SACRAMENTO / BRADLEY INMAN : When It Came to Leaking Odor Ads, Legislators Did the De-Scent Thing

In a legislative session packed with more than 3,000 bills, lawmakers found time to approve legislation regulating scented magazine advertisements used to peddle perfume.

Beginning in 1992, magazines must carefully package “fragrance advertising inserts” to prevent odors from leaking, according to AB 2707, which was introduced by Assemblyman John Burton and signed by the governor.

The San Francisco Democrat introduced the measure after complaints from constituents who are allergic to cosmetic fragrances.

The legislation requires the perfumes to be “covered with glue tabs or binders to prevent the premature activation and release of fragrances.” The law would also prohibit certain chemicals from being used in scent strips.

The bill was watered down after the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. and the Magazine Publishers Assn. objected to a version that called for a ban on some types of fragrance advertising.

Penalties for violations were also weakened in the final bill, with magazines fined $100 per offending issue, not for each copy of the issue.

Parental School-Leave Plan Goes to Governor

The Legislature approved a bill that requires companies to permit employees to take time off from work to visit their children’s schools.

Introduced by Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood), AB 3782 would make it illegal for a business with more than 25 employees to fire or discriminate against workers who take up to four hours per child per year to visit school. The measure is on the governor’s desk.

“Few of the efforts to reform and restructure public education will succeed without parental involvement,” said Tucker. “And in order to participate in their child’s education, parents must be able to take time off from work without the fear of losing their job or suffering a financial burden by having their pay docked.”

According to the measure, employees are entitled to use vacation, personal leave or compensatory time for the four hours. They must give advance notice to their supervisors. Companies that violate the provision face a civil penalty equal to three times the amount of the employee’s annual wages and benefits.

Resurrected CalOSHA Is Inspecting Away

After a two-year hiatus, the recharged California Occupational Health and Safety Agency (CalOSHA) is back in business--actively inspecting and citing firms that break health and safety rules.

In 1987, Gov. Deukmejian vetoed funding for CalOSHA--which put the agency in limbo. He contended that state enforcement duplicated the work of the federal safety agency.

In 1988, voters resurrected CalOSHA by overwhelmingly approving Proposition 97, which restored funding to the agency.

With 203 employees, CalOSHA inspected 4,068 businesses and issued 4,308 citations in the last quarter of 1989. Figures aren’t in for 1990, but CalOSHA spokesman Richard Rice said the agency is up to its pre-veto level of activity, which included more than 20,000 inspections a year and more than 55,000 citations.

Industry groups also have changed their attitude toward CalOSHA. In 1987, the California Chamber of Commerce supported the governor’s action to strip the agency’s funds.

“Now, we see it in our interest to help the business community comply with the law,” said Ann Amioka, the chamber’s director of communications.

Recognizing that the agency is here to stay, the chamber has published a new handbook on CalOSHA, which it dubs the “layman’s guide to complying with CalOSHA regulations.”

In January, CalOSHA will need industry cooperation as it begins enforcing a new state law that requires businesses to adopt and maintain a written accident and injury prevention program.

Among other things, the plan must name who is responsible for workplace safety, must identify work hazards and calls for a system for training workers about safety.

“If (companies) would just spend a little of their time and effort on training their employees, it would cut down on their workers’ compensation bills, their problems with lost production and all those kinds of things,” CalOSHA Director Robert Stranberg said in an interview for an industry trade publication.

“Training, training, training,” said Stranberg. “Can’t get too much of it.”

Spousal Anti-Forging Bill May Be Law Soon

If Gov. George Deukmejian signs AB 3045, forging a spouse’s signature on a state income tax return could be a crime.

Carried by Assembly member Jackie Speier (D-South San Francisco), the bill would make it illegal for a person to sign a husband’s or wife’s signature to an income tax return.

If convicted, a person could receive a one-year prison term and be fined $5,000. The bill is modeled after federal tax laws.

The measure also requires the Franchise Tax Board to print language on tax forms that reads: “It is unlawful to forge a spouse’s signature.”

Speier introduced the legislation after hearing complaints from family court judges who witnessed examples of fraud in divorce cases.

“We are trying to avoid situations where a spouse is concealing assets or income from their husband or wife by forging a name,” said Speier. “By putting it right on the tax return, we hope to encourage some accountability.”

People could still sign a tax return for a physically disabled spouse with verbal consent, but a written explanation would have to be attached to the tax return.