San Mateo County
Chamber of Commerce Alliance
New Issues:
1.
Proposition
98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
2.
Proposition
99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence
3.
High-Speed
Passenger Train Bond
4.
Workers
Comp Reform Update
Updated
Issues:
1.
AB
2127(Benoit) Small Business Family Scheduling Option Act of 2008
March 2008
Legislative Report #3
Prepared by:
Shaun Lumachi
shaun@chamberadvocacy.biz
562.843.0947
1. Proposition
98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
Proposition
98, also known as the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act
(CPOFPA) is on the ballot for the June 3, 2008 election. Proposition 98 is a competing
proposition with Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied
Residence, also known as the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act.
Summary
1.
Proposition 98 aims to
protect private property, including businesses and farms, from government
profiting by seizing property from one private property owner and giving it to
another private entity.
2.
Private property may not
be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (e.g. to
build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
3.
Property may be taken by
eminent domain only for public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks,
schools).
4.
Property may not be
taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. residential housing
cannot be used for government housing).
5.
Family farms and open
space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the
natural resources.
Background
1.
Provides full compensation
to the property owner, even when property is seized for public projects.
2.
Removes the current
$10,000 cap on reimbursable expenses associated with legal or other expenses.
3.
Property owners will be
compensated for all reasonable costs associated with moving, loss of business,
and reestablishment of the business.
4.
Should a public agency
take immediate possession of property, the owner is entitled to prompt release
of the money offered while keeping the right to challenge the agency's offer,
and its right to take the property.
5.
Includes a provision
that requires a public agency to return the seized property to its original
owner if the public project is ever abandoned. Under this provision, property
would also be taxed at the pre-condemnation value. This is known as the abandonment clause in the proposition.
6.
Limits governmentÕs
ability to decide the amount a property owner can charge to sell or lease his
property.
7.
Does not limit
governmentÕs ability to use eminent domain for public projects like roads,
parks and water supply projects, nor does it limit local zoning ordinances and
land use decisions, workplace regulations or projects that benefit the health
and safety of a community or environment.
Arguments in Support
1.
The most controversial provision of the
proposition is one that stops the government from setting Òthe price at which
property owners sell or lease their property.Ó It is argued, in a free society,
it should not be controversial at all.
2.
The Constitution of the
State of California provides that "All people by nature are free and
independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property . . ."
Proposition 98 reaffirms and strengthens the private property protections set
forth in our state constitution.
3.
According to
Californians for Property Rights Protection, among the 1000 or more cases of
eminent domain abuse in California, small business owners are the most common
victims.
4.
Property rights are a
fundamental, core value among California voters. Statewide survey research
shows more than 67% support for an eminent domain reform ballot initiative -
Republicans, Democrats, independents, seniors and baby boomers all support the
initiative.
5.
Enhanced farmland
protections provided in this amendment increase support for this measure among
environmentally concerned voters. Prohibiting sale or lease price regulations
protects property owners when they sell or lease their property to others.
6.
Nothing
in Proposition 98 would prohibit or limit legitimate land use decisions,
zoning, work place laws, or environmental protections. Nor would it expose
public agencies to costly litigation.
Arguments in Opposition
1.
Wealthy landlords spent
millions to get this proposition on the ballot to eliminate rent control as a
hidden agenda and not about eminent domain.
2.
Would allow landlords to
raise rents on seniors and working families by eliminating rent control.
3.
Would stop future water
projects, destroy local-use planning, erode environmental protections and lead
to higher taxpayer costs.
4.
According to the
Association of California Water Agencies Proposition 98 could derail needed
groundwater and surface water storage projects around the stateand calls this
flaw in the measure "cause for alarm."
5.
Proposition
98 could lead to thousands of frivolous lawsuits and paralyze approval of new
homes, businesses and other projects.
