regulation – Page 3

CA Democrats Want to Unionize and Regulate Models

April 10, 2016 By Chriss Street 1 Comment

Marin County Democrat Assemblyman Marc Levine is moving forward legislation aimed at unionizing models and having the Labor Commission regulate their bodies.

Despite strong objections from state theatrical talent and modeling agencies, Levine sponsored Assembly Bill 2539, referred to as “Promoting Healthy Images,” which recently passed out of Committee on Labor and Employment on a five-to-two vote and is headed to the State Assembly floor.

Although Levine claims his legislation is part of the “struggle” to protect women’s health, the real struggle he is focused on is the “struggle” to rescue the collapsing union movement. Levine’s legislation is aimed at converting models from independent contractors into employees of modeling agencies licensed by the California Labor Commission.

California, with 2.4 million union members out of a population of 38.8 million, has the largest number of unionized workforce members in the United States, and the second largest unionized percentage of the workforce at 16.3 percent, second only to New York at 24.6 percent.

When 36.1 percent of California’s workforce was unionized fifty years ago, there were almost no government union members. But the state’s public sector union membership now equals 1.3 million, while private sector union membership has fallen to just 1.1 million.

According to the “On Labor blog,” which represents “workers, unions, and their politics,” there is a “current crisis in the traditional union movement” that can only be turned around with “new and contested forms of worker organization that are filling the labor union gap.”

That “contested form of worker organization” is the effort to unionize so called “gig economy,” which has been revolutionizing employer/employee relationships by shifting what has traditionally been considered full-time work into a series of short-term engagements filled by legally contracted individuals as “free agents.”

Unions have been the main supporters of class-action litigation in northern California, O’Connor v. Uber, that seeks to eliminate Uber Technologies Inc.’s contract arbitration agreements, with the goal of unionizing 240,000 Uber drivers.

Models have always been part of this “on demand economy,” because their “work” is structured into small projects of limited duration. Although only about one percent of U.S. adults are engaged in “gig jobs,” a study by tax experts at Intuit suggests that with employee benefit costs exceeding 46 percent of wages, and workplace litigation spiking, gig employment will rise to 40 percent of employment.

At the committee hearing, Assemblyman Levine paraded through a group of ex-models who told horror stories about the use laxatives and diuretics; binging and purging; exercising to exhaustion; eating only one rice cake per day; or swallow cotton balls soaked in orange juice to fill their stomachs and stop their hunger pains.

Levine argued that fashion models face widespread and dangerous occupational demands to maintain extreme and unhealthy thinness. He stated, “We want to make sure we are able to protect people in the workplace and make sure, quite frankly, that the images that young people see are healthy images.”

Opponents of the proposed legislation include a number of modeling agencies and the Association of Talent Agents. The group argues that their member agencies are already committed to promoting the health and well-being of all artists, but that the bill “creates major disruption and legal confusion for state licensed talent agencies, doesn’t resolve the real issue, and is unworkable.”

Originally published by Breitbart.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Marc Levine, Models, regulation, unions

Thoughtless Bureaucrats and Driverless Cars

March 5, 2016 By Ian Adams 3 Comments

California’s Legislature set out in 2012 “to encourage the current and future development, testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on the public roads of the state” — but now, the state is poised effectively to ban such cars from the roads and highways. The Department of Motor Vehicles held a public workshop in Sacramento in late January and another in Los Angeles in early February to discuss draft regulations for autonomous vehicles. Though the rules won’t be finalized before the end of the year, the news so far isn’t good — for the cars. Under the cover of “consumer protection,” the DMV proposes to limit the rollout of autonomous technology by, among other things, barring its commercial use, precluding truly autonomous operation, and prohibiting private sale and ownership of self-driving cars.

The DMV is best known for ensuring that 16-year-olds are minimally competent behind the wheel of traditional motor vehicles; it has no particular expertise in evaluating the appropriateness of vehicle-safety requirements. But that hasn’t stopped the department from imposing an excess of caution on the approval of autonomous-vehicle technology. The idea of cars or trucks operating without steering wheels or human drivers is exciting to entrepreneurs and commuters. Google’s autonomous car would have no steering wheel, or even pedals. A delivery service such as Google Express would likely roll out without drivers. Uber is researching how to replace drivers as well. Shipping and logistics companies also envision a future when goods move from harbors to warehouses in autonomous trucks. More than a dozen disabled activists appeared at the hearing in Los Angeles to urge the DMV to allow purely autonomous vehicles, saying they would be a boon for people, such as the blind, who are incapable of driving right now. But the idea is terrifying to bureaucrats and regulators. The DMV’s smothering — and costly — approach will likely become state policy, squelching such innovations.

