STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

 

Public Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

April 24, 2001

Secretary of State Auditorium

1500 11th Street

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

TIMOTHY CREMINS

HAROLD ROSE

 

 

Staff

BRIDGET BANE, Executive Officer

MARGUERITE C. STRICKLIN, Legal Counsel

TRACI PILGRIM, Analyst

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I N D E X

Page

Proceedings 4

Approval of Minutes of Public Meeting on March 2, 2001 4

Appointment of Wage Board - Wage Order 5 Employees 4

Providing 24-Hour Care for Minors

DAVE HELMSIN, California Alliance of Child and 5

Family Services

Amendments to Wage Order No. 14 - Sheepherders 7

MARK SCHACHT, California Rural Legal Assistance 18

(CRLA) Foundation

GEORGE SOARES, Western Range Association 19

MARK SCHACHT, CRLA Foundation 29

GEORGE SOARES, Western Range Association 30

JIM HOLT, Western Range Association 30

MARK SCHACHT, CRLA Foundation 37

JIM HOLT, Western Range Association 37

MARK SCHACHT, CRLA Foundation 38

CHRIS SCHNEIDER, Central California Legal Services 40

TOM RANKIN, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 40

MARK SCHACHT, CRLA Foundation 41

GEORGE SOARES, Western Range Association 41

VICTOR FLORES, Sheepherders Union 43

MARK SCHACHT, CRLA Foundation 49

GEORGE SOARES, Western Range Association 50

Adjournment 55

Certificate of Reporter/Transcriber 56

P R O C E E D I N G S

--o0o--

(Time noted: 10:00 a.m.)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I call the meeting to order.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the public meeting held March 2nd, which is in your packets.

Do I have a motion?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So moved.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

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

(Chorus of "ayes")

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: The second item on the agenda is consideration of individuals for appointment to the wage board established to review the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees covered by Wage Order 5 who have direct responsibility for children under 18 years of age receiving 24-hour care and a possible charge for that wage board.

We do not have the charge actually finalized. Iíd like counsel to explain what the procedure is there.

MS. STRICKLIN: As I understand it, the request came from those employers and employees who represent -- who work in facilities, 24-hour facilities, for minors, basically group homes -- that during the last meeting that we had, there was a question as to, I think, just the meal and rest periods, that that should be expanded to include facilities that provide assisted living for the developmentally disabled and for the elderly.

My question is whether that request included just the meal and rest period issue or the overtime issue. And if thereís anyone here who wants to speak to that issue, Iíd appreciate it.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Go ahead, Dave. I think you need to come up to the microphone.

Is that where the microphone is?

THE REPORTER: Yes. And please identify yourself.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And please -- yeah, please identify yourself.

MR. HELMSIN: Dave Helmsin, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services.

And our intent with the meal -- with the other non-foster-care, non-minor, 24-hour care was only to look at the meal and rest period issue and nothing further.

MS. STRICKLIN: That, I thought, was whatís probably the issue, right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. So, procedurally, we can adopt the nominees for the wage board and direct staff to prepare the order as described.

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes. That would be fine.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. And let

me --

COMMISSIONER ROSE: A question.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: On the employee side, with Barry Broad, thereís no problem that as long as he doesnít lobby. Is that correct?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I talked to Barry directly about that, and I believe heís researched that. He told me he was comfortable with it.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Fine.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: A question.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Is there a rough draft of

That, or that can be reviewed later, of the charge, that the board can review? Or will it be out fairly soon?

MS. STRICKLIN: It will be out very soon.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Let me name -- or read out the names of the nominees: the chair, Mr. John Warmuth; on the employee side, Barry Broad, Allen Davenport, Annie DeFroe, Deborah Glasser, Ron Rhone, Mark Stanford; the two alternates are Peter Cooper and Jeanine Rodriguez; on the employer side, Nancy Armentrout, Brian Dixon, Marti Harris Fredericks, Lonnie Nolta, Carrol Schroeder, Gerald Zazlaw; and the two alternates are Mark Miller and Timothy Welch.

Do I have a motion to adopt those nominees for the wage board?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: So moved.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Second.

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

(Chorus of "ayes")

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That is adopted.

Okay. Item Number 3, consideration of proposed amendments to Wage Order 14-2001 regarding sheepherders.

I believe Commissioner Coleman has some proposed amendments.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes. Thank you.

Well, weíve certainly heard a great deal of testimony on this issue. I think Commissioner Bosco said that weíve had more testimony per worker than just about any other industry in California. But I think weíve learned a lot over the last several hearings on this issue. And so, with that, Iím prepared to offer some amendments to the Order Number 14 that appeared in the packets that were sent out.

First, to put this in context, I think what we heard from the workersí side was that we need to ensure that the wages that they are paid are fair compensation for the long hours of hard work that they do for this industry in California. And on the employersí side, we need to be sensitive to a business that has very low cost margins and that competes with neighboring states who have already lower wages, Arizona and Nevada being at $600 and $700 a month, respectively. And we donít want to put these jobs at risk or this California industry at risk. And Iím sensitive to that as well.

So, with that, Iíd like to propose what I think is a compromise that protects the workers and is also fair to the industry. And that would be the following amendments:

First, to increase financial compensation to sheepherders to $1,200 a month. And this would be phased in over a three-year period, beginning this July 1, 2001, that the wage would go to $1,000 a month; July 1, 2002, it would go to $1,100 a month; and July 1, 2003, it would go to $1,200 a month.

As a second -- yes?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: We had that discussion. I donít know if that -- are there any questions? Weíre taking these up one by one. I know thereís -- Mr. Cremins has some other things he wants to bring up. So if weíre going to discuss these one by one up here and try to move forward, is that -- or do you want -- do you want to go through it?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Iíve got -- well, to be honest, Iíve got a potential to amend her motion. Would you rather -- feel more comfortable discussing the merits of hers first, or maybe I can move to amend it?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well, let me do it this way, then. Why donít -- why donít you just go through your three, four --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Three.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: -- three amendments, verbalize them. And weíll --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Talk about them.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And we can talk about them, and if you want to bring up yours, we can talk about that, and then take the votes.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Very good.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: All right.

The second would be that domestic workers should be included in this order.

And then, third, we add a section to the "Penalties" section, which is Section 18, Page 12 of the order, and that would increase penalties for employers -- let me just say where Iím coming from on this.

One of the other portions of the testimony that we heard quite a bit was that sheepherders are often asked to do non-sheepherding tasks. And that is an area of concern, and we want to make sure that sheepherders are to be compensated for their specific activities and are not asked to do things outside of that description, which is included in the order. And I felt that that was important to do. So, this "Penalties" section addresses that.

So, we increase -- propose to increase the penalties for employers or any other person acting on behalf of the employer who requests a sheepherder to perform non-sheepherding activities without fair compensation pursuant to what the relevant minimum wage or agricultural wage standard, as required by California law, shall be subject to a civil penalty of -- initial violation would be one weekís worth of minimum wages, a subsequent violation would be the equivalent of one monthís worth of minimum wages, and if thereís a third violation, it would be the equivalent of the cost of the entire contract.

So we think -- I think that that would be a fair deterrent to ensuring that sheepherders are acting only within their sheepherder job description.

So, those are my three proposed amendments.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Discussion?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: A naïve question. That minimum wage penalty, is that for a 40-hour week, seven days a week, 24 hours a day penalty?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: When I was thinking about it -- Iím open to thoughts on this -- one weekís worth of minimum wage at 40 hours a week.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: As opposed to their current standard of being on call seven days a week, 24 hours a day?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Right. This would be sort of to account for the fact that they were doing a -- they were asked to do a certain task that would be a non- -- it would be a minimum-wage task.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I see some inconsistency. Thatís all.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Iíd like to ask a question of our counsel, if I could.

All the way through this, Iíve been impressed with, first of all, the need to change the working conditions. I think we probably all may agree on that. But I have reservations about the financial part of this, insofar as the industryís ability to pay it.

And I have a technical legal question. Is it possible under the Commissionís procedure that starts with the wage board and goes through all the hearings that weíve had, is it possible to put into effect some parts of this, such as the working conditions, and leave in abeyance other parts of this, in other words, hold the proceeding open?

One reason for doing that would be that, in July, the feds are going to come up with, I think, some increase in the H-2A program, and Iíd like to see what that is. But I donít want to necessarily wait till any particular date. But can we hold open part of our decision-making on this or do we have to kind of decide it, all or nothing?

MS. STRICKLIN: If you hold -- excuse me -- if you do hold open some portion of the proposed regs, that would mean that they would not go into effect July 1st. So, anything that you would vote on today, there is enough time to meet statutory requirements to publish by May 2nd. Anything that you do after today would not go into effect until July -- I mean January 1st.

And that would -- of course, if you all wanted to propose that and to leave the issue open, you might consider also having more hearings based on whatever you find out the federal government does on the H-2A program.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But then weíd have to start with the wage board again and the whole procedure? Is that correct?

MS. STRICKLIN: Youíve -- no, youíve had your hearings. And the proposal would be to implement a portion of the proposed regs -- thatís my understanding -- and then to continue the matter with regard to the rest. The only impediment would be that anything that would be held over could not go into effect at the same time that you -- anything you would act on today.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So, we legally could --

MS. STRICKLIN: Yeah, it would --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Excuse me.

MS. STRICKLIN: I was just advised it may not be clear that it would also require a notice of the new proposed proposal that you would hold over, and that would be a 30-day notice, to allow public comment on that.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So, we legally could put into effect all of the working conditions prior to this and hold off any decision on the other aspects of it without going through another wage board or that type of thing?

MS. STRICKLIN: That would probably be a first, but I think that you would be okay since you have gone through it and all the issues that are before you have been discussed. But I think that you would require another notice of the proposal with regard to the wages and for the public comment on that new proposal, without a wage board.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Again, another naïve question here. Would the practical effect of the delay -- whatever wage increase we theoretically agree on today, if we donít agree to a wage increase but deal with the conditions, we concern ourselves with wage increases next meeting, would that delay wages a month, six months, eight months, or --

MS. STRICKLIN: Six months, January 1st.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: It would definitely be a six-month delay.

MS. STRICKLIN: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But during that time, I think on July 1st, the feds are going to come up with some decision that will, presumably, increase the wages.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Harold.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: I have reservations about waiting for the federal government to increase it. And there arguing now whether itís going to be a two-year or a three-year -- 50 cents for two years or 50 cents for three years. I think we ought to do something today.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Mr. Chairman, are we going to be hearing testimony or voting on the --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: What I was going to -- what I was going to do is, I was going to have the vote on Lesleeís three amendments. That doesnít -- that doesnít mean the -- and then I was going to open it to testimony, so that people who testify would know where they stand in terms of whatís on the table. And then that testimony, depending on what commissioners hear -- and I hope it will be limited testimony at this point -- weíll proceed from there by -- if thereís any other amendments to the order, and then conclude with the vote on the entire order.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Youíre not precluding my notion to amend that motion?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Now, insofar as my thought of bifurcating this, it seems like weíd have to decide on the order of the votes. In other words, if Leslee were to introduce her two working condition amendments first and we could vote on that, then I could introduce my motion. And whether that was voted on, yes or no, would affect her --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well, we can -- if you want to make a motion -- I mean, does everybody understand what Commissioner Bosco is describing here, bifurcation?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think itís pretty clear.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I would think that we could just -- if you want to make a motion on that at this point, we could vote on that. And then we just can proceed.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: All right. Okay. I move that the Commission implement all aspects of the working condition-related matters on Order Number 14-2001 immediately, or as soon as is legally possible, and leave open any aspect of wages until some indefinite time in the future.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. Iíll give you the second.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But fairly begrudging, Iíd conclude.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I guess I need -- Bridget, you donít have a mike, so would you be able to record the votes if she --

MS. BANE: If he wants to call them -- or Iíll call the roll.

THE REPORTER: Why doní you call them?

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Aye.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: No.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That motion is defeated, three to two.

Letís see. Ms. Coleman, do you want to bring up your first amendment?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Sure. The first amendment deals with the financial compensation to sheepherders. So, I can reiterate that. Again, Iím proposing that we increase pay to $1,200 a month, and that would be phased in over a three-year period beginning July 1, 2001.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Before I take the second, I think Mr. Cremins has --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: do we have this in print, by any chance?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Only in my handwriting.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: In your handwriting. All right.

Okay. I again -- Mr. Chair, at one point, Iíd make a move to amend this motion.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Well, I think this is the appropriate point where you should introduce what --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: All right. I would offer a substitute motion to basically -- and Iíll over-simplify it -- to a $1,600 threshold. And I would ask permission of the board, if I could have some of the audience explain it better, in depth, if possible. We have a composite here for you. That would be Amendment -- or itís marked "Amendment Number 3."

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Mr. Schacht.

MR. SCHACHT: Yeah, commissioners, Mark Schacht. Basically, what the Cremins amendment does is implement the final proposal made by the employee members of the wage board to the IWC with regard to wages. And that was submitted to you last week in Bakersfield.

That amendment would have four parts: one, a $1,600 minimum monthly wage, allowing the employer to have deductions for housing and meals, as specified in the order; a second provision allowing that minimum wage to be reduced by $100 a month if the employer offered the worker a day off every week for four weeks in a month -- in that month; a third provision providing for penalties with respect to the use of employees in non-sheepherding work. The penalty is, if the person does non-sheepherding work as defined, they would be entitled to pay for all hours worked for that workweek or the contract period, whichever is the longer. And then the final provision is a provision to index the monthly minimum wage by the movement in the minimum wage in the future.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any comments?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, can we hear from the employersí side on these amendments?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Heís coming up as we speak.

Mr. Soares.

MR. SOARES: Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members, we havenít seen this document.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: George, could you identify yourself?

MR. SOARES: Oh, Iím sorry. George Soares, on behalf of the producer community.

Could we see the document so that we could --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think itís similar to what we --

MR. SCHACHT: Itís identical to what we submitted in Bakersfield.

MR. SOARES: Thank you.

If I heard the presentation correctly, this is more than a compensation proposal, and it also deals with working conditions, not -- Iím sorry.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I donít believe so. Those will be incorporated, hopefully, in other amendments.

MR. SOARES: Oh, thatís later. All right.

We have -- notwithstanding the vote that just took place, Mr. Chairman and members, we have done our very best to try to explain our circumstances. We attempted to embrace what we thought were the real issues, and that was this matter of working conditions and the like. We think that this Commission can do a lot of good for the industry in that regard.

I donít know how to explain to you folks any more than we have already, that while I respect that you can do whatever you want to do, we have too many government agencies in California doing whatever they want to do. And industries just canít take it any more.

And so, Iím very disappointed that the -- which I think is a fact -- that very credible information was presented in Bakersfield -- and unfortunately, some members of the Commission were unable to attend -- but very credible information that shows what is happening to an industry, who are people. We are doing our best, but we are put in the position -- being put in a position where this action by this Commission, if you continue down this road, is going to, I think, with certainty, guarantee the unemployment of people who are presently being employed in this industry. I think thatís extremely unfortunate, because I think weíre going to end up with a very hollow victory here, when we have a chance to improve working conditions for people as they should be improved.

We also have a chance to try to work with whatís taking place on a national level so that California does not continue to make itself more and more of an island. I think weíre about to miss that chance, and I think thatís terribly unfortunate. And I guess weíll all live with the consequences of these decisions.

As to this proposal, this proposal may reflect the need of people, of some people. It does not reflect the reality of the industry. We canít even live with the motion thatís on the floor right now, $100 and $100 and $100. We are isolating this state. These ideas about $1,600 and any other numbers pulled out of the sky just are not realistic.

And so I hope Iíve been responsive to this proposal. But I will also say that if the motion on the table, as it relates to working conditions and this matter of the penalty being one week, one month, or the contract, it was my understanding -- itís my belief that Order 14 has a specific number of hours where overtime kicks in -- I think itís a 60-hour plan. Some appear to have 40 hours. I think theyíre talking about a different order.

And so, Iím hopeful that the motion, at least in that regard, is consistent with the requirements of Order 14, not the requirements of some other order.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: If I may --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Sure.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: -- and I donít want to prolong debate here.

Thank you, George.

I would say two things. On the 40-hour notion, I think that was based more on AB 60 last year in the Legislature, I think, which covered all the wage orders, and which -- I was just looking for some consistency.

On the $1,600 figure, my notion was it was somewhat of a compromise. I think there was an offer by the employee side in Bakersfield for $2,060. And this is -- my view is that itís somewhere in the middle there, something of a compromise.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Commissioner Rose?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: The $1,600, is that reducible by the $411?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: The offset?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHACHT: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: So it brings it down to $1,100 something.

MR. SCHACHT: Yeah, $1,189. And thatís further reducible by another $100 if they get a day off a week for every four weeks in the month.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: To clarify, you would allow the employer to retain the offsets?

MR. SCHACHT: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: A potential of over $400?

MR. SCHACHT: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: And another $100 if they have a seventh day off?

MR. SCHACHT: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Mr. Cremins, you want to make a formal motion?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yes. I would ask that the board amend Lesleeís motion -- or replace Lesleeís motion with mine. Itís possibly -- that would be marked "Number 3."

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Is there a second?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Hearing none, that motion is denied.

Okay. Then we have Lesleeís motion on the table. Any more comments on that?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do I have a second for that?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Ms. Bane, call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Iím sorry. This is on Lesleeís motion? Iíll vote no.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

MS. BANE: Itís three to two against, Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That motion is defeated, three to two.

Do you want to go on with your second motion?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Sure. My second motion would be to include domestic workers in Order 14-2001.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do I hear a second?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I second that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Iím sorry. The motion again?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: To include domestic workers in Wage Order 14-2001.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. We have a second.

Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Aye.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Aye.

MS. BANE: Itís four to one yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That motionís adopted.

Third motion?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: The third motion pertains to the "Penalties" section, 18, and that we include violations -- this would increase penalties for employers or any other person that acts on behalf of the employer who requests a sheepherder to perform non-sheepherding activity without fair compensation, pursuant to relative minimum wage or agricultural wage standards, as required by California law. They shall be subject to a civil penalty of one weekís worth of minimum wages for the initial violation, subsequent violation would be equal to one monthís worth of minimum wages, and the third would be the equivalent of the entire contract.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And just for clarification, that would be based on a 40-hour-a-week week for all three purposes?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Is that -- wait, that is -- Marguerite, could we have some counsel on that?

MS. STRICKLIN: Order 16 (sic) has a 60-hour week before -- the 10-hour day before daily overtime kicks in, so it would be 60 hours, is my understanding -- Order 14.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Okay. Given that -- thank you for that clarification -- I am willing to amend this to reflect a 60-hour week for consistency.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: So I can clarify, the minimum wage times 60 for the first violation?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Any other questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. So I have a motion -- all right. We have a motion. Iím sorry. Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Aye.

MS. BANE: Is that "aye," sir?

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Yes. Yes and aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

MS. BANE: Itís four to one yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That motion is adopted.

MS. STRICKLIN: It was brought to my attention last week that itís not clear from the proposal as itís written what the actual wage for sheepherders would be, absent any proposal that the Commission might come up with today. My understanding would be that the amount is the same amount as in the H-2A program, but I think that that needs to be clarified.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iím going under that assumption.

MS. STRICKLIN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: If we donít take action, the wage stays the same.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, technically, that isnít true because there is now an exemption for sheepherders. And if what we pass today removes that exemption, as I understand it, sheepherders would be subject to the minimum wage, as is everyone else. And the H-2A program would be irrelevant to that.

So, I mean -- I think Iím correct on that.

MS. STRICKLIN: The proposal as written does say that Section 4, "Minimum Wages," is not applicable to sheepherders. But it does not -- there was a question that was raised as to whether that was sufficiently clear to mean that the wage would be the H-2A wage.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, I think weíd better be very clear on that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: How do we resolve that, Marguerite?

MS. STRICKLIN: To add that exact language, perhaps, in Section 4, that that would be the same wages. The section, I think, would be (D) or (E) -- Iím sorry -- with regard to sheepherders, that the same wage would be that as provided in the H-2A program.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Why do we need to refer to the federal program in a wage order? If we have an exemption to minimum wage under California law, why -- whatís the -- help me with this here.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, this proposes to remove that exemption.

MR. SCHACHT: It removes the exemption entirely. And that would mean that only workers that are part of the H-2A program --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think you need to --

MR. SCHACHT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mark Schacht.

If you remove from -- in Section 1(F) of the proposal, states that Sections 3, 4, et cetera, shall not apply. Well, 3 and 4 are the sections that deal with hours worked and minimum wages. So if you eliminate that reference, any exemption continues. So wages would be required to be paid to workers under federal law to the extent that persons were covered. And there our two statutory schemes that affect wages of workers nationally. One is the federal minimum wage. As Mr. Holt pointed out, I guess, some weeks back, theyíre exempt from minimum wage, sheepherders are, statutorily. And then the H-2A program would provide wages only for those workers who are H-2A workers.

We had previously submitted to the Commission the results of the prevailing wage survey conducted by DOL, which found that there are a substantial number of U.S. workers who are not working in the H-2A program in California. Treating Sections 3 and 4 the way the proposal does, those workers would not be protected by any wage rate.

MR. SOARES: Mr. Chairman and members, George Soares. And Iíd like to ask Jim Holt also to make a few comments.

But the industry had proposed at some point that

-- that domestic sheepherders that are not presently covered by the IWC order receive protection and be brought up at least to the standard that H-2A workers are presently at.

And so, it was my understanding the way we proposed that -- that was later deleted from the document that we now have -- was that we were attempting to ensure two things: that domestic sheepherders would be covered by all of the working condition requirements that we just talked about and that are in the proposal; and number two, that they would be compensated at no less than what H-2A sheepherders presently receive.

So it was our intent that all would be included so that no one is left behind. And I had understood the proposal by Commissioner Coleman to embrace that. But I was unclear about the later description by the witness, and so I wanted to clarify where industry -- excuse me -- where industry was coming from.

I donít know if Jim Holt needs to add more.

MR. HOLT: Jim Holt, with McGuiness, Norris, and Williams, in Washington, D.C., and consultant to Western Range Association.

The proposed order, the order that was published as the proposed order of this meeting, I think inadvertently omitted any reference to wages. And therefore, the exemption would remain. The order would continue to exempt wages.

And we advanced a -- had advanced language that would bring all domestic sheepherders, all sheepherders not covered under the H-2A program, under the same wage as the H-2A program as a matter of the wage order. And that would amend the -- it would amend Section 14, add a Paragraph (A) that would say:

"Every employer shall provide to each sheepherder not less than the minimum monthly wage required and provided by employers of sheepherders employed under the provisions of Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act then in effect."

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Wait, wait, wait. Which section of the wage order?

MR. HOLT: 14, Section 14, right after -- this would become a Paragraph (A).

Now, the question was raised why we need to reference the federal standard. You would not need to reference the federal standard --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Before you -- before you go on --

MS. STRICKLIN: Commissioner, I believe the witness is referring to the employer proposal, not the proposal that went out with the notice.

MR. HOLT: Thatís correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, okay.

MR. HOLT: Yes, this would -- this would amend Section 14 to add this. Iím sorry if I wasnít clear on that.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I understood you to refer to the circulated proposal, if you will.

MS. STRICKLIN: If thatís the case, that would be an amendment to Section 4, "Minimum Wages." And as I was suggesting before, that that be the last section, a subparagraph (E).

MR. HOLT: All right.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: And that is -- let me see here -- "not less than the minimum wage and monthly meal and lodging benefits under H-2A, currently $900 plus meals and housing." Thatís the language I read from the employer proposal -- no date on it.

MR. HOLT: Well, the --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Does that sound right? Itís a summary, I guess.

MR. HOLT: I think what we submitted, that doesnít reference the $900 wage. It just references Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), which would mean that as the federal standard rose, then the IWC standard would rise as well. You could, of course, simply put "the current standard in effect." But this language would put the -- would continue to increase the IWC standard for domestic herders as the federal standard increased, as Commissioner Bosco has suggested. Thatís re-evaluated every year in July and generally increases, so that this would keep increasing.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right. So the language, though, refers to the H-2A program.

MR. HOLT: Thatís correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right.

Marguerite, do we need to -- if weíre going to do -- do we need to take a motion and vote that into this?

MS. STRICKLIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: If I could make some comments, I think it would be very sad if we walked out of here today and left the current wages intact after all these -- after all these hearings. And I -- and I think, you know, if we -- I certainly would not feel comfortable voting in $900 a month for these workers. It seems like weíre one vote away.

If we -- if we look at this phased over $1,200 a month, I hear that this is going to be a challenge for the industry. What weíre trying to do with the phasing it over -- over three years was to allow them to be able to adjust costs so that they would be able to absorb this. Itís modest, yet it does, I think, address the needs of the workers.

And I just think it would be a shame if we, after all this hearing -- all these hearings, just voted the H-2A $900 wage in. Iím not prepared to vote for that.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, I think the dilemma that weíve gotten ourselves in is that, obviously, your amendment that covered domestic workers is sort of empty without knowing what theyíll be paid when theyíre covered. And the -- as this is written, as I understand it, it removes the exemption. So I think everyone would spring to the minimum wage, although, as Marguerite says, that probably isnít spelled out as clearly as it could be and probably would be subject to a lot of litigation.

So, I really do think that we should --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: No, I understand that if we adopt as is, weíve left out the discussion of a wage completely.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, we havenít, really. If we adopt it as is, we have left out the discussion; however, it will go to the minimum wage.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I -- is that true, Marguerite?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: It exempts them from the minimum wage as itís currently written.

MS. STRICKLIN: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And thatís clear?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: But it doesnít --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But it doesnít take care of the domestic workers, though.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Right.

MS. STRICKLIN: See, if you look at the -- if you look at the Section 1, "Applicability," Section (F), as itís written, the proposal says that Sections 3, 4, 5, et cetera, are not applicable to sheepherders. And Section 4 is the minimum wage section.

So that if youíre just talking about domestic workers, they would be exempt from the minimum wage, and there would be nothing that clarifies what wage would be applicable to them.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Then the way to include the domestic workers would be to, first of all, start with Ms. Colemanís amendment and then add a sentence or two onto that as to what that means, right, that they be included?

MS. STRICKLIN: Iím sorry. I missed the first part of your question.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: That the way to prevent domestic workers, not H-2A workers, the way to include them in the wage that at least the H-2A workers are getting, would be to add another sentence to Ms. Colemanís amendment that would make clear that theyíre covered under the H-2A.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So you might -- do you want to do that? Or Iíll do that.

All right. I move that -- have we voted on Ms. Colemanís amendment?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes, we did.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Oh, we did.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Weíve included the domestic.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: All right. Then I will move that in such an appropriate place, as counsel will determine, that we make clear that domestic workers will, in all circumstances, be paid the -- at least the same as H-2A workers, and that they be covered under the same work standards.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I have a -- does anyone want to address this issue before we vote on it? I guess thatís where everybodyís at.

MR. SCHACHT: Yeah, just a brief comment, that the prevailing wage survey conducted by DOL showed a substantial number of U.S. workers making more than $900 a month, a substantial number making less than $900 a month, so that those who are making less, implementing this standard would result in their getting a raise. But that assumes that that standard is adequate, which I -- we agree with Ms. Colemanís comment. That also assumes that that standard is written in stone and isnít subject to further erosion, which we also dispute. We think that the H-2A standard is going to go down; itís not going to go up.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yes.

MR. HOLT: The proposal would raise the wages of all the domestic herders not currently covered by the wage orders to the prevailing wage. This means that the current prevailing wage would become the minimum wage for all workers in this occupation, not just those under H-2A contract. This assures that the prevailing wage will continue to increase, just by the amount -- just by the definition of "prevailing wage," because everybody below that current $900 standard would be brought up to $900. So the new prevailing wage is going to have -- the bottom number in the array is going to be $900. The prevailing wage, obviously, has to be something above $900. This will assure that that standard increases.

So --

MR. SCHACHT: Can I make just one comment to follow that?

The prevailing wage is calculated at the 51st percentile. If you raise everyone to $900, the next time you do the raise, the 51st percentile is likely to be $900.

If the H-2A standard goes down next year to $850, and thatís all employers have to pay, is $850, thatís all theyíll offer and thatís all theyíll pay. And when you do the prevailing wage survey, the 51st percentile will be $850; it will not be $900.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I think thatís one of the reasons I would like to see us hold open that part of this deliberation, to see what the feds actually do. Everything Iíve been led to believe is that the H-2A would be increased, in which case it may cover what weíre thinking of doing, or were thinking of doing, today. If it were decreased, then it would give us the opportunity to review it in that light.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other comments?

Okay. We have a motion on the table. Iíll give it a second.

Does everyone understand?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: No.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Marguerite, do you want to --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: To clarify, Marguerite, so if we -- if we do not pass this motion, then domestic workers are exempted from the minimum wage. So thereís no floor or -- thereís no floor or ceiling. If we -- if we pass it, we have at least brought them up to the equivalent of the H-2A, which I still feel is inadequate, but itís better than leaving them completely unprotected. They will be at least then brought up to the standard of the H-2A.

MS. STRICKLIN: Thatís correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Yes.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That passes, four to one.

We now are still in the public comment period. I donít know if the parties want to come forward and say anything else.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Will it just be commentary on anything --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: On anything -- this is on anything in the order at this point.

The entire -- just to clarify, weíve adopted amendments, but we have not adopted the total, full --

MR. SCHNEIDER: Chris Schneider. I will comment only about the dilemma that the IWC faces.

The dilemma goes back twenty-five years, when sheepherders were first excluded from the minimum wage, and it has continued for twenty-five years. And every time sheepherders have tried to get any measure of justice, this Commission has voted them down. And it is shameful. Itís shameful that you do this.

Last year when we tried to get minimum wage for sheepherders, you said, "Letís look at the wage order and study it," so we delayed a wage increase for six months. Now you propose to delay it indefinitely.

Itís amazing that this Commission would consider that someone could even make a motion like that. Iím shocked.

MR. RANKIN: Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation.

The IWCís mission is to protect the workers of California. You apparently are failing to protect the most vulnerable of all workers, the most exploited of all workers in the state. And since thatís your decision, all we are left with is the alternative of going to the Legislature and doing it that way.

Thatís not what the IWC is set up to do. The Legislature set you up to do this job. If you canít do it, we have to go back to them and we have to go back to them and look at your whole mission and what youíre doing and whether or not itís worth continuing an IWC.

I want to remind you that you did not wait for federal action on the minimum wage for all workers. Why in the world are you waiting for federal action to deal with these workers who need a raise more than anyone else?

MR. SCHACHT: I just want to briefly comment -- Mark Schacht -- that there are a number of other aspects of the proposed final regulation which embody proposals essentially made by the ranchers which we strongly object to and hope that amendments can be considered in the remainder of this session to address those issues as well.

MR. SOARES: Mr. Chairman, members, George Soares. I want to speak just very briefly to this point of protecting workers.

I think the industryís participation over the past year has demonstrated that we are not trying to run from this issue. In fact, I think weíve made many credible proposals to this industry -- to this Commission.

What we are attempting to do, members of the Commission, we are attempting to protect an industry, an industry that is comprised of producers and sheepherders and a lot of other people. Weíre trying to find a spot where we can land on so everyone can coexist and prosper in this industry.

People will disagree with this statement, but I need to make it nonetheless. I believe in Bakersfield this industry presented compelling -- compelling economic evidence about the conditions in this industry. If someone has better information, we havenít seen it, and I donít think this Commission has seen it.

What concerns us is to make decisions regarding money in a vacuum. We are not trying to run from the issue, but we are trying to save an industry here and everybody in it. And as I said before, and I do not think itís an overstatement, in Bakersfield we had producers saying, "If you make these kind of moves financially, we will employ less people." Now, perhaps there is some grand design where that makes sense to somebody. It does not make sense to us.

We are anxious for not only the working conditions to be resolved, weíre also anxious to pay what the industry can pay because we want the industry to prosper collectively, not individually. We embrace the idea of this Commission continuing to monitor this situation. We are not trying to run from it. But for California to operate in a vacuum, I think, would be tragedy as well.

And so, to the extent this Commission revisits -- wants to revisit this issue one more time today, we would again embrace the idea that this Commission stay actively involved in what is taking place at the federal level, what is taking place in the twelve other states affected by all of this, and continue to review it, the economics of it -- theyíll speak for themselves -- and decide down the road whether some further adjustments are warranted or not.

Thank you.

MR. FLORES: (Speaks in Spanish)

MR. SCHNEIDER: Iím going to translate for Victor.

MR. FLORES: (Through Mr. Schneider, interpreting) I want to thank the members of the Commission and those present. In terms of the basic rights living in this country, where thereís supposed to be justice, when, for the first time in the history of this Commission, sheepherders came before this Commission and talked about their conditions, it was our hope that the Commission, for the first time in the history, would listen to sheepherders, that the Commission, made up of human beings like us, would understand that we deserve better conditions and better wages.

I would have appreciated it if maybe one of the commissioners would have come out to a sheep camp to visit the trailers where we live and see how we live, in conditions that were slavery in the past.

We have workers, human beings, who come from far countries -- Chile, Peru, Mexico, Mongolia -- whose rights are being violated all the time, and we hoped that this Commission would hear and would do something.

I hope that the commissioners realize that the workers are out there 24 hours a day, creating production and wealth for the industry. And we should have rights.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: May I suggest that we take a short, five-minute break? And I mean a five-minute break, if thatís okay with the commissioners.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Sure.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Itís a quarter after on my watch. In five minutes, weíll call it back to order.

(Thereupon, a short recess was taken.)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I call it back to order. I call the meeting back to order.

How do the commissioners wish to proceed? We have the order on the table. It seems thereís been some confusion. Thatís why I called the time-out.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think we have a -- Iíll term it an alternate proposal, a third proposal, which basically is $150 increase the first year, $150 increase the second year, no offsets, and on the indexing issue, that when the minimum wage is raised, that it be considered, but not be automatic -- it would be considered and the board take some action to consider it, but not automatically, that the board review the issue when the minimum wage is increased.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Then, to clarify, itís the same for -- itís the same net as the original proposal, but it would happen slightly sooner.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Effective date is two years instead of three.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Two years instead of three.

And then indexing, there would be no indexing with minimum wage. However, the issue would come before the IWC for consideration, one way or the other.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: And there would be no financial impact, but just --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Could I say something briefly? And I donít want to belabor this, because weíve all said probably everything weíre going to say about this. But there is uncontroverted evidence that this Commission has heard, not just in the Bakersfield hearing, but in all of the hearings weíve had on this, that the families that operate the sheep ranching industry in this state, that there is no give.

And itís been commented on here that the Commission has to look out for the welfare of the workers. Of course we do. But part of that equation is, and always has been, the ability of the payors to pay. And had there been any evidence whatsoever that somehow all these sheep ranching families were lying to us or had money hidden away somewhere, were getting hidden, secret subsidies, or really could pay and werenít telling us, then I think it would be a different story.

In some ways, you know, you -- the parable of the goose that laid the golden egg may be applicable. This isnít a golden egg by any means. In fact, both the workers and the industry seems to be -- all of them seem to be in a state of indigency. At least the first proposal to parcel this out a little bit longer, I think, might have given a little bit more time for adjustments. But I didnít see any evidence before the Commission that the industry thatís supposed to pay this bill is able to pay it.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any other comments?

Mr. Cremins, do you want to make that a formal motion?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I will do so.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Aye.

MS. BANE: Itís three to two yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Any other comments about the entire wage order that people want to bring up, commissioners want to bring up? Otherwise, weíre at the stage where we all put up -- ask for a motion and we vote to adopt.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski, I believe thereís some matter that may be --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. BANE: Iím asking counsel whether this is a technical situation on language in what is "Records," Section 7(C). It has been discussed by counsel and myself that -- and it was discussed at the time of the drafting -- that in Section (C), "notwithstanding" should be changed to the language "in addition to," to indicate that we donít want any exclusion of (A) and (B) because of (C).

If you would just take a look at that, and if you want any additional explanation from Ms. Stricklin, counsel will explain it. We were afraid that it might cause a little bit of confusion.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: It looks like itís technical to me. Any questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any objection to the document amendment?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Iíll put that motion on the table. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Second.

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

(Chorus of "ayes")

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Thatís adopted.

MS. BANE: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Mr. Cremins?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think we have a chance here to lay out Amendments 4 through 10, which weíll pass out -- I think weíve got someone here to pass those -- and Iíll term these working conditions type amendments, not with wages, but terms of employment.

MR. SCHACHT: You want them as a block?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I canít hear you.

MR. SCHACHT: Do you want to offer them in block or just vote for them one after the other, instead of doing them --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That may make some sense.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I would say so, yes.

MR. SCHACHT: Okay. Then Iíll just briefly summarize --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Traci, youíve got to give copies to Mr. Soares.

MR. SCHACHT: Okay. Mark Schacht, members.

There are amendments numbered 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. All refer to specific sections of the pending final regulation which embody provisions related to housing, meal and lodging standards, other protections for sheepherders, the definition of "sheepherder," penalty provisions, coverage for meal and rest periods, seats, et cetera, that come virtually directly from the ranchersí proposal. And what each of these amendments does is substitute -- strike out the affected language and insert in lieu thereof the language thatís proposed by the employees in their final submission to the Commission in Bakersfield.

And I could talk about each of them, but --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: So, in essence, this is straight out of your previous proposal?

MR. SCHACHT: Thatís correct. The only change is -- and let me just mention this -- the provision on tools, we have made a clarification. In our previous proposal, we covered sheepherders buying tools, Section -- which is 9(B), and that section basically says an employer canít deduct for tools unless the worker makes more than two times the minimum wage.

We thought that was clear, that if the Commission set a monthly minimum wage, then the only way the employer could gain that deduction for tools would be if the employee was making two times the monthly minimum wage. But to clarify that, what weíve done is weíve added language -- after the reference to twice the minimum wage, language that basically says, "or in the case of a monthly minimum wage, twice the monthly minimum wage."

Other than that, the proposals are identical in all respects.

MR. SOARES: Mr. Chairman, members, George Soares.

Iím requesting that we take a break or we do something. We want to do a line-by-line analysis of whatís being proposed here. And so, how do we -- how do we do this so we can respond to this proposal?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Mr. Soares, itís the same language that they submitted to us before, and each of the commissioners has reviewed it. And I think the sentiment -- and I may be speaking out of turn, but I think the sentiment of the Commission is to leave the language that we have in the order that weíve circulated. I think -- I donít think that these motions are going to be adopted. But Iíd be making a presumption.

MR. SOARES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I think -- well, I may be making a presumption.

Do commissioners want to comment? Do you want to take a break?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think weíve seen these, since at least the Bakersfield meeting, at a minimum, these proposals. I think weíve all had time to digest them. I, of course, would tell you they have merit and theyíre justified.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do you want to make a formal motion, Mr. Cremins?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I would move these as a block, amendments -- proposed Amendments 4 through -- numbered 4 through 10, I believe, they were numbered.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: 4 through 9.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: 4 through 9?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: And also 10.

MR. SCHACHT: 5.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: 5 through 10 -- excuse me. Weíre excluding 4. So, 5 through 10. And I think you have them before you.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do I have a second?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Call the roll.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: No.

MS. BANE: Three to two no.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

Any other discussion commissioners want to have?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. Can I have a motion to adopt the amendments to Wage Order 14 as pertaining to sheepherders?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: So moved.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do I have a second?

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Second.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All in favor -- call the roll -- Iím sorry.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No, wait, wait. This is -- let me explain the -- time out. This is the vote on all the -- this is adopting the wage order, essentially closing this issue.

Was everyone clear on that when we started the vote?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Yes, as submitted in the packet.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: As amended -- as submitted in the packet, as amended per --

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: As amended today.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: -- as amended today, including with the $150. Is that clear for everyone? Are you with me?

Okay. Letís start over.

MS. BANE: Mr. Rose.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Yes.

MS. BANE: Mr. Cremins.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Aye.

MS. BANE: Mr. Bosco.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: No.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Aye.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Aye.

MS. BANE: Itís four to one yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: The amendments are adopted.

Is there any other business people wish to bring forward?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Do we have a motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: So moved.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Second?

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: Iíll second it.

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

(Chorus of "ayes")

(Thereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the public

meeting was adjourned.)

--o0o--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER

--o0o--

I, Cynthia M. Judy, a duly designated 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 April 24, 2001, 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: May 4, 2001 ______________________________

CYNTHIA M. JUDY, Transcriber