The First 100 days

Yep. More woke ******* from California will move to Texas. Why exactly should we like this?

 

i dont think you can do anything about the # of woke ******* in Austin
But you can try
And we all wish you good luck

 

Well keeping them all in one place is not a bad idea.
Funny that this is happening due to actions from Trump.

 

Apple was already going to add 11,000 jobs to Austin over the next 5 years. Isn't this part of that?

Also, the manufacturing relocation won't bring so many Progressives to Austin. It will employ the poor and working class already here. Trump does really well with working class.

 

Ha I was just kidding.

 

I do wonder if Texas's rabid pro-growth agenda will reach its limits. For the last 30 years, there has been a pretty broad consensus that it's good to attract business from other states. With the state's politics and culture shifting, I wonder if things like this will not be viewed as positively as it has in the past.

 

Seems like we (the voters) set limits, back in the day, many times
Indeed, time after time
They ran over our limits

 

Did we set limits? We kept taxes very low on the business side. We keep regulations at a minimum. We are very tough on organized labor. We don't require employers to carry workers compensation insurance and generally make it difficult for consumers and the injured to access the court system. Furthermore, both at the state and local level, we dole out billions in corporate welfare. Not all of that is necessarily popular, but our politicians do it repeatedly, and we keep reelecting them.

 

Yes, every single pro-growth bond election that voters had the opportunity to vote on was voting down (I cannot speak to more recent times as I lost track)
We used to discuss this in class. The conclusion was basically that it was a losing fight. The only way the keep Austin from growing was to change the state Constitution.

 

How do we do that?

And if the employer doesn't carry comp he loses legal rights and could lose his entire company.

Yep, that's why shyster lawyers advertise 24 hours a day looking for clients.

 

It's all a matter of perspective, but compared to other states (such as where the woke ******* will be coming from), we're pretty hostile. Obviously, we're right to work (or right to freeload, depending on your perspective) - can't have closed shops, union shops, or even agency shops. We have significant regulations on picketing (some of which are certainly on the line of violating the First Amendment). Of course, we greatly limit the power of public sector unions. For the most part, they cannot collectively bargain and cannot strike.

To be clear, I'm not saying all of this is bad, but if you compare Texas to other states (especially other big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.), it leans on the anti-union side. There's a reason why manufacturers try to get out of states like those and come to Texas. I think the taxes and regulations are the biggest factors but the labor laws are certainly part of it.

He doesn't lose his legal rights, but they are certainly weaker. He loses comp immunity, so the employee can sue, and he loses the ability to defend himself on the basis of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and the fellow employee doctrine. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible for an employee to lose. It's very possible.

The employee still has to prove that the employer's negligence caused his injury. Sometimes that's easy. Sometimes it's not. Furthermore, like in other areas of tort law, the Texas Supreme Court has been pretty willing to toss negligence findings when asked to do so. I've never lost a nonsubscriber case, but I've had to drop them before and of course, routinely had to turn them down.

And of course, there are a ton of ways things can go wrong that have nothing to do with the merits of the employee's case. What if the company is uninsured or can't afford to pay a judgment? If it can't afford workers compensation insurance, it sometimes doesn't have liability insurance, or if it does, the policy will frequently exclude employee injuries.

That happens a lot with homebuilding projects. The guys actually doing the work (and getting hurt) will work for an uninsured and insolvent subcontractor (who's often just a Mexican guy who speaks some English, owns a pickup truck, and a tool box). He can't pay a judgment. You can go after the builder or the general contractor (meaning the white guy who is insured and who's making the real money on the project), but there's a mountain of Supreme Court cases that make it extremely hard to get at him. And even if you can thread that needle (which 9 out of 10 times you can't), he's got all the defenses in the world, because he's not the employer. Furthermore, he can point the finger of blame at the insolvent (and likely defenseless) subcontractor. That doesn't mean they won't get sued, but it does mean that they aren't going to bankroll a judgment if the employer is the primarily negligent party. And of course, when the employee loses, or more commonly, can't even get in the courthouse door, you and I pay the price for Antonio's ER visits through Medicaid, medical assistance programs, hospital write-offs, etc.

The most common nonsubscriber cases that were actually viable were against large retailers. Companies like HEB, Home Depot, Hobby Lobby, Lowes, etc. often declined to carry workers compensation insurance. Instead, they had self-funded work injury plans that worked somewhat like comp (and were sometimes more generous than comp) and then had arbitration agreements to keep themselves out of court. I thought that was remarkable. They were better off essentially paying comp benefits and paying doctors higher reimbursement rates AND facing litigation than they would have been buying comp coverage and the civil immunity that comes with it.

LOL. Yes, but they're chasing fewer and fewer clients - not because people aren't getting injured but because the paths to recovery are narrow. Since we brought up comp, try finding an attorney to take your workers comp case. It's not easy. When I left Austin in 2011, there were two - Richard Pena and Gary Rodriguez. That was it, and they were like public defenders. They made money off of volume, not putting large amounts of lawyer time into each case. Were they going to litigate a comp case if the administrative process didn't go so well? Not likely.

Some lawyers will advertise that they take comp cases because they don't want potential clients who think they have a comp case but actually have a nonsubscriber or third-party action not to call. And sometimes, they will handle the comp portion of a third-party action. I would do that for free (partly because comp billing is a pain in the *** if you don't do it in large amounts). However, if all the person has is a true comp case and nothing else, he was going to Pena or Rodriguez or nobody.

Nevertheless, my point in all this is that if you attract a bunch of Californians and New Yorkers by having this system, eventually they will make Texas like California and New York. Is that good or bad? I think it's bad. Furthermore, they'll get rid of that system in a far more significant way than what I'd do.

 

My perspective is the same as the recent SCOTUS perspective, which we have previously discussed.

What's the difference?

I believe they call that making an argument in law school. You know, facts. That prevents shyster lawyers and fraudulent employees from raping the system.

Maybe we should have a law preventing poorly run or start-up companies from existing.

That's because you were ethical enough
to throw out the fraudulent claims.

You racist SOB! The reason it is hard to "get at him" is because it is not "him" that is telling the subcontractor how to run the saw or swing the hammer. That is the independent subcontractor's responsibility. You know, that "accountability" thing.

Defenseless? Not hardly. Irresponsible and negligent? Quite possibly.

All general liability policies exclude comp injuries. You may be able to get some damages from third parties via action-over or contractual liability. Employees are notified if their employer is a non-subscriber. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

The answer here could not be simpler. Any lawyer taking a work comp case is a low rent scumbag that is stealing money from injured employees, especially the ones that wouldn't litigate a claim if the administrative process went poorly for their client!

100% agree!

 

It will when all the liberals moving here turn this state blue and trash the economy.

 

Trump at the UN today -

"The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China...But as I have made very clear, I will not accept a bad deal for the American people."​

Would like to see him close with this --

"We shall defend our nation from globalists, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight the globalists on the beaches, we shall fight the globalists in the streets, we shall fight the globalists in the hills; we shall never surrender"​

 

I understand that, and reasonable minds can disagree. I was 100 percent pro-RTW until I read a RTW statute.

The difference is that contrib, assumption of the risk, and fellow employee doctrines aren't the only ways to defend oneself in a lawsuit. The employer can simply argue that he behaved as a reasonably prudent employer would have, and if successful, he wins. He can also do what's often done in the Texas Supreme Court - argue that even if he didn't act reasonably, he didn't have a duty to do what the plaintiff argues he should have done to prevent the injury.

Contrast that with workers compensation where the employer's (or insurer's) rights are much weaker (though still not nonexistent). In that context, if the employee was injured on the job, the comp carrier is liable to pay comp benefits regardless of the employer's negligence or lack thereof. It is strict liability (with a few narrow exceptions - like the employee's intoxication, intentional injuries, acts of God, and horseplay).

I'm not suggesting that a nonsubscribing employer should have to pay damages when not negligent. He shouldn't. I'm simply raising that point to illustrate that the nonsbuscriber case isn't a sure bet. Employers can and do fight them successfully.

Of course not. However, other states (in fact, every state except Texas - not just liberal states) figure out a way to protect employees who are injured on the job. Texas is unique in allowing the employer to basically force the public to accept the costs of their work injuries.

They weren't fraudulent claims. They were not viable to pursue. Very big difference.

LOL. Sorry. My regular robe was in the laundry, so I had to put on my white robe this morning.

In theory, yes. In reality, no. He may not be instructing the sub on how to run the saw or swing the hammer, but he can instruct him if he wants to, and the sub will almost surely obey if he ever wants to get work again. We know who's in charge on the job site, and it's not the Mexican guy with the pickup truck. Furthermore, the lack of workers comp coverage for the workers is a cost savings that is passed along. So in practice, "he" (meaning the real boss) has the authority, and he's making the money off of the arrangement.

This also invites another question. If "he" shouldn't be held accountable, then whom should be? It's popular to say "nobody," but that isn't how things work out. If Jose gets some horrific injury because somebody was breaking OSHA rules, he's going to get rushed to the ER. The hospital will admit him, and the doctor will treat him. They aren't going to let him bleed to death in the street or suffer with a permanent broken limb. The treatment will be rendered to him. Jose makes $9 per hour paid in cash. Even if he wanted to pay the hospital and doctor, he couldn't. So somebody other than Jose is going to be held accountable. It can either be the companies who are making money off of Jose (or their insurers), the taxpayer, or the medical providers who will take it in the shorts. But somebody will be held accountable regardless.

A side note - I think the law on when the boss can be held liable is really perverse. Basically, the more he does to enforce safety on his work site, the more liability exposure he has. If you're conscientious, you can get sued. If you act like you don't give a ****, you're safe.

By "defenseless," I mean that they won't be represented by counsel and won't have a defense in court. They'll be a very easy target.

I understand that.

I doubt that when Jose gets picked up on North Lamar or at St. John & IH-35 that this is made clear to him.

 

Liberal hate > conservative values in conservative circles. Check.

This reinforces a recent George Will interview I listened too.

 

I don't hate anybody. I can call somebody a ***** and not hate him. I like some ******* and dislike plenty of non-*******.

I also agree with Will. Hate for liberals does drive plenty on the Right. Of course, hate for conservatives drives liberals at least as much, so the feelings are mutual if not perfectly symmetrical.

 

But the employer loses those defenses, which is my point.

You mean Texas is unique in giving an employer the freedom to decide if he wants to take the risk of an injured employee's lawsuit.

Not legally. If he tells the sub how to do the work, as opposed to what work to do, he becomes the employer.

Jose's employer.

It's perverse because lawyers write the laws and want a cut of damages.

BUILD THAT WALL! Happy that you're on board with President Pee Wee Herman.

I may have mentioned this, but I'm unsure; BUILD THAT WALL!

 

Wow. Didn't no this. I like Texas even more now.

 

I will a raise I previously made about this? Does moving businesses to Texas really move all that many Progressives to Texas? I ask for several reasons.

First, the middle class is still more likely to be Conservative, Republican. Many of the people from California and New York who move here are middle class, which means there is a good chance they are more Conservative. One of the reasons California is so Blue today compared to 20 years ago is that many of the Republican voters in that State left. California has rich and poor but not much in the middle.

Second, moving a business typically does not mean moving 100% of the people a significant amount of the people will not move with the business. Those jobs will be left to current Texas residents most likely. Then further growth will primarily go to Texas working class people.

Those factors should dampen any political effect of moving businesses to Texas. Where am I wrong?

 

He does, but my point is that losing those defenses isn't the same thing as losing all his legal rights. One of the most honest and decent lawyers I ever dealt with represented Pilgrim's Pride in nonsubscriber cases. He won quite a bit of the time.

Yes, but viewing it that way is somewhat similar to letting a driver decide if he wants to take the risk of having to pay damages if he causes a car wreck as opposed to carrying insurance. On an individual level, carrying insurance is about protecting the insured from liability and lawsuits. However, legally requiring insurance coverage (whether it's auto or workers compensation) is about protecting the public.

It depends on how far he takes it. He can require compliance with safety standards and rules without becoming an employer, and plenty of them try to.

But Jose's employer is almost as insolvent as Jose. In fact, in a lot of cases, five or ten years ago, Jose's employer was just like Jose.

I don't know any lawyers who like that law, and it doesn't give them a cut of the damages. In fact, it kills far more cases than it helps.

From a policy standpoint, the barriers to going after general contractors were put into place because it was assumed that most construction workers would generally be covered by workers compensation insurance, and the law didn't want to encourage people to collect comp benefits through their employer and then sue the GC in a third party action. That wouldn't necessarily result in double dipping, because the comp carrier would have a lien against any third party recovery, but it would undermine the policy goals of workers compensation, which were to give both employers and employees a trade-off (employee loses his common law damages but gets more certain and quicker payout; employer gets immunity from common law damages but is required to buy insurance that is liable for comp benefits regardless of fault). However, if the employer is insolvent and uninsured, that turns the whole assumption on its head.

We can build the wall, but it wouldn't radically change the game. It would mean that the injured person is Joseph rather than Jose, and that would tend to shift the burden from the medical providers to the taxpayer, because Joseph can qualify for Medicaid much easier than Jose could. Either way, the public is getting hosed.

 

I'll leave it alone at this point, with the final comment that Joseph, a hard working, middle class, born in by-god America laborer would understand that he has no comp but can sue a non-subscriber.

 

Joseph might know that better than Jose did, but if the nonsubscriber is insolvent, the public is still in mostly the same dilemma it was in with Jose.

 

I love liberals. They make great friends. Just don’t want them in power implementing their looney ideas.

 

You aren't entirely wrong. I think you just understate the impact. Plenty of conservative middle and upper middle class people from California have moved to Texas and other states, and yes, that is one of the reasons California is now solid blue.

However, that dynamic is changing. For example, as you probably knew, Toyota moved its North American HQ from Torrance, California (a pretty urbanized suburb of Los Angeles) to Plano. Twenty-five years ago, that would have meant a bunch of conservative and conservative-leaning professionals moving from California to Texas. (As you point out, not everybody would move, but plenty of them would.) Nowadays, that means a bunch of more liberal professionals moving from California to Texas. And I think the impact is much less with a company like Toyota than with a company like Apple. If Apple opens a facility in Texas, it'll probably send some people from Cupertino, California, and most likely every one of them will be a leftist.

 

Realistically, they probably hate you more than you like them. lol

 

I think you have somehow deemed it an employer's responsibility to correct a screwed up health care delivery system caused by the government. You did the same thing with requiring employers to fix the illegal immigration problem.

 

Generally speaking, IDT conservatives hate liberals. They hate liberal ideas, I will give you that. I think it's more like they pity liberals. It's like the old saying, "Liberals think conservatives are evil; conservatives think liberals are stupid."

 

What "healthcare delivery system" would fix this problem, and how? And I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm serious. I don't dispute that the government screws up the healthcare system. It certainly does. However, even if the government had no role at all in healthcare, people would still go to the ER when catastrophically injured. That hospital would still bill for its services. Same for the doctors. And somebody would be on the hook for the bill.