Key State Committee OKs Racetrack Bill

Sweeping legislation that would regulate the living and working conditions at California’s horse racing tracks passed the key state Senate Governmental Organization Committee on Tuesday.

But although industry leaders have shown some support for the measure, they complain that, among other things, it would unfairly force horse trainers to form a collective bargaining group to negotiate with labor unions.

“There’s a lot of tweaking that is necessary,” said John Van de Kamp, president of the Thoroughbred Owners of California. “But what we have here is people acting in good faith. . . . Racing will be the better for it.”

For years, horse racing interests have enjoyed exemptions from state overtime and employee housing laws, thus allowing many of the 4,000 stable workers to live in substandard, unsanitary conditions and work seven days a week without collecting time and a half for overtime.

But since a Times story appeared in April, lawmakers and government agencies have moved to end the exemptions and bring the employees--hotwalkers and grooms who care for and feed the animals--under state standards. The workers are hired directly by horse trainers.

“With these measures, the worker will no longer live in squalor,” said Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a co-author of the bill. “Hopefully they will live as well as the animals they tend.”

Tuesday’s hearing comes a week after the California labor commissioner and the U.S. Department of Labor conducted raids at four major tracks, including Santa Anita in Arcadia and Hollywood Park in Inglewood. Officials reported finding widespread wage violations at the four locations.

Among the findings: workers being paid in cash and not earning the minimum wage.

The horse racing legislation approved Tuesday, AB 2760, is sponsored by Assemblymen Lowenthal, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Herb Wesson (D-Culver City). It would require the state’s 800 trainers to submit their payroll records to the California Horse Racing Board and form one employer entity that could bargain with labor unions.

It would also prohibit trainers from intimidating employees who want to unionize and would provide access to the fenced stable areas, called backstretches, for organizers.

Representatives of both the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, which is planning to organize the backstretch work force, support the bill.

“One of the problems is the workers don’t have a union, they don’t have a voice,” said Alan Davenport, staff lobbyist for the service employees union.

But trainers say some provisions of the legislation may violate their rights as business owners.

“You have 800 individuals--private, entrepreneurial businesspeople--and they have to subjugate their rights to a multi-employer group?” said Bob Fox, a lobbyist for the California Thoroughbred Trainers.

Fox would not comment about the ongoing negotiations over language in the bill but said there were fundamental problems.

“Do you know any other industry that has to supply their payroll records to the general public?” he asked, citing one point of contention.

Despite similar concerns, Van de Kamp, a former state attorney general, said he believes that the legislation will be signed into law once labor organizers, trainers and track owners reach agreement on certain sticking points.

The other key aspect of the legislation deals with housing.

Horse racing is the only industry in California that is exempt from the state Employee Housing Act, which allows inspectors to make sure living quarters meet basic standards.

The bill would require that the horse racing board adopt the guidelines of the housing act and routinely accompany state housing officials during inspections of the equipment rooms, where many workers live.

The proposed law next goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will probably sit until the interested parties can come to an agreement on some of the language.

The Senate Governmental Organization Committee also passed two other bills Tuesday. One would effectively legalize Internet and telephone wagering for horse racing, and the other would criminalize it for other types of gambling.