Contingent employment in California—employment outside of the traditional employer-employee relation—has been growing for more than two decades in California. This growth has included increases in independent contractors, self-employment, employment leasing, and most of all, in staffing employment, which regularly totaled over 420,000 payroll jobs in California until this Great Recession.

The chart below compiled with the assistance of Mr. Spencer Wong of EDD, shows the changes in staffing employment from October 2001 through October 2009. Staffing company employment in California—both jobs within the staffing companies and jobs in client companies—is included in the “Employment Services” sub-sector category of the EDD monthly labor reports. Since the sub-sector numbers are not seasonally adjusted, the chart below focuses on the same month, October, for each of the following 9 years.

According to the Institute for Legal Reform, California can go lower – nearly to the bottom. California once again slipped further down the rankings from 44th to 46th in the ILR’s Lawsuit Climate 2010. The only states whose legal climates ranked worse than California’s are Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia are worse. How’s that for company?

What is even sadder is that our state legislature does not seem to get it. The policy committees that could very easily push through some reform are unwilling to give legal reform a serious chance. So it is business as usual and California continues to slip further down the rankings.

It’s worth taking a look at what earned California is ranking of 46. California’s courts remain a haven for class action lawsuits. California also has a reputation for large jury awards, which adds to its lawsuit-friendly perception. The state is also a growing hot spot for asbestos litigation. Out of state attorneys continue to flock to California to benefit from the state judiciary’s favorable rules towards asbestos suits.

Global warming may not be so powerful as a political issue. That’s what I take from the results of the Field Poll, that released a list of issues rated by the voters as to what is most important to them in the upcoming gubernatorial election. Global warming finished last of 12 issues queried.

The voters’ attitude toward global warming may very well determine the outcome of the proposed ballot initiative to suspend AB 32, California’s anti-global warming measure. The issue that topped all other concerns for poll respondents was jobs. Nearly 69% said jobs is the prime issue for gubernatorial candidates to focus their attention.

Given that supporters of suspending AB 32 argue that continuing to implement the measure would mean a loss of jobs, the combination of concern for jobs and the relative lack of concern for global warming as an issue could be good news for the measure’s backers.

Who says Californians can’t come to agreement on anything?

In fact, we seem to have reached a significant consensus: we’ve given up on legislative democracy.

Perhaps that overstates things, but the most recent poll numbers from Field suggest that Californians’ have had it with lawmakers. The survey results are nearly identical, with Californians not distinguishing between the state legislature of the U.S. Congress.

For the state legislature, 13 percent of Californians surveyed approve of the legislature’s job performance; and just 12 percent approve of Congress’ job performance. Seventy-eight percent disapprove of the legislature, and 79 percent disapprove. And these ratings aren’t much different between the parties. Democrats and Republicans alike give very low approval ratings to these legislative bodies.
Mark DiCamillo of Field told me Tuesday that it is “unusual” for Californians’ views of both the legislature and the Congress to be so similar. He cited public frustration with the partisanship and ineffectiveness of each body in a time of urgent economic and budget challenges.

This week, President Obama raised my taxes for healthcare, and I’m just fine with it. 

A small increase in taxes won’t change my lifestyle. It won’t stop me from hiring any new employees. It won’t change my family’s plans for our vacation or buying a new car. It won’t do all of the negative things that the Insurance Companies and their acolytes in Congress have been threatening, just as it won’t do all the great things that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are championing.  But it is the right start for a new direction.

Throughout Sunday, as my son Joshua (who works on Capitol Hill for Rep. Bob Filner) was texting me with regular updates about the behind the scenes maneuvering in the Halls of Congress, my thoughts could not help but go back to my sister Linda.

I loved my sister.  She was 10 years older than me and despite having faced great obstacles in her life, she had a great outlook and she was loved by everyone who met her.  Linda died almost 20 years ago because she had to wait too long for what could have been a simple surgery – but her lack of health insurance and her pride in not coming to our family sooner to help her pay her medical bills delayed the surgery.  And what should have been simple became complicated – and it caused a catastrophic incident from which she never recovered.

In 2006, California embarked on a great experiment by passing its own law to reduce global warming. But Assembly Bill 32, “The Global Warming Solutions Act,” is hardly a “solution” if you ask any economist, employer or taxpayer group. Governor Schwarzenegger inexplicably signed the bill into law, perhaps searching for some sort of legacy for his ill-fated administration.

Notwithstanding the fact that much of the law has yet to be implemented, its mere potential for inflicting massive damage on the California economy has already had a negative impact on businesses and employment. Ironically, there are no positive environmental outcomes as a trade-off for all this economic damage.

AB 32 won’t affect global warming one iota because California is only a sliver of the global pie, especially compared to China, India and Russia. Greenhouse gases, to the extent they have any negative environmental impact at all, have no respect for political boundaries. In short, the earth only has one atmosphere. But AB 32 will dramatically alter EVERY facet of life in California – whether you’re a business, a family, a taxpayer, or a consumer.

For far too long, the Californians has been missing an important voice on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) – the voice of small business. With that in mind, NFIB/California is proud to sponsor Assembly Bill 2328, introduced by Assembly Member Roger Niello, which requires one of the two public member appointees that currently sit on CARB be an owner of a small business.

The Air Resources Board (Board) consists of 11 members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate and they serve “at the pleasure” of the Governor, meaning that the Governor can replace them at any time. Of the 11 members on the Board, absolutely none represent the interests of California’s largest employer . . . small business.

Why is having a small business owner on CARB so important?

Two years ago, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner looked a good bet to be the GOP standard bearer for governor – a sensible fellow, the only Republican except Gov. Schwarzenegger holding statewide office, and a successful businessman in a time of economic distress. Today, he is 49 points behind his GOP rival in the latest Field Poll and his supporters are running for the hills.

Facing political collapse, he has resorted to the historic tactic of a political scoundrel, race baiting, in this case making immigrant bashing the central theme of his faltering campaign. He told the state GOP convention he would stop all public benefits to illegal immigrants (which he can’t do thanks to court rulings), and stop any more from crossing the Mexican border, “If I have to, I’ll send the National Guard to the border. If that doesn’t work, I’ll send the California Highway patrol to the border. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll send the California Republican Party to the border.” He did not say whether Republicans would be allowed to bring along their illegal nannies and gardeners.

If this were an old-style governor’s race, where candidates relied on the kindness of strangers to finance their campaigns, Democrat Jerry Brown would be doing pretty well.

According to finance reports released Monday, he’s raised more than $9.7 million in campaign funds since Jan. 1, dwarfing the $1.1 million in outside contributions Republican Meg Whitman took in or the measly $94,000 Steve Poizner managed to collect.

But those numbers don’t mean a thing in an era where a thick bankroll – and a willingness to spend it — is far more important to a would-be candidate than a gold-trimmed political resume.

Sure, Brown raised nearly $10 million, but Whitman wrote herself a check for$20 million in January, on top of the $19 million she already had put in her campaign. And while Poizner could only find a relative handful of folks to contribute to his campaign, the $19.2 million of his own money he dropped into his run for governor last year saved a bunch of fund-raising time.