Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, is back with another onerous intrusion into California’s economy.
Assembly Bill 701 ostensibly aims to protect warehouse distribution center workers from conditions in violation of California labor laws. To do this, Gonzalez seeks to impose rules around how warehouse employers utilize and document quotas to ensure that warehouses don’t force workers into circumstances that violate existing health and safety standards.
Right out of the gate, there’s a built-in redundancy to AB 107 if the goal is simply to protect warehouse workers. California already has robust worker-protection laws.
If warehouses are violating California labor law, there’s no need for an additional law.
Enforcing current law and ensuring Cal/OSHA has the means of doing so should more than suffice.
One of the core tools of AB 701 is opening up alleged violations to the Private Attorneys General Act, which means employers could be hit with considerable, costly lawsuits.
“To be clear — we are not opposed to compliance with existing legal protections related to health and safety (of which AB 701 adds none),” argues a coalition of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce. “Our opposition stems from the overbroad standards contained in AB 701 and the litigation which it will bring on warehouses (and customers in their supply chains) across the state.”
The potential practical impacts of AB 701 in Southern California can’t be overstated.
With the the massive ports on the coast and extensive logistics sector in the Inland Empire, coupled with California’s massive agricultural sector, unleashing an overly broad set of regulations coupled with the threat of litigation could do considerable harm. Employers would inevitably pass on the costs of compliance to consumers in the form of delays or higher prices. And companies considering expanding in California may have another reason to consider shifting across state lines.
Protecting workers from violations of the law is certainly respectable. But Sacramento shouldn’t rush to use the hammer of state law to address legitimate concerns, especially when there are existing means of addressing those concerns.
