BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page A


          Date of Hearing:  April 22, 2015


                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


                               Roger Hernández, Chair


          AB 357  
          Chiu - As Amended April 16, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Employment:  work hours:  Fair Scheduling Act of 2015


          SUMMARY:  Enacts the Fair Scheduling Act of 2015 to provide  
          predictable work schedules to covered employees, as specified,  
          in addition to other requirements.  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Requires a "food and general retail establishment" to provide  
            its employees with at least two weeks' notice of their work  
            schedules.


          2)Defines a "food and general retail establishment" to mean a  
            retail sales establishment that has a physical location with  
            in-person sales, including, but not limited to, a food retail  
            store, a grocery store, a general merchandise store, a  
            department store, and a health and personal care store, meets  
            all of the following:


             a)   Has 500 or more employees in this state.


             b)   Has 10 or more other such retail sales establishments  
               located in the United States.











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page B




             c)   Maintains two or more of the following:


               i)     A standardized array of merchandise.


               ii)    A standardized facade.


               iii)   A standardized decor and color scheme.


               iv)    Uniform apparel.


               v)     Standardized signage.


               vi)    A trademark or a service mark.


          3)Excludes from the definition of "food and general retail  
            establishment" an online retailer that does not have a  
            physical location with in-person sales in this state, or a  
            franchise that does not meet the aforementioned criteria.


          4)Provides that this requirement does not apply to specified  
            employees who are exempt from the payment of overtime under  
            existing law.


          5)Provides that a food and general retail establishment shall  
            provide an employee with the following compensation, per  
            shift, for each previously scheduled shift that the food and  
            general retail establishment moves to another date or time or  
            cancels, and each previously unscheduled shift that the food  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page C


            and general retail establishment requires an employee to work:


             a)   One hour of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate if  
               less than seven days' notice but at least 24 hours' notice  
               is given to the employee.


             b)   Two hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate  
               for each shift of four hours or less if less than 24 hours'  
               notice is given to the employee.


             c)   Four hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate  
               for each shift of more than four hours if less than 24  
               hours' notice is given to the employee.


          6)Provides that the aforementioned compensation requirement  
            shall not apply for shifts for which the employee is  
            compensated with reporting time pay as required by any wage  
            order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.


          7)Provides that the aforementioned compensation requirement  
            shall not apply to changes in the scheduling of rest periods,  
            recovery periods, or meal periods.


          8)Requires a food and general retail establishment to provide an  
            employee with the following compensation for each on-call  
            shift for which the employee is required to be available but  
            is not called in to work:


             a)   Two hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate  
               for each on-call shift of four hours or less.













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page D


             b)   Four hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate  
               for each on-call shift of more than four hours.


          9)Provides that the aforementioned compensation requirement  
            related to on-call time shall not apply to on-call time that  
            is required to be compensated as hours worked for which the  
            employee is in fact compensated under existing law.


          10)Establishes exceptions to these compensation requirements  
            under any of the following circumstances:


             a)   Operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to  
               employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend  
               that work not begin or continue.


             b)   Operations cannot begin or continue because public  
               utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or  
               there is a failure in the public utilities or sewer system.


             c)   Operations cannot begin or continue due to an act of God  
               or other cause not within the food and general retail  
               establishment's control, including, but not limited to, an  
               earthquake or a state of emergency declared by a local  
               government or the Governor.


             d)   Another employee previously scheduled to work that shift  
               is unable to work due to illness, vacation, or  
               employer-provided paid or unpaid time off required by  
               existing law when the food and general retail establishment  
               did not receive at least seven days' notice of the other  
               employee's absence.













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page E


             e)   Another employee previously scheduled to work that shift  
               has not reported to work on time, is fired, sent home, or  
               told to stay at home as a disciplinary action.


             f)   The food and general retail establishment requires the  
               employee to work overtime, such as mandatory overtime.


             g)   The employee trades shifts with another employee or  
               requests from the food and general retail establishment a  
               change in his or her shift, hours, or work schedule.


