Sunday, May 4, 2025
Home Blog Page 28

Study: 40 percent of voters willing to cross party lines on local issues

Un nuevo estudio sugiere que el partidismo es menos pronunciado en las contiendas locales cuando los votantes sienten profundamente una cuestión local en particular. -- A new study suggests that partisanship is less pronounced in local races when a particular local issue is deeply felt by voters. (The Stock Photo Girl/Adobe Stock)

by Suzanne Potter

A common narrative suggests that deeply polarized American voters always support their party’s candidates, but a new study suggests otherwise in certain circumstances.

Researchers from Sacramento State and San Diego State universities asked more than 900 partisan voters about housing and homelessness – then asked them to choose, in a hypothetical local election – between a candidate from their party who disagreed with their views, or one from the opposite party who is aligned with them on policy.

Sacramento State Associate Professor of Political Science Danielle Martin co-authored the study.

“Overall, voters do support candidates from their own party – even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on one of those salient local issues,” said Martin. “But we also found that about 40% defected from their party.”

The study found that people with weak party loyalty were more likely to defect, as were people who are very invested in their policy position.

They also point out that in national and state-level races, people are much less likely to split their votes between parties.

Study co-author Professor of Public Policy and Administration Ted Lascher, also from Sacramento State, said the data show that voters are more flexible when an issue hits close to home.

“One of the implications is that somebody who’s running, who’s the out party, in terms of local party identification, may be able to win elections in city council and mayoral races,” said Lascher, “if they choose the issue very carefully. Because voters will sometimes cross party lines on particular local issues.”

San Diego State University Political Science Professor Brian Adams said this means that even though Democrats enjoy broad support in California, that support is more conditional than absolute in local races.

“A lot of this research suggests that if Republicans put forward candidates that actually agreed with some of the policy positions that Democratic voters have,” said Adams, “at least some Democratic voters would be willing to switch.”

About 96% of electoral contests in the U.S. are at the local level – for races such as the school board, the city council, and the county board of supervisors.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

spot_img

California bill targets drop-off sites for asylum-seeking migrants

Los migrantes llegan a la iglesia católica croata de San Antonio en Los Ángeles en dos autobuses que viajan desde Texas el 19 de septiembre de 2023. -- Migrants arrive at St. Anthony's Croatian Catholic Church in Los Angeles on two buses traveling from Texas on Sept. 19, 2023. Photo by Lauren Justice for CalMatters.

Bill would require commercial transportation companies to provide 24-hour electronic notice to local jurisdictions before dropping off 10 or more passengers likely to seek emergency shelter

by Wendy Fry

Last year, our California Divide team of reporters covered how cities responded to migrants arriving unexpectedly from other destinations.

While many of the more than 900 migrants who arrived in Los Angeles from red states quickly integrated into the community, the few dozen who went to Sacramento found an under-resourced support system, CalMatters reporters Alejandra Reyes-Velarde and Justo Robles found.

In recent years, Republican governors have begun transporting migrants from their states to cities with Democratic leaders, including in California.

In June 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a budget that set aside $12 million to transport unauthorized migrants out of Florida.

In April 2022, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered his state to charter buses to transport migrants to Washington, D.C. He later expanded the order to include other locations, including cities in California.

It’s now up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide the fate of a bill that seeks to require advance notice in such situations.

Assembly Bill 2780, by Assemblywoman Tina Mackinnor, D-Inglewood, would require commercial transportation companies to provide 24-hour electronic notice to local jurisdictions before dropping off 10 or more passengers who are likely to seek emergency shelter.

That’s so public and nonprofit support services can prepare to provide help. The bill would impose a potential $10,000 fine on any commercial transportation company that fails to comply.

It also prohibits local governing bodies from disclosing delivery information to federal immigration authorities without a subpoena or court order.

Supporters of the bill argue that immigrants are being used as “political pawns,” dumped in random places, sometimes in the middle of the night, to create the appearance of chaos.

In legislative documents, the American Property and Casualty Insurance Association opposed the bill without providing an explanation.

spot_img

Truth is being removed from the Western world, leaving a gestapo police state in its place

Paul Craig Roberts

by Paul Craig Roberts

Not even one value of Western civilization remains. All values that composed an era of freedom have been repudiated.

The example of the hour is Telegram owner Durov’s indictment in France. The basis of the French indictment is that Telegram’s privacy, the basis for its existence, provides a mechanism that criminals can use to commit crimes, such as posts of children in sexual acts. Privacy also provides secret means of communication that criminals and drug dealers use for their illegal businesses. The French government’s claim is that Telegram, by providing privacy, enables these crimes and therefore Durov is complicit in the crimes. Notice that it is Durov, not the child pornographers and drug dealers, who is being prosecuted.

In other words, the argument of the French indictment is that as an owner of a communication mechanism that criminals use to facilitate their commitment of crimes, Durov himself has committed a crime.

We have been hearing illogical arguments of this kind for some time. Those who want to take away the ability of people to protect themselves from criminals and rapists by using their Second Amendment right to own firearms try to hold firearm manufacturers responsible for injuries and deaths caused by people using firearms. In other words, it is the manufacturer’s fault, because his product enabled the criminal to commit the crime.

Sooner or later this argument will be applied to a large number of goods and services. For example, vehicles are used in bank robberies, in murders, and in human trafficking, and it is the car and vehicle manufacturers who enabled the criminals by producing the vehicle.

One can see it applied to search engines and to GPS, because they enable criminals to locate their target.

All of this might sound silly to a reader, but it is no more silly than the French government’s indictment of Durov. Indeed, it is not silly at all. It is weaponized law in operation.

