BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Ted W. Lieu, Chair
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011 20011-2012 Regular
Session
Consultant: Alma Perez Fiscal:Yes
Urgency: No
Bill No: AB 889
Author: Ammiano and V. Manuel Perez
Version: June 23, 2011
SUBJECT
Domestic work employees
KEY ISSUES
Should the Legislature require that employers of domestic
workers Ýincluding childcare providers, caregivers of the sick,
convalescing, or elderly persons] provide their employee(s) with
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 8 hours a
day and 40 a week?
Should the Legislature require that employers of domestic
workers provide their employee(s) with duty-free meal and rest
periods?
Should an employer of a domestic worker who is employed for less
than 52 hours in a 90 day period be required to purchase
workers' compensation insurance for that employee?
Should the Legislature require employers to provide domestic
work employees with paid vacation benefits even though the same
is not required of other employers in the state?
PURPOSE
To enact the Domestic Work Employee Equality, Fairness and
Dignity Act to regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions
of domestic work employees, as defined.
ANALYSIS
Existing law regulates the wages, hours and working conditions
of employees in the state in any occupation, trade, or industry,
whether compensation is measured by time, piece, or otherwise,
except for individuals employed as outside salesmen and
individuals participating in specified national service
programs.
Under existing law , it is the duty of the Industrial Welfare
Commission, within the Department of Industrial Relations, to
ascertain the wages, hours and working conditions of employees
in the state and promulgate rules, regulations and orders to
ensure that employers comply with those provisions of law.
(Labor Code §1173)
Under existing law, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
and the Office of the Labor Commissioner were established to
adjudicate wage claims, investigate discrimination and public
works complaints, and enforce Labor Code statutes and Industrial
Welfare Commission orders.
Existing law, for the provision of pay statements:
Provides that every employer must furnish each of his or
her employees with an accurate
itemized written statement at the time of each payment of
wages that shows, among other things, the name of the
employee, his or her gross and net wages earned, the total
hours worked, and all deductions.
Provides that this requirement does not apply to any
employer of any person employed
by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose
duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use
of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of
children, or whose duties are personal and not in the
course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of
the owner or occupant. (Labor Code §226)
Existing law, for workers' compensation:
Requires employers to secure the payment of workers'
compensation for injuries incurred
by their employees that arise out of and in the course of
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 2
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
employment. Failure to secure workers' compensation as
required is a misdemeanor.
Defines "employee" Ýamong others] as a person employed
by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose
duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use
of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of
children, whose duties are personal and not in the course
of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the
owner or occupant. (Labor Code §3351)
Provides that employers of persons who engage in
specified types of household domestic
service and who work less than 52 hours during the 90
calendar days immediately preceding the date of injury - or
who earn less than $100 in wages from the employer during
the 90 calendar days - are excluded from the definition of
employer and are therefore excluded from the requirement to
secure the payment of workers' compensation, as specified.
No liability for compensation shall attach to any
employer of a person working these specified hours if such
employer elects to a) insure against liability by
purchasing or renewing a comprehensive insurance policy
containing a provision for coverage against liability for
his/her employees, or b) file with the administrative
director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, to the
effect that he/she accepts the workers' compensation
provisions of the division.
Existing law, for overtime:
With certain exceptions, defines a day's work as eight
hours of labor. Any additional hours worked must be
compensated with the payment of overtime, as follows:
§ Any work in excess of eight hours in one
workday, any work in excess of 40 hours in any one
workweek, and the first eight hours worked on the
seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be
compensated at the rate of no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for an
employee;
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 3
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
§ Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day
shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice
the regular rate of pay for an employee;
§ Any work in excess of eight hours on any
seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the
rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of
an employee.
Existing law, for meal and rest periods:
Requires, with certain exemptions, that all employees
receive a meal break of 30 minutes
before the start of the 5th hour of work, unless the work
period is no more than six hours and both the employer and
the employee choose to waive the meal period by mutual
consent.
