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