Public Meeting







October 23, 2000

State Capitol, Room 4202

Sacramento, California







Industrial Welfare Commission



DOUG BOSCO (arr. 10:09 a.m.)






ANDREW R. BARON, Executive Officer



MICHAEL MORENO, Principal Analyst











Proceedings 4

On-Site Construction, Drilling, Logging, and Mining 4

SCOTT WETCH, State Building and Construction 4

Trades Council

PAUL COHEN, Northern California Carpenters 6

PATRICIA GATES, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger, 6

and Rosenfeld

JAMIE KAHN, Associated General Contractors 7

LARRY ROHLFES, California Landscape Contractors 13


Minimum Wage 16

JOHN BARANEK, family farmer 16

ART PULASKI, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 19

JOAN LEE, Grey Panthers, Older Women's League 20

CHRIS SCHNEIDER, Central California Legal 22


VICTOR FLORES, Sheepherders Union 23

TOM RANKIN, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 23

Further Business 33

Adjournment 34

Certificate of Reporter/Transcriber 35



(Time noted: 10:08 a.m.)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Why don't we get started?

I call the meeting to order. Let the record reflect Commissioners Broad, Rose, Coleman, and Dombrowski present.

As many of you know, we are voting today on both the wage order of the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries and the consideration of an increase in minimum wage. We've had three public hearings on these subjects, with extensive testimony at three different locations in the state. So the commissioners would ask that if you wish to testify, please keep your remarks brief and to the point.

We have no -- okay, we have no minutes to approve, I believe, right? At this point.

Okay. So we'll just go to the first item, consideration and/or adoption of regulations regarding occupations in the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries.

I'm going to call up -- I have -- I have three people who I believe want to testify on this, Scott Wetch, Paul Cohen, Patty Gates.

And again, we've heard from all three of you before, so please be brief.

Let the record show Commissioner Bosco is present.

MR. WETCH: Mr. Chairman, Scott Wetch, with the State Building and Construction Trades Council. I'll be very brief.

I think we've conveyed to most of the commissioners in the last couple of weeks the fact that we've been -- since the last hearing on October the 5th in Stockton, we have been meeting diligently with representatives of the various employer groups, Associated General Contractors, and others to try and develop the sort of flexibility into the language that the Commission directed us to do. I think that we have accomplished that.

Specifically, in regard to the issues of the reporting time, providing flexibility for the inclement weather and for occurrences outside the control of the employer.

We worked closely with the employers at the direction of the Commission to address the issue of rest periods and how we could build in flexibility to address certain types of procedures that just aren't conducive to having a ten-minute, rigid -- a ten-minute rest period.

And on a number of related sorts of issues, conforming sorts of changes, I think we've gotten a copy of those changes to the Commission, and we think, with those changes, that the recommendations made by the wage board should be adopted today.

I just wanted to, once again, on behalf of the building trades, thank the Commission and the staff of the Commission for all the work they've put in on this, and I'll be available for questions.


MR. COHEN: Thank you. Paul Cohen, of the Northern California Carpenters. I want to just echo Scott's comment. At your direction, Chairman Dombrowski, we met with the employers. I think we're satisfied that we've addressed the legitimate concerns about flexibility on some of these issues.

I do have a question. I picked up the document labeled "Attachment A" that was at the front today -- that is the original. Okay. And so, but what is in front of the Commission reflects the language submitted by Scott that is a result of those meetings that we had with the employers.

With that, I would ask you to go ahead and adopt this wage order.

Thank you very much.

MS. GATES: At this point, I think there is no other legal testimony that's necessary.

I want to -- my name is Patty Gates, and I'm with the Van Bourg law office. And I submitted written testimony at the prior public hearings, and I think that's adequate to address the legal issues that we looked at in the wage order. So I won't carry on today.




MR. WETCH: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask, being that this is the last hearing, when the employers -- I believe we've addressed all the employers' concerns, and I believe that we have agreement with the employers that this is a representative document -- if they should come up here and throw any new issues on the table, I would ask that perhaps we'd get a chance to respond to those.


Jamie, come up.

MS. KAHN: Jamie Kahn, representing the Associated General Contractors. And we have been working with the Building Trades and the Carpenters to try to resolve some of our issues.

I don't know -- is this the document?

MR. BARON: No. The document you have in front of you is still the original that went out to public hearing. It does not reflect all the discussions that you had.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Why did we put that out?

MS. KAHN: To make me nervous.


