BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 878 Hearing Date: April 13,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leyva |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 15, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Alma Perez-Schwab |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Work hours: scheduling
KEY ISSUES
Should the Legislature require restaurants, grocery and retail
store establishments to provide a 21 day work schedule listing
all shifts for all employees at least seven days prior to the
first shift on that work schedule?
Should the Legislature require employers to pay modification pay
for schedule shift changes with less than seven days' notice?
Should the Labor Commissioner be authorized to order appropriate
relief to aggrieved employees that include reinstatement,
backpay, the payment of modification pay withheld, and the
payment of an additional sum up to $4,000 in the form of an
administrative penalty?
Should aggrieved employees be able to bring a civil action
against an employer for schedule shift change violations and be
entitled to collect legal or equitable relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs?
ANALYSIS
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 2
of ?
Existing law:
1) Defines a full workday as 8 hours of labor, and 40 hours
as a workweek. Overtime wage rates must be paid for any
time worked beyond these hours at one and one-half times an
employee's regular rate of pay. Furthermore, work performed
beyond 12 hours in a day is to be compensated at twice the
regular rate of pay (Labor Code §510)
2) Authorizes an employer to approve a written request of
an employee to "make up" work time that is lost as a result
of a personal obligation of the employee, and the hours of
that makeup work time performed in the same week may not be
counted towards computing the total number of hours worked,
therefore allowing the employee to work over 8 hours a day
without the obligation of overtime compensation, as
specified. (Labor Code §513)
3) Failure to pay an employee all premium pay required by
the Labor Code and Wage Orders, such as overtime premium,
reporting time pay, meal period/rest period premium, and
split shift premium pay, may entitle an employee to waiting
time penalties.
Existing Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders regarding
"reporting" to work pay :
1) Provides that when an employee reports to work at his or
her regularly scheduled time, but the employer finds it
necessary to send the employee home because there is no
work, the employee must be paid for at least half of the
hours scheduled to work, but in no case, less than 2 hours
nor more than 4 hours at the employee's regular rate of
pay.
2) If an employee reports for work a second time in any one
workday and is furnished less than 2 hours of work, the
employee shall be paid for 2 hours at the employee's
regular rate of pay. These reporting pay requirements do
not apply when:
o work is interrupted due to an Act of God or
other cause not within the employer's control;
o operations of the employer's business cannot
commence or continue due to threats to employees or
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 3
of ?
property or upon advice of civil authorities; or
o public utilities fail.
Existing regulations regarding "on call" and "stand by" time :
1) Requires employers to pay the wages of hourly employees
for all time that the employee is under the control of the
employer, and includes all the time the employee is
suffered or permitted to work, with some exceptions for the
health care industry.
2) On-call or standby time at the work site is considered
hours worked for which the employee must be compensated
even if the employee does nothing but wait for something to
happen. Whether on-call or standby time off the work site
is considered compensable must be determined by looking at
the restrictions placed on the employee.
(Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of
Industrial Relations)
This Bill would enact the Reliable Scheduling Act of 2016 to
provide predictable work schedules to covered employees, as
specified, in addition to other requirements.
Specifically, this bill would:
1) Require employers of a restaurant, grocery or retail
store establishment to provide a work schedule listing all
shifts for all employees for at least 21 consecutive days
at least seven days prior to the first shift on that work
schedule.
2) Define "grocery store establishment" as a physical store
within the state that sells primarily household foodstuffs
for offsite consumption, including, but not limited to, the
sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products,
dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, and
baked or prepared foods.
3) Define "restaurant" as any retail establishment serving
food or beverages for onsite consumption, including, but
not limited to, a restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, or
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 4
of ?
café.
4) Define "retail store establishment" as a physical store
within the state with more than 50 percent of its revenue
generated from merchandise subject to the state's sales and
use tax, including, but not limited to, electronics,
appliances, clothing, furniture, sporting goods, health and
personal products, or a limited line of food products for
onsite consumption.
5) Define "shift" as designated hours or work, with a
designated beginning and ending time.
6) Define "modification pay," to be calculated based on an
employee's hourly wages as specified, as compensation in
addition to an employee's regular pay awarded for changes
to an employee's work schedule with less than seven days'
notice.
7) Require modification pay to be calculated based on an
employee's hourly wage by dividing the employee's total
wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the
employee's total hours worked in the full pay periods of
the prior 90 days of work.
