Anaheim’s Measure A, sponsored by Ada Briceño’s UNITE HERE Local 11 does not look like it’s going to pass. Its highest-concept portion — providing safety alarms to housekeepers to protect them against sexual assault — was rendered superfluous when Natalie Rubalcava severed that provision from the rest; that deft jujitsu move is likely the reason that Briceño is pursuing a recall against her. I’m told that Business groups are dominating the airwaves in the leadup to the October 3 election. The Council setting the election for that date, rather than bundling it into the the 2024 general election as requested, is the main reason why I might end up favoring it: they had no real need to stack the deck by spending gobs more taxpayer money on a special election — and how else are they going to learn to cut that crap if not by losing a special election or two? That maneuver might end up blowing up in their faces, given that Local 11’s core supporters will definitely come out and their opponents may not be as fired up.
Note that in this post I’ll refer only to “hotel” workers, but it actually includes “event center” workers — defined as sports, entertainment, and convention center venues above a certain size. So, as the owner of the Convention Center and Angels Stadium, the city of Anaheim could be a defendant.
I’m going to give my recommendation another time — once I figure out exactly what I think about it — but for now I am taking on a more modest task: I just want to help readers understand what’s in it.
Notably, this proposed ordinance applies not only to hotels, but also to concert halls, sports facilities, and convention centers containing over 20,000 square feet, whether publicly or privately owned.
The Key Portions of Measure A
The obvious nominees for “key portions” are of course the $25/hour wage increase, indexed to keep up with inflation when it’s high and to get ahead of it when it’s low; the eye-popping overtime provisions; the massive rollback of how much a given employee could be ordered to do; and more to be discussed later. To me, though, the key provisions are these:
We’ll get to 6.100.040 through 6.100.080 just below. For now just note that if a hotel operator enters a “bona fide” labor agreement — that is, one with a union that demonstrates “a sincere and good faith intent to organize and represent employees as a collective bargaining representative, including the capacity or ability to do so — then it gets to work out a more relaxed version of these five subsections.
Well, what do these subsections do? I’ll briefly summarize:
.040: Exceed limits on square feet cleaned within 8 hours and you pay DOUBLE TIME FOR THE WHOLE DAY!
For hotels with fewer than 60 guest rooms, housekeepers that clean more than 4000 square feet in an eight-hours workday get — not overtime — but a doubling of their pay for the entire day!
For hotels with 60 or more guest rooms, this double time pay kicks in if a worker exceeds cleaning 3500 square feet.
If someone has to clean six or more “special attention” rooms — ones in which the resident of the room decline cleaning for the previous day — the amount triggering double pay is reduced by 500 square feet. If someone works for less than eight hours, the trigger is pro-rated downward accordingly. If someone works for more than eight hours, so that they get overtime, then the total limit gets pro-rated up accordingly. In all cases, the employer has to indicate the square footage of the rooms — not just regular hotel rooms, but game rooms and other special purpose rooms.
Three other schemes to get more out of workers are also included.
But remember: these limits can be superseded if the hotel has a contract with a hotel workers union!
.050 CHANGE IN CONTROL
If control of the hotel changes, notifications of it, with contact information of the new controlling entity must be prominently posted within five days and stay up for six months.
.060 WORKER RETENTION
Some new rules regarding workers being able to keep their jobs even if ownership changes. Sort of abstruse and seems unobjectionable.
.070 MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS
Thirty days after the ordinance passes, the minimum wage for hotel workers goes up to $25/hour. Beginning January 1, 2026, workers get cost-of-living increases of the greater of 3% or the result of a formula put out by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, describing the effects of inflation are for similar workers in Greater Los Angeles.
But remember: these limits can be superseded if the hotel has a contract with a hotel workers union!
.080 SERVICE CHARGES MUST GO ENTIRELY TO EMPLOYEES
You can go up to the link at the top and read this section if you wish: the gist is that if the management calls something a “service charge” then the money is pooled and disbursed to those actually providing the services. (Money left on the table or nightstand is not pooled.)
But remember: these limits can be superseded if the hotel has a contract with a hotel workers union!
