Welcome to CSR Nation
I read this, but what does it mean?
I think it means that non-reporter owned agencies are subject to the same rules as reporter-owned agencies in plain text in the law. Previously non-reporter agencies were found to flaunt rules but wouldn't pay fines. This gives more power to enforce those rules. That's my best understanding of it. But the DRA says they have much more to do to ensure fairness.
During this time, California was deluged with non-licensee-owned businesses that operated without regulation. Martha got it right. They no longer have immunity.
Reading between the lines, it could also go on to regulate large court reporting firms (national agencies) from opening shop - creating more guidelines and requirements for them to operate a court reporting business.
The argument I've heard, Mary Jo, is a technicality in that the CR firms are not technically providing court reporting services. That's why most, if not all, court reporters in California are independent contractors and not employees. The CR firms are contracting with court reporters to perform the actual service of court reporting. The firms take their cut, and that cut is for production, overhead and whatever operating expenses. Right or wrong, I don't know, but it makes sense to me. Yes, it's semantics, but as is often the case, litigation is a battle of semantics.
Thanks, Martha and Mary Jo.
I wonder whether Magna will now sue the California board as they've sued the Arizona board for interfering with interstate commerce.
I think it's a weak argument anyway, but if U.S. Legal, Esquire, Merrill, Veritext are doing business in California, why, oh why, can't Magna?
Veritext, U.S. Legal, and Esquire made public commentary in the AZ public commentary, stating that they conduct business in Arizona, over state lines. I think that only weakens Magna's case personally. Sounds to me like Magna can't compete on a level playing field with its large competitors or its small ones.
Congratulations to California for closing an obvious loophole.
But seriously, do you not see the issue of Constitutionality re interstate commerce? Interested in hearing your take.
The laws don't preclude out-of-state agencies from conducting business in the state; the borders are open to all-comers--but in-state and out-of-state agencies have to comply with rules and regulations for the business they do conduct there--not unlike the requirements for practice of law or medicine.
I've stated many times before, there are laws that govern and regulate the way many businesses conduct themselves for the public good. The most prominent examples are cigarette companies and pharmaceutical companies. Sure, it probably costs cigarette companies millions and millions of dollars because they can't market with cartoon characters, ads that would make smoking more desirable to children. But the public good far outweighs a corporation's right to profit.
Lisa, can you illustrate what you mean by "the public good" outweighs a corporation's Constitutionally guaranteed right to profit? Genuine question.
The public commentary on the AZ matter illustrate that really well. My personal commentary is available among them and on my website.
I just got a email clarification from the CSR Board of California. There was a change made to the code regarding $100 limit on gifts. The main change to the regulation is a clarification that the $100 limit pertaining to gift giving or receipt applies to an entity and not to every individual within an entity.
So that is more restrictive, if I am reading this correctly. Plus it's in the aggregate. All those cookies add up over time.