Keeping driverless cars off the streets is one thing; why ban their sale entirely? DMV chief information officer Bernard Soriano said last month that because the proposed rules would place a three-year limit on the use of approved vehicles, buyers likely wouldn’t receive much benefit over such a short period of ownership. Furthermore, the DMV believes that by prohibiting sales, the rules would protect early adopters of the technology from being stuck with vehicles that are later deemed unsafe by the department. Finally, the DMV maintains that leased vehicles, which remain under the ownership of the vehicle manufacturer, will be easier to collect data from.

The first of the rationales is the most compelling, but only compared with the others. With only three years before retirement, a purchased vehicle’s value — much of it traditionally recouped in its resale — would be destroyed by these regulations. The rule would shift a greater financial burden onto manufacturers and all but guarantee that the only people able to afford early vehicles, even by leasing them, will be wealthy. If anything, the three-year sunset requirement is itself a constructive ban on ownership, which makes the DMV’s second rationale irrelevant. If a small, wealthy segment of the population is aware of the state’s strictures and doesn’t mind temporarily possessing a vehicle that’s doomed by law, it can certainly afford the risk. The state’s supposed desire to protect these people from loss seems at once unnecessary and disingenuous.

The DMV’s third and final rationale — compliance with reporting requirements—is even more poorly conceived. As with every vehicle sold today, the manufacturer, for better or worse, controls the technology used and the data it produces. When you buy or lease a car, you sign a contract that says so explicitly. So the DMV would have access to any safety data it likes, regardless of whether the “owner” is the manufacturer or the end user.

Without question, prohibiting private sale and ownership of self-driving cars and trucks would destroy value and raise costs. Google has already threatened to take its autonomous vehicle business elsewhere. Given that outcome, the DMV’s justifications simply don’t hold up. So why would the DMV push prohibition with such gusto? Why would the state pursue policies to discourage the adoption of vehicles that, by virtually all accounts, would be orders of magnitude safer than traditionally operated vehicles? And, how does a department charged with enacting the will of the legislature land so far afield of the legislature’s stated goal of creating a legal framework that promotes autonomous vehicles? Very simply, lawmakers deferred too much authority to a bureaucracy, and California’s motorists will pay the price.

Ian Adams is an attorney in California and senior fellow of the R Street Institute.

This piece was originally published by City Journal online.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: DMV, Google, regulation, Self-driving cars

Unintended Consequences of Uber Boom

February 29, 2016 By Dan Bender 2 Comments

There’s been a lot of chatter in California these days about Uber, Lyft and so-called “transportation network companies,” or TNCs – and why not? After all, these evolving services were “born” in the Golden State, which has earned renown as a beacon and world leader of innovation and technology. Consumers, the media and many politicians have focused their attention on this popular phenomenon as it moves as rapidly as its driver-owned fleet.

But, looking closer at the issue, this baby boomer can’t help but cite a few choice words from a Crosby, Stills and Nash hit: “Traveling twice the speed of sound, it’s easy to get burned.” What many leaders are now rightly taking into consideration are the unintended consequences of these TNCs – a safe and competitive landscape for consumers, the marketplace and our highways.

Thankfully, many leaders in the State Capitol are realizing that we need to know more about the Ubers of the world – what they do, how they operate, how they are regulated, and what this means for the future. In recent weeks, a joint legislative hearing was convened to focus on just that, and the facts speak for themselves. There was general unanimity that these new technologies are a good thing if done right, but too many uncertainties remain. Will this new service lead to less traffic or more? Does it exclude certain California consumers while favoring others? What are the views and perspectives of both driver and passenger? How seamless is the background check process for all drivers? Many unknowns persist all-around. In fact, the lobbyist for one TNC wasn’t even aware of the rough number of cars they have on the highway.

Much of the emphasis during this hearing and otherwise has been on the fallout this new “app” service has had on other people-moving services, notably taxis and limousines, but there has been little, if any, public discussion about its impact on another major contributor to jobs, the economy and our communities: California’s same-day delivery industry.

