Odd doings in California

In article <doOdndtsMLUJH1nVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated that
>> they might be... the regulations, however, might have the force of
>> Law and as much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's emergency
>> powers might not extend to the ability to suspend such Law as
>> immediately as he might desire.
>
>Wrong. All states, and the federal government, have laws that simply state
>the governor can suspend or modify any existing law or regulation in an
>emergency. Further, it is the governor who declares when something is an
>emergency. For example, here's California's:
>
>Government Code 8571. During a state of war emergency or a state of
>emergency the Governor may suspend any regulatory statute, or statute
>prescribing the procedure for conduct of state business, or the orders,
>rules, or regulations of any state agency, including subdivision (d) of
>Section 1253 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, where the Governor
>determines and declares that strict compliance with any statute, order,
>rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the
Newsgroups: comp.lang.cobol
Subject: Re: Odd doings in California
Summary:
Expires:
References: <nq2wk.36210$Rs1.36033@newsfe08.iad> <ueGdnbL-hPJEBl_VnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@earthlink.com> <ga1tp5$ari$1@reader1.panix.com> <doOdndtsMLUJH1nVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@earthlink.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Keywords:
Cc:

In article <doOdndtsMLUJH1nVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated that
>> they might be... the regulations, however, might have the force of
>> Law and as much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's emergency
>> powers might not extend to the ability to suspend such Law as
>> immediately as he might desire.
>
>Wrong. All states, and the federal government, have laws that simply state
>the governor can suspend or modify any existing law or regulation in an
>emergency. Further, it is the governor who declares when something is an
>emergency.

Note while I, an admitted non-lawyer, used the phrase 'the Governor's
emergency powers' there may well be a difference between what 'the
Governor's powers are during what he calls an emergency' and 'the
Governor's powers during a state of emergency'; it seems as though the
latter are addressed below.

I don't believe a state of emergency has been declared in California, I
believe the Governor has issued an Executive Order. From
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1132588.html :

--begin quoted text:

The Republican governor signed an executive order last week recommending
the cut to minimum wage for most permanent state workers and terminating
10,133 temporary and part-time employees.

[snip]

He (Chiang) disputes Schwarzenegger's legal interpretation of a 2003
California Supreme Court decision, which the governor said mandates that
the state pay only minimum wage to employees until a budget is passed.

--end quoted text

Now... the issuing of an Executive Order might be done in order to deal
with a perceived Emergency, true, but said Emergency does not seem to fit
any of the three conditions or degrees of emergency stated in Sec 8558:

a) enemy attack probable or imminent

b) duly proclaimed contions of disaster (air pollution, fire, flood,
storm, epidemic, riot, drought, energy shortage, plant/animal infestation,
earthquake, volcanic eruption, conditions resulting from a labor
controversy or conditions 'causing a state of war emergency')

c) local emergency

(details at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacode...8555-8561.html )

.... so while - with some exceptions, such as seizure of firearms (8571.5)
or commandeering newspapers (8572) - the Governor can, in fact, violate
State Law or State Constitutional provisions... I do not believe that an
Executive Order carries the same force and I do not believe the ability to
come to a budget agreement is of the same magnitude.

If the inability to reach agreement *was* of that magnitude then it might
be concluded that a State of Emergency would have been declared, not an
Executive Order issued.

>>> For example, the first solution that comes to mind is "cashier the
>>> lot." Of course the millions of state employees could sue the state,
>>> but first they'd have to find a court that was open...
>>
>> That a court is not open does not prevent a judge from issuing a
>> order... and it might be that more than one court has jurisdiction
>> over the status of hire of the employees involved. These are not
>> simple situations.
>
>As a connoisseur of quotes, I'm sure you'll recognize this one from Andrew
>Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Quite similarly, 'Governor Schwarzenegger has decided people will get
paid, now let him issue their checks'... it works both ways.

[snip]

>>> Then, too, there's the Texas solution: Beat the leaders of the
>>> opposition so badly they're unable to even lie down. If that offends
>>> one's sensibilities, the opposition leaders could be disappeared.
>>
>> Ahhhhhh, the good old One Party Rule model... no need to change the
>> United States to such a system, you can find like-minded practioners
>> in Cuba or Beijing who might welcome those of their own political
>> bent.
>>
>
>It's not one-party rule. Any party is welcome to use the tactic. Of course
>those that don't like the idea are free to appeal. In a few years they might
>get a favorable decision.

'It ain't against the law... see, it only took the court a few years to
show that.' If you want to live like a Cuban, get thee to Cuba.

'f there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the
ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean
without the awful roar of its many waters' - Frederick Douglass

If you want a nice, quiet,
do-what-we-tell-you-lest-your-party-gets-beaten... there's Cuba and China,
just waiting for your citizenship request.