MS. KAHN: We have reached accommodation on a number of different issues, but, now, as it is, we are putting this out to our contractors as well, and the more contractors that take a look at this document, there are some specific issues that come up each time.

And the rest period, of course, is the one that is causing the most concern. Implementing the wage order will be a costly venture for our contractors because rest periods are something that we did not have to do before, either with a collective bargaining or without a collective bargaining agreement. And there will be a cost factor associated with that.

With the -- and I think that at our hearing -- at your hearing in San Francisco, one of our contractors mentioned fixed-price contracts. Fixed-price contracts are those contracts where you've already estimated what your cost factors are going to be, and then you have to complete the project based upon those factors. What will happen is, when rest periods take in -- come into effect, that will be an additional cost factor that they have not calculated into their estimates, and those are costs that will have to be borne by the contractor.

What we're looking for, just for a possible mitigating opportunity here, is for a delayed implementation, to July if possible, that would allow a lot of the contracts that are now in existence to be completed, and would also allow for new contracts to be submitted with that calculation included in them.

So, if that would be a possibility, that is something we have not talked to the subtrades about or -- I mean to the Building Trades or the Carpenters about, but we would like to see that particular element included.

We would also like to see in the rest periods a Statement as to the Basis to give us some clarification on the protection that -- I mean on the equivalent protection section, if that can mention fatigue, because that is an element that is included in collective bargaining agreements that is not included in that language. And this is a particular concern to some of our union contractors -- or only to our union contractors, who do factor in fatigue but do not factor in equivalent protection because they have already negotiated rest periods into a -- you know, into increased wages. And that's a factor that is not listed in the collective bargaining agreement, but it's something that we would like to have factored into a Statement as to the Basis.

Also, consistency in the penalties section to make sure that all other sections refer to "authorized" and "permitted." That language was something that we had worked out, but I saw, in one of the many wage orders that I have reviewed that that was not carried through. The term "authorized" and "permitted" for rest periods and meal periods, we'd like to see consistently carried through.

Okay. Flexibility on the alternative workweek was another element -- I think we have reached some accommodation on that, and that is something that would be a concern to us because there are factors that come into play that would not allow us to finish up a 40-hour workweek in a four-day period if we were under an alternative work schedule, and the fifth and sixth day would then be required to be paid overtime.

So, those are some of the factors we have -- we appreciate all the efforts that the IWC, that the members have provided, and with the Building Trades and the Carpenters in trying to meet some of our concerns.


Go ahead, Barry.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Okay. Let me understand this. You sat down with the Building Trades, you worked out the language that's before us in this motion, on rest periods, on all these issues, and then there's -- and you still have questions about what you sat down and agreed to, but you agree that you agreed to it?

MS. KAHN: On the rest periods?

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Well, on -- you mention all these issues, but you guys sat together and you reached an accommodation with one another. And now you're sort of questioning -- see, the pattern we've had here is that you sat down in a wage board, and your representative voted by a two-thirds vote for something, then you came here and told us, "Gee, we really didn't mean to do that, and we're really sorry we did that; can we just forget the whole thing?" Then we -- and we said, "No, you can't forget the whole thing because we're bound by a two-thirds vote." Then you agreed on these issues, like temperature and seats and rest periods, to sit down with the Building Trades and try to work something out. You sat down with the Building Trades you worked something out, and now you're here today to tell us that, yes, you worked something out and you really appreciate that, but it isn't quite what you want.

But we're sort of at the end of the -- of the road, and I'm just wondering whether you did or didn't work something out.

MS. KAHN: My understanding, a Statement as to the Basis are things that can continually be worked out, and those are what I'm looking for. Delayed implementation is something that, you know, just came up, and that is something that we did not discuss, but that was something that the IWC can certainly consider, you know, taking those factors into consideration.

These are things that are -- you know, like I said, as our contractors review this, different facts keep on coming to our attention, and we're trying to address those as we go along. And at each of the meetings, we have tried to bring those to your attention and tried to work out as much as we can. These are just a couple of outstanding issues.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Let me just add one more thing. I appreciate that.

With respect to rest periods, I do believe that your employers will more than make up any possible costs from rest periods by a decrease in their workers' compensation experience. So, I -- rest periods are such a fundamental part of the way our society operates in the workplace that I can't believe that there's really an issue that could remain there.

MS. KAHN: Barry, this is -- I'm sorry -- Chairman Broad, this is only --

COMMISSIONER BROAD: No, no. I'm not the chairman; that's Mr. Dombrowski.

MS. KAHN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

This only comes up in cases where a union contract has already been negotiated and rest periods were part of that discussion and negotiated --


MS. KAHN: -- negotiating process. This does not come up in other circumstances.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Well, we'll let those guys work that out with each other. They're good at that.

MS. KAHN: Any other questions?

MR. ROHLFES: Good morning. My name is Larry Rohlfes, with the California Landscape Contractors Association, with a question.

The version of the on-site wage order that was the handout is not what you're voting on exactly, word for word?

MR. BARON: Right. That is the version that was handed out for -- to the public hearings. So that's an initial version.

MR. ROHLFES: Okay, because my --

MR. BARON: I understand. Yes, I know.

MR. ROHLFES: Paragraph 10 will be changed to --

MR. BARON: Fine, right.

MR. ROHLFES: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. BARON: You're welcome.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion on this issue.


COMMISSIONER BROAD: I would move what you have before you, a document entitled "Motion Concerning On-Site Occupations Wage Order," I would move that wage order with the additional requirement that any action that we take with regard to the minimum wage be included in this wage order, since the wage orders mention the minimum wage.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. We have a motion and second.

Procedurally, I have an amendment I want to propose, which is in your packets, I believe.

MR. BARON: Yes, it is.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: It's on the "On-Site Industries Wage Order Concerning Onshore Processing Facilities Associated with Offshore Production," which basically provides that those facilities that do separation work could vote for a 12-hour day. So, I guess, before we take the vote, I need -- I'd make that motion and ask for a second.


COMMISSIONER BROAD: Okay. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Can we make sure that we clarify in the Statement of Basis that we're talking here about no employees that are now covered by Wage Order 1 or any other wage order?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Right, yeah. And that's fine.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. I have a second. So if we take a vote on the amendment -- call the roll.

MR. BARON: Dombrowski.


MR. BARON: Bosco.

MR. BARON: Broad.


MR. BARON: Coleman.


MR. BARON: Rose.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That passes. Now I'd ask for a vote on the adoption of the overall wage order.

MR. BARON: Dombrowski.


MR. BARON: Bosco.


MR. BARON: Broad.


MR. BARON: Coleman.


MR. BARON: Rose.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That is passed as amended.

The second item of business on the agenda is the minimum wage. I have -- let's see here -- approximately six cards. I'm going to call everyone up at the same time.

John Baranek, Joan Lee, Art Pulaski, Tom Rankin, Chris Schneider, and Victor Flores.

Once again, we'd ask people to be brief.


MR. BARANEK: Yes. I'm John Baranek. I'm a family farmer.

And my concern is that I would ask for a delay in making this decision to raise minimum wage. And basically, what it's based upon is agriculture is going through a depression. And I want you to understand that.

I don't know -- I was unable to make your prior hearings. I was out harvesting. But what basically is happening to agriculture -- and I'll use wine grapes as an example -- last year, open market wine grapes were in demand and you could get $600 a ton for them. Today they're not in demand because -- again, because of overplanting and market conditions. But if you could sell them, you could get $125 a ton.

And our biggest problem is, because of a lot of factors -- example, fuel has doubled in price, interest rates have increased one or two percent -- and basically, we're in a position with our backs against the wall. We're not going to be able to give our normal workers a raise -- and what I'm referring to is, most of us are paying over minimum wage. Our basic worker is $6 an hour. And above that, all of our other workers make $8, $10, depending upon what they're doing. And what we're into is a situation that when you raise minimum wage, costs of things go up accordingly. And we normally give our workers a raise. Well, we're not going to be able to do that this time.

So, therefore, our workers are actually going to suffer because of this, because they're not going to be earning the normal increase they would be getting.

I would urge you at this time, because there's going to be a ripple effect in the economy, especially in the Central Valley, that we have to get loans from banks, you have to make balance sheets balance, and it's pretty ugly out there. And I'm asking you to postpone it until we really see what the shake-out is, and we'll have a better idea when loans come due this year how many farmers are going to be able to pay back their loans and what the real financial impact is going to be, because if the farmers don't make it, then you have all their suppliers, chemical companies, ma-and-pa stores in the rural community -- rural communities are going to really go through an economic disaster.

And what I'm worried about the whole economy of California will be affected by this. It takes a year or two or three, but we have to do something drastic. And the main reason why, we're competing on the international market now. We're competing against China, that pays $1 a day for wages; Mexico with $3-a-day wages; Chile, $10-a-day wages -- and we've got to compete in that market.

