LEGISLATIVE REPORT
By
BARRY BROAD
Legislative Director
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
It is hard to remember a time when
California politics seemed to be spinning so quickly out of control. It is
barely three months into the 2005 legislative session and normally, at this
time of the year, the newly introduced bills are just beginning to have
their first committee hearings. Instead, Governor Schwarzenegger, who wants
to see a series of radical measures passed that would eliminate traditional
pension plans for public employees, cancel teacher tenure, and impose deep
automatic budget cuts in education, health care, transportation and other
vital services, has declared that the “time for compromise” has now
“passed.” He plans to call a special election for the fall that will cost
an estimated $70 million and try to qualify initiatives on these subjects.
Never mind that there is a regular election scheduled for 2006. Other
interest groups have gotten into the act and something approaching 70 ballot
measure proposals have been submitted to the Attorney General for title and
summary and will soon be able to be circulated for signatures. Some people
think that all of this is an elaborate negotiating tactic and that the
Governor really wants a deal out of the Legislature and all this Hollywood
style theatrics is intended to soften up the Democratic controlled Senate
and Assembly. Time will tell. In the meantime, organized labor is taking
the threats seriously. We are preparing an opposition campaign to protect
our members’ pensions and benefits.
Meanwhile, the Governor’s verbal assault on organized labor continues.
Every chance he gets, the Governor denounces labor unions as “special
interests”, while raising huge amounts of money from corporations. In
Governor Schwarzenegger’s formulation of reality, anyone who doesn’t
contribute to his campaign or disagrees with him is a “special interest.”
You will recall that he referred to his opponents as “Girlie Men”. Lately,
he accused Democrats of being “drug addicts.” The Governor’s poll numbers
have dropped dramatically in recent months as voters have begun to wonder
whether we have handed over the keys to the State to a ‘loose cannon.” Or
perhaps a Jesse Ventura. It does appear that the Governor is creating more
problems than he is solving at the moment and the electorate would prefer
their leader to work in a bipartisan manner rather than pursue right wing
politics.
Teamster
Sponsored Legislation
The Teamsters are sponsoring four bills this year, all aimed at improving
conditions for our members who work in transportation.
We have two bills designed to aggressively change the working conditions for
truck drivers that service California’s ports. These drivers, many of whom
are immigrants, are truly at the bottom of the economic food chain. Many
are characterized as independent owner-operators. Yet they work for the
same company for years and lease their truck from the motor carrier, rather
than actually owning their own rig. They are paid a pittance for each load
they take in and out of the ports. They have no power to negotiate their
“per load” rate and are limited in the amount of loads they can haul per day
because of the incredible congestion in our major ports.
SB 848 by Senator Joe Dunn, (D)
Orange County, would permit these drivers to join a union and negotiate
their rates collectively. The bill would be the first of its kind in the
country to affect the transportation industry. It requires the state to
find that there is such an imbalance of economic power and market clout that
an antitrust exemption is necessary to fix the marketplace. The drivers
would need this antitrust immunity to take collective action because they
are unfortunately considered independent businesses. Interestingly, the
maritime companies have their own antitrust exemption. What’s good for the
goose is good for the gander.
Our other port bill is just as ambitious.
SB 762 by Assembly Member Alan Lowenthal, (D) Long Beach, would create
two port air quality authorities, one in Oakland and one in the Los
Angeles-Long Beach area. The idea is to join the concerns that the
community and environmental groups have over the horrible air quality that
plagues the ports with our concern over the low pay and poor working
conditions of the drivers we are trying to organize.
The two authorities that SB 762 creates would be charged with
granting trucking companies the right to service the ports. It would be
similar to the taxi medallion system that operates at many airports. The
authorities would determine how many drivers are needed to service each port
in a manner to guarantee each driver three trips. Then they would grant
trucking companies operating authority to achieve that number. Applications
for operating authority would be approved based on criteria like length of
service in the port, fleet age, and safety record. The result: a pay
increase for the drivers and less pollution for the community.
The other trucking related bill that we are sponsoring is
AB 1048 by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, (D) Woodland Hills. The measure
would close several loopholes in a trucking safety law that we sponsored
several years ago. The previous bill, SB 871 by then Senator John Burton,
required a motor carrier to have complete responsibility for safety of
operations, including for its long term owner-operators. Prior to that,
owner-operators, including those that worked for the same company for years,
were given complete responsibility to police themselves. This self policing
included drug and alcohol testing. It was a joke.
Apparently, several crafty trucking companies throughout the
state took advantage of some loose language in SB 871 to escape its
clutches. AB 1048 will tighten that language and ensure that the original
intent of the Burton bill is followed.
Our final sponsored bill is in recognition of our two newly
affiliated rail unions.
AB 962 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez would enact various rail safety
rules designed to protect our members and the public. There have been
several recent derailments in Southern California that resulted in
significant injuries and loss of life. Despite that fact, the Railroads
claim that we are preempted by federal law from basically enacting even the
most minimal of safety laws to prevent further derailments. We of course
disagree and while they hide behind their preemption argument we will be
moving forward to protect our newest members.
The Good
. . .
Even though the Administration may be openly hostile to organized labor,
unions are moving forward with legislation to protect working families.
Here is a sampling of what folks are working on.
AB 89 by Assembly Member Jerome
Horton, (D) Inglewood, would require the disclosure and annual reporting of
employer names whose workers receive public assistance for health coverage.
When businesses fail to provide their workers with good wages and health
care benefits, those workers are forced on public assistance. The end
result: taxpayers pay the price for workers who end up relying on public
health and financial assistance programs. It’s been estimated that our
favorite company—Wal-Mart—has received $100 million in California taxpayer
subsidies to provide its employees and their dependents health coverage.
The UFCW is cosponsoring a bill with the State Federation of Labor to
require large and profitable corporations to repay this money to the state.
Should be interesting.
AB 48 by Assembly Member Sally
Lieber, (D) Palo Alto, would increase our minimum wage from $6.75 to $7.75
over two years, and then index it to the cost of living. California
currently pays the lowest minimum wage on the West Coast.
AB 524 by Assembly Member Wilma
Chan, (D) Oakland, would require state contractors to report back to the
state (1) the number of workers they hire outside the U.S. and (2)
information about any subcontracted work that is performed. We are bleeding
good jobs to overseas low-wage companies. We shouldn’t make the state a
partner in this trend. AB 524 raises the issue of whether our tax dollars
should be used to eliminate good California jobs. Building on this theme,
AB 1654 by Assembly Member Hector de la Torre, (D) South Gate, would
grant a bid preference for state contractors who hire Californians to do the
work.
AB 875 by Assembly Member Paul
Koretz, (D) West Hollywood, would require the Labor Agency and Franchise Tax
Boards to develop protocols where certain labor law violations would trigger
a tax audit of the employer. Certain tax violations would similarly trigger
a labor law audit. This is in recognition that scofflaw employers don’t
stop with breaking wage and hour laws. They steal millions of dollars from
their employees and our state treasury by cheating on payroll, unemployment,
workers’ comp, and business taxes.
AB 391, also by Assembly Member
Koretz, would address the situation that arose in last year’s grocery strike
when the locked out workers were denied unemployment insurance benefits.
The denial of benefits was a crucial blow to the UFCW in that dispute. This
bill would eliminate that problem for future similar situations by declaring
that locked out workers are entitled to unemployment benefits.
The Bad .
. .
Not surprisingly, there have been many bills introduced to undo the gains
that organized labor has achieved over the years. Here is a sampling of
those.
ACAX1 1 by Assembly Member Keith Richman, (R) Los Angeles, would
prohibit public employers from providing defined benefit retirement plans
and mandates the use of risky defined contribution plans, like 401k plans.
