CALIFORNIA MINIMUM WAGE PART 2…..

Please look at this graph that shows the minimum wage increase path for small and large employers.

201603290916

It shows that small employers (25 or fewer employees) and large employers (26 or more employees) will pay at a different rate.  Beginning in 2017, large employers will increase to $10.50 per hour.  Smaller employers will not increase until 2018.

Small employers will continue to be one  year behind the large employers until all employees are covered at $15 per hour by 2023.  The increase starts like this…

Large Employer                    Small Employer

2017 – $10.50                          NO Raise

2018- $11.00                           $10.50

2019 – $12.00                          $11.00

2020 – $13.00                         $12.00

2021 – $14.00                        $13.00

2022 – $15.00                        $14.00

2023……………………………..$15.00 + yearly cost of living increases set each year so you don’t have much time to set new prices to adjust for the unknown increase each year.

This could all be changed before it is signed into law, but this is the proposal as of yesterday.  Also, there is a component that would tie the increases after this to inflation rates and also a “hold” feature if the economy goes down, but considering how the State lies about the real debt and economic problems (they still claim they are a employer friendly state), I don’t hold out much hope for a “hold” being used.  It is, after all, in the State’s interest to increase pay so they can increase the amount of taxes collected from everyone.  There is no incentive to lower the amount to be taxed.

Stay tuned……..

CALIFORNIA TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE YEARLY TO $15 PER HOUR AND BEYOND……..

Governor Brown, today, will be announcing an agreement reached between the State Legislature and 2 major Unions in California regarding minimum wage.  The unions had registered 2 differing minimum wage initiatives and got them on the California ballot, thus going around the State Government to let the people vote on the idea.

According to news reports, the negotiated deal would boost California’s statewide minimum wage from $10 an hour to $10.50 on Jan. 1, 2017, with a 50-cent increase in 2018 and then $1-per-year increases through 2022. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would have an extra year to comply, delaying their workers receiving a $15 hourly wage until 2023.

Future statewide minimum wage increases would be linked to inflation, but a governor would have the power to temporarily block some of the initial increases in the event of an economic downturn.

While we have often written here that we oppose minimum wage increases without acknowledging the other “hidden” costs such as large increases in Worker’s Comp costs, this may be the better of the choices available.  The other initiatives on the ballot would have raised the minimum rate more rapidly so the next 2 years we only get a .50 raise each of the first 2 years.

Of course, by 2022, $15 will not raise anyone out of “poverty” since the line will rise as well, so by then the new chant may be $20 per hour.  And so it goes…..

Its backers are hopeful that the final agreement will allow them to formally withdraw that initiative in a few weeks.

“We want to look at the details first,” said Steve Trossman of Service Employees International-United Healthcare Workers West.

Sources say the Legislature could vote on the wage compromise as soon as the end of next week by amending an existing bill on hold since 2015.

It is of note that NO BUSINESS OWNERS OR ORGANIZATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN ANY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.  So much for open and transparent government!!

We will continue to monitor this law as it is rewritten and passes through the Legislature to the Governor’s desk.  Then we have to hope the initiatives are pulled from the ballot as well.  Stay tuned……

LOOK, UP IN THE SKY, IT’S A BIRD, IT’S A PLANE, NO…IT’S A DRONE!!

By now, I am sure that most of you have heard about the efforts to photograph activity on dairies and other companies by use of drones.  Unfortunately, again, our State and Federal leaders have left us unprotected and with little in the way of resources to combat these intrusions into our businesses.

To begin, you may own your land, but you may not own the sky above it.  Interestingly, the government still holds many of you accountable for the air above your property when it contains methane or other substances, but not if it is polluted with aircraft overhead.  If your neighbor has a tree that hangs over your fence and you want to trim it back, you can.  But you can’t stop a jet from flying over at 30,000 feet.  So where is the actual cut off?

“There is gray area in terms of how far your property rights extend,” said Jeramie Scott, national security counsel

at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It’s going to need to be addressed sooner rather than later as

drones are integrated into the national airspace.”

The issue is becoming more urgent as drones are crowding America’s skies: The Consumer Technology Association

estimated 700,000 were sold last year.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, every inch above the tip of your grass blades is the government’s

jurisdiction. “The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of U.S. airspace from the ground up,” said an

agency spokesman, echoing rules laid out on its website.

But common law long held that landowners’ rights went “all the way to Heaven.” And today, it’s clear that they have

some rights.

California’s Governor vetoed all of the bills that came before him at the end of the 2015 Legislative Session.  Most probably needed to be reworked.  So, there are about 6 bills working their way through the system again.  However, we really need to turn to the FAA to get guidance, and so far, the only real answers they have is that drones need to be registered with the FAA.  The FAA refers to drones as UAVs or Unmanned Arial Vehicle Systems.

So what do we do while we wait for the government to catch up with an issue that started a couple of years ago?

This is from the AgWeb website:

The FAA administers the air space from the ground surface (soil, grass, top of building) upward. If it finds there is a problem, it can rule that the UAV was in violation due to careless and reckless operation and issue a fine or other penalty. Well-equipped UAV systems with cameras and sensors can cost from $7,500 to $40,000 or more, creating a substantial loss if destroyed.

Woldt says concerns often are based on a need for safety and potential infringements of property and privacy. The former is addressed by federal aviation regulations, while property and privacy concerns are addressed by civil and perhaps even criminal law. Someone can fly a UAV equipped with a camera over a neighbor’s backyard and be adhering to aviation law, but infringing on someone’s personal privacy. It gets back to one’s expectation of privacy in different settings, Woldt said.  If a person feels that their privacy has been infringed upon, then the same recommendation applies — contact appropriate authorities with as much information about the UAV as can be obtained, without confrontation.

Landowners can take steps to create a no-fly zone over their property by documenting their preferences at https://www.noflyzone.org/. The No Fly Zone organization works with manufacturers and UAV software developers. While it cannot guarantee that individual no-fly zones will be respected, it will provide the information to leading manufacturers, who can incorporate these areas into their software.

Proposed Changes to UAV Regulations

Earlier this month the FAA released a set of proposed regulations to more fully integrate UAS into the National Air Space. When approved, these regulations would open the door to much wider UAS use, including for a breadth of possible agricultural applications.  For more information on the proposed FAA regulations, and to provide comments to the FAA on the regulations, see:

As you can see, this is a very murky situation with a lot of what you can’t do and very little on what you can do.  You can confront the person if you find them, but you cannot threaten or use physical force.  You can contact the Sherriff’s department and claim that they are disturbing your animals (if indeed they are doing so).  Chasing animals with drones could be considered animal abuse in some situations, but in all cases, consult your attorney or law enforcement, do not take action into your own hands.  Remember, in the long run, you don’t want to lose the public opinion on an issue while the legislature is trying to provide solutions or you could end up on the bad side of that solution.

Contact your Assembly and Senate members and let them know your position.  Attend meetings, get organized and most of all, communicate to everyone you know when you see drone activity in your area.  Together we can work to stop this.