|
The electoralism has reached the perimeter! Everyone head to your evacuation route, this is not a drill!
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Re-bookmarking this thread was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah this poo poo sucks, let's stop knifing each other and bring it back to California-specific politics. Sacramento might get a really cool lady for mayor and I am very hopeful for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:10
|
|
|
jokes posted:You're a loving idiot and you're the reason american government sucks If only people voted better, if only RCV, if only term limits, if only no money in politics You're the idiot that thinks they'll let you vote them out of power lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
jokes posted:you're the reason american government sucks lmfao
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 07:21
|
|
|
jokes posted:Given that CA is a safe bet for democrats it's a luxury to not vote in a presidential race I guess but don't pretend for a second that you're at all taking a morally superior position by doing something that statistically benefits Republicans. If everyone who was anti-genocide didn't vote for Biden, Trump would win in a landslide lol I'm planning to do some phone banking to drive (D) turnout in other states in the runup to the election. Throwing my vote on the pile of popular votes against That rear end in a top hat isn't enough, we absolutely need a huge Get Out The Vote effort in swing states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 08:04
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Maybe this is a controversial take, but if you’re going to be a one issue voter, “Don’t provide material support for an active genocide” sounds like a good issue to pick. It's kind of looking like Biden is paying attention after the Michigan event
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 08:51
|
|
|
So is Cabaldon the coolest progressive ever or the worst snake in the grass rear end in a top hat Because I'm still getting pro and con mailers about him like every other day
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:The only reason third party candidates aren't valid, is because not enough people vote for them Voted LEE for the whole term and Porter for the partial. Probably should have done the opposite. gently caress the oncoming Schiffening
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It's because the whole system is rigged to benefit an entrenched 2 party system, where any popular planks from a 3rd party get subsumed into the main 2 like The Thing eating your rear end in a top hat. Plus the whole thing where the 3rds are just as poo poo (lmao Jill Stein and her $5M grift) and there's a dearth of local 3rd party growth to actually push along candidates on the national stage. it's not exactly rigged, that's just kinda what you can expect to get for single-candidate FPTP elections. the parties we have didn't design that system, they're an artifact of it. they do generally have a vested interest in preserving it though; neither party has any impetus to seek broader electoral reform an actual poli sci person can speak better to it, but my vague understanding is that minor parties generally don't end up being a meaningful political force so long as you vote for candidates rather than parties, since any candidate that actually wants office just joins the big tent FilthyImp posted:Voted LEE for the whole term and Porter for the partial. Probably should have done the opposite. gently caress the oncoming Schiffening this is a new one. is there any reason to actually split the partial/full term vote?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
The only thing I'm voting for is "1" and I'm not talking about California Proposition 1
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Panera exempt from minimum wage laws because its a fast food law and fresh bread isnt fast food. Also they donate to Newsom. https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/1763328983482106265 https://abc7.com/california-gavin-newsom-minimum-wage-law-exemption-panera/14479569/ "It was no secret when the $20 minimum wage law was announced that places like Panera Bread would be exempt and many people wondered why. The reason given was that the restaurant, viewed by most people as "fast food," bakes its own bread. In fact, the exemption is pretty specific, intended for chains that not only bake bread but sell it as a standalone item. Bloomberg News uncovered that a billionaire restaurant owner in the Bay Area who owns two dozen Panera franchises has donated at least $173,000 to Newsom since 2021. That franchise owner, Greg Flynn, was quoted in 2022, saying the wage increase bill would "all but kill" the franchising business model in the state. Now the top Republican in the California Assembly has called for an investigation, labeling the deal as crooked. In a statement to ABC News, a Newsom spokesperson said the minimum wage law was "the result of countless hours of negotiations with dozens of stakeholders over two years.""
