LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
But the courts have tied the hands of the Authorities, that is why Judge Carter allowing the Anaheim Encampment to shut down is big news.

https://www.scpr.org/programs/take-...range-county-s-homelessness-problem-compares/

>>
f the controversy sounds familiar, Los Angeles has gone through similar battles in the past. KPCC's Orange County Reporter Jill Replogle said that in this lawsuit, homeless advocates relied heavily on a Los Angeles case where a judge ruled that homeless people had a constitutional right to sleep.

KPCC's Social Safety Net Reporter Rina Palta said these L.A. cases have shaped the city's policies around homelessness.

Police can't arrest people for sleeping on the streets or in cars or take homeless people's possessions based on the reasoning that you can't punish people for sleeping outdoors if they aren't given alternative shelters, Palta explained. These regulations have made L.A.' homeless problem more obvious, she said.

"It's pretty much why you see homeless folks wherever you go in the city these days because police can't simply kick them out anymore. And they're not just concentrated in Skid Row. Some would say that it's actually made the homeless population more visible in L.A. because people are seeing it in their own neighborhoods... And it has perhaps resulted in some of the changes we're seeing now with people providing public investments in tackling homelessness. Others would argue of course that this has made L.A. a magnet and a mecca for homeless."​

Replogle said Orange County's homeless population isn't nearly as big as L.A.'s, but the community is not used to seeing people on the streets so the Santa Ana River homeless camp was still shocking to them. <<
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
It doesn't read to me like the issue is the homeless. It's law enforcement.
enforcement can only do so much when it comes to acts from homeless, like vandalism.

First of all they need to be reported and hopefully caught in the act or proper description of the guilty reported. Another way would be to report the case as harassment if for some reason the homeless person confronts the person reporting them.

They also have to be extremely careful because of advocate groups and right of free speach acts that are used by them as a way to condone the actions of these people.

add to that the many other problems that law enforcement needs to deal with and what needs to be prioritize and the lack of support from the cities at times.


In riverside many of the homeless were starting to camp out in shopping center parking lots that had landscaped areas. The only way that many of the were able to be cleaned out was when several of the homeless people starting harassing shoppers for money or other things. So if a shopper says no after being approached, the homeless person has to walk away. If the homeless person does not walk away or if they block the shoppers way then it could be considered harassment. Then the land owners in these shopping centers have a right to remove them from property by calling enforement
 
Last edited:

George Lucas on a Bench

Well-Known Member
Vandalism is vandalism, no matter that it's caused by a homeless person or not..? Everything you post villainizes homeless. Have a little compassion the next time you're at your favorite shopping center. Or just in general.

I guess you kinda have to have gotten out of your safe bubble of a world and seen things for how they really are to gain an appreciation for life and compassion for fellow man.

- Posted after helping serve the homeless at a local kitchen in South Texas
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I love programs like this... Where the homeless who are willing to do a bit of work get benefits...

https://www.loveanaheim.org/

But that is what many want, the Homeless showing a willingness to work and abide by societies rules. Those who wish to do that should be offered shelter, access to drug rehab, mental health services, etc.

Those who prefer to shoot up, steal, and refuse to follow the law, well, they can wander to another town.
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
Vandalism is vandalism, no matter that it's caused by a homeless person or not..? Everything you post villainizes homeless. Have a little compassion the next time you're at your favorite shopping center. Or just in general.

I guess you kinda have to have gotten out of your safe bubble of a world and seen things for how they really are to gain an appreciation for life and compassion for fellow man.

- Posted after helping serve the homeless at a local kitchen in South Texas
Obviously you dont know me and I’m just telling it how it is.

Like I mentioned before I am involved in the homeless situation in riverside and see the issues.
I along with my family and group also do constant day at park outings where we personally pay for all the cost of feeding and interacting with whomever is in true need of help.
As I have mentioned before on these boards I do lots of traveling and spend plenty of time going to villages and spots outside the tourist areas and see if their is anything I can offer. I have also volunteered in medical camps in Africa and parts of Asia as well as Haiti doing what i can living from the bare minimum.
So yes I have been outside my comfort zone and know what people go thru but that doesn’t change the reality of what’s goes on in urban cities having to deal with an increasing homeless problem.
I do have compassion for those that want to Be helped and also put an effort in changing. That is something I see most of the time but as time passes is dissapearing. Now many expect to Be helped without putting any effort on their part
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 107043

These stories about homelessness are heartbreaking. As a nation we have the resources to solve these issues but we choose not to. It's embarrassing and a shame. :(
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Here we go, the Unions are trying to get a proposition on the Anaheim City Ballot in November that would make some major changes to the city's businesses, including Disney. This measure has a lot of issues, and many lawsuits already planned if it makes the ballot and passes.