DD

In article <6ijg7gFqrhjpU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:doOdndtsMLUJH1nVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@earthlink.c om...

[snip]

>> It's not one-party rule. Any party is welcome to use the tactic. Of course
>> those that don't like the idea are free to appeal. In a few years they
>> might get a favorable decision.
>
>Or a Civil War even... Ah, yes, I believe that option was exercised in the
>then disunited states of America, around the middle of the 19th century.

That it was, Mr Dashwood... and during as a part of that horrid conflict
there was issued A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of
Texas to Seced from the Federal Union.

In this Declaration the State of Texas admitting to being unable to
'protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian
savages' and 'the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring
territory of Mexico'... but what seems to have gone beyond all bounds was:

'In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and
comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people
have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in
numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an
unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their
beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the
debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--
a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind,
and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand
the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition
of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their
determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro
slave remains in these States.'

(from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm )

>Here we are racing towards the middle of the 21st century and, apparently,
>nothing has been learned... :-)

Texans complained that they could not protect themselves, Mr Dashwood...
but they went to war because others were willing to fight against their
beloved institution of chattel slavery and their interpretation of such
slavery as in accord with 'the plainest revelations of Divine Law'.

It seems they do not seek the United States of America... they look for a
slave-holding theocracy. Expect from them logic in accord with such
principles and you may not be very much disappointed.

DD

In article <rof9c454bbnkmajcdlls1vgpb1smblio8e@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <ui54c4dmhuga1qe3jg4iqa0v5i4l3ubit1@4ax.com>,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 01:48:42 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <p3f3c4lb9ppa404mudo5hmhk88e8h7dtij@4ax.com>,
>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:39:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>There's a field for hourly rate for every employee and virtually every
>>>>>>employee has had their rate changed once upon a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the minimum wage.
>>>>>>Punch the "save" button.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the task
>>>>>>could be done in less than a week.
>>>>>
>>>>>This sounds like an 'all ya gotta do' solution. One SQL statement (with
>>>>>appropriate ODBC
>>>>>driver) could change everyone's rate to the minimum. It would take
>>>>>milliseconds per
>>>>>employee.
>>>>
>>>>If the system supports SQL, perphaps so... on the other hand I've run
>>>>across a payroll system - not too large, around 60K employees every two
>>>>weeks - that runs primarily on flat files. Documentation and research are
>>>>accomplished by a combination of file searches and prayers.
>>>
>>>The Windows machine before you contains a Microsoft ODBC driver for Flat
>>>Files. Just go to
>>>Control Panel\Admin\Data Sources. I used it to compare before and after
>>>files from a
>>>mainframe regression test on the payroll of a major retailer with 400,000 active
>>>employees. It was pretty fast. The mainframers couldn't believe their eyes.
>>
>>The payroll system I mentioned did not run on a Windows machine,
>
>Neither did the mainframe payroll system. But its flat files could be
>accessed with SQL,
>guided by a hand crafted schema that was itself a flat file. Old timers
>didn't believe it until they saw it.

I believe you could run a compare just as you said, Mr Wagner... can you
believe that there might, possibly, be something other to running an
active payroll system than just 'comparing before and after files from a
mainframe regression test'?

(for running such compares I usual use SuperC... but some folks like
sending files back-and-forth)


>
>> Primarily flat files and handcrafted COBOL
>>code... no SQL, no ODBC. Internal sorts, MOVE CORR, paragraph names like
>>NAY-NAY, NAY-YEA, YEA-NAY and YEA-YEA all implemented into Prod and all
>>running for a quarter-century.
>
>Don't be so confident. Flat files are a very soft target.

Quite the reverse, Mr Wagner... my experience has taught me that
confidence can decrease caution and I find approaching peoples' paychecks
with caution to be a Good Thing, indeed.

DD

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:32:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>As I was taught design... tests for the most common cases are first and
>the less common cases follow; this saves on both machine time and human
>time. For example... since there aren't too many folks around who were
>born before 1850 (Gregorian calendar) it might be a Good Idea to have a
>data-entry system for driver's licenses throw an 'Invalid Date' if this is
>entered into a Date of Birth field.
>
>The program is coded to disallow this as a transaction (without
>appropriate supervisory over-ride)... and this would seem to be good
>design as it would, most frequently, prevent a license being issued with a
>typo that would require a licensee to go through the issuing process again
>due to a simple typo.
>
>It'd make it a bit more difficult for folks older than one hundred and
>fifty-seven years to get *their* licenses dealt with... but
>back-of-the-envelope calculations could show there is an acceptable
>cost/benefit ratio.