          11)Requires the Labor Commissioner shall promulgate all  
            regulations and rules of practice and procedures necessary to  
            carry out the provisions of this bill.


          12)Specifies that this bill shall not be construed to prohibit a  
            food and general retail establishment from providing greater  
            advance notice of an employee's work schedule or changes in an  
            employee's work schedule than what is required by this bill.


          13)Prohibits a food and general retail establishment from  
            discharging or discriminating against an employee because he  
            or she is any of the following:


             a)   A person who receives CalWORKs cash aid.


             b)   A parent, guardian, or grandparent who has custody of  
               one or more children who receive CalWORKs cash aid.


             c)   A person who receives CalFresh food assistance.












                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page F



          14)Requires a food and general retail establishment to allow an  
            employee be absent from work without pay for up to eight hours  
            twice a year, upon request, to attend any required  
            appointments at the county human services agency.


          15)Provides that as a condition of taking such time off, the  
            employee shall give the employer reasonable advance notice of  
            the employee's intention to take time off, unless the advance  
            notice is not feasible.


          16)Prohibits an employer from taking any action against an  
            employee when an unscheduled absence occurs due to a required  
            appointment at the county human services agency if that  
            employee, within a reasonable time, provides documentation to  
            the employer documenting the required appointment.


          17)Prohibits sanctions from being applied upon a recipient of  
            CalWORKs for failure or refusal to comply with CalWORKs  
            program requirements if the employment or offer of employment  
            fails to comply with these provisions.


          18)Makes other related and conforming changes.


          19)Contains legislative findings and declarations.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, unpredictable scheduling  
          practices and last-minute work schedule changes cause workers  
          who are already struggling with low wages to live in a constant  
          state of insecurity about when they will work or how much they  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page G


          will be paid on any given day.  Therefore, this bill will  
          provide food and retail workers in California with the right to  
          schedule predictability and protect workers in a number of  
          important ways.


          This bill would enact the Fair Scheduling Act of 2015, and is  
          based on an ordinance recently enacted in San Francisco.


          As an initial matter, the bill makes the following legislative  
          finding and declarations:


                 More than one-half of food and general retail store  
               employees nationally receive their work schedules one week  
               or less in advance.
                 According to a recent survey of employees at chain  
               stores and large stores, only 40 percent of those surveyed  
               have consistent minimum hours per week and the vast  
               majority of employees find out from a supervisor if they  
               are needed for the on-call shift a mere two hours before  
               the shift starts. Retail industry research in New York City  
               found that more than one-half of family caregivers in the  
               retail industry are required to be available for on-call  
               shifts, forcing them to arrange for child or elder care at  
               the last minute.


                 Women are also more likely than men to work part time  
               and experience unpredictability in their work schedules;  
               one study found that women were 64 percent of the frontline  
               part-time workforce among retail workers.


                 Unpredictable scheduling practices and last-minute work  
               schedule changes cause workers who are already struggling  
               with low wages to live in a constant state of insecurity  
               about when they will work or how much they will earn on any  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page H


               given day. These practices also make it hard for employees  
               to plan their finances and to plan for and obtain child  
               care. These practices also prevent part-time employees from  
               pursuing educational opportunities or holding a second or  
               third job that those workers may need to make ends meet.


                 According to census data, since 2006, the number of  
               "involuntary part time employees" in California nearly  
               tripled to 1,100,000 employees. According to the federal  
               Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than one-half of the  
               retail workforce nationwide works full time, and the number  
               of those working fewer than 20 hours per week has grown by  
               14 percent in the past decade.


