California Legislature on Summer Break
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
The California Legislature began its summer break on July 21 and will reconvene August 21. The next significant deadline for legislation is September 1, the date by which fiscal committees must send the bills along for consideration by the entire Senate or Assembly.
Several CLFP opposed bills remained active when the California Legislature began its summer recess, including:
• AB 1209 (Gonzalez, Fletcher) Public Shaming of Employers: Imposes new data collection mandate on California employers to collect and report data to the Secretary of State regarding the mean and median salaries of men and women in the same job title and job description, determine which employees perform "substantially similar" work, and then have that report posted on a publicly accessible website, where such employers will receive undue scrutiny and criticism for wage disparity that is not unlawful and justified by a bona fide factor.
Several CLFP opposed bills remained active when the California Legislature began its summer recess, including:
• AB 1209 (Gonzalez, Fletcher) Public Shaming of Employers: Imposes new data collection mandate on California employers to collect and report data to the Secretary of State regarding the mean and median salaries of men and women in the same job title and job description, determine which employees perform "substantially similar" work, and then have that report posted on a publicly accessible website, where such employers will receive undue scrutiny and criticism for wage disparity that is not unlawful and justified by a bona fide factor.
• AB 450 (Chiu) Employer Liability: Places employers in a no-win situation between federal immigration enforcement and state enforcement by punishing employers - rather than providing tools and resources for employees when federal immigration enforcement appears at their workplace regardless of whether a violation of law has been committed by the employer
• SB 63 (Jackson) Imposes New Maternity and Paternity Leave Mandate: Unduly burdens and increases costs of small employers with as few as 20 employees by requiring 12 weeks of protected employee leave for child bonding and exposes them to the threat of costly litigation.
• SB 49 (de Leon) Creates Uncertainty and Increases Potential Litigation Regarding Environmental Standards: Creates uncertainty by giving broad and sweeping discretion to state agencies to adopt rules and regulations more stringent than the federal rules and regulations in effect on January 19, 2017, through an expedited administrative procedure, when the state agencies determine that federal action leads to less stringent laws and regulations than those in effect on January 19, 2017; and increases the potential for costly litigation by creating private rights of action under California law, which may be triggered when a state agency takes the foregoing discretionary action.
In addition, compromise legislation regarding long term water conservation is being negotiated in the Senate over the summer recess. CLFP is leading a coalition of Commercial, Institutional and Industrial water users to make sure that the state does not set mandated water use reductions that will have a detrimental impact on facility operations and the economy. On July 11, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee passed stripped-down versions of AB 1654 (Rubio) and AB 1668 (Friedman) with the intent of amending the bills during the recess to incorporate input from the Senate, Assembly, the Brown Administration and stakeholder groups. The committee also passed AB 1323 (Weber) as a fallback option, if consensus cannot be reached this session. The three bills are being held in the Senate Rules Committee, with a hearing expected sometime after the Legislature reconvenes on August 21. In addition, SB 606 (Skinner and Hertzberg) was gutted and amended on July 13 to include intent language regarding making conservation a California way of life. The three Assembly bills plus SB 606 are now considered the vehicles for the ultimate long-term conservation package.
• SB 49 (de Leon) Creates Uncertainty and Increases Potential Litigation Regarding Environmental Standards: Creates uncertainty by giving broad and sweeping discretion to state agencies to adopt rules and regulations more stringent than the federal rules and regulations in effect on January 19, 2017, through an expedited administrative procedure, when the state agencies determine that federal action leads to less stringent laws and regulations than those in effect on January 19, 2017; and increases the potential for costly litigation by creating private rights of action under California law, which may be triggered when a state agency takes the foregoing discretionary action.
In addition, compromise legislation regarding long term water conservation is being negotiated in the Senate over the summer recess. CLFP is leading a coalition of Commercial, Institutional and Industrial water users to make sure that the state does not set mandated water use reductions that will have a detrimental impact on facility operations and the economy. On July 11, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee passed stripped-down versions of AB 1654 (Rubio) and AB 1668 (Friedman) with the intent of amending the bills during the recess to incorporate input from the Senate, Assembly, the Brown Administration and stakeholder groups. The committee also passed AB 1323 (Weber) as a fallback option, if consensus cannot be reached this session. The three bills are being held in the Senate Rules Committee, with a hearing expected sometime after the Legislature reconvenes on August 21. In addition, SB 606 (Skinner and Hertzberg) was gutted and amended on July 13 to include intent language regarding making conservation a California way of life. The three Assembly bills plus SB 606 are now considered the vehicles for the ultimate long-term conservation package.
For more information about these issues, contact Trudi Hughes.
By Trudi Hughes, CLFP Government Affairs Director