6. Opponents of Proposition 98 and Proponents
of Proposition 99 argue that in the definitions section of the Proposition 98
has a clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that Òtransfer an
economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private
owner.Ó Courts have ruled
that virtually all local land-use decisions can transfer economic benefit from
one party to another, which would lead to countless lawsuits.
Support
As of February 29, 2008
Property Rights
Organizations
California Alliance to
Protect Private Property Rights
Californians United for
Redevelopment Education, Orange County
Grantville Action Group
Property Owners Association
of Riverside County
Property Rights Alliance
Sonoma County Land Rights
Coalition
Taxpayer Groups
California Republican
Taxpayers Association
California Taxpayer
Protection Committee
Central Solano
Citizen/Taxpayer Group
Contra Costa Taxpayers
Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association
Inland Empire Taxpayers
Association
League of Placer County
Taxpayers
National Tax Limitation
Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Sacramento County Taxpayers
League
San Diego Tax Fighters
Shasta County Taxpayers
Association
Silicon Valley Taxpayers
Association
Sonoma County Taxpayers
Association
United Organizations of
Taxpayers, Inc.
United Taxpayers of Imperial
County
Ventura County Taxpayers
Association
Yolo County Taxpayers
Association
Agriculture
California Canning Peach
Association
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
Fresno Cooperative Raisin
Growers, Inc.
Kern County Farm Bureau
Al Montna, Montna Farms
Nevada County Farm Bureau
Sacramento County Farm Bureau
San Diego County Farm Bureau
Faith Based
Capitol Resource Family
Impact
Victory Chapel, San Bernardino
Business
California Hispanic Chambers
of Commerce
National Federation of
Independent Business
Port Hueneme Chamber of
Commerce
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council
Housing Providers
Apartment Association,
California Southern Cities
Apartment Association of
Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA)
Apartment Owner Association
of California (AOA)
Berkeley Property Owners
Association
California Housing Providers
Coalition
California Mobilehome
Parkowners Alliance
Manufactured Housing Educational
Trust
Manufactured Housing
Institute
Orange County Apartment
Association
Western Manufactured Housing
Communities Association
Political
California Federation of
Republican Women
California Republican Party
Libertarian Party of
California
Riverside County Libertarian
Party
Cities
City of Rancho Santa
Margarita
City of Westminster
Elected Officials -
Statewide
Senator Jim Battin
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator Tom Harman
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth
Senator Tom McClintock
Senator George Runner
Assemblymember Joel Anderson
Assemblymember John J. Benoit
Assemblymember Chuck DeVore
Assemblymember Ted Gaines
Assemblymember Bob Huff
Assemblymember Doug La Malfa
Assemblymember Bill Maze
Assemblymember Sharon Runner
Assemblymember Jim Silva
Assemblymember Audra
Strickland
Assemblymember Van Tran
Assemblymember Mimi Walters
Bill Leonard, Board of
Equalization
Elected Officials - Local
Stephen Atchley, Pomona City
Council
Bill Crawford, South Lake
Tahoe City Council
Jack Fuller, Oceanside City
Council
Kevin Hanley, Auburn City
Council
Calvin Hinton, Pacifica City
Council
Sue Horne, Nevada County
Board of Supervisors
Bruce Kranz, Placer County
Board of Supervisors
Dan Logue, Yuba County Board
of Supervisors
Jack Lynch, Angels Camp City
Council
Jeff Miller, Corona City
Council
John Nicoletti, Yuba County
Board of Supervisors
Chris Norby, Orange County
Board of Supervisors
Curt Pringle, Anaheim City
Council
Gail Reavis, Mission Viejo
City Council
Leo Trujillo, Santa Maria
City Council
Robert Twist, San Marino City
Council
Kurt Vander Weide, Turlock
City Council
Kim Dolbow Vann, Colusa
County Board of Supervisors
Larry Wahl, Chico City
Council
Marie Waldron, Escondido City
Council
Eric Ziedrich, Healdsburg
City Council
Oppose
As of February 29, 2008
Senior Rights
Organizations
AARP
California Alliance for
Retired Americans
Older Women's Leage of
California
Gray Panthers California
San Francisco Gray Panthers
Senior Action Network
Public Safety
California Police Chiefs
Association
California Fire Chiefs
Association
Homeowner Rights
Associations
League of California
Homeowners
Golden State
Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)
California Mobile Homes
Resource and Action Association
Coalition of Mobile Home
Owners- California
Resident Owned Parks, Inc.
