BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 67
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
67 (Gonzalez)
As Amended January 25, 2016
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, 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
jobs.
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:
0002563