California unemployment rate at record low 4.1%

JobsCalifornia’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 percent in September, a record low since it started tracking the number this way in 1976, the Employment Development Department reported Friday.

The Bay Area boasted the state’s lowest unemployment rates, falling below 3 percent in eight of the nine counties, all but Solano, where it was still under the statewide average.

The San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose metro areas all posted unemployment rates that were the lowest for the month of September since 1990. They fell below the lows set in September 1999, the peak of the dot-com boom.

Economists cheered the numbers, coming 10 years after the financial crisis that sent the country into a tailspin, but said they may be overstating the health of the labor market. Wage growth is still subpar, with benefits and bonuses making up a growing percentage of total compensation. And the labor force participation rate, which measures the percent of the adult population with a job, is markedly below where it was 10 year ago. This suggests that there are still discouraged workers sitting on the sidelines who could be pulled back into the labor force if wages were more enticing and employers more willing to hire them. …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle

Taxpayer Danger Lurks Beneath California’s Employment Numbers

JobsOn a superficial level, things look pretty good in California. Sure, we have big problems with wildfires and other periodic disasters, but the state’s finances have made a strong recovery since the depths of the recession. Indeed, Gov. Brown has repeatedly touted the multi-billion-dollar surplus and the state’s balanced budget.

But objective assessments from government experts and academicians have warned of troubling aspects of the state’s financial condition. These include mega projects we can’t pay for, business flight out of California, unfunded pension obligations in the hundreds of billions of dollars, a state government that is growing much faster than population and inflation combined and a dysfunctional political system.

Close analysis reveals that California is like a home with a fresh coat of paint but a crumbling foundation. It may look pretty, but there are serious problems that are not readily apparent.

One area where there is a gulf between superficial appearance and reality is in California labor statistics. Here again, on the surface, the state’s 4.2 percent unemployment rate looks very good — and it is. During the depths of the recession, the state hit a high of 12.2 percent unemployment and tens of thousands of Californians were suffering. There’s no denying that we’ve seen a vast improvement.

But there are metrics beyond the simple unemployment rate that must be taken into consideration to fully comprehend the health of California’s labor force. A recent report from the California Center for Jobs and the Economy has troubling news: “California’s labor force grew only 16,922 over the 12 months ending July 2018, or 0.1 percent growth. The U.S. as a whole grew 1.8 million — a 1.1 percent expansion.” In other words, California’s labor force has seemingly hit a plateau — an unusual occurrence given the strength of the national economy. …

Click here to read the full article from the Long Beach Press-Telegram

Should We Really Need a License to Work in California?

JobsTaking a job as a manicurist in California requires more than filling out an application and receiving an offer from an employer. Manicurists have to have at least 400 hours of training, which can cost thousands of dollars. They must also take a written and practical exam.

The government-created barrier to a career in hair care and makeup application is even higher. A cosmetologist needs 1,600 hours of state-approved training. A barber has to have 1,500 hours, according to the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

Meanwhile, a mortgage originator, who must already be a licensed broker, or salesperson, needs only 20 hours of pre-licensing education, an emergency medical technician requires 160 hours, and a crane operator doesn’t have to have any at all, according to the Hoover Institution’s David Crane. Even tree trimmers are compelled to put in more training hours than EMTs, says Dick Carpenter from the Institute of Justice.

Though occupational licenses are purported to be protections for consumers, Crane points out that “studies have consistently found that licensing laws produce no better or safer services for consumers than do less protectionist and less costly alternatives.”

Instead, an occupational license is, as the Institute for Justice has straightforwardly explained, simply “government permission to work in a particular field.” And that permission is harder to come by in California, where more than one in five workers needs a government-issued license to hold a job, than in any other state but one.

There more than 200 jobs, and maybe as many as 250, in California that require an occupational license. The National Conference of State Legislatures has said that “the tangle of laws has become so thick that a commission in California recently admitted that the state has no way of knowing how many occupations it licenses.” Whatever the number, the Goldwater Institute says it is the most of any state. Mississippi has the fewest licensed jobs, a mere 40.

Overall, California was next to last in the overall burden on the workforce by the Institute for Justice’s License to Work rankings. Those rankings considered the “number and burden of licensing requirements combined.” Only Arizona has a higher burden.

