Wednesday, September 2, 2015

New fee to encourage Newbury Park residents to save more water

New fee to encourage Newbury Park residents to save more water

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. - High water users in Newbury Park will have to pay more for the precious resource starting September when a new drought surcharge will be added to some residents’ bills.
After falling behind in meeting the state-mandated 32 percent in water reduction for the last couple of months, California American Water will add a new fee for residents who use more than 8,976 gallons of water in a month. The figure, representing 1,200 cubic feet, is the amount used by an average customer.
“We’re asking customers to be more diligent,” said Brian Barreto of California American Water. “It will really help us in meeting our goal.”
The water agency serves 21,100 residents, primarily in Newbury Park. The district also covers portions of Camarillo, other portions of Thousand Oaks and unincorporated Ventura County.
For households whose water usage is more than the average, a charge of 21 cents for every 100 gallons will be tacked on the monthly bill. Residents whose typical bill is $58 or more will likely see a surcharge.
For example, a household that uses 12,000 gallons with a bill of $79 will now see a surcharge of $6.
In addition to the surcharge, the agency is also asking residents to use their sprinklers just once a week. Homes with odd-numbered addresses should water Saturdays and those with even-numbered addresses should water Sundays.
This measure is more stringent than the city of Thousand Oaks’ call to water twice a week.
In May, after Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order calling for a mandatory statewide reduction in water use, California American Water went into stage 2 restrictions. This means residents could water their lawns just twice a week.
The water agency saw a 27 percent reduction in June compared to usage two years ago and a 31 percent reduction in July. It was just shy of the 32 percent goal set by the state.
The added restrictions and surcharge planned for September are part of stage 3, which also calls on residents to fix all leaks within 24 hours of notification. Residents are also encouraged to contact the water agency should they plan to fill a new pool or drain and refill an existing pool because that will likely impact their water bill.
There is a total of five stages. Under stage 4, no outdoor irrigation is allowed and under stage 5, there is mandatory water rationing.
“We’re nowhere close to a stage 4,” Barreto said. “Residents are doing a good job but we want them to continue to be mindful of water use.”
Residents are encouraged to attend one of two informational meetings Sept. 17 at the Palm Garden Hotel at 495 N. Ventu Park Road in Thousand Oaks. The first meeting will be 2-3:30 p.m., and the second will be 5-6:30 p.m. For more information, call 498-1266 ext. 2809 or visit www.californiaamwater.com/drought.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Uber Drivers' Labor Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status In California This could upend Uber's business model.

Uber Drivers' Labor Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status In California

This could upend Uber's business model.

 5 hours ago | Updated 2 hours ago
  • Dan Levine Reuters
ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 1 (Reuters) - Uber drivers are entitled to class action status in litigation over whether they are independent contractors or employees, a key development in a case threatening Uber's business model and that of other hot startups dependent on similar service workers.
Three drivers sued Uber in a federal court in San Francisco, contending they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.
The results of Uber's legal battle could reshape the sharing economy, which is built around Internet companies that serve as marketplaces matching people who provide a service with others looking to pay for it.
CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS
A man leaves the headquarters of Uber in San Francisco
In the ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco said California drivers could sue as a group on the question of whether they are employees or contractors, and over their demand for payment of tips that were not passed on to them. Drivers' attorneys must submit more evidence to sue as a group for reimbursement of other expenses.
Chen also said Uber drivers who have worked for the service since May 2014 must specifically opt out of an arbitration agreement in order to sue the company.
Class action status generally gives plaintiffs more leverage to negotiate a settlement. In a statement, Uber said it will appeal, but that the arbitration portion of Chen's ruling means a "tiny fraction" of a potential 160,000 California drivers are eligible to be class members. Additionally, one of the three drivers who sued is no longer eligible to represent the class, Uber said.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer who represents drivers in the case, said Uber's characterization of the size of the class is "not correct," and that "many thousands" will be part of the lawsuit.
"This decision is a major victory for Uber drivers," Liss-Riordan said.
Uber had argued that the drivers should not be allowed to sue as a group because they have little in common and relate to the company in different ways.
However, Chen wrote that there is an "inherent tension" in Uber's argument.
"On one hand, Uber argues that it has properly classified every single driver as an independent contractor," Chen wrote.
On the other, Chen wrote, Uber argues that individual drivers are so unique that the court, "unlike, apparently, Uber itself," cannot make its own determination.
Uber and other companies, including Lyft and Handy, say the contractor model allows for flexibility that many see as important to their success.
An ultimate finding that drivers are employees could raise Uber's costs beyond the lawsuit's scope and force it to pay Social Security, workers' compensation, and unemployment insurance.
In June, a California labor commissioner ruled that an Uber driver was an employee, not a contractor. Uber has appealed that decision.
The debate has spilled into U.S. presidential politics, with Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton in July saying on-demand companies raise "hard questions" about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future.
In arguing against class action status, Uber had submitted sworn statements from hundreds of drivers supporting the company. However, Chen rejected this evidence because the statements could have been the product of biased questions.
There is simply "no basis," Chen wrote, to support Uber's claim "that some innumerable legion of drivers prefer to remain independent contractors rather than become employees."
The case is Douglas O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-3826. (Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Tom Brown)

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

LAX opens door to full Uber service Council moves to allow ride-hailing services to pick up passengers as well as drop them off.

