BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2405
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2405 (Gatto) - As Amended April 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|4 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an employer to annually provide an employee
at least 24 hours of paid, job-protected, time off for the
purposes of an absence under the Family School Partnership Act
(Act), unless otherwise provided in a collective bargaining
AB 2405
Page 2
agreement. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes, but no longer requires, an employee to use
vacation or paid time off, or use unpaid time off, if
available, when taking time off under these provisions.
2)Authorizes an employee whose request for time off is denied by
the employer to file a complaint and seek remedy from the
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).
3)Requires the Labor Commissioner to create a poster listing the
protections available to employees and would require an
employer to post it at the workplace, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to
provide three paid days off to employees of skilled nursing
facilities. Assuming approximately 73% of workers in skilled
nursing homes are eligible for this benefit, the state would
incur costs of approximately $49 million (General Fund and
Federal Funds) to cover this benefit. Under current law, the
Department of Health Care Services is required to increase
reimbursement rates to skilled nursing facilities to offset
any additional costs mandated by the state or federal
government.
2)Unknown, likely minor costs, for the Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE)
to process claims. DIR notes they receive very few retaliation
claims (1 to 3 a year). It is unclear if changes made by this
bill would generate significantly more claims for retaliation
and wages. Existing law has anti-retaliation protections for
AB 2405
Page 3
this activity and this bill does not expand the universe of
employees eligible for this benefit.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The California School Partnership Act allows parents,
grandparents, and guardians to take up to 40 hours per year to
participate in their children's school or child care
activities. The law is applicable to employers with 25 or more
employees. Employees can use existing vacation, personal
leave, compensatory time off or take unpaid leave for these
purposes.
According to the author, research shows parental involvement
leads to substantial improvements in a child's academic
performance. While most parents are aware of the benefits of
parent engagement, not all have the ability to take unpaid
leave to get involved. The author states this bill will
strengthen existing law by requiring employees to be paid for
up to 24 hours, of the authorized 40 hours of leave, for each
calendar year.
2)Opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce is opposed to
this bill. They state that, while mandating an employer to
provide 24 hours of paid time off may seem minor in isolation,
the cumulative impact of all the existing protected leaves of
absence required in California that are both paid and unpaid
must be taken into consideration.
AB 2405
Page 4
3)Prior Related Legislation
a) SB 579 (Jackson) Chapter 802, Statutes of 2015 expanded
the authorized reasons for which an employee can take
job-protected time off from work under the Family School
Partnership Act and specified "kin care" sick leave
provisions of existing law.
b) AB 2030 (Campos) of 2014 would have provided that
existing leave provided for school-related activities under
the Act be fully paid by employers, as specified. The bill
was never heard in committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081