In 2012, the Senate Democratic Caucus ran the tables, winning every contested race. With Fran Pavley, Richard Roth and Cathleen Galgiani added to his caucus, Senate President President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, had a veto-proof, two-thirds majority.

They could do what they wanted, even pass tax increases, with any Republican objections  ignored.

But before that supermajority could be put to use, Senate Republicans were given a victory they hadn’t earned at the ballot box. In February 2013, Senator Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, abruptly resigned to take a job with Chevron. In the ensuing special election, Republican Andy Vidak of Hanford upset Leticia Perez.

Rubio resignation began Democrats’ downward spiral

Rubio’s resignation was the beginning of a downward spiral for Senate Democrats. In quick succession earlier this year, three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Ron Calderon of Montebello, Rod Wright of Inglewood  and Leland Yee of San Francisco, faced high-profile scandals that brought about their suspensions and ended Senate Democrats’ super-majority in the 2013-14 session.

This November, Democrats have no room for error, as favorable demographics and incumbent advantages have Senate Republicans poised to reclaim one-third control of the State Senate. In order to reach their expected 14-seat minority, Senate Republicans need to defend two Central Valley incumbents and win an open seat in Orange County, which is rated a toss-up by most political analysts.

Cannella appeals to immigrants

Despite declining statewide voter registration, Republicans have done well in recent elections appealing to moderate Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the conservative Central Valley. Four years ago, Senator Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, beat then-Assemblywoman Anna Caballero by three points in an open seat being vacated by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock.

This year, Cannella faces a much weaker opponent in Democrat Shawn Bagley, a produce-broker and businessman from Salinas. Although Democrats hold a 14-point advantage in voter registration, Cannella will likely use his more than $900,000 warchest to tell voters about his moderate record in Sacramento.

Cannella co-sponsored legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. He’s pushed Congress to adopt comprehensive immigration reform and voted in favor of the Dream Act, to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain conditional permanent residency and in-state tuition benefits.

Vidak: State’s leading high-speed rail critic

While Cannella has worked to broaden the GOP’s base, Vidak has appealed to moderate Democrats and independents on the issue of high-speed rail. The Legislature’s leading high-speed rail critic, Vidak has questioned pay-to-play politics in the contracting process and called for a re-vote of the public, which in 2008 green-lighted the project by passing $9.9 billion in bonds in Proposition 1A.

This November, Vidak must again overcome a 17 percentage point Democratic registration advantage, as he faces Fresno School Board Trustee Luis Chavez.  If the primary is any indication, Vidak is well-positioned to defeat Chavez, who managed just 38 percent of the vote in the heavily Democratic district to Vidak’s 62 percent.

Nguyen: GOP’s opportunity to gain seat

With the effects of redistricting finally taking effect for even numbered State Senate seats, Republicans are guaranteed to pick up one seat, the 28th Senate district, in the Coachella Valley. The race remains too close to call, but the top three candidates, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and Indio Councilman Glenn Miller, are all Republicans.

The best pick-up opportunity for Senate Republicans lies in Orange County, where County Supervisor Janet Nguyen takes on former Assemblyman Jose Solorio, now a trustee on the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board. On Tuesday, despite having a second Republican candidate in the race, Nguyen earned 51.8 percent of the vote in the 34th Senate District. The district has an even split between Asian and Latino voters.

GOP long-shots, but on the table

Two more seats are long-shots for Republicans, but will likely remain on the table in November. In Alameda and Santa Clara county, GOP candidate Peter Kuo will face Democratic Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, who escaped a bitter primary with former Assemblywoman and convicted shoplifter Mary Hayashi. Also impressing political analysts, former Downey Mayor Mario Guerra pulled in 44 percent of the vote in a heavily Democratic district.

“Comparing June vote totals to November is like comparing preseason to the playoffs,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a completely different election with a completely different turnout universe.”

In the 32nd Senate District, Guerra needs to overcome a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration disadvantage. Even without a long-shot victory in the Whittier-based district, Senate Democrats will lose a seat in November, when Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, is expected to win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. That would produce a new race next year for a replacement.

District 12

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Luis Chavez (Party Preference: DEM)	17,296	37.6%
*	Andy Vidak (Party Preference: REP)	28,718	62.4%

District 28

100.0% ( 422 of 422 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 6, 2014, 10:29 a.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Philip Drucker (Party Preference: DEM)	16,177	18.8%
	Anna Nevenic (Party Preference: DEM)	13,084	15.2%
	William “Bill” Carns (Party Preference: REP)	4,379	5.1%
	Bonnie Garcia (Party Preference: REP)	16,894	19.6%
	Glenn A. Miller (Party Preference: REP)	16,792	19.5%
	Jeff Stone (Party Preference: REP)	18,737	21.8%

District 34

100.0% ( 482 of 482 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Jose Solorio (Party Preference: DEM)	23,851	33.7%
	Janet Nguyen (Party Preference: REP)	36,577	51.8%
	Long Pham (Party Preference: REP)	10,244	14.5%

District 32

100.0% ( 494 of 494 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m. 

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Carlos R. Arvizu (Party Preference: DEM)	1,046	2.0%
	Sally Morales Havice (Party Preference: DEM)	5,917	11.3%
	Tony Mendoza (Party Preference: DEM)	16,706	31.9%
	Irella Perez (Party Preference: DEM)	5,545	10.6%
	Mario A. Guerra (Party Preference: REP)	23,135	44.2%

 

The assault on California businesses has been going full throttle in the current legislative session. It’s conducted by union-backed Democratic legislators oblivious to the state’s 11.8 percent unemployment rate and ranking as one of the the worst states in the country in which to do business. The California Chamber of Commerce lists 30 job-killing bills that have been introduced, 18 of which remain active, including AB 350.

Dubbed the “Displaced Property Service Employee Opportunity Act,” AB 350 forces companies that provide building security, maintenance, window cleaning or food services to retain the employees of the previous service contractor for 90 days and then offer those employees continued employment unless their performance is unsatisfactory.

For example, a building owner notices that supplies are disappearing and suspects that security guards are sleeping on the job and may be complicit in the thefts. As a result, he fires the security firm and hires a new one. Under AB 350, all of the same security guards must remain on the job for at least three months — and perhaps much longer — unless the new firm can prove that they aren’t doing the job.

Sponsor Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Anaheim, introduced the bill in the Assembly on May 31. He noted that it’s an expansion of the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, which has been in effect for 10 years and requires building maintenance contractors to retain the previous contractor’s employees for 60 days.

Solorio said the legislation “has been working fairly smoothly for both employers and employees” and added that AB 350 “will provide security to workers to maintain and secure buildings and provide flexibility for employers throughout California. These type of employees can lose their job with little or no warning. California continues to have very high unemployment levels.”

Opposing Views

Two Republicans spoke in opposition.

Kevin Jeffries, of Lake Elsinore, argued that AB 350 makes it unfair for service companies when bidding on a contract. “How do you know what to bid?” asked Jeffries. “Because if you’re the successor bidder, and you didn’t plan to absorb all of the employees who were working in that building, you have just bankrupted your own business by winning the contract. You have to guesstimate what the cost would be of all of those employees. So that will put your bid over the top and probably cause you to lose the bid. So it’s a no-win scenario if you’re trying to have competition at the best prices.”

Shannon Grove of Bakersfield said, “So this legislative body is now going to legislate and tell private businesses who they can hire, who they can fire and to retain employees who they no longer wish to retain. It’s amazing to me. We are again attacking businesses. If you bid on a contract and have your own employees and are awarded that contract, why wouldn’t you want to use your own employees? And then to [be forced to] let those employees go to hire other employees that aren’t even a part of your company? I can’t believe this legislative body is going to dictate to employers and small businesses who they can hire and fire.”

AB 350 passed easily 46-31 with only four Democrats voting against it along with all of the Republicans. It’s scheduled for the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 15.

The real intent of the bill, which is backed by a variety of unions, may be to strengthen the unions’ power in the building services industry. Federal law requires that when a company hires and retains unionized employees for 90 days, the company must then open union contract negotiations, according to a Los Angeles Business Journal article, citing an employment law specialist.

Forced unionization is one of the arguments against the bill cited in the legislative analysis:

“[O]pponents contend that this bill is designed to ensure that a union, who has been elected as the bargaining representative through the proper procedures for the prior contractor, will remain the bargaining representative for the subsequent employer. According to opponents, since this bill mandates that subsequent employers hire the predecessor’s employees, it would provide automatic protection to the incumbent union to maintain its status as the bargaining representative, thus forcing all contractors/employers of ‘property services’ to be union employers. Opponents believe the decision of whether or not to have a union in the workplace should be left to the employers and employees, after following the proper procedures outlined by the National Labor Relations Act.”

Protected Class

The anti-unionization argument is not used by the ad hoc No On AB 350 coalition, however. A sample letter the coalition provides for supporters to send to legislators argues that AB 350 “violates the fundamental relationships governing contracting services and the most basic tenets of employer hiring review.” And it “creates a protected class of building services employees” who must be retained “even if those employees were directly responsible for the previous contractor losing the job.

“AB 350 takes away the fundamental right and responsibility for an employer to screen its new hires for things such as competency in the skills required for the job. Finally, this bill would add to the already uncompetitive regulatory environment we have in California, making it more difficult for employers to expand their businesses, hire more employees, and contribute to the economic vitality of the state.”

If the bill makes it through the Appropriations Committee, it’s likely to sail through the state Senate on a party-line vote. The question is whether Gov. Jerry Brown will sign it. Although he’s usually as union-friendly as most Democrats, Brown has also shown an independent streak. He vetoed a card check bill that threatened to end secret balloting in farm worker unionization elections. And he scuttled another bill that had the effect of giving public employee unions control over the commissions that govern public employees.

He might decide that another bill goosing unemployment isn’t needed right now in the Golden State.