Existing law establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board in the Department of Industrial Relations and authorizes the board to adopt, amend, or repeal employment safety and health standards and orders. Existing law authorizes the board, upon the application of an employer, to grant a permanent variance from an occupational standard or order after specified notice and hearing requirements regarding employees or employee representatives are met.

This bill would, when the request for a permanent variance pertains to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, require the applicant to provide the required notice regarding the hearing to the local union representing elevator workers and to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance, or their authorized representative. The bill would grant party status at the hearing to those workers or their authorized representative upon their request to the board.

Existing law authorizes the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. Existing law also authorizes the board to approve requests of charitable organizations to receive designated deductions if the charitable organization qualifies as an exempt organization under both state and federal income tax laws. Existing law requires a charitable organization approved by the board to certify under penalty of perjury that it is in compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This bill would additionally require the charitable organization to certify under penalty of perjury that it is in compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill would require the charitable organization to provide the board with board, in electronic format, a written nondiscrimination policy or statement that it does not have one, but otherwise complies with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law authorizes the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. Existing law also authorizes the board to approve requests of charitable organizations to receive designated deductions if the charitable organization qualifies as an exempt organization under both state and federal income tax laws. Existing law requires a charitable organization approved by the board to certify under penalty of perjury that it is in compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This bill would additionally require the charitable organization to annually certify under penalty of perjury that it is in compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill would require the charitable organization to provide the board with a written nondiscrimination policy. policy or statement that it does not have one, but otherwise complies with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. Existing law also authorizes the board to approve requests of charitable organizations to receive designated deductions if the charitable organization qualifies as an exempt organization under both state and federal income tax laws. Existing law requires a charitable organization approved by the board to certify under penalty of perjury that it is in compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This bill would require the charitable organization to annually provide the board with a written nondiscrimination policy.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low)

As Enrolled Ver:September 8, 2016

2/3 vote

(vote not relevant)

L. & E.

Original Committee Reference: A. & A.R.

SUMMARY: Makes changes related to permanent variances to elevator safety orders.

The Senate amendments delete the contents of the bill and instead:

1. Provide that if a request for a permanent variance pertains to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, the applicant shall notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance (or their authorized representative).
2. Provide that these workers, or their authorized representative, shall be granted party status upon request to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Standards Board for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for the employees.
2. Provides that the Standards Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in question.
4. Authorizes the Standards Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
5. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the Standards Board on its own motion, as specified.
6. Requires that the Standards Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill.

COMMENTS: Under current law, the Standards Board has authority to consider variances to California/OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards when a building is being constructed, repaired, or updated – the vast majority of these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators and escalators. Existing law provides that a variance may be considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to employees. However, in practice 'employees' are considered to be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance, which may not be the employees that will actually work on the project. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work. The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.

This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance. The bill would also grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

According to supporters, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This legislation, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and supporters believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants. According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) of 2015, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers' rights. Opponents argue that like its predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

This bill requires employers seeking a permanent variance from an elevator safety order to notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is located and to also notify the workers who will be performing the work. The bill also requires the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to grant party status to affected workers, or their authorized representative, to participate in the variance proceedings.

As I noted last year, the board routinely works with stakeholders to provide timely written notice of a variance request and permits those parties to intervene in the proceedings. I continue to believe that the existing process is one that provides adequate opportunity for interest and affected workers to be heard.

Analysis Prepared by: Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0005074

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low)

As Amended Ver:February 10, 2016

Majority vote

(vote not relevant)

L. & E.

Original Committee Reference: A. & A.R.

SUMMARY: Makes changes related to permanent variances to elevator safety orders.

The Senate amendments delete the contents of the bill and instead:

1. Provide that if a request for a permanent variance pertains to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, the applicant shall notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance (or their authorized representative).
2. Provide that these workers, or their authorized representative, shall be granted party status upon request to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Standards Board for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for the employees.
2. Provides that the Standards Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in question.
4. Authorizes the Standards Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
5. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the Standards Board on its own motion, as specified.
6. Requires that the Standards Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill.

COMMENTS: Under current law, the Standards Board has authority to consider variances to California/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards when a building is being constructed, repaired, or updated – the vast majority of these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators and escalators. Existing law provides that a variance may be considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to employees. However, in practice 'employees' are considered to be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance, which may not be the employees that will actually work on the project. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work. The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.

This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance. This bill would also grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

According to supporters, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This legislation, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and supporters believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants. According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) of 2015, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers' rights. Opponents argue that like its predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

Analysis Prepared by: Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004965

Date of Hearing: August 29, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1050 (

Author:Low) – As Amended Ver:February 10, 2016

SUBJECT: Occupational safety and health: permanent variances

SUMMARY: Makes changes related to permanent variances to elevator safety orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that if a request for a permanent variance pertains to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, the applicant shall notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance (or their authorized representative).
2. Provides that these workers, or their authorized representative, shall be granted party status upon request to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Standards Board for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for the employees.
2. Provides that the Standards Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in question.
4. Authorizes the Standards Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
5. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the Standards Board on its own motion, as specified.
6. Requires that the Standards Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill.

