BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1042|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1042
Author: Cooper (D)
Amended: 8/18/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 8-1, 6/22/15
AYES: Hill, Bates, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez, Jackson,
Mendoza, Wieckowski
NOES: Berryhill
SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 7/8/15
AYES: Mendoza, Stone, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/24/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Proprietary security services
SOURCE: California Association of Licensed Security
Agencies, Guards and Associates
DIGEST: This bill expands the definition of a proprietary
private security officer by requiring only one of the two
specified criteria to be met, revises one of the criteria of a
proprietary private security officer's duties that are likely to
involve interacting with the public, and exempts plain clothed
persons employed by a retail store to exclusively report or
prevent theft from the provision of the Proprietary Private
Security Act. This bill also changes the weekly pay schedule
AB 1042
Page 2
for a proprietary private security officer employed by a
temporary services employer.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Defines a proprietary private security officer (PSO) as an
unarmed individual who is employed exclusively by any one
employer whose; primary duty is to provide security services
for his or her employer, services are not contracted to any
other entity or person, and is both required to wear a
distinctive uniform clearly identifying the individual as a
security officer and likely to interact with the public while
performing his or her duties. (BPC § 7574.01)
2) Prohibits any who is not registered with the Bureau of
Security and Investigative Services (Bureau) in the
Department of Consumer Affairs from engaging in the business
of a PSO. (BPC § 7574.10)
3) Requires a person registered and hired as a PSO to complete
training in security officer skills within six months of his
or her employment with a proprietary private security
employer (PPSE). (BPC § 7574.18)
4) Defines a PPSE as a person who has one or more employees who
provide security services for the employer and only for the
employer. A person who employs PSOs pursuant to this chapter
at more than one location shall be considered a single
employer. (BPC § 7574.01(e))
5) Defines a temporary services employer as employing units that
contract with clients to supply workers to perform services
for those clients. (Labor Code § 201.3)
This bill:
1) Changes the definition of a PSO to require only one of the
two specified criteria, effective January 1, 2017.
AB 1042
Page 3
2) Defines "security services" as activities by a PSO which
include, but are not limited to, acting to prevent unapproved
or unlawful entry, directing persons causing a disturbance to
leave a facility, ensuring that persons removing property
from a facility are acting within appropriate policy
requirements, observing and reporting incidents or suspicious
activity to management and other public safety authorities as
appropriate, and responding to or reporting incidents of
fire, medical emergency, hazardous materials, and other
incidents or conditions following procedures established by
the PSO's employer.
3) Exempts unarmed, plain clothed persons employed by a retail
store to exclusively report or prevent theft from
registration as a PSO under the Act.
4) Applies the weekly pay requirement for PSOs employed by a
temporary services employer.
Background
A PSO is defined as a generally unarmed individual who is
employed by a single employer not contracted to any other entity
or person and whose primary duty is to provide security services
for that employer. While PSO registration candidates do not
need to provide proof of training to the Bureau, their employers
must have proof of the PSOs completion of 16 hour of training
within the first six months of receiving the PSO registration or
six months from date of hire by the PSO employer in the
employee's file. PPSEs are prohibited from subletting PSOs to
another person, business, or entity. PSOs are prohibited from
carrying firearms or batons while on duty. California peace
officers, retired peace officers, and patrol special police
officers are exempt from PSO and PPSE registration requirements.
According to the Bureau's 2014 Sunset Review Report, there were
approximately 594 PPSEs, 6,201 PSOs, and 2,765 PPOs (for the
fiscal year 2013/2014).
Unlicensed Activity. In the past, PSOs in California received
little state oversight, instead relying on standards of conduct
and duties set by their employers. California companies that
hired unlicensed PSOs incurred no penalty. The Author asserts
that the definition of a PSO should include persons not wearing
AB 1042
Page 4
a distinctive uniform, but does primarily act in a security
capacity. This new definition as proposed within this bill
would bring bouncers and other plain-clothes individuals
employed for security purposes under the umbrella of a PSO and
would require their licensure and registration with the Bureau.
This issue was raised in response to a violent incident
involving an Oceanside club bouncer and a patron in December of
2014.
This bill seeks to close this loophole and change the definition
of a PSO to require only one of the two specified criteria.
This bill also gives specific examples of some of the duties a
PSO would have when interacting with the public to ensure that
those operating as a PSO are properly licensed and regulated by
the Bureau. The Author argues that these changes will ensure
greater public and consumer protection by assisting the Bureau
to curb unlicensed activity.
Pay Schedule. The calendar week schedule, defined by the
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), is a week
extended from Sunday to Saturday. Section 500 of the LC defines
"workweek" and "week" as any seven consecutive days, starting
with the same calendar day each week. "Workweek" is a fixed and
regularly recurring period of 168 hours, seven consecutive
24-hour periods.
According to the Author, most security services firms define the
workweek as Friday to Thursday. The Author states that many
companies choose to define their workweek in this fashion due to
the business needs of the company, and adds that this is the
most efficient way to process payroll from operational,
financial and information technology perspectives. Most
companies operate on a Monday to Friday business/administrative
schedule, as that enables employees to work Monday to Friday and
take weekends off. However, use of a calendar week schedule
would require administrative employees to work on weekends in
order to process payroll for a Saturday pay-day.
By proposing the changes in this bill, the Author states that
this effort is not an attempt to change the weekly payroll rule
but that this new change will allow these temporary services
employers to pay their employees on a weekly, Friday to Thursday
schedule, ensuring that payment of wages to employees follows
AB 1042
Page 5
the same timeline as the current Sunday to Saturday schedule.
This bill will redefine the work week for security guard
companies, which fall under the temporary services employers'
category, to allow these companies to pay their employees on a
Friday to Thursday pay schedule.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will
result in:
New staffing costs to the Bureau of $226,000 annually,
beginning in 2016-17, for 3 new PY of staff for workload
associated with the significant increase in regulated
individuals and employers, fully offset by new licensing fee
revenues from the Private Security Services Fund.
Minor and absorbable Bureau costs for increased complaint
investigations to the Private Security Services Fund.
Bureau licensing revenue gains of $390,000 in 2016-17,
$260,000 in 2017-18, $252,000 in 2018-19, $190,000 in 2019-20,
and $265,000 in 2021-22. Revenues in each fiscal year would
exceed new staffing costs identified above impacting the
Private Security Services Fund.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/25/15)
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and
Associates (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/25/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support of the bill, the
AB 1042
Page 6
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and
Associates states, "this bill would expand the definition of a
proprietary private security officer by instead requiring only
one of the two specified criteria to be met. This change in
definition would insure that certain individuals that are hired
to interact with the public while performing his or her duties
are properly trained and certified to perform those duties?AB
1042 would provide greater consumer protection by ensuring that
certain duties, which at times may involve dangerous situations,
are carried out by licensed and certified professionals."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla,
Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau,
Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Grove
Prepared by:Janelle Miyashiro / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
8/26/15 10:19:40
**** END ****