Page 60 • MARCH 2011 • PACIFIC COAST JOURNAL


What ishappening in the legislature


Below are several pending bills that will be of consequence to those in our industry. Please review, and give your input to your legislator.


Assembly Member Alyson Huber (D-El


Dorado Hills) introduced AB 634 this week, at Farm Bureau’s request. This bill would allow the use of carbon monoxide to control vertebrate pests. In 1998 California’s penal code was amended to prohibit the use of carbon monoxide


to kill an animal. This law has prevented farmers and ranchers from using carbon monoxide, a safe, effective, and humane pest control tool, for rodent control. Effective technology using car- bon monoxide is available in other states for ver- tebrate pest control and CFBF is looking forward to allowing California’s farmers and ranchers access to this technology. Several new pieces of legislation of interest to agricultural employers have been introduced


in recent days: AB 59 (Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland) –


changes the definition of family members or oth- ers with respect to whom an employee could claim the need to take job-protected leave. AB 59 would eliminate the requirement that a “child” be a minor, expand the definition of “par- ent” to include in laws, and allow employees to take leave care for a grandparent, sibling, grand- child, or domestic partner. AB 169 (Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto)


would allow employers to use payroll cards to pay employee wages, or advances on wages, as long as the employee voluntarily authorizes the transfer. The card must also be able to be used to access funds at an ATM in California that will allow at least one fee-free transaction per pay period. AB 169 would also allow employers to provide the wage statement required by state law electronically as long as that statement contains all information required by law and can be accessed electronically in a confidential setting during normal business hours. AB 197 (William Monning, D-Santa Cruz)


would allow a court to award an employee owed unpaid wages liquidated damages twice the amount of the unpaid wages plus interest. Under current law a court action to recover wages unpaid in violation of the minimum wage set by the Industrial Welfare Commission and the Department of Industrial Relations allows the court to award damages equal to the amount of wages not paid plus interest. AB 243 (Luis Alejo, D-Salinas) would


require a Farm Labor Contractor’s (FLC) wage disclosure to his workers to also include the name and address of the legal entity (the farm or ranch) that retained the FLC, for the apparent purpose of facilitating wage payment and similar lawsuits against deeper-pocketed farmers and ranchers as well as FLCs . Existing law provides that a knowing and intentional violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. AB 394 (Jim Silva, R-Huntington Beach)


would exempt volunteers from state labor laws. AB 394 defines a volunteer as “an individual who, without promise or expectation of compen- sation, but solely for his or her personal purpose or pleasure, per- forms work for an organization that is exempt from taxation pursuant to a specified provision of federal law.” AB 400 (Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco)


would require employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave to for every 30 days worked. The bill would further allow employees to begin using accrued sick leave after 90 days of work. SB 111 (Leland Yee, D-San Francisco)


would create a violation of state civil rights laws to require, limit or prohibit, the use of any par- ticular language in a workplace or business establishment unless justified by business neces- sity. The bill would define business necessity to require, among other things, that the language restriction or requirement is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business and that an equally effective, but less discriminatory, alternative practice does not exist. SB 389 (Bob Dutton, R-Riverside) would


institute flexibility under the state’s meal period rules by permitting the employer and employee to waive either the 1st or 2nd meal period of the day if the employee is entitled to a 2nd meal period. It would also allow an employer and employee to agree to on-duty meal periods as long as both agree that the employee has an opportunity to eat while on duty, the meal period is counted as time worked, the employee can revoke the agreement at any time, and the on- duty meal period is necessitated by the nature of the work. Both the Assembly Budget and Senate


Budget and Fiscal Review Committees rejected their subcommittees’ recommendations to con- tinue funding the Williamson Act subventions. These two committees sided with the governor to eliminate the $10 million in the current budget year and in 2011-12 with Democrats voting “Aye,” except for Senator Rubio (D-Bakersfield) who voted “No,” and Republicans voting “No” or abstaining. We can only surmise that the Democratic leadership is continuing to use the local backfill to counties for their participation in the California Land Conservation Act as lever- age to help achieve their overall budget goals. Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis), member of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, in supporting the motion to eliminate the funding suggested that this funding crisis could “beget an opportunity to find alternatives to this patchwork that is the Williamson Act and its funding.” We must concur with SenatorWolk that other long- term stable fund sources, other than the General Fund, must to be explored. Farm Bureau is com- mitted to finding that long-term solution.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100