Assemblywoman Grove raises union power issue

Assemblywoman Grove raises union power issue


unionpowerql4Did a Democratic legislator take labor union money in exchange for a union-sponsored bill? That possibility was raised on the Assembly floor Aug. 28 by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, in connection with a bill authored by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina.

Assembly Bill 1897 passed the Assembly and Senate along party lines and is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk as of Thursday morning. It penalizes businesses that hire labor contractors by making those businesses liable when the contractor violates wage, withholding and workers’ compensation regulations.

The bill is sponsored by the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The bill exempts labor organizations, apprenticeship programs and hiring halls from the definition of a “labor contractor.” It also exempts state, county, city and special-district governments from the definition of a “client employer.”

Those exemptions rankled Grove.

“The author says this is to protect all employees, it’s to protect these employees that are in low socio-economic, disadvantaged communities,” she said. “But this law exempts all government clients. So if you’re a contractor and you comply with the government and you don’t pay your workers’ comp or you don’t pay your employees, those employees don’t have remedy to come back to the government. It also excludes all collective bargaining agreements. So if you are a union, your employees don’t matter as much as well.

“So that says one of two things. Number one, [Hernandez] doesn’t care if the union and collective bargaining employees are taken care of or that the state employees who are subcontracted are taken care of. Or it’s those entities have enough money to buy their way out of this bill. And last I checked on the Senate, that was against the law and the FBI is investigating. So I would ask for a no vote so that we can keep the improprieties out of this house.”


Speaker Emeritus John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, banged his gavel to cut her off.

“I would remind members not to use pejorative terms or impugn the interest and the positions of other members in presenting in favor or in opposition of legislation,” said Pérez. “Ms. Grove, you may proceed on the substance.”

Grove was slightly chastened by the reminder, but repeated her assertion that Hernandez might have been bought off.

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker,” she said. “I wasn’t really trying to target anybody on this house floor. I was just making a point that I would not like to have those integrity issues brought to this house and this floor.

“There’s only two reasons why this is out of this bill. The two reasons are: there was enough money to buy their way out, or that they don’t care about the employees that are contracted to state government or collective bargaining units.

“This is a bad bill for business. It’s a bad bill for government. Every employer that has their own contracts with liability insurance, workers’ comp, and they have their own sets of policies, they should be responsible for the employees that they hire. And you shouldn’t make another person accountable for those issues.”


Hernandez’ election campaign, like most if not all California Democratic legislators, is financially supported by labor unions. Four of his top five contributions came from unions in the latest financial reporting: the California State Council of Service Employees ($8,200), the California State Council of Laborers ($6,100), the California State Association of Electrical Workers ($5,000) and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ($5,000).

Hernandez  did not address Grove’s allegation in his concluding remarks on the bill:

“This bill focuses on companies that choose to use labor contractors to supply workers to do the usual and customary work of their business. That’s a business decision under this bill that would come with certain responsibilities to ensure that workers are not abused. AB1897 is a reasonable and limited approach to this issue.

“The purpose here is that, if you are using temporary or subcontracted workers to run the functions of your business, you are responsible for certain basic protections. By creating a simple bright-line rule, AB1897 will provide clarity for all parties up front and we believe will reduce litigation. I know that was a concern by my friend [Grove] in the Bakersfield area.

“Legitimate employers and contractors who are trying to play by the rules cannot compete with those unscrupulous operators that try to cheat workers to lower the bottom line and raise the profit margin. This bill will level the playing field and will actually benefit those entities, especially labor contractors, that are above board, play by the rules and bring value to the employer community.

“All this bill will do is make bad contractors go away. This is a critically important measure for the future of our state. I have attempted to address legitimate opposition concerns. We cannot allow the status quo to go any longer.”

Chamber objections

California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Allan Zaremberg, in a YouTube video released Wednesday, urged California businesses to ask Brown to veto AB1897.

“AB 1897 would expose virtually every employer in the state of California to liability and frivolous litigation for any wage and hour violations that a subcontractor may incur through negligence, through not understanding our complex labor laws in California,” he said.

A CalChamber press release labels the bill a “job killer,” asserting, “This bill unfairly forces one company to essentially ensure the wage and hour obligations and workers’ compensation coverage for the employees of another.

“It will create a significant threat of litigation and liability for California employers who legitimately utilize contracted labor, which will ultimately result in fewer contracts for small, minority-owned businesses, as well as their employees.”

On Aug. 27, five days after being arrested for drunk driving, Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, carried the bill on the Senate floor. He said:

“AB1897 addresses a growing problem in California that is of growing concern and threatens to undermine the middle class. In recent years, we have seen a growing trend across many industries in California that shift what used to be good middle class jobs to a subcontracted employment model. These workers perform the regular work of a business often for years and years and often on the site where the business is located or work through a variety of intermediaries or labor contractors.

“The basic premise of this bill is, if you are an employer that uses a labor contractor to bring workers to your work site and perform the usual course of your business, you will bear some basic level of responsibility for those workers. This is about saving good jobs in California, protecting legitimate employers and helping our middle class grow.”


