BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 730
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
730 (Wolk)
As Introduced February 27, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 23-11
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Harper, Patterson |
| | |Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |11-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo |Wagner |
| | |Garcia, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Prohibits a freight train from being operated in
California unless it has a crew consisting of at least two
SB 730
Page 2
individuals, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits, effective February 1, 2016, a train or light engine
used in connection with the movement of freight from being
operated unless it has a crew consisting if at least two
individuals.
2)Provides that this prohibition shall not include hostler
service or utility employees.
3)Authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
to assess civil penalties against any person who willfully
violates this bill, according to the following schedule:
a) A civil penalty of $250 to $1,000 for the first
violation.
b) A civil penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for a second
violation within a three-year period.
c) A civil penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 for a third
violation and each subsequent violation within a three-year
period.
4)Provides that the remedies available to the CPUC are
nonexclusive and do not limit the remedies available under all
other laws or pursuant to contract.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minor and absorbable costs
to the CPUC related to enforcement. The CPUC indicates
SB 730
Page 3
enforcement would be incorporated into existing inspections.
COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and is supported by the United Transportation Union.
According to the author, this bill protects communities by
requiring trains and light engines carrying freight within
California to be operated with an adequate crew size for both
public safety reasons and the protection of railroad workers.
Advanced technology has made the railroads safer; however,
supporters argue that nothing can replace an extra set of eyes
and ears when trains drive through populated areas. A single
operator in an emergency situation cannot properly assess the
situation, secure the train, and notify police, fire and other
necessary officials in a timely manner. Finally, supporters
state that the federal government and other states are grappling
with how to increase railroad safety and 14 states have
introduced minimum crew legislation this year.
Additionally, supports note that the CPUC has voted unanimously
to support this bill, stating that requiring two-person crews is
a straightforward way of ensuring two qualified crew members
continue to operate freight trains in California until such time
as the rules and practices of safe operation may be updated for
safer operation with smaller crews. According to the CPUC, of
all the industries subject to CPUC oversight (energy, water,
telecommunications, and transportation) rail accidents result in
the greatest number of fatalities each year.
The California Railroad Industry opposes this bill because it
SB 730
Page 4
will unnecessarily and unreasonably interfere with the ability
of railroad management and union leaders to fully bargain over
the best and safest crew size for each assignment in California.
They argue that state legislation that attempts to alter terms
of collective bargaining agreements would harm the process and
would permanently undermine the principle of labor and
management cooperation that underpins the Railway Labor Act.
They also contend that this bill would violate Proposition 17
(the Railroad Anti-Featherbedding Act of 1964), which was an
initiative measure approved by the voters at the statewide
general election of November 3, 1964.
Opponents argue that, historically, safety and technology
improvements have been a primary catalyst for negotiations
related to crew size. As a result of these improvements, rail
labor and rail management have agreed to reductions in crew size
from as many as five persons in the 1980s to two persons on most
territories operating today. They argue that these reductions
in crew size were achieved without compromise to safety as
witnessed by a decline in rail employee injuries, train accident
and grade crossing collision rates by 79% or more. Hazardous
material accidents rates are down 91%.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0001232
SB 730
Page 5