BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                      AB 67

                                                                    Page  1


          67 (Gonzalez)

          As Amended  January 25, 2016

          Majority vote

          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |Labor           |5-2  |Roger HernŠndez, Chu, |Harper, Patterson    |
          |                |     |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 2016," as  
          specified.  Specifically, this bill:  

          1)Defines "family holiday" to mean the fourth Thursday of  


                                                                      AB 67

                                                                    Page  2

            November each year.

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

          3)Defines "retail store establishment" to mean a physical store  
            within the state with more than 50% of its revenue generated  
            from merchandise subject to the state's sales and use tax,  
            including, but not limited to, electronics, appliances,  
            clothing, furniture, sporting goods, health and personal  
            products, or a limited line of food products for onsite  
            consumption.  A "retail store establishment" does not include  
            a store located in a hotel, amusement park, or movie theater.

          4)Defines "grocery store establishment" to mean a physical store  
            within the state that sells primarily household foodstuffs for  
            offsite consumption, including, but not limited to, the sale  
            of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy  
            products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, and baked or  
            prepared foods.  Other household supplies or products are  
            secondary to the primary purpose of food sales.

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

          6)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 specified.


                                                                      AB 67

                                                                    Page  3

          7)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is  
            employed by an employer with 500 or fewer employees.

          8)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 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  


                                                                      AB 67

                                                                    Page  4

          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:                                             
                          Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN: