As We Celebrate Labor Day


As we celebrate Labor Day this week, we wanted to take a moment to thank the hard working construction workers who literally built our state.

Recently, the Los Angeles Times published a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America.  Four of the 10 were jobs in construction related fields.

Just last week, The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the fatality of a worker in Berkeley while laying asphalt at a school.  This and stories like it are why our fight to protect prevailing wage is so important.

We all know about the benefits of prevailing wage to families who find a ladder to the Middle Class and the higher quality of buildings built by prevailing wage workers, but often the safety argument doesn’t get enough attention

The fact remains that construction jobs are dangerous, and prevailing wage leads to training and standards that make the jobs much safer. .  Apprenticeship programs supported by prevailing wage provide a framework for years of training so that workers learn the most efficient and safest possible way to practice their tradecraft.

A study of what happened when the State of Kansas repealed prevailing wage statewide, and the results were grim.  Serious injury rates increased by 21%.  If that wasn’t enough, income fell by 10%, apprenticeship training fell by 38% overall, and 54% for minorities.

Given these facts, it’s not surprising that three recent polls showed overwhelming support for prevailing wage in California – both statewide and in San Diego where projects covered by prevailing wage were just expanded.

When opponents argue to repeal prevailing wage, they fail to mention the staggering risk to workers, their families, and their community.  Right now, they are lobbying to eliminate prevailing wage city-by-city by convincing cities across California to pass hastily crafted, unnecessary charters – even though the facts are stacked against them.

So as we consider Labor Day, we thank those who put their life on the line to build California’s future, and recommit our efforts to help community leaders and the public understand what is at stake in our fight to protect and grow the Middle Class, and I can think of no better way for you to show your appreciation than to sign our petition to protect prevailing wage.

Will “Pension Reform” Be on Next Year’s Ballot?

By Gary Cohn

Benjamin Gamboa doesn’t know John Arnold, but they are linked by a shared concern over the fate of public-employee pensions in California.

“I’m proud to have a pension,” the 30-year-old Gamboa says. “I believe every American should have a pension.”

The two men live in very different worlds. Gamboa is a research analyst at Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, California. Arnold is a hedge-fund billionaire from Houston, Texas.

There’s another difference between them: Arnold recently had a representative present at a secret “pension summit” held at a Sacramento hotel, where strategies to limit public employee retirement benefits were discussed; Gamboa, a union member, did not – representatives of labor were specifically not invited.

“Pension reform” has become the latest battle cry in a seemingly endless war that has ostensibly been declared against tax-dollar waste, but whose single-minded purpose has been to slash the job protections and benefits enjoyed by California’s working middle class. Pension-cutting advocates have filled airwaves, websites and op-ed pages with stories about employees retiring in early middle age on six-figure pensions. The reality is that the average state and municipal worker retires on about $26,000 a year.

The Sacramento summit took place May 22 at the Citizen Hotel, a luxury boutique inn two blocks from the state capitol. It was hosted by the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based conservative and libertarian public policy group that embraces privatizing government functions and cutting public employee pensions. The foundation’s most prominent trustee is billionaire businessman David Koch, a longtime advocate of reducing public sector retirement benefits.

The meeting’s agenda – a copy of which was obtained by Frying Pan News – was written in the terse, opaque prose of event planners, but still offers a glimpse into the group’s plans. Among other items, it  lists an hour-long session on “Overcoming Opposition: Anticipating and Addressing Government and Union Opposition.” Perhaps the agenda was even more important for what it did not say: That the attack on public sector pensions may soon be transformed into a state ballot initiative that would change California’s constitution.

The participants in the closed-door meeting were Republicans and Democrats, and included public officials and representatives of numerous foundations and think tanks intent on reducing pensions for public employees.

Among those attending were San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed; former San Diego city councilman Carl DeMaio; Josh McGee, a vice president at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation; Marcia Fritz, president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility; Dan Pellissier, president of California Pension Reform; Ed Ring, executive director of the California Public Policy Center (CPPC) and editor of UnionWatch.org; Jack Dean, executive director at the Reason Foundation and editor of PensionTsunami.com, and Steven Greenhut, a journalist and author of the book Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation.

Their gathering received no media coverage, with the exception of a brief mention in a column Greenhut wrote for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Despite the pension-cutting movement’s talk of the cause’s bipartisan pedigree, it seems to rely upon transfusions of money from wealthy rightwing personalities and nonprofits. Apart from the Reason Foundation’s close ties to David Koch, Greenhut’s own online hobby, CalWatchdog, is the creation of the Pacific Research Institute, a libertarian think tank with deep pockets.

Both the Reason Foundation and Pacific Research Institute are allied with the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has been writing corporatist model legislation for about 30 years. More locally, however, the nexus for pension-cutting is the Tustin-headquartered California Public Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit led by Ed Ring, who worked to promote the anti-union Proposition 32 last year. CPPC’s advisors include Marcia Fritz and Jack Dean; its president is Mark W. Bucher who helped qualify and pass 2000’s Proposition 22, which effectively banned same-sex marriage in California. (Bucher is also a board member of Family Action, a rightwing Orange County political action committee.) Another CPPC board member, Robert Loewen, also serves as president of the ultraconservative Lincoln Club of Orange County.)

The Sacramento meeting apparently helped set the stage for moves that are now occurring largely behind the scenes.

In an interview, Reed confirmed that he attended the pension summit and that he has been working on a statewide ballot initiative that would allow the state and local governments to reduce retirement benefits for current employees for the years of work they performed after his proposed reforms would go into effect. He says that such statewide reform is necessary for California’s fiscal health, to ensure that the state and local governments can provide a reasonable level of services to the public and to protect public employees.

“What we need to do statewide is make it possible for local governments to change future accruals for work not performed,” he says. He adds that his proposed ballot measure could be voted on as early as November, 2014.

Reed, a Democrat who has opposed same-sex marriage and the raising of the minimum wage of his city’s workers, seems to be what pension-cutters have in mind when they speak of their movement’s bipartisan makeup. (The gathering’s other politician, Carl DeMaio, is a Republican – and Reason Foundation senior fellow – who has advocated replacing San Diego city employees’ pensions with a 401(k)-type substitute.) Last year Reed pushed a ballot measure in San Jose to reduce that city’s retirement costs for its public employees. The measure passed, but is now tied up in the courts. He acknowledges that any such measure is likely to provoke an all-out fight with the state’s public-employee unions. Interviews with labor officials and their representatives seem to bear him out.

A ballot initiative to cut back pensions for existing employees would “change the constitution and would be a horrible thing,” says Steven Maviglio, a publisher of the California Majority Report and a Sacramento-based political consultant whose clients include Californians for Retirement Security, a labor coalition representing 1.5 million public employees and retirees.

Maviglio says that many employees have worked for years at jobs where they were promised certain benefits and that it would be a breach of faith to “throw out that understanding and break that trust. That’s the whole foundation of pension benefits.”

He adds, “If someone is teaching for 25 years and somebody changes the rules of the game, that’s hardly fair.”

Any statewide ballot measure campaign aimed at cutting back public employee benefits would provoke an expensive fight with unions. “It would cost tens of millions of dollars – $30 or $40 million,” Reed says. Fritz, president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (whose vice president is the CPPC’s Jack Dean), says that the backers would likely look for funding from the Arnold Foundation, among other sources.

The Arnold Foundation has funded similar efforts in the past. Two years ago, for example, the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that the Arnold Foundation had given a $150,000 grant to Fritz’s group for a series of reports seeking to limit public employee pensions. Last year, another of the foundation’s checks made headlines when it was revealed that the Arnold Foundation was a major backer of Engage Rhode Island, the group that pushed through that state’s pension overhaul law.

The Arnold Foundation is clearly in the forefront of nationwide efforts to scale back pensions for state and municipal workers. On its website, the foundation identifies pension reform as one of its key initiatives, and it provides position papers supporting its stances.

“The current system has allowed politicians to promise one level of benefits without fully funding them,” the Arnold Foundation’s McGee told Frying Pan News in an email last week. “Across the U.S., state and local governments have underfunded workers’ benefits by at least $1 trillion.”

The Arnold Foundation, McGee wrote, works with state and local communities to provide policy information and technical assistance to help them develop pension reforms. He said that a ballot initiative is just one tool to improve the retirement system, and added that the foundation “does not promote or fund ballot initiatives.” He also acknowledged that he attended the pension summit in Sacramento.

“We discussed the need to deal responsibly with accumulated pension debt, secure benefits that have already been earned, and create a system that is affordable, sustainable, and secure,” McGee stated.

Others believe the Arnold Foundation has its eye on California in order to promote public employee pension cutbacks across the nation. The foundation’s thinking, Maviglio says, is that “if liberal California can do it, it can happen anywhere.”

In many ways, Benjamin Gamboa, the 30-year-old research analyst at Crafton Hills College, is typical of those employees who find themselves in the pension-cutters’ crosshairs. Working at a community college, he believes, is serving the public good by helping students to reach their goals.

“I love what I do, and I love the security of my job,” he says. “My plan is to retire with a pension just large enough to spoil my grandkids.” He says that his hope and expectation will be for a pension of about $30,000 a year. “I want to enjoy the simple things,” he says. “There are no European vacations in my future.”

He adds that he is concerned to hear about the continuing efforts to limit his and other workers’ pensions.

“To attack the work I do and the security I treasure . . .” he says, then pauses. “It’s heart-wrenching. It’s demoralizing.”

(Gary Cohn writes for Frying Pan News.)

Our New $6.4B Bridge

Bay Bridge opens early, pleases crowds

by Brian Leubitz

By yesterday afternoon, my Facebook feed was dominated by questions of when the Bay Bridge would reopen. And when it finally did, around 10pm last night, it was full of videos showing the new span as cars started rolling on.

At 10:15 p.m. Monday, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol took down barricades at on-ramps and interchanges and let traffic flow to the bridge for the first time since Wednesday night, when it was closed to allow construction crews to make the transition from the old east span to the $6.4 billion new span.

The bridge had been scheduled to open at 5 a.m. Tuesday. But construction went smoothly, and Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty announced at the dedication ceremony that it would open Monday night. (SF Chronicle)

It has been about 24 years since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that pushed the need for this new structure, and the design process took much of that time. Since the actual structure has gone up, the work has been fairly quick. While delays were expected because of faulty bolts, some on-the-fly engineering work was able to speed the process up. The fact remains that even with the awkward “shims” supporting the questionable bolts, the new bridge is still safer than most of the other major bridges in the nation.

From a broader perspective, it is truly a beautiful structure. The massive tower stands as a signal that we can still accomplish big things as a state.

A Labor Day Reflection

By CTA President Dean E. Vogel

Labor Day is the one day of the year when we celebrate the historical achievements of the labor movement and honor those who contributed to the social and economic achievement of workers and the middle class. For me, though, this Labor Day is not only a chance to acknowledge what the labor movement has done in the past, but to reflect on what it can do in the present.

Last year at this time, teachers, firefighters, nurses and public servants came together to do something that had been unthinkable for 20 years. We persuaded voters to pass Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase to prevent drastic budget cuts to students and public schools and to keep our economy strong.

That vote was no fluke, because in the same election, voters also rejected Proposition 32, a third try at a ballot proposal that would have silenced middle-class workers and immobilized unions while strengthening the power of billionaire businessmen.

Working families may not have the billions of dollars and deep pockets of big tobacco, oil companies or Wall Street brokers, but last November, we showed that Californians want to invest in public education, their communities and their future. They want to see our economy restored so that more can work their way into the middle class, not fall out of it.

As an educator I know that reinvesting in our state means reinvesting in the education of our students. I’ve seen on a personal level what a quality public education can do. As the son of a farmhand and a waitress who moved around the state a lot, I was able to make that leap into the Middle Class because I had access to a quality education. I’ve seen that happen to the students whom I’ve taught as well.

This state’s prosperity goes hand-in-hand with the guarantee of free quality education for every student, and in 2013 that includes the children of immigrants.  In fact, it has always included children of immigrants. California, after all, is a state built by immigrants.  Providing all students equal access to quality public schools and colleges is why the California Teachers Association supports a pathway to citizenship for children of immigrants – the “Dreamers.” It would be disingenuous not to.

CTA’s commitment to the principle of educating all children goes back to our founding 150 years ago by John Swett, California’s fourth superintendent of public instruction. When leaving office in 1867, Swett said, “If one state in the union needs a system of free schools more than any other, that state is California. Her population is drawn from all nations… Nothing can Americanize these chaotic elements and breathe into them the spirit of our institutions but the public schools.” How prophetic was that?

One can look at Proposition 30 solely as a temporary tax increase, but I see it as so much more.  The passage of Prop. 30 opens the door, at least a little, to the possibility of restoring California’s  great middle class and expanding it to a new generation, of renewing our commitment to tax fairness and of taking a step toward achieving economic justice for all.

Dean Vogel is president of the 325,000-member California Teachers Association.

Steinberg’s Prison Plan

PhotobucketPlan calls for settlement with prison plaintiffs, sentencing reform

by Brian Leubitz

As I mentioned yesterday, the prisons are a mess. However, things can get worse. My friend, and SF School Board member, Matt Haney co-authored an op-ed in the SF Chronicle with Van Jones about the governor’s position on the issue:

Gov. Jerry Brown confirmed this week that he is pulling his prison policies out of a 1980s playbook. It is heartbreaking to watch our nation’s most famous Democratic governor cling to outdated, lock ’em up notions that even conservatives are abandoning in droves. …

Tuesday, he made his most shocking step yet by proposing to send inmates to for-profit prisons. This boondoggle will cost an additional $315 million and more than $1 billion over three years to house thousands of people in private prisons leased by the state. Even our most extreme, fear-mongering politicians of decades past would have been reluctant to put forward such a scheme.

Brown appears hell bent on being on the wrong side of history. Across the political spectrum, leaders are beginning to understand that we need to invest in rehabilitation, re-entry programs, and evidence-based alternatives, rather than continuing our failed policies of mass incarceration. (Matt Haney and Van Jones / SF Chronicle)

So, while the Governor is working hard to come to some sort of immediate solution, there is not much optimism for a progressive in the plan. Meanwhile, Sen. Steinberg has a plan, but it relies on one very crucial assumption: he can get the plaintiffs in the suit to settle and have the judges agree to a three year delay on implementation.  As I mentioned yesterday, it is a big risk and not entirely clear how the judges would rule even with a settlement.

But there is reason to believe that a settlement would be possible. And perhaps Gov. Brown is playing a game to force the plaintiffs hand in some really tricky three dimensional chess strategy. Brown’s plan is pretty much everything the plaintiffs don’t want. Under all this, they would like to see some sentencing and other reforms in the prison system. The governor’s plan pretty much goes in the entirely opposite direction. It is also worthwhile to note that the ACLU crunched some numbers to show that the state could meet the court order only using the techniques Brown has previously supported.

Now here is where Steinberg comes in. If he can get the plaintiffs to settle, and the court agrees to a delay, perhaps we have created the real opportunity that we need to follow the lead of other states like Kansas (!) that have already done much to decrease the mass incarcerations that have been building in our country over the past fifty years. In fact, the ACLU has a very interesting report on the subject. While three years may not be the time frame everybody would ideally target, it is realistic. And maybe Steinberg’s plan is a good start on how we get there.

Now, as for that plan, you can see an outline here or over the flip. It is far from perfect. It calls for an advisory commission to review our public safety system, but doesn’t really provide the specifics of how we really get to the important reductions we need in our prison system. However, maybe that lack of specificity is for the best now. Maybe it could set up the conditions of real reform that we need. But if we don’t meet that court order, we’ll be back to square one in three years. And maybe those three years could make a big difference.

Durable Solutions – Senate Democratic Caucus – Aug2813

The Prison Mess Continues

Senate rejects Gov. Brown’s private prison option

by Brian Leubitz

In case there wasn’t enough drama in the prison system, now there appears to be a standoff between the Governor and the Senate Democrats.

In a direct slap to Gov. Jerry Brown, his fellow Democrats in the state Senate on Wednesday rejected his plan for dealing with California’s prison crisis, throwing the state’s response to a federal court order into chaos. …

“We oppose the governor’s plan,” Steinberg told a Capitol news conference. “We think it is, as the governor himself said … It’s throwing money down a rat hole.” (AP)

The Governor’s plan was basically to lease space in private prisons in Arizona and a few other states, and send enough prisoners there to get us into compliance with the court order that’s currently pending. However, without approval of the Legislature, that’s not going to happen. Steinberg wants to seek an extensions, but that seems a big question mark. Given how hard the administration has fought the orders, it seems unlikely that the court will allow much additional time to comply. It should be done in a thoughtful process, but it must be done. Rushing to comply with a court order probably isn’t best for that important work.

Now, some sort of compromise will have to be found to meet the year end deadline in fairly short order. Moving that many people takes a fair amount of time for the logistics alone.

The Prison Mess Continues

Senate rejects Gov. Brown’s private prison option

by Brian Leubitz

In case there wasn’t enough drama in the prison system, now there appears to be a standoff between the Governor and the Senate Democrats.

In a direct slap to Gov. Jerry Brown, his fellow Democrats in the state Senate on Wednesday rejected his plan for dealing with California’s prison crisis, throwing the state’s response to a federal court order into chaos. …

“We oppose the governor’s plan,” Steinberg told a Capitol news conference. “We think it is, as the governor himself said … It’s throwing money down a rat hole.” (AP)

The Governor’s plan was basically to lease space in private prisons in Arizona and a few other states, and send enough prisoners there to get us into compliance with the court order that’s currently pending. However, without approval of the Legislature, that’s not going to happen. Steinberg wants to seek an extensions, but that seems a big question mark. Given how hard the administration has fought the orders, it seems unlikely that the court will allow much additional time to comply. It should be done in a thoughtful process, but it must be done. Rushing to comply with a court order probably isn’t best for that important work.

Now, some sort of compromise will have to be found to meet the year end deadline in fairly short order. Moving that many people takes a fair amount of time for the logistics alone.

La Playa es de Todos!

Las playas de California nos pertenecen a todos. Desde San Diego hasta Crescent City, las playas son para el esparcimiento y uso publico. Desafortunadamente, hay lugares donde los dueños de mansiones bloquean ilegalmente el acceso costero. Lo hacen con bardas, señalamientos falsos y hasta guardias privados que han acosado a los bañistas.  

Por esta razón, nuestra organización, Azul apoya legislación AB 976 propuesta por la Asambleísta Toni Atkins de San Diego, que otorga a la comision costera las herramientas para remediar estos problemas de manera diligente. Actualmente la comision costera tiene un atraso de 1944 violaciones pendientes de procesar porque estas tienen que ser canalizadas a las cortes locales para su resolución. La propuesta AB 976 simplificaria este proceso otorgandole a la comision costera jurisdiccion para aplicar multas y rectificar las infracciones costeras.

Desafortunadamente, muchas violaciones se realizan de manera consciente, debido a que los infractores saben de que es muy difícil de que los sorprendan e incluso de que sean llevados ante la ley. De las 1944 violaciones pendientes, 690 estan en el Condado de Los Angeles, y 530 de estas en la playa de Malibu. Estos numeros ilustran la frustración que muchos Angelinos han sufrido al intentar visitar la playa. Aun mas importante, los numeros ilustran la necesidad de cambiar las leyes para garantizar que todos los Californianos disfrutemos del Mar. La Playa es de todos y ya es tiempo de disfrutarla.  

Will Covered California Be Ready for October Online Enrollments?

Website may not be ready to go at beginning of enrollment period

by Brian Leubitz

The California individual health care exchange comes online on October 1, whether the website is ready or not. But it looks like “not” may be more likely:

“We have not made that call yet,” said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, which is implementing the federal health law in the state. If online enrollment isn’t immediately available, Lee said, there would be other ways to sign up through call centers, enrollment counselors and agents before coverage kicks in Jan. 1. “The date we care about is Jan. 1 when coverage takes effect.” (LA Times)

You can actually buy these exchange policies in a number of ways, including directly through the insurance provider. However, given how web-centric we are these days, that is obviously the easiest option. While other states are also having problems, you would have hoped we could have been the model state to get everything ready to go.

However, minor annoyances aside, and despite this not being a long-term solution like single payer, Covered California is still a step in the right direction.

Leno’s SR 18 Condemns Russia’s Anti-LGBT Policies

Mark Leno, San Francisco Pride 2013Resolution calls for avoiding investments in Russia until LGBT policy is changed

by Brian Leubitz

In case you’ve been living under a rock, the government of Russia is pushing to scapegoat the LGBT community, as President Putin is losing credibility.  The move combines with a very homophobic attitude from the Russian Orthodox Church to create a toxic environment and causing [increasing violence against the community. Yesterday, a resolution introduced by Senator Mark Leno that urges CalPERS and CalSTRS not to invest future resources from their pension plans in Russia passed the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee today with a 4-1 bipartisan vote.

Senate Resolution 18 was introduced in response to Russia’s new laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. In addition to asking the state’s two largest pension funds to stop making direct future investments in Russia, SR 18 calls on the International Olympic Committee to withdraw its position that expressing support for LGBT people and their rights is a violation of its rules and seek a written guarantee from the Russian government that athletes and other visitors to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi will not be prosecuted under the anti-gay laws. SR 18 also urges other organizations holding large internationally televised events in Russia, including the Miss Universe Organization and its owner Donald Trump, to move their events to countries without such virulently anti-gay laws.

“Russia’s new anti-gay laws are designed to promote the ongoing persecution of LGBT people in that country, and they are an unconscionable affront to LGBT people around the globe,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “As the host of international events, including the Winter Olympics and the Miss Universe Pageant, it is unacceptable that Russia promote discrimination against people based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity. California joins the worldwide outrage against these new laws and is in a unique position as one of the largest economies to make a strong statement that we will not tolerate nor invest in blatant violations of human rights.”

The measure goes to the full Senate floor, where it will hopefully be quickly sped upon its way.