(ROP)
California Coalition for
Rural Housing
American Canyon Manufactured
Home Owners Coalition
Butte County Mobile-Home
Owners Association
GSMOL Chapter 1613
GSMOL Chapter 1539
GSMOL Chapter 1517
GSMOL Chapter 1279
GSMOL Chapter 708
Homeowners Association of
Cameron Mobile Estates
Mobile Home Owners Coalition
Mobilehome Residents Alliance
of Nevada County
Mobile Parks West Homeowners
Association
New Frontier Homeowner
Association
Neighborhood Friends
Palos Verdes Shores
Homeowners Association
Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners
Association
Consumer Rights
Organizations
Consumer Federation of
California
Consumers Coalition of
California
Business
California Black Chamber of
Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership
Group
Agriculture
Western Growers Association
Education
California Teachers
Association
California School Boards
Association
Association of California
School Administrators
Renter Advocates/Housing
Providers
Housing California
California Housing Consortium
(CHC)
California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation
Coalition for Economic
Survival
Coalition to Protect
California Renters
Tenants Together
Eviction Defense
Collaborative
Coalition L.A.
Council of Tenants- Los
Angeles
Eviction Defense Network
First Community Housing
Housing Justice Campaign
Community Housing Partnership
Concilio de Inquilinos: Local
1012
Housing Rights Center
Inquilinos Unidos
Just Cause Oakland
Lincoln Place Tenants
Association
Oakland Tenants Union
San Diego Renters Union
San Francisco Council of
Community Houing Organizations
San Francisco Tenants Union
Santa Monicans for Renters'
Rights
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
(THC)
Environmental
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club California
California League of
Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Wild Heritage Planners
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Defense
Planning and Conservation
League
California Oak Foundation
Greenbelt Alliance
Healthy Homes Collaborative
Mariposans for the
Environment and Responsible Government
Water
Association of California
Water Agencies
Public Interest/Community
League of Women Voters of
California
Western Center on Law and
Poverty
San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association (SPUR)
Bernal Heights Neighborhood
Center
Community Advocacy Center
Inner City Law Center
Los Angeles Community Action
Network
Los Angeles Community Legal
Center and Educational
Miracle Mile Action Committee
One Stop Immigration
Counselor
Our City
People's CORE
Union de Vecinos
Labor
State Building and
Construction Trades Council
AFSCME 2712
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
Marin County Building and
Construction Trades Council
Koreatown Immigrant Workers
Alliance
Ethnic
Black, Asian, Minority and
Ethnic Renaissance CDC
Associations
League of California Cities
California State Association
of Counties
California Special Districts
Association
California Chapter of the American
Planning Association
California Redevelopment
Association
Faith
California Church Impact
St. Anthony Foundation
2. Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of
Owner-Occupied Residence
Proposition
99, also known as the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act is on the
ballot for the June 3, 2008 election.
Proposition 99 is a competing proposition with Proposition 98: Government
Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property also known as the California
Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA).
Summary
1.
Aims to prohibit the
government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to another
private party.
2.
Will not change state or
local rent control laws or ordinances as Proposition 98 would abolish rent
control.
Background
1.
Amends the California
Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a
city to use eminent domain to take the home of a Connecticut woman for purpose
of economic development.
2.
Since that U.S. Supreme
Court decision, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws.
3.
Respects the decision of
the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included
eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected
taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of traditional
legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.
4.
Provides a comprehensive
and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property
owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without
affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
Arguments in Support
1.
True eminent domain
reform without the Òhidden agendaÓ of eliminating rent control laws and
ordinances.
