Democracy Dies in California
By The Editorial Board, Dec. 30, 2022, WSJ

The early 20th-century era of progressive government gave birth to California’s referendum process. Fast forward 111 years, and California’s progressive leaders are vitiating the right of voters to overturn state laws. Businesses are going to court
to stop them.

On Thursday the group Save Local Restaurants sued in state court to block the state from implementing a destructive new law on Jan. 1. The law creates a state council to dictate wages, working conditions and benefits, among other things, for fast-food
workers who aren’t unionized. The law is intended to coerce fast-food franchises to surrender to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Save Local Restaurants has filed a referendum petition with more than one million signatures, which far exceeds the 623,212 required to qualify for the November 2024 ballot. Under the state constitution, a law is required to be put on hold once a
referendum petition with enough signatures is filed.

But Democratic state officials say the law will take effect on Jan. 1 until all the signatures are verified, which could take months. Meantime, the state council could issue edicts such as raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $22 a hour.
While the council’s mandates couldn’t go into effect until Oct. 15, employers would have to prepare to comply.

Employers could also get blitzed with lawsuits since the law creates a private right of action for fast-food workers that lets them sue if they claim to have been discriminated against for making workplace complaints. Workers would be entitled to treble
damages for lost wages and benefits, plus attorneys’ fees.

Union president Mary Kay Henry called the referendum “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence more than half a million fast-food workers in California and intimidate workers everywhere from demanding a seat at the table.” But who’s
doing the silencing?

California voters amended their constitution in 1911 to reserve “to the people the power to pass judgment upon the acts of the legislature, and to prevent objectionable measures from taking effect.” Once a referendum is filed, “no such act or
section or part of such act shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.”

Never in the state’s 111-year history of referenda has a law been allowed to “temporarily” take effect once a referendum petition has been filed. As the lawsuit notes, the state’s position “would be unworkable from a practical perspective,
putting Californians in the untenable position of having to guess when, and for how long, a law may or may not be in effect.”

This Democratic gambit carries far-reaching implications for other referendum drives, including one to overturn a recently enacted law that would ban new oil and gas wells in a large portion of the state. Democrats could deliberately pass bills late in
the legislative calendar in order to limit their opponents’ ability to stop them from taking effect.

Businesses would have to temporarily comply even though the laws may be later suspended once signatures are verified and eventually overturned by voters. A state judge on Friday issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the law until a hearing is held
in two weeks. But is it any wonder that so many businesses and people are voting with their feet by leaving California?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-dies-in-california-save-local-restaurants-service-employees-international-union-referendum-11672431491

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 5:27:34 AM UTC+8, David P. wrote:

Democracy Dies in California
By The Editorial Board, Dec. 30, 2022, WSJ

The early 20th-century era of progressive government gave birth to California’s referendum process. Fast forward 111 years, and California’s progressive leaders are vitiating the right of voters to overturn state laws. Businesses are going to court

to stop them.

On Thursday the group Save Local Restaurants sued in state court to block the state from implementing a destructive new law on Jan. 1. The law creates a state council to dictate wages, working conditions and benefits, among other things, for fast-food

workers who aren’t unionized. The law is intended to coerce fast-food franchises to surrender to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Save Local Restaurants has filed a referendum petition with more than one million signatures, which far exceeds the 623,212 required to qualify for the November 2024 ballot. Under the state constitution, a law is required to be put on hold once a

referendum petition with enough signatures is filed.

But Democratic state officials say the law will take effect on Jan. 1 until all the signatures are verified, which could take months. Meantime, the state council could issue edicts such as raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $22 a hour.

While the council’s mandates couldn’t go into effect until Oct. 15, employers would have to prepare to comply.

Employers could also get blitzed with lawsuits since the law creates a private right of action for fast-food workers that lets them sue if they claim to have been discriminated against for making workplace complaints. Workers would be entitled to

treble damages for lost wages and benefits, plus attorneys’ fees.

Union president Mary Kay Henry called the referendum “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence more than half a million fast-food workers in California and intimidate workers everywhere from demanding a seat at the table.” But who’s

doing the silencing?

California voters amended their constitution in 1911 to reserve “to the people the power to pass judgment upon the acts of the legislature, and to prevent objectionable measures from taking effect.” Once a referendum is filed, “no such act or

section or part of such act shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.”