8) Require an employer to provide modification pay, per
shift, for each previously scheduled shift that the
employer cancels or moves to another date or time or for
any previously unscheduled shift that the employer requires
an employee to work as follows:
i. If less than 7 days' notice but more than 24
hours: modification pay equal to or greater than one
hour at the employee's regular rate of pay.
ii. If less than 24 hours' notice: modification
pay equal to or greater than half of that shift's
scheduled hours at the employee's regular rate of pay,
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 5
of ?
but in no event less than two hours nor more than four
hours.
iii. Modification pay required shall be in addition
to an employee's regular pay for working that shift.
9) Specify that for each on-call shift for which an
employee is required to be available but is not called in
to work, the employer must pay modification pay equal to or
greater than half of that shift's scheduled hours at the
employee's regular rate of pay.
10) Authorize employers to create separate work schedules
for each department as long as all hours have a designated
beginning and ending time.
11) Specify that these provisions do not prohibit an
employer from providing greater advance notice of an
employee's work schedule or changes in an employee's work
schedule.
12) Specify that these provisions shall not prohibit an
employee from requesting additional or fewer hours of work.
13) Specify that modification pay shall not apply to changes
in the scheduling of rest periods, recovery periods, or
meal periods.
14) Specify that modification pay does not apply for shifts
for which an employee is compensated with reporting time
pay as required by any wage order.
15) Provide that the modification pay requirements do not
apply, and an employer shall not be deemed to have violated
these requirements, under any of the following:
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 6
of ?
i. Operations cannot begin or continue due to
threats to employees or property, or when civil
authorities recommend that work not begin or continue.
ii. Operations cannot begin or continue because
public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or
gas or there is a failure in the public utilities or
sewer system.
iii. Operations cannot begin or continue due to an
act of God or other cause not within the employer's
control, including, but not limited to, an earthquake
or a state of emergency declared by a local government
or the Governor.
iv. Another employee previously scheduled to work
that shift is unable to work due to illness, vacation,
or employer-provided paid or unpaid time off required
by existing law or bona fide collective bargaining
agreement when the employer did not receive at least
seven days' notice of the other employee's absence.
v. Another employee previously scheduled to work
that shift has not reported to work on time, is fired,
sent home as a disciplinary action, or told to stay at
home as a disciplinary action.
vi. Two employees have mutually agreed to trade
shifts.
vii. The employer requires the employee to work
overtime.
16) Require employers to display a poster in a conspicuous
place in each workplace that contains information regarding
modification pay, as well as information regarding an
employee's right to file a complaint with the Labor
Commissioner for retaliation or discrimination claims.
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 7
of ?
17) Specify that failure by an employer to display the above
referenced poster shall subject the employer to a civil
penalty of not more than $100 for each offense.
18) Require employers to keep records documenting the hours
worked and modification pay awarded to each employee for at
least three years, as well as allow employees and the Labor
Commissioner access to these records as required by current
law.
19) Prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to
discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate
against an employee for filing a complaint or alleging a
violation of these provisions, cooperating in an
investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation, or
opposing any policy, practice or act that is prohibited by
law.
20) Provide that there shall be a rebuttable presumption of
unlawful retaliation if an employer discharges, threatens
to discharge, demotes, suspends, or in any manner
discriminates against an employee within 30 days of the
above referenced protected activity.
21) Require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these
provisions, including investigating an alleged violation
and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the
violation or to maintain the status quo, pending the
completion of a full investigation or hearing.
22) Authorize the Labor Commissioner, if a violation has
occurred, to order any appropriate relief to the employee,
including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Reinstatement, backpay, the payment of
modification pay unlawfully withheld, and the payment
of an additional sum in the form of an administrative
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 8
of ?
penalty.
ii. If modification pay was unlawfully withheld,
the dollar amount of modification pay withheld
multiplied by three or two hundred fifty dollars
($250), whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed
an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars
($4,000), shall be included in the administrative
penalty.
iii. If a violation of this section results in
other harm to the employee or person, such as
discharge from employment, the administrative penalty
shall include a sum of fifty dollars ($50) for each
day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or
continued, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four
thousand dollars ($4,000).
iv. If no prompt employer compliance, the Labor
Commissioner can take any appropriate enforcement
action including the filing of a civil action and in
compensation to the state for the costs of
investigating and remedying the violation, the
commissioner may order the employer to pay the state
$50 for each day a violation occurs or continues for
each employee.