LAX opens door to full Uber service

Council moves to allow ride-hailing services to pick up passengers as well as drop them off.

Rules for ride-hailing

Among the conditions Uber and Lyft need to meet to receive a permit to pick up LAX passengers:
Picking up and dropping off passengers on the upper departure level only.
Paying $4 to the airport for every pickup and drop-off, a fee that will probably be passed on to the passengers.
Restricting the number of drivers in the terminal area to 40 at a time.
Creating a digital “geo-fence” that will prevent drivers from picking up ride requests on nearby residential streets.
Keeping auditable records on driver activity at the airport, including the number of trips.
Source: Los Angeles Times reporting
Picture
RICK LOOMIS Los Angeles Times
UBER AND LYFT supporters listen to the council discussion. Airport officials must still negotiate final contracts with Uber and Lyft on operating and information reporting requirements.
Picture
RICK LOOMIS Los Angeles Times
DAVID SHAPIRO of United Independent Taxi addresses the council. Cab companies have raised questions about Uber drivers’ backgrounds.
The taxi industry spent heavily to defeat it. Critics called it an unregulated dark zone. Some even questioned whether its drivers were dangerous.
But in the end, those misgivings about ride-hailing could not match the public appeal of a new and potentially easier way to get to and from Los Angeles International Airport, where traffic jams are legendary and rail service is still years away.
Los Angeles on Tuesday became the largest city in the nation to open the door for companies such as Uber and Lyft to fully operate alongside taxis at the airport.
It was a major victory for the rapidly growing industry. As the West Coast’s busiest airport, LAX is seen as a key venue to demonstrate how the new, app-based “disruptive” technology could blossom as an alternative to driving and mass transit.
Consumers have flocked to the startups because they are seen as relatively cheap and highly efficient, said Harry Campbell, the editor of The Rideshare Guy, a website, podcast and You-Tube channel for ride-hailing drivers.
The typical taxi trip from LAX to downtown Los Angeles is more than $50, not including tip. A ride with Uber or Lyft is closer to $30, although prices can climb during high-demand periods.
“Uber was able to build up so much goodwill with consumers that it’s almost political suicide to go against them,” Campbell said. “When you combine the fact that they have a lot of cash at their disposal, it’s very, very difficult for politicians to take any stance against them.”
Tuesday’s council approval means airline passengers arriving at LAX could summon the lowest-cost Uber and Lyft services from the curb in a matter of weeks. That assumes airport officials can negotiate final contracts with the companies that nail down operating and information reporting requirements. Currently, any transportation service can take riders to the airport, but only limousines, shuttles and taxis can pick them up.
“People are baffled that they can take ride share to the airport but can’t take one home,” said City Councilman Mike Bonin, a vocal advocate of Uber and Lyft whose Westside district includes the airport. He said allowing the firms full access to LAX will improve the experiences of passengers who have “suffered too long with too few choices.”
At the same time, the divided 9-6 vote, and some of the council’s related actions, reflected the uneasiness of some lawmakers with the assurances offered by the ride companies and their allies.
A lingering issue is whether Uber and Lyft drivers should be subject to the same fingerprint-based FBI criminal background checks as city cabdrivers. Ride-hailing services, like limousine and shuttle drivers, are regulated by the state, which does not require fingerprint background checks.
Taxi drivers and their companies have insisted that those regulatory differences put them at an unfair disadvantage. At one point, a representative for the legacy industry circulated a binder at City Hall containing arrest records for a handful of Uber drivers that would have disqualified them from driving taxis.
Concerns over background checks intensified last week when the top prosecutors for Los Angeles and San Francisco said they had found 25 Uber drivers with serious criminal records, including murder, assault and driving under the influence.
The taxi industry spent heavily to retain their airport stronghold. Over the last two years, eight Los Angeles cab companies — longtime political players in Los Angeles — spent $595,500 to lobby elected officials at Los Angeles City Hall. Uber and Lyft spent $392,000 during the same time period.
Some taxi drivers, wearing yellow shirts that read “Fingerprints Don’t Lie” during Tuesday’s hearing, predicted dire consequences from the City Council action.
“We will go out of business,” said Steve Jeon, 61, who has driven for Bell Cab for six years. Like all Los Angeles taxi drivers, he is allowed to work at the airport once every five days. Those lucrative, long-haul fares cover the costs for his car lease and his commercial insurance, he said.
“We are already losing fares on the street, and now this — this will be very, very bad for us.”
A study from the UCLA Labor Center underscores the airport’s importance. From 2013 to 2014, taxi revenue across Los Angeles fell 9% and trips dropped 18%. But LAX remained a bright spot: Drivers picked up 15% more passengers there.
The City Council agreed to ask the California Public Utilities Commission to require fingerprint-based background checks for all for-hire drivers, including those behind the wheel of limousines, shuttles and ride-hail cars. In a separate last-minute amendment, lawmakers also instructed the city attorney to report within a month on what legal authority Los Angeles may have to require fingerprint background checks if state regulators fail to act.
“If the state doesn’t create the uniform standards we need to protect the public, then we will,” Councilman Paul Krekorian said in a prepared statement.
Uber has said its background check procedures are as good as those it is being pressured to adopt. The company declined to comment on whether it would operate at LAX if local fingerprinting checks were added as a requirement.
But San Jose International Airport points to one possible outcome: Lyft and Uber declined to operate there after officials mandated city business licenses and fingerprint-based background checks for all drivers.
The LAX permits would require Uber and Lyft to pay the airport a minimum of $25,000 per month from $4 fees for each drop-off and pickup. The fees will go to the airport’s general operating budget and probably be passed along to passengers.
Unlike taxis, Uber and Lyft drivers would drop off and pick up passengers only on the upper departure level, a requirement that the companies opposed. They would be required to wait in a holding area until receiving a request for a ride. No more than 40 drivers would be allowed in the holding area at one time.
The council, citing concerns over equal treatment for passengers, agreed to ask state regulators to share data they collect on the number of rides and requests in each ZIP Code in Los Angeles. South Los Angeles Councilman Marquis Harris Dawson asked Uber and Lyft to conduct public outreach in low-income areas and neighborhoods where English is not the primary language.
After Tuesday’s vote, William Rouse, general manager of Yellow Cab of Los Angeles, said, “Obviously, this is going to cut into business at the airport — there’s no doubt.” But he pointed to one silver lining: Revenue for taxis at San Francisco International Airport hasn’t declined as much as expected since Uber and Lyft began operating there last year. laura.nelson@latimes.comTwitter: @laura_nelson