Occupational licensing has been called a “protection racket” for good reason. It shields established workers from competition from newcomers. Morris Kleiner, a University of Minnesota professor who has researched the economic consequences of occupational licensing, told the Goldwater Institute that barring competition through government licensing allows existing practitioners to charge about 15 percent more for their services.

Kleiner has also said that “the cost of licensing nationally in the form of lost jobs” is 0.5 percent to 1 percent. This would mean an additional 39,000 to 78,000 jobs in California if licensing were reduced “relative to certification or other less restrictive forms of regulation.”

An alternative to the current regime would be a policy of reciprocity. Rather than forcing workers moving in from other states to go through California’s stiff licensing requirements, the state would instead recognize those workers’ permits if California has recognized their previous state’s requirements as appropriate. Under this arrangement, “the suppliers of a licensed service can adjust to changes in demand more quickly, limiting any surges in pricing, or delays in service provision,” Pacific Research Institute fellow Wayne Winegarden wrote in “Breaking Down Barriers: How Occupational Licensing Reform Can Improve The Insurance Markets, Benefit Consumers, and Expand Job Opportunities.”

Reciprocity would also encourage, Winegarden adds, “more competitors to enter the state” which “would also benefit consumers through lower prices and higher quality.”

“In the longer-term, reciprocity and/or recognition of other states’ licenses enables states to learn from one another,” says Winegarden. “Specifically, the competitive process of suppliers from different states competing with one another will enable states to discover how to better implement the desired licensing regulations.”

This should result in lighter restrictions all around.

Furthermore, says Winegarden, “reduced licensing regulations can also remove barriers to innovation,” a benefit that would be particularly useful in California, where much of the economy depends on innovation.

There are a couple bills in the current legislative session that were written to lower the job hurdles created by occupational licensing: Assembly Bill 2483, introduced by Assemblyman Randy Voepel, and Assembly Bill 2409, introduced by Assemblyman Kevin Kiley. These should be of particular interest to those who are having a hard time making a living because they’ve been shut out by California’s existing system and want no more than to complete on a level playing field.

Kerry Jackson is a Fellow at the California Center for Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

$15 minimum wage to cost California 400,000 jobs

California reached a deal on legislation to raise the state minimum wage across all businesses to $15 per hour by 2023, a move that could cost the state hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to a new report.

A study conducted by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), which analyzed employment trends from 1990 through 2017, found that each 10% increase in the minimum wage in the Golden State has resulted in a corresponding 2% decline in employment for affected employees. The impact was larger, 5%, for lower-paid workers. By those estimates, the EPI projects that the pending $15 minimum wage hike would cost California 400,000 private sector jobs, with heavy losses in both the foodservice and retail sectors.

While the EPI acknowledges that real firms could “respond to higher minimum wages in ways that cause divergent effects,” it says “what is not in dispute” is that “rising minimum wage has depressed employment opportunities in the most heavily-impacted industries.”

As of January 1, California’s minimum wage will increase to $11 per hour from the current level of $10.50 per hour for businesses with 26 employees or more. From that point, it will be a $1 per year increase trajectory through 2022. Businesses with 25 employees or less will reach the $15 per hour threshold by 2023. …

Read the full article from Fox Business

State job-creation incentives fail to produce desired results

JobsIn February 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration unveiled an Economic Development Initiative to replace an enterprise zone program that had fallen out of favor after nearly three decades. Enterprise zones offered tax incentives to promote the starting of businesses in areas with high unemployment, but many analyses concluded they didn’t have a substantial positive effect. Now a centerpiece of Brown’s replacement initiative is offering up similar mixed-to-poor results.

The California Competes program was initially billed as providing $180 million through the end of fiscal 2014-15 for tax credits to lure businesses to the Golden State or to keep them from leaving. As the Sacramento Bee reported at the time, emergency regulations were hastened into place to get the program up and running.

Panorea Avdis, the chief deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, justified the move in a memo obtained by the Bee: “This program must go into effect immediately to help minimize the migration of business to other states and to encourage growth and expansion in this state.”

Four and a half years later, the sense of urgency among Brown aides about getting California Competes started is hard to square with its disappointing results. A recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report offered many criticisms:

– Slightly more than a third of awarded credits – 35 percent – went to companies that primarily competed with other California businesses, meaning the credits create no additional economic activity, lead to an unfair competitive advantage for firms getting the credits and consume state resources that could have been use for constructive purposes.

– There were no metrics to judge the effectiveness of the remaining 65 percent of credits, which went to companies that sold goods or services both in California and out.

– The size of the hiring and investment commitments the companies made per $100,000 of tax credits has declined steadily in recent years, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm about the value of the credits.

– The interest in the program had waned among small businesses, which had 25 percent of available annual tax credits set aside for their use. The LAO noted that in the last fiscal year – 2016-17 – only 49 percent of the credits were awarded, or about $30 million.

LAO says close program, but role in Amazon bid may provide cover

“The executive branch has made a good-faith effort to implement California Competes, but the problems described above are largely unavoidable,” the LAO wrote. “We recommend that the Legislature end California Competes. In general, broad‑based tax relief – for all businesses – is preferable to targeted tax incentives.”

Because the program loses its authority to grant tax credits at the end of fiscal 2017-18, the LAO report may shape the Legislature’s and the Brown administration’s decision on what to do about California Competes. The LAO says if the program is retained, its eligibility rules should be tightened up and other provisions should be revised to make it more likely the credits go to companies facing competition from rival firms in other states.

But at least until Amazon makes its decision on where to locate its second North American headquarters, the LAO’s call to shut down California Competes is unlikely to be heeded. In October, some $200 million over five years in California Competes funding was listed as the single biggest incentive to get Amazon to build its second home in California – topping the long list of tax and regulatory incentives that the Brown administration offered Amazon as enticements.

If California Competes is eventually shuttered, some state politicians are likely to strengthen their calls for the full revival of another economic development program shut down at Gov. Brown’s behest – redevelopment. In theory, redevelopment takes a portion of incoming local government revenue and directs it to projects with the promise to improve the local economy or to provide needed facilities.

Critics of redevelopment say it has a long history of being used for crony capitalism in California and that the diverted revenue often goes to cover routine City Hall expenses. But former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has made reviving redevelopment a key focus of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, arguing that it is essential to building more affordable housing and responding to California’s housing crisis.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

4 signs California’s job market is cooling

As reported by the Orange County Register:

Have California bosses changed their hearts about hiring?

After six straight years of job gains, 2017 started with the slowest employment upswing since the first year of the recovery from the Great Recession.

Using data from the state Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, here are four reasons behind the cooling.

No. 1: Fewer layoffs

California bosses have a low-risk way to keep payrolls up: skip the pink slips!

Just look at initial unemployment claims, seen as a snapshot of how many employees have recently lost their jobs. State employment counters report that in the year ended in February, 2.35 million unemployment claims were made.

That may sound like a like of layoffs but it’s actually historically small.

For starters, it’s the slowest annualized pace of Californians filing for jobless claims since December 2007. …

Click here to read the full article

So this is the Recovery? Californians not feeling it

JobsIs the Great Recession over?

In California, the signals are mixed.

On one hand, a recent study of U.S. Census data by the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Innovation Group found that Los Angeles County led the nation with the largest number of jobs added, a total of 352,840 between 2010 and 2014.

The good news extended statewide. Twenty counties in the U.S. accounted for half of net new businesses established in those years, and five of those counties are in California.

Yet the latest Field Poll found that 74 percent of California voters list the economy and jobs as their top concern.

Is that just habit? Or something else?

A closer look reveals a problem of definitions, starting with: What is a job?

“People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week,” explains the website of the U.S. government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, referring to its monthly survey of 60,000 households, “This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment.”

So when people pick up part-time or temporary work for a few days or even for a few hours, the government counts them as “employed” at “a job.”

Some people are counted as “employed” at “a job” even if they don’t get paid.

Here’s an example from the BLS website: “Garrett is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, Garrett does help with the regular chores around his parents’ farm and spends about 20 hours each week doing so.”

Here’s another one: “Lisa spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but she helps in her husband’s computer software business all day Friday and Saturday.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Garrett and Lisa have “jobs.” They’re in a category called ”unpaid family workers,” which includes …

Click here to read the full article.