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
*nods furiously* we should make the minimum for everybody $20/hour
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
$173,000 would cover 43,250 hours worth of increased wage from $16->$20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:*nods furiously* we should make the minimum for everybody $20/hour Let's make it the minimum AND the maximum just to see what happens
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Panera exempt from minimum wage laws because its a fast food law and fresh bread isnt fast food. Saw this on my news feed. My first thought was: "McDonalds is happy to introduce the McLoaf! Get your fresh baked bread at McDonalds." They just throw a small mini convection oven air fryer thing at every location and some basic rear end dough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:19
|
|
|
First of May posted:$173,000 would cover 43,250 hours worth of increased wage from $16->$20. good thing he has a billion dollars so he can shoulder increased costs
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
I didn't think it was possible but the quality at subway about to go even higher!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:26
|
|
|
Is this "Dough-for-Dough" or "Dough-see-Dough"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:Saw this on my news feed. My first thought was: the law posted:'Fast food restaurant' shall not include an establishment that on September 15, 2023, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread, as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
That is unmistakably corrupt. Why are people going after the governor rather than whoever put that text into the law?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
The article keeps updating and now says the Gov. Office is saying Panera isn't exempt because they don't actually fully create the bread on-site and thus aren't bakeries. All of the articles are annoying because they aren't actually linking to the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1228
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 06:59
|
|
|
The original bill before this particular bit of language seemed much more restricted:quote:"Fast food restaurant” means any establishment in the state that is part of a fast food I don't know what goes on in a modern fast food place but (iii) seems either extremely broad or extremely narrow, depending on "prepared in advance". Like, under the original, would In-n-Out be excluded because they make fries on-site and, I think, prep the bulk of ingredients as they go? The current version says: quote:"“National fast food chain” means a set of limited-service restaurants consisting of more than 60 establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services, and which are primarily engaged in providing food and beverages for immediate consumption on or off premises where patrons generally order or select items and pay before consuming, with limited or no table service. For purposes of the definitions in this part, “limited-service restaurant” includes, but is not limited to, an establishment with the North American Industry Classification System Code 722513." which seems much more broad in what it scoops up. And reduced the threshold to 60 national establishments from 100, so something presumably got added (some new chain? Scholtzkeys comeback???). I made it halfway through the bill comments on leginfo before getting bored but the bakery exclusion goes in without much comment other than a statement to the effect of "this definition doesn't change the intent". The cutoff in the exclusion is sorta normal, it's basically stopping further "damage" and assuming that time will fix the rest (if a Einstein Bros. closes then that's it). It does feel like it's excluding something but it reads like the intent is to exclude some sort of chain bakery that also makes breakfast burritos and coffee or something. The federal definition of bread is also broad, but maybe narrow?, in what counts, but it could mean Ms. Fields, Wetzel's Pretzels, etc are excluded too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 07:47
|
|
|
jokes posted:You're a loving idiot and you're the reason american government sucks You know, I don't think this is true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You know, I don't think this is true. It’s me. It is my fault that this empire is eating itself as it struggles to find new frontiers to exploit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
Wait, I thought that was a stupid statement but I double checked and...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:They'd need to time travel back to 2023 if they want that gambit to work Arsenic Lupin posted:That is unmistakably corrupt. Why are people going after the governor rather than whoever put that text into the law? Lemme take a crack at this... So first off: https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/09/minimum-wage-california/ This bill has a lot of history. While the bill we're talking about today is AB-1228 from the 23/24 session: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1228 It's actually not the bill we're looking for. That's why when Zachack is looking at it, it doesn't quite make sense. The order of events generally are (Holden is the author): 1.) The legislature passes the "FAST Recovery Act", or AB-257 in the 21/22 session. This creates a Fast Food council that sunsets in 2029. This council would be within the Department of Industrial Relations and would set about creating fast food employment standards, including wages, working conditions, training, and other rules. 2.) Fast food franchises start organizing a referendum on AB-257 and get enough signatures to get on the ballot. 3.) The legislature counters by submitting a bill, AB-1228 in the 23/24 session, that would hold fast food franchises liable for the franchisees civil liabilities. In particular, these are for labor violations. This scares the poo poo out of franchises. 4.) A backdoor deal is essentially made: The fast food franchises will drop the referendum, while the legislature will drop the bill about franchises being liable for franchisee's civil liability (in particular labor violations). In exchange for all this, the legislature will now increase the fast food minimum wage to $20/hr and the franchises will back this bill. 5.) The above deal is accomplished by gutting AB-1228 of the franchise civil liability bill and amending it with basically the same text as the original AB-257 (doing so through a conditional repeal of the the original AB-257 text on the basis that the referendum is withdrawn), except with some changes (Particularly the $20/hr minimum wage). So back to the text of the exemption in question: I'm going to point out that the text Sivart13 mentioned above is the only exception to the definition of "fast food restaurant" in the bill.  