COMMENTS: Under current law, the Standards Board has authority to consider variances to Cal/OSHA standards when a building is being constructed, repaired, or updated – the vast majority of these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators and escalators. Existing law provides that a variance may be considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to employees. However, in practice ‘employees’ are considered to be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance, which may not be the employees that will actually work on the project. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work. The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.

This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance. The bill would also grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

According to supporters, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90 percent of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95 percent of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This legislation, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and supporters believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants. According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) from last year, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers’ rights. Opponents argue that like its predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

Prior Related Legislation

This bill is similar, but not identical, to AB 578 (Low) from last year. AB 578 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated the following in his veto message:

"This bill requires employers who apply for variances of existing occupational safety or health standards to formally notice workers, or representatives of workers, who will be impacted. 

While this bill is intended to provide an opportunity for affected workers to be notified of variances and raise concerns during a relevant hearing, it is unclear what workers would be affected, and why the current process at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is not sufficient. In fact the board routinely works with stakeholders to provide timely written notice of variance requests and permits those parties to intervene in the proceedings. I believe that process is one that provides adequate opportunity for interested and affected workers to be heard." 

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Coalition of California Utility Employees

International Union of Elevator Constructors (sponsor)

State Building and Construction Trades Council

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

Opposition

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Hospital Association

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

Analysis Prepared by: Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low)

As Amended Ver:February 10, 2016

Majority vote

(vote not relevant)

Original Committee Reference: A. & A.R.

SUMMARY: Makes changes related to permanent variances to elevator safety orders.

The Senate amendments delete the contents of the bill and instead:

1. Provide that if a request for a permanent variance pertains to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, the applicant shall notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance (or their authorized representative).
2. Provide that these workers, or their authorized representative, shall be granted party status upon request to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Standards Board for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for the employees.
2. Provides that the Standards Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in question.
4. Authorizes the Standards Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
5. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the Standards Board on its own motion, as specified.
6. Requires that the Standards Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill.

COMMENTS: Under current law, the Standards Board has authority to consider variances to California/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards when a building is being constructed, repaired, or updated – the vast majority of these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators and escalators. Existing law provides that a variance may be considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to employees. However, in practice 'employees' are considered to be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance, which may not be the employees that will actually work on the project. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work. The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.

This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance. The bill would also grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

According to supporters, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This legislation, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and supporters believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants. According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) of 2015, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers' rights. Opponents argue that like its predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

Analysis Prepared by: Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004009

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1050

Author:

:

Vote:

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 6/8/16

AYES: Mendoza, Leno, Mitchell

NOES: Stone

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: International Union of Elevator Constructors

DIGEST: This bill (1) requires that employers seeking a permanent variance to an elevator safety order notify specified affected workers, and (2) grant party status to affected workers, or their authorized representative, to participate in variance proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety.
2. Provides that the Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. Authorizes the Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
4. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the board on its own motion, as specified.
5. Requires that the Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. (Labor Code §143.1)

This bill:

1. Requires employers seeking a permanent variance to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders to notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance, or their authorized representative.
2. Grants these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Board.

Background

The Board adopts safety and health standards that are designed to protect California workers. However, existing law authorizes and sets forth a process whereby an employer may apply for a "variance," which is generally permission to deviate or not follow an existing standard. These variances fall into two categories – permanent variances and temporary variances. The application process for both permanent and temporary variances includes a requirement that the employer notify employees of the variance being sought and gives employees an opportunity to engage in the hearing process.

The focus of this bill is on the permanent variance process and what constitutes notification to employees – more specifically, which employees need to be notified of the variance request. The law requires the Board to conduct hearings on requests for permanent variances after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. The Board regulations provide that "affected employees" and authorized employee representative may elect to participate as parties at any time before commencement of the variance hearing. (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 406(a)). The regulations define "affected employee" to mean: "[A]n employee of the employer seeking the variance who is exposed, as a result of his or her assigned duties, to the condition or hazards covered by the standard for which the variance is sought." (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 403(l)).

The “employees of the employer seeking the variance,” however, may not actually be the workers that will be performing the duties associated with the request because not all affected workers are technically employees of the employer. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work.

The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested. This bill helps ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance.

