October 10, 2011

Governor Signs Economic Impact Analysis Requirement

The South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce (SBACC) supported SB 617, a statewide requirement for an economic impact analysis on major regulations to be done at the beginning of the regulatory process.

The Governor approved the SBACC-supported proposal on October 6.

Specifically, SB 617 reforms the regulatory process by requiring an economic analysis of all major regulations at the beginning of the regulatory process, thus providing more transparency and better data on which to base selection of most cost-effective regulatory alternative.

This analysis will then drive the development and selection of regulations that fully meet the goals of the underlying statute while having the least negative impact on the state’s economy. If the agency adopts anything other than the most cost-effective option, it must state on the record why and justify its choice. Currently a proposed regulation’s fiscal analysis, if any, comes at the end of the process and is not based on uniform standards of analysis.

Economic growth and prosperity depends on a predictable and rational regulatory climate. SB 617 sends a message to investors and employers that California is taking a meaningful step in this direction by requiring a robust economic analysis for major regulations. Additionally, this bill provides for a more transparent regulatory process as well as oversight for state agencies that are involved in the process.
 

October 10, 2011

South Bay Businesses Support Common Sense Solution to Frivolous ADA Lawsuits

The South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce supports a federal proposal by Congressman Duncan Humber (H.R. 881), which would bring relief to frivolous lawsuits.

Specifically, the proposal would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 to require a plaintiff to first provide a defendant with notification and an opportunity to correct an ADA violation before the plaintiff may commence a civil action and force the business owner to incur legal costs.

Currently, ADA does not require any notice before a lawsuit can be filed and the enforcement of the ADA is done through civil litigation. Many ADA lawsuits have been filed for issues of relatively minor noncompliance; such a sign being the wrong color or having the wrong wording. Due to California's lawsuit-friendly legal climate, 42 percent of ADA lawsuits filed in the United States are filed in California, causing many small businesses to close and wiping out jobs.

Small businesses are critical to our local economic recovery. Nationally, 99.7 percent of all employer firms employ over half of all workers in the country.

The bottom line is that we need more proposals that allow businesses to focus on job creation instead of spending needless resources on litigation.

By providing business owners sufficient time to evaluate and correct a potential ADA violation before costly litigation begins, H.R. 881 would help to ensure the disabled access while minimizing the ability of self-serving, predatory attorneys to threaten costly and burdensome litigation, therefore reserving our limited court resources for those truly unwilling to make changes.
 

October 1, 2011

Mandate to Retain Predecessor’s Employees Fails Passage

The South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce opposed AB 350, statewide proposal that would have unfairly forced employers to hire a predecessor’s employees and ensured continued union representation.

AB 350 failed to pass the State Senate on September 10.

AB 350 inappropriately alters the employment relationship by requiring any successor contractor for “property services,” defined as licensed security, building maintenance, window cleaning or food cafeteria services, to retain employees of the former contractor for a minimum of 60 days and thereafter offer continued employment unless the employees’ performance during that period was unsatisfactory.

AB 350 provided that a subsequent employer does not have to hire employees of the prior contractor who have been convicted of certain types of felonies. By specifying an exclusive list of such crimes, AB 350 implied that a subsequent employer would be required to hire any felon not included on the list.

Assuming the bill would have allowed background checks, if the report revealed an individual had committed crimes not on the exclusive list in AB 350, the subsequent employer would have been forced to hire a known criminal and accept responsibility for any potential acts for which the employee had been convicted, such as theft, drug use or misdemeanor assault at the workplace.

The bill also was designed to ensure that an incumbent union elected as the bargaining representative for the prior contractor would remain the bargaining representative for the subsequent employer.