In a way Durov’s indictment is his own fault. Like many Russians who have been brainwashed by Western propaganda, Durov thought France had more freedom than Russia and took French citizenship. He made a mistake.

The French case against Durov also reflects the Gestapo police state argument, which over the years has been finding a welcome home in the Western world, that it is the responsibility of private individuals to be accomplices of police and that the failure to perform this role indicates criminal behavior.

For the past several decades people in the Western world have been so poorly educated–indoctrinated against themselves instead of educated–that they find it plausible that people who refuse to be agents of a police state are criminals.

The Washington Post sees it this way. The only valid reason for social media’s existence is to spy for the government. One of the Post’s mal-educated reporters wrote that “for years internet moguls have flown above the law.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/31/musk-durov-social-media-crackdown/

How is protecting free speech “flying above the law?” What law is above the First Amendment?

The indoctrinated reporter thinks that laws contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution are valid, and that Elon Musk and Pavel Durov are violating the law by their commitment to free speech.

The Washington’s Post’s presstitute says “The world’s internet regulators are no longer playing around.” He writes that the crackdowns against Telegram and X “come months after the United States passed a law that could lead to the banning of TikTok” and herald the end of the era of free speech on the Internet, a good thing in the Post’s view.

The Washington Post is delighted that free speech is to be regulated. In my opinion the entire rationale for the existence of the Washington Post is to control narratives for the CIA.

As even insouciant Americans should know after enduring eight years of the system violating all ethics and all laws in its effort to deep-six Donald Trump, throughout the Western world law is nothing but a weapon to protect the lies fed to insouciant people as official narratives, the doubting of which is rapidly becoming a criminal action.

In the name of official narratives, truth is being removed from the Western world.

In my lifetime I have watched the transformation of the free Western world, a product of centuries of struggle, into a Gestapo Police State.

spot_img

Senate approves AMLO’s judicial reform to overhaul Mexico’s judiciary

Pese a los intentos de la oposición de disuadir al Senado, la reforma judicial fue aprobada el miércoles por 86 votos a favor y 41 en contra, allanando el camino para su ratificación. -- Despite attempts by the opposition to dissuade the Senate, the judicial reform passed 86 to 41 on Wednesday, paving the way for its ratification (Cuartoscuro)

by Mexico News Daily

The Mexican Senate approved the federal government’s controversial judicial reform proposal on Wednesday morning, delivering a major victory to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador less than three weeks before he leaves office.

The constitutional bill — whose most controversial aspect is the article allowing citizens to directly elect Supreme Court justices and thousands of other judges — will now be considered by Mexico’s 32 state legislatures. It was approved by the lower house of Congress last week.

If a majority of state legislatures ratify the bill — essentially a fait accompli given that the ruling Morena party controls more than 20 Congresses — the president can sign the reform into law.

In a marathon “double session” that began on Tuesday in the Senate and continued into the night and the early hours of Wednesday morning in an alternative venue, 86 senators voted in favor of the reform, 41 opposed it and one opposition senator was absent.

Morena and its allies thus achieved the supermajority required to pass the bill, which was approved en lo general, or in a general, broad sense, and en lo particular — i.e. after consideration of individual articles, none of which were modified.

All 85 Morena, Labor Party (PT) and Green Party (PVEM) senators voted in favor of the judicial reform, while the additional vote came from National Action Party (PAN) Senator Miguel Ángel Yunes Márquez, who was accused of being a “traitor.”

Several sources suspect that Yunes Márquez and his father, former Veracruz governor Miguel Ángel Yunes Linares, reached a deal with Morena that would result in the withdrawal of criminal charges against the two men and Yunes Márquez’s brother Fernando. Yunes Linares, a “substitute senator” for the PAN, stood in for his son for a period on Tuesday, but Yunes Márquez, who had requested leave to attend to health issues, returned in time to participate in the historic vote.

The legislative session was relocated to the old Senate building in the historic center of Mexico City after protesters broke into the current Senate building, located on the Paseo de la Reforma boulevard.

Critics of the judicial reform, including United States Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar, contend that the direct election of judges will lead to the politicization of the judiciary and eliminate a vital check on executive power.

They argue that Supreme Court justices and other judges sympathetic to Morena will come to dominate the judiciary as the president and the Congress — which the ruling party controls — will nominate candidates.

There are also concerns that the enactment of the judicial reform will have a negative impact on foreign investment and Mexico’s trade relations, including those with its key regional partners, the United States and Canada. Thousands of court workers have gone on strike to protest the plan, while the Mexican peso has taken a hit due to concern over the reform’s impact on the rule of law and the Mexican economy.

López Obrador and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum reject claims that the election of judges will result in a loss of independence for the judiciary and argue that an overhaul is needed to stamp out corruption in the judicial branch of government.

Among the other changes in the judicial reform bill are:

  • The reduction of the number of Supreme Court justices to 9 from 11.
  • The reduction of justices’ terms to 12 years from 15.
  • The reduction of the experience required to serve as a justice and judge.
  • The adjustment of salaries so that no judge earns more than the president.
  • The elimination of the Federal Judiciary Council.
  • The creation of a Tribunal of Judicial Discipline that could sanction and fire judges found to have acted improperly or illegally.
  • The use of “faceless,” or unidentified judges, to preside over organized crime cases.
  • An expansion of the crimes for which pre-trial detention can be enforced.

Given the approval of the reform bill in the Senate, it now appears almost certain that Mexico will hold its first judicial elections in 2025. All Supreme Court positions and thousands of other judgeships, including federal ones, will be up for grabs.

