“What proponents do not care to emphasize is the fact that the car must “passively” monitor the vehicle and driver and that the system will have at least one port of entry for someone (or something) outside the vehicle to access the system, a port of entry that will be perfect for the imposition of a VMT.

Briefly, a VMT is a direct tax on driving instead (theoretically, very theoretically) of the gas taxes currently paid at the pump. The imposition of a VMT has multiple potential permutations, from simply charging a flat rate per mile driven to modifying the rate depending upon when the car is driven (higher for rush hour, for example,) to charging more based on where the car is driven (known as cordon pricing) or even how much the driver earns in a year – for a detailed breakdown of the possibilities, see HERE.

To make the tax work – unless the government would rely on self-reporting which it won’t because, well, duh – a vehicle needs to be tracked at all times.  This aspeect has led to fierce public opposition to the concept, but if the tracker is already in the car for “safety” purposes some of this opposition may be tamped down (the same rationale goes for the eventual introduction of the self-driving car – which clearly need to be tracked at all times – lessening criticism of the concept.)”

You read that right—an outside source will be able to control your car and can stop it in its tracks.  No warning, no appeal, you are stuck.  No wonder they are killing oil—you will not need it because you are not going anywhere.  Oh, if you are on a government “watch” list they will be able to stop you from attending protests or rallies.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Gets a Killer Boost

Federal New Car ‘Kill Switch’ Reg Opens Backdoor

By Thomas Buckley, California Globe,   1/8/23    

It seems as if anything can be done – truly anything – if it is in the name of safety.

From the pandemic to peanut butter, as long as a new rule, regulation, mandate, dictate is couched in the language of improving safety it is either completely cosseted from criticism or its possibilities for gross governmental misuse are downplayed as the ravings of a paranoid lunatic.

California and the rest of the nation may very well soon learn that when it comes to “good intentions,” if the government is involved the true intentions are often hidden and they are very rarely good.

And it is on these intentions the imposition of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on drivers could be introduced at a federal level.

In the Biden infrastructure bill signed last year, a relatively obscure bit calls for all new cars built after 2026 to have a “kill switch.”  Sold as a way to combat drunk driving, the system would involve various unclear-at-the-present technologies (yes your car will have to be able to literally watch you) to detect whether or not you could be impaired and if the car determines that to be that case then the car won’t start.

Per usual, the proponents of the bill claim that no nefarious future actions are possible. From an AP story dispelling the myth of the “kill switch” (serious water carrying there) Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, said any information collected will “never leave the vehicle.”

In other words, it’s not really a “kill switch” and safe drivers really don’t have to worry ever and we’re doing this for your own good and anyone who thinks this device will ever be used in any other way by any government agency is nuts and bad and crazy and might be a domestic terrorist.

We’ve seen this movie before.

What proponents do not care to emphasize is the fact that the car must “passively” monitor the vehicle and driver and that the system will have at least one port of entry for someone (or something) outside the vehicle to access the system, a port of entry that will be perfect for the imposition of a VMT.

Briefly, a VMT is a direct tax on driving instead (theoretically, very theoretically) of the gas taxes currently paid at the pump. The imposition of a VMT has multiple potential permutations, from simply charging a flat rate per mile driven to modifying the rate depending upon when the car is driven (higher for rush hour, for example,) to charging more based on where the car is driven (known as cordon pricing) or even how much the driver earns in a year – for a detailed breakdown of the possibilities, see HERE.

To make the tax work – unless the government would rely on self-reporting which it won’t because, well, duh – a vehicle needs to be tracked at all times.  This aspeect has led to fierce public opposition to the concept, but if the tracker is already in the car for “safety” purposes some of this opposition may be tamped down (the same rationale goes for the eventual introduction of the self-driving car – which clearly need to be tracked at all times – lessening criticism of the concept.)

The VMT has been simmering in Sacramento for years, has been pilot programmed in multiple states, and is already in place in multiple jurisdictions. 

A VMT for large trucks took effect on January 1 in Connecticut, a driver is charged about $20 when they cross an imaginary line heading into central London, and, starting next year, most everyone driving below 60^th Street in Manhattan will have to pay between $9 and $23 for the privilege to do so.

