Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category.
...The administration was committed to its upcoming deadlines many months ago, in some cases under court order, after postponing a number of the actions until after the 2012 or 2014 elections. Now that Obama is almost out of time, they’re coming all at once.
The whole "under court order" and "our of time" thing is an scam. The Administration colludes with environmental groups to sue them demanding some regulation the Administration wants but knows it can't get through the regular legislative or regulator process. The Administration immediately rolls over in the suit and settles, agreeing to implement the regulation it wanted in the first place. Then it can claim the settlement of the court suit "requires" them to proceed with these regulations. I can't tell if I should be embarrassed for the reporter writing this that they are so ignorant of how these suits work or angry that the reporting is essentially colluding in this deceptive practice.
I often wonder if Democrats really believe they will hold the White House forever. I suppose they must, because they seem utterly unconcerned, even gleeful in fact, about new authoritarian Presidential powers they would freak out over if a Republican exercised.
Coyote's first rule of government authority: Never support any government power you would not want your ideological enemy wielding.
Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
Net Neutrality is one of those Orwellian words that mean exactly the opposite of what they sound like. There is a battle that goes on in the marketplace in virtually every communication medium between content creators and content deliverers. We can certainly see this in cable TV, as media companies and the cable companies that deliver their product occasionally have battles that break out in public. But one could argue similar things go on even in, say, shipping, where magazine publishers push for special postal rates and Amazon negotiates special bulk UPS rates.
In fact, this fight for rents across a vertical supply chain exists in virtually every industry. Consumers will pay so much for a finished product. Any vertical supply chain is constantly battling over how much each step in the chain gets of the final consumer price.
What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.
Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)
Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.
Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.
Postscript: There are folks out there who always feel better as a consumer if their services are heavily regulated by the Government. Well, the Internet is currently largely unregulated, but the cable TV industry is heavily regulated. Which one are you more satisfied with?
Update: OK, after a lot of comments and emails, I am willing to admit I am conflating multiple issues, some of which fit the strict definition of net neutrality (e.g. ISP A can't block Planned Parenthood sites because its CEO is anti-abortion) with other potential ISP-content provider conflicts. I am working on some updates as I study more, but I will say in response that
- President Obama is essentially doing the same thing, trying to ram through a regulatory power grab (shifting ISPs to Title II oversight) that actually has vanishly little to do with the strict definition of net neutrality. Net neutrality supporters should be forewarned that the number of content and privacy restrictions that will pour forth from regulators will dwarf the essentially non-existent cases of net neutrality violation we have seen so far in the unregulated market.
- I am still pretty sure the net effect of these regulations, whether they really affect net neutrality or not, will be to disarm ISP's in favor of content providers in the typical supply chain vertical wars that occur in a free market. At the end of the day, an ISP's last resort in negotiating with a content provider is to shut them out for a time, just as the content provider can do the same in reverse to the ISP's customers. Banning an ISP from doing so is like banning a union from striking. And for those who keep telling me that this sort of behavior is different and won't be illegal under net neutrality, then please explain to me how in practice one defines a ban based on a supply chain rent-division arguments and a ban based on nefarious non neutrality.
The AZ Republic rounds up some actual sick leave excuses people have tried:
"I accidentally got on a plane" was on the list of most dubious excuses for calling in sick to work, according to a recent survey by careerbuilders.com.
"I just put a casserole in the oven," "I need to tweak my botched plastic surgery," and "I broke my ankle after my leg fell asleep while I was sitting on the toilet," were among other hilarious, yet real, excuses that employers reported.
The survey found that 28 percent of employees called in sick when they were feeling well, down from 32 percent last year, and that one in four employers have caught an employee faking sick through social media.
There are more at the link.
We get very, very little of this, so we are lucky to have great employees. Since many of my employees are in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s (really), employee absences are generally real, quite serious health concerns. Besides, since most of my employees live on the work site, it is a little harder to fake this kind of thing.
It will be interesting what having the incentive of getting paid, in addition to just skipping out of work, will do to this.
Yesterday, when writing about the US Forest Service (USFS) restrictions on commercial photography in wilderness areas, I discussed the contradictions that make their policy problematic
The USFS has undermined their own argument by making exceptions based on the purpose of the filming. Apparently only commercial filming hurts ecosystems, not amateur photography. And apparently commercial filming that has positive messages about the USFS are OK too. Its just commercial filming that goes into a beer company ad that hurts ecosystems. You see the problem. If it's the use itself that is the problem, then the USFS should be banning the use altogether. By banning some photography but not all based on the content and use of that photography, that strikes me as a first amendment issue.
Despite working with the USFS on lands management every day, this policy was new to me. I hypothesized
[There is a] large group in the USFS that is at best skeptical and at worst hostile to commercial activity. They would explain these rules, at least in private, by saying that anything commercial is by definition antithetical to the very concept of wilderness that they hold in their heads, and that thus all commercial activity needs to be banned in the wilderness because it is inherently corrupting.
Reading Overlawyered, I saw this US Forest Service quote from the Oregonian to explain their position on commercial photography:
Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness.
Close didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing. She didn't know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.
She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.
"It's not a problem, it's a responsibility," she said. "We have to follow the statutory requirements."
So it appears that the purpose of the Wilderness Act is interpreted by the USFS as "protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain."
But the Wilderness Act makes just a brief mention of commercial activity (It was written back in the day when laws did not have to be 2000 pages long, so you can read the who thing here). Its main purpose is to keep the lands wild and the ecology as free as possible from man's intervention
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by the Congress as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness...
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
There is nothing in this that in any way shape or form should be affected by photography (unless the photography has some sort of heavy footprint, like making a Hollywood movie with hundreds of people and equipment and catering trucks, etc.).