So I'm asking you to please postpone it until we really see what's going to be shaking down or what's going to happen.

Thank you.


Art -- oh, sorry


COMMISSIONER ROSE: Are you asking that the minimum wage be not put in for everyone or some specific group?

MR. BARANEK: Well, I think the inner-city workers definitely need some kind of an increase in wage because their costs are entirely different than out in the country. But our problem is in agriculture that we're not going to be able to absorb this. And I don't know if you've heard this before or not, but we're just organizing the family farmers because our lobbyists have been out trying to do a decent job, but they don't realize how the farmer really is against the wall. I mean, we just have no margins of profit we have to deal with.

And so, what's going to suffer is the farm worker, actually, because we've got to probably cut our budget by 30 percent. And what's the biggest item we have? It's labor. And we have no choice. And that's what's going to happen. That's the reality of life.

And all I'm saying is that this -- postpone it until we see what the shake-out is and see what's going to happen, because the ripple effect can be much greater than just agriculture. It can pull down the whole economy.

Thank you.

MR. PULASKI: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Art Pulaski, from the California Labor Federation.

The challenge to low-wage workers to be able to afford the basic necessities of living is becoming more dramatic and more difficult every day. The costs of housing and healthcare and transportation continue to skyrocket. We cannot delay. We cannot delay to begin to make up and recover for low-wage workers those lost wages we have been declining for the last 32 years -- 1968, they were much better off than we were now -- than we are now. And every year since then, our wage values have declined as minimum wage workers, in order to catch us back up, in order to catch the minimum wage back up to 1968, 32 years ago, we'd have to go over $8 an hour now.

We ask you to move as generously as possible and as quickly as possible so low-wage workers can begin to recover so they can pay their expenses and afford for their families to live a decent life. We urge quick action today.

Thank you very much.


MS. LEE: My name is Joan -- Joan Lee.

Am I coming on the microphone?

And I'm here today representing Grey Panthers and the Older Women's League, as well as a very large coalition who, here in the Sacramento area, have been working for a living wage.

We are all very concerned about this issue as a matter of fairness and morality. The minimum wage has declined in value almost 40 percent since 1968. The result of that is that people cannot escape the trap of poverty. They have to work an average of 52 hours just to stay afloat.

This morning's newspaper reported that the average apartment in Sacramento -- and you realize Sacramento is probably the bottom of the rental market in our state -- that it was -- it's over $700 a month for the average apartment. I don't see how any family can manage on that amount without a serious impact, particularly on children.

And this is one of the issues that I bring forward to you, that 76 percent of mothers have to work just in order to make ends meet. And they comprise a large percentage of this population that are making the low wages, between $5.15 and $6.14. And so there's a tremendous gap here for mothers who are trying to make these wages stretch across a month.

It's very significant when we figure that the average income of the bottom rung of society has actually fallen by more than 20 percent nationwide. And so the percentage of children living in poverty is growing every day.

I've worked on the homecare campaign here in Sacramento and have worked with these people who are trying to make it on those wages. And I do know that they have to carry two and sometimes three jobs just to get through the month for their kids. The result is not only the burden on them, but the burden on society in order to help them out with their children that are not getting the care they need as a result.

So I would ask you to set aside any difficulties there might be and immediately send a recommendation to the governor to raise the minimum wage.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: You should -- this isn't a recommendation to the governor. If we vote to increase the minimum wage, it's increased.

MS. LEE: Good.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: It's the Commission's authority.

MS. LEE: Fine. Thank you.


MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning. My name is Chris Schneider. I'm executive director of Central California Legal Services. I'm here on the sheepherder exemption issue.

We have a proposal before you that, at first blush, looks like a lot of money for a minimum wage worker, $2,060 a month. But by the growers' own admission, during the lambing season, the workers are working at least 13 hours a day, so we are talking about 91-hour workweek. A non-ag worker under a minimum wage of $6.25 an hour working 91 hours a week in one month would earn $3,193. An ag worker, another farm worker, working 91 hours a week in a month would earn $2,949 in a month. At $6.25 an hour straight time, 91 hours a week over a month, that would be $2,451.68 a month. So we're giving $450 a month to the growers on our offer, and we think that's extremely reasonable.

Thank you.


Go ahead.

MR. FLORES: (Through Mr. Schneider, interpreting) Thank you very much. My name is Victor Flores.

For over 45 years, we have not received the minimum wage. I think it is now time to consider what is just for these farm workers, sheepherders. We ask that you do justice. We believe that what we have submitted would be justice for our members.

Thank you very much.


MR. RANKIN: Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation.

Just a word on the deferral question, especially regarding the sheepherders issue. There's a reasonable proposal before you on this issue. It is time to act on this issue. There has been, I should point out, a wage board that considered this along with other issues of exemption. And we believe that immediate action is necessary to deal with the exemption problems, especially that of the sheepherders.

Also, in terms of the plea from the agricultural community, we never hear them coming up here during good times and saying, "It's time to increase the minimum wage." It's time to increase the minimum wage now. The workers need it.

We've -- workers have experienced long droughts here. From 1980 to 1988, the minimum remained the same. From '88 to '97, the minimum wage remained the same. And it's remained the same from '98 to 2001, if you take action today. That's long enough.


To the commissioners, in the packet, this -- just so you know, there's one letter submitted by the California Labor Federation, from Speaker Hertzberg, which has the Speaker's letter encouraging an increase above what is proposed on the table, and is signed by more than sixty other state legislators.

Second, there's a letter in the packet from Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, which is requesting that we create a narrowly focused wage board to evaluate the process for establishing the amount of compensation for the sheepherders.

Third, there's a letter from Senator Dick Monteith asking us to preserve the sheepherder exemption.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion at this time.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: I'm going to make a motion with regard to the exemptions. We'll then -- and this does not include the actual increase in the minimum wage -- that will be separate.

You have before you something entitled "Motion on Exemptions," and I would move -- the noticed proposal concerning elimination of overtime exemptions, with the following modifications, and there are a series of modifications that change the language. And I will go through them.

In the minimum wage order itself, it deletes the reference to public employees. And then we would also amend Section 5 of the minimum wage order, which cross-references minimum wage provisions in the other industry and occupation wage orders.

With personal attendants, it would apply the minimum wage and other related provisions to personal attendants, except it would create an exemption for a person under the age of 18 who is employed as a babysitter for a minor child of the employer in the employer's home.

With learners, it would -- currently, the learner's rule allows a learner's wage of 85 percent of the minimum wage for the first 160 hours of employment, but it's applicable only to employees above the age of 18. This would apply it to workers both above and below the age of 18, but would eliminate another provision that applies specifically to minors, per the noticed proposal. And there's other related provisions on minors that would -- I'm proposing would be eliminated, based on our proposed notice.

Professional actors, it also would apply the minimum wage and related exemptions.

With agricultural professionals, the $900 amount would be increased to two times the minimum wage.

It would eliminate -- it would apply the minimum wage to public employees, and to full-time carnival ride operators, and to student nurses. and psychiatric technicians.

With regard to sheepherders, what I would propose to do, there is language there under proposed Section 4, "Minimum Wages," Paragraph (E)(1) proposes a minimum wage $2,060. Essentially, it's the amount that's put in -- requested by the Sheepherders Union and the CRLA.

I -- you have before you a piece of paper entitled "Friendly Amendment re Sheepherders." This would -- I would propose, in the interests of time -- this was proposed on behalf of Commissioner Bosco, and I can count, and so what I would propose to do would be to substitute this paragraph for Paragraph (E)(1). What it creates is for sheepherders employed on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week schedule, as an alternative to the minimum wage, a monthly minimum wage of $1,600 per month, with a credit for meals and lodging of no more than $400, if certain protective conditions are met.

That's it.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Do I hear a second?



Commissioner Bosco?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Mr. Chairman, I don't know exactly what the proper procedure would be -- I suppose I should make a substitute motion, and I will, but let me preface it by saying this, that ironically, we have before us the minimum wage that will affect millions of California workers, and we have the sheepherders issue that will affect about a hundred people, and we spent about the same amount of time, I think, on each, which is good, because I think it's important that even small groups of people have their day in court, so to speak.

And we've heard vastly different testimony about the sheepherders. I was hopeful that we would be able to come up with a compromise on this matter, and I think we will, and I think that compromise will include both an increase in pay and a change in working conditions.

But I think that we should do it a little bit different way. I'm told that the -- that if we are to mandate a change in working conditions, that we should have a wage board to do that, and then actually mandate the changes in conditions, if we were to do it. Otherwise, it could be subject to legal challenge.