Last year, the San Diego Association of Governments tried to put a VMT into its county transportation plan, but the board balked at the last minute due to the political ramifications (local elected officials have been booted out of office for supporting a VMT).  However, the introduction in California of at-this-point voluntary “digital license plates” which could be used to track vehicles raises serious privacy issues, and could be used to take the VMT matter out of local hands.

Again, the rationale for the overwhelming opposition has been the invasion of privacy inherent in placing tracking devices in individual personal automobiles. With this new system, that issue is obviated by the fact that if you want to buy a new car you will have to have a “safety” system in the car, a system that can/will be used to impose the VMT.

Another key advantage for VMT proponents to this federal approach is that it essentially solves the other big problem involved in a VMT – borders.  For example, if San Diego had a VMT, how would all the out-of-town tourists visiting Legoland pay if the tax at the pump is gone?  What would happen if California had a VMT but not Nevada – if you had to buy gas in Primm on the way to/from Las Vegas, would you end up being double taxed?  The list goes on…

But a federal program that covers every driver in the nation eliminates this thorny issue as it makes borders meaningless.

And, frighteningly, that is one thing we know the Biden Administration is very good at.

Here is how the Feds and Newsom will be able to limit your driving.  They will decide how much and where you are allowed to drive.  Feel safe?

“What proponents do not care to emphasize is the fact that the car must “passively” monitor the vehicle and driver and that the system will have at least one port of entry for someone (or something) outside the vehicle to access the system, a port of entry that will be perfect for the imposition of a VMT.

Briefly, a VMT is a direct tax on driving instead (theoretically, very theoretically) of the gas taxes currently paid at the pump. The imposition of a VMT has multiple potential permutations, from simply charging a flat rate per mile driven to modifying the rate depending upon when the car is driven (higher for rush hour, for example,) to charging more based on where the car is driven (known as cordon pricing) or even how much the driver earns in a year – for a detailed breakdown of the possibilities, see HERE.

To make the tax work – unless the government would rely on self-reporting which it won’t because, well, duh – a vehicle needs to be tracked at all times.  This aspeect has led to fierce public opposition to the concept, but if the tracker is already in the car for “safety” purposes some of this opposition may be tamped down (the same rationale goes for the eventual introduction of the self-driving car – which clearly need to be tracked at all times – lessening criticism of the concept.)”

You read that right—an outside source will be able to control your car and can stop it in its tracks.  No warning, no appeal, you are stuck.  No wonder they are killing oil—you will not need it because you are not going anywhere.  Oh, if you are on a government “watch” list they will be able to stop you from attending protests or rallies.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Gets a Killer Boost

Federal New Car ‘Kill Switch’ Reg Opens Backdoor

By Thomas Buckley, California Globe,   1/8/23     https://californiaglobe.com/articles/vehicle-miles-traveled-tax-gets-a-killer-boost/

It seems as if anything can be done – truly anything – if it is in the name of safety.

From the pandemic to peanut butter, as long as a new rule, regulation, mandate, dictate is couched in the language of improving safety it is either completely cosseted from criticism or its possibilities for gross governmental misuse are downplayed as the ravings of a paranoid lunatic.

California and the rest of the nation may very well soon learn that when it comes to “good intentions,” if the government is involved the true intentions are often hidden and they are very rarely good.

And it is on these intentions the imposition of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on drivers could be introduced at a federal level.

In the Biden infrastructure bill signed last year, a relatively obscure bit calls for all new cars built after 2026 to have a “kill switch.”  Sold as a way to combat drunk driving, the system would involve various unclear-at-the-present technologies (yes your car will have to be able to literally watch you) to detect whether or not you could be impaired and if the car determines that to be that case then the car won’t start.

Per usual, the proponents of the bill claim that no nefarious future actions are possible. From an AP story dispelling the myth of the “kill switch” (serious water carrying there) Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, said any information collected will “never leave the vehicle.”

In other words, it’s not really a “kill switch” and safe drivers really don’t have to worry ever and we’re doing this for your own good and anyone who thinks this device will ever be used in any other way by any government agency is nuts and bad and crazy and might be a domestic terrorist.

We’ve seen this movie before.

What proponents do not care to emphasize is the fact that the car must “passively” monitor the vehicle and driver and that the system will have at least one port of entry for someone (or something) outside the vehicle to access the system, a port of entry that will be perfect for the imposition of a VMT.

Briefly, a VMT is a direct tax on driving instead (theoretically, very theoretically) of the gas taxes currently paid at the pump. The imposition of a VMT has multiple potential permutations, from simply charging a flat rate per mile driven to modifying the rate depending upon when the car is driven (higher for rush hour, for example,) to charging more based on where the car is driven (known as cordon pricing) or even how much the driver earns in a year – for a detailed breakdown of the possibilities, see HERE.

To make the tax work – unless the government would rely on self-reporting which it won’t because, well, duh – a vehicle needs to be tracked at all times.  This aspeect has led to fierce public opposition to the concept, but if the tracker is already in the car for “safety” purposes some of this opposition may be tamped down (the same rationale goes for the eventual introduction of the self-driving car – which clearly need to be tracked at all times – lessening criticism of the concept.)

The VMT has been simmering in Sacramento for years, has been pilot programmed in multiple states, and is already in place in multiple jurisdictions. 

A VMT for large trucks took effect on January 1 in Connecticut, a driver is charged about $20 when they cross an imaginary line heading into central London, and, starting next year, most everyone driving below 60^th Street in Manhattan will have to pay between $9 and $23 for the privilege to do so.

Last year, the San Diego Association of Governments tried to put a VMT into its county transportation plan, but the board balked at the last minute due to the political ramifications (local elected officials have been booted out of office for supporting a VMT).  However, the introduction in California of at-this-point voluntary “digital license plates” which could be used to track vehicles raises serious privacy issues, and could be used to take the VMT matter out of local hands.

Again, the rationale for the overwhelming opposition has been the invasion of privacy inherent in placing tracking devices in individual personal automobiles. With this new system, that issue is obviated by the fact that if you want to buy a new car you will have to have a “safety” system in the car, a system that can/will be used to impose the VMT.

Another key advantage for VMT proponents to this federal approach is that it essentially solves the other big problem involved in a VMT – borders.  For example, if San Diego had a VMT, how would all the out-of-town tourists visiting Legoland pay if the tax at the pump is gone?  What would happen if California had a VMT but not Nevada – if you had to buy gas in Primm on the way to/from Las Vegas, would you end up being double taxed?  The list goes on…

But a federal program that covers every driver in the nation eliminates this thorny issue as it makes borders meaningless.

And, frighteningly, that is one thing we know the Biden Administration is very good at.

Sacramento’s mayor wants Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leadership to spend $3 billion to prevent crime — a call to action that follows some of the worst violence in city history. Mayor Darrell Steinberg on Wednesday pushed for the funding not far from the scene of a mass shooting that killed six people early Sunday. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, joined Steinberg and social justice advocates in urging financial support for victim services, re-entry programs, community organizations and mental health and addiction treatment.

The group sent a letter to Newsom, Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, asking for investments they say get at the root cause of community violence. California is flush with a projected surplus of more than $30 billion ahead of May budget revisions. The crime prevention spending package Steinberg and others presented will be on the table along with other spending priorities Newsom could consider.

The spending package the mayor, legislators and advocates touted includes the following: $210 million for critical victim services $200 million to increase the capacity of community-based re-entry programs $200 million for a re-entry housing program $100 million in grant funding to go to cities and counties for community-based crime prevention $200 million to fund mental health treatment for people in the criminal justice system Steinberg said he wanted to be clear that his comments on Wednesday were meant to push violence prevention funding in general.

Click here to read the full article at Sacramento Bee

It is not the Progressives in California that are leaving the State.  But Progressives in other States are jealous of the crime wave, lack of law enforcement in California, the homelessness, the failed schools and corruption of Sacramento.  They love environmental laws that kill jobs and housing.  So, they see the failures of California and want them for their State.

“Similar dysfunction plagued all of her previous offices, so why would we expect anything different as vice president? My theory: California’s Democrats rise to power in a one-party state, where internal party considerations matter more than policy credentials or basic competence, so they are out of their league playing at the national level.

California Democrats don’t understand that voters in Peoria or Phoenix don’t share the same obsessions as those in San Francisco or Los Angeles. So while California’s lawmakers will continue along their merry, progressive way, it’s obvious—and fortunate— that they lack the skills to impose those priorities on a politically diverse nation.”

Why Are Progressives So Eager To Copy California’s Failed Policies?

