BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 501 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 501 (Wieckowski) - As Amended April 28, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 26-11 SUBJECT: WAGE GARNISHMENT RESTRICTIONS KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF A PERSON'S WEEKLY WAGE EARNINGS THAT MAY BE GARNISHED TO SATISFY A JUDGMENT DEBT BE REDUCED, AS SPECIFIED, SO THAT THE WORKER IS MORE LIKELY TO RETAIN SUFFICIENT WAGES EACH WEEK TO PAY FOR BASIC NEEDS AND NOT BE DISINCENTIVIZED FROM EARNING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE? SYNOPSIS According to the author, wage garnishment rates in California are too high and do not allow low-wage workers whose wages are being garnished to retain enough of their earnings to pay for their household's essential needs and avoid slipping closer into poverty. The author also contends that when the wages of low-wage workers are garnished at high rates, those workers often suffer more severe financial setbacks, including losing their assets and falling deeper into debt. Recent research using three years of payroll records for 13 million workers nationwide finds that the workers who are most likely to have SB 501 Page 2 their wages garnished are workers earning between $25,000 and $40,000 per year- bolstering the author's contention that those who are most negatively affected by current state wage garnishment laws are low-wage earners and blue collar workers. This bill, co-sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and East Bay Community Law Center, seeks to revise the wage garnishment formula to reduce the maximum amount of garnishment in California, thereby allowing workers to retain more of their earnings to pay for basic life essentials. Specifically, this bill would establish that the maximum amount allowed to be garnished is the lesser of the following: (a) 10% of the individual's disposable earnings for the week (a decrease from 25%), or (b) one third of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 40 times the state or local minimum hourly wage, whichever is greater (a 67% decrease from the applicable amount). The bill is strongly supported by legal aid providers, consumer advocates, and organized labor groups, who believe the revised formula will help struggling working families move forward towards financial self-sufficiency, while still allowing lenders to recover legitimate debt. The bill is opposed by debt collectors, bankers, and the California Retailers Association, among others, who argue that the bill drastically reduces the ability of judgment creditors to recover on valid, court-issued judgment, and harms rather than helps debtors with outstanding debt, as they will accrue a significant amount of additional interest and extra administrative fees imposed by the county because of the greater number of individual payments required to ultimately pay off their debts. Furthermore, because more than 40 states allow for wage garnishment at a rate that is higher than the proposed 10 percent rate in this bill, opponents contend that the bill puts California's wage garnishment rate at odds with the federal rate of 25%, which would be one of the lowest rates in the nation. SUMMARY: Reduces the maximum amount of a person's wages that SB 501 Page 3 can be garnished by creditors to satisfy a judgment debt. Specifically, this bill: 1)Reduces the maximum amount of disposable earnings which are subject to wage garnishment to the lesser of the following: a) 10 percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week, or b) one-third of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage, as specified. 2)Provides that if a judgment debtor works in a location where the local minimum hourly wage is greater than the state minimum hourly wage, the local minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable shall be used for the above calculation. 3)Bases the maximum amount of disposable earnings subject to levy on the applicable local hourly minimum wage, rather than the state hourly minimum wage, for any pay period other than weekly. EXISTING LAW: 1)Restricts the amount of garnishment of a judgment debtor's disposable earnings for any workweek to the lesser of 25 percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week; or the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage in effect at the time when the earnings are payable. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.050(a). All further references are to this Code unless otherwise stated.) 2)Requires that for any pay period other than weekly, the SB 501 Page 4 following multipliers are to be used to determine the maximum amount of disposable earnings subject to levy under an earnings withholding order that is proportional in effect to the weekly calculation, as specified: a) For a daily pay period, the amounts shall be identical to the weekly garnishment amounts; b) For a biweekly pay period, multiply the state hourly minimum wage by 80 work hours; c) For a semimonthly pay period, multiply the state hourly minimum wage by 86 2/3 work hours; or d) For a monthly pay period, multiply the state hourly minimum wage by 173 1/3 work hours. (Section 706.050(b).) 3)Provides that, with respect to an earnings assignment order for support, one-half of the disposable earnings (as defined by Section 1672 of Title 15 of the United States Code) of the judgment debtor, plus any amount withheld from the judgment debtor's earnings pursuant to any earnings assignment order for support, is exempt from levy under this chapter where the earnings withholding order is a withholding order for support. (Section 706.052(b).) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. COMMENTS: According to the author: Approximately 64% of poor Californians live in a home that earns wages. No one should experience poverty, SB 501 Page 5 especially people who work. When they do, it is essential we do what we can to prevent hardships for workers and their families. The key issue raised in this bill is modifying wage garnishment law - which is essentially a statutory floor on debt repayment - so that creditors are still 100% repaid but not at a rate at which a debtor and his family cannot survive without incurring more debt, or relying on public assistance. SB 501 will improve the ability of low-wage working families to meet their basic needs by remedying two problems with current wage garnishment law: 1) The disincentive for a worker facing a garnishment to earn more than the local minimum wage, and; 2) The unjustly high percentage of income taken from a worker's paycheck. High wage garnishment rates in California primarily impact low-wage workers, making it more difficult for them to pay for basic needs. Supporters of the bill contend that low-wage workers in California are those who are most negatively affected by wage garnishment rates in California, which they also believe are too high, considering California's high cost of living, and do not allow low-wage workers whose wages are being garnished to retain enough of their earnings to pay for essential needs and avoid slipping closer into poverty. They further contend that when the wages of low-wage workers are garnished at high rates, those workers often suffer more severe financial setbacks, including losing their assets and falling deeper into debt, often accruing additional debt to credit card companies or predatory lenders. Recent data reported by ADP, the largest payroll services provider in the nation, supports the author's contention that wage garnishment is used more often against blue-collar workers SB 501 Page 6 than high-earning white-collar workers. Based on anonymous payroll records for the previous three years in a sample size of 13 million employees, the ADP report found that the income level most likely to be subject to wage garnishment was between $25,000 and $40,000 per year. (ADP Research Institute, "Garnishment: The Untold Story," Sept. 2014.) As a result, contends Western Center, wage garnishment most often affects low-wage workers in households who can barely make ends meet. They write: For perspective of the wages earned by people whose wages are garnished, it is useful to compare these amounts to the California Poverty Measure (CPM). This measure, developed by Stanford University and the Public Policy Institute of California, factors in receipt of government assistance and typical costs faced by families, such as housing and child care, for the state. According to researchers, the CPM for the lowest cost county in the state is $29,500 for a family of four and the highest CPM is $37,400. This suggests that households are having their wage garnished at wages below the California Poverty Measure (emphasis added), that is, below the level at which Stanford researchers believe they are able to meet their basic needs and financial obligations. Wage garnishment formula in California creates a disincentive for additional earnings. Under existing state law, the maximum amount of earnings allowed to be garnished is the lesser of the following: (a) 25% of the individual's disposable earnings for that week, or (b) the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 40 times the state's minimum hourly wage in effect at the time when the earnings are payable. This maximum amount applies to most debts, but does not apply to withholdings to pay child support or tax orders, meaning a greater percentage of a garnishee's wages could be withheld to pay for child support orders and unpaid taxes. SB 501 Page 7 According to the author, the seemingly perverse result of this garnishment formula is that a worker who earns $10, $11, or $12 per hour ends up taking home only the state minimum wage of $9 per hour because the formula provides for garnishment of all income above the minimum to be garnished (up to approximately $12 per hour). This result creates a strong disincentive to earn additional income, contends the author, stating: "Low-income workers wish to honor and pay back their debts like everyone else, but a 100% taking on these earnings contributes to poverty among working families, putting life essentials-food, rent, utilities-out of reach and discouraging work." This disincentive still exists, the author notes, even when the worker lives in a community that has enacted a higher local minimum wage than the state, thus undermining local economic policy and priorities that establish higher minimum wages. Proposed revision to the garnishment formula seeks to help workers retain more earnings. This bill would revise the wage garnishment formula to reduce the maximum amount of wages subject to garnishment, allowing workers to retain more of their earnings and removing the disincentive to earn more than the minimum wage. Specifically, the bill would establish that the maximum amount allowed to be garnished is the lesser of the following: (a) 10% of the individual's disposable earnings for the week (a decrease from 25%), or (b) one third of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 40 times the state or local minimum hourly wage, whichever is greater (a 67% decrease from the applicable amount.) Under operation of the new formula, the earnings disincentive discussed above would be eliminated and any newly enacted local minimum wage would be taken into account in calculating applicable amounts under the formula. The bill is opposed by debt collectors, bankers, and the retailers association, among others, who have submitted a joint SB 501 Page 8 letter of opposition to the Committee. These opponents argue that the bill drastically reduces the ability of judgment creditors to recover on valid, court-issued judgment, and may result in harming the very debtors the bill is trying to protect. They note that California's existing wage garnishment rate of 25 percent is consistent with the federal government rate and the 25 percent rate in the majority of other states. Because more than 40 states allow for wage garnishment at a rate that is higher than the proposed 10 percent, opponents contend that this bill therefore makes California's garnishment rate at odds with the federal rate, and one of the lowest rates in the nation. In response, the author notes that California is the fifth most expensive state in which to live and is the location of four of the top ten most expensive cities in the United States. Furthermore, the author points out that more than half of the other states have greater protections for judgment debtors than provided under California law. According to the author, some other states provide varying exemptions from garnishment so that judgment debtors do not fall into greater debt when trying to sustain themselves and their families by paying for the judgment. For example, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina prohibit wage garnishment for all consumer debts, and the following states allow garnishment at rates lower than California: New York permits only 10 percent garnishment of gross earnings; Delaware, 15 percent; and Illinois, 15 percent. Like California, these latter states all have relatively high costs of living compared to other states in the nation. Extra fees and interest accrued as a result of more payments. Opponents contend that the bill will harm, rather that help, debtors because they will not be able to quickly resolve their obligations and will accrue higher administrative fees imposed by the county and additional interest because more payments would be necessary. They explain: SB 501 Page 9 Existing law authorizes counties to assess a $12 fee to judgment debtors for each disbursement under a writ of attachment, regardless of the amount. For wage-earners who are paid weekly, this fee could total $624 over the course of a year. Biweekly wage-earners would pay as much as $324 in 2015. By extending the term of the repayment, the bill increases the number of times a judgment debtor has to pay this fee. This is just another expense for judgment debtors that the bill creates. For example, on a $3,000 judgment balance, solely because of a prolonged wage garnishment period as proposed under SB 501, debtors earning $450 each week would pay $1,817 more in service fees and interest. That is 61 percent in extra fees and interest, caused solely by the extended garnishment period that the bill creates. In response, supporters note that this argument assumes that low-income workers who were financially able to pay off their debts more quickly would not choose to do so, and there is nothing in the bill that prevents or even discourages such persons from making higher or additional payments to reduce interest and fees. They state: A debtor can always choose to pay more if they can afford to, and so SB 501 gives low-income garnished workers more choices, not fewer. When a worker is not undermined by high wage garnishments, they are less likely to file for bankruptcy or to rely on high-cost and predatory payday lending entities. In the long run, preventing financial hardship for workers actually increases their likelihood of being able to pay off debt quicker and eventually exit the debt trap. Existing exemptions available to debtors. Opponents also SB 501 Page 10 contend that the bill is unnecessary because California debtors can already file a Claim of Exemption to reduce the amount withheld in a wage garnishment. They content that such claims for exemption are commonly granted under timelines ranging from 10 to 30 days, stating: Under California Code of Civil Procedure §706.105 (f), if the Claim of Exemption by the debtor is unopposed within 10 days, the sheriff stops withholding wages immediately or reduces the garnishment to the amount requested by the debtor. In practice, if the debtor appears to qualify for the Claim of Exemption, the creditor will not oppose. If the creditor opposes the Claim of Exemption and requests a hearing, under California Code of Civil Procedure §706.105 (e), the court must set a hearing on the Claim of Exemption within 30 days after the creditor's opposition was filed with the court unless the court continues the hearing for good cause. During this hearing process, no payments are sent to the creditor and they are instead held by the sheriff, so there is no financial incentive by the creditor to extend the timeline out to six to eight months. In addition, creditors are required to provide an employer with the Claim of Exemption and a financial statement form and the employer must provide these forms to the debtor within 10 days, thereby making it easy for the debtor to file the Claim of Exemption. In response, proponents counter that workers whose wages are subject to garnishment still experience serious financial hardships, notwithstanding the ability to file for a claim of exemption. Western Center writes: While it is true that workers can request a claim of exemption, the relief provided through this process is SB 501 Page 11 not immediate and the process is somewhat complicated. Not everyone has the resources or support to apply for the claim and the court forms are not language accessible. Legal services report not having the staff resources to support workers who need to file for a claim of exemption and frequently referring them to the court self-help centers. Previous Related Legislation. AB 1775 (Wieckowski), Chap. 474, Stats. 2012, increased the amount of a judgment debtor's weekly earnings that are exempt from wage garnishment from 30 times the federal minimum wage to 40 times the California minimum wage. AB 1388 (Wieckowski), Chap. 694, Stats. 2011, allowed the court to grant a judgment debtor's claim of exemption from wage garnishment in cases where the underlying debt was incurred for medical care or hospital services rendered to the judgment debtor or his or her family. AB 1321 (Wieckowski) of 2011 would have allowed a debtor to obtain a temporary stay on wage garnishment for the period between the filing of a claim of exemption and the hearing date for the court to enter judgment on the claim. That bill died in Assembly Appropriations. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-sponsor) SB 501 Page 12 East Bay Community Law Center (co-sponsor) American Civil Liberties Union Bay Area Legal Aid California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) California Labor Federation California Partnership California Reinvestment Coalition California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Consumer Federation of California Consumers Union Courage Campaign Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Law Offices of Antonio Gallo and Associates National Employment Law Project Public Law Center SEIU Unite Here Western Regional Advocacy Project Opposition California Association of Collectors California Bankers Association California Chamber of Commerce SB 501 Page 13 California Creditors Bar Association California Retailers Association DBA International Encore Capital Group PRA Group San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334