BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 67
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
67 (Gonzalez)
As Amended August 3, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |43-32 |(January 27, |SENATE: |22-14 |(August 29, |
| | |2016) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY: Enacts the "Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2016," as
specified.
The Senate amendments:
1)Provide that this bill does not apply to a retail food
facility unless it is a grocery establishment, or is located
within a retail store establishment, or is located within a
grocery store establishment and primarily sells food for
offsite consumption.
AB 67
Page 2
2)Provides that a "retail store establishment" includes a retail
food facility if the retail food facility is located within a
retail store establishment.
3)Provides that a "retail store establishment" does not include
one located on an amusement park or in a retail, dining, and
entertainment area under common control of the amusement park.
4)Provide that a "retail store establishment" does not include a
new motor vehicle dealer or a ski resort.
5)Provides that a "grocery store establishment" does not include
a store that occupies 5,000 square feet or less of floor space
and that sells transportation fuels in conjunction with, and
at the same physical location as, household food stuffs for
offsite consumption.
6)Provides that a "grocery store establishment" includes a
separate retail food facility that is located within a grocery
store establishment and primarily sells food for offsite
consumption.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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
AB 67
Page 3
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:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0003800