Latest news with #HouseBill735
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida's Boater Freedom Act takes effect this July: Here's what it means
The Brief Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Boater Freedom Act on Monday, which will change how law enforcement pulls over boaters on the water. Starting July 1, officers will no longer be allowed to conduct random "safety compliance" stops unless they have probable cause. Instead, boaters can display a "Florida Freedom Boater" decal, indicating they've already met required safety standards. The new law also protects the rights of residents to use gas-powered boats on Florida waters. ORLANDO, Fla. - Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Boater Freedom Act into law on Monday during a news conference with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in Panama City. The new law, also known as Senate Bill 1388, will take effect this summer on July 1, which will change how law enforcement pulls over boaters on the water. Here's what we know about the law. What we know According to DeSantis' office, the Boater Freedom Act will protect boaters by allowing them to use any energy source — including gas, diesel fuel, electricity, hydrogen, or solar power — to operate their vessels. This ensures that gas-powered boaters won't be restricted by local rules. The law will also put a stop to random boat inspections unless there's a good reason. Currently, law enforcement can stop or board a vessel for a safety compliance check. Instead, it will direct the FWC to work with tax collectors to provide a "Florida Freedom Boater" decal at registration – which will let officers know that the boater has already taken steps to maintain safety requirements. In addition, DeSantis signed House Bill 735, which increases funding for public boat ramps, parking, and marina programs – improving access to Florida's public waterways. The bill will also keep important protections in place for manatee zones, seagrass areas, and wake speeds across the state. What they're saying "This Freedom Boater Act is going to make sure that Florida remains the boater capital of the world," DeSantis said. "We're going to make sure that boaters are able to choose the type of vessel that they want. We're not going to allow local governments to step in and block the ability to purchase, and for the businesses to sell, vessels based on the source of fuel those vessels are using." Dig deeper To read the Boater Freedom Act in its entirety, click here or see below: Click to open this PDF in a new window. STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 35 ORLANDO: Download the FOX Local app for breaking news alerts, the latest news headlines Download the FOX 35 Storm Team Weather app for weather alerts & radar Sign up for FOX 35's daily newsletter for the latest morning headlines FOX Local:Stream FOX 35 newscasts, FOX 35 News+, Central Florida Eats on your smart TV The Source This story was written based on information shared by the Gov. Ron DeSantis during a news conference in Panama City on May 19, 2025. Additional details were provided in an online press release from the governor's office.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When you zoom out from anti-union legislation, the picture grows clear
What we are seeing now with the consolidation of wealth and power at the top began in earnest with the election of President Ronald Reagan. Here, Reagan signs legislation in June 1982. (National Archives from Collection: Reagan White House Photographs) Over the past week, I've been thinking a lot about something state Rep. Michael Granger, a Milton Republican, said about an organized labor-related bill he's sponsoring. 'We need this to make sure unions aren't just perpetually protecting their little fiefdom and saying, 'This is our little workplace and we own it forever.'' He was talking about House Bill 735, regarding recertification votes for state public employee unions – or, as Granger refers to it, 'term limits for unions.' I get why he filed the bill. Union busting is kind of a pastime among many Republicans in New Hampshire and the nation at large, because collective bargaining runs counter to conservatives' deification of the free market. Also, HB 735 serves as companion legislation of sorts to a bigger bite at the anti-union apple – a renewed effort by Republicans to finally make New Hampshire a right-to-work state. But the sneer and snarl coloring Granger's statement is still quite something – and should probably stand as a red flag for anyone laboring under the misapprehension that Donald Trump's GOP has the interests of the working class at heart. What I mean is, 'fiefdom' is an odd word choice to describe the collective bargaining of 21st-century workers – the tech-era peasant class. In my experience as a former union member in a struggling industry, I can tell you that protecting a 'little fiefdom' was not exactly how we saw things. 'We're trying to get the best bad deal possible' is what my newspaper guild president said nearly 20 years ago during particularly challenging negotiations. With my small family at its very beginning, I remember worrying constantly about what would become of me, of us, and also grateful that my co-workers – the negotiating team – were fighting for me, for us, to get that best bad deal. In the end there were a few rounds of pay cuts, buyouts, the move to a terrible health care plan, longer workweeks, and dozens of other sacrifices – but even with my nonexistent seniority I stayed employed thanks to the guild's work. As a new dad, I promise you that was victory enough. Had I been a union member during better times in a healthier industry, I think the goal would have been the same but with a slight shift in language: 'We're trying to get the fairest deal possible.' Negotiations always happen within the employer's budgetary reality and the realities of the industry as a whole. While times have changed since the days of the Homestead and Pullman strikes, and since Upton Sinclair brought turn-of-the-century industrial horrors to America's collective awareness, the need for unions will be present as long as there is a working class. As Frederick Douglass said: 'Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.' But for those who argue that the free market provides all a hard-working person needs, the rebuttal begins with the skyrocketing CEO salaries in the United States. 'The median pay package for CEOs rose to $16.3 million' in 2023, the Associated Press reported last summer. 