The state mandatory Paid Sick Leave bill (AB 2716) is one of two dozen bills that will sicken our state and region’s economic recovery. The Sacramento Metro Chamber over the next few months will stringently oppose the state mandatory Paid Sick Leave bill and others—but help from members is needed. A vast majority of Sacramento Metro Chamber members responding to a recent survey want the chamber to oppose the AB 2716 that mandates employers offer paid sick days. However just because 86 percent of respondents oppose the bill, it doesn’t mean they are stingy, as 77 percent of the respondents' businesses currently offer sick leave benefits. “When it comes to employee benefits, I think that businesses get it right most of the time,” said Matt Mahood, Metro Chamber president & CEO. “Paid sick leave is a benefit that businesses offer when they can afford it. Sick leave is not an entitlement—it’s a benefit and also an excellent employee recruitment and retention strategy.” The Metro Chamber's Executive Committee opposes AB 2716 and other “job-killer” bills, listed below. For more information on how you can help fight these bills, contact Michael Faust at 916-321-9115 or mfaust@metrochamber.org. Job-Killer Bills Being Tracked by the Metro Chamber Barriers To Affordable Housing AB 1065 (Lieber; D-Mountain View) Construction Costs Increase. Before amendments, would have substantially increased the cost of housing and development in California by implementing significant energy efficiency measures for all new residential and commercial buildings without regard for the additional costs that will be passed on to consumers. Much of this may be addressed in the implantation of AB 32. This bill has been amended recently, but Metro Chamber still opposes. AB 2112 (Saldaña; D-San Diego) Construction Costs Increase Substantially increases the cost of housing, interferes with the utilities’ ability to meet the AB 32 carbon cap mandates and drives up the cost of AB 32 compliance ultimately leading to increased utility bills by mandating on-site energy generation and efficiency standards for all new residential buildings. AB 2046 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Construction Jobs Loss Originally halted construction of housing, cost construction jobs and provided a disincentive to clean up ground water by inappropriately denying use of some groundwater resources as a stable water supply. Amended to allow water districts to count contaminated groundwater as part of the planned water supply for development if a plan to remediation is offered. The Metro Chamber still opposes because it would severely disrupt project entitlements by excluding groundwater that has not already been treated from water supply assessments. AB 2046 would require the water supply assessment to exclude projected groundwater that has not been determined by the state or a local public health department to have been treated to the standard applicable for the proposed use. In doing so the bill fails to recognize that no water source-–groundwater or surface water--is ready for human consumption in its current form. It all must be treated eventually to meet stringent state and federal drinking water standards. The bill’s flawed approach to analyzing potential water sources would fundamentally alter the nature of the water supply assessment which is designed as a 20-year planning tool to project future water supplies. The purpose of the assessment is to determine long-term water needs and to allow water agencies and developers an opportunity to treat water prior to its use. This bill shifts the burden for use of groundwater by obligating that it be treated to a drinking water standard today when it may not be used for several years. AB 2046 would thereby create a huge disincentive to clean up groundwater basins if they indeed cannot be counted as a water source for a future project. AB 2046 is unnecessary because current law already requires that water districts analyze whether a groundwater basin will be a viable source to meet a project's future water needs. AB 2705 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Construction Jobs Loss Makes new housing less affordable, risks the loss of construction jobs and squeezes support for maintenance costs for parks and schools by expanding Mello-Roos Fees to include financial support of transit services. Using the Mello-Roos Act's landowner voting procedures, local government can impose parcel taxes to pay for services without any approval from the residents who will eventually end up paying those taxes. Expanding local governments' taxing authority under the Mello-Roos Act, at a time when many Californians can't afford the costs of homeownership, could reduce a community's bonding capacity and willingness to fund other basic infrastructure such as parks, schools, and utilities. Costly Workplace Mandates AB 2279 (Leno; D-San Francisco) Employee Safety Risk Hurts employee safety and employers’ right to maintain drug-free workplace policies and exposes employers to potential litigation by prohibiting employers from refusing to hire applicants or fire current workers who use medical marijuana. AB 2716 (Ma; D-San Francisco) Employer Benefit Mandate Unreasonably expands employer’s costs and liability by mandating a specific paid sick leave policy. SB 840 (Kuehl; D-Santa Monica) Government-Run Health Care Creates a new government-run, multi-billion-dollar socialized health care system financed from a yet-to-be-specified tax increase. SB 1115 (Migden; D-San Francisco) Workers’ Compensation Reform Roll Back Increases workers’ compensation costs and rolls back the workers’ compensation reforms from 2004 by making apportionment very difficult to prove. SB 1717 (Perata; D-Oakland) Workers’ Compensation Reform Roll Back Increases workers’ compensation costs and rolls back the workers’ compensation reforms from 2004 by arbitrarily doubling permanent disability benefits and altering the 15% bump up/down provision in current law. Economic Development Barriers AB 2359 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Limits Investments Before amendments, would have limited investment by capital markets by imposing legal liability on the secondary market for flaws in home loans written by other lenders and brokers. After amendments, removed the negative "assignee liability" provisions that would have limited investments and reduced liquidity, so no longer considered a "job killer." The Metro Chamber still opposes, however, because the bill still contains unresolved mortgage loan concerns, including language limiting binding arbitration. For the purchase of loans into the secondary market requires certain wavers as a condition of purchase. By having wavers in the bill as currently defined it will have a chilling effect on the flow of capital into the already battered lending market making it substantially more difficult of consumers to access capital. AB 2447 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Construction Job Loss Severely limits residential and commercial development to a degree that it could virtually shut down any suburban development in certain areas of California by prohibiting the approval of development in fire-risk areas without a mitigating finding by the city or county. This bill makes a state mandate of outright denial of development in fire-prone areas. It takes the decision making choice out of the hands of the local government and replaces it with a state mandate with a “no-development” rule through a set of specific findings that are impracticable and infeasible and set the stage for the state position of deny all developments in a fire prone areas. (an argument can be made that virtually all parts of California are potentially fire-prone areas) AB 2514 (Eng; D-Monterey Park) Costly Construction Delays Delays construction of commercial and residential projects and obstructs normal agricultural practices by requiring an unworkable resolution to disposition of human remains that are not Native American. SB 375 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) Limits Transportation Capacity Thwarts the intent of voters who approved broad-based transportation bonds and limits increased transportation capacity in certain areas of the state by prioritizing transportation projects in areas identified as a preferred area for growth. The Metro Chamber recognizes and supports the proactive implementation of AB 32 and bases its current position upon the following principles that should serve as the foundation of any amendments: Implementation must: • Be incentive-based and not foreclose market innovation to encourage consistency rather than mandating compliance; • Maintain local land use authority while providing incentives for regional cooperation; • Apply evenly to “inner” greenfield projects (i.e. large new developments within the preferred growth scenario footprint) as well as infill projects; • Include procedural protections for regional planning agencies to ensure incentive targets set by the state are feasible to meet and provide for a reasonable means to address those that are not; and, • Streamline CEQA for projects consistent with an adopted regional “Blueprint” or “Sustainable Communities Strategy.” Expensive, Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens AB 2546 (De La Torre; D-South Gate) Interference of Goods Movement Jeopardizes ports, railyards and manufacturing facilities by setting up an unreasonable requirement to regulate the emissions from mobile emitters that visit their facility even if they have no control over the mobile sources. Fuel Price Increases AB 2558 (Feuer; D-Los Angeles) Climate Change Tax Assesses an unconstitutional tax on businesses and consumers by authorizing the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to impose a tax by a majority vote on either motor vehicles or vehicle fuel. AB39 (Nuñez; D-Los Angeles) Gas Price Increase Imposes a billion-plus-dollar tax increase on California oil companies which would result in higher gas prices for consumers, increased dependence on foreign oil, and further damage to our already-suffering economy. SB 140 (Kehoe; D-San Diego) New Fuel Mandate Disadvantages California businesses and increases fuel prices by creating a fuel mandate that picks a winner in the alternative fuels market, preventing the research and development of additional viable options that may be cheaper and more efficient. (Much of this may be addressed in the implementation of AB 32.) SB 1240 (Kehoe; D-San Diego) Restrictive Fuel Standard Interferes with the development of a competitive alternative fuels market and threatens job creation in California by creating a costly Low Carbon Fuel Standard that conflicts with the existing standard created by Governor’s Executive Order S-7-04. (Much of this may be addressed in the implementation of AB 32.) Inflated Liability Costs AB 437 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Increased Employer Liability Exposure Significantly expands employers’ liability exposure and hampers their ability to defend themselves by effectively removing any statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging any employer decision that affects pay or benefits. It removes the incentive from the employee to engage in dialogue with the employer about the alleged unlawful compensation decision when it first takes place. The employee can delay notifying the employer of the claim for as long as he or she wishes, while accruing potentially large damages amounts. This bill violates the public policy behind statutes of limitations, which is to ensure that a defendant is not faced with stale claims that cannot be defended due to the passage of time and the dissipation of fresh and available evidence against the employer. AB 1456 (Laird; D-Santa Cruz) Increased Insurance Costs Greatly increases liability exposure for companies and may lead to higher insurance rates for consumers by preventing Medi-Cal amounts paid on behalf of a plaintiff from being considered in determining an insurance company’s liability for medical damages. SB 1113 (Migden; D-San Francisco) Incentive to Sue Expands reward to plaintiffs for costs of litigation stemming from private attorney general actions while providing no-cost recovery for those who must defend themselves against such actions, even if those actions are found to be baseless.