Uber driver Authorities say a death investigation is underway in West Covina after a woman’s body was found inside a vehicle.

WEST COVINA (CBSLA.com) — Authorities say a death investigation is underway in West Covina after a woman’s body was found inside a vehicle.
West Covina police say around noon Tuesday, officers received a call by a person who noticed a body hunched over in the backseat of a gray Volkswagen sedan.
The discovery was made in a Stater Bros. parking lot in the 300 block of North Azusa Avenue.
Although investigators haven’t released the woman’s identity, DMV records show the car is registered to an Orange County woman and the coroner’s office confirms they’re working her case. The cause of death was not immediately known.
On the windshield of a vehicle, an Uber sticker turned sideways was visible, reported CBS2’s Rachel Kim. Police, however, say they cannot confirm whether the woman was a driver for the company.
“Detectives are going to do their investigation and maybe find out how long it had been here,” Sgt. Brian Daniels of the West Covina Police Department said. 
It remains unclear how long the body had been inside the vehicle.
“They are thinking she might have been there a day or two because the smell was really bad already, so it’s just really sad. It’s really shocking,” said Celine Portillo, a shopper.
The body has since been removed from the scene by the coroner’s office.
Off-camera, Kim spoke with a man who says the woman is his aunt. He confirmed that the vehicle was in fact hers and that she had just become an Uber driver.
Police said they are looking through security footage from the shopping plaza for any clues.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Rachel Galindo 4 hrs LA UBER DRIVER GOT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 082415