'At half the companies in this year's pay survey,' the story continues, 'it would take the worker at the middle of the company's pay scale almost 200 years to make what their CEO did.' That is a huge – and growing – level of inequality. And I imagine the gap would close a bit if more than 9.9 percent of American workers were members of a union. In looking at the inequality of labor income in his 2017 book 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century,' economist Thomas Piketty writes: 'Since 1980, however, income inequality has exploded in the United States. The upper decile's share increased from 30-35 percent of national income in the 1970s to 45-50 percent in the 2000s – an increase of 15 points of national income.' To put it a little less technically, Piketty writes: In the United States, 'income from labor is about as unequally distributed as has ever been observed anywhere.' But even more pressing than chipping away at that gaping and unreasonable inequality is the everyday worker dignity at the center of collective bargaining – fair wages, fair benefits, and fair working conditions. I truly believe more employers than not prefer to have happy employees who feel valued. In fact, that has largely been my experience, and I'm grateful. But broader context is needed to fully grasp the purpose of never-ending efforts to bust unions. History professor Colin Gordon touched on it in a column from The Conversation published by the Bulletin this week: 'The lineage of conservative responses (to FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society) has been largely an assertion of business power. Whatever populist trappings the second Trump administration may possess, the bottom line of the conservative cultural and political agenda in 2025 is to dismantle what is left of the New Deal or the Great Society, and to defend unfettered 'free enterprise' against critics and alternatives.' It's really not all that difficult to connect the dots. We are in a period where a decades-long effort beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1980 to consolidate power at the top – from the multimillionaire supermanagers right on up to a far-right billionaire playing at president – is reaching its apex. So maybe one New Hampshire House member's apparent contempt for the working class, echoing through his support of yet another anti-union bill, seems minor on its face. But viewed as part and parcel of broader aims, it should become clear soon enough who all of this is really serving. And it's not us.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans file bill to mandate more public sector union elections
Opponents of the bill argued that union members can already petition to have a vote to decertify their union. (Photo by Dave Cummings/New Hampshire Bulletin) A new proposal in the state House of Representatives seeks to require more union elections among public employee unions. If passed, House Bill 735 would call for a new vote on whether to recertify a public employees union once the number of employees that joined the union since the previous vote outnumber the ones who were present for the previous vote. 'This bill is basically just term limits for unions,' Milton Republican Rep. Michael Granger, the sponsor of the bill, said at a hearing in Concord Tuesday. 'Unions should represent their members and if they do a good job at it, it should be no problem to recertify them.' The bill is co-sponsored by fellow Republicans. 'We need this to make sure unions aren't just perpetually protecting their little fiefdom and saying 'this is our little workplace and we own it forever,'' Granger said. 'The workers would have the opportunity to say, 'OK, well, thanks for all your help over the years, but we think we need a different union supporting us.'' Rep. Mark MacKenzie, a Manchester Democrat, pointed out that union members can already petition to have a vote to decertify their union. 'Are you suggesting that's not sufficient?' MacKenzie asked. 'That if people are unhappy with what they currently have, that that structure is not enough?' Granger alleged many workers believe their union would 'use intimidation or scare tactics in order to scare people against decertifying a union.' 'Since most government unions were founded in the 1960s and '70s, few if any of the public employees who voted for these unions are still on the job,' added Rep. Melissa Litchfield, a Brentwood Republican who co-sponsored the bill. 'Unionized employees should be empowered on a regular basis to choose what union, if any, will represent them.' Glenn Brackett, president of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, testifying in opposition to the bill Tuesday, reiterated that federal law presently allows workers to decertify their union. 'If people don't want to be part of a union they fill out cards and they can call for union elections,' he said. 'The process is already in place.' Brackett argued this bill would create a process too bureaucratic and burdensome, saying if it became law, it would be 'a quagmire.' 'Nothing would move forward,' he continued. 'But I would also put it out this way: What if every year, instead of every two years, members of this Legislature had to go up for reelection?' Brackett said New Hampshire has a history of workers switching their representation from one national or international union to another. Brian Ryll, president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire, also opposed the bill Tuesday, saying that the decertification process already in place has 'worked for many years and it's worked well.' He said his organization, which represents 43 local unions in New Hampshire, has seen unions be decertified. 'The idea that there may be a strong-arming of sorts to keep members in a union simply does not occur,' he said. 'At least in our profession in New Hampshire. So I just wanted to quell that rumor.' Richard Gulla, president of the State Employees Association/Service Employees International Union 1984, also opposed the legislation Tuesday. 'Supporters of this bill are trying to restrict the freedom of nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees to come together, to have their voice heard,' Gulla said. 'These folks who serve our community have the right to protect their retirement and health care as they see fit. And anti-union extremists in our state capitol are trying to restrict, to that end, our rights.' This comes as a right-to-work bill is also being debated in the Legislature. House Bill 238, sponsored by Windham Republican Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller, would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from requiring employees to join or contribute to a union in New Hampshire. On Tuesday, the House Labor, Industrial, and Rehabilitative Services Committee voted narrowly, 10-9, to recommend that the bill be approved. The bill will now be debated by the entire state House of Representatives. This type of legislation, known as right-to-work, has been proposed repeatedly in New Hampshire for decades. It has continually failed to become law. However, after Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who has said she would sign a right-to-work bill if it was approved by the Legislature, and a new slate of Republican lawmakers won election in November, proponents of the bill hope this year is different. If the right-to-work proposal is adopted, New Hampshire would become the only New England state and one of 27 states across the country with a right-to-work policy.
