2008 Career Tech Summit Findings

Posted by Gino DiCaro on May 7, 11:37 am

A Career Technical Education Summit was held earlier this year to discover some of the real problems with California's public high schools. The Summit was hosted by Get REAL -- a large statewide coalition working toward CTE courses for all high school students. Get REAL recently released their Summit findings and an incredible resource of materials and information here: http://www.getrealca.com/summit2008/

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL ,Relevance in Education and Learning

0 comments | Post your comment

Reminder to Legislature: Think Dynamically

Posted by Gino DiCaro on May 7, 10:23 am

While the Legislature and the Governor scramble to close the State's reported $20 billion deficit, we remind them to think dynamically. There are policies that can work toward their short term goals and stimulate long-term development and progress at the same time.

For instance, California companies currently experience some of the highest operating costs in the nation:

To curb that problem and stimulate long-term growth that the State needs, a 5 cent sales tax exemption on the purchase of manufacturing equipment could go a long way:

And in times like these, there are even more dynamic ways to help with the State's very short term budget problem .... we could implement a sales tax exemption not to be refunded to companies until three or four years down the road when the State is reaping the net revenue benefits from the exemption (see chart above).

Larger explanation

Intel on re-location and California's tax burden

Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger ,Sales tax exemption ,STE

0 comments | Post your comment

Question of the month: How much should the tax be on hazardous chemicals produced, used or distributed in California?

Posted by Gino DiCaro on May 6, 10:43 am

This was the first of eleven questions posed to industry and others for the final phase of the California Department of Toxics and Substance Control's "Green Chemistry" Initiative. The agency is looking to regulate, tax, penalize and otherwise oversee thousands of chemicals and products -- many of which have not been scientifically proven to be, in fact, hazardous.

Last month, DTSC sent out these questions to be answered prior to April 30th. We have one question for DTSC now that we answered theirs: What exactly makes a chemical hazardous in their minds, and in what application? .... Sorry, one more. What science is there to prove that the alternatives are better?

DTSC has an enormous undertaking with this initiative and the effort is commendable but, just as we answered their difficult questions, they should answer ours. Before we start asking if and how much we should tax and penalize, we should know exactly what hazard we're taxing.

----

DTSC's 11 questions:

1. How much should the tax be on hazardous chemicals produced, used, or distributed in California?

2. What information would trigger a ban of a chemical by the state of California?

3. What incentives should the state of California provide to promote the development of safer chemical or product alternatives?

4. What would be the appropriate response by the state of California for failure to use safer alternatives?

5. What would be the appropriate response by the state of California for failure to disclose product ingredients?

6. By what date should the state of California require reusable or biodegradable non-petroleum based packaging?

7. How can industry use a multi-media standard, such as ISO 14000, to demonstrate they achieve performance above and beyond compliance with regulatory standards for product and processes?

8. What lines of scientific data (in vitro toxicity and other relevant properties) should the state of California consider and use for decision-making in the absence of traditional animal toxicity data?

9. What criteria should the State of California require as part of alternatives assessment by industry in determining which products are safer/greener?

10. How should the State of California use data (generated by others) in the chemical matrix for deciding which products are safe?

11. If third party life cycle analyses are required for specific products or materials, what State Agency, e.g. Department of Consumer Affairs, should be responsible for certifying or authorizing individuals to perform them?

Tags: DTSC ,Green Chemistry

0 comments | Post your comment

$20 billion budget abyss should trigger pause in bold, California-only policy

Posted by Gino DiCaro on April 29, 12:54 pm

California State Senate Republicans today announced an economic recovery package to reduce costs on consumers and businesses to help dampen the burden on the State's $20 billion deficit. Among the recovery measures was a request to delay the greenhouse gas implementation for one year. AB 32 will impose new costs -- estimated at $511 billion by the EPRI -- on the California economy and worsen the budget crisis. We are already 23% more expensive than the national average in business costs. The one year additional time for implementation would delay those new costs, and also allow more time for the federal government to act. Delaying implementation by this modest timeframe also gives the Air Resources Board time to develop rational regulations and work toward a market to keep compliance costs low for California companies.

All of the proposed measures work within existing law. In AB 32, there is specific language that allows for a temporary adjustment by the Governor during extraordinary economic times:

"38599. (a) In the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm, the Governor may adjust the applicable deadlines for individual regulations, or for the state in the aggregate, to the earliest feasible date after that deadline. (b) The adjustment period may not exceed one year unless the Governor makes an additional adjustment pursuant to subdivision (a)."
The California-only greenhouse gas undertaking has been lauded as one of the biggest and boldest policy decisions this Sate has made in the last 20 years ... for a reason. It will cost consumers more money, negate even more competitive balance for California employers and, with a dismal budget, threaten our State's finances. A momentary pause is almost meaningless to the bill's goal and, in fact, provides more time to understand the effects of the myriad of future regulations.

Video footage:
Watch CMTA Dorothy Rothrock on the AB 32 proposal
Watch State Senate Republican Leader David Cogdill and Sen. Bob Dutton introduce Economic Recovery package
Watch Sen. George Runner responding to questions
Watch Sen. Cogdill responding to questions

Press Release

Tags: AB 32 ,Bob Dutton ,David Cogdill ,Dorothy Rothrock ,George Runner

0 comments | Post your comment

California's new economy: Running on empty

Posted by Jack Stewart on April 27, 9:18 pm

California is at a crossroads. For twenty years we have neglected career technical education (CTE) in our public schools. Each year the number of CTE courses offered to our students declines and, as a result, the number of CTE teachers and CTE student enrollments are at historic lows.

At the same time, the demand for skilled workers is growing and in many industries the demand has already outpaced the number of available workers. Add to that dilemma the oncoming flood of baby boom retirements and the job demands of an emerging green economy and California’s economic engine could quickly run out of gas.

In his Sunday column, Dan Weintraub reports the upcoming flood of baby boom retirements will number between 2.4 and 2.7 million over the next ten years. Weintraub puts those numbers into perspective: "250,000 to 300,000 job openings a year from retirements would just about equal the number of new jobs created annually in California between 1996 and 2006."

Add to those numbers the 89,000 new green jobs California’s global warming mandate is projected to create (view report) and the magnitude of the problem is quite clear.

Assembly candidate Dominic Caserta writes in the San Jose Mercury News that "At a January new-energy summit in San Francisco, corporate and government leaders bemoaned the shortage of qualified workers." and that "Our vocational and career-tech system should spearhead such training, but it's not known or stigmatizing for many students. And while community colleges can help fill gaps, many young people never set foot on another campus after high school."

A large majority of the new and replacement jobs will not require a four-year degree. Most can be filled by new workers who receive 21st century technical training in their high schools and/or skills training in local community colleges. Yet California’s education establishment increasingly insists that that every high school student be prepared for admission to a four-year university.

