[{"document_url": "https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-No-on-California-Prop-11-13216457.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result", "unformatted_src": "https://s.hdnux.com/photos/75/44/76/16142228/11/600x600.jpg", "src": "https://s.hdnux.com/photos/75/44/76/16142228/11/600x600.jpg"}, null]
Paramedic Cory Yeo with the King-American Ambulance company, preps their ambulance at the California Pacific Medical Center, after a medical call, in San Francisco, Calif., on Thursday 12, 2014. A report by the San Francisco Supervisor's budget analyst reports the city needs to increase its ambulance staffing, improve its emergency system coordination and 911 dispatch system and replace it's aging ambulance fleet.
Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle 2014

Californians who only see the ads for Proposition 11 may be likely to vote yes. After all, it sounds not only reasonable, but also a matter of essential public safety: to require ambulance workers to remain on call during their paid work breaks. It also would guarantee mental health benefits for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, and additional training for active shooters, terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

But, as is too often the case in the initiative process, the pitch is decidedly deceptive.

The question of whether ambulance personnel should remain on call during breaks came to the fore because the state Supreme Court ruled in 2016 (Augustus vs. ABM Security Services) that private security guards are subject to state labor rules and thus could be unreachable during breaks.

The Chronicle Recommends

Ambulance companies are understandably worried that such legal reasoning could be extended to them and went to the state Legislature for a bill that would clarify that their crews could be kept on call during their paid breaks. They have argued that organized labor has stood in the way.

Here is what you need to know: The union representing 4,000 ambulance workers agrees with the need for a fix. In fact, it supported AB263, which spelled out that employees could be required to monitor pagers, radios, station and alert boxes, intercoms, cell phones and other communications devices during their breaks — and could be required to answer an emergency call. That bill cleared the Assembly on a 56-17 vote on June 1, 2017.

However, that bill stalled in the state Senate over two key issues: One was whether the interruptions could include less serious calls; the other was whether the legislation should effectively void pending labor-related lawsuits against American Medical Response, which also happens to be the funder of Prop. 11. Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11.

