Plan B Forum

California now has one of the toughest equal pay laws in the country
Hannah-Beth Jackson

California took a major step Tuesday toward closing the lingering wage gap between men and women, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equity laws in the nation.

Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less — a median 84 cents for every dollar — than men, according to a U.S Census Bureau report this year.

“The inequities that have plagued our state and have burdened women forever are slowly being resolved with this kind of bill,” Brown said at a ceremony at Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in the Bay Area city of Richmond.



The governor called the measure, which will give employees more grounds for challenging perceived discrimination, “a very important milestone.”

It is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and most state Republican lawmakers. National women’s rights leaders said the legislation was a model for other states and for Congress, where similar efforts have been stalled by Republican opposition.

Businesses said they expected more lawsuits once the new rules take effect Jan. 1.

Courts have interpreted current law to mean that male and female workers must hold exactly the same jobs to require equal pay, said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the legislation.

“Now they're going to have to value the work equally,” she said.

California and the federal government already have laws banning employers from paying women less than men for the same jobs. The new California Fair Pay Act broadens that prohibition by saying bosses cannot pay employees less than those of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” even if their titles are different or they work at different sites.

A female housekeeper who cleans hotel rooms, for example, may challenge higher wages paid to a male janitor who cleans the lobby and banquet halls, said Jackson. Similarly, a female grocery clerk could challenge a male clerk's higher wages at a store owned by the same employer but located a few miles away.

The new law also prohibits retaliation against employees who ask about or discuss wages paid to co-workers, and it clarifies their ability to claim retaliation.

On the employer side, those sued by workers would have to show that wage differences are due to factors other than sex, such as merit or seniority; that they are job-related and reasonable; and that they are not due to discrimination. ... "

“In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death,” Brown wrote in a signing message. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

News Release
Contact
David Rosenfeld, OSPIRG
California acts to curtail antibiotic overuse on farm animals
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Last Friday, California lawmakers approved a bill (SB 27) setting the nation’s strongest restrictions on antibiotics overuse on farm animals, after a strong push by CA Governor Jerry Brown. California’s action comes just two months after Oregon lawmakers failed to pass a similar proposal (SB 920) in the 2015 Legislative Session.

"We commend California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown for taking strong action to protect their citizens from antibiotic overuse on farm animals. We hope this inspires Oregon lawmakers and Gov. Kate Brown to heed the call of the medical community and thousands of Oregon farmers and follow suit," said OSPIRG executive director Dave Rosenfeld.

The World Health Organization, the Food & Drug Administration and most major national medical organizations have recognized that antibiotics are becoming less effective and could stop working. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 2 million Americans become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections.

Farming practices are often a source of the problem; 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States are used on livestock and poultry, and not primarily to treat sick animals. Instead, antibiotics are often put into the daily feed of healthy animals to promote growth and prevent disease due to overcrowded conditions. This practice can breed powerful antibiotic resistant bacteria, sometimes called “superbugs”, These germs can then find their way to the human population through numerous pathways, including contaminated food, airborne dust blowing off farms, and water and soil polluted with contaminated feces.

Federal action to date has been weak and, despite some encouraging signs, the market has been slow to act, prompting states like California and Oregon to consider taking steps on their own to protect the public from superbugs.

This spring, a coalition of Oregon doctors, nurses, farmers and consumers [pdf] pressed state lawmakers to approve a proposal that would have curtailed the practice of feeding farm animals routine doses of antibiotics. The measure was advanced by the Senate Health Care committee, but then stalled. Factory farming interests opposed the bill.

California's measure, while different than the Oregon proposal in some details, has the same focus on reducing routine antibiotic use on animals, while protecting farmers' ability to treat legitimately sick animals.

Antibiotic-Resistant Infections Lead to 23,000 Deaths a Year, C.D.C. Finds

By SABRINA TAVERNISESEPT. 16, 2013

One particularly lethal type of bacteria, known as CRE, has become resistant to nearly all antibiotics on the market. Credit Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via Associated Press

Federal health officials reported Monday that at least two million Americans fall ill from antibiotic-resistant bacteria every year and that at least 23,000 die from those infections, putting a hard number on a growing public health threat. It was the first time that federal authorities quantified the effects of organisms that many antibiotics are powerless to fight.

The number of deaths is substantially lower than previous estimates, in part because researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stripped out cases in which a drug-resistant infection was present but not necessarily the cause of death. Infectious disease doctors have long warned that antibiotic resistance — in which bacteria develop defenses against antibiotics used to kill them — threatens to return society to a time when people died from ordinary infections.

“They have come up with hard numbers where it has been only guesswork,” said Dr. Stuart B. Levy, a professor of microbiology at Tufts University and the president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. “This sets a baseline we can all believe in.”

In 2007, the C.D.C. estimated that about 100,000 people died every year of infections they developed while in hospitals. Most of those infections were believed to be resistant to some antibiotics, but not necessarily the most widely used ones. And it was unclear how many of the deaths were caused by the drug-resistant infections. Monday’s report quantifies that.

Dr. Steven L. Solomon, the director of the C.D.C.’s office of antimicrobial resistance, acknowledged that the report underestimated the numbers, but said that was by design. Researchers were instructed to be conservative and to base their calculations only on deaths that were a direct result of a drug-resistant bacterial infection.

“This is a floor,” Dr. Solomon said. “We wanted the cleanest number, the least subjective number.”

One point of contention has been the extent to which industrial-scale animal farming contributes to the problem of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. The government has estimated that more than 70 percent of antibiotics in the United States are given to animals. Companies use them to prevent sickness when animals are packed together in ways that breed infection. They also use them to make animals grow faster, though federal authorities are trying to stop that.

The report said that “much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.” It also said that about half of antibiotic use in people is inappropriate.