Prior Legislation

AB 578 (Low, 2015) was similar to this bill, but not identical. AB 578 was broader in its approach and included notification requirements for both permanent and temporary variance requests. AB 578 was vetoed by the Governor who stated, “While this bill is intended to provide an opportunity for affected workers to be notified of variances and raise concerns during a relevant hearing, it is unclear what workers would be affected, and why the current process at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is not sufficient. In fact the board routinely works with stakeholders to provide timely written notice of variance requests and permits those parties to intervene in the proceedings. I believe that process is one that provides adequate opportunity for interested and affected workers to be heard.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill (special fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

International Union of Elevator Constructors (source)

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Coalition of California Utility Employees

State Building and Construction Trades Council

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/17/16)

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Hospital Association

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to proponents, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This bill, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and proponents believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) from last year, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers’ rights. Opponents of this bill are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

First, they argue, the tasks and personnel who will perform them are not determined until the variance is granted and the associated work is undertaken, while the notice requirements are imposed at the beginning of the process. Second, the workers who perform tasks pursuant to an elevator variance are not limited to elevator mechanics – administrative, management and other functions are often required by the variance, complicating the proposed notification requirements further. And third, they argue that expanding the notification requirements and granting party status to such a broad spectrum opens the door to abuse by periphery interests and could cause additional delays in the process.

Opponents are proposing an amendment that would strike the notification requirement “to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance or their authorized representative” as well as strike the language granting these workers party status. They argue that these proposed amendments address the notification to the union without subjecting employers to the onerous requirement of searching out the identity and contact information for personnel of contracted conveyance companies. Further, they argue that the proposed amendments would prevent potential abuse of an expansion of parties and keep potential delays in the process under control.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-7, 5/26/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Bigelow, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Jones, Patterson, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Bloom, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Hadley, Harper, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Olsen

Prepared by:

8/17/16 14:40:49

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1050

Author:

:

Vote:

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 6/8/16

AYES: Mendoza, Leno, Mitchell

NOES: Stone

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: International Union of Elevator Constructors

DIGEST: This bill (1) requires that employers seeking a permanent variance to an elevator safety order notify specified affected workers, and (2) grant party status to affected workers, or their authorized representative, to participate in variance proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety.
2. Provides that the Board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. Authorizes the Board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
4. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the board on its own motion, as specified.
5. Requires that the Board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. (Labor Code §143.1)

This bill:

1. Requires employers seeking a permanent variance to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders to notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance, or their authorized representative.
2. Grants these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Board.

Background

The Board adopts safety and health standards that are designed to protect California workers. However, existing law authorizes and sets forth a process whereby an employer may apply for a "variance," which is generally permission to deviate or not follow an existing standard. These variances fall into two categories – permanent variances and temporary variances. The application process for both permanent and temporary variances includes a requirement that the employer notify employees of the variance being sought and gives employees an opportunity to engage in the hearing process.

The focus of this bill is on the permanent variance process and what constitutes notification to employees – more specifically, which employees need to be notified of the variance request. The law requires the Board to conduct hearings on requests for permanent variances after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. The Board regulations provide that "affected employees" and authorized employee representative may elect to participate as parties at any time before commencement of the variance hearing. (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 406(a)). The regulations define "affected employee" to mean: "[A]n employee of the employer seeking the variance who is exposed, as a result of his or her assigned duties, to the condition or hazards covered by the standard for which the variance is sought." (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 403(l)).

The “employees of the employer seeking the variance,” however, may not actually be the workers that will be performing the duties associated with the request because not all affected workers are technically employees of the employer. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work.

The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested. This bill helps ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance.

Prior Legislation

AB 578 (Low, 2015) was similar to this bill, but not identical. AB 578 was broader in its approach and included notification requirements for both permanent and temporary variance requests. AB 578 was vetoed by the Governor who stated, “While this bill is intended to provide an opportunity for affected workers to be notified of variances and raise concerns during a relevant hearing, it is unclear what workers would be affected, and why the current process at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is not sufficient. In fact the board routinely works with stakeholders to provide timely written notice of variance requests and permits those parties to intervene in the proceedings. I believe that process is one that provides adequate opportunity for interested and affected workers to be heard.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill (special fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

International Union of Elevator Constructors (source)

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Coalition of California Utility Employees

State Building and Construction Trades Council

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to proponents, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This bill, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and proponents believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) from last year, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers’ rights. Opponents of this bill are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

First, they argue, the tasks and personnel who will perform them are not determined until the variance is granted and the associated work is undertaken, while the notice requirements are imposed at the beginning of the process. Second, the workers who perform tasks pursuant to an elevator variance are not limited to elevator mechanics – administrative, management and other functions are often required by the variance, complicating the proposed notification requirements further. And third, they argue that expanding the notification requirements and granting party status to such a broad spectrum opens the door to abuse by periphery interests and could cause additional delays in the process.

Opponents are proposing an amendment that would strike the notification requirement “to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance or their authorized representative” as well as strike the language granting these workers party status. They argue that these proposed amendments address the notification to the union without subjecting employers to the onerous requirement of searching out the identity and contact information for personnel of contracted conveyance companies. Further, they argue that the proposed amendments would prevent potential abuse of an expansion of parties and keep potential delays in the process under control.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-7, 5/26/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Bigelow, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Jones, Patterson, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Bloom, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Hadley, Harper, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Olsen

Prepared by:

8/15/16 20:26:52

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 1050 (Low) - Occupational safety and health: permanent variances

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 1050 would (1) require that employers seeking a permanent variance to an elevator safety order notify specified affected workers, and (2) grant party status to affected workers, or their authorized representative, to participate in variance proceedings.

Fiscal Impact:

The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of $160,000 to implement the provisions of the bill (special fund).

Background:

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) adopts occupational safety and health standards that are designed to protect state California workers. However, current law includes a process whereby an employer may apply for permission to deviate or not follow an existing standard (also known as a variance). Variances can be either permanent or temporary in nature.

An employer may apply to the Standards Board for a permanent variance from a standard (or portion of one) upon a showing of an alternative program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for employees. The Standards Board will grant the request if it determines that the condition or practice proposed to be used by the employer will provide places of employment which are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail if he or she complied with the existing standard. The Standards Board is required to conduct hearings on requests for permanent variances after employees or employee representatives are properly notified.

In contrast, temporary variances are short-term in duration. Temporary variances also have different procedures and standards that apply. First, applications for temporary variances are made to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), rather than the Standards Board. However, the decision by DOSH to allow or deny the variance may be appealed to the Standards Board.

The criteria for the granting of a temporary variance also differ from those governing permanent variances. A temporary variance shall be granted only if it has been established that the employer (1) is unable to comply with a standard by its effective date because of unavailability of professional or technical personnel or of materials and equipment needed to come into compliance with the standard or because necessary construction or alteration of facilities cannot be completed by the effective date, (2) is taking all available steps to safeguard the employees against the hazards covered by the standard; and (3) has an effective program for coming into compliance with the standard as quickly as practicable.

Proposed Law:

This bill would (1) require employers seeking a permanent variance to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders to notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified, and those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance, or their authorized representative, and (2) grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

Related Legislation:

AB 578 (Low) of 2015, was similar to this bill, but was broader in scope and included notification requirements for both permanent and temporary variance requests. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

As noted above, current law requires the Standards Board to conduct hearings on requests for variances after employees or their representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. Standards Board regulations provide that "affected employees" and an authorized employee representative may elect to participate as parties at any time before commencement of the variance hearing. "Affected employee" includes employees of the employer seeking the variance (rather than those of other employers).

Regarding instances of requests for variances for elevator construction and other public conveyances, such requests generally come from the building owner. However, the owner typically has few affected employees. Instead, employees performing the labor to repair an elevator would be installing the public conveyance but would not have been a party to the variance proceeding.

DIR indicates that the increased workload resulting from the bill would require additional staff, at a cost of $166,000 initially and $160,000 ongoing.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1050 Hearing Date: June 8, 2016

Subject: Occupational safety and health: permanent variances

KEY ISSUES

Should the Legislature require that employers seeking a permanent variance to an elevator safety order notify affected workers of the request - including the union representing elevator workers in the region and those workers who will be performing the tasks in the proposed variance?

Should the Legislature grant party status to affected workers, or their authorized representative, to participate in variance proceedings?

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Permits employers to apply to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board for a permanent variance from an occupational safety health standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate program, method, practice, means, device, or process which will provide equal or superior safety for the employees. (Labor Code §143)
2. Provides that the board shall issue such a variance if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an employer are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail under the standard.
3. States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in question.
4. Authorizes the board to grant a variance from any standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers.
5. Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked upon application by an employer, employees, or the division, or by the board on its own motion, as specified.
6. Requires that the board conduct hearings on such requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. (Labor Code §143.1)

This bill would require employers seeking a permanent variance to a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders to notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance, or their authorized representative.

This bill would grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

COMMENTS

1. Background on Variances and the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board:

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board adopts safety and health standards that are designed to protect California workers. However, existing law authorizes and sets forth a process whereby an employer may apply for a "variance," which is generally permission to deviate or not follow an existing standard. These variances fall into two categories – permanent variances and temporary variances. The application process for both permanent and temporary variances includes a requirement that the employer notify employees of the variance being sought and gives employees an opportunity to engage in the hearing process.

The focus of this bill is on the permanent variance process and what constitutes notification to employees – more specifically, which employees need to be notified of the variance request. The law requires the Standards Board to conduct hearings on requests for permanent variances after employees or employee representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity to appear. Standards Board regulations provide that "affected employees" and authorized employee representative may elect to participate as parties at any time before commencement of the variance hearing. (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 406(a)). The regulations define "affected employee" to mean: "[A]n employee of the employer seeking the variance who is exposed, as a result of his or her assigned duties, to the condition or hazards covered by the standard for which the variance is sought." (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 403(l)).

