San Jose, California, Additional Hours for Part-Time Workers, Measure E (November 2016)
| Measure E: San Jose Additional Hours for Part-Time Workers |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local labor and unions |
| Related articles |
| Local labor and unions on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Santa Clara County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| San Jose, California |
A measure concerning part-time workers was on the ballot for San Jose voters in Santa Clara County, California, on November 8, 2016. The measure was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring employers with 36 or more employees to give additional work hours to existing part-time employees before hiring new employees, including subcontractors and temporary workers, so long as the additional hours did not require overtime pay rates. |
| A no vote was a vote against this initiative to require employers with 36 or more employees to give additional work hours to existing part-time employees before hiring new employees, including subcontractors and temporary workers, so long as the additional hours did not require overtime pay rates. |
Election results
| Measure E | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 202,634 | 63.94% | ||
| No | 114,263 | 36.06% | ||
- Election results from Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the San Jose Municipal Code to require employers of 36 or more employees to offer additional work hours to existing qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees or contractors, unless waived through a collective bargaining agreement or a welfare to work program; and, authorize the City to enforce, and grant hardship exemptions from, the offer of work requirement?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Jose City Attorney:
| “ |
Measure E, if approved by a majority of the voters, would add a new chapter to the San Jose Municipal Code (the "Code") to require employers to offer additional work hours to existing qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees, including subcontractors or temporary staffing services. Measure E was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by the required number of voters. The existing Code does not include an offer of additional work requirement. Application. The proposed ordinance defines employees and employers subject to its requirements. An employee is any person who has performed at least 2 hours of work for an employer and is entitled to the State minimum wage. An employer is any person that employs or exercises direct or indirect control over wages, hours or working conditions of any employee, and either is subject to San Jose's business tax or maintains a place of business in San Jose which State law exempts from San Jose's business tax. This definition covers employers exempt under State law from San Jose's business tax, including banks, insurance companies and certain nonprofits. The offer of additional work requirement does not apply where the part-time employees would be paid a premium rate or when an express waiver of the additional work requirement has been agreed to in a collective bargaining agreement. It applies to welfare-to-work programs except participants may opt out. Exemptions. Businesses with 35 or fewer employees would be exempt from the ordinance. The number of employees of a chain business is determined by the combined number of employees at every location of the business, whether or not located in San Jose. For a franchisee, the total number of employees would be determined by the combined total number of employees at every location owned by the franchisee, whether or not located in San Jose. The proposed ordinance also provides that the City may grant hardship exemptions for up to 12 months at a time to employers who demonstrate that they have exercised reasonable steps to comply and full and immediate compliance would be impracticable, impossible or futile. Administration. The proposed ordinance includes a number of administrative requirements and enforcement provisions. Employers would be required to annually post a bulletin of the additional work hour requirement in various languages at the workplace. The City would be authorized to issue administrative fines and penalties for noncompliance. A civil action based on a violation of the ordinance can be brought by any person harmed, any person on behalf of the public, or the City. Effective Date/Amendment. If approved by a majority of the voters, the proposed ordinance would become effective 90 days after certification. The City Council may amend the ordinance to address administration and enforcement but not to reduce its substantive requirements or scope. A "Yes" vote is a vote to amend the Code to implement the offer of additional work requirement. A "No" vote is a vote to not implement the offer of additional work requirement.[2] |
” |
| —San Jose City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]
- Dave Cortese, president of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
- Jenny Do, executive director for Friends of Hue Foundation, attorney-at-law
- Teresa Castellanos, board member of San Jose Unified School District
- Pastor Jethroe Moore II, president of the San Jose Valley National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
- Reverend Jon G. Pedigo, director of Projects for Peace and Justice
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]
| “ |
Do you think part-time employees should have an opportunity to work more hours to earn enough to pay their bills and support their families? If your answer is "yes," then vote "yes" on Measure E. Measure E offers part-time workers a chance to get extra hours so they can pay for rent, utilities, food and the other basic necessities. Here's how it works. When large businesses decide they have more work, they will be called on to offer the additional hours to their existing, part-time workers. If the current employees don't want the additional hours, their employers can offer the hours to anyone else. Tens of thousands of San Jose breadwinners — most of them women -- work part-time, and the number is increasing as technology makes it easier to hire people just for the hours a business needs them. Imagine what it feels like. You badly need to work more hours, but your boss says no. Why? Your boss may be trying to avoid paying for healthcare and other benefits by keeping employees part-time. Measure E was drafted to be fair to employees and businesses. Businesses decide what hours need to be worked and what skills are needed. Existing employees get an opportunity to work. Small businesses are exempt, and businesses that find it impractical to follow the law can apply for a hardship exemption. Why would anyone be opposed to such a common-sense plan? A few business groups oppose every idea that helps people who work hard to make ends meet. Opponents of Measure E include the same diehards who fought against increasing the minimum wage. Their arguments were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Give people who want to work a fighting chance. Vote Yes on Measure E. |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[6]
- Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose
- Rose Herrera, vice mayor of San Jose
- Matthew R. Mahood, president and CEO of San Jose Sillicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
- Denise Beusle, small business owner
- Suzanne Salata, vice president of Garden City Construction
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[7]
| “ |
While well-intentioned, Measure E's inflexibility obstructs hiring and job-creation by responsible, well-intentioned employers, particularly nonprofit organizations and small businesses. An after-school program should not have to risk a lawsuit to add part-time tutors. This measure was drafted without significant input from local businesses or nonprofits, and we're now presented with a risky "take-it-or-leave-it" measure that has never been tried anywhere else in the United States. Nonprofits, small businesses, and other employers say that Measure E:
We could have avoided many of these problems months ago had the measure's proponents crafted their proposal in conjunction with nonprofits and other employers. Instead, we face a rigid measure that one high-tech employer said would cause them to reconsider their decision to move 1,000 good-paying jobs to San Jose. Let's reject Measure E, and instead support part-time workers by developing a collaborative solution with nonprofit, business,and governmental leaders unshackled by Measure E's red tape and unproven, rigid requirements. Read more at SaveSanJoseJobs.org Vote no on Measure E.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
San Jose has its own initiative process for ordinances determined by the city charter. The state process is applicable wherever the city is silent. The signature requirement is 5% of the number of persons eligible to vote according to the last report of registration filed by the County Registrar of Voters with the Secretary of State, or 10% to force a special election. Otherwise the process is governed by the California Election Code.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Jose Local labor and unions. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Santa Clara County, "List of Local Measures Presidential General Election November 8, 2016," accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ San Jose City Attorney, "City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of Measure E," August 22, 2016
- ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument in Favor of Measure E," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument in Favor of Measure E," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument Against Measure E," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument Against Measure E," accessed October 11, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
