California will have one of the toughest equal pay laws in the country in 2016

California took a major step this year toward closing the lingering wage gap between men and women, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equity laws in the nation.

Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less — a median 84 cents for every dollar — than men, according to a U.S Census Bureau report this year.

“The inequities that have plagued our state and have burdened women forever are slowly being resolved with this kind of bill,” Brown said at a ceremony at Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

The governor called the measure, which will give employees more grounds for challenging perceived discrimination, “a very important milestone.”

It is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and most state Republican lawmakers. National women’s rights leaders said the legislation was a model for other states and for Congress, where similar efforts have been stalled by Republican opposition.

Businesses said they expected more lawsuits once the new rules take effect Jan. 1.

The sponsor of the bill was California State Senator Beth Jackson

Courts have interpreted current law to mean that male and female workers must hold exactly the same jobs to require equal pay, said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the legislation.

“Now they're going to have to value the work equally,” she said.

California and the federal government already have laws banning employers from paying women less than men for the same jobs. The new California Fair Pay Act broadens that prohibition by saying bosses cannot pay employees less than those of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” even if their titles are different or they work at different sites.

A female housekeeper who cleans hotel rooms, for example, may challenge higher wages paid to a male janitor who cleans the lobby and banquet halls, said Jackson. Similarly, a female grocery clerk could challenge a male clerk's higher wages at a store owned by the same employer but located a few miles away.

The new law also prohibits retaliation against employees who ask about or discuss wages paid to co-workers, and it clarifies their ability to claim retaliation.

On the employer side, those sued by workers would have to show that wage differences are due to factors other than sex, such as merit or seniority; that they are job-related and reasonable; and that they are not due to discrimination.

Workers who believe they have been discriminated against said Tuesday that the new law would help bolster future cases. Employers will now be “accountable to pay women fairly,” said Aileen Rizo, a math consultant for the Fresno County Office of Education who is suing the agency.

Rizo alleges in her federal lawsuit that a male colleague was paid $12,000 more a year for the same work, even though he was hired four years after she was and had less experience, education and seniority.

The new law will mean more employees taking more bosses to court, said J. Al Latham Jr., a labor law attorney and lecturer at the USC Gould School of Law.

“It is going to lead to lots more litigation, which further weakens the business climate in California,” he said.

Geoff DeBoskey, another labor lawyer, agreed, saying it was significant to change from requiring equal pay for equal work to mandating equal pay for substantially similar work, and that would drive some businesses out of California.

Employers will “move operations and grow elsewhere,” said DeBoskey, whose clients include Fortune 500 companies. “If an employer is going to build a new call center, they are just not going to build that in California.”

The new law is the strongest in the country, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group for workplace fairness.

Actress Patricia Arquette, whose call for equal pay in her acceptance speech at February’s Academy Awards helped spur Jackson's legislation, hailed the new law as “a critical step toward ensuring that women in California are seen and valued as equals.”

Jennifer Reisch, legal director of the San Francisco group Equal Rights Advocates, said women, especially those of color and mothers, “continue to lose precious income to a pervasive, gender-based wage gap.”

Brown's signature on Jackson's bill “will make California’s equal pay law clearer, stronger and more effective,” she said.

Via Los Angeles Times, Chris Megerian and Patrick McGreevy 

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-equal-pay-bill-20151006-story.html

L.A. Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell wins state Senate seat!

SACRAMENTO — Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) has cruised to victory in a special election for the state Senate seat vacated by Democrat Curren Price when he was elected to the Los Angeles City Council this year.

Mitchell received 80.6% of the vote, beating perennial Democratic candidate Mervin Evans, who received 19.4% in Tuesday's contest for the 26th Senate District.

Mitchell, 49, will add to the bare supermajority theDemocrats already have in the Senate.

"We are excited to welcome the passion, perspective and pragmatism she'll bring as our 28th Democratic senator," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who had endorsed her.

Mitchell noted that she began her public service career in the Senate in 1988, working then for Democratic Sen. Diane Watson of Los Angeles. "I'm excited," Mitchell said. "It feels like coming full circle."

She declined to comment when asked about talk in the Capitol that she may be a contender for Senate leader when Steinberg leaves office next year.

In the Assembly, Democratic membership has fallen below supermajority level because of vacancies.

When Mitchell resigns to take her Senate seat, Democrats in the lower house will hold 52 seats; they need 54 to regain the two-thirds majority they won in last year's elections. They expect to be back to that level after three special elections to fill the vacancies before year's end.

One of those contests will be a runoff between the two candidates who finished first in Tuesday's election for the 45th Assembly District seat, which includes parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Democrat Robert Blumenfield of Woodland Hills vacated the seat when he won election to the Los Angeles City Council.

Democrat Matt Dababneh, an Encino resident who is an aide to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), will compete in the runoff against Republican Susan Shelley, a writer and publisher from Woodland Hills, if the results stand after provisional ballots are counted in coming days. Dababneh received 24.6% of the vote Tuesday; Shelley, 21.4%.

The runoff is set for Nov. 19.

Encino Democrat Jeff Ebenstein finished third Tuesday, followed by Republican Chris Kolski of West Hills and seven other contestants.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

California Senate approves change to drug law

State law would go easier on people who are busted for carrying illegal drugs for personal use under a bill approved by the California Senate yesterday.


Assembly Bill 721 changes the definition of "transporting" a drug to mean transporting it for sale, eliminating an additional charge for someone who might otherwise only be charged with drug possession.

"If you're in possession of a drug and you're walking down the street, you could be charged with transporting a drug even though your 'transporting' is just walking," said Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, as he presented the bill on the Senate floor.

The bill by Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, would not make it harder to prosecute drug dealers, Wright said, who would still be charged with transporting illegal drugs for sale.

"It simply says that... walking down the street does not qualify as transporting," Wright said.

"What this bill is intended to fix is that someone who would have been charged with simple possession, because their quantity was small, not end up with transportation for sale because (prosecutors) wanted to add charges."

Republicans argued against the bill, saying it would be too soft on criminals.

"This bill gives you a greater chance to get away with it or have it go easy on you," said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber. "It is not a step in the right direction."

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, countered that the bill could help chip away at the problem of crowding in California prisons.

"We're talking about a universe of people who will still be charged with one or more felonies. They will likely be going to state prison," Leno said. "The question is, do we want them to take up limited bed space for two or three years, or five or ten or 15 years?"

The state Senate passed the bill on a vote of 24-15. It now heads back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown.

PHOTO: Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, in the Assembly chambers in March 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua

Growing Opposition to AT&T’s Attack on LifeLine Program

Beyond Chron
by: Randy Shaw


As we described on July 10, the California State Legislature is moving toward passing AB 1407, an AT &T backed measure that would devastate the state’s LifeLine phone program. The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee voted 6-1 in favor of the bill on July 8, and the Senate Appropriations Committee votes on August 19. AT&T is used to getting its way in Sacramento, but the 1.2 million low-income Californians whose phone rates will jump under AB 1407 are finding surprising support from influential forces. On July 16, the Los Angeles Times editorial board urged the Legislature to defeat AB 1407, saying the measure “is premature and its consumer protections too thin.” The Greenlining Institute wrote in the Capitol Weekly that AB 1407 “undermines LifeLine’s essential guarantee of affordable phone service, effectively replacing that guarantee with a coupon.” As the media, community and labor organizations, and LifeLine participants learn of this corporate usurping of the state PUC’s jurisdiction, opposition to AB 1407 has grown. This may yet be a battle where David defeats Goliath, and the needs of low-income phone users trump corporate profits.

California’s LifeLine phone users are among the state’s poorest residents, and have least access to the communication methods many of us take for granted. For example, many using LifeLine are single-room occupancy (SRO) tenants. These tenants not only would have no phone access at all without LifeLine, but the San Francisco City Attorney’s office is in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals battling the US Postal Service’s decision to stop delivering mail to individual mailboxes in SRO’s.
No mail, no phone—and no connection to the outside world for people often already isolated from social interactions.

AT&T’s proposed hijacking of the LifeLine program is particularly surprising in light of Democratic Party control of the California Legislature and the Governor Brown-appointed California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) strong opposition to AB 1407.

On June 27, 2013, the CPUC voted to oppose AB1407, which would legislate rates for California LifeLine Program wireless phone service subsidies. The CPUC told the bill’s sponsor in a letter that “the bill would supersede an open proceeding on this topic at the CPUC that is considering the views of all stakeholders and all relevant issues in a deliberate and thorough manner.”
What clearly troubles the CPUC, and should anger all Californians, is AT&T’s effort to use AB 1407 to effectively destroy state regulation of the LifeLine program. As the CPUC put it in its letter:
It removes or limits the CPUC’s ability (a) to keep LifeLine service affordable, (b) to address the unique needs of California’s low-income residents, (c) to resolve LifeLine consumer complaints, and (d) to ensure all households are sufficiently informed of the LifeLine program. The bill would eliminate the current requirement that LifeLine providers must offer “basic service,” as defined by the CPUC, to residential customers.

It further repeals provisions requiring service providers to inform LifeLine subscribers of the availability and terms and conditions of LifeLine service, as well as any safety implications of the service provided.

As the Los Angeles Times noted regarding the PUC’s plan to release its recommendations in October,
“The right way to proceed is to let the commission do its work. If lawmakers don’t like the result, they can override it. Unlike the Legislature, the commission has developed an
extensive record of views not just from industry executives but from Lifeline users and
other consumers. That process shouldn’t be short-circuited when it’s so close to
completion.”

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg sits on the Appropriations Committee that considers AB 1407 on August 19. If former State Senate leader John Burton were confronted with a bill raising phone rates on the very poor, he would probably have to be restrained from grabbing the bill’s Democratic sponsor and throwing them down a flight of stairs. Few legislators have Burton’s passion for defending the very poor, but Steinberg needs to use his leadership to kill this destructive measure.
Defeating AB 1407 requires increasing public knowledge of its provisions. So spread the word.

The post Growing Opposition to AT&T’s Attack on LifeLine Program appeared first on The Greenlining Institute.