|
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. |