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 ...
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
She earned her B.A. with honors at the University of California, Berkeley
Pete Wilson tapped his old law school chum Kathryn Mickle Werdegar for the California Supreme Court in 1994
After graduation, she worked at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C
******
California Wage Laws Cover Nonresidents, Justices Rule
Jul 1, 2011 – “The Legislature knows how to create exceptions for nonresidents when that is its intent,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote in Sullivan ...
Well, that means CA companies will not be acquired. They will go bankrupt...or simply close instead.
I drank my $ all away.
She does look like a Weird Gar.
This was in CA. The selling company shut down the company two weeks before the sale, the buying company then entered negotiations(we all know they had finished them weeks before that)and bought the plant, then they opened it and hired whom they wanted, it had the added bonus of voided the existing Union contract and entering into new negotiations, we all took a pay cut but we kept our jobs, at least most of us did.
Ask Boeing about that.
What can hostel employees who know or think that they’re going to loose their jobs in 90 days do to a business?
he’s my brutha from another mutha.
(we’re all brothers here...can’t you feel the love?)
There are plenty of ways to buy just the assets, but why does a businessman want assets he cannot use to make a profit?
Maybe nothing.
Before liberals screw something up, there’s usually at least some tough case that the law was TRYING to fix, and that tough case may not be as simple as banning unemployment. If the seller has make whatever workforce change he needs as a condition of a sale, then the seller can know the buyer’s intent before selling. Of course, typically the good intent of government is usually foiling the invisible hand, and the bad guys find loopholes and payoffs, and the law ends up affecting only those the government tried to make sure would be not affected.
Yep, just go for broke. Why are they messing around with minimum wage at 7.25 or whatever it is? Just give us everything we want.
Actually, I would claim that this means that businesses won't be purchased in California or that those do get purchased might be at extremely deflated values. I'd like to know how many deals are being walked away from as I type this.
That’s okay. The rest you just wasted.
When you say “drilling”, I’m going to assume oil.
You made the right decision.
Our Family business has worked in the patch, here in California for 52 years and I can’t believe how bad it’s got.
30 minute jobs now take 3-4 hours due to safety meetings and
paper work because of rules and regulations.
One of my best and long time customers, Went so far as to
have safety consultants audit MY business for compliance with
all State and Federal Labor laws, Environmental rules & regulations,
Health & Safety codes.
I finally had enough and told them to piss off and find another vendor.
That was a really tough decision with this economy, but it just wasn’t worth it anymore.
...yes, it might be that transactions would have to be structured NOT as a business sale, but as the disposal of assets not currently in use....
This is very simple. It reduces the purchase price of a company by exactly the cost of keeping employees on.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
I’d appreciate your view on Obama, the man voted into office by 51% of American voters. Do the other 49% of us deserve him too?
Next up: The Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog legislation!
This sound like something the unions are behind, or will be very soon.
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.