Tag Archives: Legislature

More Vetoes: AB 537, AB 1707, and AB 1710 (UPDATE: SB 180 and SB 650 too)

Posted on by

AB 537:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 537 without my signature.

This bill, along with two others I am returning without my signature, would significantly
expand California’s workplace leave laws. While some expansion of existing law may
have merit, these laws in combination are too expansive and also fail to recognize the
need for reforms to current law.

California has the strongest employment leave and workplace protection laws in the
country. While these laws have been enacted with the best of intentions, they have also
caused much confusion for employers and employees. Unfortunately, many California-
only standards in areas such as family leave, overtime, and meal and rest periods have
been developed haphazardly and have resulted in needless litigation that has created a
perception that California is not friendly to business.

Instead of expanding the confusing network of laws that presently exist, employers and
employees should be working together to eliminate confusion and create a system of
workplace laws that protects workers, provides reasonable leave requirements, and offers
both employers and employees flexibility to meet their respective needs.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

AB 1707:

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1707 without my signature.

This bill attempts to clarify existing law relative to employees’ access to personnel
records kept by their employer. While I support the intent of this measure, especially as
it relates to non-English speakers and others that may need help in understanding the
contents of their personnel records, this bill is too broad and exposes employers to unfair
and unnecessary liabilities. I encourage the proponents of this bill to work with the Labor
Commissioner to adopt regulations that help ensure that all employees can appropriately
avail themselves of their rights under current law.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

and AB 1710:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1710 without my signature.

Although I support the intent of this bill to clarify the manner in which temporary service
employers must pay wages, I cannot support the provision of this bill which expands
liability regarding workers’ compensation coverage.

As written, this bill imposes joint and severe liability relative for workers’ compensation
coverage on employers that contract with staffing agencies. This would be a significant
departure from the exclusive remedy of current law, which provides that an injured
worker cannot sue their employer in civil court. Exclusive remedy is one of the most
fundamental principles of the California workers’ compensation system. I cannot support
a measure that deviates from this principle.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

With a little over three hours left, the Governor has six bills left to act on.

UPDATE: The Governor vetoed SB 180 and SB 650 in his last set of bills.

SB 180:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 180 without my signature.

Since I became Governor, I have made strengthening workplace protections for
agricultural workers one of my top priorities.  I have added labor law enforcement
positions, reformed farmworker housing laws, and worked to adopt the first regulations in
the nation that ensure agricultural workers have appropriate access to shade.  These added
protections are being implemented under existing law without the changes proposed by
this bill to the historic Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA).  The changes this bill
would make to the ALRA are unnecessary to continue our forward progress in ensuring a
better working environment for agricultural workers.

By setting in place a “card-check” organizing process, SB 180 significantly changes the
protections afforded to all of California’s agricultural workers under the ALRA.   This
“card-check” process fundamentally alters an employee’s right to a secret ballot election
that currently affords them the opportunity to cast a ballot privately without fear of
coercion or manipulation by any interested parties.  This bill also limits the opportunity
for employees to hear and consider other viewpoints on unionization.

For these reasons, I am returning SB 180 without my signature.  However, I am directing
my Labor and Workforce Development Agency to work with the proponents of this bill
to ensure that all labor laws and regulations are being vigorously enforced, and to make it
absolutely clear to all concerned that my veto is premised on an expectation that
agricultural workers receive the full protections of the law.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

SB 650:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 650 without my signature.

This bill is essentially identical to SB 180, which I also vetoed.  The concerns I expressed
in vetoing that bill apply to SB 650 as well, regardless of the insertion of a sunset clause
in this measure.

For the reasons stated in my veto of SB 180, I am returning this bill without my
signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

The Hour is nearing

Posted on by

The Sacramento Bee wraps some of the Governor’s activity here, and the AP does the same, here.

The governor vetoed bills to expand employee leave. SB 727 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would have expanded the state’s family leave program to cover employees who have to care for grandparents, grandchildren, siblings or in-laws. Senate Bill 549 by Corbett would have specified that employees have a right to four days of unpaid bereavement leave.

Schwarzenegger wrote that the state’s workplace laws have already become too confusing.

I’m still waiting for the Governor to take action on a handful of bills before I complete my final report on this session.  He has until midnight.  The podcast should cover everything, and I will also post a written report.

SB 836 Vetoed

Posted on by

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 836 without my signature.

California has the strongest workplace laws against discrimination and harassment in the
country.  These laws provide workers necessary protections from unfair retaliation,
discipline, and termination for matters unrelated to job performance.

Although I support these laws, expanding workplace protections to include something as
ambiguous as “familial status” is not appropriate.  This bill will not only result in endless
litigation to try and define what discrimination on the basis of “familial status” means, it
will also unnecessarily restrict employers’ ability to make personnel decisions.

For these reasons, I am returning SB 836 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

AB 1043 Vetoed

Posted on by

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1043 without my signature.

This bill appears to create a solution in search of a problem.  California law currently
ensures that employees can not be subjected to unconscionable contract provisions that
would force them to forego the protections of California law or litigate their claims in an
inappropriate out-of-state forum.  Moreover, this bill creates unnecessary and unhelpful
uncertainties for the employers and employees concerning issues of federal preemption.
Lastly, I strongly support the right of parties to freely contract for the terms of their
employment relationship.  This bill fundamentally conflicts with that policy.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

SB 549 Vetoed.

