BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 548
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 548
(De León) - As Amended August 17, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes family child care providers to form, join
and participate in "provider organizations" for purposes of
negotiating with state agencies. Specifically, this bill:
SB 548
Page 2
1)Extends the state action antitrust exemption to the activities
of family child care providers and their representatives.
This bill also states, however, that the status of family
child care providers as independent business owners does not
change, nor does this bill classify family child care
providers as public employees.
2)Creates a right for family child care providers to form
provider organizations. Child care providers would retain the
right to join or not join such an organization.
3)Requires that, within ten days of receipt of a request from a
provider organization, the State Department of Social Services
(DSS) must make available to that provider organization
information regarding licensed family child care providers,
including each provider's contact information.
4)Requires that, within 30 days of receipt of a request from a
provider organization, the California Department of Education
(CDE), with the assistance of the relevant organization, must
collect information regarding family child care providers,
including each provider's contact information. The provider
organization must bear the reasonable costs of collecting the
information. Further requires, upon written request of a
family child care provider, the CDE and the DSS to remove the
provider's home address and telephone number from the
above-described lists.
5)Provides that a unit of provider organizations may choose to
designate the provider organization that will be required to
be the exclusive representative for negotiations with the
state. In order for a unit of provider organizations to be
considered appropriate, the unit must be statewide and include
all family child care providers.
SB 548
Page 3
6)Requires the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to
conduct an election to certify the provider organization as
the exclusive bargaining representative. PERB is also
required to receive and act upon challenges, petitions for
unit certification, and other representation issues. The
provider organization must pay the reasonable costs of
verifying this showing of interest. PERB is authorized to
contract with a neutral third party to conduct all necessary
elections and other representation requests.
7)Authorizes no more than one bargaining unit at any time. A
certified provider organization may file a request with the
PERB for an election to add providers to an existing unit.
8)Specifies that the child care organization will represent all
child care providers in negotiations with the Governor and
state agencies on issues that fall within the child care
provider organization's scope of representation.
9)Requires that the Governor, through the Department of
Personnel Administration, in consultation with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), other state
agencies that administer state-funded child care programs, and
their contractors, to meet and confer in good faith regarding
all matters within the scope of representation with
representatives of a certified provider organization.
10) Requires, if an agreement is reached between the
Governor, through the Department of Personnel Administration,
and the certified provider organization, preparation of a
joint memorandum of understanding (MOU).
SB 548
Page 4
11) Prohibits the child care provider organization from
directing or calling a strike. The bill would also allow for
disputes to be submitted to the California State Mediation and
Conciliation Service for mediation.
12) Requires, if a family child care provider
organization is certified, the state and the certified
provider organization to establish a training partnership
consisting of a Joint Partnership on Child Care Training,
Education, and Quality Improvement. The membership of the
Joint Partnership is to include representatives of the
certified provider organization and designees of the Governor.
13) Requires the joint partnership to identify gaps in
the training available to family child care providers and
barriers that prevent family child care providers from gaining
greater skills and accessing postsecondary education, and
issue recommendations on an annual basis to improve the
quality of care offered by licensed and licensed-exempt family
child care providers.
14) Specifies Legislative intent that the
recommendations of the partnership be funded by contributions
agreed to for that purpose in the MOU between the provider
organization and the Governor.
15) Requires the Governor or designee to conduct a study
of best practices for engaging families in their children's
early care and education in family child care settings, and of
federal and other funding that could support parental
engagement efforts without reducing the availability and
affordability of child care. Requires the Governor or
designee to report to the Legislature and Department of
Finance, by January 1, 2017, with the findings and a proposed
framework of priorities in which to invest.
SB 548
Page 5
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of
millions, to the extent collective bargaining leads to
increased salary and benefits and better working conditions
for providers, which will lead to higher child care costs.
2)Ongoing General Fund administrative costs to the Public
Employee Relations Board (PERB), in the range of $450,000, to
process regulations and adjudicate increased unfair practice
caseload. Costs are based on the estimate that 85,000
providers will be added to PERB's current jurisdiction of over
2.2 million public employees. PERB will also need to expend
staff resources to determine the appropriate bargaining unit
for family child care workers. This bill specifically
provides that the election costs relative to this process will
be reimbursed by participating provider organizations.
3)Ongoing General Fund administrative costs to CalHR,
potentially in the range of $1 million, for workload related
to negotiating and administering a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the certified provider organization. CalHR
workload includes litigation of unfair labor practices before
the PERB, arbitrations over MOU disputes, and lawsuits over
alleged wage and hour violations. Potentially significant
costs would result if the provider organization and the state
are unable to reach future agreements in any area within the
scope of representation.
4)Onetime General Fund administrative costs to the CDE of
approximately $106,000 and ongoing costs of approximately
$57,000 to collect information from providers. CDE does not
currently maintain a list of family child care providers. The
SB 548
Page 6
CDE would need to compile the information from Alternative
Payment Providers and maintain information in a database.
5)General Fund cost pressure, likely in the low hundreds of
thousands, for staffing of the Partnership on Child Care
Training, Education and Quality Improvement. The bill
expresses the intent of the Legislature that recommendations
made by the partnership are funded with contributions agreed
to in an MOU between the provider organization and the
Governor.
6)General Fund costs in the low hundreds of thousands for the
Governor or his designee to perform the best practices study
for engaging families which would increase costs to an
unspecified department. Additional cost pressure to implement
identified best practices.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, low income children have
uneven access to quality child care. Given low reimbursement
rates and a fragmented system, there is also extremely high
turnover among providers. One of the primary work-related
costs that providers struggle to afford is higher education
and training to increase their knowledge of child development
and stay current on the latest theory and practice of early
education and care.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California
and American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) are sponsoring this bill in response to
California's fragmented child care system, where standards
vary greatly and turnover is high. According to the sponsors,
approximately 40% of providers leave the profession each year.
SB 548
Page 7
The sponsors believe that allowing childcare providers to
organize will create a more stable workforce and allow family
child care providers to join together on matters that affect
their profession.
2)Previous legislation.
a) AB 641 (Rendon, 2013) authorized family child care
providers to form, join, participate in, and to seek the
certification of, a provider organization to act as their
exclusive representative on matters related to child care
subsidy programs. AB 641 was held on the Senate Floor.
b) AB 2573 (Furutani), 2012, was similar to this measure.
This measure passed out of Assembly Labor and Employment
Committee with a 5-2 vote. The author, however, did not
set the bill for hearing in this committee.
c) AB 101 (J. Perez), similar to this measure, was vetoed
by Gov. Brown in October 2011, with the following message:
"Maintaining the quality and affordability of childcare is
a very important goal. So too is making sure that working
conditions are decent and fair for those who take care of
our children. Balancing these objectives, however, as this
bill attempts to do, is not easy or free from dispute.
Today California, like the nation itself, is facing huge
budget challenges. Given that reality, I am reluctant to
embark on a program of this magnitude and potential cost."
d) SB 867 (Cedillo), similar to this measure, was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger in March 2008, with the following
message: "Given California's significant budget challenge,
I cannot consider bills that would add significant fiscal
pressures to the State's structural budget deficit."'
SB 548
Page 8
e) AB 1164 (De Leon), similar to SB 867 (Cedillo), was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in October 2007.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081