The Wilderness Act is not primarily about protecting the Wilderness from commercial gain. It is about protecting the natural operation of ecosystems from intervention of any sort by man. Commercial activity is barely mentioned, and only as a minor aside deep into the legislation. But many US Forest Service employees have an antipathy to commercial activity and have sort of reinterpreted it in their mind as being an anti-commercialism act. Here are the only mentions of commercial activity in the law:
Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. ...
Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
In this usage (I am not an attorney so there is likely a long history of how the term "commercial enterprise" is understood in the law) my sense is this means that people are not to be conducting commerce -- trading goods and services for money- within the boundaries of the wilderness area. Essentially, they don't want a gift shop or McDonald's there. Grouped with the bit about roads, this is a paragraph about facilities and equipment and having a footprint.
So is a lone person taking pictures a commercial enterprise within the area? I doubt it. The actual commerce is conducted outside the park and there is nothing about photography that impairs the wilderness nature of the park. My interpretation is that taking pictures is OK but setting up a photography store is forbidden. But by the US Forest Service's definition, I suppose they should also ban people from collecting material for a book. If I walk through the wilderness area taking notes for a book I want to write, and then leave the area and write it and sell it, I am not sure how this is any different from commercial photography. And does this mean that I can't wear any clothes or bring any equipment into the wilderness area that I purchased commercially?
PS- Beyond a skepticism about capitalism, there is an other reason public lands people might want to shortcut the Federal Wilderness Act as "preventing commercial activity" -- it lets them off the hook. The Wilderness Act was about preventing meddling in the ecosystem (an impossible goal, but we will leave that for another day) and this applied to all groups -- commercial, government, educational. By shortcutting the Act as being about commerce, it helps folks forget that the same strictures should apply to agency personnel as well. I was up in Yellowstone listening to discussions of reintroduction of the wolf and the ongoing killing of thousands of non-native fish in Yellowstone Lake and various streams. The goal of these interventions is to reverse past interventions, but even so they strike me as violations of the Federal Wilderness Act.
With every item or service we buy, supply and demand are matched via prices. Except water. Because, for a variety of populist and politically scheming motives, no one wants to suggest "raising prices to consumers" as the obvious solution to reducing California water use in a drought, despite the fact that it would reduce demand in -- by definition -- the lowest value uses as well as provide incentives new sources and alternatives. So instead we get authoritarian stuff like this (press release from CA Senator Fran Pavely):
SACRAMENTO – Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1281 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) on Thursday to require greater disclosure of water use in oil production.
Oil well operators use large amounts of water in processes such as water flooding, steam flooding and steam injection, which are designed to increase the flow of thicker oil from the ground. In 2013, these enhanced oil recovery operations used more than 80 billion gallons of water in California, the equivalent amount used by about 500,000 households and more than 800 times the amount used for hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).
The impact of this use on domestic and agricultural water supplies is not known because oil companies are not required to disclose details about their water use
“At a time when families, business and farmers are suffering the effects of severe drought, all Californians need to do their part to use valuable water resources more wisely,” Senator Pavley said. “The public has the right to know about the oil industry’s use of limited fresh water supplies.”
Oil well operators have an available source of recycled water known as “produced water,” which is trapped deep underground and often comes to the surface during oil production. More than 130 billion gallons of produced water surfaced during oil production in California last year.
Many oil companies already recycle some of their produced water, but the amount is not known because of the lack of disclosure. Senate Bill 1281 requires oil well operators to report the amount and source of their water, including information on their use of recycled water.
The ONLY reason for such disclosure is because they want to impose some sort of autocratic command and control rules on oil industry water use -- not water quality mind you, but the amount of water they use. Add this to all the other creepy Cuba-style water actions, like having neighbors spy on each other to monitor water use, and you will understand why folks like Milton Friedman argued that free markets were essential to free societies.
In honor of the California water situation, I have created the second in my series of Venn diagram on economic beliefs.
The other day I wrote about non-monetary job benefits. Here is an example:
A small-time vintner's use of volunteer workers has put him out of business after the state squeezed him like a late-summer grape for $115,000 in fines -- and sent a chill through the wine industry.
The volunteers, some of them learning to make wine while helping out, were illegally unpaid laborers, and Westover Winery should have been paying them and paying worker taxes, the state Department of Industrial Relations said.
"I didn't know it was illegal to use volunteers at a winery; it's a common practice," said winery owner Bill Smyth.
State law prohibits for-profit businesses from using volunteers.
Before the fine, volunteer labor was common at wineries in the nearby Livermore Valley, said Fenestra Winery owner Lanny Replogle.
About half the people the state considered Westover employees were taking a free class at the Palomares Canyon Road winery. Students learned about growing vines, harvesting and blending grapes and marketing the finished product.
"This was an incredible opportunity for me," said Peter Goodwin, a home winemaker from Walnut Creek who said he dreams of opening a winery with some friends. "I got to learn from someone who knows the business."
The winery sometimes asked Goodwin if he wanted to assist in different tasks.
"That's what I wanted, to be as involved as much as possible -- it was all about learning," he said. "I don't understand the state's action. It was my time, and I volunteered."
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, this demonstrates the appalling violation of individual freedom that minimum wage laws create -- not just for the employer, but for the employee as well. Minimum wage laws mean that you are not allowed to perform labor for less than that minimum, even if you choose to and get non-monetary benefits that you feel fully compensate you for the time.
On the other hand, you have to be particularly clueless, especially in California, to claim ignorance on this. I work in an industry that 10 years ago routinely accepted volunteer labor (illegally) and I was never lulled by the "everyone else is doing it in the industry" excuse. I will say that it is irritating to try to run a business in compliance with the law and to find yourself undercut by folks who are avoiding the more expensive parts of the law. Years ago there used to be a couple of non-profits who competed against me running campgrounds. They were really for profit - they just paid their president a large salary rather than dividends - but used the non-profit status** as a dodge to try to accept volunteer labor. Eventually, they were stopped by several courts from doing so.