This piece was originally published by the L.A. Daily News

California Chamber releases list of ‘job killer’ bills

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

The California Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday released a list of 18 bills it says will reduce jobs and hurt the state economy.

The chamber introduces it’s so-called “job killers” every spring and boasts a high success rate of blocking bills on the list from becoming law. Critics question the organization’s methodology to determine the list.

All of the bills labeled job killers this year were introduced by Democratic lawmakers and four carried over from 2015.

“As everyone knows, California has areas that are booming economically and other areas that are stagnating,” said Allan Zaremberg, president and chief executive officer of the California Chamber, in a statement. “Each part of California has unique problems and these job killers will negatively impact future economic …

Click here to read the full article

If You Want a Job, Where Should You Move?

JobsSince the U.S. economy imploded in 2008, there’s been a steady shift in leadership in job growth among our major metropolitan areas. In the earliest years, the cities that did the best were those on the East Coast that hosted the two prime beneficiaries of Washington’s resuscitation efforts, the financial industry and the federal bureaucracy. Then the baton was passed to metro areas riding the boom in the energy sector, which, if not totally dead in its tracks, is clearly weaker.

Right now, job creation momentum is the strongest in tech-oriented metropolises and Sun Belt cities with lower costs, particularly the still robust economies of Texas.

Topping our annual ranking of the best big cities for jobs are the main metro areas of Silicon Valley: the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco Metropolitan Division, followed by San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, swapping their positions from last year.

Our rankings are based on short-, medium- and long-term job creation, going back to 2003, and factor in momentum — whether growth is slowing or accelerating. We have compiled separate rankings for America’s 70 largest metropolitan statistical areas (those with nonfarm employment over 450,000), which are our focus this week, as well as medium-size metro areas (between 150,000 and 450,000 nonfarm jobs) and small ones (less than 150,000 nonfarm jobs) in order to make the comparisons more relevant to each category. (For a detailed description of our methodology, click here.)

An Economy Fit For Geeks

Venture capital and private-equity firms keep pouring money into U.S. technology companies, lured by the promise of huge IPO returns. Last year was the best for new stock offerings since the peak of the dot-com bubble, with 71 biotech IPOs and 55 tech IPOs. It’s continuing to fuel strong job creation in Silicon Valley. Employment expanded 4.8% in the San Francisco Metropolitan Division in 2014, which includes the job-rich suburban expanses of San Mateo to the south, and employment is up 21.2% since 2009. This has been paced by growth in professional business services jobs in the area, up 9% last year, and in information jobs, which includes many social media functions – information employment expanded 8.3% last year and is up 28.7% since 2011.

San Jose which, like San Francisco, was devastated in the tech crash a decade ago, has also rebounded smartly. The San Jose MSA clocked 4.9% job growth last year and 20.0% since 2009. Employment in manufacturing, once the heart of the local economy, has grown 8% since 2011, after a decade of sharp reversals, but the number of information jobs there has exploded, up 16% last year and 35.7% since 2011.

Meanwhile, there’s been a striking reversal of fortune in the greater Washington, D.C., area, while the greater New York area has also fallen off the pace. In the years after the crash, soaring federal spending pushed Washington-Arlington-Alexandria to as high as fifth on our annual list of the best cities for jobs; this year it’s a meager 47th, with job growth of 1.5% in 2014, following meager 0.2% growth in 2013, while Northern Virginia (50th) and Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville (64th) also lost ground, dropping, respectively, five and 15 places.

Job growth has also slowed in the greater New York region, which also was an early star performer in the immediate aftermath of the recession, in part due to the bank bailout that consolidated financial institutions in their strongest home region. Virtually all the areas that make up greater New York have lost ground in our ranking: the New York City MSA has fallen to 17th place from seventh last year, as employment growth tailed off to 2.6% in 2014 from 3.2% in 2013. Meanwhile Nassau-Suffolk ranks 49th, Rockland-Westchester 60th and Newark is second from the bottom among the biggest metro areas in 69th place.

The Shift To ‘Opportunity Cities’ Continues

Not every tech hot spot has the Bay Area’s advantages, which include venture capital, the presence of the world’s top technology companies and a host of people with the know-how to start and grow companies.