Senators express views and trade barbs  

Morena Senator Lucía Trasviña accused opposition senators of being a “bunch of traitors” for voting against the judicial reform, seen as the biggest overhaul to Mexico’s judiciary in 30 years.

She asserted that the judiciary “has been at the service of the oligarchy” and foreign interests for decades.

While Morena defends the interests of the Mexican people, the opposition defends “the illegitimate interests of thugs and white-collar criminals,” Trasviña said.

The senator labeled Supreme Court Chief Justice Norma Piña “a traitor to the homeland,” accusing her of failing to hold the perpetrators of various crimes to account.

“Norma Piña protects the interests of foreigners who have come to loot our resources,” Trasviña said.

Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) Senator Claudia Anaya called on Morena, PT and PVEM senators to stop their insults, demonstrate “restraint” and engage in “frank” but “respectful” dialogue.

Senator Alejandro Moreno, national president of the PRI, declared that it was a “sad day for our Mexico.”

He said that the reform “was approved in the Senate via the worst tricks and under unimaginable pressures and coercions.”

Yunes Márquez, who cast the defining vote, signaled his intention to support the reform in a speech to his colleagues.

“I know that the reform to the judicial power … is not the best. I also know that we will have the opportunity to perfect it in the secondary laws,” he said.

“That’s why, in the most difficult decision of my life, I’ve decided to give my vote in favor of the bill in order to create a new model for the delivery of justice,” Yunes Márquez said.

He said that he hadn’t faced pressure from Morena to vote in favor of the reform, but was pressured to vote against it by his own party.

“I had never seen in the PAN such a crude attempt at imposition and subjugation,” Yunes Márquez said.

He said he was subjected to “threats and aggression” from those who “wanted to force me” to vote against the reform “without analyzing it or debating it.”

Senator Marko Cortés, the national president of the PAN, accused his colleague of betraying the party.

“You should have been more decent, my dear friend. You should have taken our call and told us: ‘I’m going to betray you,’” he said.

Cortés also accused the government of reaching an “impunity pact” with the Yunes family.

Senate President Gerardo Fernández Noroña, a Morena senator, accused opposition parties of letting protesters into the Senate building.

A large group of protesters burst into the Senate on Tuesday evening, caused damage to the legislative chamber and shouted chants in support of opposition senators.

“The judicial power will not fall,” they said. “You are not alone,” they told opposition senators.

AMLO: ‘Nothing’ was negotiated with the Yunes family 

At his morning press conference on Wednesday, López Obrador said that it is public knowledge that he has “differences” with members of the politically powerful Yunes family, but denied that the government reached a deal that resulted in Yunes Márquez’s vote in favor of the judicial reform proposal he sent to Congress in February.

“Absolutely nothing” was negotiated, he said. “… I can tell you I didn’t speak with Mr. Yunes or his son.”

López Obrador said that Morena’s leader in the Senate, Adán Augusto López, “possibly” spoke with them, but asserted “that is his job” as a legislator.

“I sent the initiative and it’s the lawmakers who have to do their work,” he said, before advising “oligarchs” and opposition politicians to “look for another interpretation” of why Yunes Márquez voted in favor of the judicial reform.”

“The oligarchs who felt they were the owners of Mexico and their spokespeople should look for another interpretation that is not as simplistic as give and take, that of the bargaining chip, the mafioso relationship,” López Obrador said.

“… What must be thought is that this reform is needed.  … [Yunes] is a politician who considered it a good idea to act in this way and it wasn’t necessarily in exchange for an amount of money or [due] to a threat,” he said.

López Obrador also said that he is “very happy” with the approval of the judicial reform, and declared that Mexico “will provide an example to the world.”

Mexico will become one of a small group of countries where judges are elected by citizens.

The New York Times recently reported that “the closest parallel to what Mexico’s president is proposing is Bolivia’s experience with electing judges after enacting a new constitution in 2009.”

“But even in Bolivia’s case, the changes didn’t apply to the entire judiciary, focused instead on how some of the most powerful judges can be elected by popular vote instead of being selected by Congress.”

Sheinbaum: The election of judges will ‘strengthen’ Mexico’s justice system

In a post to social media on Wednesday morning, President-elect Sheinbaum congratulated the senators “of our movement” for approving the judicial reform.

“With the election of judges, justices and magistrates, the delivery of justice in our country will be strengthened,” she wrote.

“The regime of corruption and privileges is increasingly being left in the past and a true democracy and true rule of law is being built,” said Sheinbaum, who will be sworn in as Mexico’s first female president on Oct. 1.

“Demos means people, kratos: power. The power of the people,” she wrote.

In a social media post last week, Sheinbaum asserted that the judicial reform won’t “affect our trade relationships or private national and foreign investment.”

“In contrast, there will be an improved rule of law and more democracy for everyone,” she said.

“… Our interest is nothing more than a more democratic and fairer Mexico. That was the popular mandate.”

With reports from El Universal, Reforma, Milenio, El Financiero, El País and Reuters.

spot_img

California companies wrote their own gig worker law. Now no one is enforcing it

Los conductores de viajes compartidos del Sindicato de Trabajadores de Obras Públicas de California se manifiestan frente a la Corte Suprema de California para protestar contra la Propuesta 22 en San Francisco el 21 de mayo de 2024. La Corte Suprema del estado confirmó posteriormente la constitucionalidad de la medida. --Ride-share drivers of the California Gig Workers Union hold a rally outside of the Supreme Court of California to protest Prop. 22 in San Francisco on May 21, 2024. The state Supreme Court later upheld the constitutionality of the measure. Photo by Juliana Yamada for CalMatters.

by Levi Sumagaysay

Prop. 22 promised improved pay and benefits for California gig workers. But when companies fail to deliver, the state isn’t doing much to help push back

Nearly four years after California voters approved better wages and health benefits for ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, no one is actually ensuring they are provided, according to state agencies, interviews with workers and a review of wage claims filed with the state.

