FBAC is pleased to welcome our newest member, Reid & Associates, an Orange County-based executive search firm.
Founded in 2001 by George and Patricia Reid, the company focuses on helping healthcare companies find both permanent and interim leaders in fields including nursing leadership, healthcare leadership, and nursing recruitment. It is an affiliate of MRINetwork, the largest recruiting and placement organization in the world.
Their son, Casey, now serves as the company president while their daughter, Kristen, is director of recruitment. Learn more about the company here. https://www.reidmri.com
FBAC Chairman Ken Monroe went on the Capitol Weekly Podcast this week to discuss the challenges and opportunities family businesses face in California. He said the biggest challenge is the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which allows individual employees to file suits on behalf of the state over allegations that labor laws have been violated. Over the years, it has become a gold mine for trial lawyers who file thousands of lawsuits against employers while providing little benefit to employees.
Monroe noted while reforms adopted by the Legislature in 2004 have had some modest positive effects, the number of suits remains high, businesses continue paying large settlements because the insurance companies and the lawyers prefer settlements than the risks trials entail, and employees have to take their lunch no later than 4 hours and 59 minutes from starting work whether they want to or not.
California voters will decide on 14 ballot measures this November — five put on the ballot by the Legislature and the remainder by outside groups. After careful consideration, the Family Business Association of California’s board of directors has taken positions on all but two based on the impact the measures would have on California’s family businesses.
Proposition 1. The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. This is an $11.75 billion general obligation bond to subsidize rental housing. While we need more housing in the state, we do not need more debt and who knows where the money will ultimately go. No position
Proposition 2. Save for California’s Future Act. This constitutional amendment from Democratic leaders would allow the state to deposit up to 20% of its general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund each year, instead of the current 10%, and instead of returning excess tax revenues to taxpayers. Oppose
Proposition 3. The measure seeks to make permanent a temporary income tax up to 12% — on high earners that voters approved in 2012. The tax applies to household income over $721,000 for couples and over $360,000 for individuals. The tax generates between $5-15 billion each year for K-12 schools and community colleges. It is set to expire in 2031. Opposed
Proposition 4. This measure would give California governments the authority to set up public financing systems for state and local political candidates. Public campaign financing has been banned in California since 1988. State lawmakers approved the measure last year to send it to voters this November. Opposed
Proposition 5. Governs the recall of state officers. After a recall, this constitutional amendment would eliminate the election to pick a successor immediately, such as when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced the recalled Gov. Gray Davis, instead leaving the post vacant until it’s filled in a separate election. It would also allow the recalled official to run for the office again. No position
Proposition 37. Creates a loan program for middle-income buyers of qualified new homes. This would create a $25 billion mortgage loan program for home buyers who make less than 200% of the area median income. The measure would offer fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price on homes priced under $1.5 million. Home buyers must pay at least 3% of their down payment. As this is a revenue bond, not a general obligation bond, Support
Proposition 38. This would allow the state to borrow $8.4 billion in debt to research immune system-based technologies for treating conditions including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The money would be divided between a University of California-affiliated nonprofit and a grant for public or nonprofit institutions. Any resulting technology and drugs from the research would be sold at 20% below the national average. Too expensive. Opposed
Proposition 39. This constitutional amendment would require voters to present government-issued ID when voting in person or the last four digits of their ID number when voting by mail. Support
Proposition 40. This measure would apply a one-time 5% wealth tax on the assets of roughly 200 California billionaires, to be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would go to pay for healthcare for low-income Californians and 10% toward education and food assistance programs. Opposed
Proposition 41. This measure in response to the billionaire tax proposal would require state audits of programs funded by new taxes. It would also apply revenue from new taxes to the state’s spending cap, which requires that spiking revenue go back to taxpayers or toward education. That would effectively cancel out the wealth tax proposal. If voters approve both measures, the one with more votes will prevail. Support
Proposition 42. This measure is also aimed at undercutting the wealth tax proposal. It would prevent new taxes on personal property, which would offset the wealth tax. If both pass, the one with more votes prevails. Support
Proposition 43. This would raise the threshold for citizen-driven special tax ballot initiatives to pass from a simple majority to two-thirds, making it harder to impose or increase taxes. The measure, placed on the ballot at the last minute by state lawmakers, reflects a deal state leaders struck with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Business Roundtable. SupportÂ
Proposition 44. This measure would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of revenue on direct patient care and services that aid in providing care to low-income and underserved people. Clinics that don’t comply would be fined; the money would go into a state-operated account for worker training and staffing. While this only pertains to health centers, it is another invasion by government controlling how a business is run. Opposed
Proposition 45. This would amend the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act to create deadlines for environmental reviews of most housing, transportation, water, health and clean energy projects to speed up permitting and limit the court’s ability to stop or delay developments. Support
FBAC, the only organization lobbying at the state Capitol on behalf of family owned businesses, welcomes Universal Service Recycling as our newest member.
The company has been family owned and operated since 1996. It began as a one-yard operation in Stockton but now has locations in Stockton, Sacramento, Modesto, and Merced serving all or parts of 9 counties.
The company, founded by William Mendonca, is now the largest privately held metal recycler serving the Central Valley and is managed by the first and second generations. It employs about 100 people. Learn more https://bit.ly/485PCyC
The Sacramento Business Journal has posted an op-ed by FBAC Chairman Ken Monroe highlighting the need to enact further reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The piece is behind the SBJ’s paywall, but if you’re not a subscriber here’ are the first few paragraphs:
Last June, the business community, legislators, trial lawyers and Gov. Gavin Newsom reached an agreement to reform California’s onerous Private Attorneys General Act.
PAGA, as it is universally called, was signed into law by former Gov. Gray Davis after he was recalled in 2003. It allows individual employees to file suits on behalf of the state over allegations that labor laws have been violated.
Over the years, it became a gold mine for trial lawyers who file thousands of lawsuits against employers while providing little benefit to employees.
Unfortunately, while some of last year’s reforms have been positive — employees now receive more of any settlement, while employers have an expanded right to cure any violations — it hasn’t stopped the deluge of PAGA lawsuits. In fact, California is on pace to have more than 9,000 PAGA lawsuits this year, more than before the reforms went into effect.
Clearly, further reforms are needed now.
Monroe said it was encouraging that the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency has caused a particularly egregious law firm to refile more than 130 suits, and said the best solution is for the state to finally provide funding to the agency to enforce labor laws in a timely fashion. Absent that, he suggested compensating private lawyers at the same rate as state attorneys to remove the windfall financial incentives.
PAGA is one of the biggest problems affecting family businesses in California and FBAC will continue its efforts to really reform the law once and for all.
