###

Following more than six months of unsuccessful labor negotiations with California State University’s (CSU) leadership, the California Faculty Association (CFA) Board of Directors unanimously voted this week to call for a system-wide five-day strike, in partnership with Teamsters Local 2010 members, at the start of the Spring 2024 semester.

The CFA represents nearly 600 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches at Cal Poly Humboldt, and more than 29,000 faculty across CSU’s 23 campuses. If the union can’t reach an agreement with CSU in the coming weeks, the vast majority of its members will cancel classes from Jan. 22 to Jan. 26.

“We really hope that CSU’s leadership comes to their senses and agrees to our reasonable demands because nobody wants this disruption. Nobody wants to go on strike,” local CFA field representative Maureen Loughran told the Outpost in a recent phone interview. “We don’t understand why they’re causing this harm to the students. The ball is in their court. They can stop this anytime, and we hope that they do.”

At the beginning of this month, CFA members shut down the CSU campuses in Los Angeles, Pomona, Sacramento and San Francisco to call for an immediate 12 percent salary increase to catch up with inflation.

The current negotiation process is a “reopener,” Loughran said, meaning CFA’s bargaining team is still fighting for pay increases for the current academic year. 

“We’re negotiating over a contract that is already in place because we weren’t able to agree when we settled that contract on the last year’s pay increases and a few other items,” Loughran said. “We’re reopening [negotiations] on salary, workload, benefits, health and safety. Since May, the CSU hasn’t moved much from their initial offer.”

The CSU has offered all faculty a 15 percent general salary increase, which would increase in five percent increments over three years. CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith noted that the proposed increases in 2024 and 2025 would “depend only on the state honoring the financial commitments that it made in its current multi-year compact with the CSU.”

Some faculty would receive 20.3 percent increases over a three-year period under the proposed agreement. CSU’s leadership has also offered a post-promotion increase of 2.65 percent in fiscal year 2024-25 and a 2.65 percent service salary increase in fiscal year 2025-26.

“The CSU has also proposed supporting recommendations put forth by the independent factfinder that was brought in as part of the bargaining process,” Bentley-Smith wrote in an email to the Outpost. “That included an increase to paid parental leave from the current six weeks to eight weeks and increasing paid workload reduction from 40 percent to 60 percent for one semester (in lieu of the eight weeks).”

The CFA is also asking for a $10,0000 wage increase for the lowest-paid faculty. “Our [lecturers] who don’t have a PhD are paid $54,000 a year for full-time work. We’re asking for that minimum to be raised to $64,000 annually,” she said. “The minimum pay for lecturers with a PhD is $64,000. We’re asking to raise their annual salary to $69,000. We don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

There’s still time for a resolution. The CFA bargaining team will meet with CSU management during the second week of January. “We’re planning for the worst but hoping for the best,” Loughran said.

“It’s my greatest hope that the CSU does what’s right and averts the strike by meeting our demands,” she said. “But we will shut it down system-wide as a CSU if they don’t settle with us. It’s going to be a ghost town. It’s not going to feel like a university. We hope that [the threat of a strike] puts pressure on the CSU to do the right thing.”

Bentley-Smith said the CSU is also eager to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

“[W]e are prepared to negotiate with CFA at any time to reach an agreement to increase faculty salaries,” she said. “On other issues, CSU is prepared to agree to nearly all of the recommendations of the independent fact finder to reach a resolution. If strikes do occur in January, we hope to minimize any disruptions to our students.” 

Reached for additional comment on the matter, Cal Poly Humboldt spokesperson Grant Scott-Goforth offered the following statement: “As a university community, we share a commitment to providing a positive educational experience for our students, and Cal Poly Humboldt values the important work our employees do every day to make this possible.”

The following opinion column was submitted by Lonyx Landry, a Humboldt County planning commissioner and a leader of CORE Hub. —Ed.

###

Offshore wind development in Humboldt County has the potential to revolutionize our economy and materially improve the well-being of our communities. But it’s not that simple. As a member of the Nor Rel Muk Wintu Nation, a Cal Poly Humboldt educator, and a leader in the Redwood Region Climate and Community Resilience Hub (CORE Hub)’s Offshore Wind Community Benefits Network, I believe that Northern California renewable energy development must go hand in hand with investments in Tribal communities and industries such as aquaculture and mariculture; and that it requires strong community benefits like workforce development, education, healthcare and housing.

In 2024, developers like Crowley and local and state governments will be working together to solidify multi-million dollar offshore wind deals and projects, and will need to ensure that communities are not left out of the conversation.

Nurturing a just future in Humboldt County means that those who seek to profit from offshore wind development need to codify their promises to our community in legally binding agreements. In Humboldt, we have a history of extractive industries taking advantage of our rich supply of natural resources. In the 1800s and 1900s, our county served as an epicenter for the Gold Rush and logging, the negative effects of which can still be seen today. Former mill sites continue to threaten the drinking water of our 88,000 Humboldt County residents. We consistently rank as one of the five poorest counties in California, and our region has one of the highest rates of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples (MMIP) in the nation.

Tribal communities in Humboldt, especially, have endured the brunt of environmental degradation, resource exploitation, and social inequity. Our lands have been taken and our natural resources destroyed, our culture outlawed, and our voices marginalized.

Offshore wind development in Humboldt needs to flip the script by ensuring that our local communities reap the benefits of clean energy and economic development, without causing more harm. A Community Benefits Agreement is one accountable way to ensure a truly equitable clean energy transition.

An established community agreement can ensure workplace training and educational opportunities tailored to our communities’ unique needs, creating good jobs that are accessible to Indigenous people as well as students and young people, and families living on low incomes and in rural, disconnected parts of Humboldt. Training and employment programs that prioritize historically oppressed communities, fair wages and safe working conditions, can help bridge economic disparities. Beyond construction and engineering jobs at the wind farms and the port in Humboldt Bay, there are also a wealth of possibilities for good-paying, career-path jobs in environmental science, air and water quality, and other fields. Offshore wind companies should design internships, research collaborations, and entry-level jobs to provide training and skills to local students and workers who have been historically excluded from these opportunities.

Legally-binding community agreements can also ensure that offshore wind projects respect the sacred sites and cultural heritage of Indigenous communities, including preserving and avoiding impacts to Tuluwat Island, which has been restored to the Wiyot Tribe after an egregiously painful history. Consulting with Native American people and respecting our input is a crucial step towards investing in our economic future in a way that protects our natural resources and respects our stewardship of the land. We need offshore wind companies to provide startup funding and to make space for dialogue and shared decision-making with Tribal and local communities, centering local science, lived experience and traditional ecological knowledge.

For the past two years, more than two dozen community advocates and stakeholders involved in the CORE Hub have developed community benefits terms including these workforce training and Indigenous stewardship proposals. We have also specified our needs for commitments and funding for our local fisheries, mariculture, and aquaculture industries, as well as services like public transportation, outdoor recreation, childcare, and electrification and zero-emissions infrastructure. We’ve also detailed our need for safeguards to prevent MMIP, human trafficking, and sexual violence. The CORE Hub has discussed these community protective measures in depth with Crowley, Humboldt Harbor Commissioners and district staff, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and state government agencies.

If offshore wind projects are to move forward in 2024, vague promises and verbal commitments to “help the community” are no longer enough. We need transparency and accountability from our government and corporate America. Community benefits can realistically protect Humboldt communities’ rich and diverse cultural, natural, and human resources, as we host the first-ever offshore wind farms on the Pacific coast. In this new year, we will continue to fight for economic development that puts people, flora, and fauna before profits.

###

Lonyx B. Landry is a STEM advisor at Cal Poly Humboldt in the Indian Natural Resources, Science, and Engineering Program (INRSEP), a member of the Nor Rel Muk Wintu Nation, and leader and supporter of the Redwood Region Climate and Community Resilience Hub (CORE Hub). He is also Council Member to the Northern California Indian Development Council (NCIDC). Lonyx was born and raised in Eureka and has extensive experience working at the intersections of biology, higher education, and natural resource protection in Northern California.

PREVIOUSLY:

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Will List the Lassics Lupine as an Endangered Species, and Also Designate 512 Acres of Public Land as Critical Habitat

HUMBOLDT LIFE:

• Lupinus constancei (Lassics lupine)

###

Press release from Cal Poly Humboldt:

One Cal Poly Humboldt graduate student is working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to help save an endangered plant species from possible extinction.

The Lassics lupine is a wildflower that occurs in just one place in the world — in the Lassics Wilderness of the Six Rivers National Forest. It is small but charismatic, growing to just 15 centimeters tall with pink and white flowers, and fuzzy leaves.

It faces several threats to its survival including herbivory, encroachment and competition from other vegetation, and especially climate change, says Caitlyn Allchin, the Biological Sciences graduate student who is helping to recover the species. As a result, the species recently received protection under the Endangered Species Act in September 2023.

Without human intervention, the plant would be driven to extinction, according to previous Cal Poly Humboldt research that was also supported by USFWS, USFS, and CNPS. Current conservation efforts include placing cages around the plants to protect them and their seeds against predators such as mice. But factors including drought, wildfire, and reduced soil moisture continue to threaten the lupine.

Since 2021, Allchin has focused on finding an alternative location for the wildflower where there is less herbivory and encroachment, and optimal soil moisture. If successful, it would improve the species’ viability.

To identify a potential new site for the species, she is assessing landscapes throughout Humboldt and Trinity Counties, and has produced habitat suitability models using data about the climate, the soil, bedrock materials, and more. She has placed climatic sensors at multiple locations, assessed aerial imagery, and conducted plant surveys to compare each site with the Lassics lupine’s current habitat.

Allchin has so far identified four potential relocation sites. She has placed sensors at each site and collected data over the course of one year to capture changes in soil moisture, soil temperature, and insolation (the quantity of solar radiation energy) at these locations.

Her research is not only critical for the plant’s survival but also for regional biomes. By understanding how to conserve the Lassics lupine, scientists can find the right tools to improve ecosystem resilience and conserve biodiversity in California and beyond, she explains.

“The lupine, like other sensitive species, is part of a fragile ecosystem that is already stressed due to the impacts of climate change,” she says. “Climate change is negatively impacting endemic plant species all over the world.”

“Finding ways to ameliorate this issue through methods such as assisted migration can provide the framework for other species of conservation concern or plant communities as climate change impacts worsen over time.”

Kerry Venegas struggles to sleep these days, worrying about the 55 children who will lose services once her Humboldt County nonprofit closes an outpatient counseling program in January.

David Mineta gets emotional when he talks about his organization’s decision to close six mental health programs serving about 650 children and adults in Santa Clara County by the end of December.

“Talking about it really makes me want to cry,” he says.

Depending on who you ask, these mental health program closures are either an unfortunate aberration or a harbinger of more to come as the state transforms its Medi-Cal reimbursement system.

Venegas, executive director of Changing Tides Family Services in Eureka, and Mineta, president and CEO of Momentum For Health in San Jose, say their organizations are being forced to cut crucial mental health programs in order to keep the rest of their agencies afloat. They attribute that to CalAIM, a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar overhaul of Medi-Cal that dramatically changes how California’s public mental health care programs are funded.[CORRECTION: Changing Tides contacted the Outpost to let us know that their agency and their other programs have not been impacted by the change to CalAIM.]

“I would love to invite Gov. Newsom and his team to come talk about what CalAIM is in an area like ours,” Venegas said. “Instead of making it better, I really think this has made it worse.”

CalAIM’s behavioral health initiative, which Gavin Newsom’s administration began rolling out in 2022, is designed to provide a more integrated approach to care. It offers a “no wrong door approach” so that people seeking help will have an easier time getting it.

This past July, a new payment system kicked in for most counties. The goal? Increase efficiency, reduce paperwork and offer counties more flexibility.

The problem, some nonprofits say, is that their organizations are no longer reimbursed specifically for time spent traveling to see patients or filling out documentation. In addition, the state is giving counties latitude to decide how much Medi-Cal money they pass along to their nonprofit behavioral health contractors.

Los Angeles County is passing along about 85% of the funds it receives from the state, according to Adrienne Shilton, a senior policy advocate with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, while others are providing less.

She shared survey data showing nonprofits in a dozen counties told the alliance they worried they might have to close programs.

“There’s still a dire picture,” Shilton said. “We’re concerned about what this is going to look like in another three months.”

Amie Miller, executive director of the California Mental Health Services Authority, a state agency that works with counties to transform mental health services, said she hasn’t heard of programs closing directly as a result of payment reform.

Some providers are struggling with longstanding financial problems, Miller said, and others are “used to not having to be as attentive to the bottom line.”

“This is the next piece of our evolution,” she said.

Some providers have said they stand to do well under the new model, she added.

Still, some nonprofit organizations have been sounding the alarm since summer that the rates are too low and eventually will lead to program closures.

Dozens of mental health providers in October penned a letter to the state Department of Health Care Services, warning of “potentially catastrophic consequences.”

But until recently, programs have not actually closed. That’s beginning to change.

“It’s the end of the year. Folks are looking at the books saying ‘we’re not going to make it,’” said Le Ondra Clark Harvey, CEO of the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, an organization that represents some nonprofit providers.

Venegas, of Changing Tides, called the decision to close the program “a knife in the heart.”

“If we had any other choice, we wouldn’t be ending these services,” she said.

Modernizing Medi-Cal payments

Most everyone agrees that the system serving California’s more than 15 million low-income Medi-Cal enrollees was overdue for a change.

“Updating and modernizing how we pay for services in behavioral health is crucial,” said Michelle Doty Cabrera, executive director of the California Behavioral Health Directors Association, which represents county behavioral health departments. “We need to propel ourselves into the 21st century.”

Increased efficiency is one of the desired outcomes of payment reform. County behavioral health departments are working hard to support their nonprofit mental health providers during this transition, Cabrera said, but nonprofit providers also need to reach more Medi-Cal patients. There are just too many people in need, she said, and the workforce to meet those needs is too scarce.

A survey published this month by the California Health Care Foundation showed that satisfaction with CalAIM is lower among behavioral health providers than other provider types “by a pretty significant margin,” said Melora Simon, associate director of the foundation’s people-centered care team.

“There’s signal there; it’s not just noise,” she said.

Even without the threat of mental health programs closing, the state has struggled to keep up with a growing mental health crisis amid huge provider shortages. A state audit published in November found that children in Medi-Cal already face long wait times to receive behavioral health treatment.

The pandemic threw gasoline on the blaze. Just as mental health needs have spiked in recent years, so has provider burnout.

Mental health services in rural California

Prior to payment reform this summer, Venegas, of Humboldt, said her organization already struggled to hire enough clinicians to provide outpatient therapy; the therapy program she is closing would have had room for 125 to 130 children if the organization was fully staffed.

Many of the 55 children in the program waited months to be assigned to a provider. Because the county has its own staffing challenges, she said, these children will now likely be put back on waitlists for care.

In the vast rural and forested county, many of the children live an hour or two drive away from services. They are often directly impacted by domestic violence and drug and alcohol use. Some are in foster care. Many are at risk for suicide.

“Fifty-five clients may not seem like a big number, but every one of those is a kid. Every one is a kid in crisis and every one has a story.”
— Kerry Venegas of Changing Tides Family Services

Once payment reform began, the organization struggled to keep the program afloat — transportation and documentation time was no longer directly reimbursable, leading to a significant financial hit. Still, the organization considered the counseling program that serves these children to be so critical that the board allowed it to continue while accruing a deficit, Venegas said: “We stayed with it until we no longer had a choice.”

“Fifty-five clients may not seem like a big number,” she said. “But every one of those is a kid. Every one is a kid in crisis and every one has a story.”

Humboldt County Behavioral Health Director Emi Botzler-Rodgers wrote in an email to CalMatters that the county is gathering data to evaluate the impact of the new rates. She acknowledged concerns across the state about whether the rates adequately cover the cost of services.

The state Department of Health Care Services refused to make anyone available to directly answer questions about the changes; instead it provided a series of answers to emailed questions. The department is “actively engaging” providers and counties, developing technical assistance and monitoring and enforcing the new rules to make sure counties maintain an adequate network of Medi-Cal services and providers, the email said.

The department is continuing to monitor payment reform rates “and will adjust them as appropriate,” the email said.

Staffing stresses San Jose provider

Like Changing Tides in Humboldt — and other behavioral health nonprofits across the state — Momentum for Health, in Santa Clara County, has struggled with a shortage of qualified staff. This inadequate staffing, says Mineta, makes certain programs difficult to sustain financially, because overhead costs are often fixed no matter how many patients they see.

The six programs the organization is closing include intensive treatment for children and adults, including programs for people with addiction and those who have experienced their first episode of psychosis. Mineta says the programs employ about 85 staff members and currently serve around 650 people, though they reach about 1,500 people during the course of a year.

Sherri Terao, director of Santa Clara County’s behavioral health department, said in an email that Momentum is closing the programs “to address ongoing fiscal and staffing challenges” and that her department is working closely with the organization to ensure smooth transitions for patients.

Momentum for Health facilities in San Jose on Dec. 19, 2023. Momentum for Health provides behavioral health care for youth and adults in Santa Clara County. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters

While Mineta acknowledged his organization had financial challenges before this summer, he said payment reform ultimately caused the program closures. Staff in intensive outreach programs need to spend a lot of time out in the community, he said, and CalAIM’s new rates don’t adequately reimburse the hours it takes to provide that kind of care.

Given how quickly everything is changing, Mineta says, he sometimes feels as though he has the bends — the medical condition that can occur if a scuba diver surfaces too quickly. A little more than a year ago, Newsom held a press conference in front of Momentum’s San Jose campus, signing legislation to introduce one of his signature mental health initiatives, CARE Court.

But even as the administration continues to provide historic levels of attention to — and make unprecedented investments in — the state’s behavioral health system, Mineta has found himself cutting programs in the face of escalating need.

He describes this as the toughest time in his 30 years in the field.

“It’s just confounding to me,” he said.

Neither he, nor Changing Tides, blame their counties. Mineta said Santa Clara County has been deeply supportive over the years. In fact, on Dec. 12, the county board of supervisors heard a report about the challenges many behavioral health nonprofits have been facing and voted to provide extra funding to help them weather the payment reform transition.

Unfortunately, Mineta said, that won’t help with the programs Momentum has already slated for closure: “It came too late,” he said.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Californians in two industries are set to get new minimum wages just for them next year, and that could lead to pay bumps for other workers, too.

Gov. Gavin Newsom this year signed two union-backed bills that will boost fast-food and health care workers’ minimum wages.

California-based fast-food workers for chains with 60 or more locations around the nation will earn at least $20 an hour beginning in April, $4 higher than the overall state minimum wage of $16 that will be effective Jan. 1.

In June, health care workers will earn a minimum of $18, $21 or $23 an hour, depending on what type of facility employs them and where they work.

The industry-specific wage increases reflect a shift in unions’ strategies at the Capitol. After the Great Recession, labor groups led campaigns that resulted in then-Gov. Jerry Brown signing a law in 2016 that put California on a path to a $15 minimum wage. That law included inflation adjustments, which is why the minimum wage is higher today.

The two new laws are expected to trigger pay increases for about 900,000 Californians, some of whom are earning more than minimum wage today.

They are going into effect in a competitive labor market that has seen employers, especially small businesses, struggling to hire and retain workers. California’s unemployment rate is at 4.8%, which is higher compared with the federal unemployment rate of 3.7% but is near a historic low.

The new fast-food minimum wage could push up pay for other restaurant and food workers, experts say.

In a tight labor market, “other food-services companies will likely have to increase wages in order to retain workers in a sector in which chronic understaffing, and the stress and burnout that causes among remaining staff, is already a problem,” said John Logan, professor of labor studies at San Francisco State University.

Gov. Gavin Newsom stands with cheering fast food workers after signing legislation raising their minimum wage in Los Angeles on Sept. 28, 2023. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters

Others say the industry-specific minimum wage could have ripple effects in other industries.

Keith Miller owns three Subway sandwich shops in Northern California and is spokesperson for the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers, which opposed the fast-food worker legislation. The law passed with support from major fast-food chains, which gained assurances that unions would drop an initiative that would have made the chains liable for their franchises’ labor violations.

Under the law, Miller said, franchisors like McDonald’s or Subway avoid responsibility but franchisees like him will bear the costs of paying higher wages.

Miller questioned why fast-food workers were singled out as needing a minimum-wage increase, and added that it could affect industries such as retail. He said retail workers might switch over to fast food if they can make more money there, or retailers might need to raise their workers’ wages.

“It’s kind of a fallacy that this impacts only fast-food workers,” Miller said. “It kind of creates a market rate. In effect, the minimum wage for a lot of people will be $20.”

Upcoming minimum wage measures

California voters in November will see a ballot initiative that would raise the state minimum wage to $18 an hour. It’s backed by billionaire Joe Sanberg.

Workers in other industries, meanwhile, are fighting for higher minimum wages, too. In Los Angeles, a proposed ordinance would institute a $25 minimum wage for workers in the tourism industry before the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, which would rise to $30 an hour by 2028.

Jovan Houston, an airport security worker at Los Angeles International Airport, said she has been working there for six years and makes $19.78 an hour. She said a boost in wages would be “extremely” helpful for her and her 13-year-old son. They live with her niece and her four kids because rent is so expensive, Houston said.

“It’s cramped, but I can’t afford to move,” she said, adding that she has coworkers “who work two or three days to survive. They’re sleeping in the back on their breaks because they’re tired.”

Even as she fights for the Los Angeles ordinance that would raise her wages, Houston thinks it’s possible that her company would cut workers if forced to pay them more.

“They might eliminate workers,” Houston said. “I’m definitely worried about that.”

The effects of higher minimum wages

The costs and potential consequences of the higher minimum wages worry some people, including economists and the governor, while others see upsides.

Economist Christopher Thornberg, one of the founding partners of the International Republican Institute’s Beacon Project, said that in a competitive market, increasing minimum wages for the lowest-paid workers will lead to higher prices for consumers. For example, McDonald’s and Chipotle executives have said they plan to raise prices next year to offset increased labor costs.

But Michael Reich, an economics professor at UC Berkeley, said the effect of increased wages on product costs is relatively low and is usually seen in labor-intensive industries like dining and fast food. Reich said that when wages rise 10%, costs in the restaurant industry go up by about 2% to 3% and usually just on a one-time basis instead of a yearly increase.

Reich said raising wages for workers can lead to their upward mobility. Any negative effects such as higher costs for consumers or contribution to inflation are negligible, he and other economists say.

By increasing minimum wages for the lowest-paid workers, “you raise the standard of living,” Reich said. “That is quite significant.”

Kaiser Permanente employees on strike on Oct. 4, 2023. The workers held a demonstration in front of the Kaiser Permanente South Sacramento location. The strike resulted in a contract that gradually raises the minimum wage at Kaiser to $25 an hour. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

In addition, securing minimum wages for certain groups could eventually be used as a model to benefit other types of workers, such as gig workers who don’t currently have employee status, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at UC Santa Barbara who has written books about labor history.

“One could see a wage commission… for the Uber world that can establish certain kinds of criteria, which would have the effect of a minimum wage,” Lichtenstein said.

Meanwhile, the new minimum wage for health care workers is expected to cost $4 billion in the first year — half from California’s general fund and half from federal funds — during a time when it is facing a gaping budget deficit. So the governor reportedly is seeking changes, though it is unclear what form they will take.

What’s next for California labor?

Worker advocates and labor leaders are cheering their victories on wages as they strive to improve workers’ lives in other ways.

The unions that advocated for the fast-food and health care minimum wages say their list of priorities is long and includes other concerns such as how artificial intelligence will affect work, housing costs, worker classification and more.

“We can talk about leave, minimum wage, etc., but it doesn’t matter if we’re replacing people with robots in the workplace,” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation.

Isabel Urbano, a spokesperson for the Service Employees International Union, which campaigned for the fast-food bill and played a critical role in championing the minimum wage increase Gov. Brown signed in 2016, said: “The wage increase won’t mean anything if we don’t stabilize schedules and have predictable hours.”

Lisa Fu, executive director of the worker-advocacy group California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, said “what’s happening in the state and around the country with the labor movement has been really really inspiring for us,” though she said her organization’s main goal is to educate nail-salon workers and businesses about labor laws. Fu said there is “widespread” misclassification of such workers as independent contractors who are not entitled to sick pay, breaks and more.

While she said a minimum wage is one concern, “understanding of labor laws is the first step” in an industry that is primarily made up of Vietnamese immigrants. The median hourly wage for nail-salon workers in the state, including tips, is $10.94 an hour, she said, citing American Community Survey data.

Gonzalez Fletcher said labor is more focused on pushing for improvements in contracts, which she said tends to help raise wages of nonunion workers, too. But she said she continues to support any efforts to raise the state minimum wage. “The only way to keep up with inflation is to increase wages,” she said.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

###

Many residents living along Myrtle Avenue will be relieved to learn that the City of Eureka has abandoned a proposal to remove street parking between West and Harrison Avenues to allow for the construction of buffered bike lanes along the thoroughfare. During last night’s meeting, the Eureka City Council agreed to scrap the proposal in response to significant opposition from the public.

The city has planned some improvements along Myrtle Avenue, including water main replacement and pavement maintenance, sometime in the next year. With all of that construction going on, staff thought it would be a good opportunity to advance some of the concepts outlined in the city’s Complete and Green Streets Policy and expand the existing bike lanes into buffered bike lanes to increase safety for cyclists. 

The city conducted a parking study along Myrtle Avenue from East Avenue to Sunny Avenue and Sunny Avenue to McFarlan Street to get a better idea of how many parking spaces are occupied at different times of the day. At most, only 17 percent of the parking spaces were in use at a given time, according to the study.

“Generally low occupancy [in the area],” City Engineer Jesse Willor said during last night’s meeting. “With the low utilization of parking of parking in the area, that’s one of the things that kind of brought this as an option. But it is only an option.”

The city council heard from about a dozen folks during last night’s meeting, all of whom expressed their strong opposition to the proposed project.

David Hillegeist, a self-proclaimed avid cyclist, said he has cycled along Myrtle Avenue nearly every day for the last 30 years. He said the existing bike path “works as long as they keep the white line white,” and asked the council to reject the proposal.

“I have two spaces [at my house] – one is [for] my truck and the other one is for [a] guest and there’s only room for one guest at a time,” he said. “If parking on Myrtle [Avenue] were discontinued, the guests and the service vehicles – we’re talking FedEx and UPS – they would be forced to go looking for another place to park. The nearest parking that I can find is either on 15th Street to the south or Bay Street to the west. Both of those are two blocks away from my single parking space, and I’m certain that you would agree that it really doesn’t make much sense.”

Another commenter, Scott Willits, said he was shocked that the city’s Transportation Safety Commission had agreed to forward the item to the city council despite rampant opposition from the public.

“I’ve yet to speak to a single cyclist who thinks that this is a good idea, who thinks that this is more important than parking,” he added. “I just can’t see any way – in my calculations – that if you do the cost-benefit analysis the benefits to the cycling community would outweigh the harm that is being done to those of us who own homes and live in apartments along this stretch of road who are ultimately gonna pay the price for this.”

A commenter who only identified herself as Patty said she developed her own survey to gauge interest in expanding bicycle facilities on Myrtle Avenue.

“We have 339 responses,” she said. “I’m only gonna give you two questions that we asked … but I think this speaks volumes. The question is: Do you ride a bike as a primary form of transportation? 329 people responded ‘no’ and 10 people responded ‘yes’. That is 97.1 percent of people in Eureka saying they don’t ride bikes as a primary transportation. Next question: Would you consider riding a bike as a primary form of transportation in Eureka? … 90.9 percent responded ‘no’.”

Following public comment, Councilmember Scott Bauer noted that city staff are looking for creative ways to implement the city’s Complete Streets Policy where it makes sense. “It’s something we’re trying to do, not something we’re going to do.” He added that he would have a hard time supporting the proposal after hearing public feedback.

Councilmember Leslie Castellano agreed, adding, “I appreciate this exercise of democracy.”

Councilmembers Renee Contreras-DeLoach and G. Mario Fernandez asked if the city could construct other barriers to keep cyclists safe. Willor said staff would be willing to look into additional safety barriers, but it would depend on cost.

After a bit of additional discussion, the council agreed to nix the proposal without a formal vote.

###

Press release from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will open the commercial Dungeness crab fishery from the Oregon state line to the Sonoma/Mendocino county line (Fishing Zones 1 and 2) under a Fleet Advisory beginning Jan. 5, 2024 at 12:01 a.m. with a 64-hour pre-soak to begin on Jan. 2, 2024 at 8:01 a.m.

The commercial fishery will remain delayed from the Sonoma/Mendocino county line to the U.S./Mexico border (Fishing Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6) until at least the next risk assessment due to elevated numbers of humpback whales resulting in increased entanglement risk.

CDFW is also continuing the temporary recreational crab trap restriction from the Sonoma/Mendocino county line to Lopez Point, Monterey County, (Fishing Zones 3 and 4) due to the presence of humpback whales and the potential for entanglement with crab traps. The recreational trap restriction will be in effect until at least the next risk assessment.

The use of recreational crab traps in Fishing Zones 1, 2 and 5 will be allowed. A Fleet Advisory remains in effect for the recreational fishery for all Fishing Zones (1-6). CDFW reminds recreational crabbers that take of Dungeness crab by other methods, including hoop nets and crab snares, is allowed during a temporary trap restriction. CDFW also encourages recreational crabbers to implement best practices, as described in the Best Practices Guide.

CDFW anticipates the next risk assessment will take place on or around Jan. 11, 2024, at which time Director Charlton H. Bonham will re-evaluate available data to inform the potential for a commercial fishery opener in Fishing Zones 3-6 and modification of the recreational trap restriction. For more information related to the risk assessment process, please visit CDFW’s Whale Safe Fisheries page. For more information on the Dungeness crab fishery, please visit www.wildlife.ca.gov/crab.