BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1015|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1015
Author: Leyva (D)
Introduced:2/11/16
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/6/16
AYES: Mendoza, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell
NOES: Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Domestic work employees: labor standards
SOURCE: California Domestic Workers Coalition
DIGEST: This bill deletes the January 1, 2017 repeal date on
the provisions under the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights which
requires the payment overtime compensation for domestic workers
after 9 hours in one day or after 45 hours a week, thereby
making the requirement permanent.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires, with some exceptions, including specified domestic
worker employees, employers to pay overtime compensation as
follows:
a) Work in excess of 8 hours in one workday or 40 hours in
any one workweek, and the first 8 hours worked on the 7th
day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the
SB 1015
Page 2
rate of no less than 1 times the regular rate of pay;
b) Work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be
compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular
rate of pay;
c) Work in excess of 8 hours on any 7th day of a workweek
shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the
regular rate of pay.
2)Provides, under the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, and until
a sunset date of January 1, 2017, a domestic work employee who
is employed as a personal attendant is entitled to overtime
compensation, as follows:
a) Work in excess of 9 hours in any workday or more than 45
hours in any workweek shall be compensated at the rate of 1
times the regular rate of pay.
3)Defines "domestic work employee" as an individual performing
domestic work and includes live-in employees and personal
attendants except, among others, the following:
a) A person performing services through the In-Home
Supportive Services program;
b) Specified family members and casual babysitters;
c) A person providing support services to the
developmentally disabled employed by a regional center or
the State Department of Developmental Services;
d) A person providing child care for someone receiving
services pursuant to programs authorized under the Child
Care and Development Services Act or the CA Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act.
4)Defines "personal attendant" as a person employed by a private
householder or by any third-party employer, to supervise,
feed, or dress a child, or a person who by reason of advanced
age, physical disability, or mental deficiency needs
supervision.
5)Requires the Governor to convene a committee composed of
personal attendants, employers of personal attendants or their
representatives to study and report to the Governor on the
effects of the domestic worker overtime requirements.
This bill deletes the January 1, 2017 repeal date on the
SB 1015
Page 3
provisions under the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, thereby
making the overtime compensation for domestic workers
requirement permanent.
Background
In 1938, the U.S. Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act
introducing the forty-hour work week and establishing minimum
wage and overtime protections for workers, with some exceptions
including domestic workers and farmworkers. In 1974, Congress
extended FLSA coverage to workers who perform domestic service.
"Domestic workers" or "household workers" are generally
comprised of housekeepers, nannies and caregivers of children
and others, including the disabled and elderly, who work in
private households to care for the health, safety and well-being
of those under their care. Until very recently, domestic
workers in California were excluded from the employer
requirement of overtime for hours worked beyond the state
minimum of 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week.
In 2012, through AB 889 (Ammiano), a grassroots effort began to
extend some of the most fundamental labor protections to
domestic workers. The measure directed the Department of
Industrial Relations to adopt regulations governing the working
conditions of domestic work employees. Among other things, the
bill required the regulations to include provisions for overtime
compensation, meal and rest periods and uninterrupted sleep
periods and compensation for interruptions. AB 889 was vetoed by
Governor Brown who stated, among other things, the following:
"Seeking to improve the circumstances of these workers
however, raises a number of unanswered questions.
What will be the economic and human impact on the disabled
or elderly person and their family of requiring overtime,
rest and meal periods for attendants who provide 24 hour
care? What would be the additional costs and what is the
financial capacity of those taking care of loved ones in the
last years of life? Will it increase costs to the point of
forcing people out of their homes and into licensed
institutions? Will there be fewer jobs for domestic
workers? Will the available jobs be for fewer hours? Will
they be less flexible?
SB 1015
Page 4
What will be the impact of the looming federal policies in
this area? How would the state actually enforce the new work
rules in the privacy of people's homes?
