Member Login

NAIOP/SFBA Legislative Update

Dear Industry Leaders:

Below is an editorial from the Sacramento Bee opposing AB 350 (Solorio; D-Santa Ana). This bill would take away a fundamental right of employers to choose who to hire and is a backdoor route to unionization.

A large coalition of businesses and associations are opposing the measure. If your company has not signed on to the coalition yet, click here and do it now www.ab350areyoukiddingme.com/join-us.php .

We need your support now. We have less than a month left to kill this bill in the legislature. Please join the coalition and contact senators to ask them to oppose this measure. Take Action.

Sincerely, NAIOP San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

SacBee Editorial: Union bill would tie hands of employers

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 10A

If you read Santa Ana Democratic Assemblyman Jose Solorio's explanation of his legislation, the very controversial Assembly Bill 350, it's all about trying to help low-wage workers keep their jobs in this tough economy.

Don't be fooled. It's really about helping the sponsor of the bill, the Service Employees International Union, retain union membership and improve its bargaining position.

The bill requires employers who win new contracts for building services — including janitorial, maintenance, security, window—cleaning and cafeteria services — to hire and retain the previous contractor's employees for three months. If the employees' work is satisfactory during that 90-day period, the new employer would be required to keep them on.

This is an unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary constraint on business. It would essentially dictate to an employer what his work force would be. Under this bill, the new employer would not be able to interview or conduct a background check of the retained workers before taking responsibility for them. Any business — a hospital or a hotel operator, for example — unhappy with the company that provided security or window cleaning previously, could contract with a new company but would still be stuck with the same work force it had sought to replace.

Existing law calls for a 60-day retention period for janitors and maintenance workers. This measure expands the type of workers who would have to be retained by a new contractor or even a new building owner — adding security guards, window cleaners and food-service employees.

It then tacks on another month to the time the new contractor or building owner would have to keep the old contractor's workforce in place.

Finally, it bars the new employer from firing the retained worker unless the employer can show specific incidents in which the retained worker's performance was unsatisfactory.

The real impetus behind this bill is the SEIU. Because it would require that existing union workers be retained, it would also keep in place a union contract even if a non-union contractor was taking over the service. The union thereby wins recognition automatically — not at the bargaining table, but by virtue of state law.

This bill was introduced twice in recent years and twice vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. This year's version of the measure is flying through the Legislature.

The test here is whether the new governor will do what's both right and fair for California.

The right of employers to choose their own workers should be basic. In service employment, in particular, the workforce is the business. An employee's work ethic, demeanor, energy level and honesty matter.

To require an employer to take on a workforce that is not their own, one that the business owner has not been allowed to vet, is just plain wrong.