John Gilmore knows how tough it is for people to scrub their personal data from the internet, even in California, where consumers have privacy rights.

“It’s a very labor-intensive process,” said Gilmore, who heads research at DeleteMe, a company that people can pay to remove their information from websites. “There’s no way for the average person to understand whether the efforts they’re making help or not.”

California was on the cutting edge when it passed a digital privacy law in 2018, but one of the protections it granted has proved difficult for people to use. Though the law gives Californians the right to ask businesses to delete their personal information, it requires making the request one at a time to potentially hundreds of companies. That has made it hard for people to erase their digital footprints, especially because the law has exceptions that allow businesses to deny a deletion request.

Legislation under consideration in Sacramento would make it easier by allowing consumers to make just one request to get every data broker to delete their personal information. Like so many tech policy battles in the state Capitol, it has set off a debate between consumer groups and privacy advocates who argue that Californians deserve more control over their information online, and tech companies and other big businesses that contend the modern economy is built on the flow of data to personalize advertising and other services.

Data brokers collect and sell people’s personal information including their address, age, marital status and occupation. These businesses include well-known credit reporting companies such as Equifax and Experian along with people search websites Spokeo and the Whitepages. But there are hundreds of data brokers that consumers might never have heard of, including those that work with political campaigns, law enforcement, marketers and small businesses. Roughly 500 data brokers are registered in California.

“There’s a lot of risks with our information being out there that people just aren’t aware of,” said Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), who wrote Senate Bill 362 to allow consumers to make one request to get every data broker to delete their personal information. “It’s about giving people control of their personal information.”

The bill, known as the Delete Act, faces a critical vote this Friday as a variety of business groups whose members include tech companies, advertisers, political consultants and credit unions are working to kill it.

Supporters say personal data collected and sold by data brokers — including about people’s location — could be used against abortion seekers, undocumented immigrants and activists. Those who oppose SB 362 say data collection also has benefits, helping businesses serve more relevant ads, law enforcement solve crimes, academics conduct research and nonprofits collect donations.

“California consumers will be posed with this mechanism to delete all of their data and we’re concerned that they won’t fully recognize what all that means,” said Chris Oswald, executive vice president and head of government relations for the Assn. of National Advertisers.

The Consumer Data Industry Assn., which represents credit bureaus and background check companies, said the bill would make it tougher for businesses to quickly verify the identity of consumers. The group launched a website that included 15 reasons why businesses oppose the bill.

“In order for consumers to have free flow to the internet and purchases and transactions, it has to be instantaneous,” said Dan Smith, president and chief executive of the Consumer Data Industry Assn.

Under the legislation, consumers could exclude certain data brokers from their deletion request. Data brokers would be required to delete a consumer’s personal information at least once every 31 days. They would also be barred from selling data or sharing new personal information about the consumer.

Data brokers gather data through various sources including public records such as voter registration and social media posts. They also buy data from retailers and credit card providers that know a lot about their customers’ spending habits.

Gilmore said some of DeleteMe’s California consumers have complained that data brokers don’t respond to requests to delete their data. Companies can also drag out the process for weeks as they try to verify who is making the deletion request. Some of their customers want their data deleted because they’ve seen firsthand how their personal information can be misused, including for identity theft, stalking and harassment, he said.

The bill would make it easier for companies like DeleteMe to remove people’s personal information from data broker websites while encouraging people to get more actively engaged about their privacy, he said. DeleteMe supports the legislation. One step consumers can take, Gilmore said, is limit the amount of information they provide to businesses.

Lawmakers have tried to regulate data brokers before but have failed amid stiff opposition from business groups. Last year, a federal bill to allow people to delete personal information held by data brokers with a single request died, but lawmakers revived similar legislation in January. Becker also introduced a state bill last year that would require data brokers to disclose more information when they register with California, including whether they’ve been breached or collected data of minors. It died in committee.

Supporters of SB 362, including the bill’s sponsor Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, say the concerns of opponents are overblown and California would set a model for the U.S. and the rest of the world if it passed the legislation.

“It will certainly be a steep battle, but we’re optimistic,” said Emory Roane, policy counsel for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. “We think that there’s a real chance that this will get over the line and get to the governor’s desk.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California could make it easier to scrub your personal data from the web. Businesses are pushing back appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ALEJANDRO LAZO | CALMATTERS

Corporations have for years graded themselves on climate change, at times marketing themselves as environmental stewards while failing to fully disclose their emissions. Now California is considering holding corporations more accountable: If approved by the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom, two bills would make California the first state to require large corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and report their risks from climate change.

One bill — already approved by the Senate — would force about 5,300 U.S. corporations earning more than $1 billion and doing business in California to annually report their global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change. Another bill that won Senate approval would require more than 10,000 companies with revenues exceeding $500 million to detail how climate change poses financial risks to their operations, not just in California, but around the world.

