STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

 

 

 

Public Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

March 14, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

State Capitol, Senate Room 2040

Sacramento, California

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

--o0o--

Industrial Welfare Commission

BILL DOMBROWSKI, Chair

DOUG BOSCO

TIM CREMINS

HAROLD ROSE

 

Staff

BRIDGET BANE, Executive Officer

DOUG McCONKIE, Analyst

DAVID ZAHEDI, Analyst

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I N D E X

Page

Proceedings 4

Wage Board Report - Wage Order 5 - 4

24-Hour Residential Facilities for Adults

JOHN WORMUTH, Wage Board Chair 4

LONNIE NOLTA, Residential Care Society 7

PETER COOPER, California Labor Federation 8

LISA Chin, Service Employees International Union 8

Charge to Wage Board - Wage Order 9 - Public Transit 39

Drivers

Closed Session - Pending Litigation Update 41

New Business 42

Adjournment 42

Certificate of Reporter/Transcriber 43

P R O C E E D I N G S

--o0o--

(Time noted: 10:18 a.m.)

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

Let the record show we have Commissioners Cremins, Rose, Bosco, and Dombrowski present.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Iím in the wrong spot. Let me get my folder.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: The first order of business is the consideration of the wage board report regarding the proposed amendments to Wage Order 5, Public Housekeeping Industry.

We have John Wormuth, who was the arbitrator of the wage board, to give us a report.

Thank you, John.

MR. WORMUTH: Mr. Chairman, the wage board met on the 12th of March, commencing at 10:00 a.m. And I wonít take much of the Commissionís time to explain that we essentially -- I essentially have no recommendations to make.

There were a series of four motions that were made. The parties exchanged views. They made counter-proposals, but each and every single motion that was voted was voted three to three, and therefore failed.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Questions?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Can you describe two or three of the major points of contention?

MR. WORMUTH: Sure. The first amendment was made by SEIU, and we had quite a discussion concerning the date of -- the issue of the sunset date. We discussed the issue in quite a bit of depth, as to whether or not the order would cover fifteen beds or six beds. Each side went into a great amount of detail as to why they thought their proposal was indeed appropriate.

The conversation spent quite also a bit of time around the fact that thereís a substantial lack of funding, and that the union has asked the legislature for additional funding. And we spent quite a bit of time talking about the impact of the lack of funding thereof.

I would describe that as the major points.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: There was -- I understood there was some issue about mentally ill adults. Did that --

MR. WORMUTH: I believe there was quite a bit of discussion with respect to defining the wage order with respect to industries, and therefore, at least in my limited understanding, appreciating I donít have particular expertise in the area of these services with regard to that type of disability or that type of home or that type of residence that would be operated -- so, yes, there was.

MS. BANE: Mr. Wormuth, when you have your written report, you will include the actual amendments that were proposed?

MR. WORMUTH: Yes, I will.

MS. BANE: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Unless thereís -- Iím going to bring up Lonnie Nolta and -- I donít know -- Peter, do you want to come up, or Allen or somebody from the labor side?

MS. BANE: Mr. Chair, do you want Mr. Wormuth to stay during this?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think weíre done. Thank you.

MR. WORMUTH: Okay. Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím sorry.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Youíre off the hot seat.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím sorry. Thank you for your -- thank you for your patience.

MR. WORMUTH: Youíre more than welcome.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: You will be replaced by the antagonists.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Patience is a virtue.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iíd like just go through some of these points and get a better understanding on the issues.

First, letís start with the sunset date. Disagreement? Agreement? Where are we on that?

MS. NOLTA: I understand that -- Iím Lonnie Nolta, with the Residential Care Society, and my colleagues, representing the industry.

I understand that there was agreement for the two years rather than the 36 months, that they would accept the 24.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: What were the parameters?

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, sure. Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: What were the parameters? What did the union start with and what did you start with?

MS. NOLTA: We started with the 36 months, which was three years, we felt was reasonable because of the problems with the fiscal deficit, both at the state and the federal level. The union did indicate, itís my understanding -- I was not able to be there because of a training contract; I was in Oxnard -- and itís my understanding that the union did put forth the two-year or 24 months. And that was acceptable to our colleagues, and it was certainly acceptable to us, Residential Care Society.

