STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

 

 

 

Public Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 10, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

State Capitol, Senate Room 4203

Sacramento, California

P A R T I C I P A N T S

--o0o--

Industrial Welfare Commission

BILL DOMBROWSKI, Chair

DOUG BOSCO

LESLEE COLEMAN

TIM CREMINS (arrived 10:12 a.m.)

HAROLD ROSE

 

Staff

BRIDGET BANE, Executive Officer

DOUG McCONKIE, Analyst

MARGUERITE STRICKLIN, Legal Counsel

DAVID ZAHEDI, Analyst

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I N D E X

Page

Proceedings 5

Consideration of Wage Board Report from Minimum Wage 5

Wage Board

TOM RANKIN, California Labor Federation 5

WILLIAM POWERS, California Congress of Seniors 7

PATRICIA GATES, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & 7

Rosenfeld

MARK SCHACHT, California Rural Legal Assistance 9

Foundation

DAVID CARROLL, California Budget Project 10

ELIZABETH McGOVERN, California National 11

Organization for Women

JIM ABRAMS, California Hotel and Lodging 13

Association

JON ROSS, California Restaurant Association 15

JULIANNE BROYLES, California Chamber of Commerce 17

MIKE WEBB, Western Growers Association 19

PATRICIA BRESLIN, Golden Gate Restaurant 20

Association

Appointment of Wage Board - Wage Order 9, Public 27

Employee Drivers

JOSHUA W. SHAW, California Transit Association 28

SHANE GUSMAN, Law Offices of Barry Broad; 29

Teamsters, Amalgamated Transit Union,

Machinists Union

New Business 31

LONNIE NOLTA, Residential Care Society 32

Closed Session - Pending Litigation 34

INDEX (Continued) Page

Adjournment 38

Certificate of Reporter/Transcriber 39

P R O C E E D I N G S

--o0o--

(Time noted: 10:05 a.m.)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Iím going to call the meeting to order.

Let the record show that Commissioners Bosco, Rose, Dombrowski, and Coleman are present.

The first item on the agenda is consideration of the wage board report from the wage board appointed to review -- excuse me -- and make recommendations to the IWC regarding the minimum wage.

Weíre going to have two short panels. The first panel, I would ask Mr. Rankin to come forward and limit their testimony to approximately ten minutes. And then, second, weíll have any employers in the audience who wish to testify, or others.

Please be sure to identify yourselves for the transcript.

MR. RANKIN: Good morning. Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation.

Here we are once more on the minimum wage. We know that itís been delayed already so that it canít go into -- couldnít have gone into effect January 1st when it should have gone into effect, an increase. A petition was submitted in November, 2001. The longer we delay increasing the minimum wage, the more the minimum wage workers and their families will suffer. Itís imperative that you act now so that an increase, the first increase, I would say, of two, could go into effect July 1st of this year.

California now has the lowest minimum wage on the West Coast, and probably the highest cost of living. Oregonís now at $6.90 and itís indexed. Alaskaís at $7.15 and itís indexed. Washington is at $7.01 and it is indexed. Surely California can do as well as our sister states on the West Coast.

The minimum wage remains a poverty wage. We tried once again through the wage board to get an agreement, made several motions from our side. The only one that was agreed upon was increasing the meal and lodging deductions by the same amount the minimum wage was increased, which has always been our principle, and weíre willing to go with that. But the employer side, as usual, would not budge on increasing the minimum wage. We think itís essential for the well-being of the citizens of this state, both those who have little and those who have a lot, because we think the minimum wage has a lot to do with keeping our society together in one piece.

So, we think itís imperative that you act today to start the next step of the process to get the minimum wage increased by July 1st.

And we have Bill Powers, from the California Congress of Seniors.

MR. POWERS: Good morning. Bill Powers, on behalf of the California of California Seniors. Weíre here to reaffirm our position in support of an increase in the minimum wage.

Itís really tragic that in our society, the richest society in the world, and the richest state in this country, that we continue to have people who work full-time and live in poverty. We think -- we think thatís -- thatí terrible in our society, and weíd strongly urge action today, as Mr. Rankin has indicated, to start -- continue the process so that we can get an increase in whatís a despicable rate of pay for people who work full-time. We strongly urge that action.

MR. RANKIN: Now Patty Gates, from the Van Bourg law firm.