No one spoke in opposition to the bill on the Senate floor. But in the Assembly, Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, agreed with Grove about the the bill’s exemptions.

“Ask yourself: If this bill is good enough for everybody else, why the carve-out?” he said. “It’s a political deal. It’s a political payoff of some sort. If this is good policy, apply it everywhere. I’d like to see the whole state of California carved out. And you guys can all do that with a no vote on AB1897.”


Write a comment
  1. T Mind of Ted Your God
    T Mind of Ted Your God 11 September, 2014, 21:45


    Darn workers want fair treatment– the gall!

    Reply this comment
  2. Queeg
    Queeg 12 September, 2014, 09:50

    Let all go out and pay unions for a job and gain the benefits of this bill!

    This is amazing.

    Asset owners and contractors…..we can finally clean them both out.

    We always knew these owners were part of the problem forcing us to work cheap with no benefits in unsafe work enviros…..and they call us names…….no free lunch…….no boom boxes……..and…and…and…

    Isn’t California a great place to work. Can’t believe it!

    Reply this comment
  3. Richard Rider
    Richard Rider 12 September, 2014, 10:40

    I don’t understand the Assemblywomen’s complaint, or the first sentence of this article. My response is — “This is news?”

    A newsworthy story would be the one word modification of that first sentence to ask “Did a Democratic legislator NOT take labor union money in exchange for a union-sponsored bill?” Man bites dog!!

    After all, does not EVERY Democrat state legislator take labor union money??? LOTS of labor union money? Every election?

    Okay, okay — maybe not “take.” The usual ploy is that the unions spend big bucks on their loyal legislative sycophants via little-publicized “IE” (Independent Expenditure) campaigns. Yeah, there may be some union money illegally paid directly to legislators as well, but it pales into insignificance compared to the union campaign funding.

    Reply this comment
  4. bob
    bob 12 September, 2014, 16:58

    Demoncrats in bed with the public sector unions???

    I’m shocked! Shocked, I tells ya!

    Wasn’t Darrell Stinkbug a lawyer for a public union pac before he became a politician?

    Reply this comment
  5. bob
    bob 12 September, 2014, 16:59

    And wasn’t Big John Perez a public union organizer before he became a politician?

    Reply this comment
  6. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 12 September, 2014, 17:26

    “Money is the mother’s milk of politics”. Who doesn’t know who made that statement in the past, and who doesn’t know that it is very true. You have the poor-to-middle-class rank and file workers banding together on one side and pooling their own money so that they can wield the political influence they need to wield if they are going to get a fair shake against management. Then, you have the politicans that are guided and influenced by the billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Bros–people who don’t intend take care of anybody but the politicians that will vote in their interests and keep them richer than they ever need to be. I have never had trouble deciding which side I need to be on. Assembly-person Grove is still smarting because her initiative to cut the legislature to part-time did not make it to the ballot.

    Reply this comment
    • Richard Rider
      Richard Rider 13 September, 2014, 10:24

      Gosh, Seesaw, aren’t there billionaires giving big bucks to Democrats? According to this study by a liberal “fact checking” outfit, more billionaires gave to Democrats so far in 2014!

      To quote from the article: “We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 — or more than half — gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups.”

      Yes, which party gets more from billionaires can swing one way or the other — but the point is that BOTH sides get magabucks from your hated billionaires.

      Of course, the same can’t be said about the downtrodden members of labor unions who MUST pay dues to benefit almost exclusively Democrats.

      Seesaw, your attempt to claim this is a David-vs.-Goliath class warfare matter evaporates upon inspection. True for MOST of your posts, actually.

      Reply this comment
  7. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 13 September, 2014, 17:12

    True–I don’t dispute that there are billionaires giving bucks to Democrats. I do not hate billionaires–I want people to have money so that they can be personally sustainable, plus having the ability to help others not so fortunate. I worked in the public sector long enough to know that people who have a certain political ideology, hang on to that, regardless of their spot on their, respective, work place-totem polls. Public safety workers have a higher percentage of union members that are Republicans than the miscellaneous category, because they have higher incomes that match with more conservative ideological beliefs. The link for most public-sector workers is gaining a fair shake regarding wages and benefits–political parties aside–they do not blend personal ideologies. I have seen no studies on this, but I just know from personal experience. And, yes, this is David-vs-Goliath class warfare–the standard middle class workers cannot obtain fairness unless they band together and pool their resources. The billionaires only need to whip out their, respective, individual wallets and pick which politicians they want to use to carry out their own personal methods for controlling the sheep. As one of the sheep, I have no problem determining which side to support.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Bill would push unionizing franchise workers

  The franchise market in California, a keystone of small business in the state, soon could change radically. The California

CA pot faces bureaucratic, corporate future

With legal recreational marijuana potentially around the corner in November, California’s public and private sector has scrambled to keep up. In

PG&E: Jump Start Nuke Power License

MARCH 22, 2011 By KATY GRIMES Pacific Gas & Electric appears to be rushing to relicense the Diablo Canyon Nuclear