But it goes to the reason why the original LA Times hit piece was written...

This has been in the works for over a year, and due to specific reasons, I am very limited to talk about things, especially future actions. Sorry for having to be vague in advance.

But the proposed measure does have an impact on everything political not just in Anaheim, but also the region.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2018/03/...initiative-targets-anaheim-resort-businesses/

>>
A coalition of unions is seeking to qualify a city-wide initiative forcing any Anaheim hospitality business that receives a “subsidy” to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour on January 1, 2019, escalating a $1 per year until hitting $18 per hour by January 2022. After that, targeted business must increase their minimum annually by either 2% or by the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The union coalition cited a study which it funded to bolster claims that Disney can afford to adopt a $20 wage floor.


The Coalition of Resort Labor Unions (CRLU) unveiled the initiative to a crowd of at least 700 members in a packed ballroom at the Sheraton Park Hotel, one of the few unionized hotels in the Anaheim Resort. Anaheim’s progressive Left was there in force. Councilman Jose F. Moreno was there grinning like a Cheshire cat, as were union activists and school board members Al Jabbar, Ryan Ruelas and Jose Paolo Magcalas – his political wingmen. Magcalas brought students from the Ethnic Studies class he teaches as Loara High School. Liberal Democrat mayoral candidates Ashleigh Aitken and Lorri Galloway sat front and center. The union candidate for 4th Supervisor District, Joe Kerr, prowled the perimeter of the room gathering signatures for his candidate papers.


Sometime progressive allies and council gadflies Cynthia Ward and Victoria Michaels were there. Both are registered Republicans and Ward has thrown her hat into the mayoral ring.


The event was emceed by Jennifer Beuthin, the six-figure salaried general manager of the Orange County Employees Association – which also represents Anaheim city employees. Beuthin was in full-proletarian mode, inveighing against corporate greed and denouncing Disney as “disgusting.” She introduced the authors of the study – paid for by CRLU – that calls for a $20 per hour wage floor for workers in the Anaheim Resort.<<

>>
The union initiative also raises legal questions. The economic assistance agreements between the city and developers of the participating 4-Diamond hotel projects are legal contracts. If the city acts to unilaterally change the terms, it would be in breach of contract; Councilman Moreno said as much on an online radio program earlier this week. Yet, that is what the union initiative would do. It’s immaterial if the change is made by the voters rather than the city council, because approval of this ballot measure would be the voters directly exercising the city council’s legislative powers. A breach is a breach, whether done by the council or the voters.


Whether or not one supported or opposed the Hotel Incentive Policy, targeting certain Anaheim businesses with an $18 minimum is bad economics and lousy public policy. But if one thinks government shouldn’t target certain types of businesses with tax rebates, one should also be opposed to government dictating wages. And anyone who thinks the unions plan on stopping at businesses that have economic assistance agreements with the city is living in dreamland. If passed, it will be the camel’s nose under the tent – part of a long-term strategy to turn the thousands of non-unionized Anaheim Resort area workers into dues-paying union members.


About 40-50 unionists gathered in front of Anaheim City Hall yesterday before marching to the City Clerk’s office to file their initiative. This battle will go a long way toward determining whether Anaheim will continue to be a freedom-friendly governed by an ethos of removing government obstacles to economic growth, or morph into progressive political outpost of Los Angeles.<<
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/02/...tality-companies-that-take-anaheim-subsidies/

>>
The Disneyland Resort and any large hospitality business benefiting from Anaheim city subsidies would be required to pay at least $15 an hour to their workers beginning in 2019 under a proposed ballot initiative sponsored by a coalition of unions.


The city ballot initiative — announced to a boisterous, standing-room-only crowd of Disney’s largest unions Wednesday, Feb. 28 at the Anaheim Sheraton Park Hotel — would then raise the minimum wage at the affected companies in $1 increments annually until it reaches $18 an hour by Jan. 1, 2022.


Beginning in 2023, the pay floor for those companies would be adjusted annually by at least 2 percent to reflect cost-of-living increases.


“We are not attacking Disney,” said Christopher Duarte, president and chief executive of Workers United Local 50, the resort’s largest union with 6,700 members. “But if taxpayers are going to subsidize a large corporation, then that corporation should pay a living wage and not contribute to poverty.”<<
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-disneyland-wage-ordinance-20180302-story.html

>>
Although the measure would apply to several large hotels and restaurants that have received city subsidies, it targets the Disneyland Resort, the city's largest employer with about 30,000 workers. The measure includes an exemption for businesses with fewer than 100 full-time employees.

The Times has reported how Anaheim has subsidized the Disneyland Resort in several ways, such as through the construction in 2000 of a parking garage that generates millions of dollars in annual revenue for Disney. The city in 2016 also approved a tax break worth $267 million over the next 20 years to build a luxury hotel near the parks.

A representative for Disney did not respond to requests for comment Friday. The company previously has said that the average hourly resort worker earns $37,000 a year, which calculates to nearly $18 per hour.

The California Restaurant Assn., a trade group for the restaurant industry, called the proposed measure "reckless" and "a careless use of taxpayer money."

"An $18 minimum wage would have a devastating impact on restaurants and lead to an untold amount of job loss and reduction in work hours among people who rely on jobs at many businesses in Anaheim," the trade group said in a statement Friday.<<
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
And the actual proposed Initiative, which needs about 20,000 signatures from Anaheim Registered Voters to qualify for the ballot.

The People of the City of Anaheim do ordain as follows:

Section 1: A new Chapter 6.99 is added to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as follows:

Title 6—PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Chapter 6.99 – LIVING WAGES PAID BY BENEFICIARIES OF CITY SUBSIDIES
6.99.010. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE TO EMPLOYEES.
.010 An Employer shall pay an Employee a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under the authority of this article.
.020 On and after January 1, 2019, an Employer shall pay a wage of no less than Fifteen Dollars per hour, which shall increase by One Dollar per hour on each January 1 thereafter through January 1, 2022.
.030 On January 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase annually to reflect increases in the cost of living. The cost of living increase shall be the greater of (1) two percent (2%) or (2) the percentage increase as of September 30, 2022, and as of September 30 in any subsequent year for further annual adjustments, over the level as of September 30 of the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA), which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor or the successor index or federal agency. The City Manager shall publish a bulletin by November 1 of each year announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect the following January 1. Such bulletin will be made available to all Employers and to any other person who has filed with the City Manager a request to receive such notice, but lack of notice shall not excuse noncompliance with this section. The City Manager shall prescribe a poster advising Employees of their rights under this article and distribute it to all Employers. An Employer shall post the notice in a prominent place where it will be seen by Employees. An Employer shall provide written notification of the rate adjustments to each of its Employees and make the necessary payroll adjustments by January 1 following the publication of the bulletin.
.040 Tips or gratuities received by Employees, service charges or commissions and extra pay as lead workers or for special assignments or night work shall not be credited as being any part of or offset against the wage rates required by this section.

6.99.020. SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES RENDERING SERVICE. Service charges shall not be retained by an Employer but shall be paid in the entirety by the Employer to the Employee(s) performing services for the customers from whom the service charges are collected. No part of these amounts may be paid to supervisory or
managerial Employees. The amounts shall be paid to the Employee(s) equitably and according to the services that are or appear to be related to the description of the amounts given by the Employer to the customers. The amounts shall be paid to the Employee(s) in the next payroll following collection of an amount from the customer. This subsection does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, or part of any tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an Employee by customers over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the customer.

6.99.030. RETENTION OF RECORDS.

Each Employer shall preserve the employment records of each Employee for the three years preceding the effective date of this section, or if the Employee has been employed for less than three years, for the entire length of the Employee’s employment prior to the effective date, and with respect to periods of employment after the effective date, each Employer shall preserve the employment records of each Employee for three years from the date of the creation of a record or any longer period of time required by other laws.

