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: 9/4/15 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 (PSO) by requiring only one of the two
specified criteria to be met, revises one of the criteria of a
PPSO's duties that are likely to involve interacting with the
public, exempts an unarmed person employed by a retail
merchandise store who reports or prevents theft from the retail
merchandise store and exempts an employee at an entertainment or
sports venue, as specified, whose primary duties consist of
AB 1042
Page 2
screening guests and their personal items before venue entry
from the provision of the Proprietary Private Security Act.
This bill also changes the weekly pay schedule for a proprietary
private security officer employed by a temporary services
employer.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/15 make definitional changes to
the exemption for an unarmed person employed by a retail
merchandise store who reports or prevents theft from the retail
merchandise store, add an exemption for an employee at an
entertainment or sports venue, as specified, whose primary
duties consist of screening guests and their personal items
before venue entry, and make other technical and clarifying
changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Defines a 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.
(Business and Professions Code (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)
AB 1042
Page 3
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.
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 an unarmed person employed by a retail merchandise
store who reports or prevents theft from the retail
merchandise store and who wears plain clothes or attire with
only the retailer's logo or business name as a PSO under the
Proprietary Private Security Act.
4) Exempts an employee at an entertainment or sports venue,
including, but not limited to, a theme or amusement park, and
a theatrical screening, whose primary duties consist of
screening guests and their personal items before venue entry,
checking admission tickets, directing guests, or any
combination of these duties, and seeking assistance from law
enforcement or security personnel when that would be the
ordinary and customary response of an employee in the event
of an unapproved or unlawful entry or criminal act or
disturbance as a PSO under the Proprietary Private Security
Act.
AB 1042
Page 4
5) Applies the weekly pay requirement for PSOs employed by a
temporary services employer.
6) Makes other technical and clarifying changes.
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
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
AB 1042
Page 5
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
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, minor and absorbable
Bureau costs for increased complaint investigations to the
AB 1042
Page 6
Private Security Services Fund, and licensing revenue gains.
Revenues in each fiscal year would exceed new staffing costs
identified above impacting the Private Security Services Fund.
SUPPORT: (Verified9/4/15)
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and
Associates (source)
Corporate Security Service Inc.
King Security Services
Rightway Security Services, Inc.
SMSSI of California, Inc.
Universal Protection Service
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/4/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support of the bill, the
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,
AB 1042
Page 7
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:Mark Mendoza / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
9/9/15 10:23:14
**** END ****