New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[CKwi88]

(09-15-2023, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I looked at the Senate floor analysis from 5/27, which would be for the version of the bill that the article was about, there is no mention of the prohibition.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

Apparently, the earlier version of the bill said an employer could not force a non-security employee to intervene, but that was removed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/12/false-claim-california-bill-would-outlaw-stopping-shoplifters-fact-check/70807687007/

Quite frankly, I think it should be law that an employer can't force it. If it isn't in your job description to confront an individual in a situation like that, and you aren't trained to, then you shouldn't be expected to.

In reading some of the revisions, one of the most problematic pieces of language was probably this:

Quote:(D) Maintaining sufficient staffing, including security personnel, who can maintain order in the facility and respond to workplace violence incidents in a timely manner.

IMO this creates an undue burden on the business. Especially smaller businesses that wouldn't necessarily have dedicated security staff. 

The provision that you mention:

Quote:(12) (d)  Provisions (1)  (A)   prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees who are not dedicated safety personnel to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.

 
Is 100% reasonable, and is standard for most big businesses I would imagine. I work as an interpreter in court. I've gotten to see a number of fights, three stabbings and one shooting. You can bet I got the f*** out of Dodge rather than feel obligated to confront any of the combatants. The judicial marshals are both trained and get hazard pay to deal with that shit. I'm happy to apply that to 16 year old Jenny manning the register not being obligated to confront an aggressive robber taking deoderant and laundry detergent without paying. 

It's hardly the first time that a bill has been over-sensationalized by people who are either ignorant to its actual language, predisposed against its authors, or both.