6.99.040. RETALIATION PROHIBITED.

No Employer shall discharge, reduce in compensation or otherwise discriminate against any Employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this article, for participating in proceedings related to this article, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this article. No employer may reduce any form of an Employee’s compensation to offset the wage rates required by this Chapter.

6.99.050. ENFORCEMENT.

.010 An Employee claiming violation of this article may report such claimed violation to the City Manager which shall investigate such complaint. Whether based upon such a complaint or otherwise, where the City Manager has determined that an Employer has violated this article, the City Manager shall issue a written notice to the Employer that the violation is to be corrected within ten (10) days. In the event that the Employer has not demonstrated to the City Manager within such period that it has cured such violation, the City Manager may then request the City Council to debar the Employer from any future City Subsidy for three (3) years. Such debarment shall be to the extent permitted by, and under whatever procedures may be required by, law. .020 An Employee claiming violation of this section may bring an individual or class action against his or her Employer in Superior Court to enforce the provisions of this section and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any violation of this section, including but not limited to lost compensation, damages, reinstatement or injunctive relief. An Employee who prevails in
any action to enforce this section shall be awarded his or her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. .030 Notwithstanding any provision of this Code or any other ordinance to the contrary, no criminal penalties shall attach for violation of this article.

6.99.060. EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

A Small Business which claims that compliance with this Chapter would cause it to reduce its workforce by more than 20 percent, to curtail its Employees' total work hours by more than 30 percent, to close its business or to seek protection from its creditors under federal or state law may apply in writing to the City Manager for an exemption from the provisions of this Chapter. The City Manager may grant such an exemption, valid for no more than one year, upon a proper showing by the Small Business that it meets one or more of the criteria of this section. A Small Business may appeal the City Manager’s denial of its exemption application to the City Council within 14 days after the date of the City Manager’s action.

6.99.070. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following ascribed meanings: .010 “Business” means any for-profit enterprise operated by one or more persons.

.020 “City” means the City of Anaheim, California.

.030 A “City Subsidy” is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.

.040 A business “benefits from a City Subsidy” if the person or an affiliate of the person receives a City Subsidy directly or is an Employer which is a contractor or subcontractor, lessee or sublessee, or tenant or subtenant, with respect to a person or an affiliate of a person who receives a City Subsidy.
.050 "Compensation" includes any wages, tips, bonuses, and other payments reported as taxable income paid by the Employer to the Employee.

.060 "Employer" means any business in the hospitality industry which benefits from a City Subsidy and directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of 25 or more employees.
0.70 "Employee" means any individual who is an employee of an Employer under the common law.
.080 “Employment records” means all employment records stating, applying, or reflecting terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to payroll records, schedules, attendance records, handbooks, memoranda and other documents about terms and conditions of employment, and personnel action forms showing such things as hiring, promotion, demotion, compensation changes, leaves of absence, or termination.

.090 A “full-time Employee” is an Employee who works an average of at least 30 hours per week for an Employer.

.100 “Hospitality industry” means a hotel, motel, amusement or theme park, or a restaurant, snack bar, bar, tavern, lounge, club or other venue offering food or beverages which is within or adjacent to a hotel, motel or amusement or theme park, or a retail store which is within or adjacent to a hotel, motel or amusement or theme park, located in whole or in part within The Anaheim Resort as established under Chapter 18.116.

.110 "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign.

.120 "Service Charge" means all separately-designated amounts collected by an Employer from a customer for service by Employees, or are described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amounts are for the service including, but not limited to, those charges designated on receipts under the term "service charge," "delivery charge" or "porterage charge."

.130 A “Small Business” is an Employer which employs fewer than 100 full-time employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

6.99.080. NON-EXCLUSIVITY. The rights and remedies created by this Chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies of Employees, and are not intended to alter or affect such rights and remedies.

6.99.090. COEXISTENCE WITH OTHER AVAILABLE RELIEF FOR SPECIFIC DEPRIVATIONS OF PROTECTED RIGHTS. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as limiting any Employee’s right to obtain relief to which he or she may be entitled at law or in equity.

6.99.100. CONFLICTS.

Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or State law.

