand, many of my
friends in Ann Arbor come from
small towns in rural Michigan
and are not necessarily better off
financially than those students
at Flint or Dearborn.
Moreover,
research
shows
that students who attend U-M’s
Ann Arbor campus from less
wealthy backgrounds are nearly
twice as likely to move up the
income ladder as students at
Flint or Dearborn. Initially,
I worried that budget cuts
could reduce U-M Ann Arbor’s
effectiveness as a platform for
social mobility for people like
my friends, either by harming
the quality of the education
they had worked hard for, or by
reducing the financial aid they
depended on to go here.
However, when I actually set
out to look into the budgets of the
three campuses, I realized that
1U was stating their case in the
most conservative way possible.
1U’s research already indicates
that Ann Arbor students receive
over
twice
as
much
state
funding per student and well
over twice as much total funding
in comparison to Flint and
Dearborn. But this is calculated
based only on the U-M General
Budget. The General Budget,
which comprises only of the
revenue that U-M generates
through
tuition
and
state
funding, accounts for less than
a quarter of U-M Ann Arbor’s
funding, as compared to over 80
percent of funding for the other
two campuses.
The rest of Ann Arbor’s
funding comes from interest off
of its $11.9 billion endowment,
research
grants
from
foundations and the federal
government, designated funds
and
“auxiliary”
components
of the campus, like Michigan
Medicine and Campus Housing,
which
generate
their
own
revenue. These funding streams,
which result from the Ann
Arbor campus’ status as a world-
renowned research university
with wealthy alumni, are simply
less to the other campuses. Once
these other funding streams
are factored in, the calculations
show that state funding shrinks
to 3 percent of the Ann Arbor
campus’ total budget, compared
to over 15 percent on both
of the other campuses. The
endowment interest alone brings
in millions of dollars more than
the totality of state funding.
This means state funding for
U-M
Ann
Arbor
students,
which, to reiterate, is twice that
of Dearborn and Flint, is barely
significant in the context of the
campus’ total budget.
Thinking about my initial
reservations
about
1U’s
arguments,
I
looked
into
financial aid. Unsurprisingly,
the Ann Arbor campus spends
only a miniscule amount of its
total budget of financial aid –
just 3 percent compared to 10
percent and 18 percent at the
Flint and Dearborn campuses
respectively. Since U-M Ann
Arbor also relies so little on
state funding, this means that
reallocating state appropriations
would
be
unlikely
to
significantly affect financial aid
on the Ann Arbor campus.
To get a sense of how big the
effect of reallocations might
be, I did some back-of-the-
envelope calculations. I held
each campus’s percent spending
on financial aid constant, and
transferred an amount equal
to one quarter of the Ann
Arbor campus’s state funding
to the other two campuses.
The result? Average financial
aid packages in Dearborn and
Flint by increased by over 15
percent, while reducing Ann
Arbor students’ financial aid
by less than one percent. In
light of numbers like these, the
current funding structure isn’t
simply unfair or inequitable:
It’s completely at odds with
common sense.
Of course, the effect of
reallocations
might
not
be
exactly what I found. There
is a good reason why 1U only
considers the General Fund
in
their
calculations:
much
of the rest of the budget
is
earmarked
for
specific
activities. Endowment donors
want their money spent on
specific programs, foundation
funding is tied to particular
research projects, and units like
Michigan Medicine need much
of their revenue to carry out
daily operations. However, these
funds heavily subsidize many of
the activities, such as research,
student services and financial
aid, that are also paid out of the
General Fund. Not accounting
for these components completely
disregards
the
enormous
amount of funding that benefits
Ann Arbor students at the cost
of those in other campuses.
Ultimately, the Ann Arbor
campus simply doesn’t need
state funding the way that either
the Flint or Dearborn campuses
do. U-M Dearborn and Flint
students
come
from
less
advantaged backgrounds and
receive less funding and support
even while their schools dedicate
much larger portions of their
budget to serve students. These
disparities
across
campuses
can’t be erased, but it’s clear that
they can be easily improved.
What isn’t clear is why Schlissel,
the Board of Regents, and the
state legislature refuse to take
action.
U-M Ann Arbor doesn’t need state funding
JARED STOLOVE | COLUMN
Jared Stolove can be reached at
jstolove@umich.edu.
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
ANIK
JOSHI