Requires that if the work period is more than ten hours,
a second meal period of 30
minutes must also be granted to an employee. This second
meal period can be waived by the mutual consent of the
employer and employee, but only if the work period is no
more than 12 hours, and the first meal period was not
waived.
Requires that employers provide non-exempt employees
with rest breaks of 10 minutes
for every four hours worked.
Provides that if an employer fails to provide a
duty-free meal or rest period, the employer must give the
employee one hour of additional premium wages at the
employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday
that a meal period was not provided. (Labor Code §226.7)
Existing Wage Orders , which are regulations established by the
Industrial Welfare Commission, allow for on-duty meal periods
where the employee is not relieved of work responsibilities, but
the employee is allowed to eat while they work. An on-duty meal
period may only be taken if the nature of the work prevents an
employee from being completely relieved of work, or if the
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 4
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
employee is employed in the Public Housekeeping Industry and
fall under the following circumstances:
a) Has direct responsibility for children under 18 years of
age or who are not emancipated from the foster care system
and are receiving 24 hour residential care;
b) Works at a 24 hour residential care facility for the
elderly, blind or developmentally disabled and regulations
or law require it, or if the meal is provided at no charge
to the employee and the employee eats with the residents or
is in sole charge of the residents.
All on-duty meal period agreements must be in writing, and the
employee may revoke the on- duty meal period agreement at any
time .
This Bill would enact the Domestic Work Employee Equality,
Fairness and Dignity Act (The Act) to regulate the wages, hours,
and working conditions of domestic work employees, as defined.
Specifically, this bill would:
1) Provide the following definitions, among others:
a. "Domestic work" means services related to the care
of persons in private households or maintenance of
private households or their premises, including childcare
providers, caregivers of sick, convalescing, or elderly
persons, house cleaners, housekeepers, maids and other
household occupations.
b. "Domestic work employee" means an individual who
performs domestic work (including live-in domestic work
employees and personal attendants). However, the term
does not include (thereby exempting from the requirements
of the bill):
§ In-Home Supportive Services program employees;
§ Specified family members;
§ A babysitter under 18 years of age;
§ A person employed by a licensed health
facility;
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 5
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
§ A person employed by an organization vendored
or contracted through a regional center or the State
Department of Development Services, as specified, to
provide services and support for persons with
development disabilities.
§ A person who provides child care, as
specified, if the parent or guardian of the child to
whom child care is provided receives child care and
development services pursuant to any program
authorized under the Child Care and Development
Services Act or the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids Act.
a. "Personal attendant" means a person who performs
domestic work related to the supervision, feeding, or
dressing of a child or other person who, by reason of
advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency,
needs supervision. Personal attendant includes
babysitters. The status of "personal attendant" applies
if no significant amount of work other than the foregoing
is required.
b. "Domestic work employer" means a person who
(including through the services of a third-party
employer) employs or exercises control over the wages,
hours or working conditions of a domestic work employee.
1) Establish specific employment rights for domestic work
employees that includes:
a. Right to overtime compensation, as specified.
b. Right to meal and rest periods, as specified.
c. A domestic work employee who is required to be on
duty for 24 consecutive hours or more shall have a
minimum of eight consecutive hours of uninterrupted sleep
except in an emergency.
d. A live-in domestic work employee shall not be
required to work more than five days in any one workweek
without a day off. Work in excess of this schedule shall
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 6
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
be compensated with the appropriate overtime.
e. A live-in domestic work employee who is not required
to be on duty for 24 consecutive hours shall have at
least 12 consecutive hours free of duty, of which a
minimum of eight are for uninterrupted sleep.
f. Live-in domestic work employees and those who work
for more than 24 consecutive hours shall be provided
sleeping accommodations that are adequate, decent and
sanitary.
g. A domestic work employer shall permit a domestic
work employee who works five hours or more to choose the
food he/she eats and to prepare his/her own meals. A
domestic work employer is required to permit a domestic
work employee to use the job site's kitchen facilities
and appliances without charge or deduction from pay.
h. Right to accrue paid vacation benefits at a rate of
not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked, to be
used as specified, beginning at the commencement of
employment or the operative date of these provisions,
whichever occurs first.