                 According to a survey conducted in 2014 of workers who  
               sell food in California, the largest producer of food in  
               the United States, they are twice as likely as the general  
               populace to be unable to afford sufficient quantities of  
               the food they sell or the healthy kinds of food their  
               families need, despite the financial health of the food  
               retail industry. According to this same survey, workers who  
               were Black or Latino were far more likely to be sent home  
               early with no pay, to have a shift canceled on the same day  
               it is scheduled, to not be offered a lunch break, or not be  
               paid for all hours worked.


                 For these reasons, to ensure family and financial  
               stability for a vast segment of California's workforce,  
               those employed by food and general retail establishments  
               should be afforded some predictability and dignity in how  
               they are scheduled to work.


          













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page I














          Brief Background on "Unstable and Unpredictable" Work Schedules


          A recent report<1> by the Center for Law and Social Policy and  
          others states that unpredictable and unstable work scheduled  
          leave many low-wage workers in a constant state of economic  
          instability and personal turmoil.  Unfortunately, for a growing  
          number of employers, these scheduling practices are becoming  
          business as usual.


          The report describes the extent and scope of the problem as  
          follows:




            "With the rise of what is sometimes called "just-in-time  
            scheduling," managers are expected to carefully control the  
            relationship between consumer demand and expenditures on  
            wages. If customer traffic or sales seem to be lagging on a  
            given day, the expectation is that immediate changes to  
            workers' hours should ensue. Just-in-time scheduling practices  
            are part of larger trends in business practices - trends that  

            --------------------------
          <1> "Tackling Unstable and Unpredictable Work Schedules," Center  
          for Law and Social Policy, Retail Action Project, and Women  
          Employed (2014). 










                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page J


            are increasingly accepted as the norm in hourly-wage, service  
            sector industries. These practices disproportionately affect  
            low-income workers, who are already vulnerable financially.  
            Just-in-time scheduling contributes to workers' income  
            instability, making it difficult to make ends meet; it may  
            threaten their eligibility for government income supports; and  
            because workers may not always be scheduled for enough hours  
            to qualify, it may limit their eligibility to claim  
            firm-provided benefits like health insurance and sick days. In  
            their rush to cut costs, many corporations are adopting  
            business practices that seriously compromise workers'  
            well-being.


            While workers feel pressure on their pocketbooks and strain on  
            their home lives, front-line managers are being pressured too.  
            In the retail industry, managers are often evaluated on  
            whether they meet targets for payroll as a percentage of  
            sales. With minimal control over sales, managers move quickly  
            to decrease staffing levels when sales go down. In a study of  
            low-level, non-production jobs at major US corporations in the  
            retail, transportation, hospitality, and financial services  
            industries, researchers found that managers at all firms  
            experienced pressure and responded by "scheduling to demand."  
            Across industries, employers have adopted labor strategies  
            that "shift risk from the corporation onto workers, bringing  
            with it instability in hours and income." For example, one  
            study found that restaurant workers could be scheduled with a  
            start time but no end time. Workers were instead scheduled as  
            "12 BD." This means that a worker would arrive at work at noon  
            and then leave when "business declined" or BD. That could be  
            anytime and at the discretion of the management.


            Employers now also have technological tools to help manipulate  
            workers' schedules in response to changes in demand. Recent  
            news reports indicate an increasingly widespread use of  
            software created by such companies as Kronos Inc. and Dayforce  
            to "optimize schedules" by breaking them down into small  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page K


            increments of time and by tracking factors such as sales and  
            (as in the case of Jamba Juice) weather patterns. In other  
            words, the software creates schedules that cut costs, but are  
            highly unpredictable for workers."








