The California Chamber of Commerce has identified the 23 bills below as job killers that would have a negative impact on California’s economy if they become law.
Sample letters to legislators are available at .
The list of 2017 job killer bills follows:
— Creates a significant hurdle to brownfield and urban redevelopment, infill housing, and economic development by requiring all projects to mitigate not only the impacts of the project itself, but also the impacts of other historical activities for which the applicant has no legal liability and over which it had no control.
— Unfairly discriminates against arbitration agreements contained in consumer contracts for goods or services with a financial institution, as broadly defined, which is likely preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and will lead to confusion and unnecessary litigation.
— Unfairly discriminates against arbitration agreements by prohibiting arbitration between a hospital and a health care plan or contracting agent, leading to confusion and litigation over preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act.
— Imposes statutory liability on businesses and individuals for clean-up recovery costs associated with deposits or redeposits of certain substances that were emitted into the air under a statutory scheme that places the burden of proof on the defendant.
— Jeopardizes the production of California-based fuel by banning the use of hydrogen fluoride and hydrofluoric acid at refineries that use more than 250 gallons and are located within two miles of a residence, notwithstanding the fact that there are significant safety regulations in place at the local, state and federal levels.
— Burdens small and large employers with a scheduling mandate that requires employers to offer additional hours of work to employees before hiring a new employee or contractor and exposes employers to multiple threats of costly litigation for technical violations that do not cause an employee any harm.
— Creates a new single-payer government-run, multibillion-dollar health care system financed by an unspecified and undeveloped “revenue plan” which will penalize responsible employers and individuals and result in significant new taxes on all Californians and California businesses.
— Imposes a mandate on California employers to collect data on the mean and median salaries paid to men and women under the same job title or description without also considering any bona fide reason for differences in compensation, to publicly shame California employers and expose them to costly litigation for alleged wage disparity where no violation of the equal pay law exists.
— Unduly burdens and increases costs of small employers with as few as 20 employees by requiring 12 weeks of protected employee leave for child bonding and exposes them to the threat of costly litigation.
— Creates uncertainty for businesses with respect to the federal environmental standards proposed to be incorporated into California law if backsliding occurs at the federal level in the future, and increases the potential for costly litigation by creating private rights of action under California law when certain events occur.
— Increases frivolous liability claims and exposes beverage manufacturers and food retailers to fines and penalties by mandating state-only labeling requirements for sugar-sweetened drinks.
— Unfairly targets one category of taxpayers to fund a benefit for all of the state by imposing a tax on contractors for the privilege of doing business with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and requires the contractor to absorb the cost while maintaining a price of lowest responsible bidder.
— Unfairly imposes an additional targeted excise tax on manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers of distilled spirits and a floor tax, that will increase their costs and force them to reduce in other areas, including labor.
— Unfairly imposes a targeted excise tax on distributors of sweetened beverages to fund health-related programs for all, which will force distributors to reduce costs through higher prices to consumers or limiting their workforce.
— Unfairly increases the personal income tax rate to 14.3%, the highest in the country, on one category of taxpayers (including sole proprietors), who already pay over half of the income tax revenue to the general fund, forcing them to mitigate costs through means including reducing workforce, in order to fund higher education that will benefit all of California.
— Unfairly imposes an excise tax on opioid distributors in California, which will increase their costs and force them to adopt measures that include reducing workforce and increasing drug prices for ill patients who need these medications the most, in order to fund drug prevention and rehabilitation programs that will benefit all of California.
— Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on real property by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, to fund construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public infrastructure or affordable housing, and lowering the vote threshold to impose such new taxes from two-thirds to 55%.
— Exposes the retail industry to increased taxes by imposing a quarter-cent sales tax increase to fund affordable housing and homeless shelters, without creating greatly needed market rate housing.
— Proposes multiple tax increases on California employers, including eliminating the water’s edge election and requiring payment of capital gains on the inheritance of a family business, when California already has the highest personal income tax and sales tax rates in the country, as well as one of the highest corporate tax rates, which will discourage job growth in California.
— Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on commercial, industrial and residential property owners by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55%.