Californians might be voting with their feet, but there’s nowhere they can run and hide if the federal government embraces the same policies.

STEVEN GREENHUT, Reason,   2/18/22 

During my recent trip to Phoenix, locals rolled their eyes at all the Californians who are moving there—mostly middle-class residents who are so tired of our state’s chronic mismanagement that they’re willing to abandon the temperate coast for a parched desert. Note to Californians: It’s best to re-register your cars in other states as quickly as possible, to avoid glares from the locals.

But while the exodus continues—and California’s falling population and outmigration figures reinforce the anecdotal stories—progressives still dream of replicating the state’s political experiment at the national level. Californians might be voting with their feet, but there’s nowhere they can run and hide if the federal government embraces the same policies.

After the Biden administration took power, many Americans expressed these concerns. After all, Vice President Kamala Harris, is a product of the Bay Area Democratic political machine. Biden tapped another former California attorney general and member of Congress, Xavier Becerra, to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—a particularly important agency given the pandemic.

Other Californians rose to high-level positions, too. These include a team of economic officials with longtime California ties, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco), Small Business Administration head Isabel Casillas Guzman (a veteran of the Gray Davis and Gavin Newsom administrations), and a host of lesser-known officials.

And San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi remains the speaker of the house, where California-style policies (such as its ban on independent contracting) receive a sympathetic hearing. As we know, California’s Democratic leaders seem more interested in using California—it’s the world’s fifth-largest economy, don’t you know?—as a template for national policy.

Their recent fratricide over single-payer healthcare is one recent example. The Legislature proposed ending every private health plan and replacing it with a DMV-style bureaucracy called CalCare. Its companion measure, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11, would have asked California voters to raise their taxes by $12,250 per household.

In reality, neither bill had any serious chance of becoming law. The effort was about making a symbolic point—largely for a national audience. But with Harris and Becerra in key national posts, progressives hoped such policies could be imposed from the top down.

Yet fears of the Californication of America are overblown after watching the administration’s ongoing struggles. “White House officials have grown so frustrated with top health official Xavier Becerra as the pandemic rages on that they have openly mused about who might be better in the job,” The Washington Post reported last month.

Biden officials are frustrated at conflicting messaging from Becerra’s office, as the pandemic continues and the administration pays a political price for its mishandling of related health policy. By the way, a government agency that can’t even get its “messaging “right on one single health issue might not be the best place to centralize all healthcare decisions, but I digress.

The administration jumped into damage-control mode, as Latino groups complained about criticism of Biden’s highest-ranking Latino official. But no Californian should be surprised at Becerra’s inability to inspire confidence in the federal response to the virus’ latest variant, or anything else. He had virtually no healthcare experience, but that was only part of the problem.

More significantly, Becerra was a disaster as attorney general. After the U.S. Senate approved Becerra as the nation’s healthcare czar, this Editorial Board recounted the “ongoing mess” he left at the California Department of Justice—comparing the imagery to “an action movie protagonist barely escaping from a building that he detonated behind him.”

I lack the word count to detail the myriad Becerra scandals and management failures, but the courts repeatedly slammed him for disregarding the state’s police-accountability laws and mismanaging our gun-registration system. The newspaper editorial found a recurring theme: “basic incompetence.” Who is shocked that he took that skill set to the federal level?

Harris’ office has likewise echoed explosion scenes from Die Hard 2. White House damage control over Becerra echoes its approach to Harris in December after news reports pointed to infighting, intrigue, and dysfunction. The White House reassured the nation that the vice president is a valuable partner, but it sounded like the administration was limiting Harris to tasks where she could do little damage.

Similar dysfunction plagued all of her previous offices, so why would we expect anything different as vice president? My theory: California’s Democrats rise to power in a one-party state, where internal party considerations matter more than policy credentials or basic competence, so they are out of their league playing at the national level.

California Democrats don’t understand that voters in Peoria or Phoenix don’t share the same obsessions as those in San Francisco or Los Angeles. So while California’s lawmakers will continue along their merry, progressive way, it’s obvious—and fortunate— that they lack the skills to impose those priorities on a politically diverse nation.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Gavin Newsom allowed $31 billion to be stolen from EDD by criminals in prison.  He has allowed tens of billions in education funds to be lost—and a massive crime wave statewide—and government is merely watching the victims bleed. Now we find Newsom and the Democrats have no problem watching workers lose their money and government not doing anything to protect them.