          The same report describes the impact of scheduling changes on  
          workers as follows:


            "While paying bills and taking care of family members are high  
            on the list of challenges that workers in lower-wage jobs  
            experience when they are subject to erratic scheduling  
            practices, the harm they face does not stop there. Workers  
            experience adverse health effects, have difficulty finding and  
            keeping childcare arrangements, face transportation obstacles,  
            have trouble going back to school to advance their education,  
            and experience considerable overall stress and strain on  
            family life.  Since their schedules fluctuate so much, they  
            can't predict the size of their paychecks. Communities suffer,  
            too, when workers can't afford to buy groceries or other goods  
            from neighborhood businesses. Even the employers that adopt  
            volatile scheduling practices that contribute to these  
            problems may face negative repercussions, as they cope with  
            the significant expenses associated with high rates of  
            turnover and low morale. Moreover, consumers are increasingly  
            wary of spending their money at businesses that treat their  
            workers poorly. The ripple effects of unstable and  
            unpredictable scheduling are felt in the lives of individuals,  
            in communities, and throughout the economy?


            ?Such scheduling practices are more than simply inconveniences  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page L


            for workers. They have serious effects on individuals and  
            families, are linked to adverse business consequences, and  
            result in broad economic costs. Unpredictable and unstable  
            work schedules may contribute to work-family challenges and  
            employee stress, as well as marital strife and poor school  
            performance among these workers' children. Workers with little  
            control over their schedules and hours struggle to arrange  
            childcare and transportation and may have difficulty  
            scheduling doctor's appointments for themselves and their  
            families, contributing to weaker health outcomes.


            Because they are unable to count on a set number of hours per  
            week, many workers simply cannot make ends meet. For these  
            workers, despite having jobs that should ostensibly enable  
            them to pay the bills, public assistance often becomes  
            necessary."



          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT


          This bill is co-sponsored by the United Food and Commercial  
          Workers Western States Council and the Western Center on Law and  
          Poverty.  They make the following arguments, among others, in  
          support of this bill:


            "Status Quo Scheduling Allows Employers to Exploit Worker's  
            Unpaid Time - More than half of food and general retail store  
            employees nationally receive their work schedules one week or  
            less in advance.  According to a recent survey of employees at  
            large retail and grocery stores, only 40% of those surveyed  
            have consistent minimum hours per week and the vast majority  
            of employees find out from a supervisor if they are needed for  
            the on-call shift a mere two hours before the shift starts.  
            Spending unpaid time in limbo, pending a call from her  
            employer, low-wage workers are less able to spend their unpaid  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page M


            time freely and undermined if they wish to use the time at a  
            second or third job or advancing their future job  
            opportunities through vocational training or post-secondary  
            education. 


            Fair Scheduling Helps Parents be Accountable to Children and  
            Family Obligations Unpredictable scheduling practices and  
            last-minute work schedule changes cause workers who are  
            already struggling with low wages to live in a constant state  
            of insecurity about when they will work or how much they will  
            be paid on any given day. The instability of day-by-day  
            scheduling not only makes it difficult for employees to plan  
            their finances, it also makes it difficult to secure and  
            maintain child care and contributes to parental stress, family  
            instability, and has been documented as resulting in poor  
            school performance among these workers' children?  


            Fair Scheduling Helps Workers Keep Child Care Placements &  
            Their Children Get AheadAccording to a report by Child Care  
            Aware America, the average cost of full-time childcare ranges  
            from $4,000 to $1600 annually per child. The National Women's  
            Law Center (NWLC) says that there is only one child care slot  
            for every child who needs on. If an hourly wage earner is  
            fortunate enough to secure a placement at a child care  
            provider, last minute changes in work schedules can put that  
            placement at risk? 


            Fair Scheduling Supports Work and Earnings - During recent  
            legislative debates, opponents to legislation that would raise  
            the wage claimed that increasing the wage by a dollar  
            increment would not change the life conditions of workers who  
            lived below the poverty line and that the debate over the wage  
            increase was misplaced. Instead, they argued, that we should  
            focus on how to help workers advance to better jobs. Without  
            fair scheduling, low-income workers are stuck with their  
            current job and wage. They are less able to pursue vocational  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page N


            or post-secondary education or to pursue opportunities to earn  
            more money through self-employment or a second job. Instead,  
            erratic and unpredictable schedules contribute to wage  
            instability, which leads workers 


            While some in the business community may argue that this  
            policy change is an overreach, researchers have documented the  
            business case for schedule fairness policies. In fact, several  
            large retail and food employers have voluntarily begun moving  
            to a 2-week fair scheduling policy. However, employees should  
            not have to depend on the voluntary decisions of their  
            employer(s) in order to be afforded the very necessary right  
            of having advance notification of their schedule and  
            compensation for last minute changes.  If this policy change  
            is possible, and recent announcements prove that it is, then  
            it should be required so that workers can depend on a  
            job-market that empowers them to manage their family and  
            community obligations and to pay their bills. 


            Fair Scheduling Protects Women and Minorities from Disparate  
            Treatment - Women and workers of color are more likely to be  
            low-wage hourly workers and they are more likely to be  
                                                          impacted by scheduling abuses. Research shows that Black and  
            Latino workers work more shift-work and also experience more  
            cancelled and shortened shifts than their white counterparts.   
            These policies contribute to the fact that black men with full  
            time jobs are paid just 76.3 cents for every dollar their  
            white counterparts receive; for black women, the figure is  
            84.6 cents for every dollar a white woman is paid. Lack of  
            ability to plan ahead also prevents full time work,  
            contributing to the doubling of women workers who are employed  
            part-time though desiring full-time work since the recession."


          With respect to the portion of the bill dealing with public  
          assistance, the Western Center on Law and Poverty argues that  
          fair scheduling can protect workers when they are forced to  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page O


          apply for public assistance.  When workers income falls short,  
          or when they fall out of the job market due to inability to find  
          childcare or transportation to comply with on-call work demands,  
          they are often forced to seek food or basic needs assistance  
          through California's safety-net programs.  In fact, according to  
          the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 40 percent of  
          California's food stamp recipients live in working families.   
          Ironically, these workers face additional barriers of finding  
          time to apply and certify their eligibility for the federal food  
          benefits they are entitled to as low-income Americans because of  
          their inability to schedule unpaid time off to attend to the  
          paperwork and requisite interviews.  In fact, California, with  
          more poor workers eligible for food stamps than any other state,  
          also ranks the lowest in the percent of eligible poor workers  
          receiving these federally funded benefits.


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION


          A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of  
          Commerce and the California Retailers Association, opposes this  
          measure and argues that it represents a one-size fits all  
          mandate on only California retailers, will significantly  
          increase such employers cost of doing business, and will limit  
          their opportunity to provide flexibility to employees as well as  
          offer additional hours of work, as doing so will expose the  
          employer to litigation and statutory penalties.


          Opponents argue that this bill creates significant layering of  
          penalties against employers for schedule changes.  They state  
          that although the bill provides limited exceptions to the  
          application of these penalties for schedule changes, such as  
          when operations cannot begin due to an Act of God or utilities  
          are not working, the scope of when the penalties will apply is  
          significant.  They contend that employers are already faced with  
          significant penalties, mandated additional compensation, and  
          higher minimum wage rates.  This bill would layer more penalties  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page P


          on an employer who is already compensating the employee for  
          schedule changes, as well as hours worked.  Financially  
          punishing an employer for responding to last minute business  
          demands or, worse, for offering an employee more hours of work  
          is unfair and penalizes the employer just as much as employees.


          Opponents also argue that this bill creates ambiguity regarding  
          "required" versus "voluntary" employee schedule changes.  As  
          they state:


            "[This bill] states that an employer shall pay an employee  
            penalties for unscheduled changes the employer "requires" an  
            employee to work.  The term "requires" is ambiguous as to  
            whether it includes only those schedule changes that (1) the  
            employer actually mandates the employee to work or suffer  
            adverse employment action; or (2) a schedule change that the  
            employer offers the employee, and the employee individually  
            feels pressured or compelled to work and therefore consents.   
            For example, if an employer suggests it really needs  
            additional help to cover a shift at a restaurant as a large of  
            customers has just arrived and is the employee available to  
            come in, is that enough to satisfy the "required" element of  
            [this bill]?  


            Ambiguity regarding similar terminology such as "provides" has  
            created more than a decade of significant litigation for  
            California only employers regarding the triggering of  
            additional compensation for employees with regard to meal  
            periods and is therefore an important distinction.  See  
            Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th  
            1004 1039 (2012) (defining "provide" to mean a reasonable  
            opportunity for an employee to take a 30-minute uninterrupted  
            meal period that is not discouraged or impeded by the  
            employer)."













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page Q








          On a related point, they argue that this bill discourages  
          employers from offering additional work to part-time employees:


            "Under [this bill], if additional hours of work become  
            available after an employer has issued the schedule, and the  
            employer offers that additional work to a part-time employee,  
            [this bill] penalizes the employer. Specifically, if the  
            employee feels "required" to work the previously "unscheduled"  
            offer of work, the employer would be forced to pay the  
            employee not only compensation for hours worked, but also an  
            additional four hours of compensation at the employee's  
            "regular hourly rate." Such a penalty discourages employers  
            from offering additional hours of work to part-time employees,  
            thereby ultimately harming employees who are working  
            part-time."


          Opponents also object to provisions of the bill that they  
          contend creates a new, protected classification of employees.   
          Under this bill, an employer would be prohibited from  
          discriminating against or discharging any employee who falls  
          within one of three protected categories.  Combined with the  
          new, unlimited leave referenced above, this precludes an  
          employer from taking any conservative action against an employee  
          who regularly misses work on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to  
          attend an appointment, for threat of discrimination or  
          retaliation litigation.  In addition, they argue that there is  
          no evidence of systematic employment discrimination against  
          employees on this basis that would justify a new, protected  
          classification in California law.  As such, this protected  
          classification will simply lead to an increase in litigation as  
          it provides a new basis upon which to sue an employer who takes  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page R


          an adverse employment action for a legitimate reason against an  
          employee who falls within one of these protected categories.


          They also argue that this bill subjects employers to multiple  
          threats of extensive litigation:


            "In addition to litigation under PAGA, Labor Code Section  
            2699, an employee could also threaten an unfair competition  
            claim under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, as  
            well as a common law wrongful termination claim.  Increasing  
            the cost of doing business on all employers who engage in  
            retail activity with the "additional pay" mandate, as well as  
            subjecting them to multiple threats of litigation, is  
            detrimental to the economy and the ability for businesses to  
            thrive in this state.    


            Notably, [this bill] references the various levels of  
            penalties for schedule changes as "compensation," even though  
            it is not compensating an employee for actual hours worked.   
            This choice of term is not inconsequential, as it potentially  
            triggers a three year statute of limitation to bring a civil  
            action as opposed to a one-year statute of limitation for the  
            penalty imposed.  See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions,  
            Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (holding premium pay for missed  
            meal period is subject to three year statute of limitations  
            versus one-year statute of limitations for penalties)."


          Finally, opponents argue that the San Francisco ordinance has  
          not even gone into effect yet to determine the consequences of  
          this policy.  They state that in December 2014, the San  
          Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the "Retail Workers Bill  
          of Rights" that included a "fair scheduling" mandate, similar to  
          that proposed in this bill.  Mayor Ed Lee did not sign this  
          ordinance, which will not go into effect until July 3, 2015.   
          They state that San Francisco has yet to see the consequences  











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page S


          either intended or unintended from the impact of its local  
          ordinance mandating penalties for schedule changes.  Given this,  
          they argue that it is premature to impose this broad and  
          punitive measure on all "food and general retail establishments"  
          in California, especially those areas with high unemployment  
          rates.


          COMMITTEE STAFF COMMENT


          In addition to the arguments mentioned above, opponents contend  
          that, despite the exceptions contained in the bill, employers  
          will still be subject to liability under the Labor Code Private  
          Attorney General Act (PAGA) for any change in employee  
          schedules.  They argue that this bill states that an employer  
          "shall" provide no less than two weeks' notice of an employee's  
          schedule.  Failure to provide two weeks' notice, no matter the  
          reason, will independently create a PAGA violation and subject  
          the employer to a representative action.  Specifically, even  
          though this bill would not assess penalties for an employer who  
          has to cover a shift at the last minute because another employee  
          calls in sick or works overtime, it is still a change in an  
          employee's schedule with less than two weeks' notice and  
          therefore a Labor Code violation subject to PAGA penalties.  The  
          threat of PAGA litigation will eliminate an employer's ability  
          to provide any flexibility to their employees and will subject  
          the employer to penalties for accommodating requested time off,  
          sick leave, vacation, trading of employee shifts, etc.


          In response to this concern, the author has agreed to amend  
          proposed Labor Code Section 518(h) to read as follows:


            (h)  The requirements in subdivision (c) and (f) shall not  
            apply, and an employer shall not be deemed to have violated  
            subdivision (b), under any of the following circumstances:  












                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page T



          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          9to5 National Association of Working Women, CA


          American Association of University Women


          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees


          Better Opportunity Bill


          California Alliance for Retired Americans


          California Black Health Network


          California Employment Lawyers Association


          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO


          California Nurses Association


          California Partnership













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page U


          California Professional Firefighters


          California School Employees Association


          California Teachers Association


          Center for Law and Social Policy


          Child Care Law Center


          Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations


          Community Food and Justice Coalition


          Consumer Attorneys of California


          Courage Campaign


          Equal Rights Advocates


          Hunger Action Los Angeles


          National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter


          National Council of Jewish Women













                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page V


          Office & Professional Employees International Union, Loca 29


          Professional Association for Childhood Education


          River City Food Bank


          Sacramento Hunger Coalition


          San Francisco Living Wage Coalition


          SEIU California


          St. Anthony's Foundation


          Supervisor John Leopold, County of Santa Cruz


          UFCW Western States Council (sponsor)


          Western Center on Law and Poverty (sponsor)


          Western Regional Advocacy Project




          Opposition


          Agricultural Council of California











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page W




          Alhambra Chamber of Commerce


          AutoNation


          Brawley Chamber of Commerce


          Building Owners and Managers Association California 


          California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns


          California Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers


          California Attractions and Parks Association 


          California Bankers Association


          California Business Properties Association 


          California Chamber of Commerce


          California Employment Law Council


          California Grocers Association 


          California Hotel and Lodging Association











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page X




          California League of Food Processors


          California Manufacturers and Technology Association 


          California Mortgage Bankers Association 


          California New Car Dealers Association


          California Restaurant Association


          California Retailers Association 


          California Travel Association


          Camarillo Chamber of Commerce


          Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce


          Civil Justice Association of California


          El Centro Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau


          Fairfield-Suisun City Chamber of Commerce


          Fullerton Chamber of Commerce











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page Y




          Gateway Chambers Alliance


          Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce


          Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce


          International Council of Shopping Centers


          International Franchise Association


          Irvine Chamber of Commerce


          Lodi Chamber of Commerce


          Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce


          NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association


          National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada


          National Federation of Independent Business


          North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce


          Orange County Business Council











                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page Z




          Oxnard Chamber of Commerce


          Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce


          Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce


          Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau 


          Retail Industry Leaders Association


          Ripon Chamber of Commerce


          San Francisco Chamber of Commerce


          San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers 


          Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce &  Convention-Visitors Bureau     
           


          Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitor and Convention  
          Bureau


          Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce


          South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce












                                                                     AB 357


                                                                     Page A



          Southwest California Legislative Council


          Southwest California Legislative Council


          TechAmerica


          The Chamber of the Santa Barbara Region


          Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce


          Wine Institute







          Analysis Prepared by:Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091