1) Provide that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
shall enforce the requirements of The Act and specifies
certain penalties and remedial provisions, including a
private right of action for enforcement, for the violation
of the aforementioned rights.
2) Require employers of domestic workers to provide their
employees with semimonthly pay statements of their wages,
as specified.
3) Eliminate the current provision in law that exempts
(from the requirement to carry workers' compensation)
employers of domestic workers who are employed less than 52
hours and earned less than $100 in the previous 90 days,
thereby, requiring workers' compensation coverage for these
employees.
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 7
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
4) Require that domestic worker employers give every new
employee written notice stating the name of the current
compensation insurance carrier of the employer, or when
such is the fact, that the employer is self-insured, and
who is responsible for claims adjustments.
5) Extend to domestic workers a provision in workers'
compensation law that Ýin an action against the employer]
establishes a presumption that the injury to the employee
was a direct result and grew out of the negligence of the
employer, and the burden of proof is upon the employer, to
rebut the presumption of negligence.
6) Make several legislative findings and declarations
regarding domestic workers.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
In general, domestic workers are largely excluded from some of
the more basic protections afforded to other workers under
state and federal law, including the rights to overtime wages,
safe and healthy working conditions, and workers' compensation
for individuals working less than 52 hours in a 90 day period.
"Domestic workers" or "household workers" are generally
comprised of housekeepers, nannies and caregivers of children
and others, including the disabled and elderly, who work in
private households to care for the health, safety and
well-being of those under their care.
A recent study of low-wage workers in Los Angeles County found
that nearly 75% of childcare workers and 35% of maids and
housekeepers were paid at an hourly rate lower than the
minimum wage. Over 85% reported not being paid for all the
work they did. And almost all (96%) of the home health care
workers, childcare workers, maids and housekeepers reported
not receiving overtime pay. Among those employees who worked
enough hours to qualify for a meal break, over 90% reported
that their meal breaks were short, interrupted, or simply not
provided. "Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles:
The Failure of Employment and Labor Law for Low-Wage Workers"
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 8
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
(Milkman, R. Gonzalez, A.L., V. et al. Institute for Research
on Labor and Employment, UCLA 2010)
The author and advocates contend that domestic workers often
labor under harsh conditions, work long hours for low wages
without benefits or job security, and face termination without
notice or severance pay leaving many suddenly without income.
According to proponents, in the worst cases domestic workers
are verbally and physically abused or sexually assaulted, and
stripped of their privacy and dignity.
On June 16, 2011, at the 100th International Labour Conference
(ILC of the United Nations) in Geneva, Switzerland the 192
governments, representative employer and worker organizations
adopted a historic set of international standards aimed at
improving the working conditions of tens of millions of
domestic workers worldwide. The ILO standards set forth
recommendations stating that domestic workers around the world
who care for families and households must have the same basic
labor rights as those available to other workers.
According to proponents, this bill is needed to set
industry-wide standards that will protect domestic workers,
create greater stability in the industry and improve the
quality of care for Californians. This bill would enact the
Domestic Work Employee Equality, Fairness and Dignity Act (The
Act) to regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions of
domestic work employees, as defined.
2. "Personal Attendants" under the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders
In 1986, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) adopted a
complete exemption from the overtime provisions and other
requirements of the Wage Orders for individuals employed as
"personal attendants." The minimum wage exemption was
eliminated on January 1, 2001 thereby entitling "personal
attendants" to the state minimum wage for all hours worked.
However, as discussed below, an overtime exemption continues
to exist for "personal attendants" under IWC Wage Order 15.
IWC Wage Order 15
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 9
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
IWC Wage Order 15 applies to Household Occupations which is
defined as all services related to the care of persons or
maintenance of a private household or its premises by an
employee of a private householder.