Never in the state’s 111-year history of referenda has a law been allowed to “temporarily” take effect once a referendum petition has been filed. As the lawsuit notes, the state’s position “would be unworkable from a practical perspective,

putting Californians in the untenable position of having to guess when, and for how long, a law may or may not be in effect.”

This Democratic gambit carries far-reaching implications for other referendum drives, including one to overturn a recently enacted law that would ban new oil and gas wells in a large portion of the state. Democrats could deliberately pass bills late in

the legislative calendar in order to limit their opponents’ ability to stop them from taking effect.

Businesses would have to temporarily comply even though the laws may be later suspended once signatures are verified and eventually overturned by voters. A state judge on Friday issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the law until a hearing is held

in two weeks. But is it any wonder that so many businesses and people are voting with their feet by leaving California?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-dies-in-california-save-local-restaurants-service-employees-international-union-referendum-11672431491

Wages if not raised by law will not keep up with the cost of living of employees working for restaurants.. If wages are not raised, it will not have the right recruitment and employment for restaurant businesses, too.

Hence, wage has to be increased by creation a law to enforce it. To bring restaurant wages to the market level of other jobs, there should be progressive wage increases within two years so avoid huge and steep jump in wages.

Thereafter, two years of progression of pay increases, it should level up with other jobs, so that cross-employability can increase the pools of recruitment of restaurant staff. Restaurants, of course, can raise the menu prices for their foods and
beverages, and services too.

Restaurant owners should know that there are many people out there in their jobs are earning a lot more than their employees and hence they are able to spend their higher earning power to spend on their restaurants, too.

In short, higher wages ordered by law give a lot of confidence to employees in finding jobs in restaurant work. Restaurant employees worked long hours and yet their pay is meagre and without any leave at all.

To ensure the wage increase law is improved on the lives of employees in restaurant business, authorities should cancel all the food service licenses and be renewed with new terms for it. To ensure there is future for restaurant businesses, there should
be laws to enforce change.
.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Would You be interested joining my company of making emoticon art ?

First example: https://groups.google.com/g/airplane/c/Vtw8-q9g-nE



David P. kirjutas Neljapäev, 5. jaanuar 2023 kl 23:27:34 UTC+2:

Democracy Dies in California
By The Editorial Board, Dec. 30, 2022, WSJ

The early 20th-century era of progressive government gave birth to California’s referendum process. Fast forward 111 years, and California’s progressive leaders are vitiating the right of voters to overturn state laws. Businesses are going to court

to stop them.

On Thursday the group Save Local Restaurants sued in state court to block the state from implementing a destructive new law on Jan. 1. The law creates a state council to dictate wages, working conditions and benefits, among other things, for fast-food

workers who aren’t unionized. The law is intended to coerce fast-food franchises to surrender to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Save Local Restaurants has filed a referendum petition with more than one million signatures, which far exceeds the 623,212 required to qualify for the November 2024 ballot. Under the state constitution, a law is required to be put on hold once a

referendum petition with enough signatures is filed.

But Democratic state officials say the law will take effect on Jan. 1 until all the signatures are verified, which could take months. Meantime, the state council could issue edicts such as raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $22 a hour.

While the council’s mandates couldn’t go into effect until Oct. 15, employers would have to prepare to comply.

Employers could also get blitzed with lawsuits since the law creates a private right of action for fast-food workers that lets them sue if they claim to have been discriminated against for making workplace complaints. Workers would be entitled to

treble damages for lost wages and benefits, plus attorneys’ fees.

Union president Mary Kay Henry called the referendum “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence more than half a million fast-food workers in California and intimidate workers everywhere from demanding a seat at the table.” But who’s

doing the silencing?

California voters amended their constitution in 1911 to reserve “to the people the power to pass judgment upon the acts of the legislature, and to prevent objectionable measures from taking effect.” Once a referendum is filed, “no such act or

section or part of such act shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.”

Never in the state’s 111-year history of referenda has a law been allowed to “temporarily” take effect once a referendum petition has been filed. As the lawsuit notes, the state’s position “would be unworkable from a practical perspective,

putting Californians in the untenable position of having to guess when, and for how long, a law may or may not be in effect.”

This Democratic gambit carries far-reaching implications for other referendum drives, including one to overturn a recently enacted law that would ban new oil and gas wells in a large portion of the state. Democrats could deliberately pass bills late in

the legislative calendar in order to limit their opponents’ ability to stop them from taking effect.

