By Howard Fine
It’s a yearly tradition in Sacramento,legislators training their crosshairs on businesses. And several recently introduced bills would place big financial or regulatory burdens on employers.
Topping the list is AB 1835, by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, which would raise the state’s minimum wage to $7.75 an hour from the current $6.75 an hour. From there, the bill permanently would index minimum wage to inflation.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in January said he would support an increase in the minimum wage, which now stands at $6.75 an hour. Some business groups reluctantly have agreed to remain neutral on the issue. But both Schwarzenegger and the businesses are opposed to indexing the minimum wage.
Restaurateurs, grocers, hotel operators and other employers who pay minimum wages argue that it could force wage hikes on businesses even when the economy is in a slump.
Hanging in the wings is a labor-backed initiative effort that could qualify for the November ballot. It would raise the minimum wage by $2 an hour and permanently index it to inflation.
Another bill catching the eye of businesses is SB 1414, by Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco. Dubbed the “Wal-Mart bill,” after a similar proposal in Maryland, it would require all businesses with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of their payrolls on healthcare benefits, or pay a fee into a fund that would be used to supplement Medi-Cal payments.
Besides Wal-Mart Stores Inc., nearly every major grocery store chain in the state would be hit. So would hospital chains and healthcare plans, oil companies, defense contractors and a host of other industries. Three years ago, the Legislature approved a more far-reaching law requiring all employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance or pay into a state-funded program.
Business groups put that law to a referendum in 2004. It was overturned by the voters.
Dozens of other bills, including several that would impose higher penalties on polluters, also have been introduced. Among them: SB 1205, by state Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Montebello, which would increase penalties for most air pollution violations from $1,000 to $10,000, with some penalties going as high as $100,000 per day for “serious and chronic violators.”
In past years, bills like these have either died in the Legislature or been vetoed by the governor. But in an election year where Schwarzenegger is tacking to the left, there is concern among business groups that some of these bills may slip through.
Port Pollution
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is developing a trio of regulations that would reduce emissions at the ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles under its Clean Port Initiative.
The first of these would require the ports and related facilities to inventory all their emissions and then develop health risk assessments. Another proposal would require all port-related facilities to use the cleanest available equipment when they expand their operations.
The third would be similar to the second, except it would only focus on those processes that generate toxic air emissions.
Each of the ports has developed its own “green” policies of capping diesel emissions, including setting up electrical ship-to-shore connections and replacing diesel vehicles with cleaner burning ones. But the AQMD measures would go further and require sweeping changes inside terminal operations.
These proposed regulations will be the subject of workshops this summer and could be up for a public hearing before the agency’s board at its Diamond Bar headquarters later this year.
Other Regs
Another AQMD regulation targeting industrial boilers will be heard in May. The rule would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from new boilers at oil refineries, manufacturing plants and major commercial buildings.
The regulation, Rule 1146.2, applies to owners and operators of large water heaters and small boilers with a rating of less than 2 million British thermal units per hour. The units also are found in apartment buildings.
Court Watch
The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the thorny issue of employee rest breaks and meal times. Last year, the Schwarzenegger administration proposed rolling back regulations proscribing rest breaks and meal times for hourly workers in favor of a more flexible approach.
After an outcry from labor, the administration quietly withdrew its proposal earlier this year.
The issue isn’t over.
Instead, it’s moved to the question of penalties. At issue is whether there should be a one-year or three-year statute of limitations.
This difference in interpretation could translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay in the most egregious and long-running violations, said Dean Fryer, spokesman for the state Department of Industrial Relations, which through the office of the Labor Commissioner enforces the meal and rest break regulations.
Fine is a staff writer with the Los Angeles Business Journal.