From Amazon and Bank of America to McDonalds, Chevron and General Motors, any company that meets the revenue thresholds selling or producing goods or services in California would have to comply with the two wide-ranging measures. The legislation would force companies to reveal their complete carbon footprint, even the emissions coming from the consumers who use their products.

The laws would inevitably lead to highly publicized “top polluters” lists that make major corporations more accountable — and uncomfortable — since their full role in causing climate change and its impact on their finances would be exposed.

The goal is to provide a more complete picture of the tons of global gases that large companies are responsible for and how their company is affected by the warming climate, according to the legislators who introduced the two bills. “This is basic transparency,” said Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco whose SB253 would mandate emissions reporting for billion-dollar companies doing business in California. “It’s important to know which corporations are walking the walk, especially as we see corporations that market themselves as green.” Leading the opposition are California’s Chamber of Commerce and two consortiums of large and powerful industry groups, including the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil companies, the Western Growers Association and an association of stock brokers and investment bankers.

The business groups say the emissions estimates could be inaccurate, resulting in misguided public policy, while putting an onerous burden on companies. The bill “will generate a lot of misinformation,” said CalChamber lobbyist Brady Van Engelen. In addition, Van Engnelen called the other bill that mandates climate-related financial risk reports “a gold-plated exercise in gathering information.” The reports would include vulnerabilities to shareholder value, consumer demand, supply chains, employee safety, loans and other economic threats that may be amplified by changing climate and more extreme weather events. “Reporting regimes are kind of the wild west of the climate policy world,” Van Engelen said. “These reports aren’t free, it’s not like you just get to press ‘control P’ and have a report.” Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat from Calabasas said his climate risk reporting bill, SB261, would not be a burden on industry because it adopts an internationally recognized standard for risk reporting and levels the playing field for corporations that already disclose climate risks to their businesses. Stern said he is working with the Chamber to address its concerns.

After both bills won Senate approval, they will next be heard by the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee in the coming weeks. Wiener authored a similar emissions bill that fell four votes short of passage on the last night of last year’s legislative session.

He made some concessions to ease the burden on companies. California already has a law requiring some companies — power companies, industrial facilities and fuel suppliers — to report greenhouse gases emitted exclusively in the state. But these new legislative efforts would substantially broaden that. California is responsible for less than 1% of global greenhouse gases, with transportation the biggest source, followed by industrial emissions, power plants and agriculture.

Total emissions in the state declined 14% between 1990 and 2020 — but have likely grown since that initial pandemic year, when many businesses shut down and people drove less, according to the Air Resources Board. “Unfortunately there’s no place that’s affected (by climate change) more directly than California,” said Steven M. Rothstein, a managing director with Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability group that supports both measures. “So the basic idea is that if you’re running a business, you want to have good information about your risks and your opportunities.” Economic activity has long been the principal driver of the world’s changing climate, and over the last two decades, organizations have sought uniform standards for reporting corporations’ emissions and the risks they face from rising temperatures.

The United Kingdom already requires companies to report their emissions and the European Union will begin requiring companies to track emissions next year and report them in 2025. The Biden administration’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed standards that would require publicly traded companies to report verified greenhouse gas emissions and report climate-related financial risks. The issue has become political: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a ban in May on investment practices that take environmental and social concerns into account; President Joe Biden vetoed a similar bill earlier this year.

California’s proposals would have more impact because they would require private companies to comply and they would have more stringent emissions reporting requirements, said Catherine Atkin, a climate attorney who formed the group Carbon Accountable to advocate for the bill. “The SEC is pursuing rulemaking on this, but it has been a little rocky. It’s unclear where exactly that’s going to land, so it’s really important for California to lead,” Wiener said. The new policies come as major corporations seek ways to promote themselves as green and socially responsible.

Out of the top 500 U.S. companies that are publicly traded, 92% report about their activities related to environmental and social issues, according to the Governance & Accountability Institute. The reality, however, is that facing few actual mandates, companies can selectively report their emissions and portray themselves favorably, leading in some instances to greenwashing.

The long chain of corporate emissions

Businesses would have to report not only the tons of gases they emit globally from their operations and energy use, but also from less direct sources, such as emissions from their supply chains, contractors and use of their products. These less-direct sources, called “Scope 3” emissions, have raised the concerns of business groups.

A 2021 article in the Harvard Business Review said such protocols could lead to the same emissions being reported multiple times by different companies, a critique that CalChamber echoes. Harvard professor Robert Kaplan, one of the paper’s authors, said California lawmakers should allow companies to exclude emissions that come from the use of their products. “Companies have virtually no control over how their customers use their products and services,” he said. “But they have a great deal of control over the emissions in the products and services they purchase.”

Wiener said he “completely disagrees,” calling the protocol the “gold standard” for reporting greenhouse gases. “Alternative accounting systems are totally inappropriate for understanding each individual corporation’s carbon emissions — which is the whole point of SB253,” Wiener said. He said corporations need to “understand their own individualized carbon emissions…to shape their supply chain, which can account for over 90% of their overall emissions.” Matthew Fisher, whose software company Watershed estimates emissions for businesses, said it is relatively straightforward.

The company’s clients include delivery app DoorDash and the restaurant chain sweetgreen. “The regulations that you see around the globe… all say a very similar thing, which is, estimates are fine,” said Fisher. He said the company can pretty easily “give a high-caliber estimate” with just company data, “without needing to go to your supply chain.” Van Engelen, the California Chamber of Commerce lobbyist, said the emissions reporting requirements could result in smaller or mid-sized businesses losing contracts with the larger corporations because those smaller companies might not have a full account of their own emissions.

What’s more, he said, businesses of all sizes might be reluctant to expand their operations because emissions might be counted against them. Under Wiener’s bill, the emissions disclosures would need to be independently verified by an outside auditor, and businesses would pay an annual fee of up to $1,000 to cover state administrative costs. Of the 5,300 U.S. corporations that would have to report their emissions, about 73% are private companies, according to Ceres.

Many publicly traded companies already report climate risks in their financial disclosure reports. The other bill would require the companies to report their financial risks by adhering to rules created by The Financial Stability Board, an international financial regulatory body.

About 80% of the 10,400 affected companies would be private, according to the sustainability group Ceres. The debate comes as climate change is leading to more heat waves, swings between droughts and floods, wildfires and hurricanes. As of June 8, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had confirmed nine disasters exceeding $1 billion in impacts this year.

The annual average over the previous five years was 18, compared with only eight each year from 1980 to 2022, adjusted for inflation. Researchers recently reported that greenhouse gas emissions are worsening California’s wildfires, according to a recent study by academic researchers in Spain and California.

Stern said his bill is aimed at getting corporations to be honest about these new realities. “This is about getting the corporate and financial sector to look at things that are very material and concededly quite inconvenient,” Stern said. “None of this is going to necessarily be good news. ‘Oh, there are more wildfires than ever, there is more drought risk than ever.’ Those are all uncomfortable truths that we are wrestling with.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California may force large businesses to disclose climate impacts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Companies would be required to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce and how climate risk affects their business under new rules proposed Monday by the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a drive across the government to address climate change.

Under the proposals adopted on a 3-1 SEC vote, public companies would have to report on their climate risks, including the costs of moving away from fossil fuels, as well as risks related to the physical impact of storms, drought and higher temperatures caused by global warming. They would be required to lay out their transition plans for managing climate risk, how they intend to meet climate goals and progress made, and the impact of severe weather events on their finances.

The number of investors seeking more information on risk related to global warming has grown dramatically in recent years. Many companies already provide climate-risk information voluntarily. The idea is that, with uniform required information, investors would be able to compare companies within industries and sectors.

“Companies and investors alike would benefit from the clear rules of the road” in the proposal, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler said.

The required disclosures would include greenhouse gas emissions produced by companies directly or indirectly — such as from consumption of the company’s products, vehicles used to transport products, employee business travel and energy used to grow raw materials.

The SEC issued voluntary guidance in 2010, but this is the first time mandatory disclosure rules were put forward. The rules were opened to a public comment period of around 60 days and they could be modified before any final adoption.

Climate activists and investor groups have clamored for mandatory disclosure of information that would be uniformly required of all companies. The advocates estimate that excluding companies’ indirect emissions would leave out some 75% of greenhouse gas emissions.

“Investors can only assess risks if they know they exist,” Mike Litt, consumer campaigns director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said in a prepared statement. “Americans’ retirement accounts and other savings could be endangered if we don’t acknowledge potential liabilities caused by climate change and take them seriously.”

“Climate risks and harms are growing across our communities with threats to our economy,” said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. “Investors, pension fund managers and the public need better information about the physical and transition-related risks that climate change poses to hard-earned investments,”

On the other hand, major business interests and Republican officials — reaching down to the state level — began mobilizing against the climate disclosures long before the SEC unveiled the proposed rules Monday, exposing the sharply divided political dynamic of the climate issue.

Hester Peirce, the sole Republican among the four SEC commissioners, voted against the proposal. “We cannot make such fundamental changes without harming” companies, investors and the SEC, she said. “The results won’t be reliable, let alone comparable.”

The SEC action is part of a governmentwide effort to identify climate risks, with new regulations planned from various agencies touching on the financial industry, housing and agriculture, among other areas. President Joe Biden issued an executive order last May calling for concrete steps to blunt climate risks, while spurring job creation and helping the U.S. reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Biden has made slowing climate change a top priority and has set a target to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 52% below 2005 levels by 2030. He also has said he expects to adopt a clean-energy standard that would make electric power carbon-free by 2035, along with the wider goal of net-zero carbon emissions through the economy by 2050.

“This is a huge step forward to protect our economy and boost transparency for investors and the public,” White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy tweeted as the SEC acted.

The premier business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top trade group, expressed objections in letters to the SEC last year.

Frank Macchiarola, senior vice president of policy, economics and regulatory affairs at API, said Monday the group is concerned that the SEC’s proposal could require disclosure of information that isn’t significant for investors’ decisions, “and create confusion for investors and capital markets.”

“As the (SEC) pursues a final rule, we encourage them to collaborate with our industry and build on private-sector efforts that are already underway to improve consistency and comparability of climate-related reporting,” Macchiarola said in a statement.

The threat that opponents could take the SEC to court over the regulations has loomed.

Last June, a group of 16 Republican state attorneys general, led by Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, raised objections in a letter to SEC Chairman Gensler. “Companies are well positioned to decide whether and how to satisfy the market’s evolving demands, for both customers and investors,” they said. “If the (SEC) were to move forward in this area, however, it would be delving into an inherently political morass for which it is ill-suited.”

Morrisey previously threatened to sue the SEC over expanded disclosures from companies of environmental, social and governance information.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post New corporate climate change disclosures proposed by SEC appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Sameea Kamal | CalMatters

Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders agree to restore California paid sick leave for COVID-19. Here’s what you need to know.

California workers will soon again have access to as much as two weeks paid time off for COVID-related sick leave, under a deal announced today by the governor and legislative leaders.

The agreement comes amid the continued omicron surge and the resulting labor shortage across the state’s workforce, including health care, schools and public transit. And it may be just in time: The number of Californians who were not working in the last month because they or a family member had COVID-19 increased by 320%, according to a California Budget and Policy Center analysis of census data.

California workers have been without extra paid time off for COVID – on top of just three days of regular paid sick leave – since a statewide program ended Sept. 30. But the pandemic has peaked again since then. And labor groups and advocates have been lobbying for months to restore it.

Under the deal negotiated by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, the new leave program will be retroactive to Jan. 1 and extend through Sept. 30.

In his budget proposal on Jan. 10, Newsom said he wanted the leave reinstated, though details were unclear. With the agreement, the Legislature will act on Newsom’s emergency budget request for COVID-related programs, well before the regular budget is approved in June.

Related:

One of the key negotiating points was to offset the costs to businesses, especially smaller ones. As with the previous leave, the new leave only covers employers with 26 or more workers, and the state will provide tax credits to companies.

“California’s ability to take early budget action will protect workers and provide real relief to businesses reeling from this latest surge,” the joint announcement said. “By extending sick leave to frontline workers with COVID and providing support for California businesses, we can help protect the health of our workforce, while also ensuring that businesses and our economy are able to thrive.”

Here’s what we know about the deal so far:

Who can use the leave?

Any full-time employee of a company that has 26 or more workers is entitled to 40 hours of paid leave due to COVID. That doesn’t cover getting the vaccine or recovering from side effects: in that instance, a worker gets 24 hours.

But to get an additional 40 hours of paid leave, workers would have to show proof that they or a family member has tested positive. This provision is apparently to address concerns from the California Chamber about possible fraud by employees. Employers must pay for and provide the test. If a worker refuses to take a test or show a positive test result, no additional sick leave will be granted.

Under current health guidelines, anyone who tests positive should quarantine for five days, regardless of vaccination status. While the number of daily cases has dipped to an average of 95,000 , that’s still significantly more than during the delta variant surge last year.

The leave will be retroactive to any time off starting Jan. 1. But making only employees at larger businesses eligible leaves out three in 10 workers , the budget center says.

What do businesses get?

Last year, they were reimbursed for the supplemental paid leave with a federal tax credit, which is no longer available.

This time, businesses will have to absorb the costs, but they will be helped by restoring tax credits for research and development and net operating losses, through tax relief for recipients of federal relief grants for restaurants and shuttered venues and additional funding for more small business grants.

Cal Chamber President and CEO Jennifer Barrera said any new sick leave mandate should be limited in duration, have “reasonable parameters” and shouldn’t overly burden businesses.

“Employers are committed to the safety of their employees and the workplace and are well aware of the broad public health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Barrera said in a statement. “But elected leaders must ensure a balanced policy so that private sector employers, who are also struggling to remain afloat during these surges and the broader pandemic, are not unfairly shouldering the cost of COVID-19.”

What do labor groups say?

Unions representing workers in industries including healthcare and food service applauded the deal.

“We know we can’t wait for employers to keep us safe – we have to advocate for ourselves, and Governor Newsom and legislators listened,” said Bob Schoonover, president of SEIU California. “SEIU members feel proud to have been a part of this critical decision that protects our communities – working people and people of color, who have been at the frontlines as we battle this virus.”

The United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council said that workers can stay home without the fear of losing two weeks of pay, or their job.

“Paid sick leave is an essential part of public health and we urge Governor Newsom and our legislative champions to act immediately to sign a bill into law ensuring workers can access this basic benefit working people need to stay safe and healthy.”

Labor unions are key supporters of Democratic officials, and their volunteers and money will be at a premium for legislators and the governor in this year’s elections. Last year, SEIU contributed $6.6 million to help Newsom defeat the recall effort.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post What’s in the California paid sick leave deal for workers and businesses? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Democratic-led House is unlikely to take it up, which means the mandate would stand, though courts have put it on hold for now. Still, the vote would senators a chance to come out against a policy that they say has sparked fears back home from businesses and from unvaccinated constituents who worry about losing their jobs should the rule go into effect.

“Every so often Washington D.C. does something that lights up the phone lines. This is one of these moments,” said Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. At home, he said, “this issue is what I hear about. This issue is a top-of-mind issue.”

Lawmakers can invalidate certain federal agency regulations if a joint resolution is approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, or if Congress overrides a presidential veto. That’s unlikely to happen in this case.

Under the rule, private-sector companies with 100 or more workers must require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested for the virus weekly and wear masks on the job. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it would work with companies on compliance but would fine them up to $13,653 for each violation, though enforcement is suspended as the litigation unfolds.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Americans who have refused to get vaccinated are the biggest impediment to ending the pandemic. He implied that some of the resistance to mandated vaccines is based on politics.

“Some of the anti-vaxxers here in this chamber remind me of what happened 400 years ago when people were clinging to the fact that the sun revolved around the Earth. They just didn’t believe science. Or 500 years ago when they were sure the Earth was flat,” Schumer said.

Schumer said social media has played a role in spreading falsehoods about the vaccine, and “so has the far right.” He urged senators to vote against the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind.

“The worst thing we can do is to tie our own hands behind our backs, and let these new variants spread and grow and new ones after omicron and so many others,” Schumer said. “But that is what Republican-pushed, anti-vaccines would do.”

Republicans said they are supportive of the vaccine, but that the mandate amounts to government overreach. They said it may even contribute to people not getting vaccinated.

“I think, actually, the mandate has made it worse in terms of hardening people who don’t want to be told what to do by the government,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said a telephone town hall she recently held with constituents made clear they are concerned about their long-term ability to keep a job if the mandate goes into effect.

“If you look at my state, 40% of my state’s workforce stands to lose their job under this mandate,” Capito said. “It will be a killer to our economy.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., indicated last week he would join with Republicans in voting to void the vaccine rule, saying in a tweet that he does not support any federal vaccine mandate for private businesses. In an evenly divided Senate, one Democrat joining all Republicans would be enough to pass the resolution.

Deaths in the United States stemming from COVID-19 are running close to 1,600 a day on average. The overall U.S. death toll less than two years into the pandemic could soon reach 800,000.

KEVIN FREKING | AP News

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Senate aims to reject Biden’s vaccine mandate for businesses appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than six weeks after promising a new vaccination-or-testing rule covering the millions of Americans at companies with 100 or more workers, President Joe Biden’s most aggressive move yet to combat the COVID-19 pandemic is almost ready to see the light of day.

An obscure White House office is expected to give the green light any day to the rule’s fine print detailing how and when companies will have to require their employees to be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing.

The full enforcement deadline, which could carry penalties of about $14,000 per violation, may not take effect until after the new year. That’s why Biden and his aides have for weeks encouraged businesses to act as though the rule was already in effect and start imposing vaccination requirements.

The regulation, to be published in the Federal Register, was drafted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under emergency authorities to protect worker safety and will cover an estimated 80 million U.S. workers. The White House sees it as a potent tool to winnow down the ranks of roughly 65 million Americans who have thus far refused to get a shot.

Unlike healthcare providers or federal employees, who may not have a testing alternative to vaccination, private sector workers won’t necessarily face termination if they don’t get vaccinated. But some businesses may choose to impose their own more stringent vaccination mandate, and it’s possible that businesses may be allowed to pass on the cost of weekly COVID-19 testing to their unvaccinated employees.

White House officials declined to discuss when the rule will be published or go into details on when businesses will have to comply.

For the last week, federal officials have hosted more than two dozen listening sessions with industry groups, businesses and advocacy organizations. Some have been supportive of the rule, others vehemently opposed, but all are eager to learn more about the fine print of the regulation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups that represent large employers are worried that the proposal’s threshold -– applying to companies with 100 or more employees – could cause workers to migrate to jobs at smaller employers where they won’t need to be vaccinated.

“We really stressed the concern about employers losing employees, and what that would mean in the context of current supply-chain challenges and the upcoming holiday season,” said Marc Freedman, vice president for employment policy at the Chamber of Commerce. “You could start to see some very serious disruptions.”

Freedman, who took part in the chamber’s call with administration officials, said the 100-worker threshold would also hurt job creation by giving employers who have 90 or 95 employees a reason not to expand.

The experience of United Airlines and health-care providers that acted early to require vaccination suggests that very few employees will give up their jobs because of a vaccine mandate. United says about 200 of its 67,000 U.S. workers face termination for refusing to get vaccinated and another 2,000 are still seeking medical or religious exemptions.

State government vaccination mandate deadlines went into effect this week in Washington state, Massachusetts and New Jersey after a host of legal challenges by state employees and first responders’ unions.

In Washington, the state patrol lost 127 employees, including 67 troopers, who left due to the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for state employees, about 6% of the agency’s staff, officials said.

The Northwest state’s mandate also led to the high-profile firing of Washington State football coach Nick Rolovich and his four assistants, who wouldn’t get vaccinated.

In Massachusetts, nearly 1,600 state employees had not proved they were vaccinated or had sought a vaccine exemption by a Sunday deadline. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker announced in August that some 44,000 executive branch workers and contractors would be required to get vaccinated or face suspension and ultimately the loss of their jobs.

The National Association of Manufacturers is arguing that companies should get credit — perhaps an exemption from the rules — for taking early steps to get a high percentage of workers vaccinated. Manufacturers have expressed worry that they could see higher quit rates because many plants are located in rural areas where opposition to vaccination is stronger.

The manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are also pushing the administration to let employers make unvaccinated workers pay for their own weekly COVID-19 testing.

“A lot of our members feel strongly that the vaccine is widely available, it is free, and so if a person opts not to be vaccinated potentially the onus of the test can and should fall on the employee who has made a choice not to vaccinate,” said Robyn Boerstling, a NAM vice president. She said employers should pay for testing if an employee has a medical condition or a “proven and true” religious reason for seeking an exemption.

Business groups, however, are not optimistic on the test-cost issue, saying that OSHA has a history of making employers bear the cost of new regulations.

Retailers are worried about the timing of the new regulation taking effect as they prepare for the critical holiday season. They want to push the rule’s effective date into next year.

Several people who took part in the discussions with the Office of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is doing the final review of the proposal, said they got no hints whether their arguments would sway the administration. They described conference-call meetings –- virtual because of the pandemic -– in which White House staffers listened and did not respond to their arguments.

It is not clear how the business community will respond once the final rule is published.

Business officials said legal challenges are more likely to come from Republican-led states such as Texas. And Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the conservative Job Creators Network, reiterated his pledge Tuesday after meeting with the White House officials to sue to block the rule’s implementation. Two dozen attorneys general in GOP states vowed last month to use “every available legal option” to kill the mandate.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Businesses nervously await fine print of vax-or-test rule appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With so much at stake, the agency that manages the tax revenue generated from these transactions has started to examine the effects of the population’s net migration. At times, the research may prompt more questions than answers.

California Controller Betty Yee released a report last month using 2019 data, titled “The Impact of Migration on California Income Tax Revenues.” The agency surmised it’s too soon to tell whether those moving out of the state during a pandemic year have upset the balance of government financial coffers, even if a steady flow of migrants have moved in.

From 2015 to 2018, the data showed a net reduction in tax revenue from those coming in compared to residents departing by 0.2% of California’s personal income tax revenue. The state stands to gain or lose at least $1 billion in personal income tax revenue from residents in flux because of the gap between the departing residents paying in the previous year and migrants handing over payments the year after arrival, the Controller’s Office reported. In that respect, the shift represents a strain on state coffers.

The state’s income tax ranges from 1% to 12.3% — with an additional 1% surcharge on taxable incomes of more than $1 million.

When a business wanders

Since California first adopted a corporate income tax in 1929 and a personal income tax six years later, finance stakeholders have asserted high tax rates would squash the state’s economy.

Nevada jumped on that opportunity in 1937 by mailing out brochures to thousands of millionaires across the nation suggesting they relocate to low-tax Nevada. The Silver State boasted no corporation, state income and inheritance taxes.

A top-of-mind issue with rising costs causing many to flee California, businesses leaving the state totaled 18,000 between 2008 and 2016, according to data analyzed by CNBC.

“We are not aware of any popular reports on the number of businesses moving to California, so it is not clear what the net movement of businesses is,” the report reads.

The comings and goings of companies out of the state are hard to measure from tax data because a business may simply cease to exist and therefore not pay. The issue becomes more complicated when only part of the business moves. There, the state sets the tax bill as a “single sales apportionment,” which accounts for the percentage of sales made in that state.

Another consideration to resident and business migration is a lesser-known feature of California tax law called “source taxation.” California imposes tax bills on all business income earned in the state regardless of where the owner lives. So if an owner flees the state but continues to operate a business in California, the income is still taxed.

What happens when property tax revenue during a state exodus or home sell-off is reduced — especially since many local governments allowed residents to delay tax bills due to COVID-19 hardships?

“It’s too early to tell,” said Barbara Green, who works as the change-in-ownership supervisor in the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office. At this point, the local government’s tax management division is too busy to make that assessment because of the multitude of applications to transfer taxes from one property to another within the state’s boundaries for the over age 55 subset, she said.

The basis for Proposition 19, approved by voters last fall and effective at year-end, may account for a massive reduction in property tax revenue for each jurisdiction, especially if a resident is migrating in from a less expensive locale.

To Napa County Assessor John Tuteur, migration may hinge on the generation that’s moving. “It depends on what age we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the (age) over 55, they’re taking advantage of the tax transfers. But I would guess that more than half the homebuyers are under 55,” Tuteur said. “What in-state migration we’ve had has helped.”

SUSAN WOOD | NB BUSINESS JOURNAL

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California worries it could lose $1B in taxes from exiting residents, businesses appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DETROIT (AP) — Sales of new vehicles in the U.S. fell 14.6% last year, but a second-half rebound from a coronavirus-related plunge in the spring kindled optimism for a recovery later this year.

Automakers on Tuesday reported selling 14.57 million new vehicles for the year, a far cry from the five previous years with sales over 17 million. But the 2020 performance was better than most forecasters had expected when the pandemic forced auto factories and many dealerships to shut down in April and May.

General Motors Chief Economist Elaine Buckberg said she expects sales to recover in the spring. With warmer weather and widening novel coronavirus vaccinations, life should return more toward normal, lifting the job market and auto demand, she said in a statement.

“We feel like there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” said Randy Parker, vice president of sales for Hyundai Motor America. “I think it’s going to be a solid year.”

But Parker said he’s still cautious, with hospitals overflowing in California and cases rising in other states. “It’s far from over,” he said. “We can’t afford to let our guard down at this point.”

Last spring, unemployment skyrocketed as states imposed lockdowns and other measures to limit the virus’ spread. Auto sales tumbled 34% in the first half of the year as factories closed for about two months, cutting off the supply of new vehicles.

But as the summer came, people with jobs started splurging on loaded-out cars, trucks and SUVs late in the year. That and low interest rates drove sales up and pushed the average auto sales price to a record of just over $38,000 in December, according to J.D. Power. Also in December, sales rose 5% from the same month in 2019, and GM said its sales improved every month since May.

“Those that haven’t been financially impacted by the pandemic are redistributing funds from travel to home improvement, house purchasing and vehicles,” said Jeff Schuster, president of global vehicle forecasting for the LMC Automotive consulting firm.

Automakers still haven’t been able to make up for production lost during their factory closures, and that has kept inventory tight and limited buyers’ choices to more expensive vehicles, Schuster said.

Retail sales to individual buyers are close to normal levels, but sales to fleet buyers such as rental car companies are still down.

Analysts say the higher prices and tight inventory won’t be changing much anytime soon.

“These factors will continue into 2021, with supply lagging demand and reflected in higher prices for new and used vehicles,” said Karl Brauer, executive analyst for the iSeeCars.com auto website.

Schuster said he expects 2021 sales to rise to 15.7 million this year as inventory improves in the second and third quarters. He doesn’t expect a return to 17 million until at least 2024.

Among automakers, GM’s sales were down 11.9% for the year, while Toyota sales were off 11.4%. Ford fell 15.4%, while Fiat Chrysler was off 17.4%. Struggling Nissan reported sales down 33.2% for the year, while Honda fell 16.3% and Hyundai sales dropped 10%. Volkswagen Group was down 12.8%, while Subaru sales were off 12.6%.

For the year, sales of fully electric vehicles rose 9.9% to 260,092, according to Autodata Corp.

Sales of cars continued to fall, dropping to 28.3% of the market, with trucks and SUVs making up 71.7%.

Ford’s F-Series pickups remained the nation’s top-selling vehicle with 787,422 sales, down 12.2%. The Chevrolet Silverado was second at 586,675, up 2.8%. The Silverado ousted Fiat Chrysler’s Ram pickup from the No. 2 slot. It passed the Silverado in 2019. Toyota’s RAV4 was the top-selling SUV at 430,387 in sales, while the Toyota Camry was the most popular car with 294,348 in sales.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Late sales rebound helps US automakers avoid 2020 disaster appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A group of Google engineers and other workers announced Monday they have formed a union, creating a rare foothold for the labor movement in the tech industry.

About 225 employees at Google and its parent company Alphabet are the first dues-paying members of the Alphabet Workers Union. They represent a fraction of Alphabet’s workforce, far short of the threshold needed to get formal recognition as a collective bargaining group in the U.S.

But the new union, which will be affiliated with the larger Communication Workers of America, says it will serve as a “structure that ensures Google workers can actively push for real changes at the company.” Its members say they want more of a voice not just on wages, benefits and protections against discrimination and harassment but also broader ethical questions about how Google pursues its business ventures.

The unionization campaign is the latest signal from employees who don’t believe the company is living up to its professed ideals, as expressed in its original “Don’t be evil” slogan.

Google said Monday that it’s tried to create a supportive and rewarding workplace but suggested it won’t be negotiating directly with the union.

“Of course our employees have protected labor rights that we support,” said a statement from Kara Silverstein, the company’s director of people operations. ”But as we’ve always done, we’ll continue engaging directly with all our employees.”

Unionization campaigns haven’t historically been able to gain much traction among elite tech workers, who get hefty salaries and other perks like free food and shuttle rides to work. But workplace activism at Google and other big tech firms has grown in recent years as employees call for better handling of sexual harassment and discrimination and avoiding harmful uses of the products they’re helping to build and sell.

Many employees began seeing the power of their workplace activism in 2018 when an internal outcry led Google to abandon its work supplying the Pentagon with artificial intelligence services for conflict zones. Later in 2018, thousands of Google employees walked out to protest how the company handled sexual misconduct allegations against executives.

Google software engineer Chewy Shaw, who has been elected to the new union’s executive council, said he and others decided to form the group after seeing colleagues pushed out of their roles for their activism.

“We want to have a counterforce to protect workers who are speaking up,” Shaw said.

The latest examples came last month, when prominent AI ethics researcher Timnit Gebru says she was fired over a research paper that Google wanted to disassociate from; and as a federal labor agency filed a complaint accusing the company of spying on employees and then firing some of them during a 2019 effort to organize a union. Google has denied the allegations in the case, which is scheduled for an April hearing.

The union’s first members include engineers, as well as sales associates, administrative assistants and the workers who test self-driving vehicles at Alphabet automotive division Waymo. Many work at Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters, while others are at offices in Massachusetts, New York and Colorado.

“One of the reasons why it’s taken a while for workers to get to this point is because the leaders of these companies did a good job of convincing workers they were these benevolent folks who were going to provide for them, kind of a paternalistic model,” said Beth Allen, communications director at the CWA.

“That got them a long way,” Allen said, but workers have increasingly realized they need “to come together and build power for themselves and have a voice in what’s going on.”

The National Labor Relations Board typically recognizes petitions to form new unions when they get interest from at least 30% of employees in a given location or job classification in the U.S.; a majority of affected workers must then vote to form one. Alphabet has a global workforce of roughly 130,000.

Allen said the Alphabet Workers Union is not currently planning to pursue official recognition as a collective bargaining group. Instead, she said it will work similarly to public sector unions in states that don’t allow public employees to bargain collectively.

“We’d love to get direct legal representation but the focus right now is we’re not going to depend on that,” Shaw said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Google workers form new labor union, a tech industry rarity appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) announced Tuesday that Riverside County will move back to the state’s purple tier, which is the most restrictive tier that requires several types of businesses and places of worship to move outside. These places will need to change operations to outside only within 72 hours.

The state’s decision to move Riverside County back to the purple tier ends the week-long adjudication process that Riverside County requested with the state last week. Riverside County will need to remain in the purple tier for at least three weeks and meet the red tier metrics for two of those weeks before returning to the red tier.

Riverside County’s metrics include a 5.2 positivity rate and 9.1 case rate. While the positivity rate is within the red tier range, the case rate – cases per 100,000 people – is within the purple tier. Riverside County’s case rate is also worsened by the state’s upwards adjustment for not reaching the statewide median of PCR swab tests.

More Riverside County residents are getting tested for the virus at approximately 195 people a day per 100,00 residents, up from 139 in early September. The statewide testing median is 239 people a day per 100,000 residents.

All residents are encouraged to take a PCR swab test to contain the disease and help reach the red tier metrics. Anyone, with or without symptoms or health insurance, can take a free PCR swab test from a county or state-run site. Visit GetTested.ruhealth.org or call (800) 945-6171 to make an appointment. Other testing options can be found online at: https://covid19.ca.gov/get-tested/ .

The best ways for residents to protect themselves and loved ones is to continue to wear face coverings, avoid social gatherings and mixing of households, keep six feet of distance from others and frequent handwashing. Health officials note that when all these things are done, we protect ourselves up to 95 percent.

The return to the purple tier will adversely impact small businesses like restaurants and gyms which were able to provide indoor services in the red tier after having business operations restricted for several months throughout the course of the pandemic. The state also announced that all personal care services were moved into the purple reopening tier and may continue inside operations.

Schools that have already opened for in-person instruction may continue to do so. Schools and school districts that have not already opened for in-person instruction will need to obtain a waiver, approved by the Riverside County Public Health Officer and CDPH. For a complete list of all schools that have applied for, or received approval for, a waiver, visit https://www.rivcoph.org/SchoolWaiver .

Other actions the County of Riverside is taking to address the rising number of cases in the community include a coordinated mobile testing strategy to bring pop up testing sites closer to the community to improve access within specific workplaces and areas. In addition, the county is increasing outreach efforts and partnerships with community-based and faith-based organizations that serve hard-to-reach communities.

Follow official sources for information, including Riverside University Health System-Public Health on Facebook and @RivCoDoc on Twitter. For more information on which businesses are affected, visit https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/ . For more information on safe business reopening guidance and other business resources, visit www.rivcobizhelp.org.

-Riverside County

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post State announces Riverside County moved back to purple tier, businesses to adjust within 72 hours appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.