Now my thing is primarily firearm bills in California, but I read enough California bills to have some idea of what structure looks like typically, and I can tell you that yeah it looks suspect as gently caress. That's a core definition for the law, and yet it has this one very specific exception that only applies to a very limited group of businesses. So as for how it got there... we go to AB-257 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 If we go to the top right, and choose the amended version of the bill from 8/25/22... that's when the bread exemption was added. If you look at the history tab of AB-257, you can see that this amendment was added on the third reading on the floor in the second house (That is to say: Bills go through committees in origin house -> origin house floor vote -> committees in second house -> second house floor vote -> concurrence -> governor -> signed into law, roughly). This is essentially the very last step before concurrence of amendments between the two houses, so you can say that the amendment was slipped in at the last minute; though that wasn't the sole amendment. In The bill analyses (Bill Analyses tab) , if you read for 8/26/2022 and 8/29/2022 they're generally silent on the issue. There's nothing conclusive in the evidence, but based on how particular the exemption is and based on the timing of when it was put into the bill, I'd say yeah it looks corrupt as gently caress... and it's not that much of a stretch that it came from the Governor's office. The amendments included changing it so that the Governor appointed the chairperson of the council, so input from the Governor's office came at the same time. There's just no smoking gun. Best I can do as far as analysis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:Wait, I thought that was a stupid statement but I double checked and... Was really hoping nobody would find that picture... It's never been more over 😔
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
yeah that sounds a lot like the Veto Haver's people wrote that (under implicit threat to veto it if it wasn't included)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2024 05:36
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:[Snip] That was fantastic. Thank you so much, and please do it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:That was fantastic. Thank you so much, and please do it again. While the bread carveout(that is likely by the Governor) is interesting, what's also interesting is basically the Franchises (Franchisors: Mcdonalds, etc. corporate franchise owners) threw the franchisees (the individual franchise store owners) to the wolves. They backed the $20/hr minimum wage bill, which all of the cost is borne by the franchisees... just so the Franchises could prevent a bill being passed making them civilly liable for all of the labor violations their franchisees commit (which could be reduced by the Franchisors properly training and policing the franchisees in the first place). Yet despite the Franchises loving them over, all of the articles will be quotes from local franchisees complaining about Sacramento passing these laws making it impossible to run their business, yada yada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2024 08:35
|
|
|
Franchisors being civilly liable for whatever franchisees are doing sounds wild to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
I mean that's why the franchisors opposed it and made the deal they did. I didn't really go into the specifics of that bill, since it's dead now, but... It wouldn't be complete civil liability, but more to do with civil liability related to things specified in the law... mostly labor related violation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1228 On Desktop hit the version dropdown on the upper right, and choose the "02/16/23 - Introduced" option. Like I'm not going to go too deep into this one, but you can read Section 2 which the author of the bill lists their greivances and purpose of the bill, which is basically that quote:(a) The fast food restaurant industry has long been rampant with employment law violations, including wage theft that includes violations such as minimum wage, overtime, off-the-clock, and meal break violations, sexual harassment and discrimination, and workplace injuries and violence. There's like a 30 day notice for the violation, an extension allowed for an investigation, giving franchisors the ability to cure the violation. It would also make waivers indemnifying fast food franchisors from this law void and unenforceable. If the franchisors also write terms into the franchise agreement with the franchisee that prevent them from complying with said labor laws or somehow prevent the franchisor from taking shared responsibility, then the franchisee can sue the franchisor for monetary or injunctive relief. That's more or less the breakdown of the law that could have been. But Franchisors were much more happy to agree to $20/hr for their franchisees and withdraw their referendum on the FAST Recovery Act than deal with this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing, those limitations (especially the cure period and the contractual terms recourse) make a lot of sense, I can see how that would work. I also see now how they indeed definitely hosed over the franchisees with this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Having moved from florida and now voting in california, I'm noticing your elections are a different flavor of political hell than the poo poo we had back home. But y'all still have the same problem of "most/all of your candidates are cozy with the cops" Why is it so difficult to say no to cops?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 05:52
|
|
|
PseudoFaux posted:Why is it so difficult to say no to cops? Society is built upon a base of private property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
PseudoFaux posted:Why is it so difficult to say no to cops? "soft on crime" is an easy charge to levy, and one that the police unions are more than willing to levy against anyone that isn't for more police funding
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 06:24
|
|
|
PseudoFaux posted:Having moved from florida and now voting in california, I'm noticing your elections are a different flavor of political hell than the poo poo we had back home. But y'all still have the same problem of "most/all of your candidates are cozy with the cops"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 07:09
|
|
|
PseudoFaux posted:Having moved from florida and now voting in california, I'm noticing your elections are a different flavor of political hell than the poo poo we had back home. But y'all still have the same problem of "most/all of your candidates are cozy with the cops" Most land owners vote, land ownership is a right to defend said property; cops' primary purpose (stated or otherwise) is to protect property (often at the cost of civil liberties) ergo politicians are typically neutral at worst when it comes to cops
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
PseudoFaux posted:Having moved from florida and now voting in california, I'm noticing your elections are a different flavor of political hell than the poo poo we had back home. But y'all still have the same problem of "most/all of your candidates are cozy with the cops" Hello fellow Florida transplant 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 09:24
|
|