LA UBER DRIVER GOT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
"I am a former driver in the Los Angeles area who started driving part time in 12/2013 and was forced to strop driving recently in 2015. I was using Uber, when it made financial sense, to supplement my income, and shortly thereafter it became my only means of income."
"I began driving when, on Fri evening-Sunday afternoon, I would average around $40/hr before commission, expenses etc. Now, you literally have to be stupid to drive for Uber in LA anymore. I'm sorry, but it's true....after expenses and taxes, it nets out to less than minimum wage almost all of the time, even when driving during peak hours to bring the average up. Uber relies on it's drivers lack of understanding of the real costs of providing their services."
" SO....I filed for unemployment through the CA EDD, under the grounds that Uber's reduction in my pay (I was recently earning less than 30% of what I used to earn when I began) was tantamount to a demotion/reduction of hours."
" My claim was initially denied on the grounds that I was an "independent contractor" and thus not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. I filed an appeal and appeared before a judge as a part of the regular appeals process. The issue that the judge was SUPPOSED to decide was - "who was my last employer," as I was also employed in a "regular" salaried position while I started working for Uber. The question of "was I asked to leave" or was I "terminated" was the issue to be discussed, as if that other employer had not terminated me (and I continued working for Uber), I would not be due benefits."
" Anyway....after questions about this key issue were answered, I made sure to guide the judge into a conversation where he would have an understanding of Uber's business practices, and why I should be classified as an employee of Uber. Over 30 minutes, I explained how Uber controlled nearly every aspect of our "partnership" and how we run our "independent businesses." I shared in great detail how Uber frequently forces drivers into accepting "contracts" wherein we have no idea what the job is "ie, where a passenger is going" and then how Uber sends us texts messages in which we are threatened with termination should we cancel when we find out that the "contract" will cause us to lose money (IE, a drive to Glendale or The Valley). He was even filled in on little things....like when a passenger vomits in your car and you're reimbursed for only the cost of cleaning and you can't work for two days....you get fucked. On and on, etc. I also informed the judge about the recent decision of the California Public Utilities Commision in June 2015, which declared a single Uber driver to be an "employee" and awarded her damages. The judge then concluded that he was unable to decide who was indeed my last "employer," however he indicated to me that if it was indeed Uber, he would advocate that I was indeed due to receive unemployment benefits. He would refer the case back to the EDD."
" A week later I received a call from a woman at the EDD (I forget the name of her special department) who began to ask me questions. I was aware of the rubric used in the state of CA as a guideline for determining "employee vs contractor" and asked the woman if she was trying to determine whether or not I was an IC or an employee. She said yes, and then after answering her questions, I again delved into a 45 minute conversation with her regarding Uber's business practices. At the end of the conversation, she asked if she could share my contact info within the department for further use. She then also subtly indicated that she would find me to be an Employee of Uber."
" 2 weeks later, I got a letter telling me that I am entitled to a few hundred dollars/week in unemployment benefits (before taxes). After calling the EDD, I was able to get the first $2500 direct-deposited into my bank account, backdated from the date that I originally filed for unemployment. I just went online today to fill out the rest of the forms, and should expect another $2800 to be deposited within the next 2 weeks."
" I have reported the income and sent copies of my documentation as proof to Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead attorney in the Uber Class Action lawsuit. I do not know if if I am the first former driver in CA to be awarded unemployment benefits...but I think that I may be."
" The dominos are falling. I feel that Uber will lose this case and their business model will be significantly impaired. They are an awful company. You have been exploited. Remember, the former employer pays for your unemployment (as do you in your IC/Payroll taxes). Go get what's yours."
" I will not be making any further comments or answering any questions."
" Lastly, FUCK UBER."

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Hawaii Grandparents Rights in Divorce vistation

Hawaii Grandparents Rights in Divorce
Grandparent Rights to Visitation:
In actions for divorce, separation, annulment, separate maintenance, or any other proceeding where there is at issue a dispute as to the custody of a minor child, the court may award visitation to grandparents in the court's discretion unless it is shown that the visitation would not be in the child's best interest.
Title 571, Section 571-46.2 (H.R.S. 571-46.2).

When Adoption Occurs:
Adoption terminates all rights.
Child Custody Statutes:
Best interest of child considering:
  1. child's wishes, if of sufficient age and capacity to reason; and
  2. an evidence of family violence.
H.R-S. 583-1 et seq.
Parents May Choose:
No

What You Need to Know About Hawaii Divorce

What You Need to Know About Hawaii Divorce
http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/hawaii/hawaii-divorce-source-46.shtml
Learn what you need to do to start your Hawaii divorce online
Hawaii divorce lawyers, divorce mediators, and divorce services to help you through your divorce in the state of Hawaii.
Information, news and resources for people going through a divorce in Hawaii.
A selected set of key Hawaii divorce facts dealing with a range of topics including child custody, child support, spousal support, and property distribution.
Before you can divorce in Hawaii you must decide what grounds for divorce the state of Hawaii will allow you to file for divorce under.
In order to file for a divorce and get a divorce in Hawaii you must first meet the divorce residency requirements.
Comprehensive overview of Hawaii divorce laws, Hawaii statutes and guidelines, and Hawaii divorce information and advice relating to the legal, financial and emotional aspects of divorce.
An introduction to the basics on Separation in Hawaii.