The bill calls for these questions to be studied by the
state Department of Industrial Relations and for the
department to simultaneously issue new regulations to
provide overtime, meal, rest break and sleep periods for
domestic workers. In the face of consequences both unknown
and unintended, I find it more prudent to do the studies
before considering an untested legal regime for those that
work in our homes."
In 2013, AB 241(Ammiano, Chapter 374, Statutes of 2013) was
introduced to again attempt to extend these labor protections to
domestic workers. The measure, which passed and was signed by
Governor Brown, enacted the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights which
extends overtime compensation rights to domestic workers who are
personal attendants after 9 hours of work in one day and 45
hours a week. The provisions of AB 241 are set to sunset on
January 1, 2017. A bill is necessary to either extend the sunset
date or repeal it, making the provisions permanent in law.
This bill would repeal the January 1, 2017 sunset date on these
provisions. The author and proponents believe that the law has
been successful and making the provisions permanent will improve
the domestic workers' ability to advocate for dignified
standards in their jobs.
Report on Overtime for Domestic Workers
A key component of AB 241(Ammiano) was a requirement that the
Governor convene a committee composed of personal attendants,
their employers and/or their representatives to study and report
to the Governor on the effects of the domestic worker overtime
requirements; however, the bill was not specific on a due by
date for such reporting. The Department of Industrial Relations
has been conducting surveys to study the impacts on both the
domestic workers and their employers. At this point, there is no
set date for the release of these findings. Reviewing the
findings of the DIR committee would be helpful in determining
whether a full repeal is adequate at this time.
The sponsors of this measure have conducted internal reviews and
SB 1015
Page 5
report the following:
1)More clarity on required compensation for live-in workers
working 24/7;
2)Move from shifts longer than 12 hours, instead hiring multiple
workers;
3)Some employers are delaying compliance to wait out the sunset
date.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 1344 (Stone, 2016) proposes to add a sleep time exemption
from hours worked for purposes of overtime compensation for
live-in employees or 24-hour shift workers. SB 1344 is currently
pending in the Senate Labor and Industrial Realtions Committee.
AB 241 (Ammiano, 2013) enacted the Domestic Worker Bill of
Rights granting overtime compensation, until January 1, 2017, to
specified domestic workers after 9 hours in one day and 45 hours
a week. AB 241 by signed by Governor Brown.
AB 889 (Ammiano, 2012) would have required the adoption of
regulations governing specified working conditions of domestic
workers. AB 889 was vetoed by Governor Brown.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified4/19/16)
California Domestic Workers Coalition (source)
Ability NOWBay Area
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121
American Friends Service Committee's US/Mexico Border Program
Anakbayan East Bay
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-California
Asian Health Services
Asian Immigrant Women Advocates
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
SB 1015
Page 6
Association of Filipino Workers
Bend the Arc
Binational Center for the Development of Oaxacan Indigenous
Communities
Black Alliance for Just Immigration
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Commission on Asian Pacific Islander American Affairs
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Faculty Association, San Francisco State Chapter
California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance
California In-Home Supportive Services Consumer Alliance
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Nurses Association
California Partnership
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
Central American Resource Center/Centro de Recursos
Centroamericanos
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Central Florida Jobs with Justice
Centro Cultural de Mexico
Centro Legal de la Raza
Centro Laboral de Graton
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Community Health for Asian Americans
Community Housing Partnerships
Council on American-Islamic Relations California
Day Labor Center Hayward, Oakland, Tri-City, Tri-Valley
Day Worker Center in Santa Cruz County
Day Worker Center of Mountain View
Dolores Street Community Services
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
East Bay Organizing Committee
El/La Para TransLatinas
Episcopal Church of St. John the Evangelist
Equal Rights Advocates
Filipino Advocates for Justice
Filipino Community Center
Filipino Migrant Center
Forward Together
SB 1015
Page 7
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
GABRIELA San Francisco
Gray Panthers of San Francisco
Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network
Home Green Home
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Institute of Popular Education of Southern California
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 6
Jobs with Justice San Francisco
KmB, Pro-People Youth
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
La Raza Centro Legal
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project
Movement Strategy Center
Mujeres Unidas Y Activas
National Domestic Workers Alliance
National Employment Law Project
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
North Bay Immigrant Youth Union
North Bay Jobs with Justice
Oceanic Coalition of Northern California
Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 3
Orange County Immigrant Youth United
Pilipino Association of Workers and IM/Immigrants - Silicon
Valley
Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California
PolicyLink
Pomona Economic Opportunity Center
Progressive Workers Alliance of San Francisco
PROSPERA Co-Ops: The Business of Empowerment
Public Counsel
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United-Los Angeles
Sailors Union of the Pacific
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Women against Rape
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition
Save Midtown Tenants Association
SEIU - United Service Workers West
SEIU California
Senior and Disability Action
SB 1015
Page 8
Services Immigrant Rights & Education Network
Swiss Cheese Childcare Cooperative
Temple Beth Hillel, North Hollywood
Temple Judea
The Full Rights, Equality, and Empowerment San Francisco
Coalition
The Greenlining Institute
The Kitchen San Francisco
The Women's Collective/La Colectiva de Mujeres
UNITE HERE!