MS. BANE: I believe that on a -- something submitted by SEIU prior to the meeting, which was provided at the meeting, they had proposed one year.

MS. NOLTA: Correct. Originally.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: So, they can -- they can speak for themselves.

MR. COOPER: Yeah. Why donít we have -- the Employersí first proposal, which was to have the sunset date July 1st, 2008, so thatís where they started.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MR. COOPER: We started with a sunset date in -- what was it? -- which was --

MS. CHIN: One year.

MR. COOPER: -- which was one year.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: So thatís July 1st, 2004?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MS. CHIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. CHIN: And then it went to -- Employersí 2 was June 30th, 2006.

Union Number 2 was January 1st, 2005. And then our Union 3 was July 1st, 2005.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: So you agreed on July 1st, 2005?

MS. NOLTA: Yes. Itís my understanding there was agreement on that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. This issue of fifteen or six beds, help us with that. I donít --

whatís --

MS. NOLTA: Okay. The reality is that the majority of the programs are six-bed and fewer. However, particularly in the older programs for developmental disabilities -- for instance, in the program that Sister Marygrace operates in the East Bay, they have a facility for fifteen that was licensed some years ago. And because theyíve done an excellent job and people have moved on to more independent living, they have continued to be able to maintain that at the fifteen-bed. But once again, it puts tremendous stress on them when they donít have the sufficient funds to be able to operate.

Itís also true in the area of mental health. We have a number of mental health programs serving people who are identified under the national psychiatric evaluation of being schizophrenic, depression, et cetera, that are on anti-psychotic medications. And a lot of the mental health -- not all of them -- there are a number of small ones, such as Mr. Parker has in the Stockton area, but we have a number of them, again, that have been around a number of years that are fifteen-bed. Some are larger than that, but weíre discounting those.

The problem is, if those programs -- and theyíre very vulnerable. Those people only have SSI, SSP. Most counties had a minimal subsidy, until the fiscal crisis that weíre in right now. And I understand that even L.A. County is struggling with this and indicating they may not have funds. So, the reality is, youíre getting $818 a month to provide room, board, care, supervision. And with the mentally ill, youíre looking at having to make sure that they have taken medications.

These, basically, are transitional facilities, so it gets people off of the street, that often, at this point, are committing crimes. They stay in these facilities so that they can become stabilized and then move out into the community, hopefully with jobs and being self-supporting and being able to control themselves -- theyíre into the medication routines, et cetera. So, these are not long, long, long-term.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Let me ask -- I heard some numbers, I think, yesterday.

MS. NOLTA: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: But the number of facilities weíre talking about, I believe, is 73?

MS. NOLTA: Is 73 right now, right. We have 73 facilities that are licensed in California that are serving 947 people. These were the stats as of February 15th. I just had licensing fax these in yesterday morning.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. And how many -- how many employees are there?

MS. NOLTA: Probably not more -- most of the smaller facilities are run by families, husband and wife, so my estimate would be probably somewhere, with 73 facilities, not over 200 to 250. And that would be like with relief staff coming in.

MR. COOPER: If I --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Go ahead.

MR. COOPER: I just wanted to mention something.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Go ahead.

MR. COOPER: When weíre talking -- you know, we came to these negotiations -- and this is a take-away from our point of view, because youíre looking at taking away the overtime wages for workers.

Our proposal was to cover 80 percent of the industry. And when youíre talking about expanding that beyond 80 percent, and not just to the rest of that industry, the rest of that -- the extra 20 percent, but also, youíre talking about expanding it to other areas covered under Title 22 and mental health -- there are other -- from the Labor Federationís point of view, other affiliates that may be covered under these areas. We feel that itís --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Other affiliates?

MR. COOPER: Other affiliates, other -- other workers that -- other workers that are -- that are in --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Not in these facilities?

MR. COOPER: -- not in these facilities. And weíre just concerned about going way beyond the scope of all this.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Help me with -- help me with that. What triggers that? What makes it -- what triggers that, to you?

MR. COOPER: Well --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: The size? Or --

MR. COOPER: -- itís the -- itís -- it can be the type of -- the type of job thatís covered. And, you know, there are some issues about the jurisdiction of going to areas of mental health that -- mental health and daycare -- day programs that arenít originally in the charge. So, basically, my concern is that weíre going beyond what we had originally been discussing.

