Rebane's Ruminations
August 2011
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

If it weren’t really happening, no one would believe it.  Well, actually a progressive would readily believe and promote it since they’re doing it now.  According to our Senator Doug LaMalfa, the idiots in Sacramento are pushing through a law (AB889) that would essentially do away with another job category in California, and further restrict liberty in a state that is already at the bottom of the US individual liberties pile.  The good senator reports –

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys’ fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

[Addendum]  Lest the real point of AB889 is lost, let me add that this new law will criminalize a large family of economic behaviors that have benefitted households since time immemorial.  The law will apply to all household help where a paid non-family member provides personal services to another person.  Babysitting is just the tip of this insane iceberg.

The major impact will be on families that have care-needy members who are ill, disabled, aged, and/or demented.  No longer will tens of thousands of such families be able to afford to have a trusted person come in for a few hours to help or relieve a family care-giver.  The entire employment situation will now have to be treated as if one was running a business with all the attendant worker dispensations, benefits, and payroll overheads added on.

IMHO this bill is simply evil for what devastation it will wreak in the lives of people already burdened by the natural infirmities that will visit all of us.  And here we come to another example of the extreme stupidity that lies at the heart of any socialistic nanny state.

Posted in

54 responses to “California Insanities #41,657 – Baby sitting bill (addended)”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, as a long time defense contractor and a conservetarian who believes that the US should remain the/a world’s hegemon, I consider our investment in defense among nations to be equivalent to our individual investment in the Second Amendment as US citizens. One is to keep our liberties as a sovereign nation-state, and the other to keep our liberties as individual human beings in an epochal society that the world has never seen before.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Fair enough George. That said, do you consider the over 3 trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq to be a worthwhile investment in protecting our our liberties as human beings?

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, have the monies spent in/on Iraq wisely – NO. Did we need to spend money and blood in Iraq to (relatively) cheaply contain Iran for the present – YES. Please see ‘The Geopolitics of the United States’. There is no flippant easy answer here, at least not from me. It is clear that any world hegemon has a tiger by the tail, it takes a lot of noodling if we are to figure out how to let go of it without being eaten. That is why I cannot support Ron Paul’s simplistic foreign policy – I don’t know yet how to get from here to there. This is a massive topic in its own right, stay tuned.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    So I’m assuming by your response that 3 Trillion was money well spent in Iraq for your stated purpose of containing Iran and it was relatively cheap. Please correct me if I misinterpreted you.
    However, by any reasonable observation Iran’s has been strengthened by our action in Iraq. Most of southern Iraq is now under Sharia law and enjoys closer ties with Iran than they ever had with Saddam who was their arch enemy. In fact we enhanced his dictatorship with billions of dollars and logistic support to fan the war against Iran before he went off the reservation in Kuwait causing Gulf War I.
    I grant that the Kurds are in a better position but that’s another story. However, if they get too frisky they will threaten Turkey so we have to contain them and will do so with truckloads of money to tribal Moolas as bribery. Yes, the war in a Iraq. What a bargain.

    Like

Leave a comment