State-by-state is the best approach for right to repair, says advocacy leader

There's a lot of momentum behind the right-to-repair movement, and if anyone should know, it'd be Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association and longtime repairability advocate. We spoke with Gordon-Byrne, in an interview you can watch below, to get a sense of the state of the right-to-repair movement in …

[An_Old_Dog]

Don't Be Suckered

It's easier and cheaper to bribe ("lobby") a state-level senator or representative than it is to do so to a national-level senator or representative, because local campaigns are cheaper to finance. A state-level politician needs less money in their campaign "war-chest."

The anti-repair associations ("industry trade groups") can let a few states win -- for now -- while they sew up the legislatures of the other states.

The states they lost, they can let ride for now ... there'll be another election in a couple years.

"Divide and conquer."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Don't Be Suckered

No it’s not. Doing far more at the federal level makes much more sense for consumers in the USA.

You don’t need 50 legislatures doing things differently, held to ransom by local politicians and influence on them.

Same as 1 national DMV/DoT set of regulations with presence in all states under the auspices of the Federal DoT rather 50 different versions and *mandatory* vehicle insurance requirement and an industry funded pool for non-insured accidents.

[JWLong]

Re: Don't Be Suckered

Same as 1 national DMV/DoT set of regulations with presence in all states under the auspices of the Federal DoT rather 50 different versions and *mandatory* vehicle insurance requirement and an industry funded pool for non-insured accidents.

Then why is it that one state sets the maximum with of a motor vehicle at 85.5", and all the manufacturers fall in line with that?

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: Don't Be Suckered

Its mind boggling that this type of bribery is not only perfectly legal but the normal way things are done. Politicians and their parties should be banned form all "donations" , and given one webpage each with to do all their campaigning on, dont get me started on their second jobs ... and expenses ...

[I could be a dog really]

Re: Don't Be Suckered

There's a reason some countries have strict laws on campaign funds - limits on amount, rules on openness about where the money came from, and so on.

[Dostoevsky]

YES!

It should always have been about the state level. This is the states' job, not the federal government's. I can reach my state reps and senators. The federal ones are much too distant.

It's almost like our system of government was designed to give ordinary people a shot at making policy...

[abend0c4]

Re: YES!

The thing is that the most rigorous state regulation is effectively going to win because it's not worth the while of manufacturers to have different policies in every state. It's not much use being able to reach your state's legislators if policy is effectively being made somewhere you have no representation at all.

If your system of national government is broken, that would seem a more urgent candidate for repair, though I appreciate that your rights in that respect do seem to be dwindling.

[Dostoevsky]

Re: YES!

And isn't that "most rigorous" regulation winning out a good thing? I sincerely doubt Hewlitt-Packard has many lobbyists at the Rhode Island State House, but if they change laws in a beneficial way, they may benefit us all.

The federal system we have is the oldest continuously functioning representative government on Earth. It's still not broken, although it's getting closer...

[notmyopinion]

Re: YES!

Your federal system really isn't the oldest continually functioning representative government on Earth, even though it is a respectable age. Sadly the democratic system has been subverted in certain key respects by moneyed interests - which may be what the previous poster meant by "If your system of national government is broken, that would seem a more urgent candidate for repair".

Yes, the "most rigorous" regulation winning out is probably a good thing in this context. But it is likely to be relatively cheap for lobbyists to weaken whichever state's legislation is the strongest. And in the next presidential term it's quite possible that the federal government or the supreme court might undermine "inconvenient" state laws (ideological posturing on state rights notwithstanding, as ideology seems trumped by interests these days).

[ecofeco]

Re: YES!

Yeah, no.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .

There is no exception or restrictions.

[Paul Herber]

Re: YES!

Where there are commas there are lawyers.

[nintendoeats]

Re: YES!

...Unless the state that wants to regulate commerce is California...

[Dostoevsky]

Re: YES!

Yeaaaah, I don't know that the SCOTUS would support that reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause, but IDK. I recall that since US v. Lopez that clause has had very limited power...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: YES!

Would you be saying the same about Roe v Wade?

[Headley_Grange]

Re: YES!

I would agree, except that, looking from the UK, it simply doesn't seem to work. The powerful companies can just put the states in competition with each other in a dutch auction for a race to the bottom. If "ordinary people" have got a shot at making policy then why are employment laws in the US so shit as to be virtually oppressive? Do they really want jobs where they can be fired at short notice for bugger all reason and only get two-weeks holiday a year? Are they happy paying shitloads more than anyone else in the world for a health service that focuses on paid-for treatments rather than health outcomes? Where the price of insulin is 13x the cost of the UK? You really want that?

I'm not saying the UK works better - we have the most centralized government in the western world by many standards and my local councillor has fuck all power, mainly because she has fuck all budget. Maybe the UK works better because there's still a vague belief in socialism, albeit anchored by the National Health Service - and that anchor feels like it's dragging a bit.

The EU seems to work in cases like this (right to repair) for precisely the reason that I don't really like it - it's a technocracy with very little democracy. The unelected council** gets to decide and approve many key aspects of EU legislation with the MEPs having very limited voting rights and virtually no mandate given the turnout in EU elections. The US doesn't seem to work, and I believe that it's partly down to the individualistic nature of the US, which is odd given "We the people..." kicked it all off.

** EU supporters would point out that the council is made up of members appointed by democratically elected governments......

[elsergiovolador]

Re: YES!

If "ordinary people" have got a shot at making policy then why are employment laws in the US so

In case you don't know, in 2017 and then 2021 we had changes to IR35 that introduced zero-rights employment, which means companies can hire staff that has no employment rights whatsoever. No minimum wage, no sick pay, no notice period, no whistleblowing protection, nothing. Deemed employee got pregnant? They can terminate on the spot (the deemed employment, not pregnancy).

World is built in such a way, that ordinary people have illusion of electing their representatives. The moment they are elected they sell themselves to the highest bidder.

Maybe the UK works better because there's still a vague belief in socialism

The "socialism" in the UK is actually fascism with a heap of gaslighting. It's all designed for the benefit of big corporations, from NHS to taxation. Even Labour believes that if you are working class

(untermensch), then that's the life for you forever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: YES!

Nonsense. If you're inside IR35 you're only an employee for tax purposes. For everything else you're a freelancer, contractor, consultant or, as seems to be fashionable these days, an advisor. Your rights are defined in the contract you sign and your holiday, sickness, pension, insurance, accountant..etc, and any costs of IR35, are covered in your rate or price. My contracts are largely written by me. They include a clause along the lines of " ... does not constitute or infer a contract of employment.." and have since I started consulting almost 20 years ago. My rate is high enough to cover all my outgoings and compensate me for the minor pain of IR35 and my clients are willing to pay it.

If you can't find clients who'll pay your rate for the Ts&Cs you want then you're going to have to find some genuine employment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: YES!

Oops - that "infer" should have been "imply", of course - missed the edit window.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: YES!

You are writing nonsense I am afraid.

Your rights are defined in the contract you sign and your holiday, sickness, pension, insurance, accountant..etc, and any costs of IR35, are covered in your rate or price.

That is incorrect, as your company cannot make operating profit - so it can't provide for any employee benefits, but you are supposed to do it out of your wage after tax. It's like saying if employees earned enough, they wouldn't need employment rights.

My contracts are largely written by me. They include a clause along the lines of " ... does not constitute or infer a contract of employment.." and have since I started consulting almost 20 years ago.

You should probably hire a solicitor. That clause doesn't do anything, as HMRC looks at hypothetical contract and working practices. Also given that after IR35 changes, the client bears the responsibility of it going wrong, I have my doubts they would sign anything written by you and not their own law firm.

If you can't find clients who'll pay your rate for the Ts&Cs you want then you're going to have to find some genuine employment.

The problem is that IR35 has been specifically designed to stop small business from operating. For instance, big consultancies that provide the same services, in the same manner are excluded from IR35, and so their clients don't have to bother with status determinations and all that hokey cokey.

Anyway you seem to be cutting off your nose to spite the face.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: YES!

I'm still working. I'm still getting my rate. My nose is still attached. IR35 simply isn't an issue for me as it seems to be for you. Maybe we're just doing different sorts of consulting.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: YES!

Sure mate, of course you do.

[I could be a dog really]

Re: YES!

your company cannot make operating profit

Well you've demonstrated in that one statement that you haven't got a clue about the topic. A contractor's company can, and if they are getting things right, will make a profit. Some can be retained in the company, some can be drawn out via various means (and taxed in the process). In general, keeping some retained profit within the company is a good idea to cushion gaps between contracts.

The problem is that IR35 has been specifically designed to stop small business from operating

We can agree with that.

[Martin-73]

Re: YES!

It may have been intended that way, but that's not how it's worked out

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Weak...

Instead of a unified American approach there will be 51 different approaches. And bigger companies do have enough $ in their hand to maneuver and exploit the differences to get the $ such maneuvering costs back. They are experienced at that...

[ecofeco]

Re: Weak...

That's exactly the goal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weak...

But this is where their globalisation comes back to bite them: a myriad of different local regulations, all of which they are trying to maliciously subvert becomes a wearying drain on them. They are more vulnerable to a swarm of bugs than a single charging rhino. The trick is in the swarm. One bug at a time, or the same bugs in the same area are easy to squash.

More bugs in more places, demanding different things, so the same defense can't be deployed against them.

After a while they will support a unified national code that they can weaken and water down in one place.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Weak...

> After a while they will support a unified national code that they can weaken and water down in one place.

Somehow this sounds as unreal as "trickle-down economics" of Ronald Reagan. There is no "After a while". Bu maybe in a billion years when Earth got too hot for us and we are all burned and crispy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weak...

Don't you mean 81 different approaches?

https://www.thewrap.com/jimmy-kimmel-mocks-lara-trump-81-states-claim/

[Yorick Hunt]

Lemmings are the problem.

The most obvious solution is for consumers to stop buying unrepairable crap; money really does talk.

Alas, in our modern world, we have far too few people and far too many sheeple :-\

[Zibob]

Re: Lemmings are the problem.

I don't even think its that black and white, in many cases the systems have been in place so long that it is impossible to live a reasonably functional life with out interacting them them in some way.

It would be amazing to be able to cut and run like that but it equates to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's a lovely idea but not really practicable with our modern systems of commerce and communication.

[HuBo]

Re: Lemmings are the problem.

Hmmmm ... is your point then that we should abandon all hope for anything better because "the systems have been in place so long"?

[Zibob]

Re: Lemmings are the problem.

No, more that sustained and target action should be employed to get to changed to something that works for us rather than the opposite.

Its a bit silly to hypothetically "set fire to the factory that makes the PCs, and then set about building an identical one for your designs" Why not use what's there and just change the controlling factors that make it untenable to our current thinking.

Its tough to pull off but it has been done before. Just takes effort.

[biddibiddibiddibiddi]

In the modern world, state by state isn't the best for anything at all. State by state worked and was needed back when a communication took weeks to pass from one state to another, then a response took weeks more to come. A conversation to discuss an issue might take a year. It's been a century since anything that was a common issue for people across the country should have been handled by individual states so that someone in one state has different rights from someone in another state. The only things that should be left up to the states should be things that only affect people in that state and can't be applied to others. The only thing that makes going state by state "the best approach" is the practical fact that states aren't going to relinquish their right to have their own say in matters and go their own way regardless of how it affects anybody else in the long run, and state politicians aren't going to give up their power and the money that comes with it.

[Dostoevsky]

It's not about communication. It's about a local government being far more accountable than a national government can possibly be. *That's* what the states are here for...

[ArrZarr]

Yep, we can tell how accountable the state government of <Red State> is to 50% of their populations.

[Tron]

Dumb and dumber.

People sell/export to the US, not to a particular state in the US. A common retail product that is legal in one state will not be in another. This would work fine if people bought all their stuff from a local shop, who ordered from a wholesaler, 28 days for delivery. It's crazy for an internet connected planet. Is America one nation, two (Rep and Dem) or 50?

[Grogan]

Fuck your "state by state"... that's a big part of the problem in the U.S. All these little fiefdoms that think they all should be in charge. They even run your country's elections to influence which parties win.

No, the "right to repair" should not vary by state.

[HuBo]

I hear you ... but it seems that Gordon-Byrne hears you as well IMHO, and praises the EU's unified (union-wide) approach to right-to-repair (rather than each country following its own edicts). If I understood the interview well, the State-by-State approach is viewed mainly as a faster way to get policy done since achieving anything at the (rather dead-locked) Fed level seems to take forever (eg. Bill to send further assistance to Ukraine).

[notmyopinion]

Yeah - the article title was a bit confusing (member-state of the US, not nation-state, or member-state of the EU). The subtlety you mention was only apparent on closer reading.

[Electronics'R'Us]

Most laws in the USA are State laws

This is something that many who have not lived in the USA fail to understand. This is the way it was originally set up and continues to this day.

To see the effect on right to repair, Colorado is not imposing their will on any other state, because they cannot. The kicker is that in most states a company that wishes to do business there has to have a registered office within the state [1], regardless of the State of incorporation and that means the business within that state must comply with all state laws that pertain to the business.

This does, admittedly, lead to a hodge-podge of varying regulations but it does have an effect.

So if a manufacturer of something (farm equipment for example) wants to have their own company branded sales and service operation within the state then they must comply with the right to repair laws within that state. In most cases, as noted above, that requires a registered office within the state. A business that refuses to comply with the rules will have that registered office closed.

Such manufacturers are perfectly free to not do business in that state, of course, but then they lose sales and service revenue.

What the state by state approach does is to impose the will of the local legislature (which is arguably closer to ordinary people) to business that operates within the state.

Messy? Yes. Effective? Yes.

As a rather larger example of one area passing regulations that affect places far beyond, take the RoHS directive (often known as the lead free directive) within the EU. Device manufacturers now almost universally provide lead free components [2] even within the USA despite there being no such USA legislation.

Note 1. Most registered offices are a local attorney's address.

Note 2. There are some exceptions, mostly military and aerospace,

[TeeCee]

in light of the passage of EU repairability laws

When the car manufacturers start letting anyone access their repair manuals and opening up their diagnostics, I'll believe that some progress has been made in this area.

As things stand, what's been put in place in Europe is a figleaf at best.