The California state minimum wage increased to $9.00 per hour effective July 1.

In 2013, Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) authored Assembly Bill 10. With support from then Assembly Speaker John Perez, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Governor Brown, AB 10 was passed on a Democratic Party-line vote. In 2016 California will have the highest minimum wage in the country at $10.00 per hour.

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has released an official notice that must be posted in the workplace. That form can be found HERE.

Per AB 10, the State’s minimum wage will increase once again to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016.

A recent attempt by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) to further increase the minimum wage to $13 per hour, and tie annual increases thereafter to the California Consumer Price Index was stopped this year in the Assembly Labor Committee. CGA played a pivotal role in stopping this bill in policy committee.

In the final week of Committee hearings before California lawmakers adjourn July 3 for their annual summer recess, bills mandating labeling on GMO foods and a measure to further increase the state minimum wage were defeated in Assembly policy committees.

While there is a possibility that either issue could resurface when lawmakers return in August for their final month of the 2013-14 session, it would be an uphill battle.

Earlier this week, after seeing her SB 1381 defeated on the Senate Floor in late May, Sen. Noreen Evans (D–Santa Rosa) inserted an identical GMO labeling mandate into SB 1040, which had already passed the Senate.

As with the initial effort, the new legislation exempted on-line retailers, farmers markets, and farm and food stands from the mandate along with restaurants. CGA worked hard to help ensure the bill was referred to the Assembly Agriculture Committee where its chances were far from certain.

By June 25, the author opted to pull the bill from consideration at its scheduled June 26 hearing after only one lawmaker would reportedly commit to supporting the measure.

Also going down to defeat was a bill by Sen. Mark Leno (D–San Francisco) to further increase California’s minimum wage. Senate Bill 935 would have modified the wage increase approved last year to instead set the minimum at $11 beginning Jan. 1, 2015, $12 beginning Jan. 1, 2016, and $13 beginning Jan. 1, 2017. The minimum would have been increased annually thereafter based on the CPI.

Two Democrats on the Assembly Labor Committee, Assemblymen Luis Alejo (Salinas) and Chris Holden (Pasadena) refused to support the bill, characterizing it as a betrayal of commitments made last year in connection with passage of AB 10. Ultimately, the bill fell one vote short of passage, though reconsideration was granted. Today’s vote comes less than a week before the first step of AB 10’s wage increase takes effect on July 1.

Additional efforts on each issue could surface in August, when lawmakers return to Sacramento for a frenzied month-long finale to the current Legislative Session.

Reprinted from the Glendale News-Press (6/17/2014)

By Jim Cragg

When it comes to honoring the men and women who serve in America’s military, actions speak louder than words. California lawmakers now have a chance to express true appreciation by passing the state ban on single-use plastic bags, SB 270, and creating more jobs for veterans here who make reusable bags.

Veterans are leading Californians’ shift away from throwaway plastic bags, which worsen pollution, to reusable bags, which greatly discourage dumping and support a sustainable workforce.
The company I founded has hired more than 20 former service members to piece and stitch reusable bags. Our workforce has grown as more than 100 municipalities around the state, including Glendale and Los Angeles County and city, have banned single-use plastic bags. Passage of the statewide ban will mean we can hire several more veterans to fulfill the expected increase in demand.

For several of the veterans on my staff, stable hours making bags provide them much more than a wage. They have a mission, with a tangible stack of accomplishment at the end of a shift and a deep sense of connection to customers, whom they sometimes spot on the street carrying their product.

Our business is part of an encouraging trend. America is making progress in reintegrating veterans into society. The unemployment rate among vets who have served since 2001 is at 9%, down from 10% just a year ago, but still above the national average of 6.3%.

Homelessness among veterans is also down, by 24% over the past three years, thanks in large part to deliberate efforts by the president and policy-makers to provide the former warriors living on our streets with housing and healthcare services.

Still, the ongoing scandal involving service delays in the federal Veterans Administration eats away at our faith in government to treat veterans with the dignity we deserve. Restoring integrity to healthcare access and quality treatment through the VA is crucial. Yet our national and state responsibility to returning veterans does not end with delivery of care.

For disabled vets like myself, the struggle to find our place in community is especially hard. This challenge is one reason our business making reusable bags holds value and potential. Disabled vets are some of our most productive workers. Getting hired and being equal members of a team provide them immense pride, and a lesson to other employers about the worth of an often neglected source of talent.

SB 270, which passed one Assembly committee and is now facing a hearing in the Appropriations Committee chaired by Glendale-area lawmaker Mike Gatto, represents a rare chance for lawmakers to strengthen a growing “green” industry here in California. Increased jobs and tax revenue from several sustainable companies making reusable bags stands in contrast to the $500 million of state taxpayers’ dollars, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, spent by localities catching and collecting plastic bags and other trash headed into our waterways.

Seven years into the push to ban single-use plastic bags, it would be a shame to lose this golden opportunity to achieve the bill’s passage. The message it would send to my staff of veterans is similarly unpalatable, reinforcing cynicism about the state of the democracy we fought to preserve.

Like most bills taking aim at pollution, SB 270 requires standing up to powerful opponents who see their profits at stake. I am not deterred by that challenge. Veterans look to state lawmakers not for lofty rhetoric or applause for our sacrifice. We look for leadership. We need this bill, which will expand our veteran workforce in California, to become law. Creating sustainable jobs is the most patriotic gesture of all.

JIM CRAGG is an Afghan war veteran who served as an Army Reserve major and is director of Green Vets L.A., a nonprofit that employs veterans to sew canvas bags.

By Dan Walter

Months ago, without saying it publicly, Democrats gave up hopes of regaining control of the House of Representatives and began concentrating resources on saving their command of the U.S. Senate.

That shift of emphasis, coupled with the natural dynamics of non-presidential elections and the prospect of a very low-turnout November election, has raised Republicans’ hopes of recouping their 2012 congressional losses in California.

As many as eight Democratic members, especially four first elected in 2012, could be at risk this year.

This year’s campaigns began with what appeared to be a certain Democratic gain in San Bernardino County’s 31st Congressional District.

Two years ago, thanks to multiple Democrats on the top-two ballot, two Republicans made it to the November runoff despite lopsided Democratic registration.

The GOP winner, Gary Miller, didn’t even bother to run for re-election this year; nevertheless, history almost repeated itself when one Republican finished first in last week’s primary and another came within a whisker of finishing second.

Democrat Pete Aguilar apparently eked out second place and is now favored to win the seat.

Beyond the 31st CD, however, things look a bit dicey for Democrats, in part because their incumbents and candidates fared poorly in the low-turnout primary.

Based on voting history and last week’s outcomes, the authoritative Cook’s Political Report sees eight Democratic members at risk in California, with the most endangered being first-termers Ami Bera of Elk Grove, Julia Brownley of Thousand Oaks and Scott Peters of San Diego.

All three face well-known, well-financed and moderate Republican challengers – former Rep. Doug Ose, Assemblyman Jeff Gorell and former City Councilman Carl DeMaio – in districts with conservative, even Republican voting histories.

Cook’s sees another first-termer, Palm Springs’ Raul Ruiz, as only slightly less vulnerable vis-a-vis GOP Assemblyman Brian Nestande, another well-known moderate.

Meanwhile, just two Republican incumbents, Turlock’s Jeff Denham and Hanford’s David Valadao, have even a theoretical vulnerability due to voter registration, but both clobbered Democratic opponents in the primary and neither looks truly endangered.

Democrats contend that last week’s primary, with a record-low voter turnout, is not indicative of what will happen in November.

Turnout in the fall will be higher – but lower than in the 2012 presidential election and perhaps, in relative terms, as low as the primary, lacking burning statewide contests or ballot measures to lure voters.

A reasonable guess would be that Democrats lose a seat or two in the state this year – but most importantly don’t make the big California gains they’d need to retake the House.

Reprinted from The Sacramento Bee (6/10/2014)

Late Friday afternoon (May 30), the CA WIC agency released Vendor Alert 2014-08 outlining the first phase of a lifting of the vendor authorization moratorium.

According to the alert, beginning Sunday, June 1, California will now accept and process applications for additions to current master agreements for locations under identical ownership structure.

The alert notes that vendors may apply through the WIC web site. If you feel your company meets the criteria outlined in Vendor Alert 2014-08, please review carefully all information on the WIC web site when it is available beginning June 1 and follow the instructions provided.

CGA will continue to monitor activity during this first phase and work to obtain additional information on future phases of the lift. If you experience difficulties with the process, contact Keri Askew Bailey, CGA at [email protected] and we will attempt to assist in resolving them.

On Thursday, the California State Senate approved a measure to further increase the state’s minimum wage to $13 per hour beginning in January of 2017, with annual increases thereafter tied to inflation. The bill passed on a strictly party line vote with 21 Democrats supporting and 12 Republicans in opposition.

Specifically, SB 935 (Leno) would boost California’s minimum wage to $11 per hour beginning 1/1/15, $12 per hour beginning 1/1/16, and $13 per hour beginning 1/1/17. Annually thereafter, the wage would be adjusted upward using a formula based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The bill faces an uncertain future in the State Assembly, where it must be approved before it can be sent to the Governor. It is unclear whether Governor Brown would be willing to sign another increase so soon after last year’s approval of a measure to increase the minimum to $10 in 2016.

CGA joined with a broad coalition of business groups to oppose the measure and will continue to do so as it moves to the Assembly.

The State Senate also approved SB 1000 (Monning), to require warning labels on all sugar sweetened beverages with 75 calories or more of added sugar per 12 ounce serving. This bill narrowly made it off the Senate floor with 21 votes. After a third attempt, Senators Hill, Block and Torres voted for the measure.

SB 1381 (Evans) that would require product labeling on all food products that contain genetically modified material failed only garnering 19 of the required 21 votes needed for passage to the Assembly. Senators Roth (D,Riverside) and Correa (D,Santa Ana) were the sole Democrats who abstained from the measure.

Today is the house of origin deadline, whereby all bills introduced in their original house must be passed. The Senate will not convene today, meaning Thursday was the last chance for any pending measures to move to the Assembly in 2014.

California lawmakers on Wednesday rejected a proposal to label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients despite calls from advocates who say consumers should know when they’re buying food that has been bioengineered.

Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, said her measure would have added California to the 64 countries around the world that have laws requiring labeling on genetically-engineered foods. Senate Bill 1381 would allow people who are concerned about their diets to have more information about what they eat, she said.

Opponents of GMO labeling – including major growers and biotech companies – have argued that genetic engineering is safe and labels are not necessary. The process is so common with certain crops, opponents argue, that labels would be required on most packaged food that is not organic. Most of the corn, sugar beets and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically engineered, and those commodities make their way into many common foods.

Evans’ bill was supported by organic farmers and environmental organizations, and opposed by major business interests, including grocers, retailers, chambers of commerce and non-organic growers. The same interests engaged in a multi-million dollar battle in California in November 2012 when voters rejected Proposition 37 to label genetically-engineered foods.

Evans’ bill fell two votes short of passage in the 40-member Senate. The measure is eligible for reconsideration Thursday.

The California Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is reminding vendors that the provisions of WIC Regulatory Bulletin 2014-03 dated April 4, 2014, regarding the implementation of new peer group criteria and a corresponding reimbursement system is effective June 1, 2014. This reminder is included in WIC Vendor Alert 2014-07.

WIC authorized vendors were mailed letters in April 2014 with their new peer group category assignment for their authorized store. These peer group assignments are based on information WIC currently has on file for each authorized store. Currently, MADR rates become effective on a Friday. However, for this initial implementation, vendor MADR rates will become effective on Sunday, June 1, 2014. After this initial implementation, subsequent MADR effective dates will be on a Friday.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Keri Askew Bailey or Tim James.

Former CGA Chairman of the Board W.R. “Bill” MacAloney died May 21, 2014, after a long battle with cancer.

Bill was President and CEO of Jax Markets, Anaheim, CA, and served as CGA Chair in 1999.

A celebration of Bill’s life will be:

Sunday, June 1, 2014
12:30 pm
Fairhaven Memorial Park & Mortuary
Historic Mausoleum/Rose Window Chapel
1702 Fairhaven Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 633-1442

A reception will follow. The family has requested that “in lieu of flowers”, donations be made to the:

BeAware Foundation
13681 Newport Avenue, Suite #8
Tustin, CA 92780
Attention: Peggy Brooker, Director/President

Bill was an active philanthropist and received numerous awards for his service, leadership and philanthropy. His awards include Retailer of the Year from the Mexican-American Grocers Association (MAGA), the Golden Globe Award from Anaheim Union School District, Spirit of Life Award from the City of Hope, Humanitarian Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, Distinguished Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’rith and in January, 2009, The Founders Award for outstanding leadership and extraordinary achievement from the Friends of the Industry from the Food Marketing Institute.

Bill was appointed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger’s Board of Accountancy (4 years), and he was on St. Joseph Hospital Board of Trustees and was Chairman of their Planning Committee.

Bill and his wife, Gwen, have been married 47 years and have resided in Villa Park for more than 35 years.

State Sen. Alex Padilla is locked in a tight four-way primary race for the California secretary of state job. As the only officeholder officially in the race, he’s seen as the guy to beat.

The biggest challenge to his campaign is coming not from the other top candidates, however, but from an industry that doesn’t have a dog in the race: plastic bag makers, and, boy, they are mad.

Padilla’s bill to ban single-use plastic bags in California is the reason why. If this legislation passes, the nation’s plastic-bag factories will lose a huge market.

The American Progressive Bag Alliance, the lobbying group for those factories, has targeted Padilla in a new ad campaign for television, radio and online that launched last week. The ads, on CNN and at Bagtheban.com, paint him as a “dirty” politician who only pretends to care about the environment so he can collect money from “special interests.”

Though such ruthless attack ads on one person are a staple of modern-day elections, it’s unusual for them to come from an industry opposed to a specific piece of legislation.

But there’s a lot at stake – millions of dollars in profit and jobs, though exactly how many is not clear.

More than 100 cities and counties have enacted some version within the last decade, and the results have been dramatic and immediate – usage of plastic bags has been cut in half from 30 billion to 14 billion.

Two previous attempts at a statewide ban since 2010 were successfully beaten back by pressure from the bag industry that cowed legislators. The crucial difference this year is that two pivotal Democratic senators voted against last year’s ban – Kevin de Léon and Ricardo Lara. Both signed on as co-sponsors. De Léon took a lot of grief for his vote from environmental advocates in his Los Angeles district after last year’s bill failed, and admirably responded by joining Padilla this year.

The bill passed a committee Wednesday and is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee this week.

Support in the Assembly isn’t as clear-cut, but it’s too close for comfort for the multimillion-dollar industry. You can tell because they’ve called in the big guns. The alliance has spent about $646,000 in the past two years on some of the best connected lobbyists – Mercury Public Affairs and Sloat Higgins Jensen, plus more on consultants including Steve Schmidt, a longtime communications specialist who has worked on big-name political campaigns.

Why so worried? Isn’t there plenty of market share left for plastic bags outside California? Maybe, but California is influential, Schmidt told me Friday, “in that what starts in California has a tendency to move to other places in the country.”

Whatever the industry spends to fight it, it probably won’t be enough to turn the changing tide of public opinion in California – and in the Capitol. During a hearing of the bill in Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee, supporters outnumbered opponents at least 3 to 1. The line of supporters was so that long most didn’t get time to say anything more than their names and who they represented.

Among them: Rite Aid, Target, the grocers and retailers associations, a number of California counties, Sierra Club, Heal the Bay and Californians Against Waste, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Chico Bag Co. and Command Packaging – a single-use plastic-bag maker planning to transition to making more durable bags.

The line for those speaking against the Senate Bill 270 was considerably shorter. They included a salesman for Crown Poly, a bag manufacturing company in Los Angeles, who said local bans were already cutting into the company’s business, an employee of Crown Poly who said she was afraid for her job, and representatives from companies that supply or recycle single-use bags.

Despite what the industry says about the public’s low regard for the bans, it has adapted with little outcry. The arguments against single-use bags just have not resonated, or are specifically addressed in this bill: That they can be reused (true, but not the 125 times required by reusable replacements that would be required to by Padilla’s bill); that a ban would hurt poor people (the fee for paper bags would be waived); that single-use bags can be recycled (a vast majority are thrown away); that reusable bags are germy (so, wash them); that paper bags, which would still be allowed for a 10-cent fee, are worse for environment because of how they are made (no one has to use a paper bag); and that this is all just a giveaway to the grocers who will get to pocket the 10-cent fee for paper bags.

The last is the most ridiculous claim – and the basis of the attack against Padilla. It’s true that the grocers’ group has given millions to legislators in the last four years, some of it – though not that much – directly to Padilla. It’s also true that those opposed to this ban – the alliance, bag companies and the American Chemistry Council – have spent millions fighting it and other attempts. That included an ad campaign targeted at the entire Legislature in 2010.

Indeed, Hilex Poly, the South Carolina company instrumental in fighting this and other attempts to ban single-use plastic bags across the country, has donated more than $115,000 to California legislators since 2011 – including a $3,900 donation to Padilla. If this bill were really about payback to special interests, it’s not paying out well for any of them.

Though a study commission by the bag alliance contends that grocers could make collectively between $189 million and $442 million a year by selling paper bags and reusable bags, data I’ve seen don’t bear that out.

Consider recent figures from Los Angeles County about the effects of its 2011 ban. The 73 stores affected, on average, made about $8,000 a year from the 10-cent fee on paper bags, the county reports. And that figure is likely to drop; before the ban, stores in unincorporated Los Angeles County supplied consumers with 200,000 paper carry-out bags a year, in addition to more than 2 million plastic bags. After the ban, the number of paper bags used fell to just 168,000 in 2013. That’s exactly the point of the proposed statewide ban – not to substitute one disposable bag for another, but to change behavior.

It seems to be working. No wonder the plastic-bag industry is worried.

Reprinted from The Sacramento Bee (5/18/2014)