(Feel free to pass along)

The following is Governor Wilson's message to the California Assembly
upon the signing of AB2601.  It was received from California's LIFE
Lobby by way of The Christopher Street West Association.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am signing AB 2601 as a measure which provides reasonable and
adequate protection against employment discrimination while still
meeting the tests of fairness to employers and protection of
California's job climate.

Last year I vetoed AB 101, declaring that "the real test of whether AB
101 should become law is a test of the fairness of the remedy it
proposes."  Although AB 101 failed this test, its author has now
proposed new legislation that satisfactorily addresses the concerns
that that led me to veto that measure.

AB 2601 instead codifies the specific administrative remedy
presently employed to deal with complaints of employment discrimination
based on sexual orientation.  The procedure is one which applies 
Labor Code sections 1101 and 1002 to which I referred in the veto
message.

It affords a wholly adequate remedy to those suffering such 
discrimination.  And it is responsive as well to the concern I
expressed in the veto of AB 101 about the "need for 
fairness to innocent employers and their other employees," a
consideration vital to maintaining a competitive business climate
for California.

The protection against discrimination provides by procedures of
the Labor Commissioner are far less onerous and costly to employers.
It provides:

o  An Exclusive Administrative Remedy

o  A 30-Day Statute of Limitations

o  A Prompt Investigation

o  A Hearing Within 90-days of the Initial Investigation

It is therefore far less costly in jobs lost to California workers
than lawsuits or complaints disposed of under the processes of the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing as proposed in AB 101.


AB 2601
Page Two


A recent study published by RAND Corporation's Institute for Civil
Justice, entitled "Labor Market Response to Employer Liability",
estimates that as many "as 390,000 jobs have been foregone" as a result
of efforts by California employers to avoid liability for wrongful
termination.  This is almost double the number of jobs lost to
California as a result of Congressional aerospace cuts and a painfully,
ironically high cost of employer anxiety and caution in response to
worker protections in California.

Government must make a greater effort to narrowly tailor remedies.  We
must take seriously the responsibility to balance the need to provide a
remedy against the cost and burden of coercive intervention by the
state.  When government is compelled to intervene, it should do so in
the most limited, least intrusive manner possible consistent with
achieving needed protection.

AB2601 is consistent with this philosophy.  It not only adopts the 
efficient, alternative dispute resolution mechanism of the Labor Code,
but improves upon the present procedure by exempting very small employers
and religious employers, and providing a civil rather than a criminal
Remedy.

The author has agreed to carry clean-up legislation next year to
clarify a possible ambiguity.

Cordially,


PETE WILSON