BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 575|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 575
Author: DeSaulnier (D), et al.
Amended: 5/31/11
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUST. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/13/11
AYES: Lieu, DeSaulnier, Leno, Padilla, Yee
NOES: Wyland, Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Smoking in the workplace
SOURCE : American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
American Lung Association
Health Officers Association of California
DIGEST : This bill expands the prohibition on smoking in
a place of employment to include an owner-operated
business, and also eliminates most of the specified
exemptions that permit smoking in certain work
environments, such as hotel lobbies, bars and taverns,
banquet rooms, warehouse facilities, private residences
used as family day care homes, and employee break rooms.
Senate Floor Amendments of 5/31/11: (1) re-instate current
law in this bill which exempts "private smokers' lounges"
and "retail or wholesale tobacco shops" from the law
prohibiting smoking in the workplace, therefore, allowing
CONTINUED
SB 575
Page
2
smoking in these locations; (2) specify that although
private residences are exempt from the law prohibiting
smoking in the workplace, private residences licensed as
family day care home are not exempt and are therefore
prohibited from allowing smoking during the hours of
operation as a family day care home; and (3) add a
co-author to this bill.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits employers from
knowingly or intentionally permitting the smoking of
tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of
employment. Existing law exempts certain places of
employment from the prohibition on smoking tobacco products
in an enclosed space, among those include are:
1. Hotel or motel lobbies that meet certain size
requirements.
2. Meeting and banquet rooms in hotels or motels.
3. "Retail or wholesale tobacco shops and private smokers'
lounges", as defined.
4. "Warehouse facilities", as defined;
5. Gaming clubs, bars and taverns.
6. Patient smoking areas in long-term health care
facilities.
7. Break rooms designated for smoking by an employer.
8. Employers with five or fewer employees, among others.
Under existing law, any violation of the prohibition
results in an infraction punishable by fines of $100 for a
first violation, $200 for a second violation within one
year, and $500 for a third and for each subsequent
violation within one year. Enforcement of the smoking
prohibition is carried out by local law enforcement
agencies, unless an employer has been found guilty of three
or more violations which will require an investigation by
the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
SB 575
Page
3
This bill expands the prohibition on smoking in a place of
employment to include an owner-operated business, and also
eliminates most of the specified exemptions that permit
smoking in certain work environments, such as hotel
lobbies, bars and taverns, banquet rooms, warehouse
facilities, private residences used as family day care
homes, and employee break rooms.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 217 (Carter), 2011-12 Session, modifies an exemption in
current law authorizing smoking in "patient smoking areas"
in long-term health care facilities. As recently amended,
the bill would allow for patient smoking areas that meet
specified conditions. The bill passed the Assembly Labor
and Employment Committee, and is currently in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1467 (DeSaulnier), 2007-08 Session, which would have
removed the exemptions that permit smoking in specified
bars, warehouses, hotel lobbies, employee break rooms, and
meeting and banquet rooms, while retaining exemptions for
other types of businesses. In addition, the bill would
have prohibited smoking in specified owner-operated
businesses regardless of whether or not they have
employees. The bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 2067 (Oropeza), Chapter 736, Statutes of 2006, prohibits
smoking in covered parking lots and adds to the definition
of "enclosed spaces" lobbies, lounges, waiting areas,
elevators, stairwells and restrooms that are a structural
part of the building, thereby prohibiting smoking in those
areas.
AB 3037 (Cannella), Chapter 989, Statutes of 1996, extends
exemptions to the prohibition of smoking in bars, taverns,
and gaming clubs to January 1, 1998. Smoking in bars,
taverns, and gaming clubs could only continue beyond that
date if regulations were adopted by either the Occupational
Safety and Health Standards Board or the federal
Environmental Protection Agency on an exposure level of
environmental tobacco smoke that carried insignificantly
harmful effects to exposed persons.
SB 575
Page
4
AB 13 (Friedman), Chapter 310, Statutes of 1994, prohibits
employers from knowingly or intentionally permitting, or
any person from engaging in, the smoking of tobacco
products in enclosed places of employment, with specific
exemptions. The bill allowed for the smoking of tobacco
products in bars, taverns, and gaming clubs until January
1, 1997 if regulations were adopted by either the
Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board or the
federal Environmental Protection Agency on an exposure
level of environmental tobacco smoke that carried
insignificantly harmful effects to exposed persons.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/1/11)
American Cancer Society (co-source)
American Heart Association (co-source)
American Lung Association (co-source)
Health Officers Association of California (co-source)
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
Breathe California
California Conference Board of Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Official Court Reporters Association
California Labor Federation
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Coalition of Lavender-Americans on Smoking and Health
County Health Executives Association of California
County of Los Angeles
Engineers and Scientists of California
Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Kaiser Permanente
Mayor of San Leandro, City of Albany
National Latino Tobacco Control Network
National Lawyers Guild Labor and Employment Committee
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
Public Health Law and Policy
San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
SB 575
Page
5
Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee
Tobacco Free Coalition of Kern County
Unite HERE!
United Food and Commercial Workers - Western States
Conference
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Valley Community Clinic
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/1/11)
California Association of Health Facilities (unless
amended)
Cigar Association of America
San Francisco Small Business Commission
Southern California Cigar Alliance
Commonwealth Brands, Inc.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, in 1994,
California led the nation when it passed a smoke free
workplace law that helped protect millions of workers and
business patrons from the health dangers associated with
secondhand smoke. The author argues that, unfortunately,
California now lags behind other states' smoke free
workplace laws because of its exemptions which allow for
indoor work environments where people may be exposed to
secondhand smoke. According to proponents, there is simply
no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Proponents
content that almost 14 percent of indoor workers reported
being exposed to secondhand smoke at work in the previous
two weeks in the California Tobacco Survey. Proponents
argue that this workplace exposure is not spread equitably
across all workers as low-income workers, young adults, and
Latinos are disproportionately exposed. According to
proponents, employees who work in the settings currently
exempted deserve as much protection as the rest of us.
This bill proposes to eliminate some of the current
exemptions to strengthen the state's smoke free workplace
law and meet the Centers for Disease Control's 100 percent
smoke free designation level which will help protect
employees from secondhand smoke. According to proponents,
twenty-four other states have already received this
distinction and they believe it is time that California,
the state that paved the way for 100 percent smoke free,
joins them.
SB 575
Page
6
In addition, proponents argue that eliminating the
exemptions will also help aid enforcement of the law by
clarifying ambiguities that some of the exemptions create.
Proponents contend that one of the most problematic
exemptions has been used by businesses that serve food and
drink while trying to use the exemption for retail tobacco
shops that allows indoor smoking. Proponents argue that,
unfortunately, this exposes workers and patrons to toxic
secondhand smoke and also creates an environment that has
been especially appealing to young adults who are then
introduced to smoking.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of
Health Facilities (CAHF) opposes this bill contending that
it prohibits a resident from smoking in a long term care
facility. CAHF argues that smoking is an activity that
many residents enjoy and one that can help maintain a sense
of stability while residents transition to life in a
long-term health care facility. According to CAHF, federal
law does not permit facilities or the state to deter and/or
undermine a resident's ability to make autonomous
decisions. CAHF argues that residents have a right to
self-determination, regardless of his or her residence in a
long-term health care facility.
According to CAHF, most facilities have designated smoking
areas that are outside (on a patio) which help ensure that
employees and residents are not exposed to any substantial
amount of secondhand smoke. However, CAHF argues that
there may be certain weather conditions (extreme heat or
extreme cold) that cause facilities to try to accommodate
the needs of smoking residents indoors, rather than risking
their health by making them go outside. For this reason
CAHF opposes the bill unless it is amended to restore the
exemption to the definition of "place of employment" for
long-term care facilities.
PQ:kc 6/1/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
SB 575
Page
7