I'm sure we have all read of cases which were exceptions to such
assumptions. And they can be costly to correct.

I believe we often have more editing that makes sense in much
programming. Editing can make change difficult without adding
significantly to fraud protection. Editing because we can, or
because we have always done it that way should be re-thought.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:00:14 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>This is Civil Service pay folks are talking about... I don't know about
>California but I have been told that there are certain aspects of
>remuneration for New York State civil service employees which are a matter
>of the State Constitution... the Law. Nothing I know of law - admittedly,
>a few thimblefuls or less - prevents similar situations from being the
>case in California.

That can be a problem. How often do programmers consult lawyers when
our bosses have us make changes to our code? At least we are being
told some of our new privacy and security needs, but the law is big
and complex.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated
>>> that they might be... the regulations, however, might have the
>>> force of Law and as much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's
>>> emergency powers might not extend to the ability to suspend such
>>> Law as immediately as he might desire.
>>
>> Wrong. All states, and the federal government, have laws that simply
>> state the governor can suspend or modify any existing law or
>> regulation in an emergency. Further, it is the governor who declares
>> when something is an emergency.
>
> Note while I, an admitted non-lawyer, used the phrase 'the Governor's
> emergency powers' there may well be a difference between what 'the
> Governor's powers are during what he calls an emergency' and 'the
> Governor's powers during a state of emergency'; it seems as though the
> latter are addressed below.
>
> I don't believe a state of emergency has been declared in California,
> I
> believe the Governor has issued an Executive Order. From
> http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1132588.html :

Whether a state of emergency has been declared or whether the Indian carried
home the meat in a handkerchief is irrelevant to your erroneous assumption
that the governor might not have the authority to suspend the laws.

>
> If you want a nice, quiet,
> do-what-we-tell-you-lest-your-party-gets-beaten... there's Cuba and
> China,
> just waiting for your citizenship request.
>

If you can't argue the facts, or get caught in ignorance or misapprehension,
there's always the refuge of personal attacks, such as suggesting I, or
presumably anyone who cites a law at variance with your un-tutored beliefs,
might be more at home in a Communist country.

In article <4hbac4pb95var93b2u25b322j8r2ctd0a2@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:32:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

[snip]

>>It'd make it a bit more difficult for folks older than one hundred and
>>fifty-seven years to get *their* licenses dealt with... but
>>back-of-the-envelope calculations could show there is an acceptable
>>cost/benefit ratio.
>
>I'm sure we have all read of cases which were exceptions to such
>assumptions. And they can be costly to correct.

There's the rub, Mr Brazee... determining what constitutes an 'acceptable
cost/benefit ratio' for (machine and human time used in editing for a
given combination of data) compared with (machine and human time used in
correcting a situation which, while rare, passed through the edits and
Cost the Company Money) is a delicate art.

(It is also something I've seen reduced to a Corner Office Idiot screaming
'I don't care how it gets done, I just don't want to get another call like
that from someone who reviews my perfomance Ever Again!')

>
>I believe we often have more editing that makes sense in much
>programming. Editing can make change difficult without adding
>significantly to fraud protection. Editing because we can, or
>because we have always done it that way should be re-thought.

Leaving aside who determines what 'makes sense' or what constitutes a
'significant addition to fraud protection'... this brings things right
back to where it all began. Males, for the most part, do not have a
uterus and, as such, should not be paid for having such infections of
organs dealt with...

.... BUT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is also
covered by the policy then it's OK...

.... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is
also covered by the policy and said female has had a hysterectomy...

.... et and cetera.

DD

In article <CoCdnTI3jqNjr1jVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated
>>>> that they might be... the regulations, however, might have the
>>>> force of Law and as much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's
>>>> emergency powers might not extend to the ability to suspend such
>>>> Law as immediately as he might desire.
>>>
>>> Wrong. All states, and the federal government, have laws that simply
>>> state the governor can suspend or modify any existing law or
>>> regulation in an emergency. Further, it is the governor who declares
>>> when something is an emergency.
>>
>> Note while I, an admitted non-lawyer, used the phrase 'the Governor's
>> emergency powers' there may well be a difference between what 'the
>> Governor's powers are during what he calls an emergency' and 'the
>> Governor's powers during a state of emergency'; it seems as though the
>> latter are addressed below.
>>
>> I don't believe a state of emergency has been declared in California,
>> I believe the Governor has issued an Executive Order. From
>> http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1132588.html :
>
>Whether a state of emergency has been declared or whether the Indian carried
>home the meat in a handkerchief is irrelevant to your erroneous assumption
>that the governor might not have the authority to suspend the laws.

Unless one wishes to assert that a Governor can, at any time, invoke
powers of office which are limited to time of a declared state of
emergency then whether a state of emergency has been declared would most
certainly seem to have relevance to a Governor's ability to invoke powers
which are active only during a state of emergency... no declaration, no
powers.

>
>>
>> If you want a nice, quiet,
>> do-what-we-tell-you-lest-your-party-gets-beaten... there's Cuba and
>> China, just waiting for your citizenship request.
>>
>
>If you can't argue the facts, or get caught in ignorance or misapprehension,
>there's always the refuge of personal attacks, such as suggesting I, or
>presumably anyone who cites a law at variance with your un-tutored beliefs,
>might be more at home in a Communist country.

There may be more than those few reasons for suggesting such a thing...
but folks who feel they hit closely to home might have a desire to snip
them out of a posting without any indication of having edited them.

DD

In article <c7cac49nqbli420l63b0qsp083mmv49khu@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:00:14 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>This is Civil Service pay folks are talking about... I don't know about
>>California but I have been told that there are certain aspects of
>>remuneration for New York State civil service employees which are a matter
>>of the State Constitution... the Law. Nothing I know of law - admittedly,
>>a few thimblefuls or less - prevents similar situations from being the
>>case in California.
>
>That can be a problem. How often do programmers consult lawyers when
>our bosses have us make changes to our code? At least we are being
>told some of our new privacy and security needs, but the law is big
>and complex.

That 'the law is big and complex' what I've been trying to express, Mr
Brazee... and the responses from those purporting to be Professional
Programmers that boil down to 'all ya gotta do is' have been a bit
disheartening. I've sat in meetings where Corner Office Idiots have said
'We're getting complaints from users about (situation)' and a business
analyst has retorted with 'If they complain then show them this bulletin
from Legal saying these are the new regs; if the supervisors want to do
manual overrides and violate these regs remind them there are audit
trails.'

DD

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:31:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>In article <rof9c454bbnkmajcdlls1vgpb1smblio8e@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ui54c4dmhuga1qe3jg4iqa0v5i4l3ubit1@4ax.com>,
>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 01:48:42 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <p3f3c4lb9ppa404mudo5hmhk88e8h7dtij@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:39:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's a field for hourly rate for every employee and virtually every
>>>>>>>employee has had their rate changed once upon a time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the minimum wage.
>>>>>>>Punch the "save" button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the task
>>>>>>>could be done in less than a week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This sounds like an 'all ya gotta do' solution. One SQL statement (with
>>>>>>appropriate ODBC
>>>>>>driver) could change everyone's rate to the minimum. It would take
>>>>>>milliseconds per
>>>>>>employee.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the system supports SQL, perphaps so... on the other hand I've run
>>>>>across a payroll system - not too large, around 60K employees every two
>>>>>weeks - that runs primarily on flat files. Documentation and research are
>>>>>accomplished by a combination of file searches and prayers.
>>>>
>>>>The Windows machine before you contains a Microsoft ODBC driver for Flat
>>>>Files. Just go to
>>>>Control Panel\Admin\Data Sources. I used it to compare before and after
>>>>files from a
>>>>mainframe regression test on the payroll of a major retailer with 400,000 active
>>>>employees. It was pretty fast. The mainframers couldn't believe their eyes.
>>>
>>>The payroll system I mentioned did not run on a Windows machine,
>>
>>Neither did the mainframe payroll system. But its flat files could be
>>accessed with SQL,
>>guided by a hand crafted schema that was itself a flat file. Old timers
>>didn't believe it until they saw it.
>
>I believe you could run a compare just as you said, Mr Wagner... can you
>believe that there might, possibly, be something other to running an
>active payroll system than just 'comparing before and after files from a
>mainframe regression test'?

I ran both the payroll system before and after.

>(for running such compares I usual use SuperC... but some folks like
>sending files back-and-forth)

They did not have SuperC. I heard installing new mainframe software required an Act of
Congress and a bucket of money. Congress was not in session.

>>> Primarily flat files and handcrafted COBOL
>>>code... no SQL, no ODBC. Internal sorts, MOVE CORR, paragraph names like
>>>NAY-NAY, NAY-YEA, YEA-NAY and YEA-YEA all implemented into Prod and all
>>>running for a quarter-century.
>>
>>Don't be so confident. Flat files are a very soft target.
>
>Quite the reverse, Mr Wagner... my experience has taught me that
>confidence can decrease caution and I find approaching peoples' paychecks
>with caution to be a Good Thing, indeed.

When they had a production problem, they deleted the offending time card and reran. The
first time I saw that, I suggested writing down the employee number so a hand check could
be issues. They said they didn't have time.