BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 768 Hearing Date: July 8,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Thurmond |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 3, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Gideon Baum |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Smokeless tobacco: baseball stadiums.
KEY ISSUE
Should the Legislature ban the use of smokeless tobacco on a
baseball field during a practice or a baseball game?
ANALYSIS
Existing law prohibits an employee from smoking tobacco products
in an enclosed area, and also prohibits any employer from
knowingly permitting anyone smoking tobacco in an enclosed space
at a place of employment. "Enclosed space" includes lobbies,
lounges, waiting areas, elevators, stairwells, and restrooms
that are a structural part of the building and not specifically
exempted. (Labor Code §6404.5)
Existing law prohibits a public employee or member of the public
from smoking any tobacco product inside a public building, or in
an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or
operable window of a public building, or in a passenger vehicle
owned by the state.
(Government Code §7597)
This bill:
1)Prohibits the use or possession of smokeless tobacco products
on the playing field of a baseball stadium during a
AB 768 (Thurmond) Page 2
of ?
professional baseball game or practice.
2)Defines "smokeless tobacco" to mean a product that contains
cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco and is intended to be
placed in the oral or nasal cavity, including, but not limited
to, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, dissolvable
tobacco products, and snus.
3)Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not supersede a
conflicting provision in a collective bargaining agreement
that is in effect on January 1, 2016, but will only apply to a
collective bargaining agreement that is executed on or after
January 1, 2016.
4)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
COMMENTS
1. Sports in California: A Tradition of Excellence
In the United States, there are few institutions that are
treated with the reverence and respect of professional sports.
Whereas earlier cultures shaped their calendar by the seasons
and agricultural cycles, today's calendar is shaped by the
sports cycle: baseball in April; football in September;
basketball in October; and play-offs and training in-between.
As with all great institutions, the foundation of the
institution rests on a social contract. In the case of
professional sports, the social contract is between the
athletes who play the games, the owners who shape the teams,
and the fans that support them both.
Nowhere is this truer than in California. With the advent of
professional baseball in San Francisco and Oakland in 1887,
professional sports began to leave its imprint on the Golden
State. Baseball teams in California have won 12 World Series
Championships, and some of baseball's greatest players of all
time hail from California, including Joe DiMaggio, Curt Flood,
Tony Gwynn, Jackie Robinson, and Ted Williams. From a labor
perspective, Flood's legacy is particularly notable - he
AB 768 (Thurmond) Page 3
of ?
challenged the "reserve clause" in baseball contracts, which
gave the team that held the player's contract near absolute
control over the player's contract. This challenge opened the
door to free agency, ensuring that players shared in the
financial windfall of modern sports.
2. Smokeless Tobacco in Baseball:
Smokeless tobacco has a long history in baseball, and it was
historically prevalent. According to press accounts, use of
chewing tobacco among baseball players was as high as 50% in
1994. More recently, it has dropped to 33% of players using
smokeless tobacco, but attempts to prohibit the use of
smokeless tobacco during games through the collective
bargaining process have so far failed. However, in the wake of
the death of Tony Gwynn in 2014 due to cancer caused by
smokeless tobacco, several players voluntarily stopped using
smokeless tobacco during games. Additionally, press accounts
at that time quoted then-Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig as
saying smokeless tobacco would be a topic of negotiation
during future collective bargaining agreement negotiations.
In the meantime, San Francisco this year banned smokeless
tobacco in baseball stadiums. As the ban will not take effect
until 2016, the enforcement questions of such a ban remain
unanswered. If a player was seen chewing tobacco on the field,
would enforcement occur during the game? If a player disputed
that he was chewing tobacco, how would such a dispute be
resolved? And would a player guilty of chewing of tobacco face
fines or suspension from the MLB for conduct "detrimental to
baseball", despite the fact such behavior allowed in other
states? In short, noting the challenges of enforcing a
smokeless tobacco ban in a workplace as unusual as a baseball
field, it is likely that some level of buy-in from the players
is essential. Noting the press accounts above, it is likely
that this will occur through the collective bargaining
process.
AB 768 (Thurmond) Page 4
of ?
3. Proponent Arguments :
According to the author, Major League Baseball (MLB) "has
already begun the process of imposing certain limits on the
use of smokeless tobacco, but its use has not yet been banned
entirely. MLB players are not allowed to carry tobacco
packages in their uniform pockets, and tobacco use during
televised interviews and non-game functions is prohibited.
Today, the crux of the smokeless tobacco debate in California
is centered on the on-field use of smokeless tobacco."
The author argues that "the use of smokeless tobacco products,
particularly by professional players, is an issue of statewide
importance because its use by those players serves as a
detrimental example to our state's youth. In fact,
researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health have found
that the use of smokeless tobacco by players has a powerful
role model effect on youth. AB 768 will send a simple and
powerful message to young fans that baseball and smokeless
tobacco don't mix."
4. Opponent Arguments :
None on file.
5. Prior Legislation :
AB 1819 (Hall) Chapter 459, Statutes of 2014 expanded the
existing prohibition against smoking in a family day care from
only during the hours of operation to at any time.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --
AB 768 (Thurmond) Page 5
of ?