Jump to content

Tales from California


DaveinElma

Recommended Posts

So should we be more upset with Alfredo Garcia and his scams or with his lawyer, Morse Mehrban.

 

Link

 

Confined to a wheelchair in California? You may be entitled to $4,000 each time you can't use something at a business because of your disability. Some examples are mirrors in restrooms that are mounted too high on the wall to see your reflection; dispensers (paper towel, soap, toilet seat cover, etc.) or clothing hooks that you can't reach because they are mounted too high above the floor; or toilets you can't use because they lack 2 grab (support) bars (handrails). You probably run into such problems regularly.

 

Some Scenarios:

 


  •  
  • You stop by a hardware store and need to use the restroom but find there are no grab (support) bars (handrails) next to the toilet. You may be entitled to $4,000.
  • You're in a restaurant and want to use the restroom mirror to make yourself presentable. The mirror is mounted too high on the wall for you to use. You may be entitled to $4,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should we be more upset with Alfredo Garcia and his scams or with his lawyer, Morse Mehrban.

 

Link

 

 

 

You stop by a hardware store and need to use the restroom but find there are no grab (support) bars (handrails) next to the toilet. You may be entitled to $4,000.

 

Really?? A hardware store's restroom has to be ADA compliant?

 

Disabled Person: I need to use your restroom

Hardware store owner: The restroom is for customers only

Disabled Person: Ok, I'll take this hammer.

Hardware store owner: Fine. That will be $4000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?? A hardware store's restroom has to be ADA compliant?

 

Disabled Person: I need to use your restroom

Hardware store owner: The restroom is for customers only

Disabled Person: Ok, I'll take this hammer.

Hardware store owner: Fine. That will be $4000

 

That's comedic gold...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, you guys ain't seen nothin' yet. The newest "progressive" measure was recently signed into law. SB 459 provides for civil penalties (including 'damages') for employers who "mis-classify" workers as independent contractors instead of employees AND fines of $5,000 to $25,000 per instance AND forces companies found "guilty" to post scarlet-letter notices on their company websites declaring that they have "committed a serious violation of the law."

 

Oh well....at least CA has provided a clear and objective standard for how to differentiate IC from employee, right? NOPE. They didn't bother to include that in the bill.

 

Oh well...at least you can go find an expert on the subject to advise you, right? NOPE. The new law extends the penalties to anyone who advises a company to classify someone as an IC.

 

Oh yes....and the law further adds the requirement of mandatory state reporting in the event that you do hire an IC. So in essence, you are now required to call up the state and invite them in for an audit if you hire an IC -- so that they can challenge your classification and levy a huge fine against you. But on the bright side, I'm sure the state auditors won't have any agenda to find "new revenue" for the state.

Edited by KD in CT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, you guys ain't seen nothin' yet. The newest "progressive" measure was recently signed into law. SB 459 provides for civil penalties (including 'damages') for employers who "mis-classify" workers as independent contractors instead of employees AND fines of $5,000 to $25,000 per instance AND forces companies found "guilty" to post scarlet-letter notices on their company websites declaring that they have "committed a serious violation of the law."

 

Oh well....at least CA has provided a clear and objective standard for how to differentiate IC from employee, right? NOPE. They didn't bother to include that in the bill.

 

Oh well...at least you can go find an expert on the subject to advise you, right? NOPE. The new law extends the penalties to anyone who advises a company to classify someone as an IC.

 

Oh yes....and the law further adds the requirement of mandatory state reporting in the event that you do hire an IC. So in essence, you are now required to call up the state and invite them in for an audit if you hire an IC -- so that they can challenge your classification and levy a huge fine against you. But on the bright side, I'm sure the state auditors won't have any agenda to find "new revenue" for the state.

 

The real irony is that the biggest hirer of independent contractors is probably the state government... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, you guys ain't seen nothin' yet. The newest "progressive" measure was recently signed into law. SB 459 provides for civil penalties (including 'damages') for employers who "mis-classify" workers as independent contractors instead of employees AND fines of $5,000 to $25,000 per instance AND forces companies found "guilty" to post scarlet-letter notices on their company websites declaring that they have "committed a serious violation of the law."

 

Oh well....at least CA has provided a clear and objective standard for how to differentiate IC from employee, right? NOPE. They didn't bother to include that in the bill.

 

Oh well...at least you can go find an expert on the subject to advise you, right? NOPE. The new law extends the penalties to anyone who advises a company to classify someone as an IC.

 

Oh yes....and the law further adds the requirement of mandatory state reporting in the event that you do hire an IC. So in essence, you are now required to call up the state and invite them in for an audit if you hire an IC -- so that they can challenge your classification and levy a huge fine against you. But on the bright side, I'm sure the state auditors won't have any agenda to find "new revenue" for the state.

 

 

Wow. I thought you guys (Americans) believed in laissez faire capitalism.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I thought you guys (Americans) believed in laissez faire capitalism.....

 

We used to, but now we've decided that capitalism is the root of all our problems. Everything will be much better when all our wealth is created by the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used to, but now we've decided that capitalism is the root of all our problems. Everything will be much better when all our wealth is created by the federal government.

 

 

Well duh. Dave in Norfolk hit the nail on the head when he explained that since all of us own the federal government, and the federal government produces the money, we all share in that money. It's Economics 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well duh. Dave in Norfolk hit the nail on the head when he explained that since all of us own the federal government, and the federal government produces the money, we all share in that money. It's Economics 101.

 

He also said the government creates the money and gives it to people to spend, which is how the economy works.

 

So, in Dave_in_NorfolkLand, the people own the government, hence the money the government creates, and then the government gives the people an allowance from their own money to let them buy things.

 

And pay taxes to the government, with the money that the government creates and gives us. One has to wonder: why pay taxes at all, if the government just makes money and gives it to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also said the government creates the money and gives it to people to spend, which is how the economy works.

 

So, in Dave_in_NorfolkLand, the people own the government, hence the money the government creates, and then the government gives the people an allowance from their own money to let them buy things.

 

And pay taxes to the government, with the money that the government creates and gives us. One has to wonder: why pay taxes at all, if the government just makes money and gives it to us?

 

In another thread he posted "tax more! tax more! tax more!"

 

So I think his logic is that if they take more money they'll have more money to give us to spend. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also said the government creates the money and gives it to people to spend, which is how the economy works.

 

So, in Dave_in_NorfolkLand, the people own the government, hence the money the government creates, and then the government gives the people an allowance from their own money to let them buy things.

 

And pay taxes to the government, with the money that the government creates and gives us. One has to wonder: why pay taxes at all, if the government just makes money and gives it to us?

 

Let's not dismiss his ideas hastily. We could extend his theories to energy and become self sufficient. We could burn coal to produce electricity to power the trains that deliver the coal to the plant. Voila! Problem solved. How do you nominate someone for the Nobel Prize? Afterall, lesser persons have received one for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...