Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court says cities can ban layoffs by new owners
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/19/11 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 07/19/2011 9:40:09 AM PDT by Nachum

California cities can protect workers from being fired immediately when their company changes owners, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.The 6-1 decision reinstated a Los Angeles ordinance, struck down by lower courts, that required supermarkets to keep their workforce for 90 days after a new owner takes over. Similar laws covering different industries are in effect in other cities - including Oakland, San Jose, Berkeley and Emeryville - and the state also has a law protecting janitors who work for building contractors. "When you're keeping a business open and all you're doing is changing the name

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: antibusiness; ban; biglabor; cities; court; elizabethgrimes; grimes; kathrynwerdegar; layoffs; micklewerdegar; protectionism; unions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

1 posted on 07/19/2011 9:40:12 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

next will be a ban on companies being able to move away...


2 posted on 07/19/2011 9:42:49 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The market values of the corps just took a dive!

Mike

3 posted on 07/19/2011 9:43:08 AM PDT by MichaelP (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools ~HS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Good luck finding a buyer for your business there.


4 posted on 07/19/2011 9:43:49 AM PDT by FreeKeys ("Government is a blunt instrument, and they have the guns and they have our money."- Matt Welch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

In-f-ing-sane.

The courts are completely out of control.


5 posted on 07/19/2011 9:44:26 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Public employee unions are the barbarian hordes of our time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Escape California while you can.


6 posted on 07/19/2011 9:46:22 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (Socialism...Easier said than done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That whooshing sound is from yet more companies moving out of California.


7 posted on 07/19/2011 9:46:39 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Actually, what this law does is make the companies unsalable. If they were making money, most likely, they wouldn’t be up for sale. Somebody who buys them typically makes a pitch to their creditors about how they can repay the creditor’s investment. This law limits what the new buyer can do and forces the new buyer to continue operating a business that he most likely bought for other reasons; developing the land, for example.

This means that the companies for sale will still go out of business, but the company owners can’t salvage anything from the loss.


8 posted on 07/19/2011 9:47:00 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Oh oh: after securing control of businesses the next thing fascist governmentss do is conquer their neighbors!


9 posted on 07/19/2011 9:47:52 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Federal labor law does not give an employer an absolute right to choose its employees, said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar in the majority opinion.

I can't imagine *why* businesses would be fleeing California. So, how many grocery stores will go dark rather than a new owner step up and purchase them? What IS it about natural consequences that these silly people don't understand?

10 posted on 07/19/2011 9:48:44 AM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
This means that the companies for sale will still go out of business, but the company owners can’t salvage anything from the loss.

This won't kill every deal, but it will make a bunch more difficult. Just a little more sand in the gears of commerce.

11 posted on 07/19/2011 9:49:56 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

10-289


12 posted on 07/19/2011 9:50:36 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Simplistically, this means the bid for any Kali business will be reduced by the value of the unwanted labor expense.


13 posted on 07/19/2011 9:51:04 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

“Good luck finding a buyer for your business there.”

Yep. I think all this will do is either encourage more bankruptcies of businesses, or alternatively, if new owners do buy businesses, they will simply lay off even more people after the 90 day period in order to make up for the increase in expenses during that time.


14 posted on 07/19/2011 9:51:25 AM PDT by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Actually, what this law does is make the companies unsalable.

It also makes the state hostile to new investment. And by raising property taxes, imprisoning property owners who are upside down on house values. They are making it to where you can't leave. It reminds one of the song "Hotel California". You can check out (die) but you can never leave.

15 posted on 07/19/2011 9:51:55 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire but I swear I didn't see him in the rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

or close


16 posted on 07/19/2011 9:52:07 AM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I have the greatest of admiration for any business still afloat in the Peoples Republic of California.


17 posted on 07/19/2011 9:53:04 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What is to prevent company ‘A’ from firing everyone, moments before selling their business to company ‘B’?


18 posted on 07/19/2011 9:54:08 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
10-289

I must have missed something. What is that?

19 posted on 07/19/2011 9:55:54 AM PDT by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

F that.

