California Surveyors Forums

https://www.kcra.com/article/california ... w/33929905

So we good now or do I just say that I'm a cartographer?

AB2257
(7) The business service provider can contract with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintain a clientele without restrictions from the hiring entity

And, in spite of ample opportunity, it appears as if CLSA chose not to get involved. Am I correct? Are we still under the same rules as strippers?

It looks to me like the appropriate section for land surveyors to have been exempted would have been ­§2783(c):

(c) An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, landscape architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

But apparently that didn't happen.

Apparently - and - we continue to allow the profession to fall lower and lower and lower and lower and lower. Does anyone care? Where is the leadership?

At least they have Stormy Daniels.

**************************************************

"Stormy Daniels, an adult film star and director, spoke out against the gig economy legislation in a Los Angeles Times op-ed last year on behalf of Déjà Vu, a company that owns clubs and has monopolies or near-monopolies in areas in California and across the country. Daniels, who was hired as a spokesperson for Déjà Vu, used a similar argument, claiming that AB 5 would hurt dancers because it would allow the employer to dictate the conditions of how and when they perform."

"Déjà Vu Director of Operations Ryan Carlson called AB 5 the “least just thing” the government could do for the adult entertainment industry, saying that it negatively impacts business owners but hurts entertainers even more. Carlson said that the transition to classifying their dancers as employees has been so costly that four of their clubs have shut down. He added that Déjà Vu has been paying minimum wage since they converted their contractors to employees in December 2018, but their competitors “have chosen to ignore AB 5.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/24/cal ... strippers/

*******************************************************************************************************************

"This bill would delete the existing professional services exemptions for services provided by still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, and newspaper cartoonists. The bill would, instead, establish an exemption for services provided by a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor, as defined, who works under a written contract that specifies certain terms, subject to prescribed restrictions. The bill would establish an exemption for services provided to a digital content aggregator, as defined, by a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor. The bill would establish an exemption for services provided by a fine artist, freelance writer, translator, editor, content contributor, advisor, narrator, cartographer, producer, copy editor, illustrator, or newspaper cartoonist who works under a written contract that specifies certain terms, subject to prescribed restrictions."

"This bill would create additional exemptions for various professions and occupations. In this regard, the bill would exempt from the ABC test people who provide underwriting inspections and other services for the insurance industry, a manufactured housing salesperson, subject to certain obligations, people engaged by an international exchange visitor program, as specified, consulting services, animal services, and competition judges with specialized skills, as specified. The bill would also create exceptions for licensed landscape architects, specialized performers teaching master classes, registered professional foresters, real estate appraisers and home inspectors, and feedback aggregators. The bill would revise the conditions pursuant to which business service providers providing services pursuant to contract to another business are exempt. The bill would revise the criteria pursuant to which referral agencies and service providers providing services to clients through referral agencies are exempt and would revise applicable definitions. The bill would also create an exemption for business-to-business relationships between 2 or more sole proprietors, as specified. The bill would provide that a hiring entity need only satisfy all of the conditions of one of the exemption provisions to qualify for the exemption from the ABC Test."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2257

mpallamary wrote:And, in spite of ample opportunity, it appears as if CLSA chose not to get involved. Am I correct? Are we still under the same rules as strippers?

CLSA tried to get an exemption for land surveyors. The land surveyors will not get an exemption. Foreseeably, not now, not ever. The land surveying community made a deal with labor in 1965 by becoming a covered craft in California. Being a covered craft means surrendering professional status – regardless of the contradictory statutes classifying land surveyors as professionals. For the uninitiated, being a covered craft suggests employees are subject to being unionized i.e. Locals 3 and 12 in California.

The federal government, during the same period, 1962-63, took the position land surveyors were professionals. Land surveyors enjoyed professional status for the next 50 years. The land surveyors maintained professional status in the Federal Register until 2010-2012 at which time Local 12, Operating Engineers in Southern California, brokered a reclassification of land surveyors to laborers. Technically, laborers and mechanics. The reclassification was completed outside of the normal process – essentially, it was a backroom deal. The video produced by Local 12 paints the land surveyor as a dolt. In the video I recall the land surveyor being described as incapable of independent thoughts and being fully reliant on the direction from others.

In California, we currently have approximately 4,200 valid licenses as Professional Land Surveyor (“PLS”). I have no quantitative information, but I suspect there may be another 5,000+ Land Surveying in Training Certificates (“LSIT”), not including the LSITs associated with the PLSs, in California. For discussion, we will assume 9,000 combined PLS and LSITs. The PLSs and the LSITs are the professional class that see the value in education, testing and professional status. Combining Locals 3 and 12 “surveyors” there is a combined membership of approximately 1,100 people. Within their membership a PLS or an LSIT is as rare as hen’s teeth. Balance the union’s signatory interest with the current California Legislature and the licensees' desire to be recognized as a profession, therein rests the issue.

The kneejerk answer would appear to be for signatory firms to take back the professional status. Not so fast. Once signatory, there is no sensible way out due to unfunded multiemployer pension liability. In a sentence, Local 12’s current pension fund is only 65% funded during the recent boom years and the 35% unfunded liability, approximately $1.7B, is the responsibility of the signatory firms - roughly $120k per contributing signatory employee in Local 12.

Frankly, as I have said before, I believe deregulation is on the horizon for licensees. The professional community did not stop becoming laborers after 50 years of federal support, who among us thinks the same community can stop deregulating a license requirement?

For what it is worth.

DWoolley

I appreciate your comments.

I believe CLSA could have made a difference if there was a will. I remember years ago, going to Sacramento and personally visiting legislatures and lobbying for revisions to certain laws and changes. Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else, remember the last time our members went to Sacramento to visit our legislators and to educate them about what we do?

******************************************************
Housing California Lobby Day 2020

Join RUN and Housing California for our annual Lobby Day in Sacramento! On March 19, 2020, advocates from all over the state will hold a rally and press conference in support of homes for all Californians. Then we’ll head to the Capitol to make sure legislators hear from us about bills to increase affordable housing and end homelessness.

When: Thursday, March 19, 2020 (with a prep day for Super Leaders on March 18)
****************************************************

https://housingca.salsalabs.org/lobbyda ... lifornians.




https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... sacramento

mpallamary wrote:I appreciate your comments.

I believe CLSA could have made a difference if there was a will. I remember years ago, going to Sacramento and personally visiting legislatures and lobbying for revisions to certain laws and changes. Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else, remember the last time our members went to Sacramento to visit our legislators and to educate them about what we do?

CLSA has an excellent advocate and lobbyist in Sacramento that routinely meets, pre-Covid19, with legislators. When the California Engineers, Land Surveyors Association ("CELSA"), working with Senator Pan, introduced a bill that further defined and distinguished the practice of land surveying from the trade work the bill was wrestled from CELSA. Local 3 introduced language outside of CLSA, CELSA an ACEC that would effectively deregulate the practice of land surveying. CLSA representatives, together with others, met with Senator Pan's staff (in Sacramento) to explain the issues with the bill and ultimately, the bill was replaced with a new language, SB 556. The CLSA Legislative Chairman, together was several others, flew to Sacramento on short notice for the meeting. I believe this meeting was in the last year.

There are also several meeting throughout the year, mostly during times of legislative activity, between CELSA, ACEC and CLSA to coordinate on agendas and to discuss common issues facing the profession.

Currently, there are a number legislative ideas that will be voted on by the CLSA Board of Directors in November 2020 i.e. accuracy statements on work product, signage on survey vehicles, qualification based selection, limiting and capping record of survey fees and more.

Lastly, as for educating folks on what we, as surveyors, do? Apathy ranks supreme, nobody cares. I sometimes inadvertently bore myself.

DWoolley

Thanks Dave! Well said. Sadly, well said.