The Truth Behind the Chamber's So-Called 'Job Killer' List
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Caitlin Vega
California Labor Federation
For years, the California Chamber of Commerce has put out a list of so-called “job killers.” It’s never been clear to us what qualifies a bill as a job-killer. Last year, our sponsored bill to keep your boss from using your personal credit report to deny you a promotion was on that so-called "job killer" list. Seriously, protecting your privacy kills jobs? Businesses are fleeing the state because…they can’t review their employees’ credit reports? That seems a bit far-fetched…
They also named AB 350 (Solorio) a "job killer." That bill simply extended existing worker retention provisions to building services workers. That means that when a contract for building services changes hands, the workers who have been doing the job have 60 days to persuade the new contractor that they should be retained. How does keeping people in their jobs kill jobs? It simply makes no sense.
The job-killer list reflects the right-wing belief that the only way to create jobs and build our economy is a race to the bottom. That’s clear from the Chamber’s latest list: so-called “job creators.” That is really just the same Big Business wish list they’ve been pushing for decades. According to the Chamber, this is how you create jobs:
- Get rid of the 8 hour day (SB 1114-Dutton)
- Take away meal breaks from truck drivers (AB 2176-Logue and SB 1362-La Malfa)
- Make it harder for workers to get justice when their rights are violated (AB 2043-Wagner and SB 1374-Harman)
- Delay implementation of regulations to protect worker health and safety (AB 1982-Wagner and SB 1099-Wright)
- Keep local governments from even considering the use of project labor agreements (AB 1804-Valadao)
Apparently, according to the Chamber, the problem for the California economy is that working people are too successful. They are earning too much money, taking too many breaks, and working in sites that are so safe no further protections are needed. That may be true for the Chamber's CEO cronies, but that certainly isn't the casee in my neighborhood lately. Here, we have families barely hanging on, and as jobless benefits run out, home foreclosures continue to plague our community.
The reality is that California working families have been pushed to the breaking point. Wages have stagnated for decades. City employees in places like Stockton have all taken wage cuts of 15-30 percent over the last few years. Construction workers face sky-high unemployment due to the collapse of the housing market and the lingering recession. In this bleak economy, workers are particularly vulnerable to pressure to work off the clock, without breaks, and in dangerous conditions. Most people will do just about anything to keep a job -- which makes it even more important to protect basic workers rights.
While corporations sit on record profits, we have lost the dream of home ownership for a generation. We have made higher education unaffordable and cut k-12 to the bone. We continue to subsidize Enterprise Zone tax credits for low-road employers paying poverty wages while letting our roads and bridges crumble. Shoot, we even give tax credits to companies to move jobs to other states and other countries while skilled workers here stand in the unemployment lines.
It is this California that needs a real jobs plan, not just a list of takeaways. So that’s what we have offered. We have a different vision of California. Rather than destroy the middle class in a race to the bottom, let’s rebuild and broaden our middle class and create good jobs for all Californians.
That’s why our jobs plan is based on investing in California’s future. Get bond funds out and get shovels in the ground. Let’s put construction workers back to work rebuilding this state so that our infrastructure helps attract businesses. Let’s use project labor agreements so taxpayer funds are protected and workers make a decent wage. Fair wages puts money in workers’ pockets, which is actually the best way to stimulate the economy. Once he or she can take the family out to dinner or buy a birthday present for a child, that restaurant or store can afford to hire another person, and the multiplier effect starts to breathe life into our economy.
Let’s stop subsidizing low-wage jobs and paying companies to eliminate jobs or move them overseas. Those corporations should refund the taxpayers, and we should put that money right into keeping jobs here. We can train the workers of tomorrow, partner with universities, create manufacturing hubs and develop low-interest loan funds. We have neglected our manufacturing capacity and lost those good jobs, but it is not too late to reverse that trend.
To invest in California’s future, we need adequate revenue to revive our economy. With the greatest level of income inequality on record, it makes policy sense to tax the millionaires to revive our economy and rebuild our middle class.
We agree with the Chamber on one thing: Job creation is top of the list. But while their ideas for job creation take us backwards and exacerbate inequality, ours invest in the future and rebuild the middle class. Hopefully that’s a concept that will someday make their list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Caitlin Vega is a Legislative Advocate for the California Labor Federation, representing 2.1 million union members in manufacturing, retail, construction, hospitality, public sector, health care, entertainment and other industries. This article originally appeared on the Labor Federation blog Labor's Edge.