If I do an M&A I will absolutely get rid of dead weight,

Further, I make decisions that have financial and cultural impact to my organizations.

No one has the right to tell me to keep anyone for any reason.

I won’t drive a full bus over the cliff to save a few people.


20 posted on 07/19/2011 9:57:42 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I understand the next step is to make leaving the state of California, as an individual, into a felony. Here is the proposed law:
"148. (h) (1) Every person who, having been a permanent resident in the State of California as of 1/1/2012, who willfully and permanently attempts, or acts, in such a manner as to take up permanent residence in another state or country, is guilty of the felony crime of "Evading the State of California", and shall be punished with a term of imprisonment no less than three years and no greater than five years, or a fine of not exceeding ten-thousand dollars ($10,000), or by that and the aforementioned imprisonment combined.

21 posted on 07/19/2011 9:57:55 AM PDT by Lazamataz (If you pet a tiny goose, you will feel a little down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: houeto

From “Atlas Shrugged”

http://www.conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289


22 posted on 07/19/2011 9:58:16 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Sounds like a law they would have in France.


23 posted on 07/19/2011 9:58:22 AM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Quote: “It also makes the state hostile to new investment. And by raising property taxes, imprisoning property owners who are upside down on house values. They are making it to where you can’t leave. It reminds one of the song “Hotel California”. You can check out (die) but you can never leave”

Not really, you can simply walk away from the house don’t ya know, it is the latest trend. Hell, there is even a website that will show you how it is done.


24 posted on 07/19/2011 9:58:26 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I guess an abandoned building that used to house a business that employed 100 people is better than having the same business still operating under new management, but only employing 75 people.


25 posted on 07/19/2011 9:58:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

Perfect post and spot on.


26 posted on 07/19/2011 9:58:48 AM PDT by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

I was offerred a very lucrative contract with a very stable company to do some drilling in CA; after looking at it hard, I opted out.

The labor stuff was insane

Insurance was insane

Reporting on people’s race and crap was insane

Environmental stuff was insane.

My in-house lawyer (who is hardly a pussy) said he’d quit before dealing with that stuff.

I would have employed 100+ workers at six figures each, plus 20 or so office help, 30 or so shop people at solid wages, plus all sorts of support people and vendors.

No f-—g way CA.


27 posted on 07/19/2011 9:59:17 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

San Francisco to close 25 courtrooms

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Superior Court announced Monday that it’s laying off more than 40 percent of its staff and shuttering 25 courtrooms because of budget cuts.

http://www.thereporter.com/sports/ci_18505317

Revenge of the Sith?


28 posted on 07/19/2011 10:00:23 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

That, for the most part, would be a good law. They got the government they voted for and that is the one they deserve. Such a law would keep all the rats from fleeing the ship and Californicating the other states who had the good sense not to stick their heads in their arses when they went to the polls.


29 posted on 07/19/2011 10:02:44 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

Brilliant.


30 posted on 07/19/2011 10:04:44 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“...from being fired immediately when their company changes owners...”

Make the sale contingent on all the employees being terminated PRIOR to the sale. That’s probably the easiest path. There are many legal ways around this—it won’t stop sales of companies or prevent layoffs but it will make acquisitions and mergers more expensive (more money for the lawyers).


31 posted on 07/19/2011 10:04:56 AM PDT by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Steyn, hosting Limbaugh’s show yesterday, mentioned that in a discussion of the loss of freedom with bigger government.


32 posted on 07/19/2011 10:06:39 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather; DoughtyOne
Somebody who buys them typically makes a pitch to their creditors about how they can repay the creditor’s investment. This law limits what the new buyer can do and forces the new buyer to continue operating a business that he most likely bought for other reasons; developing the land, for example.

Another bleeding heart policy that will likely hurt those it is designed to help. A company might be losing money for many reasons, e. g. fuel costs, California taxes and regulations, unions. If a new company had the wherewithal to rescue such a company, but can't because of Big Gov., the original company may go bankrupt, leaving all the workers unemployed for a long time.

Hey, but Cal. has generous government programs for those poor workers, right?

33 posted on 07/19/2011 10:07:15 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Budget sins can be fixed. Amnesty is irreversible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

If San Francisco is anything like Massachusetts, the courts are a dumping ground for layabouts on sinecures.


34 posted on 07/19/2011 10:08:54 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Well, there ought to be a ban of ever firing or laying off workers. Once hired, never fired! Or laid off.

And their salary never goes down, but only up at least at the rate of inflation plus 2% yearly. And their salary and the yearly increases continues on into retirement, which can occur after 20 years with the company.

No worker ought to be forced to work until their old and feeble to retire. Early retirement allows many years left to enjoy life. The RATS need to incorporate this into their national platform.

/s

35 posted on 07/19/2011 10:10:38 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

So, how about, “you’re not fired, but you’re not getting paid any more. See you in the morning.” ?


36 posted on 07/19/2011 10:11:02 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

California invades Nevada. Story at 11.


37 posted on 07/19/2011 10:11:05 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (July 23, 2017 - This is Ellis Wyatt. I am on strike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

So, how about, “you’re not fired, but you’re not getting paid any more. See you in the morning.” ?


38 posted on 07/19/2011 10:13:16 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Well, there ought to be a ban of ever firing or laying off workers.

looks like there already is in gubmint sectors:

Some federal workers more likely to die than lose jobs Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm

39 posted on 07/19/2011 10:15:33 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

The company I used to work for was planning to transfer test and repair of a particular product from New England to CA. The testing required a calibration gas that was fairly benign but did require some monitoring equipment and permits. Licensing was trivial in New England but was a major hurdle in CA. As a result we didn’t move that operation but elected instead to shut down the whole CA operation and move it to Texas.


40 posted on 07/19/2011 10:15:33 AM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I wish this were a law in MA, NY, and NJ years ago. Then we wouldn’t have so many yankee socialists who, having fouled their nests in their home states, moved to the south and proceded to do everything they could to mess things up here.


41 posted on 07/19/2011 10:16:14 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob; WOBBLY BOB

Are you two brothers?


42 posted on 07/19/2011 10:16:28 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco (You ca't forfeit the game Chuck! If you go home you forfeit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: houeto
It's yet another Ayn Rand cult reference.

If you're really curious: 10-289

43 posted on 07/19/2011 10:19:14 AM PDT by newzjunkey (immediately cuts under $100 billion need not apply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
BUT BUT BUT, The San Francisco Superior Court announced Monday that it's laying off more than 40 percent of its staff .....some 200 of the court's 480 workers will be let go by Sept. 30

Gee that's not 90 days!!!!!!!!!

44 posted on 07/19/2011 10:20:09 AM PDT by Lockbox (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Directive 10-289.


45 posted on 07/19/2011 10:22:33 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

They can’t raise property taxes, proposition 13 allows only 1% tax of valuation and the valuation can only be raised 2% per year.


46 posted on 07/19/2011 10:24:08 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action.”-A Great Historian 1888


47 posted on 07/19/2011 10:25:21 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Being a proud New Mexican, I hate Texas, but I nearly moved my operation from NM to TX, since I do a lot of work there and have several yards there.

Our new governor seems to have made a climate change with the gubmint workers.


48 posted on 07/19/2011 10:27:09 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I wish this were a law in MA, NY, and NJ years ago. Then we wouldn’t have so many yankee socialists who, having fouled their nests in their home states, moved to the south and proceded to do everything they could to mess things up here.

But then you wouldn't have me in GA.

49 posted on 07/19/2011 10:29:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz (If you pet a tiny goose, you will feel a little down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

A company I worked for got around this BS by closing the company down for a week after buying it, putting everyone out of work. No one was “fired” there was simply no job to go to. Then they reopened and hired all those that they wanted to work for them and didn’t hire the ones the previous owners saw as problem workers. They weren’t located in any town however, so all they got around were certain state laws.


50 posted on 07/19/2011 10:38:54 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson