Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if i tried i could not do a better job of driving industry to do offshore. the government is openly hostile to business. worse labor laws encourage the hiring of illegals bek if you obey all the labor laws you will go out of business.
I know a union shop plumber in Temecula who has nearly gone out of business. His competition is hiring illegals and under bidding him everywhere. To be fair, I don't know if he knows they are illegal or merely Mexican. I don't doubt him though, because construction is the latest industry to be taken over by illegal labor. In 20 years they'll be claiming they're just doing the jobs Americans don't want to do.
This is more a case of the government NOT doing something.
His competition is hiring illegals and under bidding him everywhere. To be fair, I don't know if he knows they are illegal or merely Mexican. I don't doubt him though, because construction is the latest industry to be taken over by illegal labor.
Or......they are Americans that happen to be of Hispanic heritage. This may be a surprise to some, perhaps, but vast majority of Hispanics in California are citizens or otherwise legal residents.
Small business owners, I find, always love to blame someone else for their failures.
Or......they are Americans that happen to be of Hispanic heritage. This may be a surprise to some, perhaps, but vast majority of Hispanics in California are citizens or otherwise legal residents.
Small business owners, I find, always love to blame someone else for their failures.
That's only because illegals pop out a half dozen kids, on usa soil.
I don't think you get his point. There are flame resistant standards set at the federal level. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has adequate standards. There are federal rules in place. California has its own standards. That's the point. They aren't selling tinder box mattresses in other states. The point is that companies doing business in CA are burdened with extra requirements. I'm not qualified to say whether or not CA's standards for mattresses are substantially superior or if they are merely different.
Yeah. I got his point all right. And in my preference for brevity I gave a short answer for a summary effect. You want the long story? California regulations just changed last year. Rightly so to address the chemical flame retardants used and now the chemical industry is fighting to preserve the use of their toxic products. The story is long and convoluted. You can look it up if you are interested. But the point is the poster I responded to was crabbing about having to pay more for a product that California was requiring higher safety standards on than the federal level. California just made a good move on to this one. And, in the end the new regulations greatly benefit the poster, who, like the majority on this forum, whine incessantly about "government intrusion".
This from a Forbes article
Quote:
The Chemicals In Your Couch May Pose Serious Health Risks
Alice G. Walton
Contributor
California Moves To Phase Out Harmful Chemicals
Amy Westervelt
Contributor
--
Today, California moved to address the flame retardant issue via an update to its flammability standard. The new proposed standard, TB 177-2013, would require smolder tests for fabrics, rather than open flame tests for foam, which should all but eliminate the need for flame retardants. That, according to policy makers at the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, was the point. “As an added benefit, this regulatory proposal significantly reduces or eliminates manufacturers’ reliance on materials treated with flame retardant chemicals,” the proposed Technical Bulletin reads. “It is the Bureau’s understanding that many manufacturers, who are no longer compelled to make materials open-flame resistant, will no longer use flame retardant chemicals in their products.”
----
The chemical industry has continued to support the need for chemical flame retardants, despite mounting evidence from scientists and public pressure, much of which was kicked off by a Chicago Tribune investigative series last year.
---
Updates to California’s standard should eliminate the need for unnecessary chemicals, and unlike many regulations aimed at reducing chemical exposure, updates to the flammability standard should actually save companies money. “Manufacturers would instead be able to purchase and use the less expensive non-flame retardant materials therefore saving in material costs,” the draft standard states.
I don't use furniture. I live on a boat. But I just learned about this crap last year when I was going to get some new foam to replace some old cushion. Ended up making some canvas sling seating instead.
Yeah. I got his point all right. And in my preference for brevity I gave a short answer for a summary effect. You want the long story? California regulations just changed last year. Rightly so to address the chemical flame retardants used and now the chemical industry is fighting to preserve the use of their toxic products. The story is long and convoluted. You can look it up if you are interested. But the point is the poster I responded to was crabbing about having to pay more for a product that California was requiring higher safety standards on than the federal level. California just made a good move on to this one. And, in the end the new regulations greatly benefit the poster, who, like the majority on this forum, whine incessantly about "government intrusion".
This from a Forbes article
I don't use furniture. I live on a boat. But I just learned about this crap last year when I was going to get some new foam to replace some old cushion. Ended up making some canvas sling seating instead.
Their rules might have changed last year, but they have had their own rules for years. I don't intent on researching mattress rules beyond this, but here is what the feds say:
"The State of California’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation issued an open flame fire standard for mattresses and mattress/ box spring sets and futons, TB 603, which went into effect January 1, 2005. Both the Commission’s standard and TB 603 are based on the research conducted at NIST, and they use the same basic test method. Both TB 603 and the Commission’s standard require that mattresses not exceed a 200 kW peak heat release rate during the 30 minute test. However, the standards differ in the limit they set on total energy release in the first ten minutes of the test (the Commission’s standard sets a stricter limit of 15 MJ, while TB 603 sets the limit at 25 MJ)."
Or......they are Americans that happen to be of Hispanic heritage. This may be a surprise to some, perhaps, but vast majority of Hispanics in California are citizens or otherwise legal residents.
Small business owners, I find, always love to blame someone else for their failures.
Possibly. I do know that illegals are taking over construction though. I know this because I have a lot of family in construction trades spread out in the US. I'm probably being too simplistic here, but when a worker shows up and speaks practically no English, I'm having trouble accepting the legal citizen thinking. Not impossible, but unlikely. Most Hispanics here legally have some mastery of English. Again, maybe that's being simplistic.
Last edited by CarawayDJ; 03-30-2014 at 09:31 PM..
That's only because illegals pop out a half dozen kids, on usa soil.
Awesome but one can't complain about illegals taking their jobs, now, can they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ
Possibly. I do know that illegals are taking over construction though. I know this because I have a lot of family in construction trades spread out in the US. I'm probably being too simplistic here, but when a worker shows up and speaks practically no English, I'm having trouble accepting the legal citizen thinking.
You don't need to be a citizen to be work here legally. But I'm sure there are some illegal residents in construction, but given construction is regulated, I doubt its anywhere close to being "taken over" by them.
Personally, I've never had anybody related to any construction related trade show up that couldn't speak any English. In fact, I rarely encounter people that can't speak English......in general.
You don't need to be a citizen to be work here legally. But I'm sure there are some illegal residents in construction, but given construction is regulated, I doubt its anywhere close to being "taken over" by them.
Personally, I've never had anybody related to any construction related trade show up that couldn't speak any English. In fact, I rarely encounter people that can't speak English......in general.
Mark my words, in the future construction work (in some states) will be much like agriculture is today, dominated by illegal labor. "Being taken over" is not synonymous with "has been taken over". There are people who have their head in the sand and don't believe illegal labor impacts American jobs. Perhaps you are one. I can accept that the problem gets exaggerated often, but not that there is no problem. Illegal labor is worker exploitation at its worst. It doesn't get worse than that in America. This isn't because of anything the government is doing, but instead what they are not doing.
Back on topic though, regulations don't kill business. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking they don't kill business. If they did then Germany would be devoid of business. Regulations make it harder and more expensive to do business, but seldom kill them. As long as a profit can be realized business will exist. You can't point to any single regulation and see the "straw that broke the camel's back" per se. For example, if CA's mattress regs add an average of $40 (fictitious number) to the cost of manufacturing a mattress you can't look at that and say it's a difference maker. However, mattresses are just one of many cases and together they have the cumulative effect of raising costs and making it harder to do business in the state. There are enough people in CA that business can make plenty of money despite this. So no, it doesn't kill business. I think what people mean when they say this is that some types of businesses are leaving, or more often expanding elsewhere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how certain businesses can be run cheaper elsewhere. Heck, even Tesla isn't building their new Giga Battery factory in CA.
Speaking of Tesla, do you think CA would not join the ranks of states pushing to have Tesla sell through dealers if Tesla was located out of Arizona?
regulations don't kill business. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking they don't kill business. If they did then Germany would be devoid of business. Regulations make it harder and more expensive to do business, but seldom kill them.
Right. And using Germany as an example is perfect. More than double California's population in a smaller geographical area producing the worlds 4th largest economy -- loaded with regulations and taxes and socialist infrastructure. So much for California's "problems" of over regulation and encroaching socialist mindset being the root of all evil eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarawayDJ
As long as a profit can be realized business will exist.
Right. And using Germany as an example is perfect. More than double California's population in a smaller geographical area producing the worlds 4th largest economy -- loaded with regulations and taxes and socialist infrastructure. So much for California's "problems" of over regulation and encroaching socialist mindset being the root of all evil eh?
said a mouthful of truth there bubba.
That is not to say that you don't have the same arguments in Germany that you have in CA. Germany has also lost manufacturing jobs to lower cost EU countries much like CA has lost some to lower cost states. Anytime you have an imbalance of costs you have to expect this.
I'm not a CA hater. Heck, I'm moving back this summer. I don't consider myself a big supporter either. IMHO CA can't really hold itself up as a great example of liberalism. Places like Germany can. California can't. As mentioned in the infrastructure thread that surfaced, CA is more expensive but you don't really seem to get anything for it. The roads aren't better. The schools aren't top notch except in pricey places. Class sizes aren't small. The state university system isn't cheap. You get the point. I tell my friends that I could easily be a liberal in Germany (lived there 7 years), but I can never be one in America. You pay a heck of a lot more in Germany but you also get a heck of a lot more. You pay more in CA but don't really get anything else. By that I mean that the government is not responsible for CA's weather and scenery. America doesn't have any shiny examples of liberalism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