NOW LET’S RETURN TO THOSE KEY SECTIONS
These five contract provisions — of which .040 and .070 are much more than an inconvenience — can be superseded (displaced, overruled) by an employer agreement with a bona fide union, which in Anaheim pretty much means UNITE HERE Local 11. For Anaheim activists Mike and Jeanine Robbins, that’s the whole point of this agreement: to use the threat of mandatory actions to coerce hotel employees to affiliate with Local 11. No employer wants to have to go back and pay double-time, rather than mere overtime, because a sudden need to send an employer who has cleaned 3600 square feet to a different floor lowers their daily allotment of square footage to clean by 500 and moves their day’s allocation from 4000 to 3500. It’s a great rallying point for employees, but patently unreasonable for employers. So it puts a strong pressure on small hotels in particular to affiliate, because they can’t afford the consequences of refusing.
Of course, there is another possibility: the small hotels could sell out to larger ones who are already affiliated with Local 11. This may be good for Local 11 — it now gets dues from those employees — but consolidating properties in fewer hands is bad for the competitive market and will lead to higher room rates by making things hard for bargain-hunting tourists. And while the Robbinses are small business owners, who hold the interests of that class dear, I have to agree that I’d rather support small business owners than big business owners.
Where I differ from the Robbinses is this, which I’ll represent as a syllogism:
MAJOR PREMISE: If a legal provision is in this proposal, it must be important
MINOR PREMISE: The only comparative advantage Local 11 can offer to hotel owners is to undercut these legal provisions
CONCLUSION: Local 11 is only valuable to hotel owners if it is willing to undercut what it asserts are important legal provisions.
In other words, either these provisions are important for workers and they should not be able to be diluted in exchange for an employer’s benefit, or they are not important and they should not be enacted at all. I don’t know enough about whether cleaning 5000 or 4000 or 3500 or 3000 square feet should be a maximum before some employers penalty kicks in — but I’m pretty confident that the proper solution for exceeding it should be double or maybe even triple overtime for those hours rather than essentially the cost of hiring a new employee.
And I think that it is a huge problem if UNITE HERE can allow some employers to live by more realistic rules (in exchange for benefitting their bottom line) while others are left to suffer with them. I have a hard time believing that this would comport with the California Business & Professions Code — and I have as hard a time believing that UNITE HERE under Briceño would have given the matter careful thought.
Some provisions — .050, .060, and .080 — seem to me to be reasonable and should be the City Council. But I wonder what those room square footage maximums would be if there were no “Supersession Clause.”
The reasonable thing for the Council to approve — after this fails and before a new-and-improved version is passed — is to exclude .040 and .070 from the supersession clause. Then, we’ll find out from UNITE HERE what the real numbers should be — when they can’t gain new members from undercutting them.
(I’ll note here that while I’d love to see a higher minimum wage, I don’t think that it’s best to do it piecemeal — affecting only those workers who happen to be represented by the union heading by the head of the local chapter of the state’s dominant political party. That is a very ugly look — and one not good for the labor union as a whole.
THIS AGREEMENT MIGHT RENDER UNITE HERE IRRELEVANT!
That subheading might seem implausible. Read it through to the end before you judge!
First, let’s note that this ordinance does not look much like most ordinances. Instead, it looks like a good portion of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). What this essentially does is to put all hotel workers in the city under a default CBA — and, as noted above, a pretty harsh one — that will be in place even in the absence of a union-negotiated CBA, which as noted above would have to be less harsh. (Yes, there are also benefits that may accrue to union members — although that may involve some overpromising — as well as costs, starting with dues. But by definition, those existing benefits would have been insufficient to get them to join Local 11, or they would have already done so.)
But let’s look at this through the green eyeshades of a profit-seeking employer — maybe one who does sometimes break the rules a little. The union will probably do a good job of bringing grievances, because that’s one way to demonstrate its value to its members. But what if they don’t sign up? Will they still get in trouble? That leads us to the second section in the excerpt above: enforcement of the agreement.
First, they could file a lawsuit over it, under 6.100.150.20 — but the costs, especially with the “winner gets fees” provision in subsection 150.50 the agreement, makes that a fraught option, especially with low stakes. (The latter section includes payment of expert witness fees — a potentially huge deterrent to litigation.) But the major action in the ordinance is in subsection 150.10, which requests enforcement by the city. Here’s how that plays out, with modal words emphasized. [Note that I’ve substituted the word “can” for “may,” because statutory drafters now recognize that “can” refers to ability to act, which includes permission, while “may” has come to include the meaning of “might” — i.e., “may or may not”)]:
- Worker claiming a violation can report it to the Anaheim City Manager
- City Manager shall cause investigation of the complaint
- If City Manager or their designee finds out about a violation (through complaint or otherwise), they shall issue a written notice to cure within a 10-day period
- If no cure has been shown by that time, City Manager or designee can request the City Attorney to pursue a civil action against the employer under 150.20
- An aggrieved employee can also file a civil action without first complaining to the City Manager
- Under 150.30,
- Under 150.70, no criminal penalties can be imposed
- Under 150.60, the penalties can be cumulative, so that many could be filed at once — but I don’t see any statute of limitations indicated. (If this were established a contract, it would be 4 years by default; I’m not sure of the default SOL for an infraction of a municipal ordinance, but I’d bet it’s less than 4 years.)
However, under subsection 150.90 employers may also be able to obtain a “limited waiver” exempting them from “particular” provisions of this ordinance (it’s not clear which or how many, but the one already passed, the safety provision in 6.100.030, cannot be waived) if they can “demonstrate, with evidence, that such requirements would require the employer, in order to avoid bankruptcy or a shutdown of the hotel [], to reduce its workforce by more then 20% or curtail its total work hours by more than 30%.”
But, the “City Manager shall grant such a waiver only after reviewing an employer’s evidence of it’s financial condition at the employer’s expense. [I’m not sure what that means: paying for an outside auditor?] The waiver granted can be valid for no more than one year. A determination to grant or deny such a waiver may be appealed to the City Council within 14 days after the City Manager’s action.”
Before applying for a waiver, “a hotel employer [] shall provide written notice of the waiver application to all workers, as applicable, employed by the employer. Within (3) days of receiving a waiver determination from the City Manager, under this section, a hotel employer [] shall provide written notice of the determination to all hotel workers” who received the above notice.
So: among the things that can be waived by the City Manager — even selectively, given the lack of language to the contrary, to the benefit of some employers and not others — at their own discretion. (Amazingly, one of the provisions that can be waived is the “anti-retaliation” requirement of subsection 6.100.110 — so good luck with that, aggrieved employees!) The City Council is ill-disposed towards this ordinance, so I would expect to see strong pro-waiver sentiment directed towards any City Manager — and City Managers tend to know who butters their bread.
So: what would you do as a (usually smaller) hotelier whose employees are not already organized?
(1) Allow the employees to organize under UNITE HERE without major written concessions from them?
(2) Allow the employees to organize under UNITE HERE only if it makes major written concessions?
(3) Do not organize under UNITE HERE and let the City Manager use their options — such as everywhere the word “can” appears in the above document — to refuse to go forward with a prosecution, and dare employees to go forward with civil suits?
I seriously wonder if the advantages of having the city have the primary responsibility of going forward with a prosecution exceed the advantages of having the union be able to grieve under a contract. There a just so many ways to kill a complaint — meaning leaving the employee to file their own action — without leaving much of a mark! (Waivers can take into account the status of the economic health of the city — because, it might be thought, having people employed is simply better for both them and the city. And where waivers are not permitted when an employer isn’t sufficiently economically threatened, the use of discretion in the “can” sections indicated above could do the trick.)
In fact, I wonder if some hotel owners and workers might decide that that are so much better off without this agreement — shifting most of the enforcement burden onto the city rather than at the discretion of the union itself (where, if they don’t decide to bring a case against the employer, the employer’s recourse is to bring an action against the union instead!) — that you could see workers at various hotels disaffiliate with the union!
And THAT is the “making UNITE HERE IRRELEVANT” that you see in the section title!
Look, union are useful for a number of things:
- creating a good collective bargaining agreement, including wage and working condition protections
- making complaints to employers and trying to mediate them
- leading strikes and other collective actions
- other things that don’t immediately spring to mind because they aren’t directly relevant to the point I make below
Of these, creating a good collective bargaining agreement and being an intermediary in complaints are probably the most crucial. And what Measure A does is to give workers a pretty impressive collective bargaining agreement, with lavish wage protection and as good other protection as they would likely receive otherwise, without further union involvement!
Do they still even need UNITE HERE if this passes?
My bet is that they wouldn’t necessarily need the union, because the benefits are not limited to union members — so they can “free ride.” (In fact, the only thing that unions can do, with respect to the applicability of these provisions to their workers, is to bargain them away under the supersession clause, as discussed above, to give employers a reason to allow unionization!)
Like I said — I don’t think that Measure A is going to pass, so I don’t think that we’ll ever get a chance to see whether my predictions of how it would operate will come true. But if this story garners it a lot more votes because people agree that its major effect might be to screw over UNITE HERE, then you’re welcome for the boost to your “Yes on A” campaign, Local 11!
What’s next? Mini-mart workers? File clerks? Medical office employees?
The whole thing is a power play by a person desperate for political power.
Vote no. Or like me. possibly don’t vote in this farce at all.
I don’t see how not voting would do any good. Even if only three people voted citywide, whichever result emerged would still stand.
It is tempting to sit back and watch King Kong vs. Godzilla. If only I liked popcorn more.
I’m interested in reading comments about whether the “blowback” scenario I’ve posited — in which UNITE HERE renders itself irrelevant because it has installed such a powerful default CBA-equivalent into the City Code, is a plausible outcome.
(Don’t everyone comment at once!)
Who knows. The whole thing doesn’t make sense to me.
I got a flyer in which Unite Here is still selling the employee safety schtick. And no mention of a minimum wage of $25 per hour.
And how is Measure A any better than crony capitalists manipulating the city government code to enrich itself?
Will we hear from OCCORD?
If I’m correct that Marisol Ramirez (who has a big grudge against Ada) is still running OCCORD, I would think that we hear from them before long.
I said that I wasn’t going to announce my final position on the Measure yet, because I’m pissed at what the Council did, but of course you make a powerful point. I’d say it would be better than the crony biz if it were simply using the City Code to protect workers’ rights and such — but the what I’ll politely not call extortion-ish aspects of this are as repulsive as they are brazen.
Ada mostly wants the $25 because it will help her follow in the path of her mentor (or at least the person who she seems to think is her mentor) State Sen. and former DNC Vice Chair Maria Elena Durazo. Jumping to $25/hr would be a big victory for her to run on when she gets onto the path of running for elected office. I have a feeling that she’ll still be wearing this albatross around her neck by then. (Look up the allusion, Ada.)
Marisol is the “director of programs.” Ely Flores is the executive director.
They’ve been real quiet about Measure A.
Interesting. Perhaps someone who isn’t me should ask them for their reaction to this post.
I don’t know why they would want to touch this issue.
I think Dave is suggesting they should be against ALL corruption in Anaheim.
For consistency’s sake. Which is neither here nor there in politics.
Gotcha.
Forgot to add: that intentional act of misdirection could be helpful to opponents of the measure if it passes and they try to nullify it in court — as I expect they would.
The only counterargument could be that if it’s enacted by a popular vote it might be harder to amend or remove from the City Code than if it came from a simple Council vote. (I know that that’s true at the state level; I don’t know whether it’s true of the City of Anaheim.) So maaaaaaaybe that could justify its presence in campaign material, if so. The counterargument, of course, is that no one on the Disney-owned Council is going to vote to get rid of the panic buttons, setting themselves for massive protests the first time after repeal that a housekeeper got raped.
This Unite 11 here measure is far more controversial and political.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/los-angeles-proposal-house-homeless-vacant-hotel-rooms-draws-criticism.amp
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/28/la-ballot-measure-hotel-rooms-homeless-people-00113139
https://abc7.com/amp/homeless-in-hotels-los-angeles-la-southern-california/13719945/
You drunk piece of shit; and you storke brain-damaged piece of shit. netiehr of you can tell Democrats what to do becuase your both assholes
Dan C. denies on his blog that this was his post. All I can say is that they got his email address right, even though they “butchered” (his term) his last name by leaving out the “m”. On the positive side, the author got 10 out of 11 letters right, which would be an A- grade if he weren’t disqualified for being an anonymous coward.
This is part of why I nicknamed him “Chumley” long before I had a “storke”; it reduced the likelihood of spelling errors.
Edited to add: I know that Chumley is very protective of the IP addresses of the trolls he fawns over there, but I’m not: 45.50.233.8. Sic semper pseudonymous trolls.
You should just refer to him as the Eric Cartman of democrats .
Screw you guys, I’M GOING HOME!
You dick.
You three losers should do yourself a favor and take turns playing with Yogi’s 9mm.
The writing seems about right.
Perhaps all the legalese is necessary because when the last ($15.00) measure passed, the council forced Fabela to exclude Disney and found a moron judge to agree. It took 5 years and an appellate court’s decision to overturn that fraud.
I see that Greg has no understanding about how labor unions work.
One the workers decide if they want a union in the public and private sector with a majority wanting the union to represent and bargain. The only exception is for construction unions that can legally enter into an agreement without the majority support of the union.
Two the employees in the union vote in most unions to accept the labor agreement. That is why it says that the contract can’t be implemented as a last, best and final offer by the Employer. The union Unite Here can only get voluntary recognition by the employer if it proves that it represents a majority of the workers.
So basically your entire premise is incorrect and illegal. There are many provisions in the California Labor code that have opt out provisions if there is a bonafide collective bargaining agreement. Most unions use these provisions as the minimum wage rate or sick days. Most unions have more sick days than provided by law for instance.
Gee, Florice — I think I’ve shown that I know more than nothing about unions. I’ll resist the temptation to throw back some bogus overgeneralizations about you as tit for tat.
What do you think my premise is — and why do you think it’s illegal? Who would be doing what “illegally”?
I presume that you’re addressing my comment that this could blow up in Local 11’s face as workers understand that having a union could only lead to undercutting the standard legal agreement that would be in the City Code. That’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re making any sense at all.
(1) Are you under the impression that a union can’t be decertified? You seem to be talking about union certification. We don’t disagree about that. Where did you get the contrary impression?
(2) Yes, employees vote to accept a labor agreement. Where did you get the sense that I believe otherwise? That’s existing law, isn’t it? Your supposed criticism doesn’t seem responsive to my argument,
So let’s move beyond union formation. (And employers can certainly make unionization more or less likely by giving on some the demands that workers make — or NOT doing so if they’re happy with an agreement that allows supersession of the baseline policies.) Maybe what you’re arguing is that if Local 11 proposes an agreement that is not as good as the standard one this creates for the City, it must be that the workers do agree that they should get a lower level of benefits as part of the package of joining up with UNITE HERE. Alternatively, we could suspect that Ada and her L-11 minions are very willing to threaten, abuse, and retaliate against workers who won’t go along with what Ada wants.
You don’t deal with the supersession clause at all. Maybe you think that “supersession” means a DPOC meeting where no one asks questions or give the slightest peep of dissent — sort of like the Russian Duma: “that was such a super session — we squashed all dissent!”
It’s interesting that unions can bargain for additional benefits from employers (presuming that the employer and not the union provides those extra sick days.). Does Local 11, um, do that? I’ve heard talk about L-11’s desire to create nearby housing for Anaheim Resort-area workers — and I’ve also heard that they have nowhere near the money that it would take to do so and very little chance of changing that.
What did you mean that “[m]ost unions use these [opt out] provisions as the minimum wage rate or sick days”? They use the provisions as sick days? I am sure that there’s a grammatical sentence in there somewhere.
Yes an Employer can make it more likely to have a union by remaining neutral and not interfering in the union organizing campaign and not having an anti union campaign but it is the employees right not the employer’s right to have a union. Also do you think the hotels are saying I’ll have a union contract with benefits because otherwise I have to pay $25 per hour.
Read. The. Supersession. Clause.
If Measure A passes, the benefits are there either way — unless a union bargains them down under the supersession clause.
We can’t discuss this logically until you read the supersession clause. Then you can tell me what you think it’s there and what it does.
Florice Hoffman is a flat footed floozy. Pfft. Ooh antisemitism bad. Pro Genocide deniers good.
You’re on the road to getting ejected again. Don’t call women “floozies” here.
And … that was a short road to ejection!
I left up one of Eric’s replies to Florice’s comment below discussing the CDP’s 2021 resolution denouncing Turkey and Azerbaijan for war crimes against Armenia because, while truculent, it was fairly benign.
I suspended a second one that began “Florice you – a tribe member attorney – are part of a group that endorsed a candidate for re-election as Mayor who aligned herself with Genocide deniers” and ended with “You Florice are an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, the bar and the Tribe. Kismir toochas!”
I don’t think that that the comment contains any insult that Eric hasn’t previously directed at me — but it’s still “shitting in the punchbowl” — and as a private entity trying to attract and retain an audience of readers we’re under no obligation to put up with it. I will discuss with Vern how to deal with him going forward, but it may involve a whole lot of comments in the trash.
I have had a contentious relationship with Florice within and outside of the party over the years — but I’ve signed up to be a target of this sort of derision sometimes and she has not. She is welcome to comment here. If she doesn’t want to because I or my arguments irritate her, that life. But I am not going to see her driven off by this sort of harassment and insults based on gender, religion, and ethnicity. We have no responsibility to put up with obsessions of one writer who seems unable to quell them.
I hate having to do this at a time when Armenia has lost a major battle over Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh — but if that’s what set Eric off I empathize with the pain but it still doesn’t justify the actions. And if Florice wants to see the comment I suspended, which was up for seven hours, we’ll be happy to send it to her.)
Interfering with or dominating a union (Section 8(a)(2))
Employees have the right to be represented by a union of their choice – not their employer’s. Thus, for example, it is unlawful for an employer to recognize a union that lacks majority employee support (except in the construction industry), or that has majority support only because an employer coerced it.
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.” (An employer that violates Section 8(a)(2) also derivatively violates Section 8(a)(1).) For example, you may not
Establish and control a “company union.”
Recognize a union after you are notified that another union has filed a valid election petition. (If your employees are already represented, however, you must continue to recognize and bargain with the incumbent union – unless it has lost majority status – even after a rival union files a valid petition.)
Recognize, bargain with, or execute an agreement with a minority union, unless you are an employer in the construction industry and the agreement is under Section 8(f) of the Act.
Recognize, bargain with, or execute an agreement with a union whose majority status you helped it obtain through unlawful assistance.
Engage in conduct that benefits one union at the expense of another, or that reasonably tends to coerce employees to support or join a union. (You may, however, tell your employees that you favor a particular union.)
Require or encourage employees to sign dues checkoff authorizations. (You may, however, give employees dues checkoff authorization forms.)
Remit dues to a union absent a validly executed dues checkoff authorization.
Fail to honor a timely revocation of a dues checkoff authorization.
Again, I don’t see how this contradicts what I’ve written here. I haven’t said that employers can force a different union (or no union) upon their workers. I’ve said that they might be happier being governed under the base-level agreement that Measure A installs into Anaheim’s Code — which means that the union has that much less leverage when it comes to getting employers to agree to a new contract of their liking unless they undercut the guarantees that this new amendment would insert into city law. The union can still press for a better deal than that offered by Measure A — but it’s not clear to me why employers would deal with them unless they did invoke the supersession clause to relax some of these worker protections. If they undercut those protections too much, then their own members could decide that they have no use for the union and decertify. (This is compatible with their first having approved an agreement and then later decided to seek different union representation because they came to believe that the union sold them out.) Once this is in the Anaheim City Code, the union becomes relevant to protecting workers in these major areas of worker-employer relations only if the City doesn’t do so — and the employers will likely be able to work out much more reasonable settlements of grievances with the City Attorney then they could do with the union itself. And while the union could still bring individual cases in court, that’s expensive — and the fact that the unions literally wrote the code that the employers would be relying upon does not seem like it would bode well for plaintiffs in court.
Maybe there’s some deficiency in my analysis, but I don’t think you’ve identified it. I’M NOT SAYING that employers can prevent a union from forming. I’m saying that they can refuse to negotiate with a union on workplace issues because there’s no point in doing so unless it improves on what this ordinance provides. So if this ordinance works, it undercuts the value of a union. (And yes, they can continue to agitate for more — but this is a pretty big grasp by the union and I doubt that workers would vote to strike over minor changes.)
It follows that if Local 11 is doing this in the hope of getting workers to organize smaller hotels, as some contend, they may be seriously be disappointed because the ordinance will have already done the job that the union would be telling workers they should join them in order to do. And employers, seeing the strength of these default terms, can tell the union to pound sand when they make further demands. Workers will figure this out.
Now to the excision for employers with labor agreements. Almost every labor code section has an exclusion for employers covered by a collective bargaining agreement. My point is that most union contracts use the law as a minimum and not to have less sick leave or pay less. Most importantly union members decide whether to ratify a contract and whether to continue to be represented by the union. It’s a democracy unlike the hotels. The real reason hotels or all employers are anti union is because it unions give power to the workers.
