BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1313
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1313 (Allen)
As Amended September 2, 2011
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 2, 2011) |SENATE: |22-15|(August 20, 2012) |
| | | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |5-2 |(August 28, 2012) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
|(L. & E.) | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY : Makes the daily overtime requirements of current law that
require overtime for hours worked in excess of eight in one workday
applicable to agricultural employees, as specified.
The Senate amendments change the author of the bill, delete the
contents of the bill and instead eliminate the provision of the
Labor Code that exempts agricultural employees from the following:
1)Overtime compensation when an individual works in excess of eight
hours in one workday or work in excess of 40 hours in any one
workweek.
2)A 30-minute meal break before the start of the fifth 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.
3)A second 30-minute meal break after ten hours of work that can be
waived by the mutual consent of the employer and employee, if the
work period is no more than 12 hours, and the first meal period
was not waived.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required the Agricultural
Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and its general counsel to post on
their Web site specified information about open cases.
AB 1313
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), which established minimum requirements with respect to
specified labor standards, including minimum wage and overtime.
The overtime provisions of the FLSA were not extended to
agricultural employees.
However, as with all provisions of the FLSA, states are allowed to
exceed the requirements laid out in the federal law. The issue of
overtime for agricultural employees in California was first dealt
with in 1941. Previously, the law had been silent on this subject.
But in 1941 the Legislature exempted all agricultural employees
from the statutory requirements of overtime, similar to the FLSA.
This statutory exemption was retained when the eight-hour day was
codified in 1999.
This statutory exemption, however, did not prohibit the Industrial
Welfare Commission (IWC) from legally promulgating overtime
provisions beyond the traditional eight-hour standard of California
law. Currently, the applicable wage order for agricultural
employees requires the payment of overtime wages when an
agricultural employee works longer than 10 hours in a single day,
and more than six days during any workweek.
With respect to meal periods, the applicable wage order provides
that every employer shall "authorize and permit" agricultural
employees to take a meal period after five hours of work. This
language differs from the statutory meal period language applicable
to other employees that prohibits an employer from employing a
worker longer than five hours without "providing" a meal period.
In addition, the wage order does not require a second meal period
after the tenth hour of work (as the statute requires for other
employees).
This bill proposes to eliminate the statutory exemption for
agricultural employees from overtime and meal periods, thereby
making them subject to the general eight-hour day standard for
overtime and the "provide" meal period standard, as well as the
requirement for a second meal period after ten hours of work.
Proponents argue that agricultural workers face increasingly
difficult working conditions for very low pay. Proponents believe
AB 1313
Page 3
that agricultural employees should not be treated differently than
other workers, and that the two-tiered overtime provisions are
antiquated and should be abolished.
Opponents argue that California already has the nation's most
progressive labor protections for agricultural production, and that
no other state currently requires overtime once agricultural
workers have exceeded the 40 hour work week. Moreover, opponents
argue that due to razor-thin profit margins, farmers will be forced
to cut hours and lay off employees if they face an increase in
labor costs. Opponents believe that this will hurt the California
economy, as agriculture has aided the state's recovery during the
current economic downturn, as well as place the state's
agricultural industry at a competitive disadvantage.
This bill is identical to SB 1121 (Florez) from last session, which
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor's veto message
stated (in part):
"Unfortunately, this measure, while well-intended, will not improve
the lives of California's agricultural workers and instead will
result in additional burdens on California businesses, increased
unemployment, and lower wages. In order to remain competitive
against other states that do not have such wage requirements,
businesses will simply avoid paying overtime. Instead of working
10-hour days, multiple crews will be hired to work shorter shifts,
resulting in lower take home pay for all workers. Businesses
trying to compete under the new wage rules may become unprofitable
and go out of business, resulting in further damage to our already
fragile economy."
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the
Assembly-approved provisions of this bill were deleted.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0005741