MS. GATES: My name is Patty Gates. Iím with the law offices of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld. We submitted written testimony previously, and resubmit it today, our officeís absolute support for an increase in minimum wage. We support the California Labor Federationís proposal.

And in addition to the previous research that I submitted that was conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that talked about the disparity in income and the gaps that have widened, and the fact that California is in the top five states of states where the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly since the Ď70ís, in addition to that study, Iíve added another study for your consideration. This is a study entitled "Principles for Economic Stimulus." And the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in this period where the federal government and state governments are looking at ways of expanding and stimulating the economy, the Center has concluded -- and these conclusions are based on the bipartisan principles for economic stimulus that was adopted in October, 2001, by the House and Senate Budget Committees -- and one of their guiding principles is to give money to those most likely to spend it.

And since the goal of stimulus is to boost demand, the key is putting money into the hands of entities, whether they be households, businesses, or state government, that are most likely to spend it, and thus pump funds into the economy. For example, a family who is living paycheck to paycheck, if they get additional money, theyíre much more likely to spend it because they canít afford to save it. Wealthier families are much more likely to save it.

Iíd ask you to consider this principle in addition to the -- just the basic wage equality issue presented previously.

Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: Mark Schacht, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

MR. SCHACHT: Good morning, commissioners.

You might remember that last January, in your first hearing on the AFLís petition, we presented the results of a survey that weíd done of about 1,100 farmworkers working in the Central Valley raisin harvest. And you might recall that 96 percent of those workers said that a living wage would have been between $1 and more than $5 more per hour, and that 76 percent of those workers said that they would use those additional funds on housing, health, and transportation.

During the pendency of this matter before the Commission, weíve had the time to conduct another survey of farmworkers in the Central Valley. This time, we looked -- we interviewed 785 farmworkers. Ninety-three percent of those farmworkers make less than $12,500 a year. Seventy-six percent of those workers said that their current wage is not a living wage. Respondents to the current survey revealed that 50 percent believe that a living wage is at least $1 to $2 more per hour than the current minimum wage, 29 percent believe that more -- it takes between $3 and $4 more than the minimum wage to provide a living wage, and 16 percent believe that it would take more than $5 to meet living wage needs.

Some of the other results -- and Iíll just briefly conclude -- some of the other results of the survey, I think, further reveal the need for an increase now. Only 9 percent of these workers get paid sick leave. Only 17 percent get free health insurance. Shockingly, 53 percent of these workers revealed that they or others had been denied medical aid after an injury, which means that the workersí comp system would not be available to them. Taking care of themselves is on their own dime. And finally, 25 percent said that there were unexplained deductions from their paychecks, which means that, in the underground economy in agriculture, thereís still substantial labor law violations which are resulting in workers being less than the minimum let alone being paid less than a living wage.

Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: David Carroll, from the California Budget Project.

MR. CARROLL: Good morning, commissioners.

Iím just going to try to present two brief points to you: first of all, that recent increases to the California minimum wage did result in real wage gains for Californiaís lowest wage workers; and second, despite that fact, the minimum wage is far below what we project to be a real basic family budget wage.

On the first point, the recent increases to the state minimum wage in the late Ď90ís and through 2001 resulted in real increases -- these are wages adjusted for inflation -- for the lowest wage workers. For example, the wage increases they experienced between 1995 and 2001 were over 10 percent, and more than double that of a typical or median worker in California. This compares to the previous era in the early Ď90ís when these workers experienced real wage losses and losses much greater than the typical or the median worker. For us, this means that the recent increases to minimum wage, combined with the strong economy, have produced real results.

Second, despite that fact, the minimum wage currently is 24 percent below its peak value in 1968, and much below what our office estimates it takes a full-time worker to support a family of three without government assistance at a modest standard of living. We estimate that to be $21 statewide.

And as another sign of inadequacy of the minimum wage, we came out with a recent report, which Iíll share with you, about housing costs in California. And it just indicates how low-wage workers are increasingly unable to afford not only a decent standard of living, but to purchase a house in California.

And as a final point, I think itís important to underline that there is a growing consensus among economists and researchers that there is little or perhaps even no impact on employment from modest increases in the minimum wage.

Thank you very much.

MR. RANKIN: Elizabeth McGovern, California NOW.

MS. McGOVERN: Good morning. Iím Beth McGovern, on behalf of the California National Organization for Women.