These are the mostly mom-and-pop family businesses that deliver vital goods and products like blood, medical supplies, rare construction parts and legal documents to local customer’s door-to-door, business-to-business, in real time. To be clear, the owners of these businesses are not “anti-TNC”, and they realize they must keep up with the times to be competitive. As times change, so must they and their business models to court the customer with best-in-class pricing, cutting-edge technologies and quality customer service. And the majority of these companies are, in fact, doing just that.

We believe in a free and competitive marketplace. That’s not our concern. What is problematic is that the delivery industry, many that have been in existence for 20, 30, 40 years or more and operating on razor-thin margins, are required to comply with specific motorist regulations and requirements while these TNCs are not being subjected to the same level of enforcement and accountability.

The current law requires that delivery companies must possess a Motor Carrier Permit through the DMV to move goods for hire. TNCs are not being held to the same standard and are, in fact, moving products from Point A to Point B with no permit and ignoring the law.

Delivery companies must obtain adequate insurance to ensure that the general public is protected. TNCs aren’t held to that same standard. Not only is this unfair, it puts the lives of millions in our communities at risk.

As our legislative leaders debrief from this recent hearing and consider next steps, we urge them to consider policy that will bring accountability and safety for all of us:

A better-defined Motor Carrier Permit that spells out guidelines for transporting both goods and people
Reasonable insurance requirements for drivers and companies in the transportation community
Improved accountability and uniformity for background checks and fingerprinting for all related personnel to maximize safety for consumers, employees and others on the highways and roads
And better clarification and simplification of the definition of “independent contractor” versus “employee”.

The goal here is to identify changes and a proposal that all motorist stakeholders – delivery companies, TNCs, taxi services, livery services and others – have had a role in shaping and support.

Our small business members believe in running the race – after all, they do it every day when they open the doors of their business – but our leaders in Sacramento need to foster an environment that allows all of us to compete on a level – and safe – playing field.

Dan Bender is Executive Director, California Delivery Association.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Lyft, regulation, Ride-sharing, Uber

Aloe Vera Added to Prop. 65 List

February 13, 2016 By Tom Scott 40 Comments

There are two very different types of actors in the realm of making our economy tick. Entrepreneurs wake of every day trying to think of new ways to innovate, to expand, and thus create new jobs. Then there are the regulators in Sacramento who wake up every day thinking of new, creative ways to add burdens and barriers to operating your business in California and beyond. Their latest regulatory red alert: Aloe vera.

You read that correctly: Aloe vera. In December of last year, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published its intent to list Aloe vera, whole leave extract to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. Despite the widely accepted extensive health benefits of Aloe vera, an unelected regulator in Sacramento can now tell you and all consumers it will cause cancer, even if no cases of cancer from Aloe vera exposure exist.

The problem is that the 800+ chemicals listed in Proposition 65 are not devised to protect consumers, but rather serve as a cash cow for private trial lawyers to sue small business and reap the hefty settlement payout. Since 1986, nearly 20,000 lawsuits have been filed, adding up to over half a billion dollars in settlement payments by business owners.

Unfortunately, the most profitable thing regulators give to trial lawyers at the expense of job creators is confusion. Recent Proposition 65 proposed regulatory revisions create compliance difficulties, increase frivolous litigation, and add consumer confusion.

Included in these proposed revisions are additional Prop 65 labeling requirements on the immediate container or wrapper of products containing at least one of the twelve chemicals listed by OEHHA. However, the chemical(s) only need to be listed if it exists at a “level that requires a warning.” Which products need a Prop 65 warning label and which do not? A lawyer only needs to know the chemical exists to take legal action; the costly burden to prove it exists at a safe level falls on the business owner.

Beyond package labels and chemical lists, new proposed regulations seek to further specify even the acceptable font size for Prop 65 warning signs. Most business owners would not know that the font on a Prop 65 warning must be “no smaller than one half the largest type size used for other consumer information.” The average small business coffee shop owner is likely unaware that he or she may be at serious risk for a frivolous lawsuit because of a minor font size error.

Confused yet? The bottom line is that these regulations exist to cause confusion, and the latest addition of aloe vera to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer only further confuses both consumers and small businesses. Every time a chemical is added to the Prop. 65 list, it simply creates one more avenue for trial lawyers to sue.

If our regulators and legislators in Sacramento spent half as much effort thinking of ways to support small business as they do devising new creative ways to regulate them, perhaps California would not be ranked dead last for its business climate by CEO Magazine ten years in a row, nor would we be listed as the #1 Judicial Hellhole by the American Tort Reform Foundation.

Small businesses reflect the lifeblood of every community across California and the nation. Each day, entrepreneurs struggle to thrive in spite of additional mandates and regulations—now small businesses can add aloe vera to their list of things to worry about. Let’s instead focus on policies that support small business, not regulations that add to the cost of doing business in California.

Tom Scott is CA Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business.

For more than 70 years, the National Federation of Independent Business has been the Voice of Small Business, taking the message from Main Street to the halls of Congress and all 50 state legislatures. NFIB has 350,000 dues-paying members nationally, with over 22,000 in California. NFIB annually surveys its members on state and federal issues vital to their survival as America’s economic engine and biggest creator of jobs. To learn more visit www.NFIB.com/california.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Aloe Vera, Cancer, NFIB, Prop. 65, regulation

Scientist Debunks Claim That E-Cigs Are As Dangerous As Tobacco

January 17, 2016 By Guy Bentley 1 Comment

A study making headlines across the world claiming two e-cigarette products “damaged cells in ways that could lead to cancer,” is under fire from a leading public health expert.

Conducted by a research team at the University of California, San Diego, the study investigated how e-cigarettes may contribute to the development and progression of a cancer known as head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

The research team “created an extract from the vapor of two popular brands of e-cigarettes and used it to treat human cells in Petri dishes. Compared with untreated cells, the treated cells were more likely to show DNA damage and die.”

What was the result?

“The exposed cells showed several forms of damage, including DNA strand breaks. The familiar double helix that makes up DNA has two long strands of molecules that intertwine. When one or both of these strands break apart and the cellular repair process doesn’t work right, the stage is set for cancer.”

One of the study’s authors even went on to claim “they [e-cigarettes] are no better than smoking regular cigarettes.” Combined with a hyperbolic press release, the study has triggered a wave of headlines claiming vaping is just as dangerous as smoking.

But Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Boston University School of Public Health, with 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control has dissected the most sensational claims of both the researchers and headline writers.

In a statement sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation, Siegel said, “this study confirms previous findings that e-cigarette vapor can cause damage to epithelial cell lines in culture, and that the damage caused by e-cigarette vapor is much lower than that caused by tobacco smoke. However, it cannot be concluded from this cell culture study that e-cigarette vapor actually has toxic or carcinogenic effects in humans who use these products.”

“In particular, the dose at which e-cigarette vapor was found to have an adverse effect was much higher than the actual dose that a vapor receives. Nevertheless, one of the co-authors concluded publicly that based on these results, e-cigarette use is no less hazardous than cigarette smoking.”

Siegel added that “not only is this conclusion baseless, but it is damaging to the public’s health. It undermines decades of public education about the severe hazards of cigarette smoking. To declare that smoking is no more hazardous than using e-cigarettes, a non-tobacco-containing product is a false and irresponsible claim.”

One of Siegel’s chief concerns about the misrepresentation of e-cigarettes is many ex-smokers who took up vaping may switch back to regular cigarettes if they believe there is no difference between the two. “This will cause actual human health damage, not merely damage to some cells in a laboratory culture,” says Siegel.

Follow Guy on Twitter

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Cigarette, E-cigarette, e-cigs, regulation, Smoking, Tobacco

Leaking Gas Well Lacked Working Safety Valve

January 4, 2016 By Zahira Torres and Frank Shyong Leave a Comment

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

A leaking natural gas well that has displaced thousands of residents in Porter Ranch lacked a working safety valve, sparking new questions about how the facility was maintained.

Attorneys for residents suing Southern California Gas Co. said the company failed to replace the safety valve when it was removed in 1979.

The safety valve may not have prevented the leak, but it would have stopped the continued release of fumes pouring into the community, attorney Brian Panish said in an interview Sunday.