“Thousands of California workers whose employers collectively owe them millions of dollars in unpaid wages are at risk of never seeing the money they earned, as the state watchdog agency investigating wage-theft cases is failing to resolve them in a timely way, according to labor enforcement experts and worker advocates.

Many of the businesses in question were cited by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office for systematically dodging labor laws, after investigators conducted lengthy reviews, including payroll record audits and interviews with employees.

Sacramento refuses to protect workers, students, families and society.  And for this Newsom wants to spend over $280 billion to harm the people of California.

“

‘It‘s So Unfair’: Major Delays at State Labor Agency Leave Many Wage Theft Victims Unpaid

Farida Jhabvala Romero, KQED,   1/31/22 

Thousands of California workers whose employers collectively owe them millions of dollars in unpaid wages are at risk of never seeing the money they earned, as the state watchdog agency investigating wage-theft cases is failing to resolve them in a timely way, according to labor enforcement experts and worker advocates.

Many of the businesses in question were cited by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office for systematically dodging labor laws, after investigators conducted lengthy reviews, including payroll record audits and interviews with employees.

Employers have the right to appeal those citations — which typically come with hefty fines — and most do, said worker attorneys. The next step is a hearing at the Labor Commissioner’s Office. But the agency, whose mission is to combat wage theft, can take years to schedule those hearings, delaying restitution for workers, most of whom are in lower-wage industries.

‘This is exactly the opposite of what the government is supposed to be doing. Government should be stepping in and policing these employers that are ripping people off, and it’s not happening. And it’s causing real pain.’State Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose

The longer the cases drag on, the harder it is for workers to collect what’s owed them, advocates said. The backlog has only worsened during the pandemic.

State Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, said the delays at the agency, also known as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, are “unacceptable.”

“This is exactly the opposite of what the government is supposed to be doing,” said Cortese, who chairs the state Senate Labor, Employment and Retirement Committee. “Government should be stepping in and policing these employers that are ripping people off, and it’s not happening. And it’s causing real pain.”

For workers living paycheck to paycheck, that pain is palpable.

Sonia Crisostomo, a 47-year-old single mother, worked as a prep cook and cashier at a San Francisco Burger King franchise from 2016 to 2019. But her boss consistently shorted her paychecks, and she is now owed more than $38,000, according to a June 2020 citation issued by state investigators.

If she had received at least some of that money in a timely manner, it could have saved her family from losing their apartment, she said. Instead, when her next job, cleaning offices, ended during the pandemic, Crisostomo was unable to make rent. She and her children moved into the crowded home of a relative and relied on food banks to eat, she said.

“I was left with nothing,” said Crisostomo, who said she’s not eligible for unemployment benefits. “It was really hard. … With at least some of that money, we wouldn’t have had so many limitations. I wouldn’t have left my apartment, I wouldn’t have gotten into debt with rent, with bills.”

Crisostomo’s former employer, Golden Gate Restaurant Group Inc., was found liable for a total of nearly $2 million for failing to pay more than 230 of its employees minimum wage, overtime or meal and rest breaks at several of the Burger King restaurants it operated in the city.

None of the wronged employees has collected a cent from that citation, because — 19 months later — the state Labor Commissioner’s Office has not yet scheduled a hearing on the company’s appeal, said attorneys representing workers. Until that happens, the case cannot move forward, unless the employer chooses to settle.

“It’s so unfair that the state is not trying to speed this up,” said Crisostomo, an immigrant from El Salvador, speaking in Spanish. “They should be more strict with this type of employer and pressure them to follow the law. If it’s true that workers have rights, the state should enforce them.”

Neither Monu Singh, Golden Gate Restaurant Group’s CEO and president, nor Sanjay Ahuja, its secretary at the time of the investigation, returned KQED’s requests for comment.

Meanwhile, the company has taken advantage of the delay to shield its assets, which doesn’t bode well for the cheated employees, said Alexx Campbell, who is representing workers in the case.

“The company that did this to them has been starting to move assets around and to shut down restaurants in San Francisco and is potentially making moves to avoid payment altogether,” said Campbell, an attorney with the nonprofit group Legal Aid at Work.

The Labor Commissioner’s Office declined several interview requests, and would not comment on hearing delays for this case or others investigated by its Bureau of Field Enforcement (BOFE), the branch of the agency that handles pay violations affecting multiple employees at a single company.

However, in 2019, agency officials acknowledged that delays were hurting workers. They said changes in the law had given them new tools to combat wage theft but made the process take longer. And they asked the Legislature for a budget increase to hire more staff for its Wage Claim Adjudication (WCA) unit, whose officers handle appeals of both big BOFE citations and wage claims brought by individual workers — the latter of which totaled more than 32,000 in 2018.

In the budget request, officials wrote that, by law, those individual hearings are supposed to take place within 120 days of the date of the complaint. But the average wait time for individuals was nearly 400 days in 2018, and administrators projected that it would grow to 572 days — 19 months — by 2020.

“With the WCA drowning in stale wage claims awaiting hearing, all the while receiving more new claims each year, the WCA unit is in desperate need of Deputies and Hearing Officers to address burgeoning processing times and ensure cheated workers are receiving justice in a reasonable amount of time,” wrote Carlos Torres, assistant chief of the WCA unit.

After the pandemic hit, the backlog got significantly worse, as the agency temporarily halted in-person proceedings and struggled to conduct business remotely, advocates said.

KQED tracked several large cases that have languished without a hearing, including:

•  
  • A $4.5 million citation against Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc. and contractors in San Diego and Orange counties for underpaying 559 janitorial workers. The fines were issued in June 2018, but 3 1/2 years later, a hearing has not yet been held, according to the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a janitorial industry watchdog group.

• A $12 million citation against RDV Construction Inc. in the Los Angeles area for withholding wages from more than a 1,000 workers. The fines were issued in February 2019, but no hearing has yet occurred nearly three years later, according to the Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee, a group that helped tip the state to the violations.

These cases represent just a few of the 6,831 violations BOFE cited in fiscal years 2017-2019, according to its enforcement reports to the Legislature. The proposed fines totaled more than $228 million, but only about 12% of that amount was collected in those years.

As cases drag on, businesses can close or go bankrupt, while witnesses move away or give up on the case, complicating efforts to get restitution for workers, said Patrick Mulligan, who directs San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Mulligan’s office cited Golden Gate Restaurant Group, the Burger King franchisee, after its own investigation found the company violated a city health care ordinance. The company settled in September 2020, agreeing to pay employees more than $803,000 over the course of 10 years, of which about $150,000 has been collected, he said.

Noting the long payment plan, Mulligan acknowledged the agreement was not “everything the workers deserved,” but said at least it’s money they can put in their pockets.

Workers demand a Burger King franchisee pay wages owed to them, on Oct. 25, 2019. The company operating the franchise, Golden Gate Restaurant Group Inc. was cited by the state Labor Commissioner’s Office for multiple violations, including failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime. (Farida Jhabvala Romero/KQED)

“For us, ultimately, our goal of establishing a strong atmosphere of labor enforcement means timely and responsive enforcement actions,” he said. “And then on the other side, it limits the amount of hardship for workers if the matter gets resolved as expeditiously as possible.”

Torres, at the state Labor Commissioner’s WCA unit, recognized that delays give unscrupulous employers an “increased opportunity to further evade the responsibility of unpaid wages.”

“Low-wage workers may be in situations where they are forced to give up in the process … that may result in a paper judgment that leaves little promise of collectability after so much time has passed by,” wrote Torres in his 2019 budget request for more staffers.

The unit, which was initially established to give workers a no-cost, quick alternative to suing an employer in state court, has just 64 hearing officer positions, according to state Department of Finance records.

“They have way more cases than one person should be assigned,” said Renee Amador, legal director with the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund. “We have the Labor Commissioner’s Office who is passionate about enforcing the law. But if they don’t have the people that can do so, they’re [only] going to be able to do so much.”

In 2020, the Legislature approved funding to increase the unit by 63 positions, including 14 new hearing officers, by mid-2024. And the agency has since hired more staff. But it’s unclear whether that has resulted in shorter processing times.

Sen. Cortese said the agency remains inefficient, and plans to hold committee hearings on the delays in coming months.

“This has been the case over the years at the Labor Commissioner’s. This is not a new problem,” Cortese said. “And that usually means the entire culture of the operation needs to be addressed and revisited and restructured.”