This bill would eliminate the guarantee of an adequate pension for police
officers, firefighters, and teachers, many of whom do not receive Social
Security. ACA
5, also by Assembly Member Richman, would require that on and after July
1, 2007, any person hired as a new employee by a public agency may enroll
only in a defined contribution plan of a public pension or retirement
system, and is prohibited from enrolling in a defined benefit plan. Simply
put, Richman wants to break the public employee unions.
AB 553 by Assembly Member Jay LaSuer, (R) San Diego,
AB 640 by Assembly Member Van Tran, (R) Garden Grove, and
AB 904 by Assembly Member Guy Houston, (R) Livermore, would enact
various changes to alternative work week rules that would result in the
elimination of daily overtime pay for workers all over the state.
AB 571 by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine, (D) Van Nuys, would eliminate
the right to go to court for traffic infractions. Instead, the only due
process for drivers who get tickets would be a DMV administrative hearing.
We have a lot of history with that kangaroo court and are, therefore,
vigorously opposing this bill. Given the fact that commercial drivers can
no longer go to traffic school, we have to preserve what few rights they
have left. Hopefully the author will drop the bill. Additionally, there
are also many bills that raise traffic fines in various ways. We will
continue to oppose those bills as these fines have gotten way out of
hand.
The Ugly
. . . Really Ugly
Although there’s lots of competition, we have to award Assembly Member Lynn
Daucher, (R) Fullerton, with the “Scrooge Award” for most mean-spirited bill
of the year. Ms. Daucher’s
AB 227 would permanently take away temporary disability and medical
benefits from injured workers who leave the state for more than two weeks at
a time without the employer’s permission. So if you are ever injured on the
job and are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, you are then
indentured for life to your employer who is in control of your basic right
to travel. I guess Ms. Daucher is unfamiliar with even the most fundamental
of constitutional rights.
Workers’
Compensation
Nearly 40 workers’ compensation bills have been introduced
this legislative session. Several of them are “spot” bills – bills which
make no substantive change, but which hold a spot for ideas Legislators and
bill sponsors come up with later in the Legislative session. Many of the
bills unfortunately are nothing more than mean-spirited attempts to further
reduce the meager benefits to which injured workers are now entitled, such
as the Daucher bill discussed above and
AB 613 by Assembly Member Dennis Mountjoy, (R) Monrovia, which makes it
impossible for workers who are reinjured to collect benefits.
Some of the bills are sponsored by middlemen in the system
who want to repeal provisions from the last two years of reforms to ensure
that they can make more money than is currently allowed the system. These
bills tend to have a negative impact on injured workers because they make
costs go up. Any rise in workers’ compensation costs, regardless of the
cause, is invariably blamed on injured workers and is generally responded to
with an attack on benefits.
Most of the current action relating to workers’ compensation
has to do with the promulgation of regulations which implement statutory
changes from the last two years of reforms. Regulations pertaining to
Medical Provider Networks, Independent Medical Review, and Permanent
Disability have already been promulgated. Regulations pertaining to the
Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit and Permanent Medical Treatment
Guidelines are still in the works.
The worst of these regulations by far are the Permanent
Disability regulations, which our estimates show, will slash injured workers
benefits by 50%. These regulations were adopted on an emergency basis, over
the strenuous objections of the Teamsters and other labor unions.
As a result of this and other objectionable actions on the
part of the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’
Compensation, organized labor submitted a truckload of opposition letters to
the Senate regarding the confirmation of the appointment of the
Administrative Director. As a result, the Senate pulled the confirmation
hearing, and has yet to reschedule. The Administrative Director’s
appointment period expires in early May.
Governor
Drops “California Performance Review” like Hot Potato
Remember the “Governator’s” promise that he was not
just going to “reform” state government; he was going to “blow up the
boxes.” His plan, the so-called “California Performance Review” (CPR) was
released last summer as a kind of trial balloon. Ultimately, he chose to try
to eliminate 88 Boards and Commissions—mostly consumer, environmental, and
labor oriented Boards that business interests didn’t like. The functions
of many of these boards and commissions would be taken over by political
appointees of the Governor. Critics howled, claiming—accurately—that the
CPR would have had the effect of severely limiting if not abolishing the
public access and accountability afforded under the current system. Many of
these boards and commissions, such as the Industrial Welfare Commission, the
Integrated Waste Management Board and the Commission on Health and Safety
and Workers’ Compensation directly impact the work that the Teamsters and
other labor unions do. The hearings on the CPR overflowed with groups
testifying that it was a bogus plan to repay political supporters of the
Governor.
An additional recommendation within the CPR was to
consolidate the functions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the Occupational Safety and Health
Act Board into an “uber-board.” This super board would have been comprised
of nine judges, appointed at-will, by the Governor. The end result of that
proposal would have been that those judges would have made decisions based
on their hope to keep their appointments, rather than their reliance on the
law.
We had a major victory when the Governor decided to withdraw
his proposal in February. While the Governor’s spokespeople said the
withdrawal was based on a “deal” in the works between the Governor and the
Legislature, the truth is that a report about to be released by the watchdog
Little Hoover Commission was going to rip apart the CPR and would be highly
embarrassing to the Governor. Regardless of the reasoning behind the
withdrawal, the 88 boards and commissions were saved, as was the
independence of the three appeals boards.
Score: Girlie Men 1, Governator 0
Court
Rebukes Governor on Nurse Staffing Ratios
During the Davis administration, the California Nurses Association sponsored
and we supported, landmark legislation to establish appropriate ratios of
nurses to patients in hospitals. It was a statute whose passage was long
overdue and is good not only for nurses but for their patients.
Late last year, at the behest of the Governor’s campaign contributors in the
health care industry, he attempted to lower the ratios through an “emergency
regulation.” The Nurses sued and began to dog the Governor at each of his
fundraising events to protest. At a conference on “Women’s Rights”, he
yelled at nurses holding protest signs in the back of the room that they
were only upset because he was always “kicking their butts”. The protests
continued.
In early March, in a stunning rebuke of the Governor, a
Superior Court Judge in Sacramento declared the Governor’s actions illegal.
The Governor vowed to appeal.
Score: Girlie Men 2, Governator 0
The
Budget
The budget fight will not be pretty this year, as the
state is $10 billion dollars in the hole, which the Governor continues to
try to fill on the backs of the poor and the middle-class. Major cuts to
local and state services will exacerbate budgetary and service problems
already faced by Californians. The good news is that the Governor’s budget
proposal is not the final budget. The Governor will release a May Revise,
in May, and then the real negotiations with the Legislature begin. We can
be confident that although the final product won’t be pretty, it will be
much better for California’s citizens than the Governor’s original
proposal. The Governor is adamant that he will not consider a tax increase
in order to balance the budget. This is bad news for the cities and
counties and for maintaining basic government services.
In the transportation area, the Governor's Budget proposes
total expenditures of $10.5 billion in 2005-06 for roads, highways, mass
transit and intercity rail, vehicle licensing and registration, and highway
law enforcement. That may sound like a lot of money, but the unfortunate
fact is that the Governor’s budget proposes—once again—to suspend
Proposition 42’s “guarantee” of transportation funding. Under Proposition
42, the Legislature can, by a 2/3 vote, suspend the fixed spending
amount—which it has done every year since Proposition 42 passed in 2002.
The only silver lining is that, as part of the Governor’s budget control
proposals, he pledges to support a new initiative to prohibit the suspension
after 2006-07. In other words, if we agree to suspend Proposition 42 for
two more years the Governor will support a law to stop him and the
Legislature from suspending it. Never mind that the easier solution would
be for the Governor and the Legislature to stop robbing transportation funds
in order to balance the budget.