23) Encourage employee reporting of violations by requiring
the Labor Commissioner to keep confidential, to the maximum
extent permitted, the name and other identifying
information of the employee or person reporting the
violation, as specified.
24) Authorize the Labor Commissioner, the Attorney General,
an aggrieved employee or his/her representing entity to
bring a civil action against the employer and upon
prevailing, the employee is entitled to collect legal or
equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the
violation as well as the previously described remedies and
penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 9
of ?
25) Provide that in an administrative or civil action
brought, the Labor Commissioner or court, as the case may
be, shall award interest on all amounts due and unpaid at
the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of
Section 3289 of the Civil Code.
26) Provide that the remedies, penalties, and procedures
provided are cumulative.
27) Specify that the Labor Commissioner may promulgate all
regulations and rules of practice and procedures necessary
to carry out the provisions of this bill.
28) Specify that a violation of these provisions shall not
be a misdemeanor.
COMMENTS
1. Background on "Unstable and Unpredictable" Work Schedules:
A 2014 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy, Retail
Action Project and Women Employed, titled "Tackling Unstable
and Unpredictable Work Schedules," states that unpredictable
and unstable work scheduled leave many low-wage workers in a
constant state of economic instability and personal turmoil.
Unfortunately, for a growing number of employers, these
scheduling practices are becoming business as usual. The
report describes the extent and scope of the problem as
follows:
"With the rise of what is sometimes called "just-in-time
scheduling," managers are expected to carefully control the
relationship between consumer demand and expenditures on
wages. If customer traffic or sales seem to be lagging on a
given day, the expectation is that immediate changes to
workers' hours should ensue. Just-in-time scheduling
practices are part of larger trends in business practices -
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 10
of ?
trends that are increasingly accepted as the norm in
hourly-wage, service sector industries. These practices
disproportionately affect low-income workers, who are
already vulnerable financially. Just-in-time scheduling
contributes to workers' income instability, making it
difficult to make ends meet; it may threaten their
eligibility for government income supports; and because
workers may not always be scheduled for enough hours to
qualify, it may limit their eligibility to claim
firm-provided benefits like health insurance and sick days.
In their rush to cut costs, many corporations are adopting
business practices that seriously compromise workers'
well-being.
While workers feel pressure on their pocketbooks and strain
on their home lives, front-line managers are being
pressured too. In the retail industry, managers are often
evaluated on whether they meet targets for payroll as a
percentage of sales. With minimal control over sales,
managers move quickly to decrease staffing levels when
sales go down. In a study of low-level, non-production jobs
at major US corporations in the retail, transportation,
hospitality, and financial services industries, researchers
found that managers at all firms experienced pressure and
responded by "scheduling to demand." Across industries,
employers have adopted labor strategies that "shift risk
from the corporation onto workers, bringing with it
instability in hours and income." For example, one study
found that restaurant workers could be scheduled with a
start time but no end time. Workers were instead scheduled
as "12 BD." This means that a worker would arrive at work
at noon and then leave when "business declined" or BD. That
could be anytime and at the discretion of the management.
Employers now also have technological tools to help
manipulate workers' schedules in response to changes in
demand. Recent news reports indicate an increasingly
widespread use of software created by such companies as
Kronos Inc. and Dayforce to "optimize schedules" by
breaking them down into small increments of time and by
tracking factors such as sales and (as in the case of Jamba
Juice) weather patterns. In other words, the software
creates schedules that cut costs, but are highly
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 11
of ?
unpredictable for workers."
2. Statistics on Unpredictable Work Schedules:
Several reports as well as worker advocacy groups have drawn
attention to the impacts of unpredictable scheduling practices
on workers and their families in the last several years. A
2014 University of Chicago report, titled "Precarious Work
Schedules among Early-Career Employees in the US: A National
Snapshot," presented an overview of work schedules among a
representative sample of early-career adults (ages 26-32) in
the United States and found that short notice (one week or
less in advance of the workweek) was widespread.
