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. I'd 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 there's anyone here who wants to speak to that issue, I'd 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 what's 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, there's no problem that as long as he doesn't lobby. Is that correct?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I talked to Barry directly about that, and I believe he's 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, we've certainly heard a great deal of testimony on this issue. I think Commissioner Bosco said that we've had more testimony per worker than just about any other industry in California. But I think we've learned a lot over the last several hearings on this issue. And so, with that, I'm 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 workers' 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 employers' 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 don't want to put these jobs at risk or this California industry at risk. And I'm sensitive to that as well.

So, with that, I'd 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 don't know if that -- are there any questions? We're taking these up one by one. I know there's -- Mr. Cremins has some other things he wants to bring up. So if we're 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: I've got -- well, to be honest, I've 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 don't -- why don't you just go through your three, four --

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Three.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: -- three amendments, verbalize them. And we'll --

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 I'm 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 week's worth of minimum wages, a subsequent violation would be the equivalent of one month's worth of minimum wages, and if there's 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 -- I'm open to thoughts on this -- one week's 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. That's all.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right.

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

All the way through this, I've 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 industry's ability to pay it.

And I have a technical legal question. Is it possible under the Commission's procedure that starts with the wage board and goes through all the hearings that we've 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 I'd like to see what that is. But I don't 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 we'd have to start with the wage board again and the whole procedure? Is that correct?

MS. STRICKLIN: You've -- no, you've had your hearings. And the proposal would be to implement a portion of the proposed regs -- that's 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 don't 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 it's 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 Leslee's three amendments. That doesn't -- that doesn't 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 what's on the table. And then that testimony, depending on what commissioners hear -- and I hope it will be limited testimony at this point -- we'll proceed from there by -- if there's any other amendments to the order, and then conclude with the vote on the entire order.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: You're not precluding my notion to amend that motion?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Now, insofar as my thought of bifurcating this, it seems like we'd 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 it's 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. I'll give you the second.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But fairly begrudging, I'd conclude.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I guess I need -- Bridget, you don't have a mike, so would you be able to record the votes if she --

MS. BANE: If he wants to call them -- or I'll call the roll.

THE REPORTER: Why don' 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.

Let's 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, I'm 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, I'd 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 I'll 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 it's 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 employers' side on these amendments?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: He's coming up as we speak.

Mr. Soares.

MR. SOARES: Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members, we haven't seen this document.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: George, could you identify yourself?

MR. SOARES: Oh, I'm 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 it's similar to what we --

MR. SCHACHT: It's 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 -- I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I don't believe so. Those will be incorporated, hopefully, in other amendments.

MR. SOARES: Oh, that's 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 don't 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 can't take it any more.

And so, I'm 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 that's extremely unfortunate, because I think we're 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 what's taking place on a national level so that California does not continue to make itself more and more of an island. I think we're about to miss that chance, and I think that's terribly unfortunate. And I guess we'll 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 can't even live with the motion that's 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 I've 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 -- it's my belief that Order 14 has a specific number of hours where overtime kicks in -- I think it's a 60-hour plan. Some appear to have 40 hours. I think they're talking about a different order.

And so, I'm 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 don't 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 it's 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 that's 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 Leslee's motion -- or replace Leslee's motion with mine. It's 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 Leslee's 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: I'm sorry. This is on Leslee's motion? I'll vote no.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: No.

MS. BANE: Ms. Coleman.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes.

MS. BANE: It's 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. I'm 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: It's four to one yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay. That motion's 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 week's worth of minimum wages for the initial violation, subsequent violation would be equal to one month's 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. I'm 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: It's four to one yes.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: That motion is adopted.

MS. STRICKLIN: It was brought to my attention last week that it's not clear from the proposal as it's 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: I'm going under that assumption.

MS. STRICKLIN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: If we don't take action, the wage stays the same.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, technically, that isn't 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 I'm 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 we'd 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) -- I'm 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 -- what's 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, they're 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 I'd 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 don't 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: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Oh, okay.

MR. HOLT: Yes, this would -- this would amend Section 14 to add this. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

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

MS. STRICKLIN: If that's 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." That's the language I read from the employer proposal -- no date on it.

MR. HOLT: Well, the --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Does that sound right? It's a summary, I guess.

MR. HOLT: I think what we submitted, that doesn't 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. That's 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: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: All right.

Marguerite, do we need to -- if we're 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 we're 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 we're 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. It's 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. I'm not prepared to vote for that.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, I think the dilemma that we've gotten ourselves in is that, obviously, your amendment that covered domestic workers is sort of empty without knowing what they'll be paid when they're 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 isn't 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, we've left out the discussion of a wage completely.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Well, we haven't, 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 it's currently written.

MS. STRICKLIN: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: And that's clear?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: But it doesn't --

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: But it doesn't 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 it's 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 you're 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. Coleman's amendment and then add a sentence or two onto that as to what that means, right, that they be included?

MS. STRICKLIN: I'm 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. Coleman's amendment that would make clear that they're covered under the H-2A.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: So you might -- do you want to do that? Or I'll do that.

All right. I move that -- have we voted on Ms. Coleman's amendment?

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: Yes, we did.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: Oh, we did.

COMMISSIONER COLEMAN: We've 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 that's where everybody's 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. Coleman's comment. That also assumes that that standard is written in stone and isn't subject to further erosion, which we also dispute. We think that the H-2A standard is going to go down; it's 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 that's all employers have to pay, is $850, that's all they'll offer and that's all they'll pay. And when you do the prevailing wage survey, the 51st percentile will be $850; it will not be $900.

COMMISSIONER BOSCO: I think that's 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 I've been led to believe is that the H-2A would be increased, in which case it may cover what we're 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. I'll 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 there's no floor or -- there's 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 it's better than leaving them completely unprotected. They will be at least then brought up to the standard of the H-2A.

MS. STRICKLIN: That's 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 don't 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, we've 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. It's shameful that you do this.

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

It's amazing that this Commission would consider that someone could even make a motion like that. I'm shocked.

MR. RANKIN: Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation.

The IWC's 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 that's your decision, all we are left with is the alternative of going to the Legislature and doing it that way.

That's not what the IWC is set up to do. The Legislature set you up to do this job. If you can't 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 you're doing and whether or not it's 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 industry's participation over the past year has demonstrated that we are not trying to run from this issue. In fact, I think we've 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. We're 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 haven't seen it, and I don't 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 it's 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, we're 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 -- they'll 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: I'm 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 there's 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 that's okay with the commissioners.

COMMISSIONER ROSE: Sure.

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: It's a quarter after on my watch. In five minutes, we'll 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 there's been some confusion. That's why I called the time-out.

COMMISSIONER CREMINS: I think we have a -- I'll 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, it's the same for -- it's 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 don't want to belabor this, because we've all said probably everything we're 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 we've had on this, that the families that operate the sheep ranching industry in this state, that there is no give.

And it's 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 weren't 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 isn't 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 didn't see any evidence before the Commission that the industry that's 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: It's 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, we're at the stage where we all put up -- ask for a motion and we vote to adopt.

MS. BANE: Mr. Dombrowski, I believe there's some matter that may be --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Okay.

MS. BANE: I'm 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 don't 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 it's technical to me. Any questions?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Any objection to the document amendment?

(No response)

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I'll 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: That's 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 we'll pass out -- I think we've got someone here to pass those -- and I'll term these working conditions type amendments, not with wages, but terms of employment.

MR. SCHACHT: You want them as a block?

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: I can't 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 I'll just briefly summarize --

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Traci, you've 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 ranchers' proposal. And what each of these amendments does is substitute -- strike out the affected language and insert in lieu thereof the language that's 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: That's 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 can't 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 we've done is we've 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.

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

COMMISSIONER DOMBROWSKI: Mr. Soares, it's 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 we've circulated. I think -- I don't think that these motions are going to be adopted. But I'd 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 we've seen these, since at least the Bakersfield meeting, at a minimum, these proposals. I think we've all had time to digest them. I, of course, would tell you they have merit and they're 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. We're 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 -- I'm 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. Let's 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: It's 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: I'll 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