Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_08_06_08_Senate_Bill_No_556CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUSAN BROOKS, MAYOR AUGUST 6, 2013 SENATE BILL NO. 556 (CORBETT) RECOMMENDATION Take a formal City Council position opposing Senate Bill No. 556 (Corbett). DISCUSSION In February 2013, State Senator Ellen Corbett of San Leandro introduced Senate Bill No. 556 (SB 556). The ostensible purpose of the bill is to require that private contractors who provide services for public agencies include "conspicuous displays" of the disclosure "THE OPERATOR OF THIS VEHICLE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE" on agency vehicles and "NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE" on employee uniforms. The actual effect of this bill, however, would be to stigmatize private contractors in the eyes of the public. In a July 1 ath editorial (attached), the Sacramento Bee stated that SB 556 would be "costly, unnecessary and meddlesome - a legislative solution in search of a problem." Closer to home, SB 556 would adversely affect our own Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA), which uses private contractors in order to keep down costs and provide exceptional service to the Peninsula's senior citizens, school children and other residents and visitors. I ask my City Council colleagues to join me-along with the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Special Districts Association and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority-in opposing SB 556. Attachments: • Sacramento Bee editorial "A Scarlet Letter for Private Contractors?" (published 7/18/13) • SB 556 (amended 7/1/13) M:\Legislative lssues\SB 556 (Corbett)\20130806_SB556(Corbett)_StaffRpt.docx 8-1 Editorial: A scarlet letter for private contractors? -Editorials -The Sacramento Bee html THE SACRAMENIO BEE sl'!cbee.com Editorial: A scarlet letter for private contractors? Published Thursday, Jul. 18, 2013 Page 1 of2 Senate Bill 556 is another sad example of how legislative Democrats can't say no to their main benefactor, public employee unions, even at the expense of the voters they represent. This bill is costly, unnecessary and meddlesome - a legislative solution in search of a problem. Authored by Sen. Ellen Corbett of San Leandro, SB 556 would require contract employees working for state or local governments to affix notices to their uniforms or vehicles that identify them as "not a government employee." According to the Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis, Corbett thinks "this bill is needed to ensure that members of the public can visually distinguish between government employees and nongovernment employees who are increasingly subcontracted to perform services once exclusively the domain of true public employees." We would be curious to know which members of the public are clamoring for more signage in their lives so they can distinguish between contractors and true public employees. Is there a petition drive we missed? Have there been mass rallies at the Capitol on this cause that have escaped our attention? Clearly that's not the case. That leaves us little option but to conclude the intent of her bill is clear and simple: To stigmatize private contractors with a scarlet letter. The apparent intent is to make it more difficult for local governments to contract for services, even when it saves them money and improves efficiencies. To be clear, this is strictly a public employee union ploy, with emphasis on public. This bill would create a negative perception about union employees who happen to work for government but are not actually government employees. The Yolo County Transportation District and its nongovernment-but-unionized bus drivers are a perfect example. The bill contains specific requirements for how agencies such as Yolo Transportation would have to add notices to district vehicles and uniforms of nongovernment employees, even down to the font size they would have to use. Yolo County Transportation, which opposes the bill, claims it would have to add notices 2 feet tall and 30 feet long on all of its Yolo buses. Similar signage would be required on every bus, ambulance, garbage truck or other government vehicle in the state not driven by a government employee. Despite opposition from the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association and a host of other local government organizations, the Corbett bill zipped out of the Senate on a largely party-line vote. http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07 /18/v-print/557483 7 /a-scarlet-letter-for-private-contractors.... 8/1/2013 8-2 Editorial: A scarlet letter for private contractors? -Editorials -The Sacramento Bee Page 2 of2 SB 556 again raises the disturbing question: Just how far are Democrats willing to go to stay in the good graces of public employee unions? © Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. • Read more articles by the Editorial Board ~ Order Reprint http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07 /18/v-print/5574&3 7 /a-scarlet-letter-for-private-contractors.... 8/1/2013 8-3 Officials with the Yolo County Transportation District, which employs privately contracted union workers as bus drivers, say they would have to add these notices to all buses under a bill that is moving through the Legislature. (Photo credit: Yolo County Transportation District) 8-4 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2013 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 19, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 29, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 9, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2013 SENATE BILL Introduced by Senator Corbett February 22, 2013 No. 556 An act to add Seetion 1771 to Title 18 (commencing with Section 3273) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to agency. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 556, as amended, Corbett. Agency: ostensible: nongovernmental entities. Existing law specifies the authority of agents in dealing with 3rd persons. Existing law states when an agency is ostensible for purposes of determining the authority of an agent. Existing law prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by a person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods to any consumer. This bill would prohibit a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public entity from displaying on a vehicle or uniform a seal, emblem, insignia, trade, brand name, or any other.term, symbol, or content that reasonably could be interpreted as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, 94 8-5 SB556 -2- unless the vehicle or uniform conspicuously displays a disclosure, as specified. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Seetion 1771 is added to the Civil Code, to read: 2 1771. (a) It is unlawful for a person, firm, eorporation, or 3 assoeiation that is a nongovemmental entity and eontraets to 4 perform labor or serviees for a public agency to display on a vehiele 5 ·a seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, 6 symbol, or eontent that reasonably eould be interpreted or construed 7 as implying that the labor or services arc being provided by 8 employees of the public agency, unless the vehicle eonspicuously 9 displays the follov1ing diselosure: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 "THE OPERATOR OF THIS VEHICLE IS NOT A GOVEIU™ENT EMPL&YEE." (b) It is UH:la·Nful for a person or an employee of a person, firm, corporation, or assoeiation that is a nongovemmcntal entity and contracts to perform labor or sctviccs for a public agency to wear a UH:iform bearing a seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content that together 'vVith the appearance of the uniform reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying that the labor or services are being pro,.v'ided by employees of the public agency, unless the UH:iform c_onspieuously displays the follO'vving diselosurc: "NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPL&YEE." (e) For the purposes of subdivision (b), an identifying mark affixed to a uniform as required by state or federal law, and a local agency regulating the activity of the person, firm, corporation, or assoeiation shall not be construed as implying that the labor or services arc being provided by employees of the public agency. (d) For the pttrposcs of this section, "conspicuously displays" means displays in a font size that is at least the same size as the largest font size otherwise displayed on the vehicle or UH:iform, in 94 8-6 -3-SB556 1 a maooer that clearly calls attention to the language, and located 2 in close proximity to the seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand 3 name, or any other term, symbol, or content as described in this 4 section, so as to be clearly associated 'Nith that seal, emblem, 5 insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or 6 content. 7 SECTION 1. Title 18 (commencing with Section 3273) is added 8 to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 TITLE 18. CONTRACTS FOR LABOR OR SERVICES FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY 3273. (a) It is unlawful for a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public agency to display on a vehicle a seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content that reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, unless the vehicle conspicuously displays the following disclosure: "THE OPERATOR OF THIS VEHICLE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE." (b) It is unlawful for a person or an employee of a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public agency to wear a uniform bearing a seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content that together with the appearance of the uniform reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, unless the uniform conspicuously displays the following disclosure: "NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE." (c) For the purposes of subdivision (b), an identifying mark affixed to a uniform as required by state or federal law, and a local agency regulating the activity of the person, firm, corporation, or association shall not be construed as implying 94 8-7 SB556 -4- 1 that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the 2 public agency. 3 (d) For the purposes of this section, "conspicuously displays" 4 means displays in a font size that is at least the same size as the 5 largest font size othenvise displayed on the vehicle or uniform, in 6 a manner that clearly calls attention to the language, and located 7 in close proximity to the seal, emblem, insignia, trade or brand 8 name, or any other term, symbol, or content as described in this 9 section, so as to be clearly associated with that seal, emblem, 10 insignia, trade or brand name, or any other term, symbol, or 11 content. 12 (e) (1) Violations of this section shall be subject to the remedies 13 provided in the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Title 1.5 14 (commencing with Section 1750)). 15 (2) The duties, rights, and remedies provided in this section are 16 in addition to any other duties, rights, and remedies provided by 17 state law.· 0 94 8-8