The majority of minimum wage workers are women, and many of those women have children and are the sole support for those children. So that means that all those children, as well as the mothers, are living in poverty at the current minimum wage.

Also, many of those women work at that job level for many years. Itís not just a short-term situation that will be a springboard to another position. So, itís absolutely essential that we increase the minimum wage in order to give those workers any kind of real shot at lifting themselves out of poverty and become self-supporting at a decent standard of living.

Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: Just in conclusion, I think itís clear from the record, very clear from the record, that the minimum wage in California no longer meets the statutory requirement of being adequate to provide the necessary costs of proper living. And itís your obligation as a constitutional institution, and youíve been given a statutory mandate by the Legislature, to provide the necessary costs of proper living to low-wage workers in California. And if that doesnít happen, I think the existence of the institution has to be questioned.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

Jim Abrams, Juli Broyles, Jon Ross, Patricia Breslin, and Mike Webb.

I believe these are all the cards I have on Item 1, minimum wage. If anyone has been skipped, let me know.

Whoever wants to start can start.

MR. ABRAMS: Iím Jim Abrams, with the California Hotel and Lodging Association.

Chair and members of the Commission, two points.

One, I think itís very important to recognize that the minimum wage, which is typically looked at in a vacuum, is part of a very wide net of employee protections and benefits that exist in California, many of which donít exist in many other states. For example, California is one of three states that has daily overtime. So, when we look at other states on the West Coast that are in the same ballpark, but, as Mr. Rankin mentioned, somewhat higher than California in terms of minimum wage, they donít have daily overtime. California is one of five states -- four states or five states in the country that has no tip credit. So, for industries like the hospitality and lodging industries that have a great many tipped employees, those employees get far more than they do in other states. And I think this is important because this is part of the competitive relationship that California has with other states as far as travel and tourism is concerned.

Also, I think itís very critical to recognize that timing does have some impact. And I will assume, for the sake of argument -- I wonít concede, but Iíll assume, for the sake of argument, that the comments that were made a minute ago to the effect that studies indicate that if the minimum wage goes up by a modest amount, I think the gentleman said, that job loss does not occur. Iíll assume, for the sake of argument, that that, in certain times, certain economic situations, is true. But I will tell you right now -- and I heard on the news this morning -- that even though unemployment stayed steady at the last report, there were 150,000 jobs lost in America. I will tell you, given the economic situation that exists in this state right now, given the workersí compensation increases that just went into effect, given the fact that California has daily overtime and a number of other very expensive -- not altogether bad, but very expensive obligations that employers have to meet, that if the minimum wage goes up -- and if you just looked at it by itself, it might have one impact -- but if you look at it in the context of all of the other costs that are going up for employers in California, if you look at it in the context of what the economy is doing and how California is struggling to compete with other states for travel and tourism business, I think it is almost, without a doubt -- there is -- there can be no doubt that people in the lodging business, in the restaurant business, hospitality and tourism businesses, are going to have to lay workers off. They canít keep raising prices. They canít do anything other than lay people off, cut back on their hours, or cut back on their benefits. So, I think that given the economic situation in California right now, there will be either unemployment or disemployment as a function of raising the minimum wage at all.

MR. ROSS: Hi. Jon Ross, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. Iíll be brief because weíve provided comments throughout this process.

But to underscore a point that Mr. Abrams just made, this Commission took testimony from the Department of Industrial Relations, I think last summer, from two economists there, who said you -- when you look at the impact of the minimum wage, there always is some sort of an employment effect associated with that. The key in mitigating the down side is, in part, the timing of the increase. If the minimum wage is increased in good times, as perhaps we did a couple years ago, the employment effect, negative effects, are less -- less great. However, when you raise minimum wage into a difficult economy, the job losses are necessarily going to be higher than otherwise you would have expected.

The second point they made was -- and to follow up on Jim -- on Mr. Abramsí comment -- you canít look at it just as the wage alone. You have to look at it in the context of other contemporaneous cost burdens being placed on employers. In this case, weíre looking at increases in unemployment taxes, increases in workersí comp benefits, and a slow economy. So, we think the risk at this particular time is far greater than at other times when weíve considered an increase in the minimum wage.