Voters mandated the benefits in November 2020 when they approved Proposition 22. The ballot initiative was backed by gig-work companies that wanted to keep their workers classified as independent contractors and were resisting a 2019 state law that would have considered them employees. Prop. 22 stipulated that gig workers would remain independent contractors but be treated better.

The state Industrial Relations Department, which handles wage claims, now tells CalMatters it does not have jurisdiction to resolve those related to Prop. 22, citing a July 25 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law and therefore maintains that gig workers are not employees. That effectively passes enforcement responsibility on to the state attorney general, whose office was noncommittal when asked about its plans, saying that it does not adjudicate individual claims but does prosecute companies that systematically violate the law.

The lack of enforcement leaves in limbo workers who in many cases have already been waiting for months or years for the state to resolve their complaints. Workers have filed 54 claims related to Prop. 22 since it went into effect in December 2020. At least 32 of them are unresolved, state records obtained by CalMatters show, although at least two of those are due to workers not following through.

Of the unresolved claims, one goes back to 2021, several are from 2022 and 2023, and about half are from this year, through May.

Emails included with the claims show that the Industrial Relations Department told one worker it was severely understaffed, and seven others, starting in 2022, that it did not have jurisdiction to help them since they were independent contractors rather than employees.

Although the number of claims filed with the state represent just a fraction of the more than 1 million gig workers in California, they give a glimpse into what happens when workers turn to the state for help instead of the companies that backed Prop. 22.

Workers say in the claims, and in interviews with CalMatters, that companies such as Uber, Lyft and Instacart failed to provide higher wages and health care stipends under the law, and that the companies’ representatives sometimes act confused or take a long time to handle their requests for Prop. 22 benefits. The gig companies have touted the law as something that has boosted pay and benefits, and have said it has helped gig workers hang on to work they can do whenever they want.

Laura Robinson is among the workers who have had to aggressively pursue what they believe they’re owed under the law. For the past year, she has filed claims with the state and fought two different gig-work companies for different benefits promised under Prop. 22.

She was making a delivery for Instacart a year ago, she said, when a driver making a U-turn hit her, totaling her car. Now, she said, she has lingering back pain, and has only been able to make a total of a few deliveries over the past several months.

Robinson, who lives in Irvine, tried to get Instacart to retroactively provide her with occupational accident insurance as required under Prop. 22.

When she first contacted Instacart about the collision, “four or five different (representatives) told me on chat ‘we don’t provide insurance,’ but I told them this is California,” Robinson said. “Finally someone said ‘oh yeah, I know what you’re talking about.’ ” Robinson had some difficulties documenting the accident, because, she said, the responding Torrance Police Department officer rode away on his motorcycle without writing a report. But after about seven months, she finally heard back from Zurich, Instacart’s insurance provider. She received a lump sum, and monthly payments for the time that she has been largely unable to work, according to bank statements and emails from Zurich to her, which she shared with CalMatters.

Instacart spokesperson Charlotte Healow said all the company’s shopper support agents should know about “shopper injury protection” and that there is information in the app about how to go about filing claims. But Robinson showed CalMatters several screenshots of her chats with support agents who either thought she was asking about health insurance or who told her someone would email her back about her situation — which eventually happened, though it took a few tries.

Robinson said she had also struggled to get a smaller gig platform, food delivery app Curri, to comply with the law. Under Prop. 22, ride-hailing and delivery gig companies are supposed to pay her 120 percent of minimum wage for the time she spends driving, making up for any shortfall in the pay she receives, but Curri had not done so, she said. Not knowing where to turn, she asked a few different state agencies for help, including the attorney general’s office. She even lodged a complaint with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s National Consumer Complaint Database. After several months, the Industrial Relations Department scheduled a hearing for her case for Aug. 29. Last week, the department told her the company decided to settle and pay her what it owed, according to emails and a release she signed that she shared with CalMatters. Curri’s marketing director referred CalMatters to the company’s legal department, which did not return three emailed requests for comment.

Robinson saw the upside of Prop. 22 after it passed. She liked being able to continue setting her own hours and saw a bump in her earnings delivering for Grubhub due to the law. But she is now frustrated about how tough it was to figure out who’s supposed to be upholding it.

“It’s not helpful if it’s not enforced or applied,” she said.

Robinson said the deputy labor commissioner she was in touch with throughout the process of pursuing her claim against Curri told her last week that because Prop. 22 was upheld by the state Supreme Court — effectively ensuring gig workers cannot be considered employees — the department would no longer be handling similar cases because it does not have jurisdiction over independent contractors.

What gig workers are complaining about

The Prop. 22-related wage claims reviewed by CalMatters were part of a larger set of nearly 200 claims that gig workers filed with the Industrial Relations Department since the law took effect in December 2020. Citing the California Public Records Act, CalMatters sought all wage claims in that timeframe involving gig companies, but the state did not provide any claims against DoorDash, which is one of the biggest of the app-based gig companies. A department spokesperson could not explain why.

Most of the claimants sought delayed or unpaid wages, including adjustments owed under Prop. 22. Others sought health care stipends required under the gig-work law, and one driver said he sought occupational accident insurance but did not receive it.

The claims also shed light on the mechanics of how app companies are allegedly withholding wages. In them, some gig workers claimed that they were deactivated — kicked off or fired by the app — before receiving all their wages.