But other metro areas have something Silicon Valley lacks: affordable housing. Most of the rest of our top 15 metro areas have far lower home prices than the Bay Area, or for that matter Boston, Los Angeles or New York. And they also have experienced strong job growth, often across a wider array of industries, which provides opportunities for a broader portion of the population.

The combination of lower prices and strong job opportunities are what earns them our label of “opportunity cities.” The Bay Area may attract many of the best and brightest, but it is too expensive for most. Despite the current boom, the area’s population growth has been quite modest — San Jose has had an average population growth rate of 1.5% over the past four years. In contrast, seven of our top 10 metro areas, including third place Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, and No. 4 Austin, Texas, are also in the top 10 in terms of population growth since 2000. If prices and costs are reasonable, people will go to places where work is most abundant.

In the Dallas metro area, the job count grew 4.2% last year, paced by an 18.6% expansion in professional business services, while overall employment is up 15.7% since 2009. Job growth last year in Austin, Texas, was a healthy 3.9%, while the information sector expanded by 4.7% and since 2011 by 17.8%.

Many Texas cities, of course, have benefited from the energy boom — the recent downturn in oil prices make it likely that growth, particularly in No. 6 Houston, will decelerate in coming years.

But what is most remarkable about the top-performing cities is the diversity of their economies. Most have tech clusters, but several, such as Houston, Nashville, Tenn., Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., have growing manufacturing, trade, transportation and business services sectors. The immediate prognosis, however, may be brightest in places like Denver and Orlando, where growth is less tied to energy than business services, trade and tourism. Nashville, which places fifth on our list, has particularly bright prospects, due not only to its growing tech and manufacturing economy, but also its strong health care sector which, according to one recent study, contributes an overall economic benefit of nearly $30 billion annually and more than 210,000 jobs to the local economy.

The Also-Rans

Some economies lower in our rankings have made strong improvements, notably Atlanta-Sandy Spring-Roswell, which rose to 12th this year, a jump of 12 places. Long a star performer, the Georgia metro area stumbled through the housing bust, but it appears to have regained its footing, with strong job growth across a host of fields from manufacturing and information to health, and particularly business services, a category in which employment has increased 24% since 2009.

In California, one big turnaround story has been the Riverside-San Bernardino area, which gained six places to rank 11th this year as it has again begun to benefit from migration caused by coastal Southern California’s impossibly high home prices.

Several mid-American metro areas also are showing strong improvement. Louisville-Jefferson County, Ky., jumped fifteen places to 21st, propelled by strong growth in manufacturing, business services and finance. Kansas City, Kan. (23rd), and Kansas City, Mo. (46th), both made double-digit jumps in our rankings. In Michigan, Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, bolstered by the recovery of the auto industry, gained six places to 59th, while manufacturing hub Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills picked up two to 39th. These may not be high growth areas, but these metro area no longer consistently sit at the bottom of the list.

Losing Ground

One of the biggest resurgent stars in past rankings, New Orleans-Metairie, dropped 17 places to 43rd, while Oklahoma City fell 17 places to 33rd. These cities lack the economic diversity to withstand a long-term loss of energy jobs if the sector goes into a prolonged downturn.

Yet perhaps the most troubling among the also-rans are the metro areas that have remained steadily at the bottom. These are largely Rust Belt cities such as last place Camden, N.J., which has been at or near that position for years.

Future Prospects

Now the best prospects appear to be in tech-heavy regions, but it’s important to recognize that a key contributor to the tech sector’s frenzy of venture capital and IPOs had been the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented monetary interventions, which are now phasing out. As it is, headwinds to expansion in the Bay Area are strong. High housing prices, according to recent study, may make it very difficult for these companies to expand their local workforces. The median price of houses in tech suburbs like Los Gatos now stand at nearly $2 million — rich for all but a few — while downtown Palo Alto office rents have risen an impossible 43% in the last five years.

Companies like Google, which has run into opposition over its proposed new headquarters expansion, may choose to shift more employment to other tech centers, such as Austin, Denver, Seattle, Raleigh and Salt Lake City, where the cost of doing business tends to be less. Similarly the stronger dollar could erode the modest progress made by some industrial cities, such as Detroit and Warren, as it gives a strong advantage to foreign competitors.

Normally we would expect these processes to play out slowly. But in these turbulent times, it’s best to keep an eye out for disruptive changes — a new economic cataclysm, should one occur, could quickly shift the playing field once again.