United Domestic Workers of America - AFSCME LOCAL 3930/ AFL-CIO
United Educators of San Francisco
Voices for Progress
Wage Justice Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University
School of Law
WorkSafe
Young Workers United
PODER!
9 to 5 Los Angeles
5-individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified4/19/16)
AAA T.L.C. Health Care, Inc.
California Association for Health Services at Home
Care to Stay Home
Comfort Keepers
Disability Rights California
Innovative Healthcare Consultants
3-individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to proponents, in
California there are 300,000 domestic workers who serve as
housekeepers, nannies, and caregivers in private homes. Domestic
workers are primarily immigrant women who work in private
households enabling others to participate in the workforce.
However, despite the importance of their work, domestic workers
have historically received wages well below the poverty line and
were excluded from some of the most fundamental labor
SB 1015
Page 9
protections other California workers enjoy. According to
proponents of this measure, since the passage of the Domestic
Worker Bill of Rights, domestic workers have reported growth in
their confidence, with their work affirmed as legitimate work,
and an improved ability to advocate for dignified working
conditions. They argue that by making the law permanent, the
legislature will dignify this profession and ensure fair and
just standards for workers that will result in better care for
both the workers and the people they attend to.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents of the measure argue that
eliminating the sunset date on the overtime provisions are
premature as the impact study that was mandated by AB 241 has
not been released and the work continues to collect and analyze
all the data. Proponents further argue that AB 241 lumped
low-income people with disabilities, who rely on their
attendants for their survival and functioning, with wealthy
people who could do their own chores but have money enough to
hire somebody else to do them. They argue that the burdens are
not equal and the effects of the bill are not equal, as there
are people with disabilities who spend half their incomes paying
privately for their attendants, because their gross income does
not qualify them for government programs. They argue that the
claim that AB 241 has been a great success does not seem to be
supported by any data on its effect on people with disabilities.
According to the California Association for Health Services at
Home (CAHSAH), this study is especially important for seniors
who struggle to pay for home care, particularly if they require
24-hour live-in assistance. According to CAHSAH, they have heard
from home care providers, their caregivers, clients and family
members about the serious negative consequences that have
resulted from AB 241, including the following:
Families are faced with difficult decisions about how to
afford care and keep the continuity of care consistent.
Many seniors with dementia are experiencing the confusion of
having multiple caregivers in their home.
Caregivers have lost schedule flexibility.
Caregivers who were accustomed to living in the client's homes
lost their ability to live rent-free and have had their income
SB 1015
Page 10
significantly reduced.
Home care providers are having difficulty finding enough
caregivers.
Many seniors and frail individuals are being forced out of
their homes into residential care facilities.
Many agencies have cut back on the overtime by giving personal
attendants 8-hour shifts instead of 12-hour shifts.
Prepared by:Alma Perez-Schwab / L. & I.R. / (916) 651-1556
4/20/16 15:43:42
**** END ****