For six years, Californians have been able to order a bottle of small-batch whiskey, gin or vodka online and have it delivered straight to their door. That convenience is set to disappear unless state lawmakers act before the legislative session ends this month — and distillers say that outcome looks increasingly unlikely.

The direct-shipping allowance dates back to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-era executive order, which let craft distillers — those producing up to 150,000 gallons annually — mail their products to customers when tasting rooms and retail shelves went dark. Lawmakers have extended the policy several times since, but the latest extension expires Dec. 31.

Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, tried this year to make the shipping allowance permanent by attaching it to one of his bills. He’s not optimistic it will survive.

“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” Hoover said.

Behind the scenes, a coalition of well-funded interests — including major alcohol wholesalers, the Wine Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — has spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state agencies this year, according to disclosure filings. Those same groups have donated at least $11 million to California lawmakers since 2000, including more than $738,000 since the start of the current two-year legislative session.

By contrast, the state’s craft distillers have spent only about $54,000 on lobbying this year and have made just a handful of political contributions over the past decade — including a $42 bottle of whiskey given to former state Sen. Bill Dodd in 2022.

“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills.

Hoover’s Assembly Bill 2211, which would let craft distillers hold tastings and sell spirits away from their distilleries, has moved through the Legislature without a single “no” vote. But Hoover’s effort to attach a permanent direct-shipping provision to the bill has stalled amid the quiet opposition.

Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said his union isn’t against letting small distillers ship their products — but insists deliveries should go through established carriers with actual employees, such as UPS, rather than independent contractors.

“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers,” Broad said, “but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public.”

Representatives for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors said in a joint statement that the shipping allowance “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief” and is “expiring exactly as designed.” They noted that consumers can still have spirits delivered through third-party services such as DoorDash.

Steve Gross, president and CEO of the Wine Institute, said his industry — which has shipped directly to California consumers for decades — isn’t necessarily opposed to distillers gaining the same right. But he argued it would be unfair to grant small distillers delivery privileges while larger spirits producers remain excluded.

“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to, because those larger distillers are not their members.”

With the Legislature set to adjourn Aug. 31, any changes to Hoover’s bill would likely need approval from top Democratic leaders, who have shown little sign of intervening. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who has received at least $108,000 from groups opposing the shipping extension, declined interview requests. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who has received at least $33,000 from the same interests, said in a statement that the bill “will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended.”

Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, both Democrats who chair committees overseeing California’s alcohol industry, also declined to add the shipping provision when Hoover’s bill passed through their panels. A spokesperson for Sen. Rubio said there is currently no formal proposal before the committee to extend the policy, adding that she has supported previous extensions.

For distillers like Steller, the uncertainty is already affecting business decisions. He said he’s begun scaling back on shipments to customers rather than invest further in a program that appears headed for extinction.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.

The dispute underscores how, in Sacramento, deep-pocketed industries can quietly reshape or kill legislation through private negotiations — leaving small businesses like California’s craft distilleries with little leverage against organized opposition.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Big Lobbying Dollars Could End California’s Craft Liquor Delivery Services appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The complaint from the National Labor Relations Board claims that Amazon is a so-called “joint employer” of drivers employed by the contractor, Battle Tested Strategies (BTS), and used a series of illegal tactics to discourage union activities at a facility in Palmdale, California.

BTS drivers voted to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union last year, becoming the first Amazon delivery contractors to unionize.

The NLRB in the complaint, which was issued on Monday, said Amazon broke the law by terminating its contract with BTS after the drivers unionized without first bargaining with the Teamsters.

The board in August had said that it had found merit to the union’s claims that Amazon exerts control over BTS drivers and should be considered their employer under federal labor law. The NLRB at the time said it would issue a complaint unless Amazon settled the case.

Last month, the board said it planned to issue a second complaint involving a different group of Amazon drivers.

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has said in the past that it does not have enough control over drivers’ working conditions to be considered their joint employer.

Joint employment has been one of the most contentious U.S. labor issues over the last decade, and the NLRB’s standard for determining when companies qualify as joint employers has shifted numerous times since the Obama administration. Business groups favor a test that requires direct and immediate control over workers, while unions and Democrats back a standard that covers indirect forms of control.

The case will be heard by an administrative judge in Los Angeles, who is scheduled to hold an initial hearing next March. The judge’s decision can be reviewed by the five-member NLRB, whose rulings can be appealed to federal court.

A ruling that Amazon is a joint employer under federal labor law could be applied in cases involving other Amazon contractors and force the company to bargain with drivers’ unions.

The board, meanwhile, is facing claims by a growing number of companies, including Amazon, that its structure and in-house enforcement proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution.

Amazon has filed a lawsuit against the board seeking to block it from deciding whether the company must bargain with a union representing workers at a New York City warehouse. A federal appeals court on Monday temporarily blocked the NLRB from ruling while it reviews Amazon’s claims.

The post Amazon hit with US labor board complaint over ‘joint employment’ of drivers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.