4 ms·

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

by MR4D 3y ago

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. [0] - https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127F.pdf https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127F....

mvdtnz 3y ago
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.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  > sanely written laws This part is the problem.
Jeff_Brown 3y ago
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.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  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.
postpawl 3y ago
It’s called the Death Star law for a reason: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house-bill-could-kill-local-control-worker-housing-protections/ https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house... (Spoiler: it’s for eroding local control for democratic run major cities and not for preventing conflicts)
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  What Texas needs is a Frankenstein Veto that will give workers 4-hour breaks every 10 minutes!
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    That would only work if the governor was less evil than the legislature.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  The federal government "eroded local control" and forbade states from enforcing immigration laws, despite itself being derelict in enforcing those laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court... 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.
  - vaidhy 3y ago
    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.
NBJack 3y ago
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?
- MR4D 3y ago
  Sure. Dallas tried to limit dog owner rights in a manner inconsistent with state law: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2019/kp-0274.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opi... There are hundreds of situations like this. I picked this one at random. There were also bizarre municipal regulations on taxis, signs, and all sorts of other things.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    That sounds like the state attempting to prohibit local regulation rather than the sort of conflict being discussed.
andrewjl 3y ago
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?
nocoiner 3y ago
> 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?
- segmondy 3y ago
  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.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    The place probably predates the line being drawn through it. And I doubt you can use both libraries. Typically such straddle places are deemed to be located where their front door is.
tzs 3y ago
> 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.

by MR4D 3y ago

mvdtnz 3y ago

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.

baggy_trough 3y ago
> sanely written laws This part is the problem.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago

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.

LorenPechtel 3y ago
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.

postpawl 3y ago

It’s called the Death Star law for a reason: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house-bill-could-kill-local-control-worker-housing-protections/ https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house... (Spoiler: it’s for eroding local control for democratic run major cities and not for preventing conflicts)

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
What Texas needs is a Frankenstein Veto that will give workers 4-hour breaks every 10 minutes!
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  That would only work if the governor was less evil than the legislature.
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
The federal government "eroded local control" and forbade states from enforcing immigration laws, despite itself being derelict in enforcing those laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court... 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.
- vaidhy 3y ago
  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.

NBJack 3y ago

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?

MR4D 3y ago
Sure. Dallas tried to limit dog owner rights in a manner inconsistent with state law: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2019/kp-0274.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opi... There are hundreds of situations like this. I picked this one at random. There were also bizarre municipal regulations on taxis, signs, and all sorts of other things.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  That sounds like the state attempting to prohibit local regulation rather than the sort of conflict being discussed.

andrewjl 3y ago

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?

nocoiner 3y ago

> 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?

segmondy 3y ago
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.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  The place probably predates the line being drawn through it. And I doubt you can use both libraries. Typically such straddle places are deemed to be located where their front door is.

tzs 3y ago

> 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.