The “employees of the employer seeking the variance,” however, may not actually be the workers that will be performing the duties associated with the variance request because not all affected workers are technically employees of the applying employer.

2. Need for this bill?

As noted above, the Standards Board has authority to consider variances to Cal/OSHA standards when a building is being constructed, repaired, or updated – the vast majority of these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators and escalators. Existing law provides that a variance may be considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to employees. However, in practice ‘employees’ are considered to be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance, which may not be the employees that will actually work on the project. For example, in the installation of an elevator, the employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work. The author argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are actually doing the work from participating in the variance hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.

This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by requiring that the applicant notify the union representing elevator workers in the region where the building is being constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request for a variance. The bill would also grant these workers, or their authorized representative, party status upon request to the Standards Board.

3. Proponent Arguments:

According to proponents, this bill seeks to correct an oversight in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public conveyances variance. They argue that with these variance requests, the building owner is not required to notify those employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a variance application has been filed. They note that approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of these installations are done by the men and women of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This legislation, they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the application for a safety order variance.

The author and proponents believe that this bill will help guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance request. They argue that this bill ensures that those workers who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as part of the application process and will be allowed to participate in the variance hearing.

4. Opponent Arguments:

Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for conveyance variance applicants. According to opponents, this bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) from last year, which Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to protect workers’ rights. Opponents argue that like its predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of compliance and enforcement issues.

First, they argue, the tasks and personnel who will perform them are not determined until the variance is granted and the associated work is undertaken, while the notice requirements are imposed at the beginning of the process. Second, the workers who perform tasks pursuant to an elevator variance are not limited to elevator mechanics – administrative, management and other functions are often required by the variance, complicating the proposed notification requirements further. And third, they argue that expanding the notification requirements and granting party status to such a broad spectrum opens the door to abuse by periphery interests and could cause additional delays in the process.

Opponents are proposing an amendment that would strike the notification requirement “to those workers who will be performing the tasks pursuant to the proposed variance or their authorized representative” as well as strike the language granting these workers party status. They argue that these proposed amendments address the notification to the union without subjecting employers to the onerous requirement of searching out the identity and contact information for personnel of contracted conveyance companies. Further, they argue that the proposed amendments would prevent potential abuse of an expansion of parties and keep potential delays in the process under control.

5. Prior Legislation:

AB 578(Low) of 2015, was similar to this bill, but not identical. AB 578 was broader in its approach and included notification requirements for both permanent and temporary variance requests. AB 578 was vetoed by the Governor who stated, “While this bill is intended to provide an opportunity for affected workers to be notified of variances and raise concerns during a relevant hearing, it is unclear what workers would be affected, and why the current process at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is not sufficient. In fact the board routinely works with stakeholders to provide timely written notice of variance requests and permits those parties to intervene in the proceedings. I believe that process is one that provides adequate opportunity for interested and affected workers to be heard.”

SUPPORT

International Union of Elevator Constructors – Sponsor

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Coalition of California Utility Employees

State Building and Construction Trades Council

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

OPPOSITION

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturers & Technology Association Professional Association of Specialty Contractors

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1050

Author: Low (D), et al.

Amended: 7/7/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 6/23/15

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-7, 5/26/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State employees: charitable deductions

SOURCE: Equality California

DIGEST: This bill requires a charitable organization seeking authorization to participate in the state employees’ charitable giving program to also certify under penalty of perjury to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (board) (which oversees the program) that the organization is in compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh). This bill also requires that a charitable organization provide to the board, in electronic format, as part of the certification process, either: (1) the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization; or (2) a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with Unruh.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.

2. Provides, under Unruh, that all persons in California are free and equal, and regardless of a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, everyone is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments.

3. Provides authorization under the board to approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined drive in any area.

4. Permits state employees to authorize deductions from their wages and salaries for various purposes such as for the payment of charitable contributions under any plan approved by the board in accordance with procedures established by the State Controller.

5. Requires that the principal combined fund drive agency, any charitable organization that is an affiliated member beneficiary of the principal combined fund drive, and any charitable organization approved by the board to receive designated deductions on the payroll authorization form of the principal fund drive, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with FEHA as a condition of receiving these designated deductions.

This bill:

1. Requires that the above entities also certify under penalty of perjury that they have complied with Unruh.

2. Requires, as part of the certification process, that the charitable organization also provide to the board, in an electronic format, either the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization, or, a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with Unruh.

3. Makes other technical, nonsubstantive changes.

Background

California law, FEHA and Unruh, prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of specified personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability. Separately, California law allows for the board to approve plans for payroll deduction from state employees’ salaries or wages for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. (Gov. Code Sec. 13923(a).) In accordance with this allowance, state employees are permitted to authorize deductions to be made from their salaries or wages for payment of various purposes, including for the payment of charitable contributions under any plan approved by the board in accordance with procedures established by the Controller.

