BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2850|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2850
Author: Ridley-Thomas (D), et al
Amended: 4/27/04 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & IND. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-3, 6/9/04
AYES: Alarcon, Dunn, Figueroa, Kuehl, Romero
NOES: Oller, Margett, McClintock
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-33, 5/17/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Employment: displaced private security
officers
SOURCE : Service Employees International Union
DIGEST : This bill establishes continued employment of
private security officers for 90 days at a job site
following the termination of a contract for private
security services.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides a framework for the
enforcement of labor laws relating to, among other things,
the proper payment of wages, daily overtime, working
conditions, and specific occupational registration. Also,
the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, permits janitors to
keep their jobs with a successor maintenance contractor up
to 60 days when their employer of 25 or more employees has
lost a janitorial contract.
CONTINUED
AB 2850
Page
2
This bill would enact the Private Security Service
Assurance Act, requiring successor private security
contractors (or subcontractors), entering into contractual
agreements on or after January 1, 2005, to retain for 90
days licensed security employees of the previous employer
performing private security services who were employed for
at least four months. Also:
1. Predecessor contractors would have to provide basic
employment data to the successor contractor within three
working days.
2. Successor contractors would not be required to pay the
same wages or benefits provided by the prior contractor.
3. Requires at the end of the 90-day transition, a
successor contractor provide a written performance
evaluation to each employee retained, and to offer
continued employment to those whose performance is
deemed satisfactory.
4. Contractors could exercise their authority to fire for
cause and, after the 90-day period, would be able to
terminate at will.
5. If economic layoffs must occur, employees would be
retained by classification seniority.
Enforcement would be by a right of private court action by
affected employees. If security officers are not offered
temporary employment, they would be able to sue for back
wages and benefit payments due. Property owners and
awarding bodies are specifically exempted from liability.
Local governmental agencies would be able to impose more
strict standards.
Prior legislation
This bill is modeled after SB 20 (Alarcon), Chapter 795,
Statutes of 2001, which applies to the janitorial industry.
SB 20 requires successor janitorial contractors to retain,
for a 60-day period, the employees of the previous employer
AB 2850
Page
3
performing janitorial or building maintenance service
duties with four months or more service. The main
difference between this measure and SB 20 are the
transition period, which is only 60 days under SB 20, and
the definition of "contractor." Under SB 20, only
contractors employing 25 or more individuals are subject to
its requirements.
Other legislation
SB 1521 (Alarc?n), pending in the Assembly, extends the
60-day period under SB 20 to 90 days and subjects property
owners to the notice and retention requirements of SB 20,
as well as placing a specified restriction on the property
owner's right to terminate contracts.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/04)
Service Employees International Union (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Peace Officers Research Association of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/28/04)
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
State Department of General Services
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor, the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), argues that this measure is
necessary to give licensed private security employees a
transition period from the last contractor by demonstrating
their worth to a successor contractor. However, after 90
days an employee can be fired for any reason.
AB 2850
Page
4
Proponents state that there are over 160,000 private
security officers in the state with the industry growing
given the current heightened level of national security.
Individuals protected by these private security officers
are put at risk when a private building owner changes
contractors and the security officers familiar with the
building and the area are immediately replaced by new
officers who are not familiar with the area.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents, including the
California Chamber of Commerce, argue that this measure is
an unreasonable departure from California's "at will"
employment status. At-will employment is a two-way street
that provides protection to both parties. Also, it places
onerous new mandates on California businesses:
1. The successor contractor (or subcontractor) must hire
the licensed security workers of the former contractor
during that period.
2. Forces the new contractor to make a written offer of
employment to all of the previous contractor's licensed
security workers, ignoring the fact that the new
contractor may have their own employees' welfare to
consider and their own set of legally permissible
standards by which their company's workers are chosen.
3. Forces a business to comply with intricate personnel
paperwork requirements.
Employers risk fines, penalties, and jail time for
violations of this measure's multiple mandates.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association
states that this measure fails to consider that the
employer may have terminated the contract due to poor
performance and has no way to determine if it was the fault
of the contractor or the employees. With all of the
restrictions listed, no newly hired contractor should have
to work under these restrictive rules that would limit its
ability to hire or retain qualified employees.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn,
AB 2850
Page
5
Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh,
Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson,
Kehoe, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Longville,
Lowenthal, Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Pavley, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian,
Steinberg, Vargas, Wesson, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill,
Cox, Daucher, Dutton, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie,
Maldonado, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi,
Pacheco, Parra, Plescia, Richman, Runner, Samuelian,
Spitzer, Strickland, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Canciamilla, Liu, Maddox, Nation
NC:sl 6/29/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****