PDA

View Full Version : What's Up With L.A.???


Davian93
08-14-2008, 08:08 PM
http://www.knbc.com/news/17183208/detail.html

Stop regulating everything!!!

Sinistrum
08-14-2008, 08:30 PM
If it hasn't fallen into the ocean yet, I don't really care what is going on there. I may I just say, that day cannot come soon enough.

RogueSavior
08-14-2008, 09:54 PM
But make sure the members of my Harem are elswhere when it does. Like where they belong, for example.

RogueSavior
08-14-2008, 09:58 PM
Also... I hope that part of their joint security plans with LAPD include shipping illegals home. After all... that's kind of the police's job.

Personally, I don't get the whole problem with illegal immigration thing, but I'm in Wisconsin and thus don't have to deal with it like you Texans and Californians do.

tworiverswoman
08-14-2008, 10:03 PM
Is this article saying that employees at Home Depot have no access to restrooms? :confused:

It doesn't say so explicity, but it seems to be implied. I can't imagine a business leaving out such a commonplace necessity...

RogueSavior
08-14-2008, 10:05 PM
No, Tru. They're saying that the new special Day Laborer section has to have special restrooms and a water fountain.

Ozymandias
08-14-2008, 10:40 PM
This is outrageous. I have no problem with illegal immigrants, for the most part, but this is exactly what every critic of illegal immigration goes on about.

Most day laborers are illegal aliens. Why is LA forcing owners to spend valuable time and risk valuable profits to make sure day laborers are comfortable? They should have a INS guy sitting in each station making sure that everyone is supposed to be there.

And of course, this totally ignores the fact that having a ton of illegal immigrants, or at least day laborers, sitting on your doorstep may drive customers away. This is one of the worst laws I've ever heard... California is a shithole.

GonzoTheGreat
08-15-2008, 05:49 AM
For whom are those day laborers working?
If they are there because they are employed by Home Depot (on an irregular basis, perhaps) then it is clear that Home Depot should take care of things. Whether or not they're legal extra-terrestrials.
If they are there because they hope to find a temporary job with someone buying a can of paint, then I would say that it is a matter for the city authorities. To give another example: it wouldn't be reasonable to expect abortion clinics to build extra bathrooms for the convenience of the anti-abortion protesters that harass the doctors, nurses and patients either, would it?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-15-2008, 08:57 AM
They are there looking to get hired on from the people buying the cans of paint, Gonzo.

Davian93
08-15-2008, 09:33 AM
Just one quick note...there's no such thing as INS anymore (the whole dept was reorganized and now consists of ICE and USCIS) the former is the enforcement side and the latter the paperwork side.

Sei'taer
08-15-2008, 09:39 AM
If they are there because they hope to find a temporary job with someone buying a can of paint, then I would say that it is a matter for the city authorities.

City Authorities aren't allowed to do anything about it. One of the problems that needs to be fixed. From what I understand, a police officer can't ask for a green card, etc.

I think everyone knows how I feel about illegals though. You work with them for a while and you'll see why I feel the way I do.

Terez
08-15-2008, 09:54 AM
Our local Home Depots have been seriously crowded with the day laborers since Hurricane Katrina, though it's not as bad now as it was two years ago. Everyone knows that if your crew comes up short for a day, you go to Home Depot to pick up some cheap labor to fill in the gaps. Of course, the chances of finding anyone with any kind of expertise there is slim, so all you'll get is a grunt. I honestly don't understand why Home Depot is held responsible for them, though. Do they encourage the practice? I have no idea.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-15-2008, 10:01 AM
Our local Home Depot runs them off.

GonzoTheGreat
08-15-2008, 12:08 PM
City Authorities aren't allowed to do anything about it.

And Home Depot is?
One of the problems that needs to be fixed. From what I understand, a police officer can't ask for a green card, etc.

And Home Depot store managers can?

My question is: why is Home Depot (or any other business, for that matter) responsible for the costs involved in people standing around their shops?
If all those day laborers were to be standing around the White House, would Bush then have to provide toilets?
If they were to congregate around the CIA headquarters would that building then have to provide adequate facilities for the loiterers?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-15-2008, 12:11 PM
That's why we're objecting, Gonzo. We certainly don't think Cali's in the right in this.

Davian93
08-15-2008, 12:16 PM
Store Managers can kick anyone they want off their property. Home Depot is private property and the manager has rights to kick poeple off their private property.

JSUCamel
08-15-2008, 12:20 PM
Store Managers can kick anyone they want off their property. Home Depot is private property and the manager has rights to kick poeple off their private property.

I could be wrong, but I think when you open your private property up to the general public it ceases being private property. This is the reason why I'm legally allowed to take photographs in a mall, because freedom of speech allows me to take photographs in a public environment where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I think this is similar -- there's no reasonable expectation of privacy at Home Depot.

Tresspassing is another issue, though, so the photography rights thing may not apply here.

Davian93
08-15-2008, 12:31 PM
I don't think that it makes it "private property" in that sense. Its a store and thus there is limited expectation of privacy but its still not the same as say a public park.

On that note, I've been stopped taking photos in a mall before...so maybe it depends on the state?

Terez
08-15-2008, 12:52 PM
I think it does depend on the state. The company I work for (albeit only occasionally these days), which is based in Atlanta, has an anti-media policy. We're not supposed to allow anyone to film anything on the property. I'm not sure if there are media exceptions to the rule Camel's talking about, though.