Finally, to Mr. Rankinís point about your constitutional obligation, weíll note again that the current minimum wage, by any measure, we think meets the test of adequacy. Itís still beyond the historic minimum wage average over the last forty years. Weíre outstripping that by 15 or 20 cents currently. If you look -- if adequate is what adequate has been, and has been defined over the course of the last thirty years, youíre adequate.

And Iíd conclude on that point. Thank you.

MS. BROYLES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. Juli Broyles, from the California Chamber of Commerce.

My voice is going, so please forgive how I sound.

I do have some data Iíd like to have passed out to the Commission, if somebody can do that.

The -- I certainly agree, and the California Chamber certainly agrees, with the comments already made by the Hotel and Lodging Association as well as the Restaurant Association, and Iíll try not to cover those points.

One point that Mr. Abrams did touch on was the corollary consequences of increasing the minimum wage. And one of those big impacts would be, of course, the impact on managerial employees, because that also forces a second increase in employer costs, that ripple effect that always occurs when a minimum wage increase goes into effect.

Because of our very unusual rules on overtime calculations, we have to be very cognizant of what actual impacts will occur. What is being handed out to the Commission members is some information on the California unemployment situation currently. Now, last year the EDD had predicted that we would have unemployment rates down below 6 percent going into the latter quarters of 2002. As you can see, weíre well up, at 6.4. That is almost a half a percent more than the U.S. is as normal, the actual U.S. unemployment rate, and as Mr. Abrams mentioned, that today, instead of giving a 30,000 job increase in the reports coming out from the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we actually had a job loss of 110,000 workers in just the month of December alone.

I think another important issue that you have to look on these -- on this information is that just since June, 2002, weíve had 3,100 closures or mass layoffs in the State of California. Increasing the minimum wage at that -- at this time is just going to do nothing but exacerbate -- increase the problems that we have with keeping people on payroll.

I want to make sure that the Commission understands that -- and certainly, weíre here and willing to talk about increases in the future -- but right now, because of the costs that we are seeing, in the 100-percent-plus increases in workersí comp, because of the increased costs that we have in energy, because of the spiraling healthcare costs, all of these things are making it more and more difficult.

One of the last numbers I do want you to be aware of -- and I donít have it in this data -- is how many hours are actually being cut from current full-time workers just to deal with the economic slowdown that California and the rest of the country is dealing with.

At this time, we certainly would ask you to deem the California minimum wage adequate, and certainly not look at increasing or indexing that amount any time in the next six months, until more economic information is available.

MR. WEBB: Good morning. Mike Webb, with Western Growers Association.

From agricultureís perspective, increasing the minimum wage at this current time is definitely not the right time to do that. Our growers are looking at double-digit percentage increases in the costs of workersí compensation, health insurance, and energy costs. And those are all hitting us at the same time. This goes into addition to what -- the minimum wage just being raised recently by $1.00. These costs hitting us all at once makes it very difficult for growers to compete with competitors from other states and from other countries.

Our prices are set locally -- excuse me -- our costs are set locally. Our prices are set globally. And when weíre competing on a global market like California agriculture is today, to have state-mandated costs keep increasing the cost of business makes it incredibly difficult for our growers to compete. So, I hope you consider that when you take your vote.

Thank you.

MS. BRESLIN: Good morning, commissioners. Patricia Breslin, Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

I was a member of the wage board, and as you know, we did not come to any agreement because we -- we felt that on -- for my part, that the minimum wage is more than adequate because the only individuals who would receive any increase in the hospitality industry, for the restaurant portion, would be the tipped employees. And as we all know, Iíve come before you many times saying that without recognizing declared tips towards the minimum wage, it will harm the individuals that I believe that you would like to help with minimum wage increases.

Some might say if the restaurant industry would be hurt so badly by a minimum wage increase, where are the restaurateurs? Well, I am here because they are working. They are struggling to keep their doors open, and they are struggling to keep employees employed. Letís not forget that in 2001, over 228 more restaurants closed than opened. That was in the last six months of 2001. 2002 didnít show any change in pattern. And now weíre approaching 2003, and we are still struggling with the increases that have been mentioned before.

Again, I wonít take up more of your time. You know the position I take, that without a tip credit, we just cannot afford a minimum wage increase. And again, I agree with my -- the fellows right here and with Ms. Broyles, it is the wrong economic time. The worker compensation rates, the health insurance rates are literally pushing people to the edge.

I do hope you receive letters from several restaurateurs who wrote to you. And if not, I will check with Ms. Bane and make sure you get the letters.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: We have them. We have them.

