The COVID 19 Pandemic has made 2020 one of the strangest years in any of our lifetimes. This strangeness also applies to the California legislature and the ability to lobby bills that impact our industry. A brief Legislative Update addressing the logistics of the legislative session shows some of the challenges that we currently face. Generally, the California Legislature breaks for a summer recess from 7-1 to 8-4 then returns for final review and vote on active bills with a close of the session on 8-31. Any bills that have not been voted on by the close of session 8-31-2020 this year (end of a two-year cycle) die at the end of session.

This year’s legislative schedule is continually being modified by COVID 19 with a summer break (in the abbreviated session) scheduled from 7-1 to 7-13.  But now, several Assemblymembers have tested positive for COVID 19 so the Speaker of the Assembly is not sure when they will restart the legislative session, they are definitely not coming back 7-13. We are unclear when they will reconvene, it could be 7-22 or later. Regardless, the legislative year still ends 8-31.

In June, with the support and signatures of the International Association of Movers (IAM), the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA), several other state Associations, and California Moving and Storage Association (CMSA) members, we wrote a letter to US TransCom Command, Mr. Rick Marsh and Colonel Marshanna Gipson on behalf of movers servicing DoD shipments. Our letter spoke to safety concerns of our crews servicing DoD shipments in the heat of the summer without any significant relief from Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) challenges. We were particularly concerned about the safety of crew members loading trailers and/or containers in difficult conditions without military members or their dependents even close by. It seems more than just impractical to wear PPE in a hot trailer for any extended period.

The good news was that Mr. Rick Marsh answered back very quickly and showed some desire to continue a dialog on the issue. The challenging news was that he was very definitive on several issues that I feel are important to share with you here.

Mr. Marsh does not support any change to the requirement for moving crews to wear face coverings while working in the residence. According to him, if movers are working in a home, they must wear a face covering, even if a family tells them not to worry about it!

He also sharedthat rather than loosening requirements on the use of face coverings while working in customers’ homes, he believes this is going to be an enduring requirement and will become ‘standard operating procedure’ (as it is becoming so in other aspects of everyday life).

In response to our suggestion that crew members have the option of face shields as opposed to masks in the trailer or container, Mr. Marsh stated that he understands our point on face shields while working in trailers and in storage units and was open to proposals.  While not insurmountable, there are challenges. Some states have made face coverings mandatory (to include California). Mr. Marsh said he won’t implement business rules that are less restrictive than state mandates. Variance in protocols (i.e. which type of face covering is acceptable in which scenario) invites confusion for industry personnel and families alike. I’m interested in how the companies you represent would implement this rule adjustment in a manner that leaves no confusion as to which face coverings are suitable in which settings. 

It has been suggested that if moving companies feel their crews cannot comply with the current PPE requirements then the Blackout functionality or the use of refusals is available to companies to use in order to reduce the exposure to the requirements. Our letter asked: Is that what DOD really wants? As temperatures rise and conditions become more extreme that is exactly what may happen. The resulting reduction in capacity, exactly when DOD most needs its partnership with industry, is not what either stakeholder group wants. Simply by applying some commonsense guidelines, we believe that an appropriate and SAFE set of rules can be outlined to better fit the summer conditions.

In the end, Mr. Marsh answered the question in our letter by saying he would rather industry black-out and refuse shipments than have TSPs service those shipments in a manner that puts DOD families at risk.

CMSA is still hopeful we can get some reprieve and we are looking for alternative ways to address these important health and safety issues on behalf of our movers. Stay tuned!

July 2020 - CMSA Communicator