SoCal Gas spokeswoman Melissa Bailey confirmed in an email to The Times that the well did not have …

Click here to read the full article

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Gas leak, Health, natural gas, Porter Ranch, Public health, regulation

California University Will Ban Soda Sales On Campus

June 17, 2015 By Blake Neff 7 Comments

The University of California-San Francisco is halting the sale of soda and other sugary drinks on campus due to health concerns.

Under the new policy, which was decided upon in May and will be implemented in July, campus vendors will be blocked from selling all drinks with added sugar calories to the school’s 4,600 students. That means no Coca-Cola, no Dr. Pepper, and no fruit punch. Diet sodas and 100 percent juice drinks will still be tolerated, and students will be allowed to bring sugary drinks on campus if they buy them elsewhere.

“The average American consumes nearly three times the recommended amount of added sugar every day,” UCSF professor Laura Schmidt said in the school’s initial announcement. “The most common single source is sugar-sweetened beverages.”

While UCSF characterizes the policy as a voluntary “strategy” for its vendors, the vendors themselves don’t agree. Kenneth Guzman, who operates an on-campus restaurant, told Inside Higher Ed that he “didn’t really have a choice” about dumping soda.

“I felt like it was a little too rash, they are too harsh,” Guzman said. “We could’ve just educated our customers on how to choose healthier alternatives and not punish them, taking away what they love.”

Another food vendor on campus said he thought it was silly for the school to ban sugared drinks but not diet sodas.

“Artificial sugars are worse than sugar itself,” said Peasant Pie operator Ali Keshavarz. “If my kid had a choice between a sugar soda and a diet soda, I’d want them to have the sugar soda, I know that for a fact.”

The new policy makes UCSF the first university in the country to put such a broad limit on sugar sales, and comes just two years after the campus banned all tobacco products.

The decision may be slightly more justified at UCSF than at other colleges, as the school is focused solely on graduate education in health sciences.

The move is also premised on research the school itself has conducted. A 2012 article in Nature by three UCSF researchers argued the health consequences of added sugars were so severe they deserved to be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

“Passive smoking and drink-driving fatalities provided strong arguments for tobacco and alcohol control,” the authors say in the article. “The long-term economic, health-care and human costs of metabolic syndrome place sugar overconsumption in the same category. The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome.” Metabolic disorders related to sugar, the authors say, consume 75 percent of U.S. health spending.

Since “individually focused approaches” such as education aren’t working, the authors say, what is needed are “supply-side” restrictions such as higher taxes, age restrictions, and banning sales at schools.

Leeanne Jensen, the school’s wellness coordinator, told Inside Higher Ed the ban meant UCSF was “living our mission” by adopting its own advice on health. She also said the ban was focused on sugary drinks because their effect on health was particularly bad. High-sugar foods like cookies are more satiating than soda, she said, while the research on diet sodas is not as clear regarding whether they are unhealthy or not.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Follow Blake on Twitter

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Health, regulation, san francisco, Soda, UCSF, University of California

CA: Worst Place For Business, 11th Year In A Row

June 5, 2015 By Tom Scott 2 Comments

California’s economic recovery might be a little over stated, at least according to the people who actually create jobs.

Chief Executive Magazine has released its annual Best and Worst States for Business Survey and California ranked last – for the 11th year in a row. In the annual survey, completed by 511 CEOs across the United States, states are measured across three key categories to achieve their overall ranking: taxes and regulations, quality of the workforce and living environment, which includes things like, quality of education, cost of living, affordable housing, social amenities and crime rates.

California again placed 50th on the list, joining New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts at the bottom. Texas remained in the number one slot followed by Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

One CEO was quoted as saying, “the good states ask what they can do for you; the bad states ask what they can get from you.” Another CEO was quoted, “California and Oregon are essentially anti-business, whereas Texas and Tennessee do everything possible comfortable and more successful.”

Litigation and a state’s legal climate are one of the things weighing on the minds of CEOs as they consider states in which to do business and create jobs. California continues to be a “Judicial Hellhole,” and is tepid at best in its willingness to stop lawsuit abuse. Businesses will be discouraged from expanding and creating jobs in a state in which the lawsuit system mainly serves the interests of lawyers rather than ordinary people.

A single abusive lawsuit can cost a business tremendously. California’s leaders need to make this connection and make it a priority to enact meaningful reforms to our lawsuit system.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Tom Scott is executive director, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: business, Chief Executive Magazine, Lawsuit, regulation, Tom Scott