6.99.110. SEVERABILITY. If any subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The electors hereby declare that they would have adopted this section, and each and every subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 2. Conflicting Measures.
Consistent with California Elections Code § 9221, should another ordinance containing provisions that conflict with this ordinance be adopted by voters at the same election as this ordinance is adopted, the terms of the ordinance that receives the higher number of affirmative votes shall control.
Section 3. Effective Date.
The proposed ordinance that is the subject of this initiative, once approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018 election, or such other election as authorized by law, shall be deemed adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/07/keep-the-city-of-anaheim-out-of-disney-labor-dispute/

>>
A proposed ballot initiative requiring Disneyland Resort and any large hospitality business receiving subsidies from the city of Anaheim to pay an $18 minimum wage seeks to wrongly involve government in a situation that could use less government involvement.


Because, whatever valid criticisms there are to make of Disney and subsidies generally, the minimum wage won’t solve the problems proponents want solved.


Introduced last week amid contentious contract negotiations between Disney and unions representing Disney employees, the initiative looks to use the whims of the public and the force of government as a means of extracting what hasn’t been voluntarily agreed to between private employers and private employees.


The ballot measure is the culmination of several months of efforts by the unions and Disney critics to cast Disney as an especially egregious employer that underpays employees and doesn’t contribute its “fair share” to Anaheim.


In recent months, critics have worked to frame Disney as particularly responsible for, among other things, addressing the high cost of living in Orange County, poverty in the city and even Anaheim’s large unfunded pension liabilities.


As we argued in an editorial last year, these problems are not unique to Anaheim and Orange County, nor are they one company’s burden to resolve. But that’s what the unions want the public to believe.<<
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
And the actual proposed Initiative, which needs about 20,000 signatures from Anaheim Registered Voters to qualify for the ballot.

The People of the City of Anaheim do ordain as follows:

Section 1: A new Chapter 6.99 is added to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as follows:

Title 6—PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Chapter 6.99 – LIVING WAGES PAID BY BENEFICIARIES OF CITY SUBSIDIES
6.99.010. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE TO EMPLOYEES.
.010 An Employer shall pay an Employee a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under the authority of this article.
.020 On and after January 1, 2019, an Employer shall pay a wage of no less than Fifteen Dollars per hour, which shall increase by One Dollar per hour on each January 1 thereafter through January 1, 2022.
.030 On January 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase annually to reflect increases in the cost of living. The cost of living increase shall be the greater of (1) two percent (2%) or (2) the percentage increase as of September 30, 2022, and as of September 30 in any subsequent year for further annual adjustments, over the level as of September 30 of the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA), which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor or the successor index or federal agency. The City Manager shall publish a bulletin by November 1 of each year announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect the following January 1. Such bulletin will be made available to all Employers and to any other person who has filed with the City Manager a request to receive such notice, but lack of notice shall not excuse noncompliance with this section. The City Manager shall prescribe a poster advising Employees of their rights under this article and distribute it to all Employers. An Employer shall post the notice in a prominent place where it will be seen by Employees. An Employer shall provide written notification of the rate adjustments to each of its Employees and make the necessary payroll adjustments by January 1 following the publication of the bulletin.
.040 Tips or gratuities received by Employees, service charges or commissions and extra pay as lead workers or for special assignments or night work shall not be credited as being any part of or offset against the wage rates required by this section.

6.99.020. SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES RENDERING SERVICE. Service charges shall not be retained by an Employer but shall be paid in the entirety by the Employer to the Employee(s) performing services for the customers from whom the service charges are collected. No part of these amounts may be paid to supervisory or
managerial Employees. The amounts shall be paid to the Employee(s) equitably and according to the services that are or appear to be related to the description of the amounts given by the Employer to the customers. The amounts shall be paid to the Employee(s) in the next payroll following collection of an amount from the customer. This subsection does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, or part of any tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an Employee by customers over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the customer.

6.99.030. RETENTION OF RECORDS.

Each Employer shall preserve the employment records of each Employee for the three years preceding the effective date of this section, or if the Employee has been employed for less than three years, for the entire length of the Employee’s employment prior to the effective date, and with respect to periods of employment after the effective date, each Employer shall preserve the employment records of each Employee for three years from the date of the creation of a record or any longer period of time required by other laws.