Existing law already requires that the principal combined fund drive agency, any charitable organization that is an affiliated member beneficiary of the principal combined fund drive, and any charitable organization approved by the board to receive designated deductions on the payroll authorization form of the principal fund drive, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with FEHA as a condition of receiving these designated deductions. This bill now adds that the principal combined fund drive agency, and specified charitable organizations, must also certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with Unruh. This bill also requires that, as part of the certification process, the charitable organization provide to the board, in an electronic format, either: (1) the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization; or (2) a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with Unruh.

Comments

As stated by the author:

The “Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work” is a program administered by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Formerly the California State Employee Charitable Campaign, the campaign provides state employees with an annual list of organizations to which they can make contributions to[,] through the convenience of payroll deduction.

While the list of organizations are vetted and approved based on their federal tax-exempt status and compliance to California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Regulations, there are still organizations on the list that do not fully abide by the state’s nondiscrimination policy.

An example is the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). In 2012, BSA denied Ryan Andresen, a California Boy Scout, his Eagle Scout award because he is openly gay. BSA’s exclusion of youth like Andresen flies in the face of state nondiscrimination law. Although BSA has since reversed its policy so that no youth may be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation, they continue to maintain its ban on gay adult leaders.

AB 1050 will require charitable organizations participating in the campaign drive to submit to the board its nondiscrimination policy as part of its annual application. In no way does this prohibit employees from making a donation to an organization like the Boy Scouts nor does it prevent those donations from being tax-deductible.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/6/15)

Equality California (source)

American Civil Liberties Union

Anti-Defamation League

Gay-Straight Alliance Network of California

Gender Health Center

LGBT Community Center of the Desert

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/6/15)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-7, 5/26/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Bigelow, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Jones, Patterson, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Bloom, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Hadley, Harper, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Olsen

Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

7/7/15 17:17:37

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1050 (Author:Low)

Version: April 21, 2015

Hearing Date: June 23, 2015

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: RD

SUBJECT

State employees: charitable deductions

DESCRIPTION

Existing law authorizes the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees, as specified, for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. Existing law requires that the principal combined fund drive agency, as well as specified charitable organizations, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act as a condition of receiving these designated deductions.

This bill would require that a charitable organization provide the board with either: (1) the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization; or (2) a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

BACKGROUND

California law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh), prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of specified personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability. Separately, California law allows for the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (“board”) to approve plans for payroll deduction from state employees’ salaries or wages for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. (Gov. Code Sec. 13293(a).) In accordance with this allowance, state employees are permitted to authorize deductions to be made from their salaries or wages for payment of various purposes, including for the payment of charitable contributions under any plan approved by the board in accordance with procedures established by the Controller.

Existing law already requires that the principal combined fund drive agency, any charitable organization that is an affiliated member beneficiary of the principal combined fund drive, and any charitable organization approved by the board to receive designated deductions on the payroll authorization form of the principal fund drive, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with FEHA as a condition of receiving these designated deductions. This bill would now add that the principal combined fund drive agency, and specified charitable organizations, must also certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with Unruh. This bill would also require the charitable organization to provide the board with either: (1) the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization; or (2) a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with Unruh.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibits discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. (Gov. Code Sec. 12920 et seq.)

Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons in California are free and equal, and regardless of a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, everyone is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments. (Civ. Code Sec. 51.)

Existing law provides the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board may approve plans for payroll deduction from the salaries or wages of state officers and employees for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined drive in any area. (Gov. Code Sec. 13293(a).) Existing law permits state employees to authorize deductions from their wages and salaries for various purposes such as for the payment of charitable contributions under any plan approved by the board in accordance with procedures established by the Controller. (Gov. Code Sec. 1151(f).)

Existing law requires that the principal combined fund drive agency, any charitable organization that is an affiliated member beneficiary of the principal combined fund drive, and any charitable organization approved by the board to receive designated deductions on the payroll authorization form of the principal fund drive, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with FEHA as a condition of receiving these designated deductions. (Gov. Code Sec. 13293(f).)

This bill would require that the above entities certify under penalty of perjury that they have also complied with Unruh. This bill would also require the charitable organization to provide the board with either the written nondiscrimination policy of the organization, or, a written statement to indicate that the organization does not have a written nondiscrimination policy, but otherwise complies with Unruh.

This bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

The “Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work” is a program administered by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Formerly the California State Employee Charitable Campaign, the campaign provides state employees with an annual list of organizations to which they can make contributions to[,] through the convenience of payroll deduction.

While the list of organizations are vetted and approved based on their federal tax-exempt status and compliance to California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Regulations, there are still organizations on the list that do not fully abide by the state’s nondiscrimination policy.

An example is the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). In 2012, BSA denied Ryan Andresen, a California Boy Scout, his Eagle Scout award because he is openly gay. BSA’s exclusion of youth like Andresen flies in the face of state nondiscrimination law. Although BSA has since reversed its policy so that no youth may be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation, they continue to maintain its ban on gay adult leaders.

AB 1050 will require charitable organizations participating in the campaign drive to submit to the board its nondiscrimination policy as part of its annual application. In no way does this prohibit employees from making a donation to an organization like the Boy Scouts nor does it prevent those donations from being tax-deductible.

2. State already requires participating charitable donations certify they have complied with FEHA

As noted in the Background, existing law allows for the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (“board”) to approve plans for payroll deduction from state employees’ salaries or wages for charitable contributions to the agency handling the principal combined fund drive in any area. (Gov. Code Sec. 13293(a).) In accordance with this provision, state employees are permitted to authorize deductions to be made from their salaries or wages for payment of various purposes, including for the payment of charitable contributions under any plan approved by the board in accordance with procedures established by the Controller. (Gov. Code Sec. 1151(f).) According to the “Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work” website, over the previous five years, this initiative has raised upwards of $7 million dollars. In 2014, out of a total of 261,704 employees, 35,478 (14 percent) donated a total of $6,460,474, and, in 2013, employees donated $6,661,903. (See Our Promise, Results <http://www.ourpromiseca.org/results> [as of Jun. 12, 2015].)

Notably, existing law already requires that a charitable organization participating in this initiative, as approved by the board, certify under penalty of perjury to the board that it is in compliance with Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as a condition of receiving these designated deductions. (Gov. Code Sec. 13293(f).) This bill would require that the organization also certify that it is in compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Whereas FEHA prohibits discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, Unruh prohibits discrimination in services provided by business establishments on the basis of those characteristics.

Accordingly, this bill would appear to be in line with the general state public policy that prohibits any person in the State of California from being unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. (See Gov. Code Sec. 11135.)

Equality California, the sponsor of this bill notes that “[w]hile much progress has been made in the charitable sector regarding nondiscrimination, there are still some organizations that may openly discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in particular. Such policies institutionalize the rejection lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people face simply because of who they are. It is important that we ensure these organizations are held to the same standard of inclusivity as we hold the state itself.”

Support: American Civil Liberties Union; Anti-Defamation League; LGBT Community Center of the Desert; Gender Health Center; Gay-Straight Alliance Network of California

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: Equality California

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation: None Known

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 62, Noes 7)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 4)

Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 1)

**************

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low)

As Amended Ver:April 21, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires a charitable organization seeking to participate in the state employees' charitable giving program (program) to provide a statement to the program administrator certifying that it complies with existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a charitable organization seeking to participate in the program to certify to the program administrator, the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board), under penalty of perjury that it complies with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination statutes, as a condition of approval from the Board.

2. Requires the charitable organization to provide the Board with its written nondiscrimination policy or, if it does not have one, a written statement indicating that it complies with the state's existing civil rights laws.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes, in the Government Code, payroll deductions from state employees for an annual charitable fund drive and gives the Board responsibility to develop the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the program.

2. Requires every state employee to receive an approved list of charitable organizations, a payroll deduction form, and a designation form.

3. Establishes a process and standards for use by the Board in approving donor organizations, including a requirement for an organization to certify to the Board under penalty of perjury that it complies with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

4. Generally prohibits, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, business establishments from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation and provides civil remedies for violations of its provisions.

5. Prohibits, under FEHA, workplace and housing discrimination or harassment against any person on the basis of age, ancestry, color, religion, familial status, disability, marital status, medical condition, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor, likely absorbable costs to the Board (special funds) to modify its application forms and update regulations.

2. Minor costs to the Board (special funds) to receive and process written nondiscrimination policies or statements. Staff notes that the Board has moved to a fully automated and electronic application process, and that accepting paper statements from 3,000 applicants burdens their existing process.

COMMENTS: The "Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work" program is a fundraising drive coordinated by the Board that allows state employees to direct regular contributions from their paychecks to participating charities. According to the Board, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 state employees participate in the program annually and provide donations averaging about $6.5 million per year to nearly 3,000 designated charities.

To qualify as a designated charity in the program, an organization must submit an electronic application to the Board, register as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and certify under penalty of perjury that it complies with FEHA. The Board can disqualify any organization if it fails to comply with these requirements or files an application containing false or intentionally misleading information.

Currently, the Board verifies an organization tax-exempt status and the organization self-certifies its compliance with FEHA in the application process. This bill would additionally require a charity to self-certify its compliance with the state's existing civil rights laws under penalty of perjury. It would also require organizations to provide a written statement to the Board indicating their compliance with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.