- megan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
Ms. Vega,
I take particular issue with you labeling Enterprise Zones as harming those in need. In Calexico, CA we have almost 30% unemployment. We have the lowest per-capita income in Imperial County. In Calexico and Imperial County, we compete with Arizona and Mexico for businesses to locate here. The Enterprise Zone program gives us a key edge to attract new business to Calexico, and in turn hire people off of the unemployment roles and from key programs like Cal-Works. In addition, the Enterprise Zone program helps small businesses (typically minority owned) retain their employees, purchase new equipment, and in some cases even stay in business. I invite you, or anyone else from the CLF, to visit Calexico and Imperial County. Without an Enterprise Zone the jobs will be located in areas of less need in California, or in Arizona or Mexico.
Daniel Fitzgerald
Manager, CCEZ
You said: "Last year, our sponsored bill to keep your boss from using your personal credit report to deny you a promotion was on that so-called "job killer" list. Seriously, protecting your privacy kills jobs?"
Before Chief Justice retired, Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Industrial Relation(DIR) former Director John C. Duncan pressured the Court to overrule the lower Court's unanimous decisions regarding cost-of-living-adjustment issue (labor 4659 (c))for those that are qualified and was rated 70%-100% permenent disable. When the case was brought to WC Court the Judge ruled in favor of the seriously injured employee that was rated 100%PD. DIR disputed the courts ruling and the case ascended before the WCAB; then to the Superior Court; then to 6th District Court of Appeal. The issue was unanimously decided in favor of the employees until State Supreme Court "change the law" under the courts discretion to grant the defendant (DIR) a writ of review. The State Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye who was appointed by Former (R) Gov Arnold Schwarzennegger after the ORAL argument on this case (Baker v WCAB, XS)had provided their own interpretation of the Legislative intent on Labor 4659(c)--COLA that ultimately favored the Employers; but actually favored the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Chamber of Commerce and DIR said (paraphrase)that if the court does not overrule the decision of the 6th DCA, it will cause the workers compensation insurance premium rates of employers in the State of California.
Facts: 70%-100%PD rates rarely occurs. (less than 10%)
COLA was suppose to protect the most injured workers benefits from the ravages of rising inflation. Instead the court's translation of the law did just the opposite. It remove that protection (IN PART ONLY)that hurt injured employees. It failed to protect the injured workers PD benefits in the interim while insurance determines the extent of the seriously injured workes permanent disability. That may course may take as early as the date of injury to years or decades in some instance as with the case in Baker v WCAB, XS. The injured worker is at the Mercy of the insurance carrier. This allows the insurance to effectively utilize the delay tactics that often injured workers experience.
Workers Compensation was suppose to be delivered in a timely manner, but Insurances Carrier has often delay delivery because the longer the hold the benefits of injured workers collectively, the more they can make money from it. Although there is a penalty statute for delaying benefit, the statute does not have mouch of a "teeth" that prevents them from delaying. Often times the injured worker takes the hit.
The SB899 reform has hurt the most seriously injured at several stages. Benefits were reduced by 50 to 70%. For those at the higher wage bracket the benefits does not even cover 50& of the loss of wages such as injred/plaintiff (XS) in this case. Even after the plaintiff reached P&S status and was rated PD, under the COLA decision of the Supreme Court; the plaintiffs benefit was not protected COLA while the case has been litigated for several years, eight years to be exact. Again, the injured worker was at the mercy of a broken system.
Furthermore, while there is a civil rights issue, such as a "breach of privacy", the injured person has no other recourse in the workers compensation system. One would think that civil rights law is something SO fundamental for ALL Attorneys regardless which area a lawyer is in practice; that they should be able to identify it whenever it occurs particularly if it affects the interest of the client; he/she represents. That is not the case in the Baker v WCAB. PRIVACY is a fundamental rights under our Constitution.
The dilemma is that it is the defendant DIR a state Agency, that violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff and failed to adhere to the second layer (by a "court-order")of protection designed to hide the identity of the plaintiff under the cicumstances that XS was a VICTIM OF CRIME, that occured in a public elementary school ground that schooled children grades K-5 in the course of work. XS injuries at work left him permently disabled and was found to be 100% PD. The court-order protection was designated to protect the identity, safety and medical privacy of plaintiff XS.
Instead, the defendant willfully utilized the medical information and re-disclosed it without XS permission or written authorization before disclosing XS's HIV & Hep B status to the public. The defense can ARGUE that it was necessary to bring forth ALL the fact about the case eventhough the details of the medical information is irrelevant to the issue in the case, and defense attorney can cetainly say that was done in a manner that preserved and protected the natural IDENTITY of XS (aka XYZZX or XYZZXSJ02.)
That argument may have stick until the DEFENDANT attorneys BREACH the GIVEN name of XYZZXSJ02 when they (defendant attorneys) filed their petition for review JUDICIAL NOTICE at the State Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court Clerk office then posted the document without properly redacting the name and personal identifiable information of the plaintiff. That was a violation of plaintiff XYZZXSJO2's constitutional rights to privacy, which was also protected by Court-Order.
The plaintiff XS alleged that the defendant did this to harrass and intimidate and to; sensationalize and draw attention of the MEDIA, legal defense; insurances, and employer community. The defendant strategy worked. Media got hold of the information and capitalized on the plaintiffs HIV & HEP B status that draw the attention of the WC industry and the communities of insurance industry and Attorneys throught the nation. The information was dissiminated in the internet and the new spread so rapidly.
The issue in the Baker v WCAB (formerly aka Duncan v WCAB, Duncan, SIF v WCAB XYZZXSJ02) was the dispute in the commencement and calculation of COLA. PERIOD. The details of the medical information was not required for disclosure. If re-disclosure was legally necessary to litigate the issue of COLA, then proper legal authorization should have been obtained from the plaintiff XYZZX. This was not done. The medical release form given to WORKERS COMP Claims Adjuster that the plaintiff authorized and signed was limited in TIME and USEAGE. The re-disclosure therefore was a violation.
The issue in this case was whether XS was entitled to COLA commencing in the first January 1st following the date of injury pursuant to labor code 4659 (c). Period.
The Private information was breached at the California Judicial Branch world-wide-web site for the public to review and examine. XYZZX notified attorney and Atty Art Johnson wrote a letter to the Supreme Court in July 2011 before the Supreme Court made their decision. The Court removed the Judicial Notice document filed by the defendant entirely off the web-site but proceeded to make a final decision on the Baker v WCAB, XS case; without considering the plaintiff's rights has been VIOLATED;under the State & Federal constitution and under the Court-Order issued by WCAL Judge Oliver C. Boyers's.
The BREACH OF PRIVACY incident caused by the Defendant and his attorneys in this case NOT ONLY created legal problems for the Department of Industrial Relations; Division of Workers Compensation; and the WCAB, they also IMPLICATED the Justice Department. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. The Justice Department must adhere to the rule of law UNDER THE CANON LAW.
1. Justice department should have held a hearing with the LAWYERS and JUDGE and any other participants involved in the BREACH.
2. Soon after the letter from the XYZZX's Attorney to the Supreme Court Justice of the BREACH OF PRIVACY the California Supreme Court Jusitices should have reported the incident to the appropriate authorities (Judicial Committee; Legislature; etc.) if they wanted to do what the public consider RIGHT. This should have brought more attention that WE should do more to protect the PRIVACY RIGHTS and examine the current system and that the judicial system and other government agencies are not exempted or immune to privacy breach problems. Instead the government including the State Justice System has been SILENT on this issue to the plaintiff.
This is a serious public issue and IS a public interest that needs attention. The individual government official and staffs responsible for the BREACH should be held accountable to the SAME LAWS. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW is not a casual cliche'.
Caitlin,
I want to comment on PLAs. When a project sponsor, say for an appartment development, acquires his land and financing, designs a project and goes through the permitting process and CEQA, there's often no margin left for profit if PLAs are mandated. Projects die every day because of the demand for PLAs and good paying jobs are lost as a result.
Unions use CEQA lawsuits to stop perfectly good projects from going ahead because the project sponsor has not agreed to a PLA. This is nothing more than blackmail and its very shortsighted. The construction trades are eating their own tails when they pull stuff like this.
When I hear union representatives complain about 25% unemployment in the trades I ask them what they are trying to do to move projects along and they look at me like I have 2 heads. If they got out of the way, there'd be a lot more people swinging hammers right now because a lot more projects would pencil out.
Under the CANON RULE applicable to Justice Department and the members of American Bar Association :
Rule 3-100. Confidential Information of a Client
(A) A member shall not reveal information protected from disclosure by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) without the informed consent of the client, or as provided in paragraph (B) of this rule.
(B) A member may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the member reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the member reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.
(C) Before revealing confidential information to prevent a criminal act as provided in paragraph (B), a member shall, if reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) make a good faith effort to persuade the client: (i) not to commit or to continue the criminal act or (ii) to pursue a course of conduct that will prevent the threatened death or substantial bodily harm; or do both (i) and (ii); and
(2) inform the client, at an appropriate time, of the member’s ability or decision to reveal information as provided in paragraph (B).
(D) In revealing confidential information as provided in paragraph (B), the member’s disclosure must be no more than is necessary to prevent the criminal act, given the information known to the member at the time of the disclosure.
(E) A member who does not reveal information permitted by paragraph (B) does not violate this rule.