MS. BRESLIN: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

Any questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Maybe a couple of comments, Mr. Chair?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Iíve actually read some of the data that came in, and I would say, on the issue of costs -- someone mentioned that -- California has always been a leader -- some folks would say a leader, some folks would say a detriment -- but we have always been ahead in employer costs, employee costs. With other increases in the minimum wage, we did not see mass unemployment then, and I donít think weíd see it now.

And also, what Iíve seen, the data Iíve seen, other factors have led to far further increases in unemployment. The defense pullout in the early Ď90ís led to dramatic unemployment, far greater -- far greater than the impact of the minimum wage. And I think itís debatable whether the minimum wage even had an impact.

And I think the -- folks are saying weíre in tough economic times -- I think thereís a broader opinion of thought now than there is years ago, of the old -- well, Iíll call it the old Roosevelt theory, about priming the economic pump.

And the reason I mention some of this, I think itís a -- I would think the business community would feel far greater using this forum increasing the minimum wage than at the Legislature. Iím inclined to almost make a motion today -- I donít see the votes here to do it. But if we donít use this forum, weíre going to be stuck using the legislative forum, and I think this forum is better for you. You have some input. Weíre willing to listen. But please give it due consideration.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Can I make a comment?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure. Commissioner Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I wanted to comment first on the quality of the testimony that weíve had, right from the beginning, on this issue. It has been superb, both written and oral. Iíve tried to read much of what has come in, and I really commend both sides, if you will, of this, because weíve been provided with superb information and commentary.

I think the minimum wage is, at least in my mind, the most important issue that this Commission deals with. And I think, in terms of my own service, the happiest vote I ever cast here was when we did increase the minimum wage. And I think it was right to do then, and I am positive that it helped a good many families that very much needed that extra money.

I wish we were in that situation today. Weíre in extraordinary contraction, economic contraction, in this state, both in the private sector and public. And I think that given that, it isnít really appropriate or possible for us to expand in any way the minimum wage.

I hope that that changes. And knowing California, Iím sure that it will. And at such time that it does, I think this Commission should be right on top of, hopefully, riding that wave on behalf of the poorest people in the state.

But at this point, I donít think weíre in that position.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: A motion.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: You have a motion?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: I move that we increase the minimum wage, effective July 1st, 2003, by 50 cents, and July 1st, 2004, by 75 cents, for a total -- bringing it to a total of $8.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Call the roll.

Or, before that, any comments, any -- okay.

Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Aye.

MS. BANE: Chairman Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: No.

MS. BANE: The motion failed.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other motion?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Marguerite, whatís our procedure next?

MS. STRICKLIN: At this point -- at this point, since thereís no unanimous proposal from the wage board and no proposal from the commissioners, this review is at a close, and the petition is thereby denied.

There is a statutory provision for review every two years. And I believe, by my calculations, that would happen again beginning closer to the latter half of this year.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: A question.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: We are able to consider another petition if one is received by the Commission before that two-year time limit?

MS. STRICKLIN: You can receive a petition at any time.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: And we are able to review that?

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

What?

MR. ABRAMS: A question, if I might.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

MR. ABRAMS: The wage board did unanimously vote to --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: On the meal -- Marguerite.

MS. STRICKLIN: That was a contingent proposal to increase the meal and lodging credit should there be an increase in the minimum wage. And thereís no proposal to do so.

MR. ABRAMS: But -- well, I guess the question is whether or not that is something that should go into the various wage orders notwithstanding, so that if, as, and when --

MS. STRICKLIN: Thatís not before us.

MR. ABRAMS: Is that out -- if itís out of order, itís out of order. I just wanted to make sure.

MS. STRICKLIN: No.

MR. ABRAMS: Okay. Thatís fine.

Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: While weíre on the procedural questions, you also may be faced with a petition for reconsideration.

Thank you.

MS. STRICKLIN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Anything else we have to do with Item 1?

MS. STRICKLIN: Not at this time.

MS. BANE: Is this on?

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes.

MS. BANE: Whatís the time limit for reconsideration? Is it 120 days?

MS. STRICKLIN: I believe so. I donít have the statute right in front of me.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Well, Iím sure they will research it for us.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Do we need a motion to that effect today?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: To do what?

MS. STRICKLIN: To do what?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: For reconsideration.

MS. STRICKLIN: No. That would come from the petitioners.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Thatís all we need to do on Item 1?

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

Item 2 is the appointment of members to the wage board amending Wage Order Number 9, the transportation industry, to include public transit drivers as pertaining to meal and rest period requirements that now apply to the private sector but exempt transit workers in the public sector, as requested in the petition letter dated October 29th, 2002.

I have names, and you have them in your folders, employer nominees and employee nominees.

I have one card from Joshua Shaw, who wants to testify. We typically donít take testimony on naming the wage board, but if you have something to say, come on up.

MR. SHAW: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Joshua Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association, representing the employers in the public transit industry.

I wanted to simply indicate weíre here to answer questions you may have about any of the group that weíve submitted and urge you to appoint those folks.

Thanks.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Does anyone have any questions about the appointees?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Let me go through it.

Employer nominees are Doug Barton, Pia Harris Ebert, Brenda -- Iím going to butcher these -- Diederichs -- Diederichs, Marlene Heuser, and Duran Rall; alternate board members, Cameran Beach and Rick Ramacier.

Employee nominees: Barry Broad, J. P. Jones, Matt McKinnon, Willie Pelote, Tony Withington; alternate board members, Peter Cooper and Angie Wei.

Hold on one second, Shane.

Come on up. Shane Gusman.

MR. GUSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point one thing out. I think there is an error in the notice. The petition that we submitted dealt with Wage Order 9, public employee drivers in Wage Order 9. And the notice today was limited to transit employees. And we clarified that at the end of the last hearing, so we just want to make sure that thatís --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Let the record show that.

MR. GUSMAN: Okay.

MS. BANE: Okay. Weíll amend that.

MR. GUSMAN: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think the wage board reflects the broader industry as opposed to just public employees.

MR. GUSMAN: Right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Okay.

Do we have to take a vote on this wage board?

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. All in favor, say "aye."

(Chorus of "ayes")

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any opposed?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That passes unanimously. They are adopted.

Next steps.

MS. BANE: We have one procedural issue that we would like to tell any representatives on this wage board who are here, and we will get word to everyone else, that any documentation that either side wishes to have considered needs to be to the IWC staff 15 days prior to the meeting of the wage board.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Has that date been set?

MS. BANE: No.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: The charge for the wage board?

MS. STRICKLIN: It will go out -- it will go out with the notice of the meeting.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. And, Bridget, I assume youíll coordinate all that?

MS. BANE: Yes. Weíll have to coordinate the -- weíll do a survey of all of the appointed members.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other items on Item 2?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Will we -- excuse me -- will we see the charge to the wage board? Will that be circulated to us in advance?

MS. BANE: Yes. We definitely will get it to each of you, and youíll have time to respond. In the past, you have done that, and weíve actually made changes at your direction.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Okay. Thanks.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Am I allowed to skip down to just new business before we go into closed session so people wouldnít have to wait around if they didnít -- if they didnít wish to? That would be all right with everybody, so we donít --

Then does anyone have any new business they want to bring up?

Okay. Weíre going to go into closed session --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Mr. Chairman, I --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: If you donít mind, I have one comment to make. And that is, we have been diligently meeting -- let me get the letter here from Lonnie Nolta.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, Iím sorry. Youíre right. Yeah.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Weíve been diligently meeting on the issue of the in-home services with a variety of people that provide those services and the SEIU representatives. And I think those meetings have gone very well. It will be my hope, at our next meeting, to move that along, hopefully with everyoneís consent, so that we can provide some immediate short-term relief to these folks, and then, in that period of time, also look for a long-term solution.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Lonnie.

MS. NOLTA: Lonnie Nolta, representing the Residential Care Society and our petition.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner

Bosco.

Members of the committee, we would urge once again that you try and reconsider our petition to deal with the issue of the sleep time for facilities dealing with developmentally disabled, the elderly, and mentally ill. As referenced earlier in the testimony regarding the extreme costs on the workersí comp, liability insurance, et cetera, we have seen a major hardship on these programs. We are still losing them.

I just spoke with one of my students yesterday. Two more homes have closed in the Chico area. One of the providers wound up with such high blood pressure she died. The other one just threw up her hands and said, "I cannot do this any more."

