Government Affairs Awards of Recognition Entry Form

Transcription

1 Government Affairs Awards of Recognition Entry Form 1. Local/State Association BOMA California 2. Name of person completing form Matthew Hargrove 3. Street address 1121 L Street, Ste City, State, ZIP Sacramento, CA 5. Phone Fax mhargrove@cbpa.com 8. Awards Category (you may enter more than one, but you must complete a separate form for each entry) Outstanding Government Affairs Committee _xx Outstanding Single Government Affairs Issue Outstanding Government Affairs Program or Seminar 9. State/Local Association Size _xx Large: 250 and up Medium: Small: Below State/Local Association's Budget $500,000 and above $350,000 up to $500,000 _xx_ Less than $350, What was the date/timeframe within which this committee/program/issue/seminar took place? Feb-Sep 2011 Please send entry form and summary to: Government Affairs Awards of Recognition Building Owners and Managers Association International th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC Attention: Scott Morris OR your entire submission as a PDF form to smorris@boma.org. Questions? Call Scott Morris at (202) or at smorris@boma.org.

2 No on AB 350 Campaign Success Story Summary Orange County Assemblyman Jose Solorio introduced AB 350 in 2011, a far-reaching proposal that would have taken away a basic employer right of choosing who works for them. Specifically, AB 350 sought to mandate that whenever a janitorial company, security guard company, food-service company or other building service company won a new contract, it would be required to hire the employees of the previous, now-ousted company. By mandating who a business must hire even if it came at the expense of their current workforce AB 350 would have represented an extreme government intrusion into the private sector, and it would have hobbled the competitiveness of many service contractors. The bill was one of the top priorities of the Service Employees International Union and other unions because it would have made it easier for them to retain organized workers. Despite aggressive lobbying by BOMA California and the California Chamber, with heavy union support the bill sailed through the Assembly in summer 2011 with little, if any, Democrat opposition. Like so many of the anti-business, anti-jobs legislation in California in 2011, AB 350 appeared to be on a fast track to approval. The Campaign BOMA California s Executive Committee was determined to fight this bill and make a stand on the Senate Floor. In early summer, BOMA California took its lobbying efforts to the next level and created a coordinated, aggressive campaign to defeat the bill. With the support of BOMA International, BOMA California retained Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks (BCF), a Sacramento-based public relations firm, to help elevate public awareness and third-party opposition to the legislation. BOMA California and BCF quickly launched an aggressive campaign to highlight the bill s flaws. The coalition used the summer legislative recess to organize and to reframe the issue as an outrageous power grab by unions, an infringement on employers rights to manage their own workforce, and a vast over-reach by legislators who should be focused on other state priorities. Are YOU KIDDING ME? In order to break through the clutter of literally hundreds of bad, anti-business bills moving through the legislature, the coalition knew they had to creatively package AB 350 s flaws in order to gain attention. First, BCF developed a slogan Are You Kidding Me? and developed a website ( and collaterals to push the theme. In order to raise the awareness, the coalition purchased banner advertisements with prominent placement on key California political blogs and websites.

3 Earned Media BCF also engaged in aggressive outreach to editorial boards to urge them to weigh in on the legislation. Despite hundreds of bills that were anti-business, the coalition was able to get the media to focus on AB 350 in mass. Over the course of a few weeks, 21 newspaper editorials came out in formal opposition to the bill, calling it perverse unfair and just plain wrong. This wide-spread opposition to AB 350 by leading newspaper editorials helped frame this issue in the minds of legislators as a bad bill. Third Party Outreach The coalition also expanded outreach to recruit opposition from a broad spectrum of businesses, chambers, and others. In all, more than 150 organizations formally opposed the legislation in just four weeks. The coalition was an instrumental part of the lobbying success, with local organizations making calls, writing letters, and lobbying their local legislators. Aggressive Lobbying When the legislature returned from summer recess, direct lobbying ensued. BOMA s lobbyist, Matthew Hargrove, co-managed lobbying efforts with Jennifer Barrera of the California Chamber. Constantly assessing votes and the political winds, they worked with BCF to deliver daily flyers to legislators and to engage the coalition at key junctures including the final two days of session during which coalition members made direct calls to senators urging their no vote on AB 350. They also worked closely with a steering committee of BOMA California members who dedicated considerable time and effort to defeating this bill. All of the efforts culminated on the final two days of the legislative session. The bill was brought to a vote on the Senate Floor an unprecedented seven times over two days. But it failed to receive a majority in the Senate each and every time, including at 12:59 a.m. when the bill officially died in one of the final acts of the year s legislative session. The bill died on a bipartisan vote, 17 ayes 18 noes (21 needed to pass). No on AB 350 Campaign By the Numbers No on 350 Editorials: 21 Coalition Members: 153 Coalition calls to legislators: 60 Flyers delivered to legislature: 12 In-district meetings with senators: 10 Total banner ad impressions: 293,039,979 Total votes on Senate Floor: 17 ayes 18 noes (21 needed to pass)

4 Forcing Businesses to Hire Another Company s Employees Does Not Create a Single Job! BUSINESS California Chamber of Commerce BOMA California California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Retailers Association California Manufacturers & Technology Association NAIOP of California BCIS Insurance Services, Inc. BizFed, Los Angeles County Business Federation BOMA Greater Los Angeles BOMA Inland Empire BOMA Oakland/East Bay BOMA Orange County BOMA Sacramento BOMA San Diego BOMA San Francisco BOMA Silicon Valley Borelli Investment Company Brawley Chamber of Commerce Central City Association of Los Angeles Chambers of Commerce Alliance, Ventura/Santa Barbara Counties Chico Chamber of Commerce Culver City Chamber of Commerce Desert Empire Insurance Eason Communications, LLC El Centro Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce The Evans HR Group Ferrari & Associates Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Corona Valley Chamber of Commerce High Rhodes Investment Group The Horowitz Group Huntington Chamber of Commerce Indio Chamber of Commerce Irwindale Chamber of Commerce Coalition List (as of 9/02/2011) BUSINESS (cont.) Jimerson Financial Joint Chambers of Commerce of El Dorado County Kirker Glass Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Montclair Chamber of Commerce Montebello Chamber of Commerce Monterey County Business Council Murrieta Chamber of Commerce NAIOP Inland Empire NAIOP Southern California Orange Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau Remland Insurance Services Inc. San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Sierra Asset Management, Inc. Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Triple J Investments United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley Valley Industry & Commerce Association Western Electrical Contractors Association Westfield Palm Desert Wildomar Chamber of Commerce Your Promotional Products ETHNIC BUSINESS California Black Chamber of Commerce Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce Latin Business Association (more)

5 LABOR International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 HEALTHCARE California Hospital Association GROCERS California Grocers Association California Independent Grocers Association TRAVEL, TOURISM & ENTERTAINMENT California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns California Attractions and Parks Association California Hotel & Lodging Association Hampton Inn & Suites Suisun City Waterfront SERVICE PROVIDERS Able Services Ameri-Kleen Inc American General Services Group, Inc. Bayer Protective Services, Inc. BL Properties Byrne Companies Costal Maintenance, Inc ESC Building Services Eugene Burger Management Corporation M.P.A. Management, LLC Mark Schroeder & Co. Inc. Near-Cal Corp Newport National Corporation Paragon Services Janitorial Pro-Line PTS Staffing Solutions ROMAC FINANCIAL GROUP Terra Pacific Landscape Universal Services of America HOUSING & REAL ESTATE (cont.) David S. Taylor Interests, Inc. Diablo Holdings, Ltd Encom Properties Envision Realty Services, Inc. Fox Property Management GHMH Real Estate Management Headwaters Construction, Inc. Headwaters Development Company LLC IREM Orange County JO-EL Associates Majestic Realty Co. Mesa Management Pacific Crest Real Estate Pacific Summit Development Prado Group Remarc Management, Inc. San Diego Apartment Association SanMar Properties Santa Barbara Rental Property Association Sawhney Properties, LP Schick Moving & Storage Sperry Van Ness Commercial Real Estate Advisors StarPoint Properties, LLC Stockdale Property Management, Inc. Thomas Property Group Trident Real Estate & Management Worthe Real Estate Group HOUSING & REAL ESTATE California Apartment Association California Association of Realtors CRE Property Mgt. International Council of Shopping Centers Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) California The Abbey Company Anza Pacific Properties, Inc. Apartment Association Greater Los Angeles Archways Real Estate Basin Street Properties Cal Western Property Management Commercial Management Group

6 Leading California Newspapers Call AB 350 Perverse. Frivolous. Just Plain Wrong. AB 350 (Solorio): Are you kidding me? AB 350 by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) requires employers with a new contract for property services (building maintenance, licensed security, window cleaners, and food cafeteria services) hire all of the prior contractor s employees even if it means firing their own! VOTE NO ON AB 350!

7 August 22, 2011: Brown s job: veto For an example of why the California Legislature is considered hostile to the realities of the business world, look no further than AB350, authored by Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana. This unionpropelled measure would require a contractor of an array of services - security, landscaping, window cleaning, food cafeteria - to keep the old contractor's workers for at least 60 days when it secures a new client. Janitors have been provided similar job protections for the past decade. Concern No. 1 with this Service Employees International Union special is that it overlooks the reason many businesses change such contractors: bad service. It deprives the new contractor of the ability to screen, hire and train the workers that will be its responsibility. Companies that hire security guards have good reason to be especially sensitive about their inability to determine their workforce. SEIU contends that the most common reason companies change contractors is price. It argues that workers in these service industries are highly vulnerable to losing their jobs through no fault of their own, especially in these lean times. It's clear that the real agenda here is tilting the playing field toward organized labor. The version of AB350 that passed the Assembly, 46-31, had provided 90-day job guarantees when service contracts change hands. Even at 60 days, the notion that a contractor trying to provide better or more efficient service to a new client must be saddled with workers it did not choose is unfair, unwise and impractical. If the state Senate cannot say no to this special-interest power play, then Gov. Jerry Brown should veto it.

8 August 18, 2011 Oakland Tribune editorial: Unfair bill panders to union interests During a prolonged stagnant economy with nearly one-eighth of the state's workforce idle is hardly the time to place another burden on businesses. Yet that is what Assembly Bill 350 seeks to do. Under current law, a new contractor or subcontractor who provides janitorial or building maintenance service must retain the former contractors' employees for at least 60 days if they have worked at the site for more than four months. AB350 would greatly expand the employee-retention requirements to other industries, to the detriment of contractors and subcontractors. It would include property service workers, such as building maintenance, licensed security, landscape, window cleaning and food cafeteria personnel. Also, the retention period would be extended from 60 to 90 days. Proponents of the bill say it is designed to help low-wage workers keep their jobs in a bad economy. Its real purpose, however, is to enhance the bargaining position of the bill's sponsor, the Service Employees International Union. Because the bill requires new employers to hire the former employer's workers, it would provide automatic protection to the current union to retain its status as the bargaining representative, forcing all property services employees to be union workers even if the new contractor is a nonunion operation. This is a decision that should be left to the employers and employees in accordance with the procedures outlined by the National Labor Relations Act, not forced upon a new employer by special-interest legislation. AB350 usurps new employers' discretion about whom to hire and prevents employers from conducting pre-hiring background checks or interviews to determine if employees of the former contractor are well suited to perform specific tasks under the new contractor. The bill eliminates any distinction from one contractor to the next regarding the type of workforce that contractor can deliver, thus reducing competition among contractors. Most likely, a new contractor or subcontractor will retain workers if they have a good performance record. So it is not the continued employment of those workers that is really at stake in most instances. What is at stake is what union, if any, is going to represent those workers. To force an employer to take on a workforce it didn't hire or vet and to accept a union it did not negotiate with is simply wrong. It is dismaying that a majority of the Assembly, including Susan Bonilla, D-Concord; Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland; Nancy Skinner, D-Oakland; Mary Hayashi, D-Hayward, and a majority of the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, including Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, don't seem to understand this and voted to pander to the SEIU with an unreasonable anti-business measure. If AB350 reaches the governor's desk, we hope he will have the good sense to veto it.

9 August 9, 2011 Editorial: Union bill would tie hands of employers 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, mostly along party-line votes with most Democrats loyally lining up behind their labor union allies. 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.

10 August 5, 2011 A frivolous piece of legislation When our state lawmakers go back into session after their summer recess, one of the many misguided pieces of legislation they will consider is Assembly Bill 350. This bill would amend the regrettable Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, signed into law in 2001, to add more categories of workers to those "protected" by that law. The only thing logical about A.B. 350, by Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana, is that if passed it will give the janitor act a new name - the Displaced Property Service Employees Opportunity Act - because it would expand coverage from janitors and building maintenance workers to include window washers, landscape workers, licensed security, and cafeteria and dietary services. For all those categories of workers, A.B. 350 would require that whenever a building owner awards a new company a contract to provide services at the building, the new contractor must hire the previous contractor's employees. The new contractor would have to keep them all for at least 90 days (rather than the 60 days dictated by the janitors act that is now law). Yes, you read that right. If Window Washing Company A isn't keeping your building's windows clean, so you contract with Window Washing Company B instead, B must hire all the same window washers that A employed to work at your building. So you'd still have all the same window washers - the ones who were not satisfactorily cleaning your glass. How does that make sense? What's really going on with this bill, you might ask? It's backed by a number of unions - and hence by most union-funded Democrats in the Legislature - because it's a default way of keeping a unionized shop in existence even when an employer - in this case, the service contractor - exits a site. The existing union could demand the new employer to recognize it as the bargaining representative for the workers it was already representing. It might be okay to keep the old employees when the old contractor's management, but not its workers, are subpar in performance. But that's really for the property owner who awards the contract and the new contractor who picks up the work to figure out, not the Legislature. This bill doesn't create any jobs. It just adds the kind of regulation that drives business owners crazy and keeps them from investing further in the California economy. It's a small matter in the scheme of our sputtering economy. But it is yet another case of our dysfunctional Legislature sticking its nose where it doesn't belong instead of addressing California's real issues - as voters elected their lawmakers to do. A.B. 350 has already breezed through the Assembly and through one Senate committee. It's scheduled to be heard Aug. 15 by the Senate Appropriations Committee. It should die in committee or on the Senate floor. If not, Gov. Jerry Brown should veto it in the interest of staying out of the economy's way.

11 The Government Should Not Be In Charge of Picking Winners and Losers in the Job Market. But that is Exactly What AB 350 (Solorio) Would Do AB 350 Requires Employers to Hire ANOTHER COMPANY S EMPLOYEES -- even if it means they have to fire their own! AB 350 (Solorio): Are you kidding me? AB 350 by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) requires employers with a new contract for property services (building maintenance, licensed security, window cleaners, and food cafeteria services) hire all of the prior contractor s employees even if it means firing their own! AB 350 forces employers to lay-off their current workforce if they have to hire employees from competing companies. AB 350 seriously impedes the ability of businesses to run efficient, quality operations, and provide job security for their workforce. AB 350 does not create a single job. VOTE NO ON AB 350!

12 AB 350 Takes Away Employers Ability to Choose Their Employees AB 350 (Solorio): Are you kidding me? AB 350 requires employers with a new contract for property services (building maintenance, licensed security, window cleaners, and food cafeteria services) hire all of the prior contractor s employees even if it means firing their own! AB 350 forces employers to lay-off their current workforce if they have to hire employees from competing companies. AB 350 seriously impedes the ability of businesses to run efficient, quality operations, and provide job security for their workforce. AB 350 does not create a single job. AB 350 adds to the bureaucracy and red tape that is driving businesses out of business. VOTE NO ON AB 350!

13 Newspapers OPPOSED to AB 350 Newspapers SUPPORTING AB 350 THE CHOICE IS CLEAR. NO ON AB 350. AB 350 (Solorio): Are you kidding me? AB 350 by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) requires employers with a new contract for property services (building maintenance, licensed security, window cleaners, and food cafeteria services) hire all of the prior contractor s employees even if it means firing their own! VOTE NO ON AB 350! To read these editorials, visit