Strictly Business | June 15, 2009

Don't Mess With The Credit Act

I grew up a few miles from the end of the Earth...maybe not that close, but you could definitely see it from there.

Anyway, I grew up in Lubbock, Texas and I oftentimes come across issues in California that remind me of the famous saying, "Don't mess with Texas."

Well...Senator Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) has proposed AB 943 that would mess with the ability of businesses and non-profit organizations to base employment decisions on consumer credit reports.

Click here to send your letter of opposition to AB 943.

AB 943 prohibits employers from using consumer credit reports for employment purposes unless the information is “substantially job related” which is defined narrowly. The only exception would be a position being sought that are managerial, with a city or county, with law enforcement, or required by law to request a report.

It is important to note the distinction between a consumer credit report used to evaluate creditworthiness for the purpose of granting credit and the employment report provided to an employer for employment purposes.

The employment report does not include credit scores or account numbers. The credit reports provided to employers provide valuable information to help in evaluating candidates for employment. The employment report may be used to evaluate an applicant’s personal responsibility and organizational skills by their ability to pay their bills on time. Customers trust a business or non-profit organization that they deal with to reasonably use legally-available information to identify potential risks for fraud or identity theft.

For example, a customer of a cable TV company trusts that the individual entering their home to install the cable is trustworthy and the company they are doing business with has exercised their due diligence to research the employee’s background so they are as confident as they can be in trusting the employee in their customer’s home. In fact, in a constrained manner, the bill already recognizes that counties, cities, and law enforcement agencies should have access to consumer credit reports for employment purposes.

The California Civil Code and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provide Californians with extensive rights regarding the use of consumer credit reports. At any time, any person may request a copy of the credit report and dispute any information that they believe is incorrect. In the employment context, the law recognizes the use of credit reports as legitimate and extends rights to protect those consumers as well. Prior to obtaining a credit report, the prospective employer must disclose in writing that a credit report may be obtained for employment purposes and obtain from the applicant the written authorization to order the credit report. .

Since credit scores are not used for employment screening, and the employer is not evaluating creditworthiness to grant credit, a thin credit file would not generally disadvantage a job applicant. An employer is fully aware of a recent graduate and the relationship to student loans. Well qualified applicants are a premium; savvy employers are not likely to reject a candidate due to credit history that has no bearing on the job. However, adverse credit situations that go unexplained could raise a red flag of the applicant’s suitability for some job responsibilities that involve access to employer or client assets or confidential information.

Supporters of the measure have also asserted that when an employer obtains a credit report, it raises the risk of identity theft for the applicant. The employer has already obtained sensitive personal information from the applicant as part of the application process. Expanding the file on the applicant should provide no more risk of the information falling into the wrong hands. The responsible employer secures the files of all applicants and personnel as required by law so that no unauthorized access can occur.

Click here to send your letter of opposition to AB 943.

In this tough economy, this is not the time to mess with our business community. AB 943 will be a step backwards for job creation and will put all businesses and the jobs they create at a disadvantage...

...and that's Strictly Business.

Randy Gordon
President and CEO
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

June 14, 2007

Senator Oropeza Leads State Senate Fight Against AB 1634

Chamber & Civic Leaders Praise Oropeza Commitment to LB Workers, Jobs

Assailing bill as “penny-wise, pound foolish,” LB Leaders disgusted by Richardson, Karnette support of job-killer

In a rare joint-statement, labor leaders, civic leaders and the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce issued the following joint-statement today regarding AB 1634. Jenny Oropeza had this to say about AB 1634:

“I oppose AB 1634. It is too severe a solution to a noble objective. Further, I am concerned about the economic consequences for the city of Long Beach’s convention business. It will hurt public safety and other vital city services.”

Long Beach Community Leaders had this to say about AB 1634:

“The Long Beach business community is relieved to hear that Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-LB) has come to the rescue of Long Beach workers,” said Long Beach Chamber President & CEO Randy Gordon. Mr. Gordon continued: “The Senator’s efforts couldn’t have come at a better time. In perhaps one of the most blatant displays of party-loyalty at the expense of Long Beach citizens I have ever seen, Assemblymembers Laura Richardson and Betty Karnette provided the last two votes needed to pass this job-killing legislation out of the Assembly. At a price-tag of $65 million to small business, in my 25 years in the Chamber industry, I have never seen a bill that would be so damaging to a local economy pass with the blessing of our local legislators,” Mr. Gordon concluded.

“We are pleased that Senator Oropeza has decided to support Long Beach tourism,” said Long Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau President & CEO Steve Goodling. Mr. Goodling continued: “By putting her opposition to AB 1634 in ink, Senator Oropeza is sending a strong message to the membership of the American Kennel Club (AKC)—Long Beach is open for business, and we value the AKC’s contribution to our city.”

To that, Long Beach Hyatt Regency General Manager Steve Smith added: “What this action shows is that the Senator cares about the impact that this bill will have at the local level…this action is going to help keep the AKC convention in Long Beach. Losing this convention would have a negative impact on workers during the holiday season…it would cut into hospitality revenues during the most vulnerable [slowest] time of the year.”

Underscoring the wide-coalition of Long Beach community leaders that are opposed to the bill is the addition of Long Beach Police Officers Association President Steve James to the chorus of opposition to AB 1634. Mr. James added: ... “Our opposition to this bill is about fundamentals… The passage of AB 1634 directly affects every segment of the Long Beach economy: at the most basic level, it represents loss of jobs for hotel workers, small business owners, restaurants, the tourism industry, as well as a loss in valuable city-revenue that goes to fund vital city services like hiring police and fire personnel, fixing potholes and side-walks… Senator Oropeza understands that.”

“While we appreciate the multitude of opinions on the benefits of the bill, the cost to the city of Long Beach is without question,” said Long Beach Chamber Board of Directors Chairman-elect Matt Kinley, referring to the view of expert veterinarians who maintain that the bill has no benefit, or unintended consequences. Mr. Kinley continued: “Senator Oropeza’s actions will benefit the entire city of Long Beach by protecting tax revenue that will save quality jobs. Were the votes of Richardson and Karnette to prevail, it would mean a loss in over $65 million to Long Beach businesses—these are real consequences.”

Long Beach Chamber Board of Directors Chairman of the Board Byron Schweigert summed it up: “Given the facts, we believe that support of this bill is penny-wise and pound foolish. Moving forward, we look to working with Senator Oropeza, the AKC, veterinarians, and the small business-owners of this city to defeat this bill in the Senate. Defeating this legislation will be a great victory for the economy and general well being of the Long Beach area.”
 

About AB 1634
 

Assembly Bill 1634, authored by Los Angeles Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, will allow only select purebred dogs and cats to breed. Pet owners who don’t sterilize their mixed breed pets by four months of age will face a $500 fine and possible criminal penalties. The American Kennel Club (AKC), which hosts their annual convention in Long Beach each year, has vowed to boycott any state in the union that has such a measure. Accordingly, Long Beach Chamber leaders are disappointed; not for the same reasons as nervous California cats and dogs, but because of the Long Beach jobs that this bill will cost.

June 8, 2007

Business Community Left Dumbfounded by Long Beach Legislator's Support of Job-Killing Bill

Bill that would cost LB millions heads to Senate, community leaders call on Senators Lowenthal and Oropeza to take action

Upon passage of the most damaging bill to Long Beach this session, Long Beach community leaders are left astounded and profoundly disappointed today after LB Legislators vote along party lines to outlaw the existence of mixed-breed dogs and cats in the Golden State.
 
Assembly Bill 1634, authored by Los Angeles Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, will allow only select purebred dogs and cats to breed. Pet owners who don’t sterilize their mixed breed pets by four months of age will face a $500 fine and possible criminal penalties. The American Kennel Club (AKC), which hosts their annual convention in Long Beach each year, has vowed to boycott any state in the union that has such a measure. Accordingly, Long Beach Chamber leaders are disappointed; not for the same reasons as nervous California cats and dogs, but because of the Long Beach jobs that this bill will cost.

“The economic impact on small business-owners in Long Beach resulting from the passage of AB 1634 cannot be ignored,” said Board of Directors Chairman-elect Matt Kinley, referring to the Long Beach Convention and Visitor’s Bureau estimates that the economic impact generated by the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship represents $21.7 million per year to Long Beach. The show is currently scheduled to return to Long Beach in December of 2007 and in 2008, but passage of AB 1634 would make that virtually impossible, after the AKC boycotted other states after enacting similar legislation.  

“The loss in revenue over the course of the contract represents over $60 million in tourism revenue to the city” Mr. Kinley added. Providing the last crucial votes to pass the job-killing legislation were Long Beach area lawmakers Assemblymembers Betty Karnette (D., LB) and Laura Richardson (D., Carson-LB).

“As the largest voice of business in Long Beach, the Chamber takes seriously our responsibility to recruit, maintain, and stimulate job-creation,” said Chamber President & CEO Randy Gordon. “Clearly, our Assemblymembers don’t take their responsibility to the people of Long Beach equally as serious,” Mr. Gordon continued. “We’re very disappointed that Long Beach’s own legislators in the Assembly abdicated their responsibility to look out for the well-being of the people of Long Beach,” added Chairman of the Chamber Board of Directors Byron Schweigert. The measure, which now heads to the State Senate, would ultimately result in a loss of millions of dollars to Long Beach. “The business community’s only hope now is that Senators Oropeza and Lowenthal will do what’s best for the citizens of Long Beach and join us in opposing this bill. We still hold faith that the Senators will vote in favor of the people that elected them, rather than abandoning the citizens of Long Beach and doing what’s best for their party, as our Assembly delegation did,” Mr. Schweigert concluded.