Your eyes on California Government

OCT. 6, 2011

By KATY GRIMES

On Tuesday, Gov. Jerry Brown took a split approach on government regulations involving families. First, he vetoed AB 101, a bill that would have unionized 100,000 California child-care workers, including nannies and babysitters. The bill was sponsored by the Service Employees International Union.

Some are lauding this veto as proof that Brown is not an apparatus for unions. But others surmise that perhaps Brown just favors certain unions and special interest. After all, it was just two days earlier he signed SB 922, which now prevents local governments from banning Project Labor Agreements, which favor unions.

In his veto message of AB 101, Brown said, “California, like the nation itself, is facing huge budget challenges. Given that reality, I am reluctant to embark on a program of this magnitude and potential cost.”

AB 101 was authored by Sen. Pres Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles. It was sponsored by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Both Steinberg and Perez were employed by unions before holding elected office. Steinberg was a union attorney for the California State Employees Association. Perez was the political director of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Both legislators have authored numerous bills this legislative session sponsored by unions, directly benefitting unions.

Crafty Brown

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said that Brown knows exactly what he is doing, even if he leaves people in the state scratching their heads. “Brown supports larger union measures,” said Harkey. “Because so many mocked this bill about ‘unionizing babysitters,’ it was more outlandish than other union bills, so he vetoed it. It makes him look good.”

At the heart of the bill was an attempt to unionize licensed child-care providers who run small, in-home day cares and relatives who take care of family members and receive a state subsidy. Perez insisted in Assembly debate that the bill’s purpose was to provide better working conditions for child-care providers.

But the bill analysis stated, “The Senate amendments delete the contents of the bill and instead authorize family child care providers to form, join and participate in ‘provider organizations’ for purposes of negotiating with state agencies on specified matters.”

AB 101 was amended only days before it was voted on by the Legislature, as was the case with many bills this session. Originally authored by the Assembly Committee on the Budget, the bill was amended at the very end of the legislative session to include language by Perez and Steinberg; and it removed the Assembly committee as author.

“We’re disappointed. We still feel there are a lot of valid issues that need to be addressed,” a Steinberg spokesman reported.

The SEIU released a statement from Tonia McMillian, a child-care provider from Bellflower, who said she was “devastated” by the governor’s veto of AB 101. “Like the foundation of a house, we are the hidden support for California’s economy as it struggles to recover. And the foundation is crumbling.”

I recently wrote, in “Last Minute Bills Turn State Upside Down,” “There is no denying the relationship between Democratic legislators and labor unions. The SEIU, AFSCME and the CTA benefit greatly whenever another industry is taken over through legislation.  Because, as Democrats vote as they did last week to expand the size of unions by taking over another industry, union membership and dues increase in value.”

The plan is to increase dues-paying members so that unions gain more power and significance to Democratic lawmakers.

Nanny State Seat Belt Law

Brown also signed 18 other bills on Tuesday, “to protect children in California,” a statement from his office read. One of those bills, SB 929 by state Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, will require children riding in cars to be strapped into a booster seat until they are eight years old. Existing law permits a young child (ages one to six) to be seated in the front seat when all the rear seats are occupied by children who are as old as age 11.

SB 929 was sponsored by the California Alliance of YMCAs, the California Coalition for Children’s Safety & Health and Safe Kids California, a group which claims, “We educate families, provide safety devices to families in need and advocate for better laws to help keep children safe, healthy and out of the emergency room.”

They also destroy families’ rights to raise their own children how best they see fit without Nanny State government intrusions.

An interesting message on CarSeat.org’s online message board shed some light on the backers of this bill. The message was addressed to California advocates/techs/parents, and said the writer was passing along information “received from local Police Department Child Passenger Safety program asking for letters of support for SB 929 to be sent to Governor Jerry Brown, letting him know that we need to have stronger Child Passenger Safety Laws than we currently do.” The bill’s SB fact sheet  from Evanss’ office, and sample support letter, were attached.

SB 929 was a well-coordinated effort by a special interest to get legislation passed using child safety as the cover.

Whether is it Nanny State legislation, or union special interests, Brown is driving this bus.

“Governor Brown is no worse than Arnold,” said Harkey. She said that as governor, Brown will get what he wants. Like it or not, he is governing. He’s very political. He knows how to swim the waters.”

Tags: California, California budget, California Legislature, darrell Steinberg, Democrats, government, Jerry Brown, jobs, Katy Grimes, legislature, Public Employee Unions, regulations, Republicans, Sacramento, tax increases, Taxes, unions