BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 243
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 243 (Alejo)
As Amended August 29, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |47-28|(May 23, 2011) |SENATE: |21-14|(August 31, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY :
1)Requires an employer who is a farm labor contractor (FLC) to
disclose on the itemized payroll statement furnished to
employees the name and address of the grower or other FLCs
that secured the employer's services.
2)Provides that the listing by the FLC of the name and address
of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer
on the itemized payroll statement shall not create any
liability on the part of that legal entity.
3)Incorporates changes to prevent a chaptering out conflict with
AB 469 (Swanson).
The Senate amendments are minor and prevent a chaptering out
conflict with AB 469.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that every employer must furnish each employee with
an itemized statement at the time of each payment of wages
that shows, among other things, the name and address of the
legal entity that is the employer. A knowing and intentional
violation of this provision is a misdemeanor.
2)Exempts the state or a city, county, city and county,
district, or other governmental entity from the above
provisions.
3)Prohibits a person from acting as a FLC until a license to do
so has been issued by the Labor Commissioner (LC).
AB 243
Page 2
4)Prohibits a person from knowingly entering into an agreement
for the services of a FLC who is not licensed.
5)Requires all garment contractors provide the name of the
garment manufacturer on an employee's payroll statement.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required a FLC to disclose
on an employee's payroll statement the name and address of the
grower or other FLC's that secured their services.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), more than 40,000 California farms
grow fruits and vegetables on almost four million acres in this
state.
Therefore, CRLAF states that it is not surprising that a 2006
survey of Central Valley farm workers found that 70% could not
identify the name of the farm they were working on.
The same survey by CRLAF found that 56% had not been paid
minimum wage when working by a piece rate; 31% had not been paid
all the overtime they were owed; and, that 42% had unexplained
deductions made from their pay.
Most growers do not hire their farm workers directly. Industry
experts estimate that between 60% and 80% of harvest work is
supplied to growers by FLCs. Without being able to readily
identify the grower or other FLC who hired the contractor,
enforcement actions against the contractor are unlikely to
either make the worker whole for wages owed or to have any
deterrent effect at all against a grower who may, under certain
circumstances, share legal responsibility for the contractor's
labor law violations.
Finally, the sponsor states this bill simply requires a FLC to
list on the farm workers' pay stub information about the grower
or other FLC to whom the worker was furnished during the pay
period. Current state law already requires this information to
be provided by garment contractors since 2002, and some
responsible FLCs already provide it on a voluntary basis
suggesting it is already technically feasible to do so and also
suggest that honest growers and FLCs have nothing to fear from
AB 243
Page 3
providing the information.
A coalition of agricultural groups opposes this measure, stating
that it will impose joint liability for the illegal acts of a
farm labor contractor on a grower. They support penalties for
FLCs that choose not to follow the law however they argue this
bill fails to distinguish the good from the bad creating new
liabilities for all.
The sponsor of this bill, CRLAF and the author, tried to address
the oppositions concerns by amending the bill to state that the
listing by the FLC of the name and address of the grower or
other FLC that secured the services of the employer on the
itemized payroll statement shall not create any liability on the
part of that legal entity.
This bill is similar to AB 377 (Arambula) of 2007. AB 377
(Arambula) was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger his veto
message stated, in part, "While I maintain my support for the
concept of helping farmworkers secure all wages owed to them, I
am still concerned that this bill does nothing to bring
unlicensed farm labor contractors and others who flaunt the law
into compliance. Those who have not bothered to obtain the
necessary licensure required by the state or otherwise comply
with labor laws are highly unlikely to comply with this new
requirement. As such, the only practical effect of this bill is
to impose a new liability on farmers and growers who have
lawfully contracted with licensed contractors."
Analysis Prepared by : Lorie Erickson / L. & E. / (916)
319-2091
FN: 0002366