Court says cities can ban layoffs by new owners

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/19/11 | Bob Egelko

[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

[Lazamataz]

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.

[Tijeras_Slim]

From “Atlas Shrugged”

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

[Tzimisce]

Sounds like a law they would have in France.

[FlipWilson]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Michael Barnes]

Perfect post and spot on.

[TheThirdRuffian]

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.

[WOBBLY BOB]

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?

[FlipWilson]

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.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Brilliant.

[mikey_hates_everything]

“...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).

[Calvin Locke]

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

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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

[rawhide]

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

[PLMerite]

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

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

California invades Nevada. Story at 11.

[PLMerite]

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

[WOBBLY BOB]

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

[NewHampshireDuo]

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.