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho public defender's proposed budget seeks increases to address defense in rural counties
Idaho State Public Defender Eric Fredericksen answers questions from the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. (Mia Maldonado / Idaho Capital Sun) The Office of the Idaho State Public Defender is seeking a significant budget increase in the next fiscal year because its original budget was based on caseloads during the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho State Public Defender Eric Fredericksen told the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. The committee, or JFAC, sets budgets for every state agency and department. In 2022, Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 735 into law, which moved the responsibility of funding public defense from the counties to the state. House Bill 236, signed into law the following year, created the Office of the Idaho State Public Defender to consolidate the county-based public defense system into a statewide system. On Oct. 1, the new agency began taking on cases. The agency was appropriated $52 million its first year, but it has faced funding shortfalls since the transition. That's because the agency's original budget was set when the caseload for public defenders was low because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fredericksen told JFAC, and caseloads have since significantly increased. The agency is now seeking legislative approval for a supplemental $8 million for the remainder of the 2025 fiscal year to cover representation to parents who qualify for the Child Protective Act, transcript costs, and personnel and contracting costs. And for the 2026 fiscal year, which starts in July, Little recommended an $88 million budget. Fredericksen said a budget increase would allow the office to increase pay based on merit, contract with attorneys in rural counties, and add new institutional offices in Benewah, Elmore, Jerome and Shoshone counties. Those four new offices would increase public defense coverage, relieve the pressure on contract attorneys, and support a uniform system across the state, Fredericksen said in a letter to JFAC on Monday. 'We believe the governor's recommended budget request … will provide us with the resources we need to expand and improve on our initial work,' Fredericksen wrote in the letter. In the letter to JFAC, Fredericksen addressed what the new agency has accomplished since it began taking on cases in October, including: Gotten rid of flat-fee contracts Created a statewide case management system Given all public defenders and contract attorneys access to Lexis legal research platform at no cost Equalized salaries across the state, with nearly 77% of public defenders receiving raises Established 12 institutional offices across Idaho But progress for the agency has been complex. The overhaul of Idaho's public defense system triggered a wave of public defender resignations, particularly in the state's largest counties where attorneys cited frustration with pay cuts, loss of mentorship from experienced attorneys, declining office morale and disorganization in the new system, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. 'October 1 (was) difficult,' Fredericksen said. 'We walked into 1,300 withdrawals in cases.' Many of those withdrawals were because the agency got rid of flat fee contracts for attorneys in Idaho, which led to those case withdrawals. Fredericksen told JFAC that flat fee contracts are unethical. Since then, Fredericksen said he's had to appear in court, along with his district attorneys who usually manage public defenders. From a business perspective, Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, asked what the Legislature can do to make sure Fredericksen and his district attorneys are more focused on management rather than having to appear at court. 'Is it just money?' Tanner asked. Idaho governor recommends $88 million for State Public Defender FY 2026 budget 'It is money,' Fredericksen said. 'We've lost a lot of contractors. We've lost a lot of senior employees and institutional losses. Do I want to be in Jerome, Gooding and Twin Falls on a daily basis? That's not the best use of my time. The best use of my time is to send out my district defenders and let them do their jobs, and get them out of court so they're not handling cases.' Fredericksen said one of the agency's biggest challenges is finding attorneys to represent clients in rural Idaho. To address this, the budget proposal includes an increase in the hourly rate for contract attorneys from $100 to $150, which would alleviate the shortage of legal representation in rural areas of the state, he said. Sen. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, said she understands that the Legislature underestimated the budget for the office. 'Regardless of where we are now, I think we could've done a better job in the Legislature setting you up for a little more success,' Wintrow said. The proposed budget will be voted on by JFAC at a later date. After the committee approves it, the budget will be included in appropriation bills for the Idaho House and Senate to consider and vote on at a later time. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