The records also indicate the state had trouble holding app companies to account in a timely fashion. In emails about the claims, some workers frequently asked for updates about their cases and complained about limited communications from the state. This prompted one supervisor in the Industrial Relations Department’s San Francisco office to respond by email on May 30, 2024, seemingly noting that gig workers’ complaints were just a fraction of the array of worker complaints the state fields: “I am working with 40 percent staff shortage. There are over 3,000 cases, most of which are older than yours, and only seven people (total) to handle them.” The department did not respond to requests for comment on whether this shortfall persists.

Monetary wage claims ranged from about $2 to nearly $420,000. Most — 54 percent —  were against ride-hailing and delivery giant Uber and 25 percent were against its rides competitor Lyft. There were 17 claims against grocery-delivery app maker Instacart, seven against food-delivery platform Grubhub, four against Target-owned delivery service Shipt and three against UPS-owned delivery service Roadie.

The Industrial Relations Department has long tried to resolve gig workers’ wage disputes. The labor commissioner, who heads the department’s Labor Standards Enforcement Division, still has pending wage-theft lawsuits against Uber and Lyft that it filed in 2020 on behalf of about 5,000 workers with wage claims going back to 2017.

Those cases predate Prop. 22, originating during a period when gig workers were misclassified and should have been considered employees under California law, the labor commissioner argues in the wage-theft suits. After Prop. 22 passed, opponents challenged it and the case ended up before the California Supreme Court, which upheld the law in July, effectively affirming that drivers are independent contractors, not employees. A department spokesperson, Peter Melton, said the ruling means the department can no longer handle claims about missing wage adjustments under the earnings guarantee, unpaid health care stipends or other aspects of the law.

Department representatives made similar statements to workers even before Prop. 22 was upheld, the claims records show. An email response, dated March 26, 2024, from the department to an Uber driver stated: “The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces employment law. We cannot enforce Prop 22 earnings because they aren’t ‘wages’ earned by ‘employees’.”

This echoes the position lawyers for Uber and Lyft took in some of the records when responding to wage claims. They asked the state to dismiss such claims, writing in one email: “As of December 16, 2020, drivers using Lyft’s platform are considered independent contractors by statute and, thus, cannot seek relief under the Labor Code.”

Now that the department has disavowed responsibility for Prop. 22 claims, the question remains: Who will enforce the law?

Scott Kronland, the attorney for Service Employees International Union California who unsuccessfully argued before the state Supreme Court that it should throw out Prop. 22, told CalMatters: “I’ve also heard from drivers that they’re not getting the things they’re promised by Prop. 22.”

Kronland said their recourse, after the ruling, is to press local prosecutors or the attorney general, who have the ability to hold companies liable for unlawful business practices under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. Still, he said “enforcement is something the Legislature could clarify.”

In an unsigned email response to CalMatters’ questions after the state Supreme Court decision, including whether it planned to pursue Prop.-22-related cases against gig-work companies, the attorney general’s office said gig workers can submit complaints at oag.ca.gov/report. The email added: “Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints by holding administrative hearings like (the Department of Industrial Relations), DOJ brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law, for example through widespread violations of wage and hour standards. Reports or complaints of employer misconduct are an important part of our work.”

When CalMatters previously asked the attorney general’s office for copies of any wage complaints it had received from gig workers thus far, a spokesperson responded that the office was representing the state in its effort to defend Prop. 22 before the California Supreme Court — and referred CalMatters back to the Industrial Relations Department.

What gig companies share about Prop. 22’s impact

Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.

To better understand the impact of Prop. 22, CalMatters asked each of the four largest gig companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart — the following:

  • How much they have spent on delivering on each of Prop. 22’s four main promises:
    • 120 percent of minimum wage earnings guarantee
    • Health care stipends
    • Occupational accident insurance
    • Accidental death insurance
  • How many gig workers have received each of the promised benefits.
  • Whether they have passed on costs to consumers, and if so, where they account for those customer fees in their public financial filings.
  • How they handle complaints or issues related to their promises.

Lyft said 85 percent of California Lyft drivers who have driven for the company since Prop. 22 went into effect have received at least one wage “top up” — the additional money drivers receive under the earnings guarantee — through the end of the fourth quarter of 2023, though spokesperson Shadawn Reddick-Smith would not provide specific numbers of Lyft drivers in the state. None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the wage guarantee.

Instacart spokesperson Healow said the company has paid out about $40 million in health care subsidies to its delivery workers, which she said number in the tens of thousands in the state. She also said about 11 percent of California shoppers have become eligible for a health care stipend since Prop. 22 took effect, and that 28 percent of those eligible shoppers have redeemed their subsidy.

To qualify for the health care stipends, workers must work at least 15 hours a week each quarter, and be enrolled in health insurance that is not provided by an employer or the government. Because the gig companies won’t share how many workers have received the stipends, CalMatters asked the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, if it had data that might help shed some light. Seven percent of the 1.6 million people who used Covered California reported doing gig work in a 2023 survey, said a spokesperson for the exchange, Jagdip Dhillon.

DoorDash spokesperson Parker Dorrough said that just 11 percent of eligible couriers used the health care stipend in the fourth quarter of 2023 but that 80 percent of DoorDash’s delivery workers had health care coverage through another source, such as their full-time job or spouse.

None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the stipend. Lyft’s Reddick-Smith said 80 percent of California Lyft drivers already have health care coverage, including 13 percent who bought their own coverage (this second group is the set of drivers who qualified for the stipend).

None of the four companies provided the numbers of workers who have used occupational accident or accidental death insurance.

