Tag: California

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom regulation

Leave Us Alone to Do Our Work

contract work, Uber, gig economy, California, regulations

Drearily, an appeals court has dismissed Uber’s challenge to California’s anti-​gig-​work law.

According to the 9th Circuit, the ride-​sharing company couldn’t show that the California anti-​freelancer law AB5, which took effect in 2020, unfairly targeted Uber while allowing other types of contract work to continue unhindered.

In fact, the many exceptions to AB5 — determined by abundance or lack of political pull of various groups — mean that Uber is hardly alone in suffering from uneven application of the law.

But suppose AB5 had in fact been evenly imposed on everybody. Suppose every single gig worker in California, without exception, had been forced to become a regular employee of all of his clients — with all the additional costs for employers that this entails — or else lose all work altogether.

This would be worse, not better. 

Inconsistent tyranny is bad for the victims. Absolutely consistent and uniform tyranny is bad for the victims — which would be greater in number.

Maybe the 9th’s misjudgment won’t stand. If the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe the high court will unambiguously affirm our right to contract with each other in order to make a living and get stuff done.

Meanwhile, the fate of Uber also hinges on another court case, one determining the fate of Proposition 22, a 2020 California initiative affirming Uber’s right to contract with drivers.* A labor union says Prop 22 is unconstitutional. The state supreme court is deciding whether this is so. 

It is not so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Citizens in Charge, a pro-​initiative and referendum group, for whom I serve as president, filed an amicus or friend of the court brief with the California Supreme Court in this case.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Exemptions, Not Repeal

If you light the fuse of a bomb, after warnings that this will cause it to explode, you should not be surprised at the explosion.

California’s lawmakers and governor recently imposed super-​high minimum wages for workers in fast-​food restaurants ($20 an hour) and workers in healthcare facilities ($25 an hour). When the legislation was in process, the impact on companies, customers, and job applicants was deemed irrelevant. What mattered was appeasing the labor lobby.

Governor Newsom is suddenly “realizing” (he’d been warned) that these new costs will also burden the state government, currently facing a $45 billion budget deficit.

But this isn’t causing him to seek repeal.

No. Instead, he has signed legislation granting an exception to the new minimum for fast-​food restaurants that are on government land. “Democrats don’t want the mandate interfering with government concession licenses,” The Wall Street Journal observes.

And Newsom also wants to defer the kick-​in of the new minimum wage for workers in healthcare facilities — which he projects would cost the state $4 billion more annually because of the impact on Medicaid and state-​paid health workers — until state revenue is in better shape. He would also permanently exempt state-​owned facilities from having to pay the new minimum.

Carveouts and minor delays are as far as the governor and lawmakers are willing to go. Whatever gets them past the uncomfortable present — the next moment and the one after are things to worry about later. With any luck, with time the voters will have forgotten the issue, and who caused what.

Exemptions are the order of the day for politicians and bureaucrats. Private sector businesses must remain on the rack.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Supermarket Slavery

grocery store, police

How to sue supermarkets for shutting down:

One. Move to San Francisco.

Two. Support a proposed ordinance “amending the Police Code to require large supermarkets to provide six months notice to their customers and the City before permanently closing, and to explore ways to allow for the continued sale of groceries at the location.”

Three. If the ordinance passes, wait for a large supermarket to go out of business without having known six months in advance that it would need to do so.

Four. Sue.

That the proposed law would amend the police code is perversely apt. The idea is use the state’s police power to penalize ending an activity that as a free man, not a slave, you have no obligation to continue.

Ending any project may inconvenience people who benefit from what you’re doing. But unless you are bound by contract, these other people have no right to your further efforts. 

Not for six months, not for six seconds.

The San Francisco ordinance would exempt supermarkets that must close because of a natural disaster or other circumstance not “reasonable foreseeable.” These exemptions don’t solve the problems that the ordinance could cause for innocent businessmen. As Reason magazine notes, any stores that closes “without providing the proper notice” could still be sued for damages, supposedly exempted or not.

