Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
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 ...
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.
Are you two brothers?
If you're really curious: 10-289
Gee that's not 90 days!!!!!!!!!
Directive 10-289.
They can’t raise property taxes, proposition 13 allows only 1% tax of valuation and the valuation can only be raised 2% per year.
“In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action.”-A Great Historian 1888
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.
But then you wouldn't have me in GA.
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.
yep.
Last night - just got to “dinner at Mulligans”
“Gentlemen - Taggart Transcontinental”
Rand has the left pegged...
“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.”
Or alternatively part of the MOU would include the seller must take the action of laying off the required workforce before the sale is effective.
what is keeping a business from moving it headquarters out of the state and or city and then firing all the unwanted dead weight?
Sounds good until an attorney wants to sue and then it goes to one of our ‘Uber Liberal’ courts here in California.
All this will do is that now the buyers will require the layoffs take place prior to purchase.
Actually there are three of us. BaghdadBob was left behind in Iraq, but that was his choice. I am the better looking and most intelligent of the trio but WOBBLY has the money so it all works out.
so basically with this new law anyone that works for a company that just got bought can do ANYTHING and not get fired for 90 days?
Punch the new boss... nope can’t fire them!
Sexually assault a coworker... nope can’t fire them!
Steal the inventory... nope can’t fire them!
Must wait 90 days!
This is freaking INSANE!!!!
‘what is keeping a business from moving it headquarters out of the state and or city and then firing all the unwanted dead weight?’
Which exactly why our state has lost hundreds of businesses this year.
lemme see if i get this right. if you want to keep SOME employees, you have to include ALL of them in the sale, which means significantly less value to the business. the alternative is to close the business altogether, layign off everybody, THEN selling the assets. the new owner can then hire whomever they chose.
sounds like more layoffs are in store for CA...
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
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.