This is one of those articles that really highlights how ineffective American journalism has become. First off, what the fuck are they even talking about? Each paragraph is loaded with vague references to other local political phenomenon that mean nothing to most Californian readers, let alone the national readers of a NYT article on the economy. Second, give me some context. Any! How do California's laws compare to comparable economies, like New York or Germany? Are these law uniquely onerous? Run of the mill?
And the quotes. Go back and read the quotes. "This package provides meaningful reform" says one. “This proposal maintains strong protections for workers" says another. I, personally, do not have a degree on journalism, so I can not be sure if they are required to study rhetoric, but would someone please inform the highly educated staff of the New York Times that we are all well aware that, given the opportunity, professional advocates for a given cause can produce 3-4 sentences of drivel in support of that cause. We do not need constant evidence of this fact.
The AFL-CIO (labor unions) are getting quicker resolutions. If the govt can deliver that it will be absolutely huge for most folks just trying to solve things without litigation. They need to deliver that critically. Make it so that DLSE / LWDA get stuff done in 60 days if the employee cooperates.
One issue has been CA state workers were all work from home - so stuff has slowed WAY down in terms of anything state agency level. I think they will back in office 2 days a week hopefully by the end of the year.
And the quotes. Go back and read the quotes. "This package provides meaningful reform" says one. “This proposal maintains strong protections for workers" says another. I, personally, do not have a degree on journalism, so I can not be sure if they are required to study rhetoric, but would someone please inform the highly educated staff of the New York Times that we are all well aware that, given the opportunity, professional advocates for a given cause can produce 3-4 sentences of drivel in support of that cause. We do not need constant evidence of this fact.