By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

As I wrote the other day, the California Chamber of Commerce has come out with their annual list of “job-killer” bills.  The list only targets bills by Democrats, and the bills are all acts that would help the people of California by improving the environment, worker wage and safety, public health, etc.

The California Chamber of commerce is a lobbying association.  They represent their members: businesses, many of which are large corporations.  This is about private greed vs. the public good.  The Chamber’s job is to convince the legislature to pass laws that enrich the owners of the corporations that fund them.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

If that involves convincing the public of something, then they do that.  Hence the label “job killer.”

But the companies represented by the Chamber are the real job killers.  They outsource jobs to other countries.  They lay people off when they calculate it will maximize their profits.  They employ as many people as needed to maximize the income to and wealth of their owners.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The very idea that the Chamber of Commerce would care if something is a “job killer” is ludicrous when you understand their function.  They are a lobbying association that represents the interests of companies that eliminate as many jobs as they want to, at their discretion, and then use some of the money that would have been paid in salaries to pay the Chamber to convince us to support their interests — and the rest of it to enrich themselves, which is their primary interest.  

That is how corporations work in the modern, “free-market” world that we find ourselves in since the Reagan era.  Not for the public benefit, not necessarily even for the company’s benefit, but for the financial benefit of the executives and (some of) the owners of the company.

Private greed vs. public good.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So there isn’t really an argument about whether the “job-killer” bills on this year’s list really do or do not “kill jobs.”  That is not the point of the label.  Instead it is up to us to understand who we are hearing from.  If we get caught up in arguing about whether these bills create more jobs than they might cost, we’re missing the point.  Their arguments are propaganda with no basis in reality, designed to do nothing more than sway opinion.  The point of the “job-killer” label is to make people afraid for their jobs, not to actually argue that these bills will or will not actually “kill” any jobs.

For example, a bill to require energy efficiency in new housing construction obviously creates many new jobs in the new, innovative “green” industries.  But such a bill might lower the profits that go into the pockets of the executives and owners of some of the companies that the California Chamber of Commerce represents.  (The LA Times on Wednesday said the Chamber’s agenda “seems dominated by development and energy interests”.)  And, again, it is irrelevant whether the bill might or might not really cost jobs in some of those companies.  The Chamber doesn’t care.  That is not their function.

The use of the label “job killers” is about scaring the public.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is about fear.  It is about creating a climate in which people who are afraid for their jobs will go along with measures designed to enrich the owners of the companies that the Chamber — a lobbying association — represents.

So please don’t be fooled.  Don’t be swayed by propaganda designed to make you afraid.  As I wrote above, it is up to us to understand who we are hearing from.

Click through to Speak Out California

(Congratulations to Asm. Dave Jones for winning the annual “Job Killer” Sweepstakes. Jones leads the pack with 4 bills on the list of bills that protect workers and Californians. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual list of what it calls “job-killer bills.”  

Why is it that the Chamber’s job-killer bills hit-list seems to only target Democrats? Not a single targeted bill belongs to a Republican. “Bad bills”, like those designed to protect public health, climate concerns or consumer rights legislation, are all authored by Democrats.  The chamber has always been a lobbying organization, but it has gotten so bad that the Chamber seems to have devolved into little more than just one more fear-mongering Republican Party front group.

The “job killers” on this list are any laws that protect consumers, reduce energy use, require worker protections or anything else that might hinder a very few corporate executives from reeling in another several-hundred-million dollars a year.  The jobs that are “killed” are those of lobbyists for the energy industry.  

The first group on the “job killer” list is bills that ask for any kind of energy or water conservation or environmental standards for new housing construction.  For example, AB 1085.  The bill describes itself as undating,

“building design and construction standards and energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.”

But the Chamber’s job-killer list says this

Substantially increases the cost of housing and development in California by implementing significant energy efficiency measures

Now, think about this — if it costs less to heat and cool your house, this saves you money.  If you want to add energy-saving technology like solar electric or water-heating on your house this creates good jobs.  Maybe Exxon won’t benefit as much from this as the new, upcoming solar industry, but heck, the solar companies aren’t coughing up the big bucks and providing the good jobs to the Chamber of Commerce’s lobbyists!

