While labor advocates and lawyers have loudly called upon Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign legislation hiking benefit payouts to injured workers, a state agency quietly has been laying the groundwork for a smaller increase in permanent disability payouts.
The state Division of Workers’ Compensation made public earlier this month that it’s preparing a regulation that would hike permanent disability benefits about 10% starting next spring, according to spokeswoman Susan Gard.
The move follows a study that the division conducted earlier this year that found permanent disability payouts fell 40% after the 2004 reforms enacted by Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
“The study found that the gap between benefits paid out and future wages lost had grown because the benefits are lower. This increase will help close that gap,” Gard said.
So far, employer groups have been muted in their objections, preferring this slight increase to a more drastic one that recently reached Schwarzenegger’s desk.
Senate Bill 936, authored by Senate President Don Perata, D-Oakland, essentially would have doubled permanent disability benefit payouts over three years. Schwarzenegger vetoed it earlier this month (see item below).
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association of Sacramento said it is willing to discuss changes in benefit levels, though it does have a problem with the methodology used to calculate future wages lost due to injury.
But unions and lawyers have said the proposed increase is way too small. They are pushing for the division to hike benefit payouts up to 50%.
The manufacturer association said whatever the final proposal, it will “definitely result in increased cost to the employer.”
How much that increase will be will depend on how insurance companies factor this into their premium calculations.
Vetoed Bills
Along with the bill hiking permanent disability benefit payouts, the governor vetoed 11 others that the California Chamber of Commerce in Sacramento had labeled as “job killer” bills.
“The governor continues to veto bills that would have placed California’s competitiveness in peril,” chamber Chief Executive Allan Zaremberg said. “If these ‘job killers’ had been signed into law, small and large employers throughout the state would be feeling the pain today.”
Since taking office, Schwarzenegger has vetoed more than 90% of bills opposed by chamber, according to the business lobby group that represents some 16,000 large and small companies.
Besides the Perata bill, here are the latest vetoes:
– AB 35 (Ira Ruskin; D-Redwood City), which would have required a minimum level of green-building standards.
– AB 888 (Ted Lieu; D-Torrance), another green-building standards proposal.
– AB 1058 (John Laird; D-Santa Cruz), which would have added costs to home buying and apartment rents by requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to use the most stringent provisions of five sets of national green-building guidelines as a basis for developing California’s mandatory green standards.
– AB 8 (Fabian Nunez; D-Los Angeles), which would have imposed a tax on employers to fund healthcare coverage for those who don’t currently have it.
– AB 504 (Sandre Swanson; D-Oakland), which would have forced employers to pay striking employees by creating a new definition of lockout that requires an employer to pay restitution to employees.
– SB 180, SB 650 (Carole Migden; D-San Francisco), which would have increased pay for agricultural workers, removed a secret ballot election requirement for union representation and prohibited employer communication with employees.
– SB 622 (Alex Padilla; D-Pacoima), which would have allowed workers to sue employers for “willful misclassification” of independent contractors.
– SB 942 (Migden; D-San Francisco), which would have altered the rules for return-to-work and the provision of Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher benefits in workers’ compensation to require that employers provide the injured worker with a job voucher.
– SB 210 (Christine Kehoe; D-San Diego), which would have created a low carbon fuel standard conflicting with one created by the governor.
The governor also vetoed other bills not targeted by the chamber but that also would have impacted business.
AB 779 would have imposed stronger data protection requirements on retailers and other businesses than the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, an industry-created standard for protecting consumer data.
The governor called the legislation excessively costly and burdensome for small businesses. The bill was unanimously approved by the Assembly, with the state Senate passing it in a bipartisan 30-6 vote.
The legislation would have forced retailers who have a data breach or loss to reimburse California banks for the costs of debit and credit card replacement and consumer notification.
The governor also vetoed a bill that would have required restaurant chains to list the calories, fats, carbohydrates and salt in standard menu items.
Schwarzenegger described the bill as impractical, saying many restaurants already are providing nutritional information to patrons.
The governor signed more than 80 bills, including one that bans trace amounts of the chemical phthalate in toys and baby products.
Beginning in 2009, any product made for young children that contains more than one-tenth of 1% of phthalates cannot be made, sold or distributed in California.
Another bill signed by the governor will raise smog fees on vehicle and boat registrations next year to pay for state research of alternative fuels and clean-air initiatives.
And special business districts now will be able to compete for $850 million authorized by Proposition 1C for redevelopment projects with another bill signed into law.
Proxy Battle
The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to vote next month on a controversial proposal that would allow shareholders more influence on the makeup of company boards.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, the former congressman from Newport Beach, wants the commission to decide on one of two proposals that would make it easier for shareholders to nominate board candidates and have them included in the company’s proxy materials.
The move would make it easier for dissident shareholders to take on management and directors at companies they believe are under performing. Companies could face added costs and effort to include more candidates for shareholders to vote on.
Business groups oppose the effort fearing it could give labor and other interest groups more sway over how companies are run.
One of the proposals lets investors who’ve owned more than 5% of a company for a year or more to push for inclusion of their own candidates.
The other lets companies exclude shareholder candidates from their official statements to investors.
Cox faces a potential showdown with Washington Democrats, who want the SEC to wait on voting until two replacements are named to the commission to take the seats of departing Democrats.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the SEC risks being overturned by Congress if it votes before the replacements are in place.
An SEC vote could come next month.
More Engine Limits
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has proposed tougher emission limits and more record-keeping for the operators of roughly 800 stationary engines in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The engines are commonly found in major generators and are also used to power manufacturing equipment.
“Unannounced emission tests by AQMD enforcement staff have discovered that about half of the stationary engines tested were out of compliance with their emissions limits, due to poor operating and maintenance procedures and inadequate monitoring,” agency staff said in a memo to the air quality control agency’s board.
The revisions to a longstanding regulation call for more detailed record keeping of emissions from these engines. They also include further reductions in emission limits for ozone and particulate matter to match recently enacted federal and state standards for these substances.
The agency board is set to consider the revisions early next year.
Correction
In the last Regulation Watch column (Oct. 8), the status of regulating acrylamides was misstated in a summary provided by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
The chemical has been listed under Proposition 65 for several years; state officials are now looking at whether establishments that sell or serve deep fried foods containing acrylamides must post Proposition 65 warning signs.
Fine is a staff writer with the Los Angeles Business Journal.
