Fiona Ma for State Assembly: News

Calif. Senate Passes Bill Cracking Down On Free Paper Thefts

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

CHICAGO A divided California state Senate is sending to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger legislation intended to prevent the mass theft of free newspapers, a lightly punished crime now that's growing in frequency in parts of the state.

By a 21-16 vote, the Senate passed a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma that requires recyclers to pay by check, and record the identity information of anyone bringing in more than $50 worth of newspapers, about 840 pounds.

Free paper publishers in the San Francisco Bay Area have been alarmed by brazen thefts pulled off by people who follow delivery trucks and steal the bundled newspapers or all copies in a newsracks. They bring them to recycling centers, which pay in cash.

The bill, AB 1778, was supported by the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and opposed by recycling companies which did not like the record-keeping requirements.

The law, which if signed by Schwarzenegger would take effect next Jan. 1, also applies to aluminum cans, and glass and plastic bottles.

"These recycling raiders must be brought out from the shadows," said Assemblywoman Ma. "Assembly Bill 1778 restores order to neighborhoods that are trashed in the middle of the night. With the price of recycled materials on the rise, recycling theft has become a lucrative business."

Calif. law aims to halt recyclcing thefts

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The California Senate has approved legislation that would help police track down people who raid recycling bins or steal newspapers from newsstands.

The measure by Democratic Assemblywoman Fiona Ma would require recyclers to collect identification from people who bring in more than $100 in recyclable bottles and cans or more than $50 worth of newspapers.

They would also be paid by check instead of cash.

The San Francisco assemblywoman says the bill is aimed at stopping people from making late-night raids on curbside recycling bins and stealing newspapers.

A 21-16 vote Friday sent the bill to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments.

Bodies Exhibitions Face Possible Ban in California

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

In an unprecedented victory for human rights activists, California legislators have passed a new law that would ban the display of unclaimed bodies from China for profit in the state.

Majority Whip Fiona Ma of San Francisco who introduced the legislation said its passage shows that California does not accept the commercial exploitation of the deceased.

"This bill will end the practice of unwilled dead-body trafficking," said Ma after her bill recently passed in both the Assembly and the Senate by an overwhelming majority.

ABC News 20/20 interviewed Ma during a four-month investigation of Premier Exhibitions, a publicly traded company that displays the remains of "unclaimed" Chinese people across the country and around the world for about $25 a ticket.

The investigation found that the bodies on display could have been those of executed prisoners.

Ma told ABC News she became suspicious about the exhibitions when she realized that all of the bodies on display were Chinese.

"As an Asian American, I know that few people from my community would voluntarily donate their organs or bodies due to the strong cultural preference of leaving their body intact for burial after death," said Ma. "I am hopeful that the bill will receive the Governor's signature and the practice of unwilled body trafficking will be put to a halt."

Ma's bill is on its way to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but a spokesperson for the Governor said he does not have a position on bills until they reach his desk.

The bill will prohibit the commercial display of human remains after the start of 2010 unless exhibitors file an affidavit to the Attorney General attesting that the donors consented to being put on display, and requires that the exhibitors maintain a paper trail for public inspection.

The state will fine any exhibitor $50,000 per violation if the company fails to maintain the consent forms, and will prohibit the company from continuing to display bodies for profit.

Up until 2010 the bill requires that exhibitors post clear and conspicuous disclosure statements to inform consumers whether or not the bodies on display came from consenting donors.

Premier is currently exhibiting nine "BODIES…the Exhibition" shows around the world, which the company says displays unclaimed bodies from China.

In Redding, Calif., Premier is exhibiting "Bodies Revealed," a show which the company says displays bodies and specimens from consenting Chinese donors.

Ma said she doubts that any Chinese person would voluntarily agree to have his or her remains put on public display.

"I find it hard to believe that 'Bodies Revealed' has the proper permission from the deceased or next of kin," said Ma.

Two weeks ago Pennsylvania state lawmakers debated a similar bill that would require companies that exhibit the remains of human bodies to obtain consent forms from body donors.

Penn. State Rep. Mike Fleck (R), who introduced the bill, echoed Ma's concerns. "In America you can't sell your body. To use someone's body against their will in life or death is exploitation."

Brian Wainger, Premier's general counsel, testified before the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee that while it was impossible to prove that none of the bodies were from executed prisoners, the company's supplier in China, Sui Hongjin, has "never supplied to Premier any specimens with evidence of trauma or bodily injury."

Wainger dismissed the 20/20 report as "sensational" but added, "We cannot be 100 percent sure that a liver didn't come from the body of an executed prisoner. What we can do is rely on credible people who are associated with credible universities and institutions."

In an interview for 20/20 in February, former Premier Chairman Arnie Geller, who resigned following the report, told ABC News he was appalled at the allegations that some of the bodies from his Chinese suppliers might be those of executed prisoners.

He said his own medical staff had seen no such evidence and that his suppliers have assured him that "these are all legitimate, unclaimed bodies that have gone through Dalian Medical University."

In the wake of the 20/20 report, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched his own investigation and found that Premier could not prove that the bodies on display were not those of executed prisoners. Cuomo and Premier reached a settlement that requires the company to post a disclaimer at its New York exhibit and on the exhibit's website stating the attorney general's finding. The settlement also requires that the company obtain documentation "demonstrating the cause of death and origins of the cadavers" as well as written consent from the donors.

Premier says in its promotional material that it gets the bodies from Dalian Medical University plastination laboratories. Corporate records show that Premier loaned the bodies from Sui, a professor at the university.

When 20/20 called Dalian Medical University in February, the university's president said that the institution had never supplied any bodies to any American company, although the university did at one time supply bodies to Gunther von Hagens, the German doctor who invented plastination. Von Hagens says he no longer uses Chinese bodies for plastination because of the country's controversial human rights record.

ABC News traveled to Sui's plastination laboratory, about an hour's drive outside the city of Dalian, and found that bodies were being plastinated out of a private company's warehouse on a back alley in an industrial zone.

Legislation to Regulate Dead Body Exhibits Moves on to The Governor

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Legislation to regulate dead body exhibits, authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), passed the Assembly Floor today with bipartisan support and a vote 62-5 and will now move to the Governor's desk. On Wednesday, the legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 24-10. Assembly Bill 1519 makes California the first state to prohibit the commercial profit and public display of human bodies or remains, unless exhibitors provide documented informed consent of the deceased or next-of-kin.

"These displays do have important educational benefits, but using bodies against a person´s will is unacceptable" said Assemblywoman Ma. "This bill will end the practice of unwilled dead-body trafficking."

The "Bodies Revealed" exhibit, which was on display in Sacramento earlier this year and is currently on display in Redding, came under intense scrutiny earlier this year when a 20/20 report raised alarming concerns over the use of "unclaimed" Chinese bodies. Atlanta-based Premier Exhibitions, who puts on the Bodies Revealed exhibits obtains bodies from China that are infused with silicone through a process called "plastination" for display across the nation. The report concluded that displays were unwilled human remains.

"As an Asian American, I know that few people from my community would voluntarily donate their organs or bodies due to the strong cultural preference of leaving their body intact for burial after death," said Assemblywoman Ma. "I am hopeful that the bill will receive the Governor´s signature and the practice of unwilled body trafficking will be put to a halt."

Specifically, AB 1519 will prohibit the commercial display of human remains beginning on January 1, 2010 unless exhibitors of human remains file an affidavit to the Attorney General, detailing the bodies and specimens on display, and attesting that the bodies received have provided full informed consent, while maintaining a paper trail for public inspection.

The bill sends a message to exhibitors that California appreciates learning about the human body but does not accept the commercial exploitation of unwilled bodies.

Calif. Assembly rejects chemical ban in baby items

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

California lawmakers Monday rejected restrictions on a chemical used in baby bottles and canned formula despite consumer safety concerns that have led retailers to remove products containing the chemical from their shelves.

The state Assembly voted 31-27 on Monday to turn down a bill by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, requiring that food and beverage containers designed for children 3 years and younger contain no more than trace amounts of bisphenol A.

The vote took place days after the federal Food and Drug Administration declared that low doses of bisphenol A are not a threat to infants or adults. However, the agency acknowledged that more research is needed to fully understand the chemical's effects on humans.

"I think the evidence is just not clear enough," said Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Granite Bay. "If we do switch to a different chemical, has that chemical been thoroughly vetted and are there side affects that impact people and children?"

Animal studies have shown that bisphenol A can disrupt the hormonal system, but scientists differ on whether the very low amounts found in food and beverage containers can be harmful to people.

The FDA's finding followed a report earlier this year by the National Toxicology Program, a partnership of federal health agencies, that found there was "some concern" that the chemical can cause changes in behavior and the brain, and that it may reduce survival and birth weight in fetuses. The conclusion was based on animal studies.

Canada has announced it intends to ban the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles, and several major retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R" Us Inc. have said they would stop selling baby bottles made with the chemical next year.

Supporters of the bill said lawmakers should be following manufacturers' cautious lead to protect young children.

"In the end this bill is about a synthetic hormone that is in our children's food," said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco.

Bisphenol A is found in dental sealants, the linings of food cans, CDs and DVDs, eyeglasses and hundreds of other household goods. The chemical industry, grocery retailers, bottled water companies and food processors say it has been used safely for more than 50 years.

Several California lawmakers said they wanted to wait for more conclusive studies and urged a more comprehensive, science-based look at chemicals in consumer products.

They also turned down a bill by Sen. Elaine Corbett, D-San Leandro, that would have banned perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical used to keep food from sticking to packaging. The Environmental Protection Agency considers PFOA potentially carcinogenic and says businesses should voluntarily stop using it by 2015.

"I'm not in a position to be able to evaluate the science and it's frustrating," said Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier. "My colleagues say better be safe than sorry. I can't make that decision."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last year agreed to a ban on another potentially dangerous chemical, phthalates, in baby products and toys, has not said whether he will sign the bills if they pass out of the Legislature. Both lawmakers plan to request another vote on their legislation.

Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, said the governor would consider each bill on its merits, but he favors a more comprehensive approach.

That kind of approach is included in separate legislation moving through the Legislature. As lawmakers rejected the Corbett and Migden bills, Adams and several lawmakers announced that they had struck an agreement that could position California as the first state to regulate chemicals in products.

"I think we're very excited about the idea of having a science-based approach to looking at these chemicals rather than a political fight over each and every one," Adams told The Associated Press in a phone call.

The bill Adams and the lawmakers negotiated would set up a process to regulate products that might contain dangerous chemicals beginning in 2011, said the author, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles. It would also create a public information clearinghouse on the thousands of chemicals found in everyday products.

While Feuer favors the comprehensive approach in his bill, he urged his Assembly colleagues to pass the immediate chemical bans on bisphenol A and PFOA.

"Ideally soon we will be out of the business for handling measures like this," Feuer said of the individual chemical bans. "But for today our kids rely on us to do the right thing."

With no paid sick leave, workers face grim choices

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

In every war there is collateral damage, and in the legislative battle to pass the long-delayed state budget, one of the casualties last week was a bill that would have provided paid sick leave to workers.

What that means is that for the next year, at least, millions of California workers will face two choices when they're sick: go to work and risk spreading their disease to their co-workers, or stay home and risk losing their pay or even their jobs.

It's not a pretty choice.

Nearly 40 percent of California's work force, totaling 5.4 million workers, do not have the right to take paid time off work when they are sick, according to data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, or IWPR, in Washington, D.C.

“People are losing their pay, losing their jobs or being penalized in some other way because they had to stay home sick or to take care of a sick child,” said Vicky Lovell, acting director of research at the IWPR.

As with so many other things regarding worker health and safety, the United States stands virtually alone in not guaranteeing workers paid leave when they get sick.

In 145 other countries – including Japan and the top economies of Western Europe – employers are legally required to provide paid sick days or short-or long-term leave for illnesses. In 127 countries, employers must provide at least one week of paid sick leave per year. In contrast, outside of San Francisco – which recently passed its own law on paid sick leave – there is no such requirement in the United States.

True, many U.S. companies provide sick leave, including The San Diego Union-Tribune. If you're employed by a big business, chances are you're entitled to take paid sick days for yourself or, if you're a parent, to care for your sick children. The IWPR study, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that 99 percent of businesses with 5,000 or more employees provide such benefits.

But that's voluntary. With no legal requirement, many small and midsized businesses do not provide sick leave. As a result, 85 percent of food service workers in California lack paid sick days, as do 82 percent of construction workers, 78 percent of security guards and 63 percent of personal care workers, according to the IWPR study.

“I have spent many years earlier on where I went to work sick because I couldn't afford not to work,” one respondent said in a survey conducted for the San Francisco Department of Public Health. “It was really miserable for everyone involved: my co-workers, my customers and myself.”

Another respondent said, “I would like to get paid sick days so I can stay home without the fear of being fired.”

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill requiring employers to give workers one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours of labor, though the workers could not use the leave until they worked 90 days. For full-timers, that would total more than eight days of sick leave per year.

The bill passed the Assembly and went to the Senate despite strong opposition from such organizations as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the California Chamber of Commerce, which called it a “job killer.” Marti Fisher, a lobbyist for the chamber, said the bill “would cause employers to make tough decisions that would hurt California workers and cost jobs.”

A legislative alert put out by the chamber charged that “the ever-increasing burden of costly mandates on employers can cumulatively lower wages, reduce health insurance, limit training and produce job loss.”

That's an old argument and has been used against such reforms as the minimum wage, overtime requirements and the 40-hour workweek. But when you consider that 145 other nations have implemented paid sick leave without their businesses going belly up, you have to wonder what there is about American businesses that makes them so fragile that they can't provide sensible protections for their workers.

Nick Hardeman, Ma's legislative aide, argues that paying for sick workers to stay home is not some bleeding-heart humanitarian cause. It also makes business sense.

“For one thing, the public health benefits are tremendous, because co-workers of the sick employees are less likely to catch infectious diseases,” Hardeman said. “And studies also show that you also improve employee morale and reduce turnover by offering those kinds of benefits.”

The Schwarzenegger administration opposed the bill on the grounds that it would add costs to the state budget. The Department of Finance estimated that paying for the sick leave would add $600,000 to the budget, because the state would have to pay for sick leave for nurses who provide health care to elderly, blind and disabled patients in their homes.

If such nurses were state employees, they would be entitled to paid sick days. But because they are working for private agencies – which are in turn compensated by the state – their sick pay would be an added expense to the budget.

It was ultimately the nursing issue and not the business lobby that killed the bill, since the state Senate Appropriations Committee has put a moratorium on passing any bill requiring new spending. A number of other bills also have fallen by the wayside.

The Chamber of Commerce wasted little time in claiming credit, however. In a news release, it boasted that it had blocked the bill, working with “businesses up and down the state.”

Nevertheless, similar measures are being debated in 10 other states, from Rhode Island to Alaska. With 73 percent of the California public supporting paid sick leave – according to the latest Harris poll – it seems that a bill will pass sooner or later, provided we don't run into another budget mess.

Paid Sick Days Legislation Delayed Due to Significant Budget Deficit

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Bill 2716, the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act, was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday as a result of California´s budget delay. Authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), AB 2716 would have made California the first state in the country to provide all workers with the ability to earn paid sick days to take time to recover from illness. The bill had costs associated with providing paid sick days for some state employees and for enforcement.

"Working Californians deserve a state government that works," said Assemblywoman Ma. "The Republican budget delay is a clear assault on California´s working families, already resulting in low-wage state employees being fired. At the same time working families are losing out on their chance to gain an important new benefit, Republicans are helping oil companies and yacht owners avoid paying their fair share."

A Field Research Corporation Poll conducted earlier this week found that 73% of California voters are in favor of a law allowing all workers to earn paid sick days. Support for such a law crosses party lines and includes 56% of Republicans.

"The overwhelming support for AB 2716 crosses party lines and voters recognize how important this bill is for public health," said Assemblywoman Ma. "I will continue to work every day I am in office to ensure that California´s working families have the ability to take a day to recover from illness without the fear of being fired or losing a day´s pay."

Co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation and California ACORN, AB 2716 is supported by a statewide coalition of over 70 organizations including local governments, health professionals and civil rights organizations. Assemblywoman Ma will work with these groups to determine next steps, which could include a state ballot measure.

Herdt: Ray of hope for workers?

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed 70 years ago, embodies all the humane workplace standards by which civilized societies abide: a ban on child labor, the 40-hour workweek, minimum wage, overtime pay.

But those fundamental worker rights do not include one that most Californians believe ought to be among them. Nothing in the law says that if you're up all night vomiting Tuesday and stay home in bed Wednesday, you'll still have your job Thursday — let alone get paid wages for the day you missed.

The Legislature is on the verge of expanding the rights of workers by guaranteeing the right of paid sick time, a bill that would make California the first in the nation to mandate that right.

Supporters of the bill Tuesday released the results of a poll conducted by the respected Field Research Corp. It showed lopsided results the likes of which are seldom seen in today's polarized politics. By a 3-to-1 margin (73 percent to 23 percent) California voters support the idea of a state law.

White people like the idea, Latinos like it, young voters like it, senior citizens like it. Republicans, Democrats, independents, men, women, rich folk, poor folk — everybody likes it.

Voters like it even when told the argument that paid sick days would increase costs of doing business and that some businesses would likely respond by cutting back hours or laying off some workers.

Strikingly, 76 percent agree that "paid sick days is a basic worker right, just like being paid a decent wage."

The fact is, an estimated 5.4 million California workers cannot call in sick without losing a day's pay or risking their jobs. That's about 40 percent of the work force.

It was a different world back in 1938, when President Roosevelt was signing those sweeping workplace regulations. Sick pay wasn't much of an issue then. The great majority of households had two parents; dad went to work and mom stayed home. If a child had the stomach flu, there was already a full-time day-care provider in the house.

Today, if a child shows up at a day-care center with a hint of green mucus leaking from his nose, the provider will send him directly home — and properly so.

The poll comes on the heels of a study released last week by the group Human Impact Partners that detailed the public health benefits such a law would have.

More than a third of flu cases are transmitted in schools and workplaces. The organization calculated that if people stayed home when they had the flu, it would reduce by as much as 34 percent the number of people infected by a flu pandemic.

Furthermore, the study noted 70 percent of food service workers in the state do not have paid sick days — a fact of life that substantially increases the risk foodborne diseases will be spread in restaurants.

The underlying issue, beyond the polls and studies, is what used to be known as the social contract — something Assemblyman Sandré Swanson, D-Oakland, described as "that very important social and economic partnership that's supposed to exist between employers and workers."

That kind of thinking, California Labor Federation lobbyist Angie Wei told me Tuesday, has become almost quaint in the 21st century American economy.

"We no longer have a social contract that says if you work hard every day you get taken care of," she said.

The bill, AB2716 by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, may be the most groundbreaking piece of legislation to emerge from Sacramento in 2008.

It is vigorously opposed by employer groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, which has placed the bill on its annual "job killer" list — a list that in the past Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has paid close attention to.

The opposition is understandable; the change would be a radical shift in the status quo, opening uncertain questions about costs and scheduling.

To date, Schwarzenegger has not closed the door on the idea.

Given his close relationship with the business community and his free-market instincts, it would be a difficult bill for him to sign. It may the kind of issue that has to build some momentum over time.

Still, there won't be much encouraging news for working people to come from Sacramento in this year of out-of-control gas prices, record mortgage foreclosures and grocery bills that keep on climbing. Maybe this bill could be one hopeful message to working people that their lot will get better.

"During these tough times," Wei said, "we need to get these rays of hope."

Muni operators who shorten runs given warning

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

For years, some Municipal Railway light--rail vehicle operators would decide on their own to cut short their runs to the Outer Sunset -- booting off the passengers on their trains with little or no notice -- and head back downtown.

They were told on Tuesday that if they do that again without getting official approval, they could be fired immediately.

The unauthorized practice only recently got Muni management to take action amid complaints from Supervisor Carmen Chu, who represents the Sunset District on the Board of Supervisors, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D--San Francisco, and neighborhood activists.

The shortened runs have meant that some passengers had to wait for the next streetcar to show up -- which Muni regulars know can be a long wait -- or walk the rest of the way to their intended destination.

''It's been a real problem -- not one isolated incident,'' said Chu. ''The service being promised by Muni was not being delivered.''

Late last month, Muni management removed the hand tools, known as switch irons, carried in each streetcar that allow Muni workers to operate the switchbacks and move their trains to tracks heading in the opposite direction. The idea behind taking away the switch irons was to force operators to call for assistance if they wanted to reverse course. That meant, however, that a supervisor would have to be called to the scene to work the switchback, a potentially time--consuming process.

On Tuesday, Muni managers announced they worked out a deal with the operators union and would return the switch irons to the streetcars beginning today.

''We wanted to get their attention,'' Ken McDonald, chief operating officer for the city's transit agency, said of the temporary confiscation of the switch irons. ''They know we're serious.''

Irwin Lum, president of Transport Workers Union, Local 250--A, said he understands management's concerns. But taking away the switch irons, he said, ''was treating the operators like they're children.''

A bulletin jointly crafted by Muni management and union leadership, issued Tuesday, said the ''importance of obtaining prior authorization before any use of switch irons is mandatory. Unauthorized use directly affects the safety of passengers, rail personnel and equipment.'' Violation of the policy, the bulletin stated, could lead to ''immediate termination.''

It's unclear how often renegade operators took it upon themselves to alter their scheduled runs. But it was frequent enough to not go unnoticed.

Anna Chung said it happened to her earlier this summer when she was taking the L--Taraval to her mother's house near Ocean Beach from her accounting job downtown.

''We were riding along, and I think it was around 19th Avenue that the driver told everyone they had to get off and catch the next train,'' she said. ''We waited about 10 minutes for the next L to come. We all piled on. People were mad.''

Operators contacted by The Chronicle wouldn't talk for attribution about why they sometimes felt the need to abort their runs before the end of the line, but two who spoke on condition that their names not be used said some operators felt under pressure to keep to schedule.

''If they were running behind, they could play catch--up on the return trip,'' said one veteran operator.

Nathaniel Ford, executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency, said running behind schedule is no excuse for the renegade action, especially at the expense of passengers whose rides are cut short without warning. He said it is the job of street inspectors and central control to take command of the runs. ''You can't just have operators making those decisions on their own,'' he said.

Pesticide use is a local issue

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Over the past few months, local communities across California, especially in Marin County, battled the state of California to stop aerial pesticide spraying for the light brown apple moth (LBAM).

Ten local governments in Marin passed resolutions in opposition to the state's spray program, joining a grassroots movement of tens of thousands of people across the state who opposed the spray. Aerial spraying is off the table over urban areas for now, though many questions remain about the future of the LBAM eradication program.

The question that must be posed is: What happens when the next pest, real or exaggerated, comes along? What happens when state officials again refuse to listen to local community concerns and impose dangerous and insensible pest and pesticide policy?

As was made clear by the LBAM struggle, local governments deserve the tools to better regulate pesticides to protect the health and safety of their communities.

We do know that history repeats itself. In the 1980s, Mendocino County stood up for the health and safety of its citizens by passing an ordinance to restrict the use of aerial pesticides, after aerial pesticide spray applications drifted a significant distance onto school buses. Industry representatives sued to overturn the ordinance, but the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendocino's right to protect its residents. Unfortunately, pesticide industry lobbyists soon undid that ruling by fasttracking special-interest legislation which divested local government of the authority to address toxic pesticides. Since 1984, the state government has used that statute to quash local efforts to restrict the use of toxic pesticides.

Assembly Bill 977, recently introduced by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, will ensure the right of local government to have some degree of control over pesticide use in our communities.

Seven years ago, Fairfax passed a Neighborhood Notification ordinance so that residents could protect their health and property from toxic pesticides.

Despite intensive legal threats from the state of California, the town of Fairfax stood up for the right of its residents to protect themselves from toxic pesticide use in their community. Assemblywoman Ma's legislation will restore the right of all California communities to enact similar pesticide regulations.

Fairness and reason dictate that local residents should be free to make their own decisions regarding pesticide use and exposure within their communities. Whether pesticides are used on our lawns to control invasive plants on Tam, or at our schools and places of work, they pose severe health and environmental risks that are in need of serious study and legal reform.

Progress only can be made if we encourage and protect the right of local communities to protect themselves when higher levels of government refuse to do so.

In the face of the Bush administration's failure to address global warming, Gov. Schwarzenegger and our state Legislature passed landmark legislation to protect the Sierra snow pack and the California coastline.

There is no less of an urgent need to protect the health and safety of our communities from toxic pesticide pollution by granting local government the authority to act.

CA Bill Pushes for Extended Sick Pay

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCBS) -- A state Senate committee is set to take up a bill Monday that would grant paid sick days to every worker in California. The bill by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma is modeled on a law that's already in effect in San Francisco.

''For large employers who have 10 or more employees, workers can earn up to nine paid sick days. For smaller businesses they can earn up to five paid sick days,'' said Ma.

Ma estimates some 5- to 6- million Californians, or about 40 percent of the state's workforce, are currently not entitled to any paid sick leave at all.

Business groups opposed to the bill say many companies simply cannot afford the additional overhead.

''Some employers have said that they'll have to forgo raises for their employees, there won't be bonuses, they may have to cut back on vacation time. In very severe cases, we might see some job losses, and cutting back on hours,'' said Marty Fisher, a policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce:

The bill, formally known as the California Healthy Families, Healthy Work Places Act, has already been approved by the Senate. Ma hopes to get the legislation on the governor's desk in about a month.

Schwarzenegger Signs Graffiti Vandalism Legislation

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation on Wednesday to hold offenders accountable for crimes of vandalism and to remove graffiti from California's streets and neighborhoods. AB1767 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) mandates community service for a person who has committed a criminal act of graffiti vandalism, and AB2609 by Assemblymember Mike Davis (D- Los Angeles ) requires defendants convicted of graffiti vandalism to clean up or repair the defaced or damaged property.

''As Governor, I have made the safety of our communities my top priority,'' Governor Schwarzenegger said. ''By cleaning up graffiti and holding offenders accountable for their actions, this legislation will make our streets and neighborhoods a safer and cleaner place to live.''

AB 1767 authorizes the courts in San Francisco to launch a pilot program where violators of graffiti vandalism are ordered to participate in a minimum of 24 hours of community service, when available, if they have reached a civil compromise with the victim. This law targets graffiti abatement service programs as the community service outlet for offenders and remains in effect until January 1, 2012.

Similarly, AB 2609 requires the court to order offenders paroled for a graffiti violation to clean up, repair or replace the damaged property. Defendants would also be required keep the damaged property or another specified property in the community free of graffiti for up to one year.

Bill would require paid sick days for most

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As many as 5.4 million working Californians don't get any paid sick days -- and they tend to be both sicker and poorer than employees who do receive sick leave, according to a report released Wednesday.

''The more you need paid sick days, the less likely you are to have them,'' said Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, director of occupational and environmental health for San Francisco and a contributor to the report.

The report was released by supporters of a bill that would require all California employers to provide paid time off for workers to care for themselves or family members.

That bill -- AB2716 by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco -- was modeled on the paid sick leave law that took effect last year in San Francisco. The bill passed the state Assembly in May and is scheduled for a hearing next week in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Business groups led by the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the sick leave bill, saying it is a complicated and costly mandate that could force companies to cut wages or lay off workers.

''In this economy, money is stretched pretty thin for California employers,'' said chamber spokeswoman Marti Fisher. ''It's a bad idea to mandate benefits. This could force employers to cut back on hours, raises or even lay people off.''

But backers said the public health benefits will outweigh any costs to employers.

''It's important for policymakers to see paid sick days not only as a labor policy but as a public health policy,'' said Bhatia. ''One-third of seasonal flu is transmitted in schools and workplaces. Workers without sick days are less likely to stay home and more likely to contribute to the spread of the flu.''

The report, prepared by an Oakland nonprofit called Human Impact Partners with funding from a Unitarian Universalist group, used data from existing health surveys to paint a picture of who does and doesn't receive paid sick leave:

Better-paid workers are more likely to get paid time off. Among the highest-paid quarter of U.S. workers, 72 percent receive paid sick time. But among the lowest-paid quarter, only 21 percent get paid sick time.

Healthy workers are more likely to have paid sick leave than workers in poor health. Seventy-seven percent of California workers who described their health as good to excellent received paid sick time -- versus 55 percent of those who described their health as fair or poor.

Thirty-eight percent of California workers with heart disease don't receive paid sick leave, and 41 percent of those with diabetes don't receive paid sick leave, according to the report.

Like the San Francisco law it's modeled on, AB2716 would require employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked by an employee.

Small businesses of 10 employees or fewer could limit sick leave to five days per year; other employers would have to allow at least nine days per year.

Employees could use the time for their own illness or medical appointments, or to care for a sick spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, grandparent or sibling. In a slight variation from the San Francisco law, they could also use the time to deal with recovery from domestic violence or sexual assault.

New law would force taggers to clean up after themselves

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco will establish a pilot program that will require graffiti offenders to clean up graffiti -- even if they settle their case out of court -- under a new state law.

Many offenders are escaping misdemeanor vandalism charges by settling cases outside of court and agreeing to pay a property owner the costs of removing the graffiti, without ever appearing before a judge or performing any graffiti cleanup, according to the office of Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, who authored the legislation.

The City of San Francisco spends more than $20 million annually to clean up graffiti, according to Ma’s office.

''The signing of this law is a win for San Francisco neighborhoods,'' said Ma in a press statement. ''Graffiti is blighting bus stops, Muni, store fronts, and other properties across The City.''

The former San Francisco supervisor added that she hopes the law -- which was signed into effect by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday, will prove to be a success in San Francisco and then replicated statewide.

The San Francisco Graffiti Advisory Board and the California Business Properties Association co-sponsored the bill, which received unanimous bipartisan support throughout the legislative process.

''AB 1767 is a very important bill that will reduce graffiti vandalism in San Francisco,'' said SFPD Officer Chris Putz, who helped draft the legislation as a graffiti-abatement officer with the department. ''This bill is a victory for every taxpayer and business owner who has been victimized by graffiti vandalism in The City.''

Paid sick days a public-health bonanza

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

A new study makes a compelling case for a pending bill that would require all California employers to provide their workers with paid sick days, researchers say.

The report -- produced by Human Impact Partners (an Oakland-based nonprofit project of the Tides Center) and the San Francisco Department of Public Health -- says the proposed law ''would help reduce the spread of flu; protect the public from diseases carried by sick workers in restaurants and in long-term care facilities; prevent hunger and homelessness among sick low-income workers; and enable workers to stay home when they are sick or when they need to care for a sick dependent,'' according to its findings summary .

The summary also notes that about 70 percent of California's accommodation and food service workers don’t have paid sick days right now, so they’re apt to come to work sick rather than lose that pay. I know I'll think about that the next time a server coughs while taking my order.

This is ''not only a labor policy but also a sensible and effective public health policy'' which could save the state significant healthcare costs, said Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the San Francisco Public Health Department’s director of Occupational and Environmental Health, told reporters on a conference call today.

His office provided much of the research from this report -- data it had gathered when San Francisco was considering such a law. The city’s law has now been in effect since early 2007.

AB 2716, the California Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act of 2008 -- authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, and co-authored by assemblymen John Laird, D-Santa Cruz; Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland; and Alberto Torrico, D-Newark -- would guarantee that all workers in the state accrue at least one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours. A small business (having 10 or fewer employees) would be able to limit an employee’s use of this accrued sick time to 40 hours or five days in each calendar year; larger employers would be able to limit it at 72 hours or nine days in each calendar year.

Dr. Jody Heymann, founding director of both the Institute for Health and Social Policy at McGill University and the Project on Global Working Families at Harvard University, said the idea that such a law would make California less competitive is a fallacy. ''If we just look at the 10 countries that have been ranked by businesses as the most competitive countries, nine out of 10 have guaranteed paid sick leave -- the United States is the only one that doesn't.''

The bill, which the Assembly passed May 28 on a party-line vote of 45-33, is pending before the state Senate Appropriations Committee.

Report Released on Benefits of Paid Sick Leave Bill

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

A report released today by Human Impact Partners and the San Francisco Department of Health on a paid sick leave bill currently in the state legislature said the bill would improve the health of Californians with no discernible negative economic impact on the state.

The report estimated that 40 percent of the state's workforce, about 5.4 million workers, do not have the right to paid time off of work when they are sick.

AB 2716, the California Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act of 2008, authored by Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, would change that by guaranteeing all workers in the state at least one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

The bill was approved by the state assembly by a 45-33 vote, and will go before the senate appropriations committee on Monday.

One of the co-authors of the report, Dr. Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Health, said that the benefits of paid sick days far outweighs medical costs due to worsened illnesses or the infection of coworkers or customers of a business.

"It's important for policymakers to see sick days as a sensible economic and public health policy," Bhatia said.

Dr. Jody Heymann, a founding member of the Institute for Health and Social Policy at McGill University and of the Project on Global Working Families at Harvard University, said that the bill was "one of the simplest measures that any state could pass."

Heymann said that her studies have shown that paid sick leave has a tremendous impact on families. She said that when parents have sick leave, they are five times more likely to attend to sick children at home, shortening the length of hospitalization by 30 percent.

Her research also showed that the most productive countries in the world are usually the ones that offer paid sick leave. Of the top 10 most productive countries, the U.S. is the only one without some sort of guaranteed paid sick leave for its workers.

"Around the world (countries with paid sick leave) are competing, and if you also look at countries with low unemployment rates, it's the same ones," Heymann said.

The report pointed to restaurants as a business that has a large impact on public health. It said more than half of food-borne illness outbreaks in the country occur in restaurants, yet 70 percent of food service workers do not have paid sick days.

Alicia Hershey works at a restaurant in San Francisco and said that it's nearly impossible for a restaurant worker to find the time or money to seek health coverage.

"People do what they can to get by, and a lot of time that ends up endangering coworkers and customers that come into the restaurant," Hershey said.

Restaurant workers were one of many groups of low-wage workers most affected by a lack of paid sick leave. According to the report, 79 percent of the lowest-paid workers do not have paid sick days.

California would become the first state to have a paid sick leave law if the bill passes through the legislature and is signed by the governor.

San Francisco is the only county in the state to enact such a law after 61 percent of voters approved Proposition F in 2006. The law became effective on February 5, 2007.

Bhatia said that it is too early for a complete assessment of the San Francisco law, but that there had not been a noticeable effect on the opening or closing of businesses since its passage.

From Opposition to Proposition

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Netroots Nation is winding down here in Austin and I'm headed back to the West Coast later this evening. Outside the convention center the road is closed for construction of the Cap MetroRail Downtown station. Texas High Speed Rail is revived and planning their "t-bone" system, including an Austin stop. Inside the center, however, is where the real action was.

The speakers and the panels showed an increasing emphasis on energy and the environment. For a group of people who became bloggers primarily to react against the Bush Administration and the Democrats' failure to respond, it was a striking shift. If this weekend produced anything it was not just recognition that our country faces a major crisis, not just that it is time to begin solving those problems. What we are beginning to recognize is the linkage of democracy and public action to deal with the energy and environment.

Obviously Al Gore's surprise visit was one of the highlights. Gore emphasized the need for the public to hold elected officials accountable on the climate crisis -- politicians can't be allowed to put parochial and short-term concerns to distract us from the larger tasks at hand. We can surely relate, as California politicians have been slow on the high speed rail uptake. Whether it's Mike Machado casting a spite vote against AB 3034 or Roy Ashburn using 11th hour objections to rally Republicans against the same bill, we in California are plagued by politicians who don't seem to grasp the need for bold and dramatic change.

It's not that we have no leadership at all -- Fiona Ma, for example, has done some crucial work on this. But if high speed rail, or action on climate change, energy, the environment is going to be successful, we need to get Californians informed and involved. WE are the ones who are rallying the public to that end. This blog isn't going to achieve that alone on high speed rail, but we have built a bottom-up network of supporters, particularly at the Facebook group where we have over 33,000 supporters.

Debbie Cook, Democratic candidate for Congress in the 46th district (Huntington Beach and environs) gave an excellent presentation at the Energize America panel. She reviewed the public's understanding of peak oil, that we still have a long way to go. But she also made some deeply insightful points that nobody else made.

First, that America functioned just fine without reliance on oil. She showed a series of images of urban American life from the early 20th century, including communities that were dependent on rail, and explained that people living in those days were quite functional. We have become so used to cheap oil that we have a hard time envisioning a life without it. But it wasn't so long ago that we were able to live that way. Of course we've made enormous technological strides in the last 100 years, and that enables us to build a rail network that outclasses anything we had prior to 1950, as well as maintaining some amount of automobile usage.

Second, and much more important, was her point that we need to craft solutions that help Americans change the way they live to be more energy efficient. It's not enough to put LED lights on city streets or give everyone a hybrid, useful as those can be. Nor is it enough to have a "new Apollo Program" or a "new Manhattan Project." We don't need some government project where only scientists are involved, we need long-term solutions that get EVERYONE involved.

High speed rail is just such an example of that program. It will help make major reductions in carbon emissions and reduce our oil consumption by around 22 million barrels a year. And it does so by providing a form of transportation that all Californians can participate in daily, monthly, annually -- whenever they want to. Getting people to be participants in change and not just passive recipients of change is key.

But the moment that brought the house down was Van Jones' speech this morning. Jones runs Green For All, a nonprofit focused on environmental justice and green jobs.

Jones was on fire talking about what we as a nation need to do to change the politics around energy, the environment, and the economy. He rightly pointed out that conservatives and the right frequently claim to be acting to the benefit of the poor and the middle class by opposing new spending and taxes -- but that this is an outright lie. Providing green jobs and green technologies HELP these people in extremely significant ways, providing jobs, a healthy environment, and long-term stability in transportation and energy costs. He specifically targeted the right's ridiculous push for oil drilling -- a solution that will do NOTHING to lower prices at the pump and would merely provide oil in ten years' time to China and India at a massive cost to American jobs and health.

He also exhorted the audience to become more assertive in their goals and their activism. He hit a crescendo when he said we need to "move from opposition to proposition" -- to reclaim the initiative and the agenda in this country from the drillers and those who would have us continue the failed policies of the 20th century. We know those policies have failed. It is time for us to propose something better -- not just better for some, but better for everyone.

It was a stirring speech and even though he did not specifically mention it, Proposition 1 is a great example of what Jones told us. High speed rail's critics are not the friends of California's working people. Working people in LA and San José and Fresno need good, green jobs. They need cleaner air. They need affordable transportation. Even if the bonds cost them each $750 that would be more than made up for by the impact of new jobs, higher wages, and fast affordable transportation that, as we have repeatedly discussed here, is essential to this state remaining competitive in a global economy.

California is poised to lead a significant breakthrough in how our country deals with the environmental, energy, economic, transportation crisis. Passage of Prop 1 would be a signal to the rest of the nation that it is possible to take bold yet sensible action within our existing and largely broken political system. It offers Californians hope that there is a way out of this crisis, that we are not going to be permanently stuck with the consequences of 50 years of bad decisions.

High speed rail is just the start. But it's a necessary start. The journey begins in November when we pass Proposition 1.

SF: SUPERVISOR CALLS FOR LOCAL CONTROL OVER PESTICIDE USE

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco supervisors Wednesday will consider a resolution calling for the removal of a state law prohibiting local governments from banning pesticides in their jurisdictions, an effort that also has support at the state level.

The resolution, introduced by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier and co-sponsored by supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Sophie Maxwell and Aaron Peskin, mirrors legislation introduced by state Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco/San Mateo County.

Ma's AB 977, currently making its way through the state legislature, urges the repeal of a state Food and Agriculture Code law that would give the state final say over regulation of pesticides, including their sale, transportation and use in any local jurisdiction.

Alioto-Pier's resolution echoes Ma's legislation, but is non-binding.

According to Cammy Blackstone, an aide to Alioto-Pier, the supervisor's resolution came out of a recent effort by some city leaders to ban aerial chemical spraying for the light brown apple moth, which had been planned for this summer in parts of the Bay Area.

The plan, which received vociferous criticism from residents, as well as some local and state officials, was abandoned by state agriculture officials in June in favor of the release of sterile male moths to inhabit population growth, though aerial spraying will still be used in rural agricultural areas that are inaccessible by road.

But Blackstone said there was some apprehension the plan for aerial spraying in urban areas could be renewed in the future.

Other potential concerns Alioto-Pier wished to address in San Francisco, according to Blackstone, were the use of arsenic-treated wood and toxic chemicals known as phthalates, which have been found in toys and children's products.

"We really want to just be able to say, you can't do it in San Francisco," Blackstone said.

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on Alioto-Pier's resolution at its 2 p.m. meeting Wednesday at City Hall.

Ill feelings on paid sick leave bill

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The measure is likely to clear the state Senate this summer. Business lobbyists may urge a veto from the governor.

For maybe five times in the last 15 years, Manuela Mendez has had to drag herself to work at a fast-food restaurant in La Mirada, coughing and congested.

"I go to work because we need the money," she said in Spanish. "It's difficult to work. I carry microbes that contaminate my work mates, and that's a problem for the customers."

The 40-year-old mother of two does not think it is fair that she and an estimated 6 million California workers -- about 40% of the state workforce -- do not have the right to take a day of paid sick leave to recuperate from an illness or injury, see a doctor or care for a family member who is ill.

Mendez, an activist with the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is part of a broad coalition that includes labor unions, health advocates and women's groups backing a bill that would give all employees in the state at least five paid sick days a year.

The bill, AB 2716, has passed the Assembly on a 45-33 vote and is expected to clear the state Senate this summer.

If that happens, business lobbyists are expected to ask Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a veto. He has a solid history of siding with the California Chamber of Commerce when it comes to vetoing bills on the chamber's self-styled list of "job killers."

The measure by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) is modeled on recently approved municipal laws in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and is similar to proposals being considered in a dozen other states and in Milwaukee.

"People shouldn't have to worry that if they get sick, they'll lose their job," Ma said. "Paid sick days are good for a healthy economy."

Most California business organizations disagree. Ma's bill is near the top of the chamber's list of alleged anti-employer legislation. Granting paid sick leave would hurt workers more than it would help, chamber lobbyist Marc Burgat contends.

"If you increase some costs to employers, they'll have to decrease other costs by cutting hours or the number of employees," he testified at a recent hearing on the bill.

An in-house study released last week by the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association, said that granting paid sick leave to all workers would during the next five years destroy 370,000 jobs and cost California companies $59.3 billion in lost sales.

"When California faces an unemployment rate of 6.8%, it is absolutely outrageous to impose more mandates on small business," said John Kabateck, the federation's state director.

Although business lobbyists say that granting California workers paid sick leave will cause widespread economic dislocations, that hasn't been the case in San Francisco, the only place in the state that currently mandates such a benefit.

"I can only say that the sky has not fallen in San Francisco because of the sick leave law," said Greg Asay, a senior analyst with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. "San Francisco's economy has been very strong. It's striking how relatively unscathed we've been with the recession or probably recession."

The labor standards office reported getting only about 75 sick leave complaints from workers during the first year of the new law. All the cases were resolved informally, the office said.

Small Business California, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, said it had gotten negative reactions from about 35 employers. Most of the problems involved changes in how payroll records are kept, the organization said.

But restaurateurs, probably the city's largest class of small-business owners, support paid sick leave.

"Sick leave, especially for people who handle food for a living, is an important public policy," said Kevin Westlye, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Assn.

"The mandate is affordable, considering the public benefit," Westlye said.

Golden Gate's parent group, the California Restaurant Assn., is fighting the bill in Sacramento and is a lead member of the business coalition that is relying on Schwarzenegger for a veto, if needed.

The governor so far has taken no stance, spokesman Aaron McLear said.

"Obviously, he understands the merits of the bill," he said. "But he does have concerns about the effect it could have on business during this tough economy."

Tough is having to go to work with a headache and fever, countered Juana Pablo, 48, who has spent the last 14 years sewing garments in South Los Angeles to support five children, ages 7 to 17.

"I have to go to work when I feel sick," Pablo said. "If I stay home, I'd lose my job."

Ethnic Media Unites to Spread S.F. Hep B Free Message

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Over 15 Bay Area Asian ethnic media outlets are collaborating with the S.F. Hep B Free campaign in an unprecedented and united effort to educate the San Francisco public and community about hepatitis B.

Starting this month, these publications will run advertisements promoting awareness of the disease and the need to be tested and vaccinated for the virus that affects one in 10 Asians. Due to a lack of symptoms, awareness and testing, most Asians are unaware of their infection.

The ads featuring Assemblywoman Fiona Ma and Mayor Gavin Newsom will promote local testing sites and the campaign’s message, “B Sure, B Tested, B Free!”

Chinese newspapers running the ads include World Journal, Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao Daily News, China Press and International Daily News.

“China Press is always committed to doing community work, and we believe the (S.F. Hep B Free campaign) is good way to educate our readers, who are mostly Chinese immigrants, about this disease,” China Press Bay Area General Manager Helena Ren said.

Philippine News, Ang Panahon, Manila Bulletin, Pinoy Today and Philippines Today are the Filipino publications participating.

“Philippine News believes that any information devoted to health education - and finding ways for our community to avoid, prevent or manage illnesses - is always worth any amount of media space,” Philippine News Managing Editor Cristina Pastor said. “The Filipino American community will benefit greatly from the information-sharing and educational articles on hep B.”

The Japanese newspapers involved include Nichi Bei Times and Hokubei Mainichi, while the Vietnamese publications include Thoi Bao and Mo Magazine.

Also participating as media partners are Korea Daily, The Korea Times-San Francisco, Asian Journal and AsianWeek.

“A lot of Koreans do not know the facts or risks about this disease,” Korea Daily Senior Account Executive Richard Choi said. “As a media outlet, we are obligated to help inform the community about hepatitis B, which is a serious risk for all Asians and Asian Americans.”

As a media partner of the S.F. Hep B Free campaign, these publications, brought together by AsianWeek, will provide ongoing editorial support about the Hep B Free campaign and the need for testing and vaccination for the hepatitis B virus, run public service announcements on a space available basis, and provide paid advertising space at a discounted rate.

Battle Brews over Raiders of Recycling Bins

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

A recycling war is breaking out on the Bay Area's curbsides.

Those ubiquitous, colorful recycling bins people set out each week for pickup stand squarely on a battle line between growing numbers of organized crews who snag cans and bottles and the official waste haulers who say "poachers" are increasingly hostile and dangerous.

Caught in the cross fire are residents. Reports about noise, litter and trespassing have risen so dramatically in the past couple of years that a state lawmaker has written a bill that would make it illegal for recycling centers and salvage yards to buy goods totaling $50 or more without asking for identification and paying by check.

"Ten years ago, you'd see homeless people or a little old grandma going through the garbage and putting cans into a bag to get a couple dollars," said San Francisco Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, who introduced the recycling theft bill. "But now it's more organized, no one is enforcing (theft laws), and it's a way to generate cash."

For those on the economic fringe, however, the recycled goods can bring in needed cash amid a faltering economy, a shortage of jobs and the soaring costs of food, gas and rent. Prices for aluminum run more than $3,700 per ton, glass $210, plastic $180 and cardboard $130, according to Sunset Scavenger, a division of giant Norcal Waste Systems Inc.

Typically, recycling theft works like this: Small groups converge on a neighborhood on the night before the regular weekly trash and recycling pickup. Runners go from bin to bin, gathering glass bottles, plastic and aluminum, which are thrown into a pickup truck - often rickety and modified with tall wooden boards to carry bigger loads. When the truck is filled, the drivers take the cargo to a recycling center or scrap yard.

In some instances, the recycling crews have unwritten agreements with commercial businesses such as restaurants or produce markets to collect their bottles or cardboard.

On Sunday evening near Glen Park's busy main drag, Diamond Street, several groups trolled the streets collecting bottles and cans. In one instance, a man drove a red, graffiti-covered truck while two men walked on opposite sidewalks, gathering bottles and cans from blue bins set out for the next morning's official pickup, and dumped them into the truck.

Though the men didn't knock over the bins or leave other trash in their wake, some San Francisco residents say they know when the recycling bandits are on the march when they see tipped-over cans and litter strewn on the ground and hear clanks of bottles and cans at 3 a.m. One waste company says it has received 20,000 complaints of curbside recycling theft in San Francisco.

Jo Cangelosi's home office sits at the front of her Potrero Hill house with a view of Mississippi Street. The recycling squads have gotten so bad that she puts her recycling out at the very last minute - when she can hear the regular truck rumbling down the road.

"One day, I saw six or seven people going through the trash," she said. "It was ridiculous. They started at 4 o'clock, and they went that night and until the next morning."

Cangelosi, who worries not just about noise and litter but also the potential for identity theft, has gone so far as to confront some of the scavengers.

"Lately, it's gotten a lot more aggressive," she said. "I know it's probably stupid, but I still do it anyway - I go out and tell them not to go through the cans. Some get really angry and yell and cuss or do it anyway." Cangelosi has called the nonemergency police dispatch number but has never received a response; several waste companies contend that recycling theft is a low priority for police because it is considered a minor crime.

Robert Reed, spokesman for Sunset Scavenger, said one customer reported that a man grabbed her wrist, twisted it and pushed her to the ground after she approached and asked them to stop taking the recycling.

Curbing poachers

Recycling theft is illegal. As soon as customers put their beer bottles and soda cans in the recycling bin of the city-authorized firm and take it to the curb, those recyclables becomes the waste company's property. In San Francisco, fines for stealing recyclables run from $20 to $500 and can result in up to six months' imprisonment. In Union City, the fines start at $100.

It goes far beyond California. New York City approved legislation that increases the penalty for unlawfully removing or transporting recyclables from $100 to $2,000 for first-time offenders and $5,000 for repeat offenders. The city can also impound vehicles involved in the theft and can arrest those who receive stolen recyclables.

In California, Ma's bill, which is in a state Senate committee, aims to curb recycling theft by calling on the recycling buyers to do more.

But some waste contractors say added paperwork could hog-tie their operations. They also note that poachers often sell them the recycling they would normally collect themselves.

"I'm not a policeman, I'm a garbage man," said Joe Garbarino Jr., whose family has been running Marin Sanitary Service since 1955. Ma's bill "would make the lines four times longer. We wouldn't be able to move."

"If they make it a crime to us," Garbarino said, adding that recycling thieves are taking 50 to 70 percent of the recycling in his service area, "at that point I would consider closing my doors."

But customers, Ma and the waste contractors say, bear the biggest costs.

Sunset Scavenger and sister company Golden Gate Disposal and Recycling say the total tonnage of recycling collected from their blue bins is up 9 percent over the past two years. The total for aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles, however, is down by one-third. That loss translates to about $500,000 in San Francisco each year, which is passed on to customers, the company said.

Norcal, whose trash hauling arrangement with the city extends back to the 1930s, has been criticized for its monopoly status and cozy relationships with the Teamsters union and City Hall's pro-union establishment. But the firm says it is a good corporate citizen, and the recycling money it collects goes back into the program, helping to boost recycling rates and make the city more eco-friendly.

While residential customers are responsible for the bulk of the recycling complaints, some businesses say the unauthorized crews fill a niche and gain crucial income.

Helping businesses

Bottles from Glen Park Station, a watering hole on Diamond Street, usually overflow the recycling bins, said manager Tom McAvoy. So he counts on Luis Gomez to handle the extras.

Around 8:30 each Sunday night, Gomez, his wife and brother-in-law load bottles from the bar into their pickup truck. Each week, two full truckloads from the neighborhood bring in between $400 and $500, Gomez said. Though he's collected recyclables from restaurants and bars in the area for five years, he said his family relies more heavily on the cash now. He doesn't collect from residences, he said, because homeowners are more apt to protest, and he's seen others receive citations.

"I work in construction, but now it's only five or six hours a day," Gomez said, down from about eight hours a day two years ago. "I do the bottles now because it's difficult, there's not much work. And gas is very, very expensive."

Keeping your recycling safe

Ways to prevent and report recycling theft:

-- Place recyclables on the curb by 6 a.m. the day of pickup.

-- Shred paper with personal information before disposing of it.

-- Observe and report recycling theft. Take detailed notes on the vehicle license number and description, time of theft, description of the people involved and the direction they were heading. San Francisco police can be reached at (415) 553-0123.

-- Call Sunset Scavenger at (415) 330-1300, Golden Gate Disposal and Recycling at (415) 626-4000, or your local scavenger company during business hours to report a theft.

Source: San Francisco SAFE

California Bill Would Restrict Recycler Payments For Stolen Newspapers

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

CHICAGO -- Recyclers and junk dealers would be prohibited from paying more than $50 in cash to anyone who brings in large amounts of newspapers, under a bill approved Monday by a California Senate committee.

The bill is a response to a rash of massive thefts of free newspapers from racks in the San Francisco Bay area. The thefts were the subject of an article in E&P's February issue.

The measure, sponsored by San Francisco Assembly member Fiona Ma, would permit recyclers to pay more than $50 for newsprint -- but only by check or electronic transfer, and with the recording of the seller's driver's license or other government-issued identification document.

The law would apply to recyclers in any municipality that provides curbside pickup of old newspapers.

The California Newspaper Publishers Association, which supports the proposed law, said it is expected to move to a vote by the full Senate within the next few weeks.

State Senate Committee Passes Paid Sick Days

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO-Two days after Senator Barack Obama unveiled a national push for paid sick days, California State Senate Democrats today passed Assembly Bill 2716, the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act, out of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, putting California on track to becoming the first state in the nation where all workers can earn paid sick days.

Authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a San Francisco Democrat, AB 2716 allows workers to earn one hour for every 30 hours worked that can be used to recover from illness, care for a sick family member, or recover from domestic violence or sexual assault. The bill moves next to the Senate Appropriations Committee and is expected to be heard by the committee in July. If signed into law, AB 2716 would make California the first state in the nation to ensure paid sick days for all workers.

"In these tough economic times, Californians should not worry about being fired or demoted simply for being sick," said Assemblywoman Ma. "Protecting the public health means increased productivity for employees, lower turnover for employers and fewer instances where a sick employee infects a customer."

Co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation and California ACORN, AB 2716 is supported by a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations including local governments, health professionals and civil rights organizations. Nearly 6 million working Californians, or about 40% of the workforce, currently receive zero paid sick days through their employers.

A recently released study conducted by Dr. Vicky Lovell of the Women's Policy Research Institute concluded that AB 2716 will save California nearly $1 billion annually. These cost savings are primarily due to reduced turnover and the spread of illness in the workplace.

In 2006, San Francisco voters passed Proposition F, an initiative measure supported by Assemblywoman Ma, that provided all workers in the city with the ability to earn and use paid sick days. Shortly after the one-year anniversary of the law, AB 2716 was introduced, modeled after the San Francisco ordinance, to allow a worker to use paid sick time for up to 40 hours or 5 days in each calendar year for workers of small businesses, and 72 hours or 9 days per calendar year for all other workers.

A recent poll conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles shows overwhelming support by Californians from all walks of life for paid sick days legislation. A large majority - 88 percent - of California adults surveyed indicated that they "agreed" or "agreed strongly" that there should be a law guaranteeing paid sick days for all California workers.

Calif. bill removes jail threat for victims

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Domestic violence victims who refuse to testify against their abuser would no longer be threatened with jail time under legislation sent Monday to the governor.

The bill by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, instead would allow judges to order victims to attend counseling or fulfill community service.

It was passed by the Assembly on a 42-22 vote, after an emotional debate in which lawmakers were asked to decide whether domestic violence victims should be punished as a way to put their abusers behind bars.

"The important thing to remember is these are victims of a heinous crime," said Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge. "These are victims who oftentimes have young children. To say to these victims you can face incarceration and time away from your children because you yourself (have) been a victim is just wrong."

Supporters of the bill said victims are less likely to report abuse if they think they might be locked up for failing to testify in court.

Instead, advocacy groups asked lawmakers to change the law so domestic violence victims are given the same rights as victims of sexual assault. Since 1991, sexual assault victims have been shielded from jail time if they decide not to testify in a criminal case.

"If they don't want to testify against their batterer, they should not have to be re-victimized, to be forced to do something against their will," said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco. "I know this is a very difficult issue for many folks."

Current law allows a court to lock up a domestic violence victim on a second contempt charge. It's a tool prosecutors say is sometimes needed to force testimony critical to win a case.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, a former prosecutor who has tried domestic violence cases, said victims could put themselves in more harm by not testifying against their abuser.

"Do I have a hard time of government thinking it knows better than the victim? Absolutely," said Spitzer, R-Orange. "You, us, may take a very important tool away, and then she's going to end up killing him or he's going to kill her and the children."

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, spokeswoman Rachel Cameron said.

Yes, I Vote

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Editor - I never gave much thought to Woody Allen's saying that "80 percent of success is showing up," until I was in one of California's toughest and most expensive primaries for state Assembly. During that campaign, votes I made on the Board of Supervisors were taken out of context and misleading attacks landed in voters' mailboxes.

Yet, for me, not voting was never an option in local government. As a member of the Assessment Appeals Board, and then as a San Francisco supervisor, I've always cast a "yes" or "no" vote. My votes earned me supporters and detractors, but everyone knew where I stood. As a result, The Chronicle endorsed my campaign, and more than 30,000 Democrats supported me because of this experience, figuring it was better to know where someone stands, even if you don't always agree.

In the Assembly, nearly all Democrats vote "aye" on the vast majority of bills presented to the Assembly. But it's not just approving legislation that matters. I have voted "no" on legislation supported by powerful interests when the public interest matters. Last June, I was called to jury service, but I completed my civic duty and drove two hours back to the Capitol to vote. As it turned out, I was one of just nine votes against the gambling expansion deals that denied casino workers the right to organize.

Yet, the Assembly's breakneck pace and inflexible deadlines create a perfect storm for missing votes. The Chronicle printed out that I missed a vote to protect consumer privacy. Last year, I earned a 100 percent score from the Consumer Federation of California because of my pro-consumer voting record and I voted in favor of the bill: AB 3011, which requires cell phone companies to get customer permission to share private information. When the first votes were tallied, however, I was attending to other duties. Since the measure did not secure the needed votes right away, it was put "on call," meaning that the author could bring it up later. When Assembly Member Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, took his bill "off call" I voted "aye."

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass is taking meaningful steps to reform this process by ensuring that legislators are present when votes are cast. As a member of the Assembly leadership, I accept responsibility for recent events and pledge to use my position to urge real change. I am proud to support Speaker Bass in her process to better define and consistently enforce the rules.

I trust that together, Assembly Democrats and Republicans will work on a bipartisan basis to improve the Assembly's practices. I also invite readers to share their thoughts through my Web site at www.fionama.com, where I will be sure to post my ongoing efforts and the results of the Assembly's collective work to restore the public's trust.

Assemblywoman FIONA MA
San Francisco

Movement To Build High-Speed Train Network Continues

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SAN FRANCISCO, CA. -- Rep. Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said in a press release Thursday that the movement to build a network of high-speed trains in the California has moved one step closer to becoming a reality.

According to the press release, the house rail transportation bill passed with overwhelming support Wednesday. The bill includes $1.75 billion available to states to help fund high-speed rail across the country.

"High speed rail is the answer to so many problems faced by California," Ma said, according to the press release. "With this vote, the Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and the House made a statement that California will have a partner in funding a project that will ease congestion, improve air quality and create jobs."

Rep. Jim Costa, D-California, played a crucial role in ensuring California would be eligible for grant money specifically for the high-speed rail, according to the press release.

Pelosi helped to secure the passage of the bill, which passed by a vote of 311-104. The bill would make $350 million available annually for high-speed rail projects through 2013, according to the press release.

In November, California voters will have the opportunity to approve a $9.95 billion bond measure that will begin construction on a high-speed rail system from San Diego to Sacramento including stops in San Francisco and Los Angeles, according to the press release.

"With no foreseeable end to the rising cost of gas at the pumps, Californians are looking for a more reliable and cost efficient mode of transportation," Ma said, according to the press release.

UCSC commencement speakers bow out, citing union battle

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SANTA CRUZ -- Several high-profile speakers scheduled to address graduating students at UC Santa Cruz commencement ceremonies this weekend have said they will cancel if the university fails to reach a contract agreement by the weekend with a union representing nearly 20,000 workers statewide.

Monday, aides for Assemblymembers John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, and Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, confirmed reports made by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 last week that the lawmakers will not deliver keynote addresses at ceremonies for UCSC's Kresge and Steveson colleges, respectively.

Union leaders say UCSC professors and nationally known social justice activists Angela Y. Davis and Paul Oritz also have declined to make scheduled speeches at Oakes and College Ten ceremonies. Former President Bill Clinton and former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez have also declined to show up for their scheduled addresses at UC ceremonies in Los Angeles and Davis unless there an agreement is reached, the union said.

Nicole Savickas, a spokeswoman with UC's Office of the President, said Monday there was no systemwide contingency plan for how to deal with cancelled commencement appearances, though individual colleges and schools may be devising back-up plans.

"It's unfortunate that union has called for these public figures to boycott commencement ceremonies because the students are suffering," she said. "They are not really involved in our bargaining process."

UCSC is scheduled to graduate 2,242 undergraduate, 210 graduate and 88 doctoral students in ceremonies Friday through Sunday. In the fall and winter quarter, 1033 undergraduates also earned bachelor's degrees, 73 students earned master's degrees and 41 students received doctorates.

UCSC spokesman Jim Burns said he could not recall another time UCSC graduation speakers have pulled out over ongoing labor talks.

"Our commencement speakers, of course, have the right to decide whether they will actually participate in graduation ceremonies," Burns said Monday. "If some speakers choose not to come, we hope that their absence will not significantly impact celebrations that are designed to honor our students."

In a statement, Laird said, "I'm really hoping this will get resolved before commencement ceremonies, and I'm working hard with representatives on both sides. It would be a major disappointment for graduating students and their families to have commencement affected by this issue."

However, he said, "If by Saturday there is no agreement, and AFSCME asks that I not participate in the commencement, I will honor that request -- just as I have never crossed a labor picket line."

Lakesha Hamilton, the union's president, said Monday that AFSCME contacted lawmakers and other speakers, asking them not to participate. But she said others took their own initiative to tell the university they would cancel if there wasn't an agreement.

Although the union is not on strike, it would still view a UC speech by lawmakers as "crossing the picket line," she said. "These high-profile people knowing about our fight, that helps UC see that they should do the right thing."

She acknowledged that the union, which is part of the AFL-CIO, has made contributions to some of the lawmakers campaigns, but said the request for Laird and Ma to back out of their commitments was not coupled with a threat to pull political support.

"We haven't threatened to do anything," she said. "We just asked people to support the workers."

University negotiators met Monday with AFSCME leaders who represent 11,000 patient care workers in the UC system, but no agreement was announced over wage and job security disputes. The university has no meetings scheduled with union officials who represent about 9,000 service workers, such as custodial, maintenance and dining workers. About 550 of those workers are employed at UCSC.

Although it looks unlikely that the service workers could reach an agreement by Saturday, officials for both sides said they are not counting it out.

"It depends on what the two parties bring to the table," Savickas said.
Contact J.M. Brown at 429-2410 or jbrown@santacruzsentinel.com.
A total of 2,242 UCSC students are candidates for bachelor of arts, music or science degrees; 210 are eligible to receive master of arts, fine arts or science degrees; of these students, 79 will complete UCSC's Department of Education master's program in late summer. In addition, 88 UCSC students are candidates for doctorates. A small number of students will receive graduate certificates.

Forum: Paid Sick Leave, AB 2716

Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Click here to listen to this interview on the KQED website.

We talk about a bill making its way through the California legislature that would require businesses to provide paid sick leave to employees.

Host: Dave Iverson

Guests:

Fiona Ma, state majority whip and assemblywomen representing California's 12th district
Michael Shaw, legislative director of the National Federation of Independent Business in California.
Roger Niello, assemblyman representing California's 5th District
Sharon Terman, staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center

Assembly Passes First in Nation Bill to Provide Paid Sick Days to Working Californians

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As a nationwide conference convened in New York City to discuss the need for paid sick leave and heard from San Franciscan’s about the city’s groundbreaking ordinance in this area, the California Assembly passed legislation that would make ours the first state in the nation to ensure paid sick days for all workers. Around the world 136 nations—with the notable exception of the United States--guarantee at least a week of paid sick leave.

AB 2716 (Ma), the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act, passed the Assembly yesterday in a 12 hour marathon session on a party line vote of 45 to 33, with Democratic Assemblymember Juan Arambula the only Democrat to join all Republicans in the chamber in voting against it.

AB 2716 allows workers to earn paid sick days that can be used to recover from illness, care for a sick family member, or recover from domestic violence or sexual assault. The bill moves to the Senate, where its author, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, has indicated it will be heard in June. It should pass our Democratic state Senate.

“Simply put, workers should not live in fear of being fired when they take a day off when they or their children are sick,” said Assemblywoman Ma. She hailed the vote as “a victory for public health and sound public policy.”

AB 2716 is co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation and California ACORN, and is supported by a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations including local governments, health professionals and civil rights organizations. Nearly six million working Californians, or about 40% of the workforce, currently receive zero paid sick days through their employers.

“Going to work sick creates unhealthy workplaces and puts co-workers and customers at risk – but many workers have no choice,” said Ma. “AB 2716 is long overdue and will eliminate the difficult choice that many workers face every time they get sick.”

A recently released study conducted by Dr. Vicky Lovell of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research Institute concluded that AB 2716 will save California nearly $1 billion annually. These cost savings are primarily due to reduced turnover and the spread of illness in the workplace.

In 2006, San Francisco voters passed Proposition F that provided all workers in the city with the ability to earn and use paid sick days. Shortly after the one year anniversary of the law, AB 2716 was introduced, modeled after the San Francisco ordinance, to allow a worker to use paid sick time for up to 40 hours or 5 days in each calendar year for workers of small businesses, and 72 hours or 9 days per calendar year for all other workers.

A poll conducted in 2007 by the University of California at Los Angeles showed overwhelming support by Californians from all walks of life for paid sick days legislation. A large majority – 88 percent – of California adults surveyed indicated that they “agreed” or “agreed strongly” that there should be a law guaranteeing paid sick days for all California workers. 76% of Republicans agreed, but that did not make a difference with Republican legislators yesterday.

You can view some of the discussion in New York on paid sick leave from the Drum Major Institute’s “Marketplace of ideas” event. Californian Sara Flocks told participants about a cheesecake factory worker whose employer wouldn't let him stay home, so he had to wear sunglasses to work because he had pinkeye. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney spoke on how the U.S. rhetoric of being a "family-friendly country" doesn't line up with our policy.

At the conference, a memo opposing paid sick leave written by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation was read. (Ironically, despite being against the policy, the Heritage Foundation does offer paid sick leave to its employees.) You can also check out the liveblog of the event for more details and photos.

The Drum Institute has released an “Injustice Index” on sick leave. Here are just a few of the statistics they cited in that index:

• Rank of “stay home when you are sick” on the list of Centers for Disease Control recommendations for preventing the flu: 2

• Proportion of employees without paid sick leave who worry that taking time off when they are sick would jeopardize their job: 1 in 3

• Percentage of employees without paid sick leave who say they cannot afford to take unpaid time off work when they become ill: 58

• Number of countries that require employers to provide a week or more of paid sick leave annually: 136

• Number of days of paid sick leave guaranteed by the United States: 0

• Number of private sector employees in the U.S. without a single paid sick day at work: 46 million

• Proportion of U.S. employees who say they have contracted the flu virus from a sick co-worker: 3 in 10

• Maximum number of hours the flu virus remains alive on an inanimate surface like a door knob, office desk or telephone: 8

• Percentage of food and accommodation workers who don’t have paid sick leave: 86

California has an opportunity to lead the nation, but it won’t be easy. There is a major push behind AB 2716, which has the distinction of making the CalChamber (formerly the California Chamber of Commerce’s 2008 “Job Killer List". All 33 bills on this distinguished list are by Democratic authors. The Chamber has had good luck with Governor Schwarzenegger who has vetoed just about all bills on their annual list that have made it to his desk. We’ll need lots of work on this one which is on its way.

Calif. Assembly Votes to Limit Lead in Children's Products

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The California Assembly has approve a bill to limit the amount of lead that could be used in products designed for young children.

The measure by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a Democrat from San Francisco, was sent to the state Senate on Thursday by a 56-6 vote.

Starting in 2012, the bill would ban products designed for children 12 years and younger if they contained more than 100 parts per million of lead.

Childhood exposure to lead has been linked to decreased intelligence, short-term memory loss, reading problems, limited vocabulary, lack of fine-motor skills and health problems, including cancer.

Calif. Assembly bill requires paid sick days

Wed, 28 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO—Every worker in California would be eligible for paid sick leave under a bill approved by the state Assembly.

The measure goes to the Senate over the objections of Republicans, who say not all businesses can afford to pay employees for time they don't work.

The bill by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a Democrat from San Francisco, passed Wednesday on a 42-25 vote.

Ma says five million Californians now have to work while they are sick or lose pay and risk being fired if they take time off.

Her bill requires larger companies to pay employees for nine sick days each year. Businesses with fewer than 10 employees would have to provide five sick days annually.

Opponents say the measure punishes small businesses.

Ma says her bill will help prevent the spread of illnesses. The legislation also covers employees recovering from domestic violence or a sexual assault.

Locksmith Scam Bill Passes State Assembly in Sacramento

Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO, CA (KGO) -- The State Assembly today passed a bill cracking down on unlicensed locksmiths preying on unsuspecting consumers.

Assembly Bill 2592 by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D. San Francisco) and inspired by a 7 On Your Side investigation passed by a 42-27 vote. Most democrats supported the bill. Republicans mostly opposed it.

The bill would increase fines for unlicensed locksmith activity tenfold to $10,000. It would also place restrictions on misleading ads and require licenses to be prominently displayed.

A 7 On Your Side hidden camera investigation originally aired in February 2007 and uncovered exactly how the scam works.

Consumers locked out of their home call a locksmith desperate for someone to pick the lock. The locksmith pretends the lock is pick proof and then proceeds to drill the lock. The unsuspecting homeowner is then charged as much as $5,000 to replace the lock. Legitimate locksmiths say the normal charge would be $75 to $125.

If the consumer complains about the charge, the locksmith sometimes threatens to leave without replacing the broken lock.

A 7 On Your Side check of locksmiths advertising in the San Francisco phone book found 98 percent of them were unlicensed. Many listed phony addresses or no addresses at all. Many of their phone numbers automatically forwarded to a central call center. Sometimes that call center is as far away as New York.

The bill now goes to the full senate. Nick Hardeman, a spokesman for Assemblywoman Ma, says his office would work with the California Department of Consumer Affairs to gain their support. He says the Department is concerned that some of the provisions in the bill would be too burdensome and impractical to enforce.

He is confident that if that Department can support the bill, the Senate will pass it and the governor will sign it.

We called the Department of Consumer Affairs for comment, but a spokesman says the department cannot comment publicly on any pending legislation.

Fiona Ma: It's Now or Never

Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As you probably know by now, we here at the California High Speed Rail blog are HUGE fans of Fiona Ma. She has taken the lead on high speed rail in the state legislature, and her trip on the record-breaking TGV journey in April 2007 was the turning point in public awareness for high speed rail in our state.

Last month Ma attended the Ecocity 2008 conference in San Francisco, and gave a powerful speech explaining the environmental and economic benefits of high speed rail. Among the points she mentioned was that transportation is the largest source of California's carbon emissions, and that the only way we will meet our AB 32 targets is to build high speed rail. The video below covers the speech, at around 10 minutes long (Ma's remarks begin at 00:45).

[click here to watch the video]

One of the key points she made was that California's leadership is crucial for the rest of the country to embrace high speed rail. "If we do not pass it in November, we will never have high speed trains in the US," she told the audience to loud applause. She is probably right - California is seen as a national leader, especially on technology and global warming action. But if California doesn't pass the bonds this November, it will embolden HSR deniers and discourage HSR supporters - and even more importantly, might derail the momentum currently building in Congress to drop billions of dollars on HSR. And even if momentum continued in DC, we might find that places such as Texas, the Northeast Corridor, and the Great Lakes states will move ahead on HSR while California is left behind. A defeat of the bond this November WILL kill our chances for HSR for the next ten years.

But Fiona Ma was confident that we will win in November. As she told the audience:

I think this is the perfect storm. The high cost of gasoline, the congested roadways, the long lines at the airports, and now with the airline crisis, I really believe that this is the time that Californians will pass this bond in November.

The HSR deniers don't want to discuss any of these problems - but Californians understand these problems very well. No wonder 58% of voters back the high speed rail bonds. They get it, just as Fiona Ma gets it.

Fiona Ma also called on the bloggers to help publicize high speed rail - and we've been doing exactly that for two months now. The California High Speed Rail Blog: We Do Our Part!

Free blood test for widespread hepatitis B

Sat, 17 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Anton Qiu plans to roll up his sleeve this morning and have a blood test technician slip a needle into his arm. Within two weeks he will learn whether he is a carrier of hepatitis B, the leading cause of liver cancer in the world.

A quarter century after the first hepatitis B vaccine became commercially available, rates of acute infection with the liver-scarring virus have plummeted in the United States, but the disease remains endemic in Asia - and 1 in 10 of the estimated 10.3 million Asian adults living in the United States are believed to be chronically infected.

About 1 in 4 of those chronically infected people - known as hepatitis B carriers - will eventually die from scarring of their liver tissues, or from liver cancer. San Francisco, where one-third of the population is of Asian descent, has the nation's highest rate of liver cancer.

"I've had cousins and distant relatives who died of this," said Qiu, 48, a real estate investor who came to the United States as a student from Shanghai in 1980.

Today, he'll join at least 1,000 others attending the Asian Heritage Festival in Japantown who are heeding a call from civic leaders in their communities to get tested.

Among those leaders is Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, who learned when she was 22 years old that she is a hepatitis B carrier.

The silent epidemic

"In the Asian community, it is taboo to talk about any flaws, to talk about anything health-related," Ma said in a recent interview. "But this is a silent epidemic. You don't have symptoms until it is too late. The more we talk about it, the more we can share stories, and encourage their families and friends to talk about it."

Two-thirds of the estimated 1.25 million hepatitis B carriers in the United States do not know they are infected and are unlikely to find out until they show signs of potentially life-threatening illnesses. Ma was infected at birth, but didn't know she was a carrier until she took a blood test during a job application process.

She was born in the United States, but her parents are from China. Her mother is a hepatitis B carrier, as is her brother. But their youngest sister, born after the vaccine became available, is immune. All in Ma's family remain healthy, and with regular blood testing to find any signs of liver damage, they expect to remain so.

The hepatitis B virus is about 100 times more infectious than HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Like HIV, it can be transmitted sexually, during childbirth or by the sharing of needles. Unlike HIV, it is preventable with a vaccine. It is also treatable.

The hepatitis B vaccine, initially derived from human blood but now produced in yeast through genetic engineering, has the potential to eliminate the disease among the youngest Americans. Since 1991, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all newborns be vaccinated against the virus, and state law requires it - although parents can seek a waiver to opt out of the requirement.

The vaccine has helped to lower the number of acute hepatitis B infections - a condition marked by fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain and yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eye. In San Francisco, where hepatitis B was circulating among gay men as well as in the Asian community, the rate of new infections has fallen nearly 90 percent since it peaked in 1987.

In addition, treatments using immunoglobulin and vaccine have reduced the risk of mothers transmitting the virus to their babies in childbirth by up to 95 percent, said Dr. Sandra Huang, director of communicable diseases for the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Tracking and treating chronic hepatitis B infections is a more difficult challenge, because the disease does not reveal itself in most chronic carriers unless and until they become ill. Newborns and children are most susceptible, yet show few if any symptoms of infection. Huang said that, for now, San Francisco health officials can make only a rough estimate that there are 20,000 residents living with chronic hepatitis B infection in the city.

Bay Area concentration

The Bay Area has a high number of hepatitis B chronic infections because the region is a gateway for immigration from China, where an estimated 120 million are carriers. "China alone accounts for 50 percent of liver cancer deaths in the world," said Dr. Samuel So, a surgeon and director of the Asia Liver Center at the Stanford University School of Medicine. "Every day, over 1,000 people in China die of this disease."

So has been working with the federal Office of Minority Health on development of a nationwide strategy to control hepatitis B. Currently, the agency is spending $500,000 of its $50 million annual budget on hepatitis programs for Asians and Pacific Islanders.

"A lot of folks just don't know how important this epidemic is," said Dr. Garth Graham, director of the agency. "Half of the 1.5 million affected in the United States are Asian Americans."

So is also trying to drum up interest at the World Health Organization and other international bodies to develop a comprehensive strategy to roll back this vaccine-preventable disease. Hepatitis B is also a major health problem in Africa, Southeast Asia and India. Worldwide, an estimated 370 million are infected with the virus, and each year 700,000 die of its complications.

If signs of liver disease begin to emerge, there are drugs that can reduce the amount of virus circulating in the bloodstream and tests that can spot liver cancer before tumors become almost invariably lethal.

"A lot of people who are walking around with hepatitis B have a very treatable disease," said Dr. Alex Monto, director of the liver clinic at the VA Medical Center in San Francisco. "There are medications that are quite new and very effective, and a lot of people do not know about them."