BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 67 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 67 (Gonzalez) As Amended June 3, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, |Harper, Patterson | | | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | | | | |Thurmond | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |10-5 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Calderon, Eggman, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Gordon, Holden, |Wagner | | | |Quirk, Rendon, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Enacts the "Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015," as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Defines "family holiday" to mean the fourth Thursday of November each year. AB 67 Page 2 2)Provides that any work performed on a family holiday shall be compensated by the employer at no less than twice the employee's regular rate of pay. 3)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets specified criteria. 4)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is exempt from the payment of an overtime rate of compensation for executive, administrative, and professional employees pursuant to wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission, as specified. 5)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is employed by an employer with 25 or fewer employees. 6)Provides that "employee" does not include an employee who is employed as a first responder or emergency personnel. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the low millions, to provide state employees and in home supportive services (IHSS) providers not covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement with two times the regular rate of pay for work provided on a "family holiday". There are 462,000 IHSS providers, many of whom work on Thanksgiving or Christmas and are not covered under a valid collective bargaining agreement. For illustration, if 10% of IHSS providers were provided double pay for one day of work, the state AB 67 Page 3 would incur costs of approximately $4.7 million. 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 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: Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000889 AB 67 Page 4