GonzoTheGreat
08-16-2008, 04:32 AM
Store Managers can kick anyone they want off their property. Home Depot is private property and the manager has rights to kick poeple off their private property.
From the article in the OP:
People who live near Home Depot stores have complained of day laborers drinking beer, urinating in yards or other unseemly behavior.
So, does a Home Depot manager have the right to kick people out of other people's private property?
If not, then why is he supposed to be responsible for what happens off the premises of his store?
City Councilman Richard Alarcon singled out The Home Depot for attracting day laborers, saying other big-box stores do not have the same kind of problems.

"Lowe's doesn't have the problem. And you ask yourself 'why don't we see massive (numbers of) day laborers at Lowe's?' The reason is they target women. It's very clear that their marketing scheme is more focused on interior design-type customers," Alarcon said.

The Community Development Department already operates 11 day-laborer sites in the city. Grant funding is used to maintain the facilities at an annual cost of $180,000.
So because interior design customers are more worthy voters, the store they're frequenting doesn't have to fill in for what the CDP should be doing. Or something like that.

Ozymandias
08-16-2008, 10:53 AM
So because interior design customers are more worthy voters, the store they're frequenting doesn't have to fill in for what the CDP should be doing. Or something like that.

Or maybe its because its soccer moms with nothing better to do in life than complain and try to enforce their gynocracy on society have put this law into effect.

And, of course, this kind of move will totally remove day laborers from Lowe's and put them in Home Depots, since they'll get bathrooms and shelter. Which means said soccer moms can enjoy their shopping experience without smelly Mexicans (not being racist, just trying to get in the mindset) being eyesores and ruining all their fun.

Once again, I see a gynocratic conspiracy in california. Just like with the trans-fat.

JSUCamel
08-16-2008, 11:29 AM
It's federal law, not state law (it's called the 1st amendment - freedom of press).

If a facility is open to the general public, you have the right to take a picture -- including at a mall. Most stores have an anti-media policy like that, but it's not really enforceable. They'll come up to you and ask you not to take a picture, but if you really wanted to, you can. If they try to take the camera from you, it's harassment. If they actually take the camera from you, it's theft.

You'd win in court.

Most companies, however, count on people's ignorance. If you're asked by a company employee to not take a picture, most people would comply because they don't know their rights.

As for the reasonable expectation of privacy, a mall is a very public place, as is a place like Home Depot. The catch here is that you can take pictures of anything you want, so long as you're not taking the picture of an individual. Taking a picture of a specific individual without their knowledge is a violation of privacy.

It's kind of like how back in the Gulf War, we knew where Saddam Hussein was, but if we bombed this particular building, it'd be considered assassination according to international law. But if we bombed several buildings, it was just crazy random happenstance that Saddam was in that building . Same kind of thing here with respect to privacy in public places.. You can't take pictures of individuals, but you can take pictures of groups of people and if that individual happens to be in that picture, you're okay legally.

Oh, and also, if you're standing in a public area, you can take pictures of private property. This is why the paparazzi are able to get a lot of pictures, because they stand on a public sidewalk or street and take pictures of celebs on private property. The minute they cross over to the private property, the pictures become illegal.

So if you're a tourist in a city and taking a picture from the street of, say, the inside doorway of a store or a construction site, and someone tells you that you can't take the picture, you can tell the with confidence that you're in a public space and you can take whatever pictures you like. But once you go onto private property, they have the right to tell you to leave.

You can't, however, take pictures in a place like Costco or Sam's Club because you have to be a member, and by becoming a member you are tacitly agreeing to their policies, one of which is an anti-media agreement. Stores open to the general public can make similar policies, but can't enforce them.

For instance, at Wal-mart, the greeters who stop you to check your receipt... you don't have to stop and they have no legal power to detain you if you walk right through. At Costco, however, you do, since you're a member and part of the membership contract states that you will allow your receipt to be checked.

I've recently become an semi-pro photographer (got a really nifty camera back in January and have done some photo shoots for friends for headshots and class pictures and such) and so I've been researching the rights of photographers because I don't want to get busted for doing something wrong out of ignorance.

Bottom line, with respect to photography (and may extend to other areas):

1. Places open to the general public are no longer private property.
2. You can take pictures in any public area of anything you want, except specific individuals.
3. Walk right by Walmart "greeters" who want to check your receipts. They're basically assuming your guilty and are checking for your innocence.

Bryan Blaire
08-16-2008, 12:28 PM
So because interior design customers are more worthy voters, the store they're frequenting doesn't have to fill in for what the CDP should be doing. Or something like that.

I also found that funny, because here, our Home Depot is crappy, doesn't have all that much, and their lumber yard is rarely refilled, while our Lowes goes through a ton of building materials but is constantly refilled, and only has three aisles of "home and interior decorating" stuff. Maybe it is just the different locale? However, the Lowes here doesn't seem to have a problem with "day laborers", but neither does the Home Depot. Apparently their either have better jobs for people here in Texas, or they are picked up elsewhere?

Sarevok
08-16-2008, 12:29 PM
You contradiction yourself, Camel:
The catch here is that you can take pictures of anything you want, so long as you're not taking the picture of an individual. Taking a picture of a specific individual without their knowledge is a violation of privacy.
and then you say:
This is why the paparazzi are able to get a lot of pictures, because they stand on a public sidewalk or street and take pictures of celebs on private property.

JSUCamel
08-16-2008, 01:40 PM
Well, to be honest, I'm not sure about the individual thing. But I do believe that's true in the case of celebrities, as well. Many celebrities will sue the papparazzi for taking pictures of them and they'll win the case, too, because they were focused on an individual.

I may have misstated about the papparazzi having legal rights to take the pictures. I'm really not sure about that. The point I was making was that they were taking pictures from a public area into a private area, which is legal, all individual/group factors aside.