Under Wage Order 15, "personal attendants" are defined as
including:
"babysitters and means any person employed by a private
householder or by any third party employer recognized in
the health care industry to work in a private household, to
supervise, feed, or dress a child or person who by reason
of advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency
needs supervision."
"Personal attendants" are completely exempt from the general
overtime requirements, meal and rest break requirements and
other provisions of Wage Order 15. Therefore, "personal
attendants" are only required to be paid straight-time for all
hours worked, regardless of whether they work more than eight
hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.
Wage Order 15 also specifies that the status of "personal
attendant" shall apply when no significant amount of work
other than the foregoing is required. A recent opinion letter
issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
(November 23, 2005. Donna M. Dell, State Labor Commissioner &
Chief) that sought to clarify the definition of "personal
attendants" under Wage Order 15 stated the following:
"We cannot provide you with a comprehensive list of
acceptable duties for
a personal attendant. However, it is instructional, and
not inconsistent with
the long standing DLSE position, to consider those duties
included by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services National Center for
Health Statistics'
definitions for activities of daily living. Such
activities relate to personal care
and include, but are not limited to, such duties as
bathing, showering, getting in
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 10
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
or out of a bed or chair and using a toilet. 'Supervising'
may also include
assistance in obtaining medical care, preparing meals,
managing money,
shopping for groceries and personal items, using a
telephone or performing
housework when such activities are related to the
independent living of the
person and cannot be performed by him or herself alone due
to a health or age
limitation. It must be noted, however, that any general
housekeeping duties
performed should not exceed 20% of the weekly working time
spent by the
personal attendant to maintain his or her exemption under
IWC Wage Order 15."
Wage Order 15 also has specific provisions related to
"live-in" household employees who are not "personal
attendants." First, Wage Order 15 specifies that a live-in
employee shall have at least 12 consecutive hours free of duty
during each workday of 24 hours, and the total span of hours
for a workday shall be no more than 12 hours. Wage Order 15
also specifies that a live-in employee shall have at least
three hours free of duty during the 12 hour span of work.
Finally, a live-in employee who works during scheduled
off-duty hours or during the 12 consecutive off-duty hours is
entitled to overtime for such hours.
The net result is that a live-in employee essentially works a
nine hour day and is entitled to overtime for any hours worked
beyond that. However, as discussed above, an employee who is
a "personal attendant" is completely exempt from overtime
under Wage Order 15.
IWC Wage Order 5
Wage Order 5 covers the Public Housekeeping Industry. Under
Wage Order 5, a "personal attendant" shall not be employed
more than (8) hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in
any workweek unless the employee receives overtime
compensation of one and one-half (1 ) times such employee's
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 11
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
regular rate of pay. Wage Order 5 defines a "personal
attendant" as including:
"babysitters and means any person employed by a non-profit
organization covered
by this order to supervise, feed or dress a child or person
who by reason of advanced
age, physical disability or mental deficiency needs
supervision."
3. Federal Exemption for "Companions"
It may also be useful to point out the federal exemption for
"companions" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which
is much broader than the exemption under state law. The FLSA
provides an exemption to minimum wage and overtime
requirements for individuals employed in domestic service
employment to provide babysitting services on a casual basis,
or to provide companionship services for individuals who are
unable to care for themselves because of age or infirmity.
Companion services include those services which provide
fellowship, care and protection for a person who, because of
advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for
his or her own needs. It does not include services that
require and are performed by trained personnel, such as a
registered nurse or a practical nurse.
FLSA regulations state that companionship services may include
household work related to the care of the aged or infirm
person such as meal preparation, bed making, washing clothes,
and other similar services. Companions may perform general
household work as long as such work is incidental and does not
exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked. Household
work related to the care of the individual is not counted
towards this 20 percent limitation.
4. New York State Legislation
On July 1, 2010, the New York State Legislature passed the
first-in-the-nation domestic worker "bill of rights." The
bill was signed by Governor Paterson on August 31, 2010 and
went into effect on November 29, 2010. Among other things,
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 12
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
the New York statute:
Establishes an eight hour workday and overtime after
40 hours a week for live-out domestic workers (44 hours
for live-in domestic workers).