Perhaps you can add to that, Lisa.

MS. CHIN: Yeah. Iíd also like to add that the scope of the charge talks about "mentally dependent," which is not clearly defined anywhere in California code. It could either be -- you know, it could -- it could very well be a mental illness, it could be mental retardation -- I think those are two separate populations.

On the six beds or less issue, we felt that we made a huge concession with our Proposal Number 1, covering 80 percent of the facilities. Six beds or under seems to the most compelling testimony received by the Commission, in terms of the small home-like settings, one or two workers per shift. The proposal we set forward covers approximately 20,000 workers, and we would be denying overtime pay from these workers.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: 20,000? Where did that number -- where is that number from?

MS. CHIN: Estimated 8,000 facilities, one, two, or three workers per facility.

MS. NOLTA: May I?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Wait. Iím confused now.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Iím confused, myself.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: It would increase it by 20,000 if you include the mental health facilities. Is that what youíre saying?

MS. CHIN: No. Iím saying total overall, Proposal Number 1.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: How do you get from -- wait a minute -- how do you get from their 73 to your --

MS. CHIN: 8,000 -- oh, thatís mental health -- Iím talking about the six beds or under issue.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Weíre really confused.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím now totally confused. Okay.

MS. NOLTA: If I might be able to clarify --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Go ahead.

MS. NOLTA: Most of the six beds and fewer are actually operated by families -- again, husband and wife, it might be a mother-daughter or mother-son -- most of the six bed and fewer are family-owned, and they live in the home with the residents. So they are not hiring staff, for the most part. They may, once a year, take a vacation time. If they donít take the residents with them, then they may hire someone to come in. But it is rare.

A majority of six beds and fewer are family-operated facilities. And I would clearly differ with the estimate in the number of personnel, even -- if youíre talking about a husband and wife who own the home.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well, before you can get to personnel, how do you get to 8,000 facilities? Thatís what Iím confused about.

MS. CHIN: That number came from --

MS. BANE: Excuse me.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím confused.

MS. BANE: I think itís 8,000 six-bed and under facilities in the entire state. Is that -- is that your estimate?

MS. CHIN: Thatís what we were told.

MS. BANE: Is that correct, Lonnie?

MS. NOLTA: I didnít say that. I -- you believe it came from where?

MR. COOPER: It was my understanding that it did come from the employer side.

MS. NOLTA: I donít know who said that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I thought it was 2,000.

MS. NOLTA: Let me give you -- let me give you the figures. And I went back --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I thought it was something like 2,000.

MS. NOLTA: -- in my correspondence to the year of April, 2000. And at that point, there were 11,498 community care licensed facilities in California serving persons -- children, adults, elderly --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. NOLTA: -- and people with mental illness.

The current breakdown of adult residential, which is developmentally disabled only, is 4,835 -- these stats are February 15th of this year -- 4,835. Again, a majority are six and fewer and are operated by families who live in with the folks.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, I have a question.

MS. NOLTA: Now, wait. I have some other figures, so thereís a few more --

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Go ahead, confuse us a little further here.

MS. NOLTA: Right. I want -- well, I just want to be clear. I want to make sure that the information is correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

MS. NOLTA: Residential care facilities for the elderly, there are 6,328. Once again, you have a large portion of those that are six and fewer that are family-operated.

And then there are 73 social rehabilitation facilities which serve the mentally ill. And again, only 73 in the whole State of California that helps keep people off the streets.

MS. BANE: And are all those fifteen-bed?

MS. NOLTA: No. No. A lot of the social --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: You say a majority are six and under.

MS. NOLTA: Right.

MS. BANE: Even on the 73 for the --

MS. NOLTA: For the social rehab, yes. We have a number of six and fewer.

As I think most of you know, I do state-approved continuing education training. Iím all over the state. And a number of people who come in for the training that is required in each of these categories run programs for persons with mental illness, under social rehab. Those basically are adult programs, but theyíre a special category. And those, for the most part, are six and fewer, oftentimes, again, where a husband or wife may take people into their home. Not always. I believe Mr. Parker has one that is not in a residential home, that he has his staff -- do you not?

MR. PARKER: (From audience) I have staff.

MS. NOLTA: He has staff.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: My question --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Excuse me, Lonnie, but I missed those numbers. Can we --

MS. NOLTA: sure.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And my question is this, though, that, you know, weíve been going under the assumption for a number of months here that this industry is, in effect, going to go under if they donít get relief.

MS. NOLTA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But if -- if your statement that most of these people, I guess 80 percent or so, or even more than that, are six beds or less, mom-and-pop

operations --

MS. NOLTA: No.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: -- with few employees, I mean, what are we even talking about?

MS. NOLTA: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Obviously, the owners donít get paid minimum wage or --

MS. NOLTA: They donít get paid.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Wages arenít a consideration at all.

MS. NOLTA: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So, in a way, Iím worried -- what are we talking about?

MS. NOLTA: No. Doug, I was not --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Youíre saying thereís no employees involved here?

MS. NOLTA: No, no. Not at all. Not at all.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Okay. How many employees are involved? Thatís what Iíd like to know.

MS. NOLTA: And I donít have a breakdown on that because licensing does not break it down as to whoís mom-and-pop operated and who has staffing operation.

The Department of Developmental Services Regional Center has some of that. But I donít have those figures. I have the collective figures.

But of that, I would say probably -- just in a guesstimate, from my experience over the years, I would say that at least probably 25 percent of these facilities are owner-operated, where they live in the facility. The others are not. But theyíre still six beds.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, the union -- the union has said that they believe about 20,000 employees are involved in our decision today. What -- and you have no estimate at all of what you think is involved?

MS. NOLTA: Well, I hate to try and do an estimate that is based on fact. I mean, I can give you a guesstimate, maybe, if youíd want a guesstimate.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: It seems like a fairly elemental consideration for us, yes.

MS. NOLTA: I can -- you know -- we could take the 4,800 -- say that youíve got 11,000 facilities. Thereís just over 11,000 now, close to 12,000. And say that a third or a fourth of those -- I would say probably maybe a fourth are family-operated. The others are staff-operated facilities.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Oh. So, youíre saying theyíre -- only a third is family- --

MS. NOLTA: Or a quarter.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: -- or a quarter.

MS. NOLTA: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, now --

MS. NOLTA: But in mental health, we do have a number of those, of the 73, that are family-owned,

-operated. Not all of them are not.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Youíre talking about a total of 747, I wrote down, which youíre calling social?

MS. NOLTA: Social rehab facility for the mentally ill, there are 73 in the whole State of California.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But if I could get your testimony correct, because I think itís gone two ways.

MS. NOLTA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: The first that I understood was that very few of these -- that almost all of them are mom-and-pop.

MS. NOLTA: No.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Now itís that about 25 percent are mom-and-pop, and the other 75 percent do hire people --

MS. NOLTA: Thatís right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: -- to come in.

MS. NOLTA: Thatís right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And this wage issue that weíre involved in would affect them.

MS. NOLTA: And I think the confusion came because I was trying to break out the social rehab facilities versus the others.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And of the social rehab 73 facilities, some of those are six beds and less and some are more.

MS. NOLTA: Are fifteen and less, yes. Some of them are -- have larger facilities, but we didnít -- we didnít include any of those.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Harold.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay. If I may, six bed and under --

MS. NOLTA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: -- thereís 4,835 facilities.

MS. NOLTA: No. You canít use that. Some of those facilities are fifteen bed and fewer. Generally -- some of them are even larger, and we donít include those.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay. Then what is the 6,328?

MS. NOLTA: The 6,328, those are facilities specifically licensed to serve elderly frail. So thatís where a person is elderly and not able to live in their own home any more. They donít need to go to skilled nursing, which would be extremely expensive, but they do need ongoing supervision and care.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay. Then, my third question is, how many categories of homes are there? Thereís a six-bed, a fifteen-bed? Thereís not a ten-bed or a twenty-seven-bed or --

MS. NOLTA: No. And normally, itís not even set up that way. The categories are listed by the type of resident that is placed in them.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay.

MS. NOLTA: But youíve got a variable -- I did mention in the last letter -- like in developmental disabilities now, theyíre going to three- and four-bed, particularly with people with autistic behavior characteristics.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay. And I have a question for Lisa, if I may.

MS. CHIN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Total facilities that are not mom-and-pop-operated, that have employees, weíre talking 20,000 employees?

MS. CHIN: At the end of our -- we had a March 4th meeting, and I asked how many facilities, and it was a guesstimate of how many employees per facility. There are about 8,000 total in the community care facility world. One or two -- if you estimate one or two workers per facility, we guesstimated --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Wait. Iím confused again. You said 8,000 facilities?

MS. CHIN: Thatís a number that we go. But I --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: But thatís compared -- I thought she said 12,000.

MS. CHIN: We didnít have those numbers.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. All right.

Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Maybe we could get a copy of that?

MR. COOPER: And Iíd like to mention, at the wage board, these numbers were not disputed. These numbers were not talked about.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I can see why.

MR. COOPER: When we talked about 20,000 workers, we talked about 80 percent covered under the six beds, that wasnít even -- that was accepted by and not refuted by the opposition. So --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: So you both agreed, roughly -- no matter what the number is, youíre roughly --

MS. NOLTA: Itís fine. I donít care.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: -- 80 percent is six bed or less?

MR. COOPER: Um-hmm.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Okay.

MS. NOLTA: And if they feel thereís 20,000, Iím not going to dispute it. I donít have factual information.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Okay.

Lisa.

MS. CHIN: Well, it just seems that all the testimony received by the Industrial Welfare Commission was by employers talking about how they wished they could pay their employees more overtime, and that these are employees that are making minimum wage, $7, $8, and $9 an hour. I know there are some facilities that do better and they pay higher, but for the most part, I think thatís a rarity in this industry.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Can I --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think Tim had a question.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Oh.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: On the issue of mental health -- and I thought I heard this from somebody -- I may be wrong -- that there was a consistency problem with prior wage orders or wage board meetings?

MS. CHIN: When we came to our final proposal, we looked at the amendments that were made. The existing wage order has exemptions from overtime for meals and rest periods for the elderly, blind, and developmentally disabled. And so, we wrote our amendments to be consistent with that.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: But it does not include mental health.

MS. CHIN: does not.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Could I ask either Lisa or Peter, is your concern simply with the 73 facilities, or is it that thereís some spillover to any number of other facilities and locations in the state?

MS. CHIN: I mean, the mental health industry is a different industry, a different universe, different funding streams. I think itís just unknown at this point what it exactly would cover. So we didnít want to go there.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Would it be a solution to simply limit our order to the 73 existing licensed units?

MS. CHIN: We would not agree to that.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think part of the problem is we didnít have labor representation for the mental health folks on the wage board. Is that --

MS. CHIN: Yes.

MS. NOLTA: I beg your pardon, if I may. Mr. Parker operates a facility for mentally ill, and so there was some representation.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I mean on the labor side, from the labor side.

MS. NOLTA: Thatís not our problem. We have, if you will --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: But itís our problem.

MS. NOLTA: I understand, Commissioner Cremins, that it is. But, you know, since the April of 2000, we have included the mentally ill in our petitions. Every time we have come before this Commission, I have always included in that petition the elderly, people with developmental disabilities, and the mentally ill. Weíve never tried to hide any of that. Iíve given you figures from the past. I have the update figures. We never tried to couch them under any other category. There are specific categories.

Now, weíre -- the comment was made that this could flow into other facilities if you include the social rehab facility, which is for the mentally ill. It simply is not true. Day programs are into a totally different license category, so there is no overlap or slopover into other -- it is very clear. Itís very specific. This has been ongoing with the Department of Social Services for a number of years. I have given Lisa the information on this for some time now, so -- what the regulations were specifically, so that she could get copies of them to read it.

I mean, I had a comment on Thursday morning, yesterday morning, that we just threw the mentally ill in at the last minute. And that simply is not true.

And Iím sorry, but they have a desperate situation too. They keep people off the streets that can commit crimes. It is important to try and address the issues for them.

Again, part of the problem is the lack of knowledge of the general public --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Could I have one moment, please?

MS. NOLTA: Sure.

(Pause)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím sorry. Thank you.

MS. NOLTA: Thatís all right.

I apologize that I didnít bring copies of the regulations, because I can show you verbatim. And I just didnít feel it was necessary.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

Lisa or Peter, do you want to say something? I thought you --

MR. COOPER: I do think that there are a lot of -- a lot of questions that have not been answered and were not answered appropriately at the wage board. And thatís one of the large concerns that we have about moving forward with taking away overtime for workers, especially in light of negotiations that I felt were not conducted -- we -- we, on the employee side, went into the negotiations in good faith, and we felt that -- like that was not reciprocated.

And --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well --

MR. COOPER: -- weíre concerned also about -- about -- well, Iíll let you go first.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iíd just like to keep to the facts here.

Any other questions anyone has?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And thereís a couple different options, as far as I can see. Number one, we donít do anything, which scares me, because even cutting through all the rhetoric, I think both sides agree that there is some element of this industry that needs relief. Number two, we could end up with a proposal that only has a two-to-two vote, which I think is kind of a sad case, because all that means is weíd have to reschedule it for another -- for the next monthís hearing, when weíd have another commissioner here, who I think would vote for something, going forward. So thatís really, I think, kind of just a procedural thing that -- that is silly. The third option, it seems to me, is that we could agree to put some proposed amendment out there.

And, Bridget, help me with this. I believe we then go through the public hearings. Issues like this mentally ill subject would have to be discussed, and the other issues we all discussed, in front of the full Commission. And based on that input, we can then adopt, amend, whatever we need to do, to that proposed order.

To me, the value of going forward with that is we can then still meet the July 1st deadline, because if we have to put this over 30 days, thereís no way to mechanically meet that.

So, having said that, any comments?

MS. NOLTA: We would certainly urge that. I mean, weíre talking about a crisis situation out there in the community. We need to do something. We are certainly open to the public hearings and having people come forward and address the specific issues.

If the folks working with the union want additional information, Iím sure there are some of us that will sit down and walk them through it and encourage them, even give them names of facilities they can go visit, so they can see for themselves. These folks are not making much money to begin with, but we have employers that are paying well above the minimum wage. We just canít afford to keep a lot of these programs open unless they get some type of break on the sleep time, like the group homes.

The group homes were very clear. They couldnít operate without that sleep time. And you agreed. I served on that wage board with them. I understand their plight.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Could I ask a question? Is it -- is it correct that we -- whatever we would vote to put out today can be changed by the Commission, and in time to effectuate an exemption by July 1st?

MS. BANE: Thatís correct. Under 1182 -- Section 1182, it reads, "After receipt of the wage board and the public hearings on the proposed regulations, the Commission may, upon its own motion, amend or rescind an existing order or promulgate a new order."

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Harold?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: And at that time, it doesnít require another meeting of three throughout the state or any of that?

MS. BANE: No, it does not.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any comment? Do you have -- Lisa or Peter, do you have any comment?

MR. COOPER: No.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Let me ask you this. Do you object if we put some language out there? I mean, I know youíre not going to agree with everything in the language, but to move the process forward?

MS. CHIN: We would prefer that you use our last proposal as language.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thatís fair.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Which is this?

MS. CHIN: Which is what is before you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I donít think itís before us.

MS. CHIN: Oh.

MS. NOLTA: I have not seen it.

MS. CHIN: Itís just a copy of the last proposal we put forward at the wage board.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But I still am a little unclear. Say we come up with -- say we come up with a proposal for 24-hour, non-medical, out-of-home facilities, whatever that might be, and then -- what procedure do we go through to change that, if, you know, a month from now all these folks get together and agree to something else? What do we then do?

MS. BANE: What happens, according to the regulations as I understand them, is that after the public

-- you would vote today on language. That language would be sent out for three public hearings. After the three public hearings, it would come back to the IWC for a final vote. When it comes back with that language, that language could be changed by the Commission at that time, and it would not have to be sent out again. It would merely have to be published.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And who -- who holds the public hearing? Harold?

MS. BANE: Harold always holds the public hearings, yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I have a feeling we all will be holding the public hearings.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: I did it before.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: To meet the July 1st timeframe.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: My comment on your --

MS. BANE: That would still -- yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: -- on your language is that it does not include the mentally ill, and I think I want to include that in it because I want -- I want that on the table for discussion.