Posted on by

More to come.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 549 without my signature.

This bill, along with two others I am returning without my signature, would significantly
expand California’s workplace leave laws.  While some expansion of existing law may
have merit, these laws in combination are too expansive and also fail to recognize the
need for reforms to current law.

California has the strongest employment leave and workplace protection laws in the
country.  While these laws have been enacted with the best of intentions, they have also
caused much confusion for employers and employees.  Unfortunately, many California-
only standards in areas such as family leave, overtime, and meal and rest periods have
been developed haphazardly and have resulted in needless litigation that has created a
perception that California is not friendly to business.

Instead of expanding the confusing network of laws that presently exist, employers and
employees should be working together to eliminate confusion and create a system of
workplace laws that protects workers, provides reasonable leave requirements, and offers
both employers and employees flexibility to meet their respective needs.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

SB 622 Vetoed

Posted on by

More to come….

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 622 without my signature.

Although this bill is intended to promote the worthy goal of ensuring employees are not
intentionally misclassified as independent contractors, thus deterring employers from
conduct which may give them unfair economic advantages against their competitors, this
bill also creates new mechanisms and incentives for litigation where sufficient remedies
already exist. In creating new and redundant exposure to litigation and sanctions, this bill
may cause businesses to avoid use of the independent contractor model even where it
may be appropriately utilized. This will ultimately contribute to a negative perception of
California as an inhospitable business climate.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

UPDATE: I will follow up with Senator Padilla’s office to see if they intend to attempt a veto override (waste of time) or if they will introduce a new measure next year.  Remember: last year’s bill didn’t even pass the committee.

California Chamber of Commerce's Veto Wishlist

Posted on by

It includes SB 622. None of the others that I am tracking are listed.

Based on the Legislative Calendar, I believe the Governor has until October 14 to veto or sign the bills that were presented at the end of the session (as opposed to the 12-day rule that applies to earlier bills). I’m not 100% how or if the extraordinary sessions (there are technically 2) affect that. Leave a comment if you know for sure.
None of the listed supporters have much on this bill up on the ‘tubes. If you work for a group supporting a bill I’m tracking, please send me your materials.

Employment Issues Took a Back Seat This Session.

Posted on by

Various papers state-wide (Sac Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union-Tribune, OC Register) have given their postmortems on this Legislative session. None of them mention any of the many employment-related bills, and probably for good reason. With the budget impasse and the prospect of a special session to cover hot-button issues like health care and water resources, compounded with a divided government unlikely to enact many controversial bills touching on employment, this is not an unlikely result.

Nevertheless, I think it’s worth keeping an eye on some of the subtle changes to the usual suspects that would be in store for 2008 or 2009 (depending on when they get signed, if they get signed), and I’ve tried to do that here. Also, there are some interesting trend indicators, especially involving independent contractors.

Of course, any employer-based state-mandated health care system will put everything else on the back burner for now. Until we know the contours of a plan that can pass, I’ll keep focusing on these issues.

I am in the process of gathering comments from the various interests groups, bill sponsors, and the governor’s office regarding some of these bills. Stay tuned.

SB 836 To Governor

Posted on by

SB 836, adding “familial status” as a protected class under the Unruh Act and the FEHA. Familial status is defined as:

one or more individuals under 18 years of age who reside with a parent, another person with care and legal custody of that individual, a person who has been given care and custody of that individual by a state or local governmental agency that is responsible for the welfare of children, or the designee of that parent or other person with legal custody of any individual under 18 years of age by written consent of the parent or designated custodian.

I’ll try and find out what this bill’s chances are.

SB 622 Amended To Drop Private Right of Action.

Posted on by

SB 622, which I felt would have been the one potentially paradigm-shifting piece of employment law legislation this session, has been significantly amended. The new version of the bill drops the private right of action for independent contractor misclassification.

A spokesperson for the bill’s sponsor, Senator Padilla (D-San Fernando), told SCEL this afternoon that the amendment was made in “an attempt to work with the opposition,” for whom the private right of action was a huge concern. Senator Padilla’s office was hopeful that, with these amendments, the bill would make it through the Legislature, but felt that it was still “highly unlikely” that the Governor would sign the bill, even as amended.

The bill had passed the Senate 23-15 prior to the recent amendments.

Last year, a similar bill, A.B. 2186 (Torrico), was introduced stating only that it would be “the intent of the Legislature to prohibit deliberate misclassification of employees as independent contractors and to”penalize intentional misclassification.” No specifics or enforcement mechanisms were ever set out.

That bill died in committee after the author gutted it. This year, a bill on this topic appears to be headed to the Governor’s desk. Take note of this trend, and consider accordingly when dealing with issues of independent contractor classification.

Two More Employment Bills On Their Way To Governor

Posted on by

A.B. 1043, which would make void any choice of law provision in an employment-related dispute other than California void. It would also make a non-California forum clause void. This bill is, at least in part, a reaction to Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138. Cal.App.4th 1286, which permitted a New York choice of law clause in an employment contract.

S.B. 549 adds to the right to inquire about, request, and take time off for bereavement leave.

Both of these bills apparently received party-line votes, and did receive support from labor, and opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups.

I will seek comment from the Governor’s office after they are formally sent to him.