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 Academy of Pediatrics American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California Academy of Family Physicians California American College of Emergency Physicians California Black Health Network California Children's Hospital Association California Dental Association California Dental Hygienists' Association AB 768 (Thurmond) Page 5 of ? California Medical Association California Society of Addiction Medicine Children's Defense Fund - California City of Berkeley County Health Executives Association of California Health Access California Medical Oncology Association of Southern California Shasta County Tobacco Education Coalition UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland University of Southern California OPPOSITION None received. -- END --