[matt-waiting]

CA treats earned vested vacation a little differently than the rest of the country and many employers get this wrong. This is from the DLSE

4.

Q.

My employer’s vacation policy provides that if I do not use all of my annual vacation entitlement by the end of the year, that I lose the unused balance. Is this legal?

A.

No, such a provision is not legal. In California, vacation pay is another form of wages which vests as it is earned (in this context, “vests” means you are invested or endowed with rights in the wages). Accordingly, a policy that provides for the forfeiture of vacation pay that is not used by a specified date (“use it or lose it”) is an illegal policy under California law and will not be recognized by the Labor Commissioner.

5.

Q.

My employer’s vacation policy provides that once an employee earns 200 hours of vacation, no more vacation may be earned (accrued) until the vacation balance falls below that level. Is this legal?

A.

Yes, such a provision would be acceptable to the Labor Commissioner. Unlike “use it or lose it” policies, a vacation policy that places a “cap” or “ceiling” on vacation pay accruals is permissible. Whereas a “use it or lose it” policy results in a forfeiture of accrued vacation pay, a “cap” simply places a limit on the amount of vacation that can accrue; that is, once a certain level or amount of accrued vacation is earned but not taken, no further vacation or vacation pay accrues until the balance falls below the cap. The time periods involved for taking vacation must, of course, be reasonable. If implementation of a “cap” is a subterfuge to deny employees vacation or vacation benefits, the policy will not be recognized by the Labor Commissioner.

DLSE has repeatedly found vacation policies which provide that all vacation must be taken in the year it is earned (or in a very limited period following the accrual period) are unfair and will not be enforced by the Division.

[matt-waiting]

I am not sure someone with 4 million to spend wants to live in an El Cajon suburb. Zillow has the house next door for 700K. Seems out of place to me.

[matt-waiting]

If you accidentally shot an old lady and her daughter, wouldn’t you give them your vehicle.

No red tape for that donation.

[matt-waiting]

[quote=squat250]counterpoint: my mom says they sent me to the best school they could, so i should do the same.

Also, with inflation, the fortune you borrow today will be pocket change ina decade, and you’ll still have the degree…

they cannot repossess your brain…or can they?[/quote]

Ok, I think we have an agreement among all the lawyers on the board (did this actually happen?)

If your kid wants to become a lawyer, either he gets into a top 14 school or he goes to the cheapest law school he can find without acquiring debt. Then, after 3 short years, he can look forward to long hours of unfulfilled non-creative work.

[matt-waiting]

[quote=jwizzle][quote=squat250]

Basically, if my kids couldn’t or didn’t get into a T14 law school where they have a very good chance of getting a good paying job that can comfortably service the debt/pay it off at an accelerated rate (and make valuable connections that will help them throughout their career), I would tell them they should reconsider law school.[/quote]

I agree with this, but would expand it to the top 40 schools. UC Davis, Hastings, and UCLA are still good enough to get a job.

[matt-waiting]

cslawschool and other unaccredited law schools like it are a disaster for most of the students who attend and never pass the bar (or baby bar). A degree from these schools certainty do not open any doors.

But if you want to roll the dice, hope that you are part of the 5% who passes the bar, and don’t want to work for a firm anyway, it could be a cheaper option.

[matt-waiting]

Law school acceptance depends on undergrad GPA/degree/esteem of school/and LSAT You can get into a good law school if you go to a CSU, but you would need a 4.0 in a difficult major and a top LSAT score.

The law school will not care if your kid went to JC for two years and then transferred to a good UC. They will only see the UC.

Here is the biggest trap. Unless your kid gets into a top 40 law school, the cost/benefit of becoming a lawyer (for purely financial reasons) does not make sense. Lots of lawyers out there making 60K with 160K in debt.

[matt-waiting]

“Community college. You know why they call it community college? ‘Cause anybody in the community can go. Crackhead, prostitute, drug dealer—come on in. Community college is like a disco with books. ‘Here’s ten dollars. I’m gonna get my learn on.’”

– Chris Rock

[matt-waiting]

[quote=bearishgurl]

In other words, ALL interest-rate environments, and ESPECIALLY high interest-rate environments are GREAT for buying property![/quote]

Not if you have to finance most of the purchase. I agree that it is best to buy once and stay put. I agree that most people would be fine with living in 1200 sq feet…etc.

The reality is that most people don’t follow this sound advice and trade up. My question is do the Piggs think that the move up type market (properties >600K) will soften in the future because of the disincentive for FTB to close out a 3.5% loan and take on a 7% loan (or whatever it is in the future).

I generally don’t like to trade a good investment for a bad one. I would think that other FTB would not want to also.

[matt-waiting]

Keeping it as a rental may work (or maybe just rent to the baby mamas), but I imagine that on the macro level, most people will need the equity to purchase the larger house.

I have never lived in a time when rates were significantly higher than a few years earlier. What happened in the 80s when rates were high?

What does that do to the demand for “move up type properties?” It would seem like the incentive would be against trading in a 3.5% loan for a 6% plus loan.

[matt-waiting]

The object of damages is to make the landlord whole. That means if the owner finds a new tenant (or the court finds that he unreasonably did not mitigate his damages and look for a new tenant), the lease breaker only has to pay damages for the amount of actual loss.

There may be some damages for getting the place ready to rent out again and maybe a month of lost rent when showing and getting a new tenant in there. But owners don’t get a windfall (damages & rent from a new tenant) just because the lease was broken.

Landlord/tenant law is pro tenant, not pro landlord.

[matt-waiting]

CA Renter,

You missed my point. I never said anything about excusing the person who did not pick up after their dog. He is probably lazy, and after being asked to stop, clearly an A-hole.

I just don’t think it is very wise to a) harm the dog or b) resort to poop consolidation as an act of revenge.

Like Desmond, I believe people should be especially cautious and exercise restraint when it comes to neighbors. The fact that the dog owner already showed signs of craziness is more evidence that you should not start a war with him. Here is my motto: “Never engage crazy, especially when crazy knows where you live.”

Yes, not picking up your dog’s poop is inconsiderate. Responding by sh*t bombing his house is dangerous.

But if you want to do it go ahead. I will buy your house for cheap when you are forced to sell to get away from your crazy neighbor.

[matt-waiting]

What if the neighbor just happened to be practicing his swing and the dog poisoner’s head got in the way?

The point is that revenge is rarely a smart strategy when it comes to neighbors. Do you really want to piss off Mr. Bundy who lives next to you and knows when you aren’t home. What if he is more like a Ted B than an Al B?

[matt-waiting]

If someone poisoned my dog, I would buy this.

[matt-waiting]

You really showed that soccer mom whose boss. I had a similar experience with this kid who kept eating ice cream that dripped all over my lawn. I walked right over and shoved the ice cream in his face.

I can’t believe how rude neighbors can be when you video tape them.

[Author]

Posts