成都市哪个医院看三叉神经痛好(彭州区哪医院治疗三叉神经痛好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would give new wage and benefit protections to workers at so-called gig economy companies such as Uber and Lyft where people pick up jobs on their own schedule.The 56-15 Assembly vote marked a victory for labor unions and a defeat for tech companies that vehemently oppose the proposal.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has already said he supports it.If signed, the proposal could have national implications as politicians and businesses confront the changing nature of work in the so-called gig economy.In a rare injection of presidential politics into a state issue, most of the major Democratic presidential contenders urged California lawmakers to pass the bill and have championed similar proposals in their campaigns."This isn't perfect, but I think this goes a long way to protecting workers, legitimate small businesses, legitimate businesses that play by the rules, and we as taxpayers that have to clean up the mess when these businesses don't provide enough for their workers," said the author of the bill, Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, her voice shaking with emotion Wednesday.Newsom is committed to continuing talks on other refinements even after he signs the bill, said governor's spokesman Nathan Click,The state Senate passed the measure with a 29-11 vote late Tuesday over strident Republican opposition.The bill has drawn staunch opposition from on-demand delivery and ridesharing companies that say it will effectively kill their business model.Drivers are divided on the issue.By picking which industries can use independent contractors and which workers must be treated as employees, "we are playing a political Russian roulette with their lives, their livelihood and their labor," said Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno.The bill would put into law a California Supreme Court decision making it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors and instead would make them classify the workers as employees.While its impact on gig economy companies has drawn most of the attention, it would affect a wide array of industries."Today these so-called gig companies present themselves as the so-called innovative future of tomorrow," Democratic Sen. Marie Elena Durazo of Los Angeles said as she presented the bill in the Assembly late Tuesday. "Let's be clear. There is nothing innovative about underpaying someone for their labor."The law lays out a test to decide if workers can be labeled as contractors. They worker must be free from control of the company, perform work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business," and be engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature of the work they are performing.Uber, Lyft and meal delivery companies such as Doordash and Postmates still hope Newsom can negotiate a new proposal with unions that would create a separate set of rules for gig workers.They have proposed a base hourly for workers, paying into a fund for benefits including accident coverage and allow for "sectoral bargaining," where workers across the industry could organize. Several of the companies have threatened to spend million on a ballot measure next year if they do not get their way.They've argued that making their workers employees would limit workers' abilities to work flexible hours of their choosing.Gonzalez says nothing in the law forces the companies to eliminate worker flexibility. As employees, the workers would be entitled to minimum wage and benefits such as workers compensation, unemployment insurance and paid leave.Federal law still considers gig workers independent contractors, so it's unclear if a state law making them employees would allow workers to unionize.Sen. Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga was among Republican opponents of the bill, many of whom told emotional stories of their own entrepreneurial success."This is just another assault on the free market, and again, it is a slouch toward socialism when government controls what business does," Morrell said. 4125

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law intended to counter Trump administration plans to increase oil and gas production on protected public land.The measure bars any California leasing authority from allowing pipelines or other oil and gas infrastructure to be built on state property. It makes it difficult for drilling to occur since federally protected areas are adjacent to state owned land.It's one of several new laws enacted by the governor on Saturday.Newsom also signed a law which renames the California agency that regulates the oil and gas industry. Language in the measure states the mission of the newly-christened Geologic Energy Management Division includes protecting public health and environmental quality.The governor in July fired the agency's head over an increase in state permits for hydraulic fracturing. 871

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would give new wage and benefit protections to workers at so-called gig economy companies such as Uber and Lyft where people pick up jobs on their own schedule.The 56-15 Assembly vote marked a victory for labor unions and a defeat for tech companies that vehemently oppose the proposal.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has already said he supports it.If signed, the proposal could have national implications as politicians and businesses confront the changing nature of work in the so-called gig economy.In a rare injection of presidential politics into a state issue, most of the major Democratic presidential contenders urged California lawmakers to pass the bill and have championed similar proposals in their campaigns."This isn't perfect, but I think this goes a long way to protecting workers, legitimate small businesses, legitimate businesses that play by the rules, and we as taxpayers that have to clean up the mess when these businesses don't provide enough for their workers," said the author of the bill, Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, her voice shaking with emotion Wednesday.Newsom is committed to continuing talks on other refinements even after he signs the bill, said governor's spokesman Nathan Click,The state Senate passed the measure with a 29-11 vote late Tuesday over strident Republican opposition.The bill has drawn staunch opposition from on-demand delivery and ridesharing companies that say it will effectively kill their business model.Drivers are divided on the issue.By picking which industries can use independent contractors and which workers must be treated as employees, "we are playing a political Russian roulette with their lives, their livelihood and their labor," said Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno.The bill would put into law a California Supreme Court decision making it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors and instead would make them classify the workers as employees.While its impact on gig economy companies has drawn most of the attention, it would affect a wide array of industries."Today these so-called gig companies present themselves as the so-called innovative future of tomorrow," Democratic Sen. Marie Elena Durazo of Los Angeles said as she presented the bill in the Assembly late Tuesday. "Let's be clear. There is nothing innovative about underpaying someone for their labor."The law lays out a test to decide if workers can be labeled as contractors. They worker must be free from control of the company, perform work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business," and be engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature of the work they are performing.Uber, Lyft and meal delivery companies such as Doordash and Postmates still hope Newsom can negotiate a new proposal with unions that would create a separate set of rules for gig workers.They have proposed a base hourly for workers, paying into a fund for benefits including accident coverage and allow for "sectoral bargaining," where workers across the industry could organize. Several of the companies have threatened to spend million on a ballot measure next year if they do not get their way.They've argued that making their workers employees would limit workers' abilities to work flexible hours of their choosing.Gonzalez says nothing in the law forces the companies to eliminate worker flexibility. As employees, the workers would be entitled to minimum wage and benefits such as workers compensation, unemployment insurance and paid leave.Federal law still considers gig workers independent contractors, so it's unclear if a state law making them employees would allow workers to unionize.Sen. Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga was among Republican opponents of the bill, many of whom told emotional stories of their own entrepreneurial success."This is just another assault on the free market, and again, it is a slouch toward socialism when government controls what business does," Morrell said. 4125

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom overruled a parole board's decision to free Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten on Monday, marking the third time a governor has stopped the release of the youngest member of Manson's murderous cult.Van Houten, 69, is still a threat, Newsom said, though she has spent nearly half a century behind bars and received reports of good behavior and testimonials about her rehabilitation."While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned about her role in these killings and her potential for future violence," he wrote in his decision. "Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the LaBiancas and played a significant role."Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed to death wealthy Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca's body and smeared the couple's blood on the walls.The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear throughout Los Angeles and riveted the nation.No one who took part in the Tate-LaBianca murders has been released from prison. It was the first time Newsom rejected parole for Van Houten, while former Gov. Jerry Brown denied her release twice."Nobody wants to put their name on her release, but when they're speaking honestly or off the record, everyone wants her to go home," said Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer.Newsom is "going to have more political aspirations that go well beyond the state of California, and he doesn't want this tagging behind him," he added. "Not a surprise. I would have been shocked if he would have said 'Go home.'"Earlier this year, Newsom reversed a parole recommendation to free Manson follower Robert Beausoleil for an unrelated murder. Beausoleil was convicted of killing musician Gary Hinman.Newsom's decision on Van Houten outlined her participation in graphic detail, noting that after the killings, she "drank chocolate milk from the LaBiancas' refrigerator" before fleeing."The gruesome crimes perpetuated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day," Newsom wrote.Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility and Manson's "violent and controlling actions," he said, and she continues to lack insight into her reasons for participating.Van Houten's lawyer said in January after her latest release recommendation that the parole board found she had taken full responsibility for her role in the killings."She chose to go with Manson," Pfeiffer said. "She chose to listen to him. And she acknowledges that."Van Houten has described a troubled childhood that led her to use drugs and hang around with outcasts. When she was 17, she and a boyfriend ran away to San Francisco during the so-called Summer of Love in 1967.She later encountered Manson while traveling the coast. Manson had holed up with his "family" at an abandoned movie ranch on the outskirts of Los Angeles when he launched a plan to spark a race war by committing a series of random, terrifying murders.Brown rejected parole for Van Houten in 2017 because he said she still blamed the cult leader too much for the murders. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld Brown's decision last year, finding that Van Houten posed "an unreasonable risk of danger to society."An appeals court will decide whether to uphold or reject that ruling by the end of July."No governor's ever going to let her out," said Pfeiffer, Van Houten's attorney who's pinning his hopes on the appeals court. "They are bound by law to enforce the law independently. They have to do it whether or not it's popular with the public ... and the law is that she should be released."Manson and his followers were sentenced to death in 1971, though those punishments were commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. Van Houten's case was overturned on appeal and she was later convicted and sentenced to seven years to life in prison.Tate's sister, Debra Tate, has routinely shown up to parole and court hearings to oppose the release of any Manson follower. Even though Van Houten didn't take part in her sister's murder, Tate said she didn't deserve release under any circumstances.Supporters of Van Houten said she had been a model prisoner who mentored dozens of inmates and helped them come to terms with their crimes.Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence. 4729

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general said Tuesday that he won't charge two Sacramento police officers who fatally shot an unarmed black man last year, a killing that set off intense protests.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's announcement follows the Sacramento district attorney's finding this weekend that the two officers broke no laws when they shot 22-year-old Stephon Clark.Officers Terrance Mercadal and Jared Robinet say they mistakenly thought Clark was approaching them with a gun after he ran from them into his grandparents' backyard as police investigated vandalism.Becerra said his review found officers believed Clark was armed and their lives were in danger when they opened fire. Investigators found only a cellphone.RELATED: No charges for Sacramento officers who fatally shot Stephon Clark"Based on our review of the facts and evidence in relation to the law, I'm here to announce today that our investigation has concluded that no criminal charges against the officers involved in the shooting can be sustained," Becerra said.The attorney general emphasized the need for changes and called Clark's killing a "devastating loss." He met with Clark's mother, SeQuette Clark, before announcing his decision. Jamilia Land, a family spokesperson, said SeQuette Clark would speak to reporters later Tuesday.Clark was shot seven times on March 18, 2018, and his killing prompted protests in California's capital city and across the U.S. Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert's decision not to charge the officers has sparked new demonstrations, with more than 80 people arrested Monday in a wealthy Sacramento neighborhood.Clark's family and black community leaders urged Becerra to reach a different conclusion."I would like for the attorney general to prosecute the officers," brother Stevante Clark said Sunday. "I want justice and accountability."Both Becerra and Schubert concluded that the officers feared for their lives when they shot Clark, who they thought was holding a gun. They were pursuing him after receiving calls about someone breaking car windows.The attorney general and district attorney said the evidence showed Clark was advancing toward the officers when they shot him.The decision has increased support from top state officials to change California's legal standard for when police can use deadly force.Lawmakers have revived a measure introduced after Clark's slaying that would make California the first state to allow police to use deadly force only when it's necessary to prevent imminent and serious injury or death and if there's no reasonable alternative, such as warnings or other methods.Strong opposition from law enforcement agencies stalled it last year. 2747

来源：资阳报