Businesses would have to temporarily comply even though the laws may be later suspended once signatures are verified and eventually overturned by voters. A state judge on Friday issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the law until a hearing is held

in two weeks. But is it any wonder that so many businesses and people are voting with their feet by leaving California?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-dies-in-california-save-local-restaurants-service-employees-international-union-referendum-11672431491

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Would You be interested joining my company of making emoticon art ?

First example: https://groups.google.com/g/airplane/c/Vtw8-q9g-nE




stoney kirjutas Teisipäev, 10. jaanuar 2023 kl 08:52:47 UTC+2:

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 5:27:34 AM UTC+8, David P. wrote:

Democracy Dies in California
By The Editorial Board, Dec. 30, 2022, WSJ

The early 20th-century era of progressive government gave birth to California’s referendum process. Fast forward 111 years, and California’s progressive leaders are vitiating the right of voters to overturn state laws. Businesses are going to

court to stop them.

On Thursday the group Save Local Restaurants sued in state court to block the state from implementing a destructive new law on Jan. 1. The law creates a state council to dictate wages, working conditions and benefits, among other things, for fast-

food workers who aren’t unionized. The law is intended to coerce fast-food franchises to surrender to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Save Local Restaurants has filed a referendum petition with more than one million signatures, which far exceeds the 623,212 required to qualify for the November 2024 ballot. Under the state constitution, a law is required to be put on hold once a

referendum petition with enough signatures is filed.

But Democratic state officials say the law will take effect on Jan. 1 until all the signatures are verified, which could take months. Meantime, the state council could issue edicts such as raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $22 a hour.

While the council’s mandates couldn’t go into effect until Oct. 15, employers would have to prepare to comply.

Employers could also get blitzed with lawsuits since the law creates a private right of action for fast-food workers that lets them sue if they claim to have been discriminated against for making workplace complaints. Workers would be entitled to

treble damages for lost wages and benefits, plus attorneys’ fees.

Union president Mary Kay Henry called the referendum “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence more than half a million fast-food workers in California and intimidate workers everywhere from demanding a seat at the table.” But who’s

doing the silencing?

California voters amended their constitution in 1911 to reserve “to the people the power to pass judgment upon the acts of the legislature, and to prevent objectionable measures from taking effect.” Once a referendum is filed, “no such act or

section or part of such act shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.”

Never in the state’s 111-year history of referenda has a law been allowed to “temporarily” take effect once a referendum petition has been filed. As the lawsuit notes, the state’s position “would be unworkable from a practical perspective,

putting Californians in the untenable position of having to guess when, and for how long, a law may or may not be in effect.”

This Democratic gambit carries far-reaching implications for other referendum drives, including one to overturn a recently enacted law that would ban new oil and gas wells in a large portion of the state. Democrats could deliberately pass bills late

in the legislative calendar in order to limit their opponents’ ability to stop them from taking effect.

Businesses would have to temporarily comply even though the laws may be later suspended once signatures are verified and eventually overturned by voters. A state judge on Friday issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the law until a hearing is

held in two weeks. But is it any wonder that so many businesses and people are voting with their feet by leaving California?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-dies-in-california-save-local-restaurants-service-employees-international-union-referendum-11672431491

Wages if not raised by law will not keep up with the cost of living of employees working for restaurants.. If wages are not raised, it will not have the right recruitment and employment for restaurant businesses, too.

Hence, wage has to be increased by creation a law to enforce it. To bring restaurant wages to the market level of other jobs, there should be progressive wage increases within two years so avoid huge and steep jump in wages.

Thereafter, two years of progression of pay increases, it should level up with other jobs, so that cross-employability can increase the pools of recruitment of restaurant staff. Restaurants, of course, can raise the menu prices for their foods and

beverages, and services too.

Restaurant owners should know that there are many people out there in their jobs are earning a lot more than their employees and hence they are able to spend their higher earning power to spend on their restaurants, too.

In short, higher wages ordered by law give a lot of confidence to employees in finding jobs in restaurant work. Restaurant employees worked long hours and yet their pay is meagre and without any leave at all.

To ensure the wage increase law is improved on the lives of employees in restaurant business, authorities should cancel all the food service licenses and be renewed with new terms for it. To ensure there is future for restaurant businesses, there

should be laws to enforce change.

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)