MS. NOLTA: Could we also please bump the bed size up, at least to twelve? Weíll split it with them.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I thought there was no difference --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I thought there werenít any twelve.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: -- between the six and the fifteen.

MS. NOLTA: Pardon?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I thought there --

MS. NOLTA: Well, being we had language for fifteen --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But Harold asked if there

was --

MS. NOLTA: Well, if we go along with their language on the -- their agreed date, we -- the other thing weíre looking at is the inclusion of mentally ill, and we still, obviously, would prefer the fifteen bed because of the mentally ill and some of the older programs that are licensed for developmental disabilities.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Is this in everybodyís folder?

MS. BANE: Yes. The language --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Commissioners, could you look at the -- itís in the first section, the working copy, "Proposed Amendment, Wage Order 5"?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: And itís blank.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And itís blank, right. I wonder how that happened.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I would suggest that we take this language, insert six beds, include the mentally ill, and put it out for comment. You can -- weíre splitting the baby, basically.

You can comment in the public hearings about the mentally ill issue and everything else.

And you can take that opportunity to come back with why it should be fifteen.

MS. NOLTA: All right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any comments about that idea?

MS. NOLTA: We would agreed.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I think thatís a good idea.

MS. NOLTA: We appreciate your consideration.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Anyone else want to say anything?

MS. CHIN: We oppose inclusion of mentally ill.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I understand.

Well, I will make a motion for adopting that proposed amendment and circulating it for comment and to move the process forward.

Do I have a second?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do you want to call the roll?

MS. BANE: Commissioner Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Abstain.

MS. BANE: Commissioner Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: No.

MS. BANE: Commissioner Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Aye.

MS. BANE: Commissioner Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Aye.

MS. BANE: The motion passes, two to one, with one abstention.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Could I make a comment?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Because a lot of us have put quite a bit of time into this, and Iím going to say right now that Iím really quite disappointed. And Iím not going to point the finger at any one side of this, because I feel that everyone has met in good faith, and the meetings that I attended were very productive meetings.

And Iím not totally unsurprised that the wage board -- that this happened. I mean, it seems like most of our wage boards, this happens to.

But thereís really an overarching issue that started this whole thing, and that is that this industry is living hand-to-mouth. And I know that youíve made great strides, and from time to time, youíve gotten money out of the legislature. But paying people less is not the solution to your problem. And I donít mean to be lecturing, because, you know, you people do Godís work, as far as Iím concerned, and I -- you know, I donít walk in your shoes. But still, the reality is that this is not the solution to your problem.

And I donít believe the IWC is going to entertain this again. So this is your chance to get together and come up with a solution, you know. And it probably will involve give-and-take. Hopefully, it will not exclude the people that youíre serving.

And the exercise weíve been through today is, you know, just the tip of the iceberg. And itís a scary one, because if things had tipped a little bit differently, you would have no relief whatsoever. And it may still happen that way.

And also, from the labor side, I would guess, in the legislature, with the legislation you have, that it would be very helpful to have the support of this industry, and that if you didnít and each one of these folks went to their members of the legislature and were against it, you know, you might -- your legislation might fail.

So, it seems to me -- and Iím willing to continue to meet with you, but this -- this is kind of a wake-up call today, that you really have to work harder to understand each other. And thereís a lot of acrimony still here, and everybody feels it, and itís not going to work out in the long run, especially for the people that you serve.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yeah. I would suggest too to cut down on some of the acrimony. Maybe we could have some real, verifiable numbers. I mean, weíre hearing drastic differences between sides.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Harold.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Well, I would ask the same thing, that each side prepare something that shows me how many facilities, what they do, how many beds they have, how many employees they have, how many mom-and-pop. We need some facts and figures.

MS. NOLTA: If I could just mention, Mr. Rose, we will do our very best on that. It is very difficult, because a lot of these facilities have variables, and it depends on the level of service as well as the size. We have some six and fewer that are staffed on a one-to-one when everybody is in that facility, for very severely involved folks. On the other hand, we have some that itís one-to-six. And so, itís trying to figure out the breakdown.

