BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                        AB 67

                                                                      Page  1


          67 (Gonzalez)

          As Amended  June 3, 2015

          Majority vote

          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                 |Noes                 |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |Labor           |5-2   |Roger HernŠndez,     |Harper, Patterson    |
          |                |      |Chu, Low, McCarty,   |                     |
          |                |      |Thurmond             |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |Appropriations  |10-5  |Gomez, Bonta,        |Bigelow, Chang,      |
          |                |      |Calderon, Eggman,    |Gallagher, Jones,    |
          |                |      |Gordon, Holden,      |Wagner               |
          |                |      |Quirk, Rendon,       |                     |
          |                |      |Weber, Wood          |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |

          SUMMARY:  Enacts the "Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015," as  
          specified.  Specifically, this bill:  

          1)Defines "family holiday" to mean the fourth Thursday of November  
            each year.


                                                                        AB 67

                                                                      Page  2

          2)Provides that any work performed on a family holiday shall be  
            compensated by the employer at no less than twice the employee's  
            regular rate of pay.

          3)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee covered by  
            a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets specified  

          4)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is  
            exempt from the payment of an overtime rate of compensation for  
            executive, administrative, and professional employees pursuant  
            to wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission, as  

          5)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is  
            employed by an employer with 25 or fewer employees.

          6)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is  
            employed as a first responder or emergency personnel.

          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, 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  
          Thanksgiving or Christmas and are not covered under a valid  
          collective bargaining agreement. For illustration, if 10% of IHSS  
          providers were provided double pay for one day of work, the state  


                                                                        AB 67

                                                                      Page  3

          would incur costs of approximately $4.7 million.

          COMMENTS:  This bill would enact the Double Pay on the Holiday Act  
          of 2015 that would require an employer to pay at least two times  
          the regular rate of pay to an employee for work on a family  
          holiday, as defined.

          Supporters argue that this bill guarantees that employees are  
          fairly compensated for the undue hardships associated with working  
          on the traditional family holiday of Thanksgiving.  They contend  
          that the increasing commercialization of the holiday in recent  
          years has forced workers to miss out on celebrating the holiday  
          and spending time with their families in order to keep their jobs.  
           In some cases, this work has become mandatory, forcing workers to  
          give up their holiday or risk losing their jobs.

          Opponents argue that this bill will result in unavoidable cost  
          increases for certain businesses.   Opponents also argue that this  
          bill would create a competitive disadvantage for  
          "brick-and-mortar" stores.  They state that this bill would  
          unilaterally increase the cost of doing business only for those  
          employers who have a physical presence in California, thereby  
          automatically placing them at a competitive disadvantage with  
          online companies and out-of-state businesses that would not be  
          subject to this cost.  

          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
                          Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN:  


                                                                        AB 67

                                                                      Page  4