BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1042
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
1042 (Cooper)
As Enrolled September 14, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(May 28, 2015) |SENATE: |38-0 |(September 9, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(September 10, | | | |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: B. & P.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to existing law related to
proprietary private security officers.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services
AB 1042
Page 2
would incur new staffing costs of $226,000 annually, fully
offset by new licensing fee revenues.
COMMENTS: This bill addresses two aspects of law related to
private security officers. The first portion of this bill
expands the number of private security officers who fall under
the licensure and regulation of the Department of Consumer
Affairs. These provisions are within the jurisdiction of the
Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
The second component of this bill addresses provisions related
to the payment of wages of private security guards. This
provision arises from a recent court case, Huff v. Securitas
Security Services, Case No. 1-10-CV-172614 (2015). In that
case, Securitas successfully argued that it has not violated the
temporary services employer requirements as all of the claimants
had assignments in excess of 90 days. However, in determining
this calculation, the court used a calendar week of Sunday to
Saturday, which is not the work week utilized by Securitas.
Rather, this is the default calendar week used by the Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for enforcement purposes.
Securitas and other security firms utilize a Friday to Thursday
workweek, which proponents note reflects the fact that their
employees frequently work on the weekends, unlike many
employers.
This bill would provide that, if a temporary employee is
employed as a security officer, the employee's wages are due
weekly and due and payable on the regular payday of the
following workweek.
The California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards
and Associates argues that most security services firms define
the workweek as Friday to Thursday, and that this schedule is
born of the specific industrial requirements of the security
AB 1042
Page 3
industry. They argue that this bill not an attempt to change
the weekly payroll rule, but rather represents an industry
specific standard that will assist temporary services employers
in complying with the law without impacting the rights of
employees.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill expands the definition of a proprietary private
security officer to include either a person who wears a security
uniform or provides a security function. Under this new
definition more people would need to register with the Bureau of
Security and Investigative Services.
Registration and licensing can help protect consumers and the
public, but they can also create barriers to entry. I am not
convinced that enough evidence currently exists to justify
expanding the definition of a proprietary private security
officer to include bouncers who work at nightclubs and bars.
Analysis Prepared by:
Eunie Linden / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN:
0002504
AB 1042
Page 4