next will be a ban on companies being able to move away...
Mike
Good luck finding a buyer for your business there.
In-f-ing-sane.
The courts are completely out of control.
Escape California while you can.
That whooshing sound is from yet more companies moving out of California.
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.
Oh oh: after securing control of businesses the next thing fascist governmentss do is conquer their neighbors!
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?
10-289
I have the greatest of admiration for any business still afloat in the Peoples Republic of California.
What is to prevent company ‘A’ from firing everyone, moments before selling their business to company ‘B’?
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.
"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.
Sounds like a law they would have in France.
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.
“...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).
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
So, how about, “you’re not fired, but you’re not getting paid any more. See you in the morning.” ?
So, how about, “you’re not fired, but you’re not getting paid any more. See you in the morning.” ?