California needs to rethink our educational priorities and match our high school curriculum to real world job opportunities. And, we need more clear thinkers like Dominic Caserta participating in the education reform debate.

Tags: CTE ,Dan Weintraub ,Dominic Caserta ,Get REAL ,Relevance in Education and Learning ,technical education

0 comments | Post your comment

Earth Day today, CTE tomorrow

Posted by Gino DiCaro on April 23, 2:17 am

Yesterday was an Earth Day celebration, but the other 364 days of the year are when the work really gets done. It's when we invest in the workforce and technologies needed to innovate, manufacture, research, install and maintain the products that will keep the forthcoming Earth Days .... well, green.

Accentuating this point at a press conference in the State Capitol yesterday was the Get REAL coalition, Lieutenant Gov. John Garamendi, Senator Tom Torlakson, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock and Assemblyman Martin Garrick. The overall plea was for the State to stop bleeding career technical education courses out of our high schools. Almost 90,000 "green jobs" will be created in California by 2020, CTE enrollment has decreased from 74 percent to 30 percent over the last twenty years, and, all the while, 40 percent of our students are dropping out of high schools before they even get exposed to the contextualized training that could lead to high paying careers in the emerging green sectors and others.

One prime example of what's to come: For every one megawatt of photovoltaics installed, 20 manufacturing jobs and 13 maintenance jobs are created for one year. For the 20 percent of our high school students who go on to get four-year degrees before they are 25, this might not matter. For the 80 percent that don't, it could represent one of the many promising futures if we just gave them the fundamental training and inspiration they need.

As the State navigates difficult budget times, contemplates revenue enhancements and priorities, seeks to establish itself as the greenest in the Union, and covets new investments, it is crucial that existing and any new resources for schools be considered for career technical education.

Earth Day reminds us of our environmental priorities and accomplishments. We will have a hard time accomplishing anything if our education system tells students and future workforce that CTE exposure is unavailable, unrequired, unfunded, unvalued and unmeasured.

View press conference video
View press release
View chart showing California's CTE decline

Tags: CTE ,Earth Day ,Get REAL ,green jobs ,Jack Stewart ,Relevance in Education and Learning ,technical education

0 comments | Post your comment

Low Carbon Gas: Break new ground, not our wallets

Posted by Gino DiCaro on April 16, 2:52 pm

The California Air Resources Board is tasked with charting how California improves its already-cleanest gasoline by implementing the State's new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) -- part of the State's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million to 20 million metric tons by 2020. There is so much we don't know about the life-cycle impacts of lower carbon alternatives such as bio fuels, hydrogen, clean diesel fuels and others. Put simply, if these regulations are done poorly and without a full understanding, there will be significant risks to affordable supply, potential loss of actual emission reductions, increases in food costs and other unknown implications.

The biggest threat to getting the LCFS right (as well as all of the other regulations being implemented under California's Climate Change Law) is time constraints. DEADLINES MUST NOT DICTATE OR RUSH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RULES OR FUEL SELECTIONS. We're already at the forefront with a California-only climate change law so the uncertainties and questions of such complex regulations should be our sole interest. The Air Board, with the only real manpower for such an undertaking, must take all the time it needs to understand life cycle impacts from these fuels and allow for corrections once the regulations are made.

Read CMTA President Jack Stewart's LCFS opinion placed in April 12 Sacramento Bee.

Read the AB 32 Implementation Group's LCFS letter to CARB

Tags: AB 32 ,global warming ,LCFS

0 comments | Post your comment

Employers and Employees need "Rest when it's Best"

Posted by Gino DiCaro on April 9, 1:55 pm

Today in California's Senate Labor Committee, the beginnings of a long sought after fix (SB 1539 by Ron Calderon) to the State's very unclear meal and break period laws made an important first step -- it passed it's first Committee. The legislation was unfortunately stripped down but still moved forward as an intent bill and, most importantly, the Committee recognized the need for change in its comments and vote.

The law in question (Labor code section 512) states that a non-exempt employee can't work more than 5 hours without being provided a thirty-minute meal period. Employers and employees need flexibility and clarity -- the type of freedom not afforded in a law as ambiguous and often litigated as this one.

Manufacturers and their employees use many different types of schedules to accommodate different processes. The original law was not intended to prohibit flexible and symbiotic work schedules from occurring, but it was written in such a way that unintentionally created a wide-open venue for class-action lawsuits amidst very agreeable employer / employee relationships.

At its very worst, the law even created situations where a nurse could be forced to take a rest period during a medical procedure if that nurse had not yet taken a break. Fear of costly lawsuits forces employers (including health facilities) to require these 30-minute reprieves regardless of the employee's immediate disposition or situation.

Because the law is so nebulous, meal period class-action lawsuits have become a popular and easy way to sue California employers. SB 1539 and "Rest when it's Best" clarification has lots of hurdles and challenges but the mere recognition that change is needed is a very promising first step.

Next time you're at dinner and your waiter says he's being forced to take his break right in the middle of "go time", take a breath and a bite of your riceless, orange flavored chicken and hope that the law gets fixed before it becomes an even larger reason not to grow a manufacturing facility or employee base in California ... or worse, before you get to the hospital and need all willing hands on deck.

View SB 1539 broad support letter.

Tags: Meal and Rest ,Rest when it's Best ,Ron Calderon ,SB 1539

0 comments | Post your comment

Career Tech Education: Valued? First to go?

Posted by Gino DiCaro on April 1, 3:11 pm

High-wage manufacturers rely on Career Technical Education courses at all levels to develop their workforce and build the new innovative products that this Century demands and the emerging green technologies require. While California debates how to balance a Budget that spends far more than it takes in, tonight in Lodi we get a first-hand look at a pervasive and dangerous local school district trend already cutting courses and working against students and their potential employers.

Tokay High School students and teachers, and the Get REAL coalition (coalition website) will appear in a last ditch effort to save their construction technology program and prove the value of these courses. They improve dropout rates, positively affect young lives, and provide a valuable skilled workforce to the local community.

Lodi has already cut two CTE courses in automotive and drafting education.

The first government programs and services gone in difficult times are always ones we don't value. Tonight, we'll see just how much the Lodi School District values a program that everyone agrees increases opportunity.

View Coalition Advisory
View Coalition handout

UPDATE: April 3 -- Students, teachers, employers and State Board member Jim Aschwanden showed up to beg the district not to cut this program. The Lodi School District Board members tabled the vote but their comments, albeit positive regarding overall career technical education, indicated that budgetary constraints and remediation needs most likely will prohibit them from continuing the program.

Related media: Lodi Sentinel News

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL ,Manufacturers ,technical education

1 comments | Post your comment

Greenhouse gas credits & reductions: On Sale!

Posted by Gino DiCaro on March 25, 12:48 pm

In a letter this week, more than 50 groups officially asked Gov. Schwarzenegger to consider and fight for a cap and trade system (essentially a "market") in the developing greenhouse gas regulations in California.

For this California-only law to work, consumers must be protected from high costs and the regulating system must be a powerful ally in actually reducing emissions - in other words, keep the emerging technologies, jobs and emissions here in the State.

Impossible situation, you ask? One staggering statistic in the letter proves otherwise: The congressional Research Service estimates that reducing gas through a cap and trade system would cost 5 times less than if trading were not allowed.

Read Letter

Cap and Trade explanation

Tags: AB 32 ,Arnold Schwarzenegger ,cap and trade ,Markets

0 comments | Post your comment

Manufacturing productivity gains at DST Output in Northern California

Posted by Gino DiCaro on March 19, 3:03 pm

Last month DST Output celebrated its selection as one of Industry Week Magazine's "Top 10 Best Plants" in North America. CMTA president, Jack Stewart, and I attended the facility-wide celebration at their plant in El Dorado Hills, California.

DST Output provides integrated print and electronic billing statements to many of the country's largest financial services, communications, healthcare, and utilities companies.

DST Output's Top 10 accolade was impressive but it was their exponential and jaw-dropping productivity growth over the last four years that gave me pause and once again made me ponder the old mantra, productivity gains = unemployment.

Get this: DST Output's facility in El Dorado Hills is printing more than 32 million images a day .... and those are all variable images with complex and different billing data on each one. This was unheard of in the industry just four years ago when DST output was printing only 17 million images a day. Even more, these increased images are printed on fewer printers. 90 fewer to be exact -- down to 10 from 100. I asked what happened to the number of employees. Guess what. They actually remained about the same ... possibly even added a few. Go figure.

Simply put, in four years, they nearly doubled production, used 90 percent less machines and at least kept the same amount of employees.

This is a reminder that California companies are doing more with less, and keeping our economy going with good paying technical careers. More product ... more training ... less waste. More technology ... less consumer product cost.

We need to do everything we can to supply our new and existing lean manufacturers with a skilled and ready workforce and, during the current economic downturn, we need to make sure the State's business costs compete with the rest of the nation so more California workers can find family-wage jobs like the one's at DST Output.

Read Industry Week's write up

Tags: DST Output ,Industry Week ,Jack Stewart ,Manufacturers ,Productivity

236 comments | Post your comment

California Needs a Fresh Start

Posted by Gino DiCaro on March 7, 12:38 pm

As I cleaned out 12 years of clutter from my office this week in preparation for CMTA's big March 28 move to a stone's throw from the Capitol, one thing came to mind -- California and I need a fresh start. The move will take care of my itch, but I have a few things the State should consider as a refresher for it's own house. Among the detritus of a decade's worth of paper, press releases, issues archives, pesky "to do" lists, reports, and un-expensed receipts, I came across three very worthy items that deserve California's attention.

The first was a 1998 5-pound notebook from the now defunct California Trade and Commerce Agency titled, The California Location Book -- a book created to give corporations every reason to grow in the state. (see table of contents)

The second was a study done in 2006, titled Manufacturing Prosperity Initiative, proving the decline in wages and requesting the reinvigoration of the Jerry Brown instigated -- but never implemented -- California Commission for Industrial Innovation. (see letter / summary)

The third was a 2004 Proclamation by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to "Reaffirm California's commitment to the success of our manufacturing industry." (see Proclamation)

The recruitment tool, the original Commission (and the 2006 request), and the Proclamation were meant to be important cylinders in the engine of high wage manufacturing growth and certainty in California. All are lifeless. All need a fresh start.

------

First the fact that there is no California recruitment agency (AKA someone accountable for the loss of 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs) charged with the State's economic security as it pertains to our biggest wealth creator is at the least, worrisome, at the worst, negligent (See Tesla Motors ... Buck Knives ... Intel's wafer fab ... Oregon's new solar cluster). The Local Economic Development agencies are doing yeoman's work at the local level -- and usually understaffed -- but we need a statewide organization that can lead, oversee, track, market and advocate. If we had one, they'd be diligently working on new recruitment tools, much like the 300-page brochure unearthed in my office this week, and making a case for competitive tax incentives and some degree of certainty in policies affecting job creators.

While corporate decisions aren't made on recruitment books and marketing materials, the absence of such things means no one is asking what incentives to market. (Granted, the Gov. has done his own sporadic marketing in between governing the largest state in the union)

Second, the Manufacturing Prosperity Initiaitive proved the State is slouching toward a service-sector economy. Most importantly showing data on the growing sectors versus declining sectors: growing sectors average wages were $15,000 less than the declining sectors. CMTA updated these numbers to reflect 2001 to 2006 data. The difference increased to $26,000. (see chart)

Third, the Legislature and Governor, in these times of budgetary debate, need to once again affirm that manufacturing and the always-to-follow R&D jobs are the lifeblood of Californians -- not to mention new global warming innovations -- and provide the much needed revenue and growth needed to help pull the State out of it's $16 billion deficit.

March 28 is my fresh start. I'll be at our new digs at 1115 11th Street working on California's fresh start.

Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger ,Buck Knives ,fresh start ,Intel ,Manufacturing ,Solar cluster ,Tesla Motors

0 comments | Post your comment

Green tech jobs need stimulus despite -- and because of -- AB 32

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Feb. 29, 12:14 pm

CMTA President Jack Stewart, other business leaders, Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate pro Tem Don Perata and other legislators gathered at the Capitol yesterday to discuss the important correlation between green public policies and green collar job growth in California.

While the passage of AB 32 relied upon the premise that California would grow green jobs as a result of the passage of the bill, much work has to be done to stimulate these industries here in the state. Let's face it, there was no language in AB 32 that incented companies to manufacture these products in California and this state is still very cost-uncompetitive (See Solar cluster forming in Oregon).

Manufacturers are both the source and the beneficiaries of innovation to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. But it will be a challenge to overcome our business climate negatives – high costs of doing business, difficult regulatory environment, and increasing difficulty finding skilled workers.

A focus on solving these issues will pay huge dividends for the California economy and yesterday's announcement was a very important first step

Photos
Press Release
Press Conference video
SD Tribune article

Tags: AB 32 ,green jobs ,Jack Stewart

0 comments | Post your comment

Why not California #2

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Jan. 28, 9:21 am

Last week, Intel announced that it will be closing the last semiconductor manufacturing facility in Santa Clara, California, affecting 500 jobs -- many of which carried salaries above $70,000. A large portion of the wafer fabrication plant's past growth was a direct result of the 1993 California Manufacturers Investment Credit - a credit that disappeared in 2003, leaving California as one of only four states that taxes capital manufacturing equipment.   Intel executives have argued for some time that it had become increasingly difficult to compete globally and manufacture in the State because of California’s tax and economic development policies and the resulting relatively high costs. Though challenging to manufacture domestically, nonetheless, Intel continues to do so in four other states, in part, due to their tax and economic development laws and policies.

Intel is now looking at a possible re-use of the Santa Clara facility as a wafer mask design shop, but at considerably less property tax value, and very likely less jobs.   Both bad signs for the State's economy, budget and working families.

The Pacific Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) job-migration report last November said there was "little cause for concern about California's business climate". According to the PPIC, California trends with the rest of the country in terms of actual loss and sees mostly internal job migration. However, they use data from 1992 to 2004 to come up with aggregate migration numbers for industries. Assuming this is the most current comprehensive data, there are two very important points: First, we need to look at the migration number from 2001 to 2007, a time period that yielded the precipitous decline of just under 400,000 manufacturing jobs with no apparent bounce back, and secondly, we need to understand the decisions we don't know about ... in other words, the growth and opportunity that could have been started in California but never got off the ground with decision makers. The first problem, for now, is an available data challenge and the second will always be an unknown, at least without installing cameras in every board room across the country.

We know this: It is costly for manufacturers to move production. If we struggle to keep Intel and others operating in the State, how can we expect to attract new facilities from elsewhere.   For corporate Boards to decide to stay in, move to, and grow within a certain region, they need to understand the certainty of their costs and know that they can compete with businesses in other states and countries. Apparently, for Intel, those two questions did not produce relatively favorable answers.

Wisconsin showed recently that it understands these dynamics by sending a virtual beacon to wavering manufacturing facilities by packaging up new and existing tax credits, totaling $85 million, for manufacturers that create jobs and train workers. Now that's how you attract new growth from the highest-wage sector of our economy.

Tags: Intel ,Manufacturing jobs ,MIC ,STE ,Why not California

0 comments | Post your comment

"It's the Economy, Comrade"

Posted by Jack Stewart on Jan. 25, 9:56 pm

If you want to restore California's middle-class, fix manufacturing. In an opinion piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle, UC Irvine School of Business professor Peter Navarro, argues that the way to restore California's middle-class is to focus on the manufacturing sector. Professor Navarro asks the question: "why is China booming as the U.S. stagnates?" His response is it's "painfully obvious: America has lost millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs to China"

Navarro's economic advice to the presidential candidates of both parties is "if we truly want to restore the health of the American economy, we must resuscitate our once dominant manufacturing sector and reclaim those jobs lost to China." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California legislators should take heed.

Navarro's Opinion in SF Chronicle:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDFDUHP0O.DTL

Tags: China ,Economy ,Manufacturers

0 comments | Post your comment

Summit: CTE commitment from future gubernatorial candidates and policymakers

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Jan. 18, 3:29 pm

Career Technical Education scored a major success this week at the Get REAL CTE Summit in Sacramento on Tuesday. Attorney General Jerry Brown stunned the hands-on education community and others by indicating that the University of California system is a "behemoth" that drives the State's K-12 curriculum. He politely said that CTE's biggest challenge will be the UC system, and it appeared, even though he is a proud UC graduate, that he would join the most committed CTE proponents in that fight. Watch the second half of his remarks HERE. (technical difficulties prohibited us from showing the first half where he explained his "lack of skill" and his very helpful Greek and Latin high school focus). Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell addressed the Summit crowd as well.

Legislators, Gloria Romero (stay tuned for her video, she came in costume), Tom Torlakson, Mark Desaulnier, Loni Hancock and Martin Garrick also spoke resoundingly on behalf of the CTE struggle. They joined more than 50 other Legislators in signing an ongoing Resolution of Support for California Career Technical Education.

Here's the press release with the many other highlights. The Summit showed that the Love Lost on CTE from the Schwarzenegger administration will not be lost on the growing statewide coalition that wants to prepare our students for careers and future success in California's economy.

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL ,Jerry Brown ,Relevance in Education and Learning ,Summit

0 comments | Post your comment

Career Technical Education: Love Lost

Posted by Jack Stewart on Jan. 8, 8:02 pm

In last year’s state of the state, the Governor committed himself to expanding Career Technical Education in California schools, saying ‘we must also continue to reinvigorate career tech education — I love career tech, love it.’

But this year, Career Technical Education is the jilted lover. The Governor didn’t mention it once in this year’s state of the state — not a word.

That’s very bad news for the vast majority of students who would benefit from CTE. Not only would more students be inspired to stay in school, they’d learn skills that would reward them whether they attend college or begin their careers after high school. They’re being cheated of a well-rounded, meaningful education.

Math and science alone will not prepare students for ‘our high-tech future.’ Certainly these courses are vital, but it’s going to take the kind of hands-on, applied learning that only CTE can provide to truly prepare our students for tomorrow’s high-tech world and workplace.

Furthermore it should be recognized that career and technical education is to some high school students what advance placement and honors is to others, namely an alternative that meets their unique needs.

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL ,Relevance in Education and Learning ,State of the State

0 comments | Post your comment

We can't ignore career technical education anymore

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Jan. 3, 3:34 pm

In '07, California manufacturers saw a further decline in the State's skilled worker pool in which to recruit and train employees. Manufacturing operations depend on more technical skill sets than ever before to make this century's innovative products. The State's problem is worsening with our high school graduates receiving little or no career technical education, while only 20 percent go on to get their four-year college degree. This means our students aren't getting the exposure to innovative new career fields or the training to land these high-wage, life building jobs. Read more about problem from CMTA President Jack Stewart and SBCTC President Bob Balgenorth here.

On January 15, the Get REAL coalition (Who we are) will host the "Reaching the Stars" Career Technical Education Summit (Agenda & attendees) to ensure that in 2008, we make informed decisions and urge the state's legislative leaders to find ways to increase cutting edge 21st Century technical training in our high schools.

Highlighting the event will be a NASA exhibit, showing the Constellation Program's Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle model -- the new spacecraft designed for flights to the Moon and eventually to support missions to Mars. A NASA panel will discuss the urgent need for technicians and other skilled workers in aerospace and other cutting edge industries. Also surrounding the summit floor will be hands-on student displays ranging from a student-built race car, to engineering and robotics exhibits, to student-constructed playhouses and agricultural science innovation.

The all-day event will include a keynote luncheon address by author Ken Gray, testimonials from educators and students, speeches from Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, and a policy development session with leading California legislators.

More to come through this blog on the results of the Summit agreement and the 2008 GetREAL CTE policy agenda.

Tags: CTE ,CTE Summit ,Get REAL

0 comments | Post your comment

Climate change causes some to rethink nuclear power

Posted by Dorothy Rothrock on Dec. 10, 4:39 pm

It would have been unthinkable just two years ago.

The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee is conducting an informational hearing today in San Diego on the status of nuclear energy, which by itself is nothing new. But what is so different this year is that in addition to discussing nuclear waste, seismic safety and utility management of the state’s two nuclear plants, the committee will also discuss the role nuclear power plays in reducing greenhouse gases. In other words, nuclear power may have a future after all.

Committee chair Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), while not exactly a champion of nuclear power, says it is time to reexamine our state’s energy portfolio. "We're not going to meet our greenhouse gas emissions goal unless we start taking some major steps to find cleaner ways to produce the tremendous amount of energy we need."

Once Taboo, Nuclear Power Experiences Renaissance in California:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/03/news/01nuclear120307.txt

Tags: AB 32 ,Christine Kehoe ,Nuclear power

0 comments | Post your comment

A lobbying community gem gets noticed

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Dec. 10, 3:48 pm

This profile ("She's Geared up for manufacturing"), written by Marc Lifsher, ran in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend on the California Manufacturers & Technology Association's Chief Lobbyist, Dorothy Rothrock. After raising children, shouldering an energy crisis, defending the economy and jobs during the nation's first statewide greenhouse gas reduction bill, and meeting other Sacramento challenges, Rothrock is ready for the "second half of her career" at CMTA. That half includes making AB 32 work for the economy and manufacturers, doggedly pursuing opportunities to provide career and technical education for California's students, reducing the cost burdens on our state's high wage providers, and other worthy causes.

A special thanks to V. John White for commenting in the article on the positive experience of being on the other side of Rothrock's positions and advocacy efforts. It's engaging dialogue like the one between Rothrock and White that raise the bar on policies coming out of Sacramento. As the Communications VP working with "Dot", I can also vouch for her unfettered determination, class and sincerity in all of her professional endeavors. On another note, her very cool and bright children, Annie and Tommy, tell me she really does do upside down yoga at home. She's going to need it.

Tags: AB 32 ,Dorothy Rothrock ,V. John White

0 comments | Post your comment

Why not California?

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Nov. 8, 2:08 pm

The following are two recent examples of growth and expansion that California could benefit from if the State were to offer competitive incentive packages:

Toyota's new car seat supplier in Indiana: A recent Indianapolis Star article pointed to a 275-job Toyota car seat supplier (partly owned by Toyota) that capitalized on a $2.5 million economic development package, including $1.8 million in tax credits, to build their facility in southwest Indiana. They also noted the importance of building so close to a Toyota truck-building facility, further indicating the extreme economic and job multiplying effect one manufacturing operation has on a region. Article: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/BUSINESS/710160335

3 new solar manufacturers in Oregon: A recent Sacramento Business Journal article uncovered the decisions of three solar manufacturing firms to build in Oregon because of tax incentives, low energy costs, and trained workforce, even though most of the company's supply will go to California. "Bad business climate" was mentioned in various ways as a reason not to produce here. One very telling factoid from the article: Each megawatt of solar photovoltaics installed creates 20 manufacturing and 13 installation or maintenance job-years, which means a single person employed full-time for a year, according to a 2004 University of California Berkeley study. In the same article, incentives and available workforce were credited for a recent announcement by Santa Clara based Solaix, a silicon wafer fabricator, to develop in Oregon. Article: http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/11/05/story16.html

It is well documented that California has dropped from 2 million manufacturing workers to 1.5 million over the last decade -- a decline that does not appear to be correcting itself. Industries ebb and flow and California has always relied upon new and old industry expansions from elsewhere to fill-in lost jobs (i.e. the aerospace industry in the 80's and the technology sector in the 90's). More and more, companies are looking to expand or site somewhere in the country and choosing to ensure their success in a commonwealth other than the Golden State. Governments such as Oregon's, Nevada's, Indianapolis' and others are offering incentives to attract high-wage, economy-boosting and cutting edge facilities to grab a piece of the highly-coveted manufacturing industry.

Inexplicably California is not attracting important new high-wage growth and losing out to other states. With looming revenue loss, Gov. Schwarzenegger has asked state agencies to cut their budgets by 10 percent next tear. Dynamic modeling shows that tax incentives and credits -- especially ones in a state that is so expensive to operate within -- will more than pay for themselves and bring in new revenues from increased economic activity and jobs. Attracting new firms to California must be a priority now ... in the immortal words of John Belushi, "Who's with me!!?"

Tags: job loss ,PPIC ,Schwarzenegger ,STE ,tax incentives ,Toyota ,Why not California

0 comments | Post your comment

Policy decisions bring out the best in Schwarzenegger

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Nov. 2, 1:51 pm

After a long Legislative session -- one that still has not seen an official close with pending special healthcare and water sessions -- California manufacturers managed to escape some really bad policy ideas thanks to the Governor and his sound policy decision-making. The Gov. only went against the manufacturers and the economy 6 of 29 times on important legislation that got to his desk. Of those 6, none were deemed a priority by CMTA. Most importantly the Gov. vetoed the California-only instant rebate and the Family leave expansion bills. Legislation that would have increased dramatically the cost of operating in California.
View pdf of the 29 bills.

On the Legislative front, 57 percent of the Legislature voted against manufacturing interests more than 75 percent of the time.
View the 2007 Manufacturers vote record.

Along with the current healthcare and water negotiations, important legislation looms in the second year of this session. Career tech bills are still alive (such as SB 672 and AB 1414). Meal and rest period regulation fixes are needed. Legislators will look to expand Family Leave even more. Liquefied natural gas permitting obstacles must be addressed to for increased natural gas supply. California manufacturers still lack a sales tax exemption on manufacturing equipment and many many other important economic issues will dominate the Capitol Community in '08.

The Gov. did a great job making good policy decisions with his signatures and vetoes this year. In '08, it's time the Legislature does the same with its votes.

Tags: vetoes ,vote record

0 comments | Post your comment

California's workers and employers need flexibility, not expansion, in the country's most stringent family leave law

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Oct. 5, 1:05 pm

In response to Oct. 5, SF Chronicle story: 3 bills try to bolster California's family leave law

CMTA recognizes the growing diversity of family units and their interactions with the workplace. AB 537 and SB 727 attempt to address this situation but only broaden the already comprehensive family leave laws. Workers and employers would be at a competitive disadvantage if the State expanded these laws without evaluating as a whole the impacts on the economy, workplace production and efficiency, and employer-employee relations.

California's workers depend upon manufacturers, with their high wages and massive California supply chains. A manufacturers' ability to compete and provide high-wage jobs is affected by the indirect costs associated with inflexible family leave laws that are the most stringent in the country.

If these bills are signed both the employer’s flexibility to address worker needs and the employee's ability to cooperate with them in times of crisis will be limited.   Every circumstance is different and the ability to fill a person’s job may vary, requiring cooperation between the employer and the employee.

The manufacturing industry also faces a serious challenge finding newly skilled workers to compensate for the rapid aging workforce.   Therefore, this industry is more likely to be affected by the expansion of family leave. Many companies in California are already experiencing a loss in production due to their inability to find the skilled workers to compensate for the increase in absenteeism from existing laws.

California has set a precedent by expanding family leave regulations to the most stringent in the country. Employers want to retain their workforce and continue to offer competitive benefits which include additional paid sick leave and vacation time but need flexibility to make the laws work.   The existing question is not if employers want to provide leave for their workers but if employers are capable of providing the leave without impacting production and the moral of other co-workers who have to work extra hours to pick up the duties left behind. Let's deal with that problem before expanding the law even more.

Tags: AB 537 ,family leave ,SB 727

1 comments | Post your comment

California's competitiveness improves....a little.

Posted by Jack Stewart on Sept. 5, 4:43 pm

Last month the Milken Institute published its 2007 U.S. Manufacturing Cost Index, commissioned by the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. Relative to the 49 other states, California became slightly more competitive -- not because the cost of manufacturing in California decreased, but because manufacturing costs in other states increased more rapidly than in California. California still ranks abysmally low compared to the rest of the country. More importantly, the cost differential between California and the neighboring western states is even more dramatic. Energy rates in our State are 34 percent higher than the national average while our western neighbors are 10 percent below the national average. In wage burden (comprising workers' compensation, healthcare, paid leave, salary, etc) California comes in at 14 percent above the 50 state average while our competitors in the west are 18 percent below.

As California’s 2007 Legislative Session comes to a blissful close, the State's highest wage producers -- manufacturers -- are left with the very real prospect of increased energy costs as a result greenhouse gas reduction mandates and the potential for expensive universal healthcare. In addition, California is still one of only four states that "double taxes" the products we manufacture (by taxing both the purchase of machinery and equipment and the profits of the products those machines make). These three issues loom large and, coupled with the state's growing skills gap, create possible deal breakers for manufacturers looking to site or grow their operations in the California. See Wonder Bread .

Cost index:
Western comparison
National comparison

Footnotes:
*2007 Index based on 2006 data
*Western competitor states = Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas

Tags: AB32 ,cost index ,STE

0 comments | Post your comment

Flexible work schedules and healthcare costs drive Wonder Bread from California

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Aug. 28, 3:52 pm

The LA Times reported this morning that the makers of Wonder Bread -- Interstate Bakeries Corp. -- are closing their southern California facilities and leaving 1,300 jobless in the region. The reason? Healthcare costs, laws prohibiting flexible work schedules and lack of clarity in meal and rest period mandates. These challenges are difficult hurdles for all California businesses to overcome and remain competitive. Without remedy, these issues will continue the state's loss of more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2001.

On Healthcare
As the Legislature proceeds with the healthcare debate, they must understand that the current system is too costly and burdensome on everyone, regardless of who's paying. Manufacturers in California pay operational costs that are 22 percent higher than the rest of the country and still they provide more health coverage than any other industry in the State. Further, small and medium sized businesses can't do the same thing. They can't take on expensive coverage and they can't pay a new health tax on top of their already uncompetitive overall costs.

A reformed health system in California should first address cost drivers -- such as over utilization and lack of prevention -- or it will devastate the insurance market, force more businesses owners and managers, such as the Wonder Bread executives, to re-think their position in California and put at risk both jobs and the premium benefits that many employees now depend upon.

On flexible work schedules and meal periods
Employers and employees face challenges within the existing work schedule and meal and rest peiod laws. Today’s workers look for options in structuring their time and contributing to the viability of their employer’s business while maximizing their earnings. CMTA will be submitting comments later this week to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement on the growing problem of when and how long a rest period is taken. Stay tuned ....

Tags: healthcare ,jobs

0 comments | Post your comment

Tony Quinn: More politics, term limits and electoral issues than substance in '08

Posted by Gino DiCaro on Aug. 21, 9:06 am

Dr. Tony Quinn opined recently on the political season before us, claiming we won't hear much about substantive issues such as infrastructure, healthcare and overall costs in California, but more about the politics, term limits and electoral initiatives sure to be on ballots in the three '08 elections. We hope Tony Quinn is wrong, but he's often not. Read "First Peek at 2008".

Tags: 2008 election ,Tony Quinn

0 comments | Post your comment

Don't let legal challenges interfere with AB 32 goals

Posted by Dorothy Rothrock on Aug. 8, 2:48 pm

The state budget has not been finalized, in part because many Senate Republicans want to resolve the growing problem of challenges under California Environmental Quality Act for greenhouse gas emissions analysis and mitigation. We don't know how legislators and the Governor will settle the matter, but the problem is real and urgent.

CMTA and other associations involved in the AB 32 Implementation Group are interested in seeing that California's landmark law to cap greenhouse gas emissions is appropriately implemented. That includes developing regulations between now and 2012 that will cover emissions up and down the state. The challenge is that AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board -- the state's air quality experts -- to develop the greenhouse gas reduction plan based on cost-effectiveness and technological feasibility. In addition, regulations must be developed out in the open with public hearings, testimony from all stakeholders and the deliberative process that California requires of all major regulations.

As provided in AB 32, we want CARB to develop greenhouse gas regulations before we impose, under authority of CEQA, project-by-project requirements that could delay or stall manufacturing, major infrastructure and housing projects. Of course, all other requirements of CEQA would remain in place and be complied with pending regulations or guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions. No rules or guidelines now exist in CEQA for how to conduct greenhouse gas emission analyses for public and private projects. As important as climate change policies are, we should take the time to do it right as provided by AB 32.

Tags: AB 32 ,CEQA

0 comments | Post your comment

6th post from Energy conference: Peevey on electricity rates, markets for carbon and LNG

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 27, 10:25 am

From California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey:

"There is a reluctance all around to expose customers to real-time pricing. With passage of AB 1X, the situation has only been worsened in terms of a fair rate structure. We have not focused on revamping a rate structure that is out of whack. We need a fairer distribution of rates for all sectors of the economy."

Peevey on markets for carbon emissions:

"Regulation vs. markets is a false dichotomy ... conventional command and control and cap and trade are both regulatory policies. We need both tools, though I personally like cap and trade as a means for large reductions."

Peevey on markets for liquefied nmatural gas:

"The state as a whole needs more gas. It won’t come domestically we won’t be able to use coal. It’s clear we need additional gas supply and that additional supply is going to have to come fromm LNG. We need an offshore lng terminal no doubt."

Tags: AB 32 ,Electricity rates

1240 comments | Post your comment

5th post from Energy conference: State moving wrong way on energy resources

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 27, 10:14 am

More from Wiliam Booth on California Energy resources:

"You want to use your fixed resources as much as you can and we’re going in the opposite direction in CA ... We’re back into planning generation and we don’t know the rules."

Current (2006) resource mix

Coal 15.7%
Large hydro 19%
Natural gas 41.5%
Nuclear 12.9%
Renewables 10.9%

Three of these are off limits for growth in California (coal, hydro, nuclear). New generation resources must come from just 52.4% of the current mix, and/or elsewhere.

Tags: Energy resources

807 comments | Post your comment

4th post from Energy conference: LNG siting challenges a sign of the times

Posted by Dorothy Rothrock on July 27, 10:02 am

From William Booth, counsel for the California Large Energy Consumers Association:

Recent experience on the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals is "emblematic to California's approach to infrastructure and it isn't good."

"Two of the proposed LNG projects--one onshore, one offshore--were turned down, not going to happen. Both have gone to inordinate lengths to deal with envionmental issues. The opposition is fierce, organized and relatively sophisticated."

Decisionmakers, Booth said "are going to need to step up," adding, "We shouldn't let Malibu determine state energy policy."

Tags: LNG

11721 comments | Post your comment

3rd post from CMTA Energy conference

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 26, 1:19 pm

From the Climate Action Registry's Joel Levin regarding global carbon trading:

"From 2005 to '06 there was a 300% increase in amount of global carbon trading from $8 to $25 billion."

"The offset market today looks a lot like the market for medicine market did before 1906 ... consumers had no idea what was good and bad."

From Devra Wang, with the National Resources Defense Council, regarding ability to purchase offsets to help reach AB 32 goals:

"Offsets should have only a limited role if at all"

From V. John White, with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, in response to question on market approach to emission reductions:

"Markets can work ... I'm disappointed that we only looked at cap and trade ... cap and trade should simply be a part of what we’re doing. The more aggressive you are with cap, the more you need to provide different ways to comply."

From Kip Lipper, with State Sen. Don Perata's office, in response to question on market approach to emission reductions:

"We ought to follow the law ... statute ought to govern the process, not committees ... it seems like people think a cap and trade is a non-regulatory thing .... We’d like to see CARB go through the process ... the law speaks about a lot of different market-based compliance mechanisms, but the MAC only looked at cap and trade."

Tags: AB 32 ,CARB

10797 comments | Post your comment

2nd post from CMTA's Energy Conference

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 26, 12:58 pm

Key quotes from Winston Hickox, CARB AB 32 Market Advisory Committee Chairman

"I personally believe that climate change and energy pricing volatility represent one of the most significant problems of mankind."

"I have no doubt that early action measures will be addressed"

"A carbon tax would likely give you the most certainty regarding costs but the least certainty regarding the amount of reductions ... it is not a friendly tool.....with a cap and trade you have certainty about reduction but not about costs. A hybrid approach with the ability to adjust is the answer ... and we have to understand there will be some amount of unintended consequences."

Tags: AB 32 ,CARB

0 comments | Post your comment

1st post from CMTA's Energy Conference

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 26, 9:43 am

Some highlights from the morning panels at the CMTA Energy Conference, California Manufacturers Leading the Way on Climate Change:

California Steel's Brett Guge opened the conference with some very good global warming statistics:
California Steel expanding by 50% and once complete, company will be the cleanest steel rolling mill in the country as it pertains to ghg emissions.

China's greenhouse gas emissions are 8 times the amount of North America.

California Steel has 8 million tons of the world's steel capacity, China has 440 million tons of capacity, while the U.S. has 110 million tons of capacity..

Guge closed with, "If steel were banned on earth, US ghg would be reduced by 1% and China's ghg would be reduced by 3%."

James Goldstene, with the California Air Resources Board, offered some tips on the state's implementation of AB 32:

"We want to make sure individuals, companies, governments don't postpone plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We [ARB] are working on making sure businesses get credit for fair and quantifiable early actions, such as replacing a fleet, technology efficiencies, etc. Once structure is in place, you will get recognition for early actions"

Energy commission and ARB estimate California ghg emissions at 400 million metric tons. 174 million in reductions needed.

Alan Bedwell, with the Industrial Services Group an CDM, detailed the cumbersome task companies have to mitigate the material risks of global warming: investors, lenders, insurers, rating agencies, supply chain , costs/lifecycle/liability ...they all are impacted by global warming policy. Bedwell identified a five-part plan, to take action, identify risks and opportunities:

Collect and evaluate basic ghg information,
Evaluate risk via a preliminary ghg inventory,
Identify options and costs for ghg reduction,
Finalize ghg inventory,
Establish and implement ghg strategy

If you'd like to see the components of these, let me know and I'll get them to you. Bedwell closed one portion of his report by indicating that there were already 47 shareholder resolutions dealing with global warming emissions in 2007.

Tags: AB 32 ,CARB

0 comments | Post your comment

CMTA President Jack Stewart on KXJZ on skilled worker shortage

Posted by Gino DiCaro on July 24, 11:31 am

Yesterday, on Capitol Public Radio's Insight show, CMTA President and Get REAL co-chairman, Jack Stewart, discussed California's need for skilled workers and the distinction between 4-year college graduates and workforce-ready students. Two authors of recent studies -- PPIC report and CPEC report -- were also on the show to discuss the problem and their reports.

Use this link to listen to the archive: http://www.capradio.org/programs/insight/default.aspx?showid=3501&programid=10

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL

0 comments | Post your comment

Report says carbon reductions will cost $100 to $500 billion

Posted by Jack Stewart on July 17, 2:54 pm

An Electric Power Research Institute technical analysis released in June on the costs and potential of greenhouse gas reductions indicates a substantial price to California consumers and businesses. For some reason these finding were not reported anywhere in the mainstream press when the analysis was first released. A key finding was that, to reduce the State's greenhouse gas emissions to levels mandated by AB 32, it will cost California's economy between $100 and $500 billion through 2050.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

"Depending on how California implements its climate legislation, cumulative real costs to the state’s economy range from 0.2 percent to 1.2 percent ($100 billion to $511 billion) through 2050. In general, costs increase as limits on California’s future greenhouse gas become more stringent, the report says."

Reaching the environmental and economic goals of AB 32 will be a challenge for consumers, employees and employers in California. It is vital that we minimize costs through rational regulations and a cap and trade system that encourages businesses to achieve least cost reductions. Without low cost alternatives, California businesses will be less competitive in global markets, consumers will have fewer choices to buy California-made products, and emissions will rise in other states and countries where products can be made cheaper. No environmental purpose will be met by that strategy.

Tags: AB 32

0 comments | Post your comment

Competitive tax policy & Senator Calderon

Posted by Greg Hines on July 11, 5:04 pm

Today, the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee considered a bill to provide a motion picture production tax credit. Senator Ron Calderon and supporters were right on target making very good economic policy arguments for the proposed movie production tax credit (SB 740).

Arguing why this industry should be singled out for more favorable tax treatment, supporters cited competition from other states that offer such incentives, the high multiplier effect of the industry, high wages provided, and the resulting stimulus to job creation. Each of these arguments applies at least as equally to California's manufacturing sector. Remember that among other cost pressures, California has the notorious distinction of being only 1 of 3 states to fully tax manufacturing equipment.

Responding to a question about the need for singling out only this industry, Senator Calderon mentioned the late Manufacturers Investment Credit (MIC) as an example of an incentive that "wasn't being fully utilized by the industry" and was "not productive."

The MIC expired due to a sunset date attached to a misguided jobs threshold. Because of manufacturing's high multiplier effect which stimulates employment in other industries, any reasonable employment standard for such an incentive must be based on total employment, not manufacturing employment alone as the old MIC statute did. The MIC was in place from 1993 through 2003- and it worked. It was very likely one of the major factors that decelerated the decline in California's manufacturing employment by two-thirds -- despite severe defense downsizing -- and for five years (1995-2000) bucked the national trend entirely.

Tags: Sales tax exemption

0 comments | Post your comment

Job-based health coverage report shows weakness of costly system

Posted by Cynthia Leon on July 11, 4:56 pm

Forcing universal health care coverage without significant cost reductions will devastate the market for employers already insuring their employees and will result in even more decreases in job-based coverage. Today's report, by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, stated that, in California, there are less employees insured by their employers than five years ago. This shows us what happens when costs are too high -- employers drop benefits.

Employers already face huge healthcare and other costs in California, making them internationally and domestically uncompetitive. Healthcare coverage is one of the only costs an employer can drop all together. Comprehensive reform in California is crucial to accomodate the State's uninsured but any reform must show that it will lower system costs so employers can continue to provide premium coverage.

Manufacturers provide more health coverage than any other industry in the state. With sustained or heightened costs, workers stand to lose their job-based coverage and receive minimized health benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger held a press conference hailing the report but committedg to lowering costs for "businesses that have experienced increases between 30 and 40 percent per year". California's manufacturers look forward to working with the Gov. and his administration on the reforms and reducing the costs of the system.

Tags: Governor ,Healthcare costs

0 comments | Post your comment

Governor and economic adviser should push both private and public investment for growth

Posted by Greg Hines on July 9, 3:37 pm

In Marc Lifsher's Sunday LA Times piece, the "Governor's guide to the private sector", David Crane -- the Governor's Jobs and Economy adviser -- wants private investment to help pay for roads, railways and other infrastructure. Manufacturers also need capital investment to build the products of the 21st century, but don't have the luxury of looking for public investments. Instead, manufacturers depend on fair tax policies, regulations, a skilled workforce and a good business climate. Crane acknowledged his support for pro business policies such as "tax credits for buying equipment". An example of how California manufacturers are disadvantaged in this regard is the expiration of the manufacturing investment tax credit in 2004. We are now one of only three states that taxes manufacturing equipment. Crane and Gov. Schwarzenegger should work for a sales tax exemption on the purchase of manufacturing equipment (AB 1152 -- Roger Niello) to level the playing field, grow manufacturing, and keep more than 1.5 million workers employed.

Tags: AB 1152 ,Governor ,Sales tax exemption

0 comments | Post your comment

AB 32 implementation growing pains

Posted by Jack Stewart on July 6, 1:27 pm

I listened to today's Assembly Natural Resources Committee ARB hearing and it is regrettable that there has been confusion and conflict between the administration, CARB and legislators with regard to implementation of AB 32. This landmark bill grants broad authority to CARB to achieve aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in a way that is cost-effective and technologically feasible. To do less will harm the economy and simply move economic activity and emissions to other regions of the world. Accomplishing this feat will require difficult economic and scientific analysis and challenge all policymakers in the state to pay close attention and pull in the same direction.

It is particularly important that AB 32 is implemented correctly in California. In large part, the goal of AB 32 is to encourage other states and nations to follow our example. California alone cannot fix the global warming problem. The rest of the United States is watching our progress and will react accordingly if we are successful. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine other states adopting similar measures if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but cripple our economy.

Manufacturers have a long history of working with the CARB and other agencies to develop and comply with California’s strict environmental policies. Their decisions to locate in the state, to hire employees or to expand facilities depend on transparent agency processes with predictable outcomes based on sound science and rigorous analysis. We are working with all policymakers to make sure we successfully achieve the emission reduction and economic growth goals of AB 32.

Tags: AB 32 ,CARB

527 comments | Post your comment

Interesting study on what's driving health care costs

Posted by Gino DiCaro on June 15, 6:10 pm

A recent study by the California Foundation for Commerce and Education argues that private health costs are being driven substantially by Medicare and Medi-Cal underpayments.
Press Release Here
Report Here

Tags: Healthcare costs

0 comments | Post your comment

Bill adding 2 CTE classes to course requirement passes out of Senate

Posted by Jack Stewart on June 10, 1:06 am

Late last week the State Senate passed, on a 33-2 vote, SB 672, a bill that adds two CTE classes to high school graduation requirements. This almost-unanimous vote echoes the hearts and minds of Californians and indicates that constituencies across the state are begging for the career opportunities that arise from these fundamental courses. Let's hope the bill has the same success in it's next destination, the State Assembly.

Tags: CTE ,Get REAL ,SB 672

0 comments | Post your comment

California Steel announces major expansion

Posted by Jack Stewart on June 6, 1:00 pm

Today, California Steel in Fontana, California announced a major expansion of its operations. CSI continues a long-tradition that helped make California one of the most efficient regions in the world in energy use, environmental technology and greenhouse gas emissions.

From Governor Schwarzenegger's press release:

"I would like to congratulate CSI for expanding operations, adding to our growing economy and recognizing the importance of protecting the environment," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "This is a terrific example of how a company can increase its bottom line while moving to protect California's environment."

From the CSI release:

FONTANA, CA. – California Steel Industries, Inc. (CSI), the West Coast’s largest steel manufacturer, today announced plans to increase total annual production capacity by a million tons, through addition of a second reheat furnace with state-of-the-art environmental technology.
In addition to the clean-burning natural gas-fired walking beam reheat furnace, the investment also includes associated additional improvements in cooling water treatment and in slab handling facilities, for a total capital investment of approximately $60 million.

It is almost impossible to grow an energy-intensive company in California today given the production costs and uncertainty around global warming policies. CSI shows us that, even in this highly competitive global economy, a large manufacturer can at the same time help grow the economy and help the state lead the world on global warming policy.

During the implementation of AB 32, the state should recognize the expensive past and future technology and innovation implemented at CSI and other manufacturing facilities.

The state's economy and global warming authority lives and dies on decisions like these, from companies like these.

Tags: AB 32 ,CMTA Member ,CSI

0 comments | Post your comment