2.
Proposition 99 will not
threaten CaliforniaÕs water quality and supply as does Proposition 98, argued
by proponents of this proposition.
Arguments in Opposition
1.
According to the
Institute of Justice, a non-profit organization, it says of Proposition 99,
ÒCalifornians require real, substantive reform for everyone and the Act does
not come close to providing it.Ó
2.
Argues that many
provisions have been left out of Proposition 99, but are included in
Proposition 98 such as Òquick takeÓ protection, abandonment clause and just
compensation.
Supporting
As of February 29, 2008
Homeowners
League of California Homeowners
Golden State Manufactured-Home
Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)
California Mobile Homes Resource
and Action Association
Coalition of Mobile Home Owners-
California
Resident Owned Parks, Inc. (ROP)
California Coalition for Rural
Housing
American Canyon Manufactured Home
Owners Coalition
Butte County Mobile-Home Owners
Association
GSMOL Chapter 1613
GSMOL Chapter 1539
GSMOL Chapter 1517
GSMOL Chapter 1279
GSMOL Chapter 708
Homeowners Association of
Cameron Mobile Estates
Mobilehome Residents Alliance of
Nevada County
Mobile Parks West Homeowners
Association
New Frontier Homeowner Association
Neighborhood Friends
Palos Verdes Shores Homeowners
Association
Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners
Association
Senior
California Alliance for Retired
Americans
Older Women's Leage of California
Gray Panthers California
San Francisco Gray Panthers
Senior Action Network
Public Safety
California Police Chiefs
Association
California Fire Chiefs Association
Environmental
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club California
California League of Conservation
Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Wild Heritage Planners
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Defense
Planning and Conservation League
California Oak Foundation
Greenbelt Alliance
Healthy Homes Collaborative
Mariposans for the Environment and
Responsible Government
Business
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Education
Association of California School
Administrators
Consumer
Consumer Federation of California
Consumers Coalition of
California
Faith
California Church Impact
Ethnic
Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic
Renaissance CDC
Renter Advocates/Housing
Providers
Housing California
California Housing Consortium (CHC)
California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation
Coalition to Protect California
Renters
Coalition for Economic Survival
Eviction Defense Collaborative
Tenants Together
Coalition L.A.
Concilio de Inquilinos: Local 1012
First Community Housing
Housing Rights Center
Inquilinos Unidos
Just Cause Oakland
Sacramento Mutual Housing
Association
San Diego Renters Union
San Francisco Council of Community
Houing Organizations
San Francisco Tenants Union
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC)
Housing Justice Campaign
Labor
State Building and Construction
Trades Council
SEIU 721
AFSCME 2712
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
Marin County Building and
Construction Trades Council
Ironworkers Union 433 Los Angeles
Koreatown Immigrant Workers
Alliance
Public Interest/Community
League of Women Voters of
California
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Bernal Heights Neighborhood
Center
Community Advocacy Center
Los Angeles Community Legal Center
and Educational
Los Angeles Community Action
Network
Miracle Mile Action Committee
Our City
People's CORE
Union de Vecinos
Associations
League of California Cities
California State Association of
Counties
California Special Districts
Association
California Chapter of the American
Planning Association
California Redevelopment
Association
Opposing
As of February 29, 2008
National Federation of
Independent Business
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association
Californians for Property
Rights Protection
3. AB
2127 (Benoit) Small Business Family Scheduling Option
Summary
1.
AB 2127 (Benoit) would
allow small businesses to agree to provide scheduling options for an
employee that requests it to help
accommodate employees' diverse family obligations, personal pursuits,
commuting issues and environmental concerns. This proposed new law
will apply exclusively to small businesses with 25 or fewer employees by adding
this option to Labor code 511.
2.
AB 2127 establishes a
voluntary, employee-driven process where the employee of a small business can
request, and their employer may mutually agree, to a 4-day compressed workweek
schedule or to work a 9/80 schedule.
Background
1.
AB 2127 would create an
option for small businesses in Labor Code 511.
2.
This option, known as
the Small Business Family Scheduling Option, would allow a small employer (25
or less employees) to agree to an employeeÕs request to work four 10-hour days
a week (or eight nine-hour days, and one eight-hour day in two weeks, also known as a 9/80 schedule.
3.
Working a compressed
four-day workweek provides for up to 50 extra days each year for the average
full-time employee.
4.
As the law stands today,
individual employees do not have the right to seek and arrange individual
flexible schedules with their employers.
5.
AB 2127 does not affect
workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. Employees covered by
collective bargaining agreements in both the private and public sector are
exempt from daily overtime--these include all state, county, and city employees
such as those employed by school districts, water districts and a multitude of
other governmental agencies.
6.
Either the employee or
the employer can revoke the agreement at any time, provided they give seven
days written notice. Any hours
worked beyond the compressed workweek hours must be paid at normal overtime
rates.
7.
The employer is
prohibited from reducing the employeeÕs regular rate of pay as a result of the
employee adopting an alternative work week schedule.
Arguments in Support
1.
Increasingly long
commutes at peak hours diminish quality of life. CaliforniaÕs long commutes at peak drive time hours add to
the pressure of balancing work and family. Several reports, including one
released in 2005 by the state Department of Health Services, show that
employees in the state spend up to 100 hours per year commuting.
2.
Employees working
alternative schedules will travel at various times, reducing the load during
peak hours, thus these employees can spend less time in their car and more time
at home.
3.
Fewer trips to the
workplace result in lower carbon emissions. The California Air Resources Board
Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC) draft report
suggests that flexible working hours would result in a 10 percent reduction in
emissions with 10 percent of employees using the schedule.
4.
Traffic congestion would
be reduced and emissions of priority air pollutants. Allowing a compressed work
week schedule would reduce traffic congestion at peak hours and reduce
emissions through less idling and 20 percent less commute time per week per
employee.
5.
Employers who make
missteps in using current process can end up in court. Current law covering alternative
schedules are rigid. Under current (and very detailed) Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders, employers may institute alternative work schedules only
if a supermajority of affected employees agree to the arrangement in writing
and by secret ballot, and then all employees are subject to the alternative
scheduling.
6.
Employers must hold
discussion meetings at least fourteen days before secret ballot voting. Two
thirds of the companyÕs employees must agree to the change. Any deviation from the rigidly
controlled process voids the election and subjects the employer to potential
lawsuits that can seek up to three years of back overtime pay for affected
workers, along with huge penalties and fines.
7.
Variances in schedules
or the use of more than one schedule is prohibited without repeating the voting
process. This effectively eliminates most employers and employees from choosing
schedule options such as flextime, part-time, job sharing, telecommuting, and
compressed workweeks.
8.
This prescribed process
is overly complex and creates such a liability for employers that at present,
only about 11,000 of CaliforniaÕs more than 800,000 employers operate under
these alternate work week schedules.
9.
AB 2127 contains
important employee protections.
The request is made by the employee, in writing, and it must be made
voluntarily. The agreement must also be executed in writing and the employer
must maintain the written document as they would any personnel record.
Supporting
1.
California Chamber of
Commerce
2.
Greater San Fernando
Valley Chamber
3.
Irvine Chamber
4.
San Francisco Chamber
5.
Riverside Chamber
6.
Oxnard Chamber
7.
Palm Desert Chamber
8.
Cerritos Chamber
9.
Napa Chamber
10. Modesto Chamber
11. Milpitas Chamber
12. Fresno Chamber
13. Temecula Valley Chamber
14. Murrieta Chamber
15. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber
16. Southwest California Legislative Council
Arguments
in Opposition
1.
The bill was
introduced February 28, 2008. At the time of this report, no argument in
opposition was available for review in formulating this report.
Opposing
1.
The bill was
introduced February 28, 2008. At the time of this report, no organizations were
opposing this bill.
4. High-Speed
Passenger Train Bond
The Safe, Reliable
High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was originally
scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, General Election ballot.
Subsequently, SB 1169in 2004, provided that it appear on the November 7, 2006,
General Election ballot. However, most recently, AB 713 in 2006, provides for
the submission of this Act on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot
instead.
Summary
1.
This new measure would
create the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st
Century.
2.
The bond would provide
the issuance of $9.95 billion of bonds, which $9 billion of it would be used in
conjunction with available federal funds for the planning and construction of
the high-speed train system.
3.
The initial high-speed
train line would link San Francisco and the Bay Area to Los Angeles with
additional lines linking all of the stateÕs major population centers to include
Sacramento, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San
Diego.
4.
The entire 700-mile
system would be constructed and in revenue service by 2020 with the initial line
in limited service to be determined after the bond is passed.
Background
1.
Created in
1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has pursued the vision for a
high-speed train system connecting CaliforniaÕs major metropolitan areas.
2.
The
Authority has identified preferred corridor alignments and stations from the
Central Valley through Los Angeles to San Diego as well as inside much of the
Bay Area.
3.
Between
the Central Valley and the Bay Area, further study is needed to select a preferred
corridor alignment.
4.
The recent
program environmental review has found that the high-speed train system will
have fewer impacts, create more economic stimulus and cost less than half as
much as the alternative— building more lanes, bridges and ramps along
highways; and terminals, gates and runways at airports.
5.
The AuthorityÕs
studies show that the full system, serving 30 stations, will attract 42 to 68
million passengers per year in 2020, operate at a surplus and cost over $33
billion to build.
6.
High-speed
trains will be capable of speeds of up to 220 mph and will be similar to those
in service today in Europe and Asia.
7.
The system
will be built mostly within or alongside existing transportation corridors and
will be entirely grade-separated from parallel and crossing roads, providing
the same extremely safe environment enjoyed in other countries, where not a
single passenger fatality has occurred on new lines in 41 years of operation.
5. Workers Comp Reform Update
Summary
1.
The WorkersÕ
Compensation Action Network (WCAN) is a statewide grassroots organization that
consists of employer and insurer trade groups, businesses, non-profit
organizations and public entities.
2.
WCAN promotes the successful
implementation of legislative reforms that restore the predictability and
stability to the workerÕ compensation system, along with reduced costs for
employers and the improvement of services to injured workers.
Background
1.
Workers compensation
provides prompt medical care to workers injured on the job and cash benefits
for a portion of lost wages on either a temporary or permanent basis.
2.
This program is designed
to function as a Òno faultÓ system where there is no burden of proof for an
injured worker to show employer negligence caused a workplace injury. The program acts as the exclusive
remedy for workers and employers.
3.
The California crisis transpired
in 2003 as the cost of workersÕ compensation insurance in California between
1999 and 2003 tripled.
4.
It was in 2004;
California ranked the most expensive state for workersÕ compensation insurance
and is when some type of reform was needed.
5.
According to the Public
Policy Institute of California, Òthe two most important contributors to the
workersÕ compensation crisis appear to be rising medical costs and increasing
numbers of permanent partial disability cases.Ó
6.
Key pieces of
legislation that helped with workersÕ compensation reform:
á
AB 749 (Calderon) - 2002
á
AB 227 (Vargas) and SB
228 (Alacron) – 2003
á
SB 899 (Poochigian)
– 2004
7.
Between 2002 and 2004,
the California Legislature enacted four significant reform laws. While these
new laws changed many aspects of CaliforniaÕs workersÕ compensation system,
major components of these reforms sought to:
á
Increase indemnity
(cash) benefits to injured workers;
á
Rein in skyrocketing
medical costs by controlling medical over-utilization and adopting evidence-based
medical treatment standards;
á
Produce consistent,
objective measurements for compensating permanently disabled workers;
á
Reduce CaliforniaÕs high
rate of costly litigation; and
á
Increase incentives to
get injured workers back on the job.