None of the companies would disclose how they account for the fees they charge customers for Prop. 22 expenses, nor are the fees included in their publicly available financial filings. Instacart said it does not charge customers for expenses associated with Prop. 22. Lyft said its per-ride service fee includes a 75-cent “California Driver Benefits Fee.” Uber charges customers a “CA Driver Benefits” fee for each ride and delivery in the state and spokesperson Zahid Arab said the company has “invested more than we collected in fees.”

Uber published a blog post after CalMatters’ questions, saying it has “invested” more than $1 billion in Prop. 22 benefits. Arab would not break down these benefits further.

As for complaints related to the promises, each of the companies said workers should contact support agents, whom they can usually get in touch with in the app; an Instacart spokesperson said workers can make some claims directly in the company’s app.

Seeing little from Prop. 22

Ride-hailing driver Sergio Avedian last year helped raise public awareness of the lack of Prop. 22 enforcement. Specifically, he homed in on one narrow issue: Under the law, gig-work companies were supposed to adjust for inflation each year the reimbursement they pay to drivers for mileage. Avedian said no such adjustment had taken place for two consecutive years. And as a podcaster and contributor to  the Rideshare Guy, a popular gig-work blog, he had a high profile. Avedian and a fellow eagle-eyed driver started pestering the state’s treasurer’s office, which had not published the adjusted rates as stipulated under Prop 22. The office eventually did so and, the Los Angeles Times reported, put the state’s gig workers on track to get back pay for the mileage expenses — pay potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, a year later, Avedian is curious about gig-company math again. He has asked Uber some of the same questions CalMatters did — including how the company accounts for the driver-benefits fee it adds on to each ride or delivery. The company’s response to him was similar — it provided few specifics.

Besides his concern about the issue as a driver, Avedian said “as a consumer who is paying into the Prop. 22 fund on every trip or delivery, I would like to know the accounting of where my money is going.”

“We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”

Yasha Timenovich, ride-hailing driver

When the gig companies were campaigning for Prop. 22, they implored voters to “help create a better path forward for drivers.”

But Avedian and other gig workers in California say their paths have not changed much. Many still complain about low wages, little transparency from the companies and lack of worker protections.

Yasha Timenovich said he has worked as a ride-hailing driver for a decade, first with Uber, now with Lyft.

“I work 12, 13, 14 hours a day,” said Timenovich, who drives in the Los Angeles area. “But the time I sit and wait at LAX is not accounted for.” He said he has to work long hours to try to make sure he has enough earnings. “We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”

He also said he must obtain health insurance through Medi-Cal, California’s health care coverage for low-income residents — which in turn means he doesn’t qualify for the health care stipend. He said every driver he knows “is on Medi-Cal because they can’t afford health insurance. I don’t know anyone who has (the stipend).”

Many drivers voted for Prop. 22, he said. But “what we were told was a lie.”

spot_img

INVITATION TO BID FOR THE TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (ITB 24/25-01)

INVITATION TO BID FOR THE TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (ITB 24/25-01)

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) will receive sealed construction bids for the TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. The Bid Submission Deadline is Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT). An electronic bidding process has been adopted for this solicitation. Paper bids will not be accepted. Electronic bids shall be submitted through https://www.bidexpress.com. All bidders must register on https://www.bidexpress.com and create Digital ID through Bid Express to submit a bid. It can take up to five (5) business days to process your Digital ID and it is highly recommended that a Digital ID be active 48 hours in advance of submitting an electronic bid. Costs associated with obtaining said Digital ID and submitting a bid using Bid Express shall be the sole responsibility of the bidder. Contract Documents, any addenda, and bid forms will be available from https://www.bidexpress.com/solicitations/36751.

A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting for the project will be held electronically on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (PST) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting http://www.sfcta.org/torpedo-e2-prebid.

Bids will be opened electronically and read aloud on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting www.sfcta.org/torpedo-e2-opening.

The project consists of 2 adjacent projects: Torpedo Building Preservation Improvements and Reconstruction of the Pier E-2 Parking Lot on Yerba Buena Island, in the City and County of San Francisco.

The project includes an aspirational Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Small Business Enterprise goal of 22%.

spot_img

INVITATION TO BID FOR THE TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (ITB 24/25-01)

INVITATION TO BID FOR THE TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (ITB 24/25-01)

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) will receive sealed construction bids for the TORPEDO BUILDING AND PIER E2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. The Bid Submission Deadline is Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT). An electronic bidding process has been adopted for this solicitation. Paper bids will not be accepted. Electronic bids shall be submitted through https://www.bidexpress.com. All bidders must register on https://www.bidexpress.com and create Digital ID through Bid Express to submit a bid. It can take up to five (5) business days to process your Digital ID and it is highly recommended that a Digital ID be active 48 hours in advance of submitting an electronic bid. Costs associated with obtaining said Digital ID and submitting a bid using Bid Express shall be the sole responsibility of the bidder. Contract Documents, any addenda, and bid forms will be available from https://www.bidexpress.com/solicitations/36751.

A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting for the project will be held electronically on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (PST) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting http://www.sfcta.org/torpedo-e2-prebid.

Bids will be opened electronically and read aloud on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting www.sfcta.org/torpedo-e2-opening.

The project consists of 2 adjacent projects: Torpedo Building Preservation Improvements and Reconstruction of the Pier E-2 Parking Lot on Yerba Buena Island, in the City and County of San Francisco.

The project includes an aspirational Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Small Business Enterprise goal of 22%.

“It’s our constitutional responsibility to exercise our roles as justices and provide the public service of the delivery of justice,” they said.

Esquivel, Ortiz and Batres said they intended to continue working remotely.

Court workers across Mexico have stopped work to protest the judicial reform proposal in recent weeks.

On Monday, the vast majority of more than 1,000 SCJN employees present at a meeting voted in favor of job action. The court employs a total of 3,647 workers.

Critics of the constitutional bill — which would allow citizens to directly elect Supreme Court justices and other judges — assert that its approval would undermine the independence of the judiciary.

United States Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar earned a rebuke from López Obrador late last month after asserting that the “popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.”

Salazar also claimed that “the debate over the direct election of judges … as well as the fierce politics if the elections for judges in 2025 and 2027 were to be approved, will threaten the historic trade relationship we have built, which relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework.”

He made similar remarks at a press conference on Tuesday, saying that the reform could cause “a lot of damage” to the Mexico-U.S. relationship “if it’s not done well.”

“… I’m saying this because of all the concerns that are reaching me from people who truly want the best for Mexico and the United States. What I can say is that there is a great deal of concern,” Salazar said.

New York-based investment bank Morgan Stanley downgraded its investment outlook for Mexico due to concern over the proposal, while Canadian Ambassador to Mexico Graeme Clark said that investors from his country were also worried.

On Tuesday morning, hundreds of court workers blocked access to the lower house of federal Congress as they sought to prevent lawmakers from discussing the government’s judicial reform proposal.

However, the ruling Morena party organized the transfer of the legislative session to a recreational center in the Iztacalco borough of Mexico City. The session was scheduled to commence at 4 p.m. Mexico City time, with a vote on the constitutional bill expected sometime in the late afternoon or on Tuesday night.

As of Sept. 1, Morena and its allies have a two-thirds majority in the Chamber of Deputies, allowing them to approve constitutional reforms without support from opposition lawmakers.

The Morena-led coalition is just one vote short of a supermajority in the Senate, putting it in a strong position to approve the judicial reform proposal in the upper house as well.

Constitutional reforms must also be ratified by at least 17 of Mexico’s state legislatures — a requirement that shouldn’t be an obstacle for Morena given that the ruling party and its allies have majorities in the congresses of more than 20 states.

With reports from Milenio, Animal Político, El Universal and Reforma

spot_img

NOTICE OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA

CNSB # 3845708
NOTICE OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following persons have been nominated
for the offices appointed to be filled at the General Municipal Election consolidated
with the Statewide General/Presidential Election to be held at the Municipality of Foster
City on Tuesday, November 5, 2024:
City Council Member [full four-year term]
Vote for no more than Three (3)
Richa Awasthi, Mother/Entrepreneur
Phoebe Shin Venkat, Entrepreneur/Planning Commissioner
Shankar Kenkre, Entrepreneur
Suzy Niederhofer, Municipal Finance Director
Patrick J Sullivan, Incumbent
NOTIFICATION OF MEASURE TO BE VOTED ON
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the following measure will appear on the General Municipal Election
ballot consolidated with the Statewide General/Presidential Election to be held
at Foster City Hall on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
Vote Centers will be open beginning 29 days prior to Election Day. On Election Day, Vote Centers will be open between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Voting may be done by mail, or in person on paper or electronic voting machine.
Contact the City Clerk at 650-286-3250 for more information.
_______________________________________
Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk
Posted: August 28, 2024
Measure V (Simple Majority Approval):
To protect the financial stability of Foster City and maintain essential
services, including 911 emergency response, property crime prevention,
street repair, and infrastructure maintenance, shall an ordinance be adopted to amend the business
license tax by varying the rates from $0.75 to $3.00 per $1000 of gross revenue,
retaining the minimum tax of $100/$200 and increasing the maximum tax payment, both with annual adjustments for inflation,
generating approximately $1,400,000 annually for locally controlled general fund purposes,
until terminated by the voters?
Yes 
No 

spot_img

MACLA hosts exhibition “A Bridge Over the San Juan River: A Story of Borders”

Southern Gallery

by Magdy Zara

The Latin American Art and Culture Movement (MACLA) opens the exhibition “A Bridge Over the San Juan River: A Story of Borders,” which examines the overlooked conflict between Nicaragua and Costa Rica’s border along the San Juan River

Artists Irene Carvajal and Imara Osorno, both based in San Jose, transcend divisions through painting, video, and on-site installation.

Irene Carvajal is a Costa Rican-American mixed-media artist and teacher based in San Francisco. Her work examines labor, gender, and colonialism and their intersections with politics, globalized economies, and identity. Imara Osorno is a Nicaraguan-American multidisciplinary artist also based in San Francisco. Her work spans painting, printmaking, and sculpture, exploring themes of identity, immigration, and memory, often imbued with a deep appreciation for mythology and storytelling.

This exhibit will be open to the public from September 6 through November 10 of this year, starting at 12 noon at the MACLA gallery, located at 510 South 1st Street in San Jose.

San Mateo County Celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month

San Mateo County, as well as other communities in San Francisco, has special programming to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, this time they will hold the Verbo Multicultural Community Festival.

The Verbo Multicultural Community Festival brings together, showcases, and celebrates the vibrant diversity of the Latino community that represents more than nine countries in Central and South America. This year’s festival is especially significant as it commemorates Verbo’s 25th anniversary of serving this community.

This day will feature live music, free food, and family fun; so attendees will be able to dance, taste typical dishes from different countries, as well as exciting games, entertainment for the whole family.

The appointment is at The San Jose Earthquakes, on September 8.

“Corazón del Pueblo” Exhibition at the MCCLA

In the framework of the Latin American Heritage Month, the Mission Cultural Center for Latin Arts has scheduled a series of events among which the group exhibition Corazón del Pueblo stands out.

One of these events is the well-deserved tribute to Patricia Rodríguez, the Chicana pioneer who co-founded Mujeres Muralistas.

Some of the activities planned during this month of celebration are: the art exhibition of “ARTería del Corazón de Patricia Rodríguez”; the celebration of Nina Serrano’s 90th birthday with poetry and live music with Friends of the gallery; On September 13th, the Sip n Paint Latino Pride with Eugenio Rodriguez will take place from 6 to 9 p.m. Tickets are $35. On September 14th, the Mexican Night will take place from 4 p.m., while the closing reception is scheduled for October 12th from 3 to 6 p.m.

All of these events will take place in the main gallery of the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, located at 2868 Mission St., San Francisco.

Southern Exposure celebrates its 50th anniversary

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Southern Exposure and honor its legacy, a group art exhibition will be held that highlights its role in the Bay Area art scene.

This exhibition is called “A Leaf, a Gourd, a Shell, a Net, a Bag, a Sling, a Sack, a Bottle, a Pot, a Box, a Vessel.”

Southern Exposure has a major impact on the Bay Area’s diverse arts ecosystem and serves as an important site to spark conversations, explore new formats, launch careers, and educate young people.

Featured works are by artists: Erina Alejo & William Collins; Enrique Chagoya & Kara Maria; Futurefarmers (Amy Franceschini & Michael Swaine) & Shaun O’Dell; Marcel Pardo Ariza & Julián Delgado Lopera; and Pablo Tut.

The 50th anniversary celebration kicks off with a kickoff party featuring a variety of entertainment, including a DJ set by Brown Angel, sweet treats, draft beer from BareBottle Brewing Company, screen printing, and a plant-sharing installation curated by exhibiting artist Erina Alejo, among others.

The grand opening will be on September 14 and will run through November 16, 2024 and will be held at Southern Exposure 3030 20th Street in San Francisco.

spot_img

MACLA hosts exhibition “A Bridge Over the San Juan River: A Story of Borders”

Southern Gallery

by Magdy Zara

The Latin American Art and Culture Movement (MACLA) opens the exhibition “A Bridge Over the San Juan River: A Story of Borders,” which examines the overlooked conflict between Nicaragua and Costa Rica’s border along the San Juan River

Artists Irene Carvajal and Imara Osorno, both based in San Jose, transcend divisions through painting, video, and on-site installation.

Irene Carvajal is a Costa Rican-American mixed-media artist and teacher based in San Francisco. Her work examines labor, gender, and colonialism and their intersections with politics, globalized economies, and identity. Imara Osorno is a Nicaraguan-American multidisciplinary artist also based in San Francisco. Her work spans painting, printmaking, and sculpture, exploring themes of identity, immigration, and memory, often imbued with a deep appreciation for mythology and storytelling.

This exhibit will be open to the public from Sept. 6 through Nov. 10 of this year, starting at 12 noon at the MACLA gallery, located at 510 South 1st Street in San Jose.

San Mateo County Celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month

San Mateo County, as well as other communities in San Francisco, has special programming to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, this time they will hold the Verbo Multicultural Community Festival.

The Verbo Multicultural Community Festival brings together, showcases, and celebrates the vibrant diversity of the Latino community that represents more than nine countries in Central and South America. This year’s festival is especially significant as it commemorates Verbo’s 25th anniversary of serving this community.

This day will feature live music, free food, and family fun; so attendees will be able to dance, taste typical dishes from different countries, as well as exciting games, entertainment for the whole family.

The appointment is at The San Jose Earthquakes, on Sept. 8.

“Corazón del Pueblo” Exhibition at the MCCLA

In the framework of the Latin American Heritage Month, the Mission Cultural Center for Latin Arts has scheduled a series of events among which the group exhibition Corazón del Pueblo stands out.

One of these events is the well-deserved tribute to Patricia Rodríguez, the Chicana pioneer who co-founded Mujeres Muralistas.

Some of the activities planned during this month of celebration are: the art exhibition of “ARTería del Corazón de Patricia Rodríguez”; the celebration of Nina Serrano’s 90th birthday with poetry and live music with Friends of the gallery; On September 13th, the Sip n Paint Latino Pride with Eugenio Rodríguez will take place from 6 to 9 p.m. Tickets are $35. On Sept. 14, the Mexican Night will take place from 4 p.m., while the closing reception is scheduled for Oct. 12th from 3 to 6 p.m.

All of these events will take place in the main gallery of the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, located at 2868 Mission St., San Francisco.

Southern Exposure celebrates its 50th anniversary

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Southern Exposure and honor its legacy, a group art exhibition will be held that highlights its role in the Bay Area art scene.

This exhibition is called “A Leaf, a Gourd, a Shell, a Net, a Bag, a Sling, a Sack, a Bottle, a Pot, a Box, a Vessel.”

Southern Exposure has a major impact on the Bay Area’s diverse arts ecosystem and serves as an important site to spark conversations, explore new formats, launch careers, and educate young people.

Featured works are by artists: Erina Alejo & William Collins; Enrique Chagoya & Kara Maria; Futurefarmers (Amy Franceschini & Michael Swaine) & Shaun O’Dell; Marcel Pardo Ariza & Julián Delgado Lopera; and Pablo Tut.

The 50th anniversary celebration kicks off with a kickoff party featuring a variety of entertainment, including a DJ set by Brown Angel, sweet treats, draft beer from BareBottle Brewing Company, screen printing, and a plant-sharing installation curated by exhibiting artist Erina Alejo, among others.

The grand opening will be on Sept. 14 and will run through November 16, 2024 and will be held at Southern Exposure 3030 20th Street in San Francisco.

spot_img
1...272829...627Page 28 of 627

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.