And so, having said that, I would like to make a substitute motion -- and this is all conditioned on the proposal that our Commission, at its next meeting, establish a wage board that will determine at least three things: one, the number of hours that these sheepherders work and the working conditions; and, secondly, the actual expenditures that employers make toward those workers; and then, thirdly, a recommendation as to how the minimum wage, as it will be at that point, should apply to those people.

And that, I understand, we would do at our next meeting, to establish the wage board.

So I'm going to move that the current exemption for the sheepherders remain in effect, subject to the proposals that I've made.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Do I have a second on that motion?


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. On that motion, let's call the roll.

MR. BARON: Dombrowski.


MR. BARON: Bosco.


MR. BARON: Broad.


MR. BARON: Coleman.


MR. BARON: Rose.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That motion passes, 3 to 2.

COMMISSIONER BROAD: So that means -- that would, I guess, leave my motion on the table, without any -- with the sheepherders part removed, correct?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That's correct. Correct.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And that has been seconded, so I guess we can just call the roll on that.

MR. BARON: Correct.



MR. BARON: Bosco.


MR. BARON: Broad.


MR. BARON: Coleman.


MR. BARON: Rose.


MR. BARON: Motion carries.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Let's go to the minimum wage proposal.

Commissioner Bosco, I believe.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Mr. Chairman, I also have a motion on that subject. I think, as with most things that our Commission does, it's next to impossible to make everyone happy. Certainly, we've had extraordinarily good testimony on all sides of the minimum wage issue. I would commend the various labor organizations, all of the people that have taken their time to come here and speak with us, which have been hundreds of people, and also the people from agriculture, the restaurant industry, and others that have, to some degree, opposed the motion that I made, I guess, a couple months ago.

Also, I want to thank the wage boards that have met and considered this, and our staff that has done a superb job, as they always do.

The motion I'm going to make will increase the minimum wage over a two-year period by one dollar, fifty cents a year, which is a 17 -- a little over a 17 percent increase in the minimum wage, and will affect over two million people who now will make -- who now make less than this proposal.

And I hope, in making this motion, that we can all commit ourselves that we're not going to go for these long periods of time without reviewing the minimum wage again. I'm hopeful that a year and a half from now, we will again be going through the process of, hopefully, increasing the minimum wage again, because at least I'm convinced that California workers can't wait eight years, like they did the last time, before a change is made in the minimum wage.

But having said that, I move that we adopt the minimum wage and meals and lodging credit increase in the noticed proposal, amending the relevant sections of all of the wage orders, including the minimum wage order.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Do I hear a second?




COMMISSIONER BROAD: -- I have a comment I'd like to make.

I'm going to vote for this motion. I don't think it's an increase that's sufficient in the minimum wage, and I -- but I do think that we're going to have to be back here after two years and looking at increases. I would have preferred it to go higher or perhaps to include a third year, but nevertheless, it is a significant for California's low-wage workers, and I can support it.

But I will be pushing very hard, if I'm around here in two years, or even if I'm not on this Commission, I will still be pushing very hard for it in two years when we review it for it to go up again.




Commissioner Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: I also am going to vote for it, but I disagree with the dollar amount, and I will do what I can to see -- to lay more groundwork to get a raise in at least two years.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: I'd just like to, again, thank everyone that participated in this. We've heard a lot of testimony, but we also received a lot of written comments from people that couldn't make the trek to the hearings. And I do think -- I agree with Commissioner Bosco that the time is right to do this, and I am appreciative of his interest in continuing to look at this and not go for such long periods as we have in the past.

So, thanks to everyone that participated in the discussion.


Seeing no other comments, we've got a motion on the table. Can we call the roll? We do have a -- Leslee seconded it.

MR. BARON: Dombrowski.


MR. BARON: Bosco.


MR. BARON: Broad.


MR. BARON: Coleman.


MR. BARON: Rose.


COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. The motion passes, 5-zero.

Any further business anyone wishes to bring up?




COMMISSIONER BROAD: I would like noticed at the next hearing a discussion of whether the interim wage order that now remains should be repealed in light of the fact that we have adopted --


COMMISSIONER BROAD: -- you know, wage orders. And we may have to have a wage board to do that. So --


Anything else?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do I have a motion to adjourn?



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

(Chorus of ayes)

(Thereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the public

meeting was concluded.)







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 October 23, 2000, in Sacramento, California, and that the foregoing pages constitute a true, accurate, and complete transcription of the aforementioned tapes, to the best of my ability.

Dated: October 24, 2000 ______________________________