6.99.040. RETALIATION PROHIBITED.

No Employer shall discharge, reduce in compensation or otherwise discriminate against any Employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this article, for participating in proceedings related to this article, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this article. No employer may reduce any form of an Employee’s compensation to offset the wage rates required by this Chapter.

6.99.050. ENFORCEMENT.

.010 An Employee claiming violation of this article may report such claimed violation to the City Manager which shall investigate such complaint. Whether based upon such a complaint or otherwise, where the City Manager has determined that an Employer has violated this article, the City Manager shall issue a written notice to the Employer that the violation is to be corrected within ten (10) days. In the event that the Employer has not demonstrated to the City Manager within such period that it has cured such violation, the City Manager may then request the City Council to debar the Employer from any future City Subsidy for three (3) years. Such debarment shall be to the extent permitted by, and under whatever procedures may be required by, law. .020 An Employee claiming violation of this section may bring an individual or class action against his or her Employer in Superior Court to enforce the provisions of this section and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any violation of this section, including but not limited to lost compensation, damages, reinstatement or injunctive relief. An Employee who prevails in
any action to enforce this section shall be awarded his or her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. .030 Notwithstanding any provision of this Code or any other ordinance to the contrary, no criminal penalties shall attach for violation of this article.

6.99.060. EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

A Small Business which claims that compliance with this Chapter would cause it to reduce its workforce by more than 20 percent, to curtail its Employees' total work hours by more than 30 percent, to close its business or to seek protection from its creditors under federal or state law may apply in writing to the City Manager for an exemption from the provisions of this Chapter. The City Manager may grant such an exemption, valid for no more than one year, upon a proper showing by the Small Business that it meets one or more of the criteria of this section. A Small Business may appeal the City Manager’s denial of its exemption application to the City Council within 14 days after the date of the City Manager’s action.

6.99.070. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following ascribed meanings: .010 “Business” means any for-profit enterprise operated by one or more persons.

.020 “City” means the City of Anaheim, California.

.030 A “City Subsidy” is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.

.040 A business “benefits from a City Subsidy” if the person or an affiliate of the person receives a City Subsidy directly or is an Employer which is a contractor or subcontractor, lessee or sublessee, or tenant or subtenant, with respect to a person or an affiliate of a person who receives a City Subsidy.
.050 "Compensation" includes any wages, tips, bonuses, and other payments reported as taxable income paid by the Employer to the Employee.

.060 "Employer" means any business in the hospitality industry which benefits from a City Subsidy and directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of 25 or more employees.
0.70 "Employee" means any individual who is an employee of an Employer under the common law.
.080 “Employment records” means all employment records stating, applying, or reflecting terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to payroll records, schedules, attendance records, handbooks, memoranda and other documents about terms and conditions of employment, and personnel action forms showing such things as hiring, promotion, demotion, compensation changes, leaves of absence, or termination.

.090 A “full-time Employee” is an Employee who works an average of at least 30 hours per week for an Employer.

.100 “Hospitality industry” means a hotel, motel, amusement or theme park, or a restaurant, snack bar, bar, tavern, lounge, club or other venue offering food or beverages which is within or adjacent to a hotel, motel or amusement or theme park, or a retail store which is within or adjacent to a hotel, motel or amusement or theme park, located in whole or in part within The Anaheim Resort as established under Chapter 18.116.

.110 "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign.

.120 "Service Charge" means all separately-designated amounts collected by an Employer from a customer for service by Employees, or are described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amounts are for the service including, but not limited to, those charges designated on receipts under the term "service charge," "delivery charge" or "porterage charge."

.130 A “Small Business” is an Employer which employs fewer than 100 full-time employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

6.99.080. NON-EXCLUSIVITY. The rights and remedies created by this Chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies of Employees, and are not intended to alter or affect such rights and remedies.

6.99.090. COEXISTENCE WITH OTHER AVAILABLE RELIEF FOR SPECIFIC DEPRIVATIONS OF PROTECTED RIGHTS. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as limiting any Employee’s right to obtain relief to which he or she may be entitled at law or in equity.

6.99.100. CONFLICTS.

Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or State law.

6.99.110. SEVERABILITY. If any subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The electors hereby declare that they would have adopted this section, and each and every subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 2. Conflicting Measures.
Consistent with California Elections Code § 9221, should another ordinance containing provisions that conflict with this ordinance be adopted by voters at the same election as this ordinance is adopted, the terms of the ordinance that receives the higher number of affirmative votes shall control.
Section 3. Effective Date.
The proposed ordinance that is the subject of this initiative, once approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018 election, or such other election as authorized by law, shall be deemed adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date.

Holy cow. Will it be on the ballot? What are people saying about it?
I know California is a little whacky, but I can’t believe that something like this could actually pass, right?
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Holy cow. Will it be on the ballot? What are people saying about it?
I know California is a little whacky, but I can’t believe that something like this could actually pass, right?

It needs to get about 20,000 signatures from registered voters. With the Union's deep pockets, many expect they will get it on the November 2018 ballot.

As for it passing, one poll the union paid for did said it was a possibility.

But it will be based on the turnout of the voters, who have to also vote for Mayor, and 3 out of the six districts for councilmembers, plus two propositions dealing with the TOT rebates for the Westin and whatever replaces the Anaheim Hotel at Harbor and Disney Way. Also, many state issues, plus US Representatives. In California, we only get to vote on voter requested propositions every other November. (Designed by Democrats to try and get the less involved to vote, instead of another elections with less turnout, which favors the Republicans, as they turn out for any election.)

A LOT of money will be spent in Orange County by both sides, as the Democrats want to turn over the US Congressional seats, and National money has already been pledged, and of course the Republicans have also pledged National funding.

This is a very complex election, one key proposition has almost qualified, the repeal of the recent Gas Tax hike by the State. If that is on the November ballot, it could help drive voters who would want to repeal it, and most would also not support a wage hike for the city.

The other question that will be interesting to see is how Disney will fight the proposition, ill they come out and do direct ads and support of certain people running for the 4 city council seats, or do the normal funding of the Chamber of Commerce campaign and do it indirectly as in the past.

Disney strongly feels the need to defeat this proposition, plus get a majority of the city council to be at least neutral, if not in support of helping both Disney and the Tourist Economy in general.

The current city council is already claiming, even with increased tax revenues, a deficit and the need for budget cuts due to many mistakes they made that are not related to Tourism, but overspending on other things.

As I stated earlier, many things are in motion, and I can't talk about those planned activities due to an NDA.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Voters always forget the part about these increases are always passed to the public. Disney loses nothing.

If this passes, all businesses in the resort area will be looking at labor costs, and alternatives to human workers.

So at Disney, expect less full service dining options, self service kiosks, and entertainment changes that would reduce human actors and crowd control CM's. Less Parking CM's, and let the guests deal with finding their own space. Eliminations of trams and folks directing bus loading. Janitorial services and maintenance would be less. Heck, the gardening staff would be cut, and plants will be chosen for long life, maybe even non-living options.

So the guests will be losing in at least two ways, higher costs and less service and human interactions.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
If this passes, all businesses in the resort area will be looking at labor costs, and alternatives to human workers.

So at Disney, expect less full service dining options, self service kiosks, and entertainment changes that would reduce human actors and crowd control CM's. Less Parking CM's, and let the guests deal with finding their own space. Eliminations of trams and folks directing bus loading. Janitorial services and maintenance would be less. Heck, the gardening staff would be cut, and plants will be chosen for long life, maybe even non-living options.

So the guests will be losing in at least two ways, higher costs and less service and human interactions.

Yes but this never gets considered. Reality and consequences aren’t the focus..it’s always about ‘feeling good by demanding more from others’.
I hope for Anaheim that people will actually think with their brain. I can’t see anyway possible that such a measure would not result in layoffs.
 

kevlightyear

Well-Known Member
If this passes, all businesses in the resort area will be looking at labor costs, and alternatives to human workers.

So at Disney, expect less full service dining options, self service kiosks, and entertainment changes that would reduce human actors and crowd control CM's. Less Parking CM's, and let the guests deal with finding their own space. Eliminations of trams and folks directing bus loading. Janitorial services and maintenance would be less. Heck, the gardening staff would be cut, and plants will be chosen for long life, maybe even non-living options.

So the guests will be losing in at least two ways, higher costs and less service and human interactions.
This argument is speculative, at best. Using it to dissuade support for wage growth is selfish and icky, in my opinion.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom