BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                      AB 67


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 15, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          67 (Gonzalez) - As Introduced December 17, 2014


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Labor and Employment           |Vote:|5 - 2        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          No


          


          SUMMARY:










                                                                      AB 67


                                                                    Page  2





          This bill enacts the Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015.   
          Specifically, this bill:


          1)Requires any work on a "family holiday" to be compensated at  
            no less than twice the employee's regular rate of pay. Defines  
            "family holiday" as either December 25 or the fourth Thursday  
            of November of each year (Thanksgiving). 


          2)Specifies the requirements of the bill are in addition to and  
            independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures  
            available under any other law to an aggrieved employee.


          3)Exempts an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining  
            agreement if the agreement includes the wages, hours of work  
            and working conditions of employees; paid sick days or a paid  
            leave or paid time off policy that permits the use of sick  
            days for those employees; final and binding arbitration of  
            disputes concerning the application of the holiday premium pay  
            previsions; premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked;  
            and, regular hourly rate of pay not less than 30 percent more  
            than the state's minimum wage.


          4)Defines "employer" as any person employing another under any  
            arrangement or contract of hire that includes the state,  
            political subdivisions of the state, or municipalities.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the  
          low millions, to provide state employees and in home supportive  
          services (IHSS) providers not covered by a valid collective  
          bargaining agreement with two times the regular rate of pay for  
          work provided on a "family holiday".  


          There are 462,000 IHSS providers, many of whom work on  








                                                                      AB 67


                                                                    Page  3





          Thanksgiving or Christmas and are not covered under a valid  
          collective bargaining agreement. For illustration, if 10 percent  
          of IHSS providers were provided double pay for one day of work,  
          the state would incur costs of approximately $4.7 million.


          COMMENTS: 


          1)Purpose.  According to the author, in recent years, Black  
            Friday shopping deals have increasingly spread into the  
            Thanksgiving holiday, forcing workers to give up their holiday  
            or risk losing their jobs. The author contends that requiring  
            employers in California to pay at least two times the regular  
            rate of pay on Christmas or Thanksgiving will increase the  
            level of respect for California's workers, assist in paying  
            towards a living wage, and perhaps reevaluate holiday work  
            policies.

          2)Paid and unpaid holidays. California law does not require an  
            employer to provide its employees with paid holidays, to close  
            its business on any holiday, or give employees the day off for  
            any particular holiday.  An employer's decision to close its  
            business on holidays and give its employees time off from work  
            with or without pay, or to pay overtime wages on holidays,  
            results from an adopted employer policy or practice, the terms  
            of a collective bargaining agreement, or the terms of an  
            employment agreement. 



            State government code entitles employees required to work on  
            any of the 12 paid holidays to straight-time pay and eight  
            hours of holiday credit.  This bill amends the labor code and  
            may be in conflict with existing government code provisions. 












                                                                      AB 67


                                                                    Page  4






          3)Opposition.  The opposition, including the California Chamber  
            of Commerce, raises concerns that the bill increases costs,  
            creates a competitive disadvantage and potentially violates  
            employers' constitutional rights by forcing employers to  
            recognize certain days as "family holidays".  They note that  
            certain business models, such as hospitals, medical facilities  
            and lodging accommodations need to stay open during these  
            holidays for the public benefit.  Further, they note the bill  
            applies to exempt, salaried employees, who could be entitled  
            to double compensation for the entire "family holiday" even if  
            only one hour of work was performed.
          


          Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081