Right now, the regional centers are compelled to reduce their expenditure to these programs by $52 million between late last year and July of this year. And there is projected another $100 million cut in the purchase of services to these providers. So, it is dire times, and we would really appreciate your consideration.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

Questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Refresh my memory. This gets put on the agenda for the next meeting?

MS. BANE: Yes, it does. And it does have the -- as a petition that is reurged that has previously been withdrawn, it will have the same 120 days in which to make a decision.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. So, this will be on the agenda for the next hearing.

MS. NOLTA: Great. Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

Okay. Any other new business?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Weíre going to go into closed session to discuss some pending litigation, so Iíd ask non-IWC members to leave the

room.

(Thereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the public meeting

was adjourned to closed session. The

public meeting was reconvened at 10:55 a.m.)

MS. BANE: Do you want to discuss the next meeting time or wait?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Haroldís the one with the busy schedule, so --

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Iím the one who wants to know, yes. So, if youíve got something in mind, letís pick a -- not necessarily pick a date, but --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I didnít bring my calendar, so I --

COMMISSIONER ROSE: -- a set of dates.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I didnít either.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: As long as itís on a Friday.

MS. BANE: You want it on Friday?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yeah, because the Legislatureís back and --

MS. STRICKLIN: Do you always want to have it up here?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I donít know. Whatís the pleasure?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: San Diegoís nice this time of year.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Not if weíre defunded.

(Laughter)

MS. BANE: I heard the echoing down the hallway here just a few minutes ago. It sounded familiar.

February? Do we want to pick a couple of dates, and then weíll get back to everybody?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, thereís holiday weekends in through there, so letís not do it on one of those.

MS. BANE: It is Presidents Day that we have to -- so we donít want to pick one of those.

MR. McCONKIE: The 12th and 17th are holidays.

MS. BANE: Are they both?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yeah. Yeah, they close both.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: How about the 21st?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Thatís a Friday.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Itís the 21st?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: February or January?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: February 21st.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Itís a Friday.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: January -- or February 21st.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: You just said --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Friday.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: He wants -- Bill wants it on Friday.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Oh, he wants it on Friday. Oh, Iím sorry.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

MS. BANE: Weíre talking February 21st. And the other Fridays, of course, are the 7th, 14th, and the 28th.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: We donít want the 14th because thatís the holiday weekend.

MS. BANE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yeah. Lesleeís -- thatís Valentineís Day. Sheís --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Thatís right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Does the 21st work, as far as everybody knows?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: 21st is good.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Why donít we put that down as the date? And if anybody has a problem with that, when they get back, if you find something, let Bridget know.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Is that here in Sacramento?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Letís just do it here.

MS. BANE: All right. It will be here. And one of the items on the agenda, if itís your pleasure, will be the caregiver petition.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Um-hmm.

MS. BANE: And is there anything else that you would want right now, on the petition?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: We have --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think minimum wage is coming back.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think they have to wait for that 120 days or something.

MS. STRICKLIN: No, no, not to wait. But they have -- you have another 120 days once they file the petition to --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, they can file right away?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Oh, yeah.

MS. STRICKLIN: Yeah, they can.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, okay. All right.

MS. BANE: Thereís nothing we can find that would prohibit that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Is there anything weíre going to need to do on the agenda with the wage board on the transit?

MS. BANE: If the meeting that we set for that wage board is after the 21st, we would put on the agenda for you to review the charge, if you want it there. If not, weíll just -- weíll just do it informally. Thatís the only thing.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. STRICKLIN: Actually, it probably would be better to do it on the record.

MS. BANE: If that works out, weíll do it on the record.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: It just occurred to me we donít have a chair on that wage board.

MS. STRICKLIN: Weíll have to appoint one.

Staff will --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yeah. We have to identify one, donít we?

MS. BANE: We will.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right.

Anything else?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Motion to adjourn.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Second?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Aye? All in favor?

Thank you.

(Thereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the public

meeting was adjourned.)

--o0o--

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER/TRANSCRIBER

--o0o--

I, Cynthia M. Judy, a duly designated reporter and transcriber, do hereby declare and certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I transcribed the tape recorded at the Public Meeting of the Industrial Welfare Commission, held on January 10, 2003, in Sacramento, California, and that the foregoing pages constitute a true, accurate, and complete transcription of the aforementioned tape, to the best of my ability.

Dated: January 11, 2003 ______________________________

CYNTHIA M. JUDY

Reporter/Transcriber