Provides for one day of rest each calendar week.
Provides for three paid days off after one year of
employment.
Establishes protection against workplace
discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation,
national origin, disability, marital status and domestic
violence victim status.
Establishes protection against sexual harassment by
the employer.
However, it should be noted that under the New York
legislation the term "domestic worker" does not include any
individual (a) working on a casual basis, (b) who is engaged
in providing companionship services, as defined by the FLSA
(discussed above), and who is employed by an employer or
agency other than the family or household using his or her
services, or (c) who is a relative through blood, marriage or
adoption, as defined. In addition, under the New York
legislation, the term "employer" does not include any employer
with fewer than four persons in his or her employ.
5. Staff Questions:
Under existing law, most employers of domestic workers are
required to secure workers' compensation insurance for their
employees. Current law excludes from the definition of
"employee," for workers' compensation purposes, any domestic
worker who was employed less than 52 hours during the 90
calendar days immediate preceding the date of injury, or who
earned less than $100 dollars in wages from the employer
during the 90 calendar days. This is a very narrow exemption
on the requirement to secure workers' compensation and
basically applies to someone who occasionally performs duties
such as a babysitting. Additionally, current law requires an
employer who does not carry workers' compensation for these
employees to insure against liability by purchasing or
renewing a comprehensive insurance policy containing a
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 13
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
provision for coverage for his/her occasional employee.
This bill would eliminate the current exemption therefore
requiring all employers of domestic workers to purchase
workers' compensation insurance regardless of how many hours
the employee works.
Should an employer of a domestic worker who is employed for
less than 52 hours in a 90 day period be required to purchase
workers' compensation insurance for that employee?
Existing law requires, with certain exemptions, that all
employees receive a meal break of 30 minutes before the start
of the 5th hour of work, unless the work period is no more
than six hours and both the employer and the employee choose
to waive the meal period by mutual consent. Wage Order 15
exempts personal attendants, which includes the population
targeted with this bill, from this and other provisions. This
bill would extend to domestic workers the benefits of meal and
rest periods.
Does special consideration need to be taken when implementing
meal and rest period requirements for a caregiver of a child,
disabled or elderly person who cannot be left unattended? How
could these provisions be implemented on a practical level?
6. Proponent Arguments :
According to the author, in California, there are around
200,000 domestic workers who serve as housekeepers, nannies,
and caregivers in private homes. Domestic workers are
primarily immigrant women who work in private households in
order to provide for their own families as the primary income
earner. The author argues that the role of domestic workers
is essential to California as it enables others to participate
in the workforce. Without these domestic workers our economy
would suffer and many Californians would be forced to forgo
their own jobs to address their household needs. However, the
author contends, despite the importance of their work,
domestic workers have historically received wages well below
the poverty line and continue to be excluded from some of the
most fundamental labor protections other Californian workers
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 14
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
enjoy.
Proponents argue that current laws and exclusions are complex,
leaving employers and workers without any clear guidelines.
The author notes that domestic workers are among the most
isolated and vulnerable workforce in the state. The unique
nature of their work requires protections to prevent abuse and
mistreatment from occurring behind closed doors, out of the
public eye. Therefore, the author argues, this bill provides
domestic workers with industry-specific protections to use
kitchen facilities and cook their own food, and creates
standards for sleep, meal and rest periods, overtime and paid
vacations. Even domestic workers employed by agencies labor in
individual homes and deserve equal rights and labor
protections.
Similarly, proponents argue that this bill seeks to provide
industry-wide standards so that they can provide uniform
quality care to the individuals and homes with which they are
entrusted. They believe this uniformity will increase the
quality of care and standardize the industry. Finally,
proponents state that domestic workers are the bedrock of our
society - they do the work that makes all other work possible.
This bill will not only protect this significant and valuable
workforce, but also will invest in the wellbeing of
Californian's families and homes.
7. Opponent Arguments :
According to opponents, although the bill has been
significantly amended, there are still portions of the bill
that imposes irrational and impractical laws on working
parents who hire babysitters, nannies or caregivers for their
elderly parents. According to opponents, while the state
currently regulates such matters as minimum wage, overtime and
meal and rest periods, this bill would regulate labor and
employment issues that have historically, and properly, been
left to the employer and employee to negotiate.
Opponents are specifically concerned with the following:
ü Meal and Rest Periods:
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 15
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Opponents argue that currently, Wage Order 15 appropriately
exempts employers of babysitters and elder care workers
from meal/rest and flex time requirements. They argue that
in 2001, the Industrial Wage Commission recognized the
unique nature of baby sitting and elder care and rightly
concluded that meal and rest breaks cannot be safely
applied to these professions. According to opponents, this
bill would supersede Wage Order 15, by requiring meal and
rest breaks relieved of all duty, so if taken while a child
or sick elderly person is napping, the employer would be in
violation of the law if the child or sick elderly person
awakens and the caregiver attends to them during their
break.
ü Overtime:
Opponents representing the disabled community are concerned
that changing the current system would result in disruptive
shift changes. Service providers could not afford to pay
overtime for periods beyond eight hours. The solution
would be a required shift change - in the middle of the
night. In other words, they argue, a person would go to
sleep with one support staff and wake up with another - a
change that is both disruptive and unsettling for many
vulnerable individuals. Additionally, they argue that many
low-income people with disabilities and their families, who
hire attendants, might have no choice but to either look
for more restrictive and expensive institutions or join the
underground economy and look for whatever caregivers they
can outside the law. Opponents suggest an exemption for
third party employers.
ü Litigation and Right to Sue Working Parents:
Under the bill, these domestic work employers would be
subject to the threat of litigation for any alleged
violation, including statutory penalties, attorney's fees,
and expert witness fees. Opponents argue that these burdens
will potentially force unlawful conduct by individuals who
simply cannot afford to satisfy the wage and hour
obligations required.
Additionally, opponents are concerned that the bill creates
a private right of action for violation of the bill, a
protection that no other class of workers - from
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 16
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers - has. They
argue that working parents who hire a babysitter or elder
care giver for a Friday night dinner and a movie could be
vulnerable to thousands of dollars in legal fees and
punitive damages.
ü Paid Vacation:
This bill would require domestic work employers to provide
paid vacation to employees, a benefit that private sector
employers can unilaterally decide to offer or not, based
upon the cost involved and their ability to do so.
However, opponents argue, this bill would usurp an
employer's discretion on this issue and force them to
provide such benefits despite the cost or detrimental
impact it may have on the business's and/or individual
homeowner's ability to survive.
ü Workers' Compensation:
According to opponents, the workers' compensation
provisions in the bill eliminate a very narrow exemption in
existing law applicable when a person has worked less than
52 hours, or earned less than $100, in the 90 days
preceding the date of injury. Persons who employ someone
this occasionally do not think of themselves as employers
and are not likely to purchase a workers' compensation
insurance policy. Opponents argue that under this bill, if
they do not do so, they can be sued with a presumption that
they negligently caused the injury, and their property can
be attached to secure the payment of compensation if they
do not meet the burden of proving that the injury was
caused by something other than work as their domestic
employee.
ü Underground Economy:
Opponents also argue that if the cost of home care is
drastically increased, the price difference between
legitimate home care companies and the underground option
will widen and the underground economy will dramatically
grow, at a detriment to all stakeholders involved. They
argue that the underground economy has no oversight, taxes
are not paid, liability is not covered, and it often leads
to one side taking advantage of the other, financially,
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 17
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
physically and/or emotionally.
ü Impossible to Implement:
Opponents argue that this bill is almost impossible to
implement in a reasonable way as working parents would be
forced to 1) hire a second babysitter or elder caregiver to
fill in for the meal and rest breaks, which they argue is
difficult since most parents could not afford to hire a
second nanny, nor is it likely to find someone willing to
work only 1 hour per day to fill in during the meal and
rest breaks; 2) fire their nanny or elder caregiver and
place their child or senior in institutional daycare.
Opponents argue that many day care centers have years-long
waiting lists, and for elderly Californians that problem
will only be exacerbated by the widespread closure of Adult
Day Health Care centers. Moreover, opponents argue, the
care of special needs children and sick elders is more
appropriate in the home setting rather than a setting with
less than one-to-one care; 3) fire their nanny or elder
caregiver, and have one of the working adults quit their
job to care for their child or sick relatives, thereby
completely eliminating one job and removing another
productive worker from the paid workforce.
Overall, opponents argue that the bill would significantly
increase the cost of home care for seniors, people
with disabilities, and other frail Californians, and would
further strengthen an already dangerously large underground
economy. Oppoents believe that this bill is simply unworkable
and irrational. According to opponents, forcing working
families to choose between complying with unreasonable laws
and providing the best care for their children and elderly
parents is unconscionable.
8. Prior Legislation :
HR 11 (Ammiano and V.M. Perez) of 2011: Adopted
This resolution recognizes March 30th as International
Domestic Workers' Day.
ACR 163 (V.M. Perez) of 2010: Res. Chapter 119. Statutes of
2010
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 18
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
This resolution encourages greater protections in federal and
state law for domestic workers.
AB 2536 (Montanez) of 2006: Vetoed by the Governor
AB 2536 was the most ambitious legislation aimed at these
issues in recent history. As
introduced, AB 2536 would have eliminated the overtime
exemption under California law for
most "personal attendants." There was significant
opposition, and the bill was subsequently
narrowed to generally apply only to nannies. In his veto
message, Governor Schwarzenegger
stated the following:
"This bill would require overtime payment for personal
attendants who are nannies. The existing overtime
exemption was intended to keep these jobs above ground and
to allow those in need of such services to find assistance
at a price they can afford. Removing this exemption would
dramatically increase the costs of these attendants and
potentially drive employment underground.
I am also concerned that this bill creates new liquidated
damages penalties against employers of all household
workers, not merely nannies. In short, this bill subjects
seniors and the severely disabled who hire household
workers to a new cause for civil litigation. Given the
increase in frivolous labor law litigation in recent years,
I cannot support subjecting seniors and the disabled to
additional liability."
ACR 141 (Cedillo) of 2000: Res. Chapter 37, Statutes of 2000
This resolution declares each March 30 to be Domestic Worker
Appreciation Day in
recognition of all domestic workers for their hard work and
dedication, their contribution to
the stability and well-being of the Californian family
household, and their often overlooked
contributions to California's economy.
SUPPORT
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 19
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
California Domestic Workers Coalition - Sponsor
9to5, National Association of Working Women
Access INC.
Alameda Labor council, AFL-CIO (2)
Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere - Los Angeles
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO, Local 3299
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice
Asian Immigrant Women Advocates
Asian Pacific American Legal Center (2)
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Asian Pacific Islander Equality - Northern California
Asian Pacific Islander Youth Promoting Advocacy & Leadership
Assembly District 13 San Francisco
Berkeley-East Bay Gray Panthers
Black Alliance for Just Immigration
CA Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
CA Conference of Machinists
CA Official Court Reporters Association
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Communities United Institute
California Domestic Worker Coalition
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Labor Federation
California Labor Foundation
California National Organization for Women
California Nurses Association
California Partnership to end Domestic Violence
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Canal Alliance
Caring Hands Workers' Association
Causa Justa/Just Cause
Central American Resource Center San Francisco
Chinese Progressive Association
City and County of San Francisco
City of Oakland
Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice of Los Angeles
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 20
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Communities Actively Living Independent & Free
Community Resources for Independent Living (2)
Community United Against Violence
Data Center
East Bay Alliance for Sustainable Economy (2)
Echo Park United Methodist Church
Engineers and Scientists of California
Equal Rights Advocates
Filipino Advocates for Justice
Filipino Community Center
Filipino Migrant Center (2)
Golden Gate University - Women's Employment Rights Clinic
Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Association
Human Rights Commission
Independent Living Services of Northern California
Individual Supporter (3)
Institute of Popular Education of Southern California
Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Jewish Labor Committee
Jobs with Justice San Francisco
Kehilla Community Synagogue
Labor Project for Working Families
Labor/Community Strategy Center
Latino Policy Coalition
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Lil Tokyo Fraternal Workers Association
Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community
Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund
MEChA de Stanford
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Mission Neighborhood Health Center
Mujeres Unidas y Activas
National Alliance for Filipino Concerns, Northern California
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Domestic Workers Alliance
National Employment Law Project
National Lawyers Guild Labor & Employment Committee
National Nurses Organizing Committee
National Union of Healthcare Workers
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 21
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala
Office & Professional Employees Local 3
Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, Inc.
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)
Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California
Planning for Elders
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
Progressive Jewish Alliance and Jewish Funds for Justice
Rosewood United Methodist Church
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Francisco Community College Federation of Teachers
San Francisco Democratic Women in Action
San Francisco Gray Panthers (5)
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Living Wage Coalition
San Francisco Youth Commission
Senior Action Network
Service Employees International Union
SEIU Local United Long Term Care Workers
SEIU United Helthcare Workers West
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
Stanford Labor Action Coalition
The Women's Foundation of California
Union Salvadorena de Estudiantes Universitarios
UNITE HERE!
United Educators of San Francisco
United Food and Commercial Workers - Western States Conference
United Healthcare Workers
United Long Term Care Workers (2)
Urban Habitat
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Women in Transition Re-entry Project Inc.
Worksafe, Inc.
OPPOSITION
AARP
Accredited Nursing Care
Agility Health
Amada Home Care
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 22
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Association of Premier Nanny Agencies (3)
At Home Care Solutions
Aunt Ann's Homecare
Aunt Ann's In House Staffing Agency
Bright Star Healthcare
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
California Supported Living Network
Care to Stay Home
Civil Justice Associations of California
ComForcare Senior Services (3)
Comfort Keepers (17)
Competent Care Home Health Nursing (2)
Craig Cares, Roseville
Crunch Care
Dedicated Domestics, Nannies, Caregivers & Household Staff
Desert Arc
DialMED Home Care (3)
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Elder Care Guides
Help United
Help Unlimited
Help Unlimited HomeCare
Heritage Senior Care Inc. (10)
Hillendale Home Care
Hillside Enterprises
Hired Hands Inc. Homecare
Home & Health Care Management
Home Instead (2)
Home Professionals
Homecare California
Homecare Consultants Unlimited, Inc. (2)
Homecare Specialists (2)
Home Sweet Home Care of San Francisco
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco
Independent Living Services of Northern California
Individual oppose (4)
In-House Staffing
Innovative Healthcare Consultants, Inc. (4)
Interim HomeStyle Services, Grass Valley
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 23
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Kaweah Delta Home Care Services
La Jolla Nurses Homecare
Love to Live
LWF Home Care Inc.
Matched CareGivers (8)
Medical Home Care Professionals (6)
National Private Duty Association, Northern California Chapter
Northern and Southern California Chapters of the National
Private Duty Association
Nursing & Rehab at Home
Option One
Oxford Services
PFC Information Services, Inc.
Pioneer Home Health Care
Rent-a-Parent
Right at Home (4)
Rx Staffing & Home Care, Sacramento
Select Homecare
SENCARE Inc. (2)
Senior Helpers (4)
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
Southwest Health Care Services, Inc.
St. Joseph Health System Home Health Agency
Stanford Park Nannies
Synergy Homecare, San Diego
The Arc and United Cerebral Policy in California
Town and Country Resources
United Cerebral Palsy
Visiting Angels (11)
Westside Nannies
140 - Individuals
Hearing Date: July 6, 2011 AB 889
Consultant: Alma Perez Page 24
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations