Chamber Legislative Positions

* On April 26, the San Marcos Chamber signed onto a coalition formed by Cal Chamber to oppose AB 2095, labeled a “Job Killer’ by Cal Chamber.

AB 2095 forces employers to publicly disclose information regarding labor and employment issues for employees across the entire company. That information will unfairly be used to label employers as “high road” or “low road” and subject them to a loss of state opportunities and incentives, and to frivolous litigation. This measure is a shameless ploy to use the power of the State to force companies to develop an extensive database to enable fishing expeditions in support of litigation or public relations campaigns.

* The San Marcos Chamber agreed to join a coalition to oppose AB 2932 on April 11, 2022.

Increased Overtime Requirement. Significantly increases labor costs by imposing an overtime pay requirement after 32 hours and other requirements that are impossible to comply with, exposing employers to litigation under PAGA.

* The San Marcos Chamber signed a letter of opposition to SB 1044 on March 15, 2022.

SB 1044 (Durazo) – Oppose

• The bill would allow workers to leave work or refuse to show up without notice if they subjectively feel unsafe during a state of emergency, which are often left in place for years at a time. Newsom has had to terminate more than 80 old states of emergency during his term, including some going back 10 years.
• Existing health and safety protections already allow workers the right to refuse unlawful or dangerous work, including to leave if there is an evacuation. This undermines existing laws by making the decision as to whether something is “unsafe” subjective to the employee only. For example, if this law were in effect today, every public and private worker could walk out due to COVID, regardless of what protections their employer is taking or even if the employer is going above and beyond what is required by law.
• Undermines safety of the public by not exempting first responders, healthcare, etc.
• Opens companies up to litigation under PAGA if they discipline the employee or replace the employee, which would likely be seen as retaliation