And Iím at a much greater advantage than my colleagues over here with the union, because Iíve been in this system for so long.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well, if we could put that on the -- that would be like the first thing on the agenda for the first public hearing, both parties just be prepared and trade -- have some dialogue beforehand. Maybe -- maybe you can come up with something -- I understand nobodyís going to have exact numbers, but at least to be a little closer.

MR. COOPER: Yeah. If we may, thatís -- we did try to encourage more dialogue early on in the process. And one of the areas that we are very concerned about is I have failed to see very much -- or any concrete -- concrete support for the long-term reform concepts that have been outlined by our side. And so, any -- in light of what Commissioner Bosco has said, I think that we need to work more on seeing concrete agreements about how we can deal with problems in the industry in the long term.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think thatís why thereís the 2005 date. But I -- we can only do one step at a time.

MS. NOLTA: Right. I also -- if I may, I really, really appreciate the indulgence of the Commission and the commissioners that spent time in those meetings. I donít think this is the time or place to discuss those meetings. We did not meet ahead of time from the date that the wage board was set because we didnít feel that it was appropriate. We felt we needed to honor that date. And so, no, we didnít exchange a lot of paper ahead of time --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. NOLTA: -- because we felt that was the place that we were to negotiate.

And I donít want to put a negative twist on this at all. I think we have to move forward from here today and do the very best that we can. Our perspectives are different.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

MS. NOLTA: But thatís what creates balance in our society. And we need to be working together as well as we can.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Sounds good.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. BANE: Excuse me, commissioners. Would you like to throw into this mix anything about the funding on these, as far as how much -- there was one figure of $828 per bed or per person. And I donít know if youíre interested at all -- and I think thereís quite a variable -- about what kind of funding comes in for each individual, depending --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

MS. NOLTA: Yeah. And I think I did supply that to this Commission in some of my past correspondence. Iím happy to do that again.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Good.

MS. NOLTA: And also, Commissioner Cremins has a copy of the information licensing faxed to me yesterday morning, if you want to make a copy of that and circulate it among the members.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Thank you.

Item Number 2 is consideration of the charge to the wage board established to consider modification to Wage Order 9, Transportation Industry, regarding public transit drivers who are currently exempt from meal and rest period provisions of the wage order.

I donít know if everyoneís had a chance to review that. After youíre ready, I need a motion to adopt.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Could you -- someone explain that briefly?

MS. BANE: Yes. If you have the wage order that has been proposed for Wage Order 9, it regards drivers of commercial vehicles who work for public entities. Thereís also a bill that we provided to you that is now making its way through the legislature that Mr. Koretz is proposing. And this -- the language in the charge that is really germane is that, "The IWC charges you to consider the following:

"Should the meal and break period requirements in Wage Order 9, Sections (11) and (12), be amended to include public drivers of commercial vehicles?

"2. Should any proposed amendment include language to the effect that the existence of a collective bargaining agreement which provides protections equivalent to the current meal and break period requirements of Wage Order 9 will satisfy the meal and break period requirements of the wage order."

Those are the two directives.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Is the bill the same one that the governor vetoed the last time?

MS. BANE: Itís -- I think itís been changed to some extent, but it is basically for the same purpose, yes.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I move that we accept the language as proposed by the staff.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Second?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

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

(Chorus of ayes)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All opposed?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thatís adopted.

Margueriteís not here, so I guess we wonít do the closed session.

MS. BANE: I talked to Marguerite, and she --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: You may want to tell -- I donít know if all the commissioners know what happened.

MS. BANE: Well, she canít --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: She canít be here. Personal family --

MS. BANE: A death in the family. And so, yeah, she let me know whatís going on and that we donít really need a closed session at this time.

There has been a demurrer filed on each of the two cases that we have discussed prior to this. One is National Concrete. Thereís a hearing set on that on April the 8th in Orange County. And I think the other date is April the 10th, for Westside Concrete. And that is set in Los Angeles. And there is a good possibility that the case will be dismissed on the demurrer.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Is there any new business?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iíd ask for a motion to adjourn.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So moved.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Aye.

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

(Chorus of ayes)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: We are adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 11:03 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 March 14, 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: March 15, 2003 ______________________________

CYNTHIA M. JUDY

Reporter/Transcriber