Yes, I know this is kind of odd. You might ask yourself, why are there so many people willing to take their volunteer position when you are offering paid jobs? It turns out here are a lot of non-monetary benefits to this job such that people will do it for free. In fact, that huge fountain of hypocrisy that is the Federal Government exempts itself from paying minimum wage and accepts volunteers to run its campgrounds where I must pay them.
** the non-profit status helped them in one other way. We take over operation of recreation areas under concession contract from the government. Many government employees hate this sort of outsourcing partnership, and really find it - for the lack of a better word - dirty to sully themselves interacting with a profit-making entity. The non-profit status helped my competitors seem friendlier -- ie less capitalistic -- than I. California recently passed a law allowing lower cost third party operation of certain parks functions but only if this was performed by a non-profit. I had a US Forest Service District Ranger in Kentucky tell me once that he was offended that I made money on public lands, providing services in the National Forest. I answered, "Oh, and you work for free?" I said that I did not know how much he made but I guessed $80-100 thousand a year. I said that would be over double what my company made in profit in the same forest operating and paying for hundreds of camp sites. Why was I dirty for making money in the Forest but he thought he as "clean"?
I saw this by accident on the California FAQ on the state minimum wage.
1. Q. What is the minimum wage? A. Effective January 1, 2008, the minimum wage in California is $8.00 per hour. It will increase to $9.00 per hour effective July 1, 2014, and to $10.00 per hour effective January 1, 2016.
For sheepherders, however, effective July 1, 2002, the minimum wage was set at $1,200.00 per month. On January 1, 2007, this wage increased to a minimum monthly salary of $1,333.20, and on January 1, 2008, it increased again to a minimum monthly salary of $1,422.52. Effective July 1, 2014, the minimum monthly salary for sheepherders will be $1600.34. Effective January 1, 2016, the minimum monthly salary for sheepherders will be $1777.98. Wages paid to sheepherders may not be offset by meals or lodging provided by the employer. Instead, there are provisions in IWC Order 14-2007, Sections 10(F), (G) and (H) that apply to sheepherders with respect to monthly meal and lodging benefits required to be provided by the employer.
What the hell? The new minimum wage is absolutely appropriate to every industry in California except sheepherding? It would be interesting to see the political process that led to this one narrow special rule. The state Speaker of the House's brother-in-law is probably in the sheep business.
This kind of crap is frustrating as hell for me. We have a labor model that is generally not even considered when politicians are setting labor law, and thus compliance causes us fits. I would love special labor exemptions for my workers as well, but I don't have any pull in Sacramento.
Postscript: While most folks think of the minimum wage as a restriction on employers, it is just as much a restriction on workers as well. I am glad to see the California site acknowledge this:
3. Q. May an employee agree to work for less than the minimum wage? A. No.
New York City has instituted a draconian "ban the box" law that makes it extremely difficult for employers to avoid hiring people with criminal records (via Overlawyered)
The bill, which is likely to become law in some form, would prohibit the commonly used "check boxes" on job applications that ask about past convictions. It also would forbid employers from asking questions about an applicant's criminal history until a conditional job offer has been tendered....
The bigger concern is lawsuits from job seekers. To be able to reject an applicant because of a past conviction, employers would have to go through a rigorous process that, if not followed, would result in the presumption that a business owner engaged in unlawful discrimination, Mr. Goldstein said.
“I think you’d see some increases in litigation, and this is not exactly a well-settled area of law,” he said.
Proponents say the bill would simply offer a clearer way for businesses to follow state law requiring employers to go through a multistep test to determine if an applicant's past criminal behavior correlates with the position being sought.
Additionally, the City Council bill would allow an applicant rejected because of a past crime seven days to respond. The job would have to be held open during that time.
An employer's failure to adhere to the process could lead to a fine of at least $1,000. In the bill's current form, the business would bear the burden of proof in any resulting lawsuit by the job applicant, Mr. Goldstein said.
“Rather than the normal context, we have the burden here shifting,” he said. “It would be on the employer to present clear and convincing evidence that it had not engaged in unlawful discrimination.”
Given that the burden of proof seems to be on businesses in employee lawsuits even when the playing field is supposed to be level, I shudder to think what a statutory burden of proof would mean. Likely an automatic win for any employee.
Given this, here is a question for you: Imagine that I hired a convicted felon who then committed a crime against one of my customers. Would I be shielded from liability because I had limited ability to screen out candidates who posed dangers to customers? HA! No way. The plaintiff's attorney for the customer would be in front of the jury making me look like Attila the Hun for not screening felons from my applicant pool, even as the government made that task effectively impossible.
That is the key to this law -- that proponents can claim that one can screen out felons "if appropriate to the job" but in fact the law makes it effectively impossible to do so without imposing staggering litigation costs on me. So we get the Leftist ideal - I can be sued by employees for screening out felons and I can simultaneously be sued by customers for not screening out felons.
Government contractors would be insane to operate in California (and perhaps other regulatory hell-holes, but I am familiar with California). California has a myriad of arcane labor laws (like break laws and heat stress laws) that are difficult to comply with, combined with a legislature that shifts the laws every year to make it hard to keep up, combined with a regulatory and judicial culture that assumes businesses are guilty until proven innocent. If state labor violations or suits lead to loss of business at the national level, why the hell would a contractor ever want to have employees in California?
Bader provides the numbers:
Whether a large company is sued for discrimination or labor law violations often has more to do with its location than whether it violated the law. A recent study shows that “California has the most frequent incidences of [employment-practices] charges in the country, with a 42 percent higher chance of being sued by an employee for establishments . . . over the national average. Other states and jurisdictions where employers are at a high risk of employee suits include the District of Columbia (32% above the national average) [and] Illinois (26%).” It’s because of their location, not because California employers are more racist or anti-union than employers in other states (indeed, California employers spend more time and money on compliance mechanisms than employers elsewhere).
He goes on to discuss what I think is actually is a bigger issue than differential penalties, which is the criminalization of things in California that are perfectly legal in other places. The best example is lunch breaks. Companies don't just have to provide lunch breaks, they have an affirmative responsibility to make sure an employee takes a non-working lunch. An employee who voluntarily does some work while taking a lunch break (e.g. answers a question from a customer that might walk up to her) makes the company liable for a penalty. I kid you not. That is why California corporations have sometimes made it a firing offense to be caught doing work at lunch, because it makes the company liable under the law.
"Due to increases in the Minnesota minimum wage, daily camping rates will increase by $2 in 2015 and an additional $1 in 2016."
Apparently there is yet another executive order with far reaching consequences for government contractors, Executive Order 13673 (does it bother anyone else that we are up in the 13 thousands on these? Did they start numbering at 1?) Hans Bader has the details:
A July 31 executive order by President Obama will make it very costly for employers to challenge dubious allegations of wrongdoing against them, if they are government contractors (which employ a quarter of the American workforce). Executive Order 13,673 will allow trial lawyers to extort larger settlements from companies, and enable bureaucratic agencies to extract costly settlements over conduct that may have been perfectly legal. That’s the conclusion of The Wall Street Journal and prominent labor lawyer Eugene Scalia.
This “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” order allows government officials to cut off the contracts of contractors and subcontractors that do not “consistently adhere” to a wide array of complex labor, antidiscrimination, harassment, workplace-safety and disabilities-rights laws. Never mind that every large national business, no matter how conscientious, has at least one successful lawsuit against it under federal labor and employment laws, which is inevitable when a company has thousands of employees who can sue it in hundreds of different courts that often have differing interpretations of the law. The order also bans using perfectly legal arbitration agreements, overstepping the President’s legal authority.
I can say as someone who absolutely bends over backwards to be in compliance, it just is not possible to be totally clean. We have won most all of the lawsuits and actions against us over the years vis a vis labor laws and related charges. A lot of these are pro forma discrimination charges that some employees in protected groups file automatically when terminated, usually without any evidence of specific discrimination. We have, to date, won all of these "was he a Hispanic that was terminated rather than he was terminated because he was Hispanic" suits. We have only lost one case. To give you an idea of how hard it can be to be 100% in compliance, let me describe it:
We had a government contract governed by the Service Contract Act, which sets out minimum wages to be paid for different types of jobs. These wages typically are in two parts - a base wage and, if the company does not have benefits, a fringe payment in lieu of such benefits. For example, it might say that a day laborer must be paid (I will use round numbers for simplicity) $12 an hour base wages plus $4 an hour for fringes. So we paid the worker $16 and hour and felt ourselves in compliance.
Then we had a Department of Labor audit. The investigator insisted that the law required that we break these two payments into two lines on the paycheck. So instead of having a paycheck that said 40 hours times $16, it needed to say 40 hours times $12 and 40 hours times $4. Thus we were found to be in violation and issued a huge fine. I protested that the law said no such thing -- the law said I had to have a clear paper trail of what I paid people. It did not say the labor and fringes had to be shown separately on the paycheck, nor did any DOL published regulation require this (and of course I also pointed out that the intent of the law that someone get paid a minimum amount had been fulfilled).
Apparently, the DOL had an internal handbook that suggested this as a correct practice, but this had never been tested in court nor embodied in a published regulation. To impose the fine, my attorney said they had to take me to court. I said go for it. The DOL chose not to press the case, and we adjusted our paycheck practices to avoid the issue in the future. I was happy to comply with this, as stupid as it was, but it was impossible to know it was an actual requirement until I got busted for violating this double-secret practice. But there it is on my record - VIOLATION!
I will leave it to Bader's article to explore some of the implications of this order, but I want to add some unintended(?) consequences of my own:
- Government contractors would be insane to operate in California (and perhaps other regulatory hell-holes, but I am familiar with California). California has a myriad of arcane labor laws (like break laws and heat stress laws) that are difficult to comply with, combined with a legislature that shifts the laws every year to make it hard to keep up, combined with a regulatory and judicial culture that assumes businesses are guilty until proven innocent. If state labor violations or suits lead to loss of business at the national level, why the hell would a contractor ever want to have employees in California?
- I have a couple of smaller competitors who have sent employees into the parks we operate who then filed extensive, manufactured complaints to the government about our service, timed to make it difficult on us when we bid against them for the contract renewal. How tempting will it be for companies to place employees in their rival who then file serial labor complaints to undermine that rival in future contract awards?
- Companies that do government contracting as a sideline are going to be driven out of the business, reducing the choice and competition among contractors. Earlier I discussed how 41 CFR 60-2.1 and 41 CFR 60-4.1, also the result of an Obama executive order, drove our company out of our last incidental contracting business (though we deal with the government all the time, it is generally through concession contracts where we get paid by the public, not by the government, so a lot of government contracting law does not apply to these contracts).
Kevin Drum seems here to be making the case for Federalism
Via Vox, here's a colorful map from Broadview Networks that helps illustrate one reason that policymaking in Congress often seems so disconnected from the real world. It's because policymakers tend to be pretty well-off folks living in a pretty well-off region that shelters them from the problems many of the rest of us encounter. If you live in Missouri, you might be annoyed [about a local problem]. But if you live in Washington DC or northern Virginia, guess what? [Your local situation is much better]! Virginia is ranked #1 in the nation, and DC is right behind it. So is it any wonder that this really doesn't seem like a pressing problem in Congress?
Wow, this seems like a great argument for Federalism, as well as a number of libertarian critiques of government in general. Good going, Kevin!
But then I realized he doesn't really believe this. Drum is as much a supporter as anyone on the Left of Federal mandates over local action (e.g. Common Core).
Further, I realized that he was essentially nuts. Because the issue he is lamenting is Internet speeds. Some people have faster Internet than others, and he is just so frustrated that Congress does not realize this. He actually seems to be hoping Congress will somehow intervene to equalize Internet speeds. I would love to know, in these people's minds, if there are any issues to trivial for Congress to wade into.
By the way, if Congress had stepped into Internet regulation, we would still probably be surfing at 1200 baud. After all, all that high speed Internet stuff might kill jobs at Hayes and US Robotics (makers of old telephone modems for those too young to remember). Look at how long it took to get a political/corporate consensus on HD TV standards. Ugh, we would probably all have that goofy French TV-computer solution the Left wanted to force on the United States 15 years or so ago.
Postscript: The UN ITU spent a lot of time driving phone manufacturers to using micro-USB in a bid at government-led standardization. The only problem is that micro-USB sucks. It is ubiquitous, which is nice, but from a form and function standpoint is far harder to use and plug in than Apple's lightning connector, which is much easier to insert, less prone to damage, and can be inserted in either direction. Perhaps young people with better eyes do not notice but I spend a lot of time jamming micro usb cables in the wrong way. I hate having to put on my glasses just to plug in my phone, which is why I like my Nexus 5 with wireless charging.
LMAO At the Nerve of Solar Companies. Please Don't Corrupt The Term "Free Market" By Trying to Apply it to Yourselves
Our public utility APS wants to enter the rooftop solar business. As a ratepayer and taxpayer, I have deep concerns about this because of the numerous ways this venture could end up with various hidden subsidies.
However, I find it simply hilarious that current rooftop solar providers, including #1 subsidy whore and crony capitalist SolarCity. Here is what trade group Arizona Solar Energy Industry Association wrote in an email to me today. I have highlighted some of the bits that got my blood boiling this morning:
In an unprecedented announcement that took the solar industry by surprise, Arizona’s largest utility, APS, announced that it intends to begin competing directly with Arizona solar installers. APS announced Monday that it is seeking permission to spend between $57 and $70 million -not including its profits- of ratepayer money to install solar on the roofs of homes in its service territory and to compete directly with solar installers of all sizes.
“The idea of our members who compete in the free market today having to all of a sudden compete with a regulated monopoly is frightening. How would you like it if the government just stepped in and started competing with your business?” said Corey Garrison, CEO of Arizona based Southface Solar and treasurer of Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA). "APS has proposed subsidizing certain customers that allow it to put solar on their rooftops while the free market gets no more utility subsidy and actually gets charged for going solar."
It has been well publicized that APS spent much of the last year in a battle with the very industry it now seeks to dominate. Throughout 2013 APS urged the Arizona Corporation Commission to install a huge monthly tax on those who would put solar on their roof. It has also been reported that APS urged the Department of Revenue to institute a new property tax on rooftop solar panels that are leased to customers.
“After spending a year misleading the public with well-publicized lies and misdirection, APS seems to think this is a good time for it to be rewarded with an expansion of its monopoly franchise” said Corey Garrison
Unlike rooftop solar companies that must compete with each other on a level playing field, APS earns a guaranteed rate of return off of its assets including these proposed rooftop solar installations. If approved, APS would be permitted to advertise its solar product in its customer bills and to use its customer lists to market and sell, all with employees paid for by ratepayers. Unlike traditional, free market rooftop solar which is paid for only by the customer that installs the system, APS will be asking all its ratepayers to pay the cost of, and guarantee its profits on, each of the systems it installs under this program.
“This is a massive expansion of the monopoly into an area that is well served by the free market” continued Garrison, “what’s next; will APS ask to sell electric cars or ovens or some other set of goods or services?”
This is hilarious. The rooftop installers in AZ lost some of the subsidy from power companies (e.g. APS) over the past years but still get a myriad of subsidies for themselves and their customers. We will use one of the larger installers, SolarCity, as an example. This is from the SolarCity web site:
Federal, state and local governments offer incredible solar tax credits and rebates to encourage homeowners to switch to renewable energy to lower their energy usage and switch to solar power. The amount of the rebate subsidy varies by program, but some are generous enough to cover up to 30% of your solar power system cost.
The federal government allows you to deduct 30% of your solar power system costs off your federal taxes through an investment tax credit (ITC). If you do not expect to owe taxes this year, you can roll over your credit to the following year.
.... Some locations have additional incentives to make solar even more affordable. SolarCity will get the most for your project
SolarCity is committed to helping you benefit from every federal, state and utility rebate and tax credit available for your energy upgrade projects.
Navigating through government rebate programs on your own can be intimidating. SolarCity will identify all of the qualifying tax credit and rebate programs for your system and file the required paperwork for you. We will even credit you for the state rebate upfront so that you do not have to wait for the government to send you a check later.
This language is a bit odd, since in most cases SolarCity captures these credits for themselves and then passes on the savings (presumably, but maybe not) to customers via lower power costs, exactly the same model APS is proposing.
Customers, however, must sign a contract agreeing to cede "any and all tax credits, incentives, renewable energy credits, green tags, carbon offset credits, utility rebates or any other non-power attributes of the system" to SolarCity. The tax credits are passed on to its investors, which include the venture-capital firms Draper Fisher Jurvetson, DBL Investors and Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP.
The description by solar installers that they somehow represent the "free market" is simply hilarious, given the dependence of their industry on taxpayer subsidies (either of the installers or the customers). SolarCity admits that their business would actually never be able to operate in a free market:
SolarCity officials, including Musk’s cousins and fellow Obama donors Lyndon and Peter Rive, acknowledged the company’s dependence on government support in its 2012 IPO filing. “Our business currently depends on the availability of rebates, tax credits and other financial incentives,” they wrote. “The expiration, elimination or reduction of these rebates, credits and incentives would adversely impact our business.”
A more recent SolarCity filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission notes: “[The company’s] ability to provide solar energy systems to customers on an economically viable basis depends on our ability to finance these systems with fund investors who require particular tax and other benefits.”
Rooftop installers also have their business buoyed by government mandates that power companies pay residential solar producers 2-3x the going wholesale market rate for any electricity they put into the grid
SolarCity also benefits from "net metering" policies that 43 states, including California, have adopted. Utilities pay solar-panel customers the retail power rate for the solar power they generate but don't use and then export to the grid. Retail rates can be two to three times as high as the wholesale price of electricity because transmission and delivery costs, along with taxes and other surcharges that fund state renewable programs, are baked in.
So in California, solar ratepayers on average are credited about 16 cents per kilowatt hour on their electric bills for the excess energy they generate—even though utilities could buy that power at less than half the cost from other types of power generators.
This was the battle referred to obliquely in the press release above. The electric utility APS wanted to stop overpaying for power from these rooftop solar installations. Rooftop installers fought back. In the end, a fixed charge was placed on homeowners to account for part of this over-payment, an odd solution in my mind that seems to have ticked off both sides.
So the supposedly "free market" rooftop companies are competing successfully with regulated utilities because they got Federal, state, and local subsidies; are exempted from things like paying property tax on leased equipment that every other business has to pay; and get a mandate from the state that utilities have to pay double the market price for their power. Is it any wonder that a regulated utility, which is no stranger to cronyism and feeding at the subsidy trough, might want to get a piece of that action?
ASEIA, you are welcome to duke it out for first spot at the trough with APS, but don't corrupt the word "free market" by trying to apply the term to yourselves.
An Obama Administration executive order / regulation (hard to tell the difference any more)
Department of Labor
29 CFR Part 10
Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors; Proposed Rule
34568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
This document proposes regulations to implement Executive Order13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, which was signed by President Barack Obama on February 12, 2014.
The Executive Order therefore seeks to increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties that contract with the Federal Government by raising the hourly minimum wage paid by those contractors to workers performing on covered Federal contracts to: $10.10 per hour, beginning January 1, 2015; and beginning January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, an amount determined by the Secretary of Labor.
Liberal and leftish economists in the audience, please explain the line in bold.
The administration wants to apply this to concessionaires as well. This will force us to raise a $20 camping rate by $4 a night.
One of the factors in the financial crisis of 2007-2009 that is mentioned too infrequently is the role of banking capital sufficiency standards and exactly how they were written. Folks have said that capital requirements were somehow deregulated or reduced. But in fact the intention had been to tighten them with the Basil II standards and US equivalents. The problem was not some notional deregulation, but in exactly how the regulation was written.
In effect, capital sufficiency standards declared that mortgage-backed securities and government bonds were "risk-free" in the sense that they were counted 100% of their book value in assessing capital sufficiency. Most other sorts of financial instruments and assets had to be discounted in making these calculations. This created a land rush by banks for mortgage-backed securities, since they tended to have better returns than government bonds and still counted as 100% safe.
Without the regulation, one might imagine banks to have a risk-reward tradeoff in a portfolio of more and less risky assets. But the capital standards created a new decision rule: find the highest returning assets that could still count for 100%. They also helped create what in biology we might call a mono-culture. One might expect banks to have varied investment choices and favorites, such that a problem in one class of asset would affect some but not all banks. Regulations helped create a mono-culture where all banks had essentially the same portfolio stuffed with the same one or two types of assets. When just one class of asset sank, the whole industry went into the tank,
Well, we found out that mortgage-backed securities were not in fact risk-free, and many banks and other financial institutions found they had a huge hole blown in their capital. So, not surprisingly, banks then rushed into government bonds as the last "risk-free" investment that counted 100% towards their capital sufficiency. But again the standard was flawed, since every government bond, whether from Crete or the US, were considered risk-free. So banks rushed into bonds of some of the more marginal countries, again since these paid a higher return than the bigger country bonds. And yet again we got a disaster, as Greek bonds imploded and the value of many other countries' bonds (Spain, Portugal, Italy) were questioned.
So now banking regulators may finally be coming to the conclusion that a) there is no such thing as a risk free asset and b) it is impossible to give a blanket risk grade to an entire class of assets. Regulators are pushing to discount at least some government securities in capital calculations.
This will be a most interesting discussion, and I doubt that these rules will ever pass. Why? Because the governments involved have a conflict of interest here. No government is going to quietly accept a designation that its bonds are risky while its neighbor's are healthy. In addition, many governments (Spain is a good example) absolutely rely on their country's banks as the main buyer of their bonds. Without Spanish bank buying, the Spanish government would be in a world of hurt placing its debt. There is no way it can countenance rules that might in any way shift bank asset purchases away from its government bonds.
Bruce McQuain has an article on how McDonald's is closing some contract-operated fast food outlets at military bases. The article speculates that the closures on new government minimum wage regulations for government contracts.
Frankly, I doubt this explanation. I know something of the world of government contracting, and contractors in these cases routinely just pass on wage increases to their customers in the form of higher prices. After all, their contracts give them a monopoly of sorts in these bases.
I would like to offer an alternative explanation.
In March, a new regulation took effect that all contractors with anything larger than a $50,000 a year contract with the government must go through an expensive affirmative action planning process for ALL of their locations, not just for the people involved in that particular contract (41 CFR 60-2.1 and 41 CFR 60-4.1)
We don't do government contracting work. We lease government facilities, but get paid 100% by customers -- since we don't take government money, we are not a contractor. But there is one exception. We have a $52,000 a year contract to clean bathrooms near the campgrounds we operate in California. Basically, we bid this contract at cost because we want the bathrooms cleaned well -- if they are not, it hurts our nearby businesses.
In this contract, we have government-mandated wage requirements under the Service Contract Act. When these mandated wages go up, we just raise the price to the government in proportion. No big deal.
We were informed that having this contract, under the new March Obama regulations, now made us liable to go through an expensive and time consuming affirmative action planning process for every location -- of which we have over 120 -- not just for this one contract. So this one contract was going to force us to create 120 annual written plans and presumably get them approved by someone in the government. No way. I might have done it if I only had to do a plan for the contract, but it is just too much work to do this everywhere merely because I have a $52,000 contract on which I make no profit. So we told the Feds we were dropping the contract.
I think it is very unlikely that private businesses will be accepting government contracts as 5 or 10% of their business any more. This new regulation just imposes too much cost on the other 95% of the business. Many will drop the government contracts.
I wonder if this is what is really going on with McDonalds. A regulatory requirement that applied just to the base operations, like a minimum wage, strikes me as manageable. But having these three or four contracts drive an expensive requirement to create some sort of affirmative action plan for every location - essentially every one of their tens of thousands of stores, so tens of thousands of plans - that would drive them out of these contracts VERY fast.
We just worked with an attorney to rewrite our California employee handbook. For your enjoyment, here are all the state-mandated leaves of absence we are required to provide employees (most unpaid, but some paid) and for which we must write detailed rules in our employee manual. We'd likely provide most of this stuff anyway if asked, but the administrative hassle of having this all be a point of law (backed with the threat of expensive litigation if we make even the smallest mistake) is expensive and irritating.
- Family/medical leaves (including more restrictive California Family Medical Leave Act)
- Pregnancy disability leave
- Organ donor and bone marrow donor leave
- Military leave of absence
- Military spouse’s leave of absence
- Civil air patrol leave
- Drug/alcohol rehabilitation accommodation
- Time off for adult literacy programs
- Time off for required attendance at school of suspended pupil
- Time off for attending activities at child’s school or licensed day care facility
- Time off for duty as election official
- Time off for jury and witness duties
- Time off for victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking – obtaining relief for victim and children
- Time off for victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking –additional time for victim’s participation
- Time off for victim of certain felonies
- Time off to attend court proceedings for certain crimes
- Time off for volunteer firefighter, reserve peace officer or emergency rescue personnel duties
- Time off for volunteer firefighter, reserve peace officer or emergency rescue personnel training
- Time off for voting
- Workers' compensation leave
PS- this is not necessarily a comprehensive list and it is published at the risk of having a California lawyer see it and say "aha! They have forgotten time off for the death of a beloved hamster. Let's sue him."
I totally understand why Toyota would want to leave California. I often wonder why any manufacturing business would remain in California. I actually have thought about whether there is a private equity opportunity to buy California manufacturers and make money by moving them to lower cost jurisdictions.
I am particularly sympathetic this year. We have four or five campground opportunities where we could be making money this year by making investments in these facilities. But these initiatives would all take my time, and my time has been 110% devoted to catching up on regulatory compliance issues, particularly in California. Every state has stupid compliance requirements, but California stands out for two reasons
- It has a lot, lot more of these requirements
- The cost of non-compliance is way higher than in other states. You don't just get an order to clean up your act in 60 days, you get slammed with tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees from predatory law firms that have been given a hunting license by the state legislature to seek out and reward themselves when they find non-compliance minutia (e.g. numbers on the paycheck in the wrong font size).
So I totally understand why Toyota is coming to Texas. But also note that the state of Texas handed Toyota tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money for the move, money for which smaller and less politically-connected companies don't qualify. This corporate relocation incentive game is one of the worst uses of tax money, as it produces no new economic activity, but simply shifts it across arbitrary lines on the map.
We have invested a fair amount of time to try to get sales tax treatment on food items in our California stores correct. But the rules are insane. Beyond all the crazy rules (e.g. if a customer buys a refrigerated burrito it may be non-taxable, but if he puts it in the microwave in the store to heat it up it becomes taxable for sure) is the fact that sometimes customer intent matters (e.g. will they consume it at one of the picnic tables on site, or take it back to their home or camp site)
When searching for more resources on the topic, I found this flow chart on deciding if CA sales tax applies to food
Here is more, from the same article
Under California law, foods eaten on the premise of an eatery is taxed while the same item taken to go is not: "Sales of food for human consumption are generally exempt from tax unless sold in a heated condition (except hot bakery items or hot beverages, such as coffee, sold for a separate price), served as meals, consumed at or on the seller's facilities, ordinarily sold for consumption on or near the seller's parking facility, or sold for consumption where there is an admission charge." Exactly which type of foods do and do not fall under the scope of this provision is the frustrating devil in the detail.
Eskenazi notes a few of the ridiculous results of drawing an artificial distinction between hot and cold foods. "A hot sandwich to go would be taxable," for example, "While a prepackaged, cold one would not -- but a cold sandwich becomes taxable if it has hot gravy poured onto it. Cold foods to go are generally not taxable -- but hot foods that have cooled are taxable (meaning a cold sandwich slathered in "hot" gravy that has cooled to room temperature is taxable)."
Kevin Drum laments that net neutrality seems to be dead, as he puts it:
So Google and Microsoft and Netflix and other large, well-capitalized incumbents will pay for speedy service. Smaller companies that can't—or that ISPs just aren't interested in dealing with—will get whatever plodding service is left for everyone else. ISPs won't be allowed to deliberately slow down traffic from specific sites, but that's about all that's left of net neutrality. Once you've approved the notion of two-tier service, it hardly matters whether you're speeding up some of the sites or slowing down others.
At some level, this statement is silly. Really, does Netflix and Gmail really need the same connection speed? And by the way, it makes a lot of difference whether investment is to give more speed to certain websites beyond what the consumer gets now vs. slowing down all the non-payers. What honest consumer could ever see these options as similar? Trust a progressive to consider cutting down all the tall trees to be equivalent to raising the short trees.
But here is another thought - Drum is among those who frequently complain about his lack of ISP choices and the slowness of developing speedier service. But if I am an ISP, do I really want to invest billions in extra bandwidth when the benefits of this investment will accrue 100% to companies like Netflix rather than myself? And don't be confused, studies have shown Netflix using a third of all Internet capacity during peak times. (updated data here, showing Google and Netflix together using more than half the capacity). This strikes me as a free rider problem that normally the Left would jump right on.
It's hard to guess how things will play out, but there is a case to be made that Netflix and others paying for the bandwidth they consume will be a huge boon to home ISP access. A second stream of income to ISP's based on bandwidth and speeds may be just what is needed to revitalize that business. Of course, monopoly providers could just drop the money to the bottom line without doing anything to their infrastructure, but I trust that Netflix and Google will have every incentive to pound the hell out of ISP's who don't actually invest. They are not particularly happy about this extra expense, so if they pay it, they are gong to make damn sure they get the speed and bandwidth they promised. We individual customers have in the past had little power to influence ISP's bandwidth and speed investments, but now we have powerful allies.
Via the WSJ (emphasis added)
Nomar may be the most extreme example of a problem plaguing 911 response centers nationwide: false emergency calls made from cellphones that no longer have a contract or prepaid minutes with a wireless carrier and so can avoid being tied to a user. Under federal rules these disabled phones, which can't make ordinary calls, must retain the ability to dial emergency numbers.
Abuse of these phones has become enough of a concern that many 911 officials and some in the telecom industry are urging the Federal Communications Commission to shut off or phase out the emergency feature in the interest of public safety.
In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, anonymous dialers have made tens of thousands of false 911 calls since 2007—with Nomar alone believed responsible for over 30,000. (Call-center operators can detect a disabled phone in part because no phone number shows up on their screen.)
During a 24-hour period on Thanksgiving Day 2012, dispatchers at the city's Department of Emergency Management reported 1,527 false 911 calls—more than one a minute. They believed all the calls came from just five phones, based in part on the cellphone towers from which the calls were connected...
At the root of the problem is a 1997 FCC requirement that all carriers include emergency-dialing capability on cellphones whether they have working service or not. Back then, 911 centers supported the feature as a potential lifeline.
"Cell service was still a new thing," said Trey Forgety, director of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association, a trade group of 911 centers in Washington. "We wanted people in dire straits to have reliable access to 911."
I absolutely despise legislation like this. Some legislator wants to pat him or herself on the back during their re-election that they "did something" about human trafficking so they pass this law:
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez approved a law requiring employers to post a notice containing information about the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline. The new law, H.B. 181, unanimously passed by both legislative chambers, becomes effective July 1, 2014.
Employers subject to the state Minimum Wage Act must post a sign containing the following notice in English and in Spanish and in any other written language where at least 10 percent of the workers or users of a covered facility speak that language:
NOTICE ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING: OBTAINING FORCED LABOR OR SERVICES IS A CRIME UNDER NEW MEXICO AND FEDERAL LAW. IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS A VICTIM OF THIS CRIME, CONTACT THE FOLLOWING: IN NEW MEXICO, CALL OR TEXT 505-GET-FREE (505-438- 3733); OR CALL THE NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING RESOURCE CENTER HOTLINE TOLL-FREE AT 1-888-373-7888 FOR HELP. YOU MAY ALSO SEND THE TEXT “HELP” OR “INFO” TO BEFREE (“233733”). YOU MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS, AND YOUR CALL OR TEXT IS CONFIDENTIAL
Oh yeah, that is going to make a big difference. Have you seen a labor poster wall lately? Probably not, because no employees ever look at these things unless they are by the microwave and they have nothing better to do while waiting for their popcorn. But every time some legislator wants to "do something" about an employment related issue, another poster is added.
Here is the really hilarious part -- do they really think that a person who who is so lawless as to engage in forced labor is going to post this poster? Seriously? I have this picture in my head of a southern plantation owner in 1864 tacking the Emancipation Proclamation up in the slave quarters.
I will take a picture of all the posters required in California, because I was just working on it, but here is a list of what has to be posted.
Fed's reverse repo activity in Treasuries with major banks. When I was on the corporate staff of a large conglomerate, we eventually busted one of our divisions for pushing inventory out the door on the last day of the quarter, only to have most of it returned a few days later, all as a way to boost quarterly revenues. This appears to be the bankers' equivalent of such channel-stuffing.
Are the Feds really fooled by artificial quarter-end liquidity that is provided by the Feds themselves? The stress-tests remind me of the story about FDR declaring a bank holiday, and claiming to have allowed only the strong banks to reopen the next day. How did they know which were strong and weak? They didn't, really. The whole exercise was a PR ploy to boost consumer confidence in the banking industry.
Update: Yep, there it all goes back where it came from
Most folks who talk about oil production know very little about it. One reality of oil production, particularly for older fields like those around Los Angeles, is that oil wells have to be frequently reworked to maintain such production (fracking, by the way, is one of those rework techniques and has been used for over 50 years). By banning well rework and re-injection of water (most fluid flowing from older wells is water), the city council has effectively banned oil production.
The linked article is a good reminder of a technique used by many environmental activists. Despite portraying themselves as being driven by science, they actually often make progress by taking words and both obscuring their meaning and adding emotional baggage to them. Such is the case with "fracking"
Because with its pun-friendly name, the term fracking has become an effective nonspecific rallying point for extreme activist groups aiming to scare the public about environmental harms that have yet to be demonstrated. Amid the cheering after the vote, some of the national activists behind the effort acknowledged the true goal behind measure. The term fracking, it seems, is actually intended to be a catch-all phrase to describe all aspects of oil and gas production, conventional and unconventional alike, according to Washington-based Food and Water Watch, one of the activist groups behind the measure. In an interview with online publication Streetsblog Los Angeles after the vote, FWW organizer Brenna Norton boldly stated as much when she acknowledged, “It’s easier to engage and organize people around ‘fracking’ than a complicated list of practices.”