Three ag labor bills passed the Senate Labor Committee this week. Two bills opposed by a broad coalition of ag interests and employer groups are AB 2346 (Butler) Heat Stress for Ag workers - This bill will place the "Heat Stress" regulation for agricultural field workers into statute and has several other provisions including a death benefit of $1,000,000, a private right of action allowing citizen suits similar to Proposition 65. AB 1313 (Allen) Overtime for Agricultural Field Workers - This measure would require agricultural employers to pay overtime for any employee who works more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours in a work week. Both passed on a party line vote. 

Conversely, the association is supporting AB 1675 (Bonilla). This bill would subject an unlicensed farm labor contractor to penalties and citations from the Labor Commissioner. Farm labor Contractors have been required to seek a license and obtain minimum Labor Code education requirements for the past five years. However, compliance with these requirements continues to be a challenge in some areas. This bill provides penalties for contractors who continue to not be licensed.  

In response to the effective advocacy of ag groups pointing out the challenges with the ag labor legislation, two new more narrowly tailored bills have been introduced. The first, AB 2676 (Calderon) attempts to place a more consistent heat stress regulation in law and increase penalties for violations. The ag coalition is currently opposed but is working with the author to see if a compromise can be reached on this more modest approach to the heat stress issue. AB 197 (Monning) will be amended this week to include language that would provide authority for agencies to obtain funds for back wages to farm workers that were shorted pay by a Farm Labor Contractor from successors.  

It has occurred that a farm labor contractor shuts down one business and still owes back wages and then starts another, effectively preventing workers from obtaining earned wages. The agricultural coalition is currently working with the author and farm worker advocates to develop language and amendments that can be supported by industry to ensure that workers get paid their wages.  

The Governor has appointed Chris Reardon chief deputy director at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Reardon has served in multiple positions at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation since 2003, including chief deputy director and director of legislation. He served as executive director at the Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley from 1996 to 2002. Reardon was chief of staff for Assemblymember Sal Cannella from 1994 to 1996. Chris is from Modesto and has experience balancing the needs for farmers to have crop protection tools with the mandate to help protect the environment and human health.

With the number of "working" days in the House and Senate dwindling to a precious few, and with conflicting House leadership priorities - which at this point don't include the 2012 Farm Bill - sucking up floor time, insiders are beginning to speculate out loud whether the House Agriculture Committee can get a bill through committee, through a floor battle, reconciled with the Senate's just-passed Farm Bill, and to the President's desk before current programs expire September 30. And while House Ag Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK) is steadfast in his resolve to begin markup of his committee's version of the 2012 Farm Bill July 11, the last week or so has also seen a series of conflicting reports over which comes first, House ag panel markup or floor action on the FY2013 ag appropriations bill.  

Lucas originally postponed his committee's action because the ag spending bill was set for the floor and he wanted members free to battle "onerous" amendments. Then House leadership postponed ag appropriations floor action until "sometime after" the July 4 congressional recess, signaling it will likely be consigned to a session-end omnibus spending package. However, this week's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act and House Speaker John Boehner's (R, OH) announcement of a House vote to repeal the health care bill to be held July 11 signals much of available House floor time this summer will be dedicated to election-oriented issues. Further complicating Lucas' life is the emergence of a band of conservative House members now calling the Farm Bill the "food welfare bill" because 80%-plus of the bill's cost is wrapped up in food stamps. This bloc of budget hawks and its opposition was expected, and while Lucas has said his bill will reflect food stamp cuts that mirror farm program spending cuts, Democrat opposition to cutting the food stamp program will be significant.  

Others are concerned that while food stamps is one target, spending in other areas of the bill is also in the bullseye for members looking to use the Farm Bill as a candidate for slash and burn budget cuts. One staffer this week told a Capitol Hill newspaper, "We're trying to figure out how to keep this bill from coming to the floor altogether. It'll divide the conservative movement from Republicans in such a deep way right before the election that could be devastating." The success of Lucas' July 11 markup will be a major factor in whether House leadership allows the Farm Bill to move to the floor. If it doesn't, then Lucas has a one-year extension of current programs ready to go, effectively kicking the omnibus farm legislation into the next Congress, meaning both House and Senate action begins from scratch.

Immediate reactions to this week's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are likely a bit premature given the 130-page decision has yet to be fully analyzed, but general reaction to decision by ag groups pretty much followed the political leanings of the organization. While the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) took a "this still needs to be fixed" position, according to reports, the National Farmers Union (NFU) praised the decision. The immediate political victory was given to President Obama since ACA was the hallmark of his first year in office. The issue, however, remains the cost of the overall program, how insurance companies will pass along any increased costs and how employers will react when it comes to hiring. Some say the 50-full-time employee threshold for coverage under ACA means many employers will simply hire more part-time employees, while others contend hiring decisions will be deferred until after the November election.

However, some political pundits contend the Supreme Court decision hands the GOP a political plum in that the high court's decision that the personal mandate section of ACA is a "tax" - many House members have already put out releases calling the mandate "the single biggest tax increase in American history"-means the Republicans can rev up their anti-tax campaigns. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) embraced duel issues - Obama Administration overreaching of authority and over taxation - reminding media this week that the President has repeatedly contended the health care mandate is not a tax. Still others speculate the GOP mantra of "repeal, repeal, repeal" is an unwise strategy because it ignores sections of the law popular with most citizens, e.g. elimination of barriers based on preexisting conditions and the ability to keep children under 26 years old on parents' policies, and that pushing for full repeal may actually increase voter support for the law. Currently, about 65% of the American public opposes the ACA generally, according to reports.

A decision early this week by the Supreme Court allowing states to check the immigration status of individuals stopped for offenses, but not to question the citizenship status of other citizens has given critics of federal immigration programs from both sides of the issue plenty of opportunity to criticize current immigration efforts or lack thereof. Most grower groups contend the high court's decision does little to help them deal with millions of farm workers in the U.S. illegally, or to find solutions for the "broken" H-2A guest worker visa program. Several other states with laws similar to that enacted in Arizona must now rework those laws to meet the Supreme Court decision which struck three sections of the Arizona law but left intact law enforcement's ability to confirm citizenship when an individual is stopped or arrested for a separate offense. Immigrant groups agreed with the problems, but decried the lack of political will in Congress to find a path to citizenship for those "who are here, who can prove they've been here and done whatever they are supposed to do and contributed to our economy."

The U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, this week upheld EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding," the basis for the agency's action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying the finding is "neither arbitrary or capricious." "EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is unambiguously correct," the court said in ruling the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the agency's authority. The original court action challenged not only the agency's authority but the science upon which EPA moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of its climate change initiative. Democrats unanimously praised the ruling, which experts say leaves little room for a Supreme Court review, but said they fully expect House Republicans to bring amendments forth to reverse the court's decision.

When you draw up to-do lists, set schedules, make appointments, and so forth, chances are you're wasting most of your time.

Turn out there's a mathematical law called the Pareto Principle, which says that (in most situations) 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

The most famous example of this is the oft-repeated factoid that in sales groups 80% of the revenue comes from 20% of the team.  (There are dozens of other examples, ranging from wealth distribution to damage from natural disasters.)

The Pareto Principle holds sway for most work efforts that aren't purely rote.  Most people obtain 80% of their actual results from 20% of their actual effort.  If you really think about it, isn't this true for you? It's certainly true for me.

Rethink Your 'To Do' List

Unfortunately, most time management is involves "to do" lists, which tend to treat the 20% of your work that really matters as equal to the 80% of things that don't.  Having a simple list of things to do almost forces you to waste time doing stuff that doesn't really count.

That's true even if you prioritize according to importance. Plenty of important things take so much effort that, in the end, they're not worth actually doing.

Here's how to use the Pareto Principle to manage your time more effectively.

When you make a "to do" list, prioritize each item by the amount of effort required (1 to 10, with 1 being the least amount of effort) and the potential positive results (1 to 10, with 10 being the highest impact.)

Read More.....