The Cry Wolf Quote Bank chronicles the false predictions and hyperbole by opponents of these laws and protections. While the issues and specific policies change over time, the rhetoric and themes remained the same. You can search the Quote Bank for what opponents said to prevent these laws from passing. Using the drop down menus on the right their statements by issue, by specific law, by who said it and by the core themes they evoke. Elsewhere on the site, you can find articles, studies, and other material that debunks their claims.
'San Franciscans have a history of voting their social conscience as long as someone else writes the check.’… He said consumers would be hurt, predicting that restaurants would raise prices… The higher prices, he said, might cause some restaurants to lose business — and perhaps close. ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch on something like this.’
Petitioner, however, seeks a rule that would effectively eliminate any meaningful period of limitation in certain kinds of discriminatory pay claims, allowing an employee to wait years or even decades to challenge an allegedly discriminatory decision so long as the economic consequences of that decision have continued into the limitations period. Such a rule would be irreconcilable with Congress’ design for the administration of Title VII, and would subject the employers…to damages for entirely innocent decisions that have nonetheless become difficult or impossible to defend solely because of the passage of time….such a rule would impose an unwarranted and excessive burden on employers…
San Francisco Supervisors never tire of over-regulating small businesses, and then cry over the intrusion of national chains that can financially absorb their absurd labor regulations. The Supervisors are not helping workers, they are writing a recipe for empty storefronts.
The Controller estimates that this bad idea will cost taxpayers up to $1 million to implement, not including lost welfare recipient work hours, and an unknown amount for city workers not currently eligible for sick time. Add to that the hundreds of jobs and the millions of dollars in sales taxes that will be lost to surrounding cities when diners and shoppers go elsewhere to save money.
The simple fact is that if business owners cannot make a reasonable return on their investments, they will either relocate to another county or close their doors, resulting in fewer jobs and less revenue for the City coffers from business, payroll, and sales taxes to fund the social programs the Supervisors so greatly value.
The majority of San Francisco's Supervisors have no management experience or experience running large or small businesses. They have no concept of what it takes to manage and finance a business. They obviously think that money grows on trees and profit is sinful.
Proposition F Sticks it to Neighborhood Businesses….Like kids in a candy store, our Supervisors never tire of gobbling up every bad idea that some special interest group dangles before them, particularly when it means hurting productive people who pay taxes.
Proposition F is another job-killing attack on San Francisco's economic engine that will raise prices for all who shop in the City.
A higher minimum wage will trigger thousands of layoffs in lower-paying jobs, hurting, rather than helping, Ohioans who need higher wages the most.
A cap on carbon is a cap on growth.
