May 25 Deadline Approaching to Report Bills to the Floor
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
The California Legislature is in the process of hearing bills in policy committees. The May 26th deadline to report bills to the floors of each house is fast approaching. CLFP is working on several key measures that would have direct impact on the food processing industry.
Labor Bills
Several CLFP-opposed labor bills are set to be heard in the Assembly and Senate Labor Committees later this month. Of note is AB 5 (Gonzalez Fletcher) which is known as the "Opportunity to Work Act." This bill mandates employers to offer all employees who have the skills and experience to perform additional hours of work that become available prior to hiring a new employee, temporary employee or contractor. This mandate creates a host of complications and concerns for food processors, including the bills workability with a seasonal workforce and the increased threat of litigation.
Also of note is AB 450 (Chiu) which would impose various requirements on public and private employers with regard to federal immigration agency immigration worksite enforcement actions. Among other things, the bill would prohibit an employer from providing a federal immigration enforcement agent access to a place of labor without a properly executed warrant and would prohibit an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, from providing voluntary access to a federal government immigration enforcement agent to the employer’s employee records without a subpoena.This bill is very concerning and will place employers in between federal and state law.
Labeling Bills
There are also a number of CLFP-opposed labeling bills. SB 300 (Monning) would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Health Warning Act, which would prohibit a person in California from distributing, selling or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, unless the beverage container or multipack bears a health warning.
There are also a number of CLFP-opposed labeling bills. SB 300 (Monning) would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Health Warning Act, which would prohibit a person in California from distributing, selling or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, unless the beverage container or multipack bears a health warning.
SB 504 (Wieckowski) would mandate a California-specific warning label on all foods that contain "synthetic dyes." This bill is opposed by manufacturers, retailers, grocers, restaurants and farmers because it would impose a costly and confusing food warning program without any scientific justification for foods that contain regulated synthetic food colors approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
CLFP argues that any arbitrary single state label is costly, creates significant logistic and supply issues and includes expanded liability for food manufacturers and retailers.
Solid Waste
CLFP opposes AB 319 (Stone) which would prohibit a retailer from selling or offering for sale a single-use plastic beverage container with a cap that is not tethered to or contiguously affixed to the beverage container in an attempt to reduce litter. The technology to design and utilize tethered caps for certain beverage products has not been developed for market. This bill would not only have significant impact on production and possibly jobs in our state, but would also affect thousands of companies around the globe that manufacture and distribute beverage products in California.
CLFP opposes AB 319 (Stone) which would prohibit a retailer from selling or offering for sale a single-use plastic beverage container with a cap that is not tethered to or contiguously affixed to the beverage container in an attempt to reduce litter. The technology to design and utilize tethered caps for certain beverage products has not been developed for market. This bill would not only have significant impact on production and possibly jobs in our state, but would also affect thousands of companies around the globe that manufacture and distribute beverage products in California.
Air Quality
CLFP strongly opposes AB 1132 (Garcia), which would significantly expand the current authority of local air pollution control officers by allowing them to order the immediate shutdown of a facility if the "air pollution control officer determines that a person is constructing or operating any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance without a permit required by this part...." Expanding this authority as proposed does not appropriately account for due process, liability and economic impact to employees and companies who may be impacted by an unwarranted abatement order.
CLFP strongly opposes AB 1132 (Garcia), which would significantly expand the current authority of local air pollution control officers by allowing them to order the immediate shutdown of a facility if the "air pollution control officer determines that a person is constructing or operating any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance without a permit required by this part...." Expanding this authority as proposed does not appropriately account for due process, liability and economic impact to employees and companies who may be impacted by an unwarranted abatement order.
For more information about these issues, contact Trudi Hughes.
By Trudi Hughes, CLFP Government Affairs Director
