“Blocking discussion in this manner is unfair, undemocratic and soils the decorum of the Assembly,” said Harper, who is the vice chairman of the committee, in a July 8 press release.  “I was sent here to represent the concerns of the voters of my district and chairman Hernández shut down my ability to speak for who I represent.

“Our state’s underemployment rate is overwhelming and the bill being rammed through our committee would make it harder to hire. We are sent here to debate policy that impacts the lives of Californians, not shut down dissenting points of view. The chair’s actions were offensive and disrespectful today, not just to me, but to Californians who want jobs and deserve to know the impacts policy will have on their chances of employment.”

‘At this time I’m calling the vote’

The incident occurred toward the end of the nearly two-hour discussion on Senate Bill 3 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. The bill would increase the state’s minimum wage to $11 per hour in January, followed by an increase to $13 per hour in July 2017 and increasing at the rate of inflation thereafter. California’s minimum wage is currently $9 per hour, and is scheduled to increase to $10 per hour in January if SB3 does not become law.

During the committee discussion, when Hernández recognized Assemblyman Evan Low, D-San Jose, to speak, Hernández said that Low would be followed by Harper. But after Low finished questioning Leno, Hernández decided he had heard enough.

“I want to be respectful of all of our colleagues, I want to be respectful of everybody’s time,” said Hernández. “At this time I’m going to call the vote. So we have a motion, we have a second.” Harper began objecting, which Hernández tried to ignore. “At this time I’m going to call the vote. We have a motion, we have a second. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

Harper said, “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to have comments.”

Hernández did not acknowledge him, instead saying, “At this time I’m calling the vote.”

Harper said, “You’re going to cut off people in the queue?”

Hernández again ignored Harper, and said, “I’m calling the vote. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

Harper said, “I think this is totally inappropriate.”

At that point Hernández raised his voice and said to Harper, “You’re inappropriate and out of order. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

“I think it’s totally inappropriate,” repeated Harper.

When the vote was taken Hernandez shouted “aye.” Harper did not respond when his name was called, but later changed his non-vote to “no.” After the committee passed the bill, Harper said, “Mr. Chairman, I think the cutoff on debate is completely embarrassing.”

Hernández spoke over him, “You’re out of order, you’re out of order, you’re out of order. Turn his mic off.”

Harper said, “I think it’s completely inappropriate. It just shows you how this is being rammed through the state of California.”

After Hernández thanked and dismissed Leno, he turned to Harper and said, “Don’t be yelling in this committee like that.”

Harper responded, “No you cut me off.”

Hernández then reached over another assemblyman, turned off Harper’s mic and said, “Sergeants, please remove the mic. Remove the mic. Please remove the mic.” To Harper he said, “You’re yelling, you’re out of order, you have not been recognized.” Then to a security officer, who seemed reluctant to remove the mic, Hernández said, “I’m sorry, remove the mic. I’m running the meeting, not the sergeant.”

The meeting ended with perfunctory business a couple minutes after Harper’s mic was removed.

Harper responds to bullying tactics

Hernández did not respond to a request for comment. The Sacramento Bee reported on July 9 that Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, met with Hernández and Harper, during which Hernández “expressed regret.”

But in a Sacramento Bee op-ed on Sunday, titled “Committee chairman’s behavior is beyond the pale, even for Capitol,” Harper wrote, “It is unfortunate that Hernández has been completely unapologetic about his behavior. Using such tactics to silence an opposing point of view is not only unfair, it is undemocratic. I fear that these actions will set a dangerous precedent that it is OK for committee chairpersons to prevent their colleagues from speaking on behalf of their constituents.

“These outrageous bullying tactics would be roundly condemned if they took place in a school or in the workplace. These actions are a stain on the institution and have no place in the people’s House. They are contrary to the Legislature’s action in recent years to enact strong anti-bullying laws and mandate harassment training.”

Hernández’s bullying style was also evident at a meeting in March during debate on Assembly Bill 67, which mandates double pay for employees working on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, criticized and admonished one of the bill’s opponents, the California Chamber of Commerce. She accused it of waging a war on Christmas and “attempting to elicit support based on erroneous readings of the law and misguided arguments about the separation of church and state.”

Chamber representative Jennifer Barrera, who had already testified against the bill, asked Hernández for the opportunity to respond to Gonzalez’s charges. “May I respond to those comments since they were directed right at the Chamber of Commerce?” she asked.

Hernández said, “I’m going to defer to my colleagues on that one since I have not given that opportunity on any other bill.”

But Hernández did not defer to one of his colleagues, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, who was in the process of questioning Gonzalez and asked that Barrera be allowed to respond. “There is a request by the Chamber to clarify this,” Patterson said. “I think that’s a reasonable request. And I would like the prerogative of asking the Chamber to respond.”

Hernández dismissed him, saying, “I’m not going to give you that opportunity at this time.” He did not allow Barrera to respond to Gonzalez’s charges at any other point in the meeting either.

Bill to increase state minimum wage

Aside from the verbal fireworks at the end of last week’s meeting, much of the debate on the minimum wage increase bill was similar to that at the Senate Industrial and Labor Relations Committee hearing in April.

Leno argued that an increase in the minimum wage is necessary in order to lift California workers above the federal poverty level. “We live with the largest population of people living in poverty of any state,” he said. “The highest percentage of any state with residents in poverty. That has many reasons and causes. But a significant driver of that is that it is currently legal to pay subpoverty wages in California.”

In addition to opposition by business groups, who warn that a 63 percent pay increase over three years for hundreds of thousands of workers will hurt businesses, cost jobs and increase prices, SB3 is also opposed by the California Department of Finance. Increasing the minimum wage will cost state government $394 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year, $959 million in 2016-17 and $3.4 billion in 2017-18, according to a DOF legislative analysis.

“Further, Finance notes the net impact of an increased minimum wage on California’s economy and state budget is likely to be negative,” the DOF said. “For the economy, losses from higher production costs to businesses would be partially offset by the consumption boost from wealthier minimum wage workers, but would overall lead to slower employment growth.

“This would lead to slower personal income growth, and an anticipated negative impact on taxes collected, especially since the tax structure in California is highly progressive and lower income individuals pay little to no income taxes. Sales taxes under the provisions of this bill may increase, but they are not anticipated to increase enough to offset lower personal income taxes. Although the state would save some money on lower provision of benefits under some state funded programs, the increased expenses from paying state workers would more than offset those gains.”

SB3 passed the Senate, 23-15 on June 1. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Charters are public schools that generally work outside the statewide schools system, cutting out much of the red tape. The picture shows the future Accelerated Charter Elementary School at 3914 S. Main Street in Los Angeles.

Now a group of legislators closely linked to the public-employee unions is seeking to put new limits on charters. A key goal is to force all the charters to be run as nonprofits, taking away a key reform model.

Reported the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

“The public is paying for them,” Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, said afterward. “The accountability ought to be there and the protection for the employees ought to be there.”

Four Democrats, flanked by representatives of the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Labor Federation, announced four new pieces of legislation the legislators said will ensure the charter schools fulfill their stated mission.

Hernandez introduced Assembly Bill 787, which would not allow charter schools to be run for profit. Instead, it allows a charter school to operate as, or be operated by, a nonprofit public benefit corporation. …

Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Compton, introduced Assembly Bill 709, which explicitly states that charter school board meetings are covered by California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act. …

State Sen. Mark Len, D-San Francisco … introduced Senate Bill 322, which would make it explicit that charter schools are to comply with a number of other laws covering public schools. …

State Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Montebello, introduced Senate Bill 329, which tweaks the language of existing law regarding accounting in public school districts.

Red tape

Charter-school defenders claim all the new red tape would defeat the purpose of charter schools, which are highly popular with students and parents. In a statement, the CCSA responded to the flurry of new bills:

The proposed legislation highlighted today by the California Teachers Association (CTA) intentionally misrepresents the realities of charter schools in order to stem the success of our growing movement of charter schools in California. Fortunately, the success of charter schools speaks for itself, and is well documented by independent research. Parents, the broader public and responsible policy makers all understand that charter schools are public schools and that charter schools are performing very well with students, providing life changing opportunities to the students who need them the most. That is why there are more than 91,000 students on waiting lists for California charter schools.

This proposed legislation attempts to spread misperceptions about charter public schools. And we believe current laws address concerns raised and these proposals are unnecessary.

The truth is that all charters schools are public schools just like traditional district schools. They are tuition-free and open to any student who wishes to attend. Charter public schools give parents and students a choice in their education. They are diverse and reflect the communities they serve. Charter public schools are held accountable by their authorizer (usually the local school district) and by the families they serve.

Test scores

A key for the CCSA is test scores:

Perhaps most importantly though, and missing from the overarching discussion, is that charter public schools are getting strong academic results with the students they serve, and in many cases are performing better in comparison to traditional district schools, and remarkably so with the neediest students. As recently as last week, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), the nation’s foremost independent analyst of charter school effectiveness, released a comprehensive Urban Charter Schools Report and offers unprecedented insight into the effectiveness of charter public schools. Similar to the findings from the report, Charter School Performance in California that CREDO also released, we are once again encouraged that independent research confirms California’s charter schools are performing well, especially with historically underserved students, and are improving over time (see also: Charter School Performance in Los Angeles). These strong academic results are clearly a driving force for the parents who are making their voices heard in their desire to send their kids to charter schools.

Gov. Brown

If these bills pass, a key hurdle will be getting a signature from Gov. Jerry Brown, long a charter supporter. While mayor of Oakland, he even started two charters, the Oakland Military Institute and Oakland School for the Arts.

Just after he was elected in 2010, a spokesman said, “The governor is very proud of the two schools he founded in Oakland more than a decade ago. These schools have served  thousands of Bay Area students — many the first in their family to go on to college — and he remains committed to their success.”

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — A one-word change in the state education code is going through the cumbersome legislative process at the state Capitol.

Is the bill necessary? The one-word answer is “no.”

The bill, as adopted in the Assembly Education Committee, will not make any changes other than altering the word “preparedness” to “literacy,” as it pertains to economics curriculum in the state education code.

Why run a bill?

Assemblyman Roger Hernández, D-West Covina, thinks kids in California should be required to take an economics class in high school. This sounds laudable, but high school economics is already required for graduation.

Hernández has authored a bill to “improve financial literacy instruction” in high schools statewide.

“The growing negative effects of financial illiteracy, such as the housing mortgage crisis and a low national savings rate, have spurred the need for financial literacy education. As of now, California does not have an official state policy or educational plan for the teaching of financial literacy,” said Hernández on his website.

AB 166 sounds like a good idea, so I tried to talk to Hernandez Monday about it in the Assembly. But he shook his head “no” and sat at his desk after he read my note handed to him by the Assembly Sergeant.

California Education Code

Actually, the State Department of Education already lists one semester of economics as required for high school graduation.

Specifically, the statute says:

“A pupil shall complete all of the following while in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in order to receive a diploma of graduation from high school: (1) At least the following numbers of courses in the subjects specified, each course having a duration of one year, unless otherwise specified: (A) Three courses in English. (B) Two courses in mathematics. (C) Two courses in science, including biological and physical sciences.

“(D) Three courses in social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; a one-semester course in American government and civics; and a one-semester course in economics.

If economics is already required, why does it need to be added to the state education code?

“School Districts will continue to have discretion on what they teach,” according to Primo Castro with Hernandez’s office. “AB 166 will not change common core standards. At the moment, economics is required, but school districts have discretion what they choose to teach our students in school. AB 166 will provide the framework and encourage school districts to teach financial literacy in the classroom.”

Castro sent the fact sheet for AB 166, which explains, “California does not have an official state policy or educational plan for the teaching of financial literacy.”

But the education code specifies economics be taught to high school students.

So why does the Legislature need to mandate yet another high school course for graduation?

Probably because economics is not always taught. The code is interpreted to allow discretion to school districts.

Yet the California Department of Education website already offers a page titled, “Grades K-12 Financial Literacy Resources: Resources for individuals interested in financial literacy for kindergarten through grade twelve students.”  The page includes many links to financial literacy resources, including budgeting, debt management, building personal wealth, and practicing sound money skills for life.

“The growing negative effects of financial illiteracy, such as the housing mortgage crisis and a low national savings rate, have spurred the need for financial literacy education for California students,” according to the bill analysis.  “The Washington, DC-based Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy reports that its 2008 survey of high school seniors revealed that ‘The financial literacy of high school students has fallen to its lowest level ever.'”

It is unclear why a survey from 2008 is the only standard used for AB 166.

“The survey covered issues ranging from savings and investment to personal debt and credit, and, on average, high school seniors answered 48.3,” the bill analysis said. “California Jump$tart reports 46 states have personal finance standards in various forms, but only 13 of those states include personal finance instruction as part of their K-12 graduation requirements.  Jump$tart did not report whether students in states with financial literacy standards or required coursework scored higher than other students on the survey.”

A simple semester course in high school on Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would probably be the best curriculum.

Friedman said, “So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”

A good place to start would be his TV series, “Free to Choose.” The first part is here:

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — At a Capitol hearing Wednesday, Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, charged that California employers frequently threaten immigrant workers with deportation and abuse.

The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing took place after a press conference and announcement of a new bill by Hernandez, AB 263. The bill will include stiff new labor laws aimed at abusive employers who retaliate against undocumented workers by calling the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency federal agents to arrest the undocumented workers.

The “abuse and exploitation” is made worse by “the added injustice of intimidation based on immigration status,” Hernandez said. “I, for one, am not content to stand by and wait for the federal government to do its job.”

State’s role not covered

But what wasn’t covered at the hearing is the lead role the state of California itself takes in controlling the lives of undocumented day laborers. California law allows state-licensed farm labor contractors total control over the wages and pay, and even transportation and housing of documented and undocumented agricultural workers.

Will the state of California and lawmakers go after their own flawed policies and laws? It appears that, while lawmakers and special-interest groups blame unscrupulous employers, it is the lawmakers themselves who have facilitated the biggest illegal immigration racket in the country, and hijacked the process in the path to citizenship by undocumented immigrants.

The incomplete hearing

The hearing centered around the question, “Is California doing enough to protect immigrant workers from retaliation and other abuses?”

The bulk of the hearing was devoted to testimony about extreme employer retaliation against undocumented workers. The National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, Calif., whose partners include “worker centers and unions, immigrant rights groups, progressive lawyers, and community organizations,” led the hearing.

“Employers and their agents have far too frequently shown that they will use immigration status as a tool against labor organizing campaigns and worker claims,” said the executive summary of a new report just published by the group.

“Our model is to develop and test new policies at the state and local level, then scale them up to spur change at the national level,” the project said on its website. “We partner with strong advocacy networks, grounded in the full range of stakeholders — grassroots groups and national organizations, worker centers and unions, policymakers and think tanks.”

The group claims:

“Globalization has combined with domestic policy choices to yield an economy that creates too many low-wage jobs and not nearly enough good ones. Lax enforcement of workers’ rights, increased subcontracting and misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and failed immigration policies have heightened insecurity for all workers. Inequality has grown to historic levels, the middle class is imperiled, and many fear our best days are behind us.”

The report found the weak labor market, with high unemployment, gives employers a tremendous advantage over people vying for scarce jobs. “This imbalance gives employers great power to set the terms and conditions of employment and to violate workers’ rights without fear of consequences.”

But several of the hearing speakers admitted that California already has labor laws in place to remedy these injustices. The laws just aren’t enforced.

Extreme cases

Betty Hung of the Asian Pacific Legal Center, named as a source in the report, recounted the 2012 story of a Thai immigrant working as a restaurant delivery driver. He worked 11-hour days, five days a week, for a flat daily rate of $60. The driver finally reported to labor officials that he did not receive overtime pay, or any breaks during his workday.

Hung said the U.S. Labor Department ordered the driver’s employer to pay $23,000 in hourly wages and mileage expenses. But, in a retaliatory move, the employer then told the delivery driver he had to repay the money, and threatened to have him deported.

Similar stories were heard throughout the hearing.

The right to work under a contract

Hernandez and Democratic legislators called for Congress and President Barack Obama to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package, including a path toward citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Together with Hernandez’s legislation, the apparent goal is to be the first state in the country with the toughest laws aimed directly at employers.

“My children have a better life than my father had,” Ashley Alvarado told the committee. She is the president of the Teamsters Cannery Council, located in Visalia, Calif. “Everybody has the right to this, and to work under a contract.”

Alvarado named the Marquez Brothers as employers who regularly retaliate against undocumented immigrant workers. “It’s why the Marquez Brothers send their lawyers,” she said, as she gestured to the back of the hearing room. “I command you to stand up to the Marquez Brothers tortilla factory, which hides incentives, and doesn’t pay taxes. They are cheating us from much needed revenue, and getting rich by cheating our government,” Alvarado said. “Workers should not have to live in fear.”

Her command was echoed by Hung. “You can make history,” Hung told the committee. “Your leadership can set the tone for Congress.”

State licenses

But according to a source I spoke with who worked as an agriculture day laborer at age 13, the real abuse, cheating and threats come from the farm-labor contractors.

Ironically, it’s the state of California which licenses farm labor contractors, allowing them complete control over the lives of the day laborers and undocumented workers.

According to the California Department of Industrial Relations Labor Code section 1682(b):

“Farm labor contractor” designates any person who, for a fee, employs workers to render personal services in connection with the production of any farm products to, for, or under the direction of a third person, or who recruits, solicits, supplies, or hires workers on behalf of an employer engaged in the growing or producing of farm products, and who, for a fee, provides in connection therewith one or more of the following services: furnishes board, lodging, or transportation for those workers; supervises, times, checks, counts, weighs, or otherwise directs or measures their work; or disburses wage payments to these persons.”

The state knowingly allows licensed farm labor contractors access to day laborer’s wages, housing and transportation, giving the labor contractors unbridled control over the vulnerable population of undocumented immigrants.

Federal government

Each of the speakers at the hearing said the federal government’s E-Verify system is used by employers to retaliate against undocumented workers. “U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States — either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization,” the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency says on its website. “E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.”

U.S. employers are placed in a precarious position of being either legally required to hire only authorized, documented workers or end up being accused of using the verification system as a retaliatory measure.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tries to stay out of these matters, spokeswoman Virginia Kice explained. It is standard practice for federal immigration officers to avoid getting involved in employer-employee labor issues.

The National Employment Law Project says employer abuses could be remedied in a number of ways, at least in California, including: