BILL ANALYSIS Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair 790 (Hernandez) Hearing Date: 3/15/10 Amended: 2/23/10 Consultant: Maureen Ortiz Policy Vote: P.E.&R. 4-1 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: AB 790, an urgency measure, continuously appropriates sufficient amounts from the General Fund and various other funds to the Controller for the payment of compensation and employee benefits to state employees during a fiscal year where the state budget is not enacted by July 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund Foregone interest -------------unknown------------ General Admin savings (SCO) ----potentially tens of thousands in savings--- General _________________________________________________________________ ____ STAFF COMMENTS: This bill may meet the criteria for referral to the Suspense file. There could be a loss of interest on funds that would otherwise be generated on payroll money that would be temporarily saved if an order for minimum wage payments were instituted. However, it is expected that any loss would be offset by the state not having to issue payroll warrants and pay interest on those warrants to state employees. Last year when the 2009/10 Budget Act was not enacted by July 1, many vendors were issued warrants in lieu of state payments and were paid interest at 3.7% for 90 days - even if the warrant was redeemed early. It should be noted that delayed wage payments could reduce the state's need to borrow in order to meet its cash needs. The total state monthly payroll is approximately $1.2 billion consisting of civil service employees, CSU, Legislative, and Judicial employees. However, the exact number of employees who would be affected by the provisions of this bill is not known since many are employed by special fund agencies that already are continuously appropriated, and most members of the Judiciary are paid through a constitutional appropriation. Those employees would be paid full salaries whether or not a budget is in place by the start of a new fiscal year. It is estimated that the monthly payroll is about $680 million General Fund for employees who could be forced to receive an hourly minimum wage payday. However, the calculation of that amount is also complicated by the fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that if an employee works one hour of overtime during a pay period, that employee is entitled to his or her full salary for the same entire pay period. It is impossible to project which employees will work overtime during a given month. Additionally, to the extent that managers and supervisors are not paid their salaries, they are treated as hourly employees for purposes of the FLSA and therefore are also entitled to overtime pay. If even one hour of overtime was worked, these managers and supervisors would also have to be paid their full salaries. For all of these reasons, it is not possible to accurately estimate the fiscal impact of salaries that would be temporarily held back if the minimum wage rule were in effect. Page 2 AB 790 (Hernandez) As far as the question of how this would affect the state's cash flow, according to the State Controller's Office, the State General Fund has not been cash positive since July 2007. By way of illustration, the amount of General Fund receipts for July 2009 were roughly $4.4 billion while disbursements for that same month were $10.5 billion and beginning General Fund cash was $0 In order to meet the State's obligation for the monthly deficit of $6.1 billion in June, the State borrowed $6.2 billion from the special funds. Therefore, it could be argued that there would not be general fund savings achieved through a minimum wage program since the State is in a deficit cash position. Therefore, since disbursements in July outpace revenues by more than 2 to 1, every penny of general fund cash is needed to pay all other July expenditures leaving nothing to invest. Staff also notes that by preventing the SCO from having to pay state employees minimum wage, AB 790 will save thousands, potentially millions of dollars in information technology costs since the current state payment system is not capable of handling the complications that arise from reducing payroll to minimum wage for an unidentifiable select subgroup of employees. Aside from the issue of which employees are to receive minimum wage as discussed previously in this analysis, it would require determining the appropriate treatment of multiple deductions for each employee - some court ordered, and then, after the budget is enacted, restoring full pay and again determining the appropriate level of deductions to offset the prior adjustments. The last time this issue arose, administrative costs were estimated at nearly $1 million since the existing information technology system is incapable of handling such calculations, and most of the tasks would have to be completed manually or outsourced. AB 790 provides that if there is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in effect, the compensation and contribution for employee benefits shall be at a rate consistent with the provisions of that MOU for represented employees. State employees excluded from collective bargaining shall be provided compensation and contributions consistent with the rate approved by the Department of Personnel Administration prior to the commencement of the fiscal year for which a Budget Act has not been enacted. If an MOU is not in effect, compensation and contribution for employee benefits will be at the rate in effect at the expiration of the last fiscal year for which a budget was enacted. In 2005, the California Supreme Court upheld an appellate court decision ruling that state workers, paid by the hour and who do not work overtime in a particular pay period, are entitled only to the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25/hour) if the State enters a new fiscal year without a budget. Employees are to be paid in full retroactively when the budget is signed. In July 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger ordered state workers' pay to be reduced to minimum wage after the State Budget was not enacted by July 1 of that year. State Controller John Chiang refused to cut paychecks to state employees (the federal minimum wage at the time was $6.55/hour) arguing that it was impossible to know in Page 3 AB 790 (Hernandez) advance which employees will receive overtime pay. After a suit by the Department of Personnel Administration, the court ruled in favor of the administration stating that, "while state workers have the ultimate right to their full wages, the law does not authorize the full pay until the money is appropriated in the state budget." AB 790 will continuously appropriate sufficient funds necessary so that state employees will be compensated in full if and when a state budget is not enacted by the start of a new fiscal year. AB 790 additionally authorizes the Department of Finance to reduce the applicable Budget Act allocations to reflect monies already paid to state employees under the continuous appropriation. Pursuant to ABx4 12, Statutes of 2009, Section 12472.5 was added to the Government Code to read: "Notwithstanding any other law, on and after January 1, 2010, payments to employees made through the Uniform State Payroll System for a pay period ending on June 30 of each year shall be on or after July 1, provided that employees shall, in any event, be paid promptly." This language appears to require that any minimum wage order would have to be implemented effective for the month of June since the funds would not be appropriated until the new budget is enacted. This bill is similar to AB 1125 (Hernandez) which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last year; and to AB 1699 (Hernandez) currently set for hearing next month in the Assembly PERSS Committee.