In the 1980s, when this notion was originally proposed (unsuccessfully), supermarket executives argued that making it harder for them to shut down would also discourage them from opening a store to begin with.

True. But that’s just common sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets regulation

Dining Out on Cause and Effect

California, minimum wage, hamburgers, economics, wages, jobs

Could a barren, charred, devastated landscape be the actual intended goal?

In California as in Washington, lawmakers and chief executives apparently have a long list of nice things to destroy and are crossing them off one by one, as if on the payroll of aliens from outer space wanting to conquer earth without doing very much conquest-​work themselves.

Part 99‑C of the plan is to price entry-​level labor and entry-​level restaurant dining out of the market by hiking the minimum wage of fast-​food workers even further beyond the market rate for the labor and its actual productive value to employers: now to $20 an hour.

Already, prices for restaurant meals are going up, and restaurant workers are being laid off.

The $20 minimum is a compromise that restaurant owners accepted in lieu of probably paying a $22 per hour minimum. Like letting burglars take only most of the silverware and letting them return at will.

Even more looting of employers is to come, if employee and activist Angelica Hernandez has her way. “We’re going to have to keep speaking up and striking to make sure we are heard.” She wants her dough and doesn’t care about the consequences for others. Policymakers rush to appease her and those like her.

So is omni-​destruction the actual intended goal?

Or is it that the mental powers of the crusaders and politicians and too many voters don’t extend so far as the relationship between cause and effect?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism regulation

Discrimination, California-​Style

California, racism, discrimination, government, corruption

How far will a California lawmaker go to try reverse a validly enacted and also very good citizen initiative?

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibits the state government from imposing race-​based, ethnicity-​based, or sex-​based preferences.

Prop 209 added a section to the California Constitution stating that the government “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

In 2020, friends of racial discrimination tried to revive racial preferences through a referendum. But voters shot it down, even though proponents outspent opponents 14 to one.

Now California Assemblyman Corey Jackson wants to revive racial preferences another way. His bill, ACA7, would not touch the language of Proposition 209. But it would empower the governor to make exceptions. What exceptions? Any he wishes, as long as he spews the right rationalizations when he does so.

Law professor Gail Heriot, who has launched a change​.org petition to oppose the measure, says that “ACA7’s proponents are hoping that voters will be fooled into thinking that it is just a small exception. In fact, it gives the governor enormous power to nullify Proposition 209.”

ACA7 has passed the House and now goes to the state senate, awaiting the magic of legislative action. Heriot says Californians should let their senators know where they stand on the bill. I don’t disagree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom regulation too much government

Unlimited Limits

nanny state

Do politicians understand limits? 

They seem to have this notion that they may limit us every which way … with no natural or civilized limit set upon the limits they may impose.

Take California lawmaker Scott Wiener.

This state senator (District 11‑D.) has introduced a bill to force carmakers to install a gadget limiting vehicle speed to a maximum of ten miles per hour above the speed limit. The murderous gadget would be installed starting with 2027 car models.

I foresee problems. Hence that word “murderous.” Wouldn’t it be kind of dumb to have to go slower than the traffic all around you if that other traffic consists of pre-​2027 vehicles going markedly faster than the speed limit?

Also, mightn’t emergency vehicles often have good reason to zip along faster than this gadget-​imposed maximum?

Not to worry. The Hill reports that emergency vehicles would be exempt, “and the California Highway Patrol could authorize the system’s disabling in certain other cases.”

Touble is, any vehicle can, at any time, become an “emergency vehicle” — if an emergency requires it to move faster than the Wiener-​imposed limit. Do you then call up the California Highway Patrol and ask that the gadget be disabled? What if you have five seconds to act? That’s not much time to beg the California Highway Patrol to give you control over your own property.

I detect hazards in letting government control every aspect of our lives and every movement we make. Can we put on the brakes, please?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts