For people who are interested, I highly recommend reading the bill. It's actually fairly straightforward, so I won't regurgitate the specific text, as you can easily read it on Page 6, lines 10 through 20. [0]
The main situation that the state is trying to prevent is conflicting laws.
Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
Now, which one should the contractor follow? What happens when they conflict? And it's easy to be in two jurisdictions at once, which really causes a problem. Now clearly this example doesn't hold because the government builds roads, not private entities, so this activity is excluded from the law. But it is as simple illustration.
One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
Finally, from reading the article, it looks like the employer is guilty of negligence, and probably gross negligence at that. Any rational human being in Texas gives people breaks, and if this article is at all accurate, someone needs to go to jail for a really long time...preferably without air conditioning.
Man, the people of Texas really expect very little regard to their own humanity, seeing as they keep re-electing these guys. I can see how that’s very good for business.
States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states.
But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.
Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint.
And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people.
Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
> States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws
Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].
Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.
States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.
>states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age
100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.
This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"
> makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.
The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act.
Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
Laws that conflict would be a problem. But what's an example? If one law says give employees a 10 minute break every 4 hours, and another law says give them a 15 minute break every 4 hours, that's not a conflict -- it's easy to obey both laws.
Exactly. Laws rarely actually conflict, you just have to obey the stricter one.
(Personally, I would like to see a federal law that says that if there is an actual conflict the higher authority wins, or if that's not an option the person/company can choose which one to follow--document it and tell anyone trying to enforce the other to pound sand.)
More likely is cases where multiple jurisdictions want their piece of the pie. For example, the house mentioned in this thread straddling a line and getting taxed by both. Or contractors that need licenses for each area they might reasonably work--in all too many cases this is just a revenue grab.
> One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
This is not at all what the state is trying to reduce. The number of people who live in houses that straddle jurisdictional barriers is vanishingly small. And I’m sorry to be uncharitable to your friend, but what else on earth would you expect if you choose to buy into such a bizarrely situated property?
Exactly! Anyone deciding to build across cities/counties deserve whatever they get. Won't they reap benefits of both locations? Living in 2 cities qualifies you for benefit of both cities. i.e. You can use both of their libraries. So double taxes is the correct solution.
I don't see how there could be a meaningful conflict with any sanely written laws. One jurisdiction says 10 minute break per 2 hours, one jurisdiction says 15 minute break per 3 hours? Just give them a 15 minute break per 2 hours. Why split hairs? They're human beings.
> Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
> Now, which one should the contractor follow?
What do you mean by "benefits"?
Generally what are usually considered benefits in employment are things like health insurance, life insurance, paid time off, retirement plans, life insurance, and similar.
What jurisdiction's law controls those would generally be the jurisdiction(s) that the employer legally resides in. A city regulation with requirements or restrictions on say employee health insurance plans would only apply to businesses that reside in that city.
The city regulations that an employer from another location doing a contracting job in the city would have to worry about would be regulations that affect how the actual job must be done.
For example here in Washington different counties have different regulations on how deep underground water lines must be, because different counties have different frost lines and so a depth that would work fine in one country would might be a pending burst pipe in another.
That's a pretty flimsy strawman you have there. Can we at least cite some examples of actual disruption, harm, etc. that came to these projects before the law? Or point us to sources backing up their claims?
Is that really the only rationale for this bill? Why does this it dilute stronger worker protection laws in the name of uniformity and not the opposite?
The main situation that the state is trying to prevent is conflicting laws.
Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
Now, which one should the contractor follow? What happens when they conflict? And it's easy to be in two jurisdictions at once, which really causes a problem. Now clearly this example doesn't hold because the government builds roads, not private entities, so this activity is excluded from the law. But it is as simple illustration.
One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
Finally, from reading the article, it looks like the employer is guilty of negligence, and probably gross negligence at that. Any rational human being in Texas gives people breaks, and if this article is at all accurate, someone needs to go to jail for a really long time...preferably without air conditioning.
[0] - https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127F....