The next group of “job killers” is “workplace mandates” like paid sick leave for employees, disability pay for on-the-job injuries or providing California’s citizens with health insurance.

Ah yes, the money businesses pay out to provide sick leave and disability pay for those pesky employees “kills jobs.”  They could hire so many more people if they didn’t have to actually pay them and keep them from getting injured!  This is one of the oldest arguments in the books.  Slaves are always cheaper.  But why do we have an economy if not to provide US with good jobs and other benefits?  Do we have an economy so a very few corporate CEOs get all the money and benefits, or do we have an economy so the people can also get good pay and benefits and safe working conditions?  The evidence (this, for example) is clear that good wages and benefits do not hurt jobs or the economy.

Then there are “economic development barriers” like asking online retailers to collect the same sales taxes that you local business owner collects, asking the wealthy to help pay for our schools, raising fire standards in high-risk fire areas and protecting our environment.  I guess the online retailers must be paying the Chamber more this year than the retailers who have to actually rent storefronts and pay wages in your town.  I can’t think of any other reason why SOME retailers should collect sales taxes and others should be exempt.  Doesn’t this change the playing field waaayyy in favor of online retailers and harm the prospects of businesses that actually set up in our local communities?  God forbid we ask them to help pay for our schools and police and fire protection!

This “job killer” list is nothing more than the use of fear to scare us into allowing a few rich corporations to have their way.  By saying that protecting workers or the environment might “cost jobs” they are trying to make us afraid to ask these big corporations to live up to their responsibilities to our communities.  How long will we let these lobbyists make us afraid?

Click through to Speak Out California

I’ll let folks draw their own conclusions and pick their own fights for the most part, but I thought this poll (link changed to pdf of Field Poll) was pretty interesting (favorable/unfavorable/net):

California Nurses Association/Nurses: 53/15/+35

California Hospital Assn./Hospitals: 33/30/+3

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: 40/40/0

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: 20/29/-8

Chamber of Commerce/Business Groups: 25/36/-11

News Media: 28/46/-18%

Republican State Legislative Leaders: 22/48/-26

Health Insurance Companies: 16/55/-39

I will throw a few rather obvious ones out along with one that may be less so. One- people don’t care much for politicians. Two- they care even less for the media, which is interesting as the media keeps cutting back on news coverage. Three- they HATE insurance companies, which makes me wonder why anyone keeps trying to keep them in the equation.

Also, CNA’s numbers are pretty darn impressive. Some of that is that people just like nurses I would imagine. But average Californian on the street, if they have an actual opinion of CNA proper, it’s likely to be an opinion on single-payer. Which makes me think that, given the opportunity, people might be pretty supportive of single-payer.

It may be hard to remember, but last fall the state had not one but two special sessions. The first, on health care, ended with the rejection of the flawed mandate proposal ABX1 1. The second, on water, appeared to have also ended in acrimony, as Republicans insisted on $3 billion for new dams that Democrats were unwilling to support.

But even though the issue slipped below most of our radar screens, supporters of dams and canals have been hard at work promoting these obsolete 20th century technologies as some sort of “solution” to a 21st century crisis. The Planning and Conservation League reports on the California Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to enlist Arnold and DiFi to promote an $11 billion water bond – with $3 billion for dams:

PCL has recently gotten an Insider scoop that the California Chamber of Commerce is pressuring both U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse its environmentally-devastating $11.69 billion water bond initiative.

The bond, which the Chamber hopes to place on the November 2008 ballot, is strongly opposed by environmental groups throughout California for its potential effects on the state’s natural resources. The bond would:

   –Include $3.5 billion explicitly for dam construction, plus billions more that could be used for dams on California rivers.

   –Establish a dangerous new “water commission” empowered to fund and build a peripheral canal and divert massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River around the imperiled California Bay-Delta Estuary for large-scale corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and sprawl development in Southern California. (Over-pumping of water from the Delta during the past eight years has already contributed to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, including plummeting salmon and other fish populations.)

   –Eliminate public and legislative oversight and leave the fate of the Delta and Northern California rivers in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats likely to have strong ties to special interests in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

The Chamber’s push is seen by many as an end-run around the Governor’s own Delta Vision process, which has brought together stakeholders from the environmental, business, water, agricultural, and Delta communities.

That plan, which would eliminate badly needed oversight protections and saddle the state with $760 million a year in bond service costs, is bad enough. But over the weekend the PCL reported at the California Progress Report that bond supporters are now trying to do an end run around  voters, as the state Department of Water Resources is now arguing that it is not bound by the 1982 rejection of the Peripheral Canal by voters:

According to a recent budget change proposal submitted to the state Legislature, DWR intends to start preparing to build a new “Alternative Delta Conveyance” facility, which would divert water directly from the Sacramento River before it enters the Delta, sending it directly to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California….

Under its proposal, DWR would revive studies and update construction plans that it abandoned in 1982 after voters overwhelmingly rejected its “Peripheral Canal” proposal in a statewide referendum due to fears that such a facility would result in more Northern California water exported to the ever-growing south state, and that the Delta would be left as a saltwater lake rather than a true estuary.

The budget request from DWR follows a recent letter sent to Assemblywoman Wolk (D-Davis) by DWR Director Lester Snow, stating that according to DWR’s analysis, DWR has the authority to build a peripheral canal without legislative or voter approval.

More analysis below…

As the PCL explained, the Peripheral Canal would be a catastrophe for the Delta. The main environmental threat to the Delta is increased salinity due to export of fresh water for farmers and residential users further south. The Peripheral Canal is designed to bypass the delta altogether – finishing off the Delta as a freshwater system. The result would be ruinous for water quality, fishing, and stressed levee systems. It would be sacrificing the Delta once and for all in order to continue allowing California users to overuse what they already have.

It’s worth reminding ourselves why dams and canals are such a bad idea. First, they simply are not necessary. The Planning and Conservation League has weighed in with its own plan that emphasizes conservation programs, watershed restoration, and groundwater retention (in other words, pumping the water back into aquifers to be stored underground, a more environmentally friendly and sustainable solution than dams). If properly funded, they note, several million acre feet of water could be produced through these more sustainable methods. One acre foot typically equals the annual water usage by a family of four. The state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we face a changing climate that is likely to leave us with less water to go around – making these dams even more unnecessary, a waste of precious money that should go instead toward global warming appropriate solutions. California is a very drought-prone climate. Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.

But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?

Senator Feinstein should not agree to this reckless and unnecessary plan, and should instead use her considerable influence to help put a better, less expensive, more sustainable and environmentally sensible water bond on the ballot this November. Water is our most precious commodity, and it should not be left in the hands of far-right zealots who cannot bring themselves to admit the need to abandon the failed ways of the past and instead construct sensible solutions for a new climate.

It’s not often that I get to praise any Chamber of Commerce. Sure, occasionally the LA and SF locals do something right, but it’s not an everday occurence. I mean, usually I’m blasting them for their ridiculous “Job Killer List.”  But, as I’m a believer in reinforcing positive action, I’ll point out the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce’s good deed.  Yesterday, they signed on to Levi Strauss’ amicus brief in favor of marriage equality for the pending CA Supreme Court case:

Support of marriage rights for gays and lesbians is “consistent with our organization’s advocacy of policies that are inclusive and contribute to business’ ability to attract and retain a diverse, talented workforce,” Steve Falk, the chamber’s chief executive, said in a statement this week. (SF Chron 11.24.2007)

There always has been a strong case for marriage equality from both the left and the right. Andrew Sullivan has made a pretty nice living, in fact, selling the conservative argument for marriage.  Of course, the SF Chamber has always been something of an outlier on social issues, and it’s not clear that this really has anything to do with the “conservative argument” for marriage. But, props to the SF Chamber and Levi Strauss for saying what needs to be said.

All written arguments have now been filed in the case, but a hearing date has not been scheduled.

To the tune of 12 for 12. 12 Vetoes for 12 Good Bills.  That kind of record would make even the Colorado Rockies smile. And it's sure making the Cal Chamber of Commerce smile. 

In recent years, the chamber has focused much of its lobbying firepower on an annual list of “job killer” bills. This year, Schwarzenegger complied with 12 out of 12 chamber requests for vetoes on those bills. In 2006, he vetoed nine of 11 bills that the chamber listed as job killers.

“The chamber has had more success than most in getting vetoes,” said Steve Blackledge, legislative director for the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocate. “They draw a bright line in the sand and say, 'These bills have to be stopped.' They've got the governor as their backstop.”(LAT 10/16/07)

Some of those bills over the flip.

A bunch of these bills involve green building codes. You see, the California Chamber of Commerce didn't dig on the Global Warming Bill, AB32, and doesn't much dig on any implementation of that bill.  You see, they are into a “wait and see” approach on climate change. You know, “wait” until we have no water left, and then “see” if they can move to Canada to get their water. So, we get a raft of “job killers” on that front. AB 35 (Ruskin) would require new state construction to live up to the standards of the gold rating from the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for buildings after 2010. AB 888 (Leiu): would require that standard for all buildings where planning ends after 2013. AB 1058 (Laird) would require the Dept. of Housing to issue green standards for housing. And somewhat related, the Governor vetoed SB 210 that would have created standards for alternative fuels.

The Chamber really hates workers comp. They think that if you get injured on the job, well, that's the risk you take. Suckas!  SO, the fact that an injured worker got only $45K for a amputated leg seems totally fair to them. Yay! But the Legislature insists on trying to make them pay injured workers, those meanies. So, more job killers like SB 936 (Perata) which would have revised the formula for computing those payments for injuries causing permanent disability. SB 942 (Migden) would have given permanently disabled workers a supplemental job displacement benefit, And a very important piece of legislation, SB 622 (Padilla) would prohibit willful misclassification, as defined, of employees as independent contractors. 

Of course, The Chamber hates when their workers organize, so they blast two Migden bills SB180 and SB650 which affect labor organization, and Asm. Swanson's AB 504 that would have punished fraud in bargaining.

And, of course, they hated the Perata-Nunez health care plan, AB 8.  So, 12 for 12. Good Work Chamber!

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD.

During Schwarzenegger’s special election, the California Nurses Association received a great deal of attention for aggressive politics after Ahnold talked of “kicking their butts.” This year is no different with the nurses taking aggressive tactics to the battle for Proposition 89 – The Clean Money and Fair Elections act.

How aggressive? Well how many initiative campaigns get reviewed by the industry website All Hip Hop?

Now CNA is (literally) rolling out six mobile phone bank buses, with 24 lines a piece and wrapped in signage. This will allow the ability to drive to hospitals for shift changes and let nurses easily phone bank before or after shifts.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s John Wildermuth wrote:

Hit the road with the nurses for Prop. 89

With modern politics now tied to focus groups, tracking polls, TV attack ads and the other oh-so-serious — and often oh-so-boring — accouterments of California elections, there’s almost no time for good, old-fashioned political stunts that at least added a little life and personality to the voting business in years past.

The exception: The California Nurses Association, which is out on the hustings backing Proposition 89, the campaign finance initiative. CNA members on Wednesday afternoon opened the union’s “Get On the Bus,” campaign, which will put nurses on six colorfully decorated buses driving across the state promoting Prop. 89. […]

Earlier this month, it was street theater in Sacramento, as Prop. 89 backers joined a Jack Abramoff impersonator to string a million dollars in phony money from a lobbyist’s office to the headquarters of the California Chamber of Commerce, which is opposed to the measure.

They’ve also brought a guy dressed as Batman to a number of their events and even projected a 40-foot “Bat-signal” on a building where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was having a fundraiser.

They’re also probably the only campaign to have its own rap song the three-and-a-half minute “About Time for 89,” written and performed by Colette Washington: “It’s about time for Prop. 89, what’s going on in Sac Town is blowin’ my mind…”

Check out a new video where Colette performs at the launch of Get on the Bus. Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Money may be able to spend whatever it takes to preserve the perverse status quo, but creativity and hard work are our slingshot in this David vs. Goliath battle. Get on Board!

——

Proposition 89 | Video | Donate