Joel Kotkin is editor of NewGeography.com and Presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and Michael Shires is Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

Cross-posted at New Geography and Fox and Hounds Daily

CalChamber Unveils List of 2015 “Job Creator” Bills

Since 2008, CalChamber has been identifying bills that will improve the state’s job climate and stimulate our economy.  We put them on our annual “Job Creator” list hoping to put a spotlight on proposals that will encourage investment in our economy.

Last week, we released the 2015 “Job Creator” list.  This year’s list includes 11 bills that will improve our legal climate, lower costs for employers, spur tourism, and create construction jobs. The list follows recommendations made in our annual business issues guide, called “Foundation for a Better California.”

Each year we hope to have as many job creator bills on our list as we do on our job killer list.  Let’s hope our policy makers make that possible in the years to come! 

The list of 2015 job creator bills includes the following proposals:

Creates Construction Jobs

AB 35 (Chiu; D-San Francisco) Creates Affordable Housing Opportunities. Expands the existing low-income housing tax credit program, making the state better able to leverage an estimated $200 million more in Federal Tax Credits.

AB 323 (Olsen; R-Modesto) Expedites and Reduces Cost for Roadway Repair and Maintenance Projects. Streamlines infrastructure development by extending indefinitely the current CEQA exemption for certain roadway repair and maintenance projects.

AB 641 (Mayes; R-Yucca Valley) Expedites and Reduces Cost for Housing Projects. Streamlines and reduces regulatory burdens for the approval and construction of housing developments by providing an expedited review process under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Improved Legal Climate

AB 52 (Gray; D-Merced) Disability Access Litigation Reform.  Seeks to improve access for disabled customers and limit frivolous litigation against businesses for construction-related accessibility claims by providing an opportunity for the businesses to timely resolve any potential violations.

AB 54 (Olsen; R-Modesto) Disability Access Litigation Reform. Seeks to improve access for disabled patrons without harming businesses through frivolous lawsuits by providing businesses with a 60-day right to correct the violation for a claim based upon a constructed related accessibility standard that was changed or modified in the prior three years.

AB 588 (Grove; R-Bakersfield) Reduces Frivolous Litigation. Seeks to limit frivolous litigation under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, by allowing an employer a 33 day right to cure technical violations on an itemized wage statement that did not cause any injury to the employee.

AB 1252 (Jones; R-Santee) Protects Businesses from Proposition 65 Lawsuits. Provides needed relief to small businesses by prohibiting a person from bringing a Proposition 65 lawsuit against a business employing fewer than 25 employees. Failed passage in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, 04/14/15. Reconsideration Granted

AB 1470 (Alejo; D-Salinas) Reduction of Costly Employment Class Action Litigation. Limits frivolous class action litigation against employers in California who are creating high paying jobs by creating a rebuttable presumption that employees earning at least $100,000 and performing non-manual labor and at least one exempt duty are exempt from overtime requirements.

SB 67 (Galgiani; D-Stockton) Disability Access Litigation Reform. Seeks to limit frivolous litigation against small businesses and those that have sought to comply, by limiting remedies to injunctive relief and expanding the current period to correct any violation from 60 to 120 days.

Tourism

SB 249 (Hueso; D-Logan Heights) Enhanced Driver’s License. Encourages international trade and tourism by authorizing the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue enhanced driver licenses to U.S. citizens to expedite legal traffic at the border.

Workplace Improvements/Training

AB 1038 (Jones; R-Santee) Flexible Workweek. Provides employers with the opportunity to accommodate employees’ needs as well as business demands by allowing employees to request a voluntary, flexible workweek agreement that can be repealed by the employee at any time with proper notice. Failed passage in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, 04/22/15. Reconsideration Granted.

Cumulative Job Creator Signatures

2014: 14 job creator bills identified, 5 sent to Governor, signs 5

2013: 16 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

2012: 34 job creator bills identified, 9 sent to Governor, signs 9

2011: 5 job creator bills identified, 0 sent to Governor

2010: 16 job creator bills identified, 4 sent to Governor, signs 4

2009: 18 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

2008: 3 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Denise Davis is vice president, media relations and external affairs at Cal Chamber