Specifically, the report revealed the following based on data
provided by the National Opinion Research Center under the
direction of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
i. 41% of early career workers in hourly jobs (47% of
part-time workers) report they know "when they will need
to work" one week or less in advance of the workweek.
ii. 3/4 of early-career adults in hourly jobs report at
least some fluctuations in the number of hours they
worked in the prior month and on average, hours fluctuate
by more than a full, conventional 8-hour day of work and
pay.
iii. 90% of food and service workers report that their
hours fluctuated in the last month by, on average, 68%
when compared to their usual hours.
iv. Half of the retail workers reported that they know
their work schedule one week or less in advance, and half
of janitors and housekeepers report that their employers
completely control the timing of their work.
v. Respondents with a child 12 or younger (44% of the
sample), 69 percent of mothers and 80 percent of fathers
report that their hours fluctuated in the prior month by
an average of approximately 40 percent when compared to
their usual hours.
vi. For many, fluctuations in work hours are driven by
the requirements of their employer rather than personal
preferences: half of fathers and 45 percent of mothers
report that their employer decides their schedule without
their input.
According to the report, the findings suggest that early
career workers across the labor market, but especially workers
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 12
of ?
paid by the hour, of color, and in part-time jobs, are at high
risk of all three of these dimensions of precarious work
schedules: short advance notice, large fluctuations in work
hours, and little or no input into the timing of work. The
report states that legislation that establishes a broad set of
standards on scheduling practices is needed to ensure the
well-being of all workers and families and a level playing
field for employers.
3. Need for this bill?
As depicted in the findings above, workers with unstable work
schedules face many challenges including adverse health
effects, difficulty finding and keeping childcare,
transportation obstacles, trouble going back to school to
advance their education, and experience overall stress and
strain on family life. According to the author, unpredictable
scheduling practices and last-minute work schedule changes
cause workers who are already struggling with low wages to
live in a constant state of insecurity about when they will
work or how much they will be paid on any given day. To
address these problems and attempt to provide workers with a
more stable work life, this bill would enact the Reliable
Scheduling Act of 2016 to require employers of a restaurant,
grocery or retail store establishment to provide a work
schedule listing all shifts for all employees for at least 21
consecutive days at least seven days prior to the first shift
on that work schedule.
4. San Francisco Ordinance :
In December 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
passed the "Retail Workers Bill of Rights," which included two
ordinances regulating hours, retention, and scheduling, and
treatment of part-time employees at some Formula Retail
Establishments. On January 29, 2016, the San Francisco Office
of Labor Standards Enforcement issued final rules for the
ordinances which took effect March 1, 2016.
The ordinances, which apply to formula retail establishments
with at least 40 locations worldwide and 20 or more employees
in San Francisco as well as their janitorial and security
contractors, included a component regarding predictive
scheduling that required, among other things, the following:
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 13
of ?
i. Initial Estimate of Work Schedule - employers
provide new employees with written estimate of the
employee's expected minimum number of scheduled shifts
per month and the days and hours of those shifts.
ii. Two Week's Notice of Work Schedules - Schedules
may be posted in the workplace or provided
electronically.
iii. Predictability Pay for Schedule Changes - Changes
to an employee's schedule with less than seven days'
notice requires 1 to 4 hours of pay at the employee's
regular hourly rate (depending on the amount of notice
and the length of the shift).
iv. Pay for on Call Shifts - For "on-call" employees
not called in to work, the employer must pay 2 to 4
hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate.
v. Exceptions - Employers do not have to provide
"predictability pay" or payment for on-call shifts for
specified circumstances outside of the employer's
control, including the exceptions delineated under the
provisions of this bill.
5. AB 357(Chiu) - Fair Scheduling Act of 2015 :
Last year, Assembly member Chiu introduced AB 327 which would
have enacted the Fair Scheduling Act of 2015 to require a
"food and general retail establishment" to provide its
employees with at least two weeks' notice of their work
schedules. The bill applied to food and retail establishments
with 500 or more employees in the state and that has 10 or
more retail stores located in the United States. Among other
things, the bill included a requirement that employers pay
employees additional pay, as specified, for scheduled shift
changes and for each on-call shift for which the employee is
required to be available but is not called in to work. The
bill included a provision allowing an employee to be absent
from work without pay for up to 8 hours twice per year to
attend required health appointments. AB327 was never taken up
for an Assembly Floor vote and died on the inactive file.
6. Proponent Arguments :
According to proponents, in recent years, countless employers
in retail and food service have abandoned the traditional
weekly work schedule and forced workers to accept a policy
known as "just in time" scheduling. This practice, often
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 14
of ?
driven by software programs that closely monitor sales and
customer traffic, schedules workers on a day by day basis
without regular hours or advance notice of changes, the day
suddenly ends when management or the computer program say so.
They argue that if the worker wants to stay employed, he or
she must always be ready to drop what they are doing and go to
work at a moment's notice. Further, they argue that even
workers that received a written schedule often find that the
schedule changes frequently with little, if any, warning.
Proponents argue that for these workers and their families,
this practice goes beyond mere inconvenience.
According to the author, without reliable schedules, working
families are more likely to use public benefit programs, more
vulnerable to experience hardships and less likely to climb
into the middle class. Erratic schedules have severe effects
on workers' lives, and on their families' wellbeing.
Proponents note that child care or elder care cannot be
planned without knowing when or for how long work will last,
and ongoing education or a second job is out of the question
for those who spend virtually all waking hours on call.
Additionally, proponents argue that jobs that send workers
home at any second also create devastating financial
instability, especially considering that such jobs are
typically at or just above minimum wage.
Proponents argue that this bill would create certainty for
workers and employers alike by giving employees adequate
advance notice of their schedule so they may better plan their
lives. This bill will guarantee workers one week's notice of
their schedules and also give workers additional pay when
planned shifts are changed. Proponents argue that not only
would this protect employer flexibility, it would also send a
message to workers that their lives outside of work are
valued. With one week's notice, workers can plan child care,
elder care, health care appointments, adult education, or
countless other activities. They state that a life outside of
work should not be a luxury that only management can afford.
Additionally, proponents argue that this important proposal
would make California one of the first states in the nation to
recognize the importance of reliable schedules for workers
while also meeting the day-to-day needs of businesses.
Further, they state that this bill does not in any way
prohibit an employer from making last minute schedule changes;
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 15
of ?
it simply requires that the workers be paid slightly more when
such changes occur.
7. Opponent Arguments :
According to a coalition of employer opposition, this bill
will eliminate flexibility in the workplace for both employers
and employees, deny employees the opportunity to work
additional hours if desired, limit employers' ability to
accommodate customer demands, and subject employers to
unnecessary layers of penalties, investigative actions, and
costly litigation. Among other things, opponents state the
following:
SB 878 Is Significantly Broader than the San Francisco
Ordinance, Which Has Created Limited Flexibility for
Businesses and Employees: They argue that since going into
effect, numerous employers in San Francisco have refused to
make changes to a schedule once posted given the threat of
penalties, which has harmed employees' request for changes.
Moreover, employers who have last minute fluctuations in
customer demand due to unforeseen events simply work
short-staffed, rather than face financial penalties. These
consequences, they argue, do not benefit the employee,
employer or consumer. Additionally, they argue that this bill
is significantly broader as it is applicable to any
restaurant, grocery store or retail establishment, regardless
of the number of employees and basically requires a 28-day
notice of an employee's schedule which will destroy
flexibility for employers.
SB 878's Threat of Modification Pay and Numerous Avenues of
Enforcement, Penalties and Investigation for Schedule Changes
Will Absolutely Eliminate Flexibility in the Workplace and the
Ability for Employees to Earn More Wages: Opponents argue that
employers will be wary to make any changes to an employee's
schedule in order to avoid the potential for modification pay.
They argue that this bill threatens an employer for failure to
properly provide "modification pay" with the following: (1) a
$4,000 penalty for failing to accurately provide "modification
pay"; (2) another $4,000 penalty for any harm that results to
the employee or "another person" from a violation of this law;
(3) a $50 per day penalty for failure to "promptly comply"
with the Labor Commissioner's order; (4) investigation by the
Labor Commissioner; (5) prosecution by the Attorney General;
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 16
of ?
(6) a representative action by an employee with penalties of
$100 per employee per pay period and attorney's fees; and (6)
an unfair competition claim. They argue that with all these
potential consequences at risk, an employer will never change
an employee schedule, even if it appears the change falls
within one of the listed exceptions or the employee actually
volunteers and requests the change/additional hours of work.
The risk to the employer for a mistake is simply too great.
SB 878 Is Applicable to Both Large and Small Employers, as
Well as Those Who Do Not Primarily Engage in Selling
Merchandise or Food: They argue that even large employers who
have more sophisticated scheduling software and technology
face challenges with regard to advance scheduling and
accommodating schedule changes. A small employer with limited
resources will not be able to manage the 21-day "work
schedule" that must be given to employees at least 7 days in
advance of their first shift, or the nuances with regard to
when "modification pay" applies. Moreover, they argue that it
is unclear which employees are covered with regard to an
employer who may have hybrid operations. For example, would
an employer in the technology industry that has an on-site
cafeteria be required to comply with this scheduling
requirement for the entire workforce? Will the hotel that has
a gift shop, restaurant or bar located on its premises be
forced to comply for all employees? They argue that given the
broad definition, as well as the statutory scheme of
penalties, litigation and enforcement, employers who are not
primarily engaged in selling merchandise or food will be
forced into the overwhelming provisions of this mandate.
SB 878 Mandates a One-Size-Fits-All Advance Schedule
Requirement: First, they argue that this bill fails to take
into consideration the varying business models, while some may
have predictability in their business cycle, others simply
cannot. Second, this mandate will force an employee to predict
their own schedule more than 30 days in advance in order to
provide their availability to an employer to create a 28-day
notice schedule. They note that as employers have experienced
in SF with a 14-day notice schedule, many employees simply
cannot commit to shifts so far in advance, and end up
frustrated with the schedule they receive that the employer
cannot or will not change due to the threat of financial
penalties.
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 17
of ?
SB 878 Limits an Employer's Ability to Respond to Customer
Needs: The retail and food environment is entirely dependent
upon customer demand. They argue that while larger employers
may be able to forecast labor needs based upon prior year
sales, such software cannot predict every event. Weather,
community events and employee changes all impact the ability
to accurately schedule employees. They argue that this bill
threatens employers with "modification pay" for responding to
unpredictable events.
SB 878 Forces an Employer to Provide "Modification Pay" to an
On-Call Employee Who Is Already Being Compensated: "On-call
time" and "stand-by time" during which an employee may be
called into work and therefore restricting or limiting what he
or she can do is already compensable under law. Just last
year, in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th
833 (2015), the Supreme Court stated that, regardless of
whether an employee could perform personal activities while
on-call, the employer's control over that time to call-in the
employee to work required the employer to provide the employee
with compensation. They argue that with this bill, an employer
will be forced to not only compensate the employee for the
on-call time, even when the employee did not get called in,
but also pay "modification pay" of up to half of the
employee's shift.
SB 878 Creates Numerous, Costly Avenues of Litigation: They
argue that even if the employer pays the "modification pay"
for changes to the employees' schedule, the employer could
still be subject to significant penalties and attorney's fees
under PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) litigation. In
addition, they argue that an employee could also threaten an
unfair competition claim, as well as a common law wrongful
termination claim. Additionally, an employer would also face
investigations and enforcement actions by the Labor
Commissioner, as well as the Attorney General, for failure to
properly provide "modification pay," thereby exposing the
employer to numerous threats of litigation and exposure for
simply changing a schedule due to the employee's request.
SB 878 Eliminates a Key Benefit to Working in the Retail and
Food Industries: Opponents argue that flexibility is one of
the main reasons employees choose to work in the retail and
food industries. Currently, employees can request schedule
changes, trade shifts with other employees, work part-time,
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 18
of ?
leave work early to attend to personal needs, etc. This
flexibility is favorable for students, employees who are
caretakers, and those who only want part-time work. This
flexibility will essentially be eliminated by the mandates in
this bill.
Lastly, the California Restaurant Association argues that the
mandates in this bill will make it particularly challenging
given that many factors, beyond the control of restaurant
operators, can have significant impacts on operations on any
given day. For example, weather, large party reservation
either added or canceled, both require substantial adjustments
to staffing.
SUPPORT
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (Sponsor)
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Engineer & Scientist of California, Local 20, IFPTE Local 20,
AFL-CIO
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Professional & Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, AFL-CIO
UNITE HERE, AFL-CIO
Utilities Workers Union of America, Local 132, AFL-CIO
Voices for Progress
OPPOSITION
Agricultural Council of California
California Ambulance Association
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Assisted Living Association
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Chamber of Commerce
California Employment Law Council
California Gaming Association
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Oil Marketers Association - CIOMA
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 19
of ?
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California New Car Dealers Association
California Retailors Association
California Restaurant Association
California Ski Industry Association
California State Council of the Society of Human Resource
Management
California Travel Association
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Chambers of Commerce Alliance Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Civil Justice Association of California
Computing Technology Industry Association - CompTIA
Corona Chamber of Commerce
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
El Centro Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce
Gilroy Chamber of Commerce
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
International Franchise Association
Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce
Montclair Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
North Orange County Chamber
Orange County Business Council
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau
Retail Industry Leaders Association
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitor & Convention
Bureau
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Chamber of the Santa Barbara Region
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
United Chambers of Commerce San Fernando Valley & Region
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Wine Institute
-- END --
SB 878 (Leyva) Page 20
of ?