The author argues that, although the organizations in the program are vetted and approved by the Board based on their tax-exempt status and FEHA compliance, there are still organizations approved that do not fully abide by the state’s nondiscrimination statutes. For example, the author cites the Boy Scouts of America which had, until recently, denied membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation. The author states that, because the charities in this program are supported by state employee contributions, they should be held to the same standard of inclusiveness that is reflected in the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. According to the author, this bill is intended to bring more transparency to the program's donor approval process.

Analysis Prepared by: Cassie Royce / A. & A.R. / (916) 319-3600 FN: 0000388

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a charitable organization seeking to participate in the employees’ charitable giving program to certify to the program administrator, the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board), under penalty of perjury that it complies with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination statutes, as a condition of approval from the Board.

It further requires the charitable organization to provide the Board with its written nondiscrimination policy or, if it does not have one, a written statement indicating that it complies with the state's existing civil rights laws.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor, likely absorbable costs to the Board (special funds) to modify its application forms and update regulations.

2. Minor costs to the Board (special funds) to receive and process written nondiscrimination policies or statements. Staff notes that the Board has moved to a fully automated and electronic application process, and that accepting paper statements from 3,000 applicants burdens their existing process.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author argues that although the organizations in the program are vetted and approved by the Board, based on their tax-exempt status and FEHA compliance, there are still organizations approved that do not fully abide by the state’s nondiscrimination statutes. The author cites the Boy Scouts of America which had, until recently, denied membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation. The author states that, because the charities in this program are supported by state employee contributions, they should be held to the same standard of inclusiveness that is reflected in the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.

2. Background. The "Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work" program is a fundraising drive coordinated by the Board that allows state employees to direct regular contributions from their paychecks to participating charities. According to the Board, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 state employees participate in the program annually and provide donations averaging about $6.5 million per year to nearly 3,000 designated charities.

To qualify as a designated charity in the program, an organization must submit an electronic application to the Board, register as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and certify under penalty of perjury that it complies with FEHA. The Board can disqualify any organization if it fails to comply with these requirements or files an application containing false or intentionally misleading information.

Currently, the Board verifies an organization's tax-exempt status and the organization self-certifies its compliance with FEHA in the application process. This bill would additionally require a charity to self-certify its compliance with the state's existing civil rights laws under penalty of perjury, and further requires organizations to provide a written statement to the Board indicating their compliance with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Rudy Salas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1050

Author:(Low) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2015

SUBJECT: State employees: charitable deductions

SUMMARY: Requires a charitable organization seeking to participate in the state employees' charitable giving program (program) to provide a statement to the program administrator certifying that it complies with existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a charitable organization seeking to participate in the program to certify to the program administrator, the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board), under penalty of perjury that it complies with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination statutes, as a condition of approval from the Board.

2. Requires the charitable organization to provide the Board with its written nondiscrimination policy or, if it does not have one, a written statement indicating that it complies with the state's existing civil rights laws.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes, in the Government Code, payroll deductions from state employees for an annual charitable fund drive and gives the Board responsibility to develop the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the program.

2. Requires every state employee to receive an approved list of charitable organizations, a payroll deduction form, and a designation form.

3. Establishes a process and standards for use by the Board in approving donor organizations, including a requirement for an organization to certify to the Board under penalty of perjury that it complies with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

4. Generally prohibits, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, business establishments from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation and provides civil remedies for violations of its provisions.

5. Prohibits, under FEHA, workplace and housing discrimination or harassment against any person on the basis of age, ancestry, color, religion, familial status, disability, marital status, medical condition, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The "Our Promise: California State Employees Giving at Work" program is a fundraising drive coordinated by the Board that allows state employees to direct regular contributions from their paychecks to participating charities. According to the Board, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 state employees participate in the program annually and provide donations averaging about $6.5 million per year to nearly 3,000 designated charities.

To qualify as a designated charity in the program, an organization must submit an electronic application to the Board, register as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and certify under penalty of perjury that it complies with FEHA. The Board can disqualify any organization if it fails to comply with these requirements or files an application containing false or intentionally misleading information.

Currently, the Board verifies an organization tax-exempt status and the organization self-certifies its compliance with FEHA in the application process. This bill would additionally require a charity to self-certify its compliance with the state's existing civil rights laws under penalty of perjury. It would also require organizations to provide a written statement to the Board indicating their compliance with the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.

The author argues that, although the organizations in the program are vetted and approved by the Board based on their tax-exempt status and FEHA compliance, there are still organizations approved that do not fully abide by the state’s nondiscrimination statutes. For example, the author cites the Boy Scouts of America which had, until recently, denied membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation. The author states that, because the charities in this program are supported by state employee contributions, they should be held to the same standard of inclusiveness that is reflected in the state's existing civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. According to the author, this bill is intended to bring more transparency to the program's donor approval process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Equality California (sponsor)

Anti-Defamation League

Gay-Straight Alliance Network of California

Gender Health Center

LGBT Community Center of the Desert

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Cassie Royce / A. & A.R. / (916) 319-3600