Also to Eric you continue to threaten democrats based on one endorsement and you we have based resolutions against the Armenian genocide and against the policies of Azerbaijan. Also as a lawyer you should be held to a higher ethical standard. It’s embarrassing to the profession like Giuliani and Eastman.
Calls for Divesting from, and Condemning, and Sanctioning Turkey and Azerbaijan As Part of its 2021 Top 13 Priorities
LOS ANGELES—The California Democratic Party on Sunday adopted, as part of its top 13 priorities coming out of its 2021 state convention, a resolution condemning Turkey and Azerbaijan for the war crimes they committed over the course of 44 days and after their attack on the Republic of Artsakh and Armenia, beginning on September 27, 2020.
The resolution, introduced by LACDP Elected Member and DSCC Member Elen Asatryan, also urges Congress and the Biden Administration to sanction Turkey and Azerbaijan and demand that Azerbaijani authorities immediately release all Armenian Prisoners of War and captured civilians. Furthermore, it also calls on the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System to divest all public employee retirement funds from investment vehicles issued by Turkey and Azerbaijan until Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide, and until the people of Artsakh are afforded the opportunity of self-determination on their indigenous lands. The measure passed during Sunday’s general floor session as part of a docket that drew overwhelming approval from delegates, with only nominal opposition on other resolutions, but none on record regarding resolution 21-04.143.
Welcome to the blog world, Florice! I thought you hated us.
Ho hum.
Florice, how does the DPOC backing Farrahkhan for re-election reconcile with the CDP’s priorities condemning Azerbaijan and Turkey. And why are you trying to take credit for Elen Asatryan’s work??
Measure A goes down in flames.
https://ocvote.gov/results/current-election-results
I hope it was worth the $1.4 million special election, to somebody. I read that the anti-Measure A forces, led by Disney, the hotels and Chamber, spent $3.3 million, 33 times more than the $100k Unite Here spent supporting it.
We had our door knocked on ONCE by a young bilingual man who spoke about the need for hotel worker safety alarms; he hadn’t been told that that issue had already been taken care of by the anti-Union folks.
83% of Anaheim voters didn’t show up. I am guessing the Natalie recall is dead. It’ll need around 5000 signatures in the next few months, and nobody I know in district 3 has been approached.
For the first time in my 18+ life I refused to vote. I was reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of an English fox hunt: the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.
Vulgar me. I envisioned eating popcorn while watching King Kong fight Godzilla.
It turned out to be Godzilla fighting PeeWee Herman. Strictly no contest. And so predictable. Another failure by union leadership: bad politics and policy is a rotten combination.
DPOc endorses Farrahkhan again. Well it’s not like they have a stable of worthy candidates from which to select to go up against Dapper Don. Was it necessary to endorse someone so unpopular and likely to get slaughtered at the polls next November.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CxwCpFChTCd/?ref=uncut.wtf
https://www.instagram.com/p/CG797UxASaz/
She is honest, inclusive and working for you!!!
Mujajajajaja!!!
I think I’ll stay silent about that race, and work for someone good in District 1 at least.
Anyone remember what Democrat has announced for that? On the R side it’ll be the ancient Janet vs. Van Tran feud. (Puts me back into 2008!)
If DPOC had any sense, they would encourage both a decent Democrat AND a decent Republican to run. In a two-person race, Wagner’s going to win it in the primary, with its less amenable electorate.
(That Ada and Florice won’t listen to this advice doesn’t bother me much. It’s just another page in the story of “The Empress Has No Clothes.” The original of the tale was always flawed because the child blurting out the truth was not immediately run through by a bayonet; I guess that’s why it’s a fairy tale.)
How would the DPOC run a “decent Republican?” And that would still end with a November runoff between Farrah and Don.
Oh I see, your point is that she’d have a better chance in the November election with Trump on the ballot. (But then, you also used the word “decent.”)
Any Republican better that Wagner. The possibilities are endless.
Having only another Democrat on the ballot doesn’t keep Wagner below 50% of the primary electorate. Someone else has to take away some of his votes in order to create a runoff. That’s easiest to arrange — and yes, things sometimes happen behind the scenes — if there’s also a second Democrat running.
So maybe we should be thinking about who else is in that district besides Farrah. Maybe Agran would like to take a shot at being a Supe!