BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1421
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1421 (Swanson)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Eng, Furutani, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Ma, Portantino | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill, Gaines |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that time spent in transit on a
facility-provided conveyance from a remote employee parking
location to and from the place at which an employee's presence
is required by a private contract service employer shall be
considered compensable when the employee is employed at an
airport, amusement park, sports venue or entertainment venue if
the time spent in one-way transit is longer than 12 minutes and
the employee is wearing a uniform or other insignia required by
the employer.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in unknown, potentially
significant indirect costs to local governments operating
airports, not state reimbursable.
COMMENTS : This measure is sponsored by the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU). Writing in support of this bill,
SEIU states that, as airline passengers and theme park customers
are acutely aware, taking a flight or getting into the park
involves many points of delay, from driving long distances, to
finding a place to park their car, to taking some sort of
shuttle to get to the entrance gate For airport and amusement
park workers, this is an integral part of their daily work.
After a long commute to work, their "employee parking" is in a
AB 1421
Page 2
remote lot; for example, beyond the airport "economy" lot. They
take shuttles to get to their worksite, often adding another 30
minutes each way to their commute time in order for them to get
to their worksite. This adds another hour each day that they
are on employer or employer-provided property, meeting the needs
of the employer, without being compensated for their time.
SEIU states that, for amusement park workers, it is more a
matter of time and distance. They may receive free parking in a
remote location, but they will still need a 20 minute shuttle
ride to get to the gate where they are able to clock-in for
their work day.
At the end of the day, these workers again have considerable
transit time to their employee-parking before beginning the long
commute home. Typically these workers lose an hour a day that
they could spend with their children and spouses in time spent
on the employer's property, meeting the needs of the employer.
Therefore, SEIU argues that because public transportation is not
always a reasonable option, especially for shift work at
airports and amusement parks, alternatives are not always
available for the workers to get to their worksite. Rather than
leave this matter to future case-by-case litigation, this bill
provides that the time they spend on employer-provided shuttles
from employer-provided parking to the worksite is compensated.
The bill will give these workers equity with other workers, who,
because of the nature and assignment of the work, must assemble
at considerable distance from the actual place of employment.
This measure is opposed by the Air Transport Association of
America, Inc. (ATA), who states that enacting such a policy
would be both technically flawed and unduly burdensome on the
airline industry.
ATA states that its member airlines typically provide
transportation for their employees to and from remote parking
lots, incurring both the costs of the transportation as well as
the parking services of their respective employees. They
consider this a benefit to employees who would otherwise be
paying for those services out of pocket.
ATA believes that by mandating that wage rates be paid on top of
the build in costs associated with employee transportation
AB 1421
Page 3
services, an unnecessarily punitive and fiscally unsustainable
environment would be created that would push some airlines into
opting not to provide remote shuttle services at all. They
contend that this would be particularly onerous at this point in
time when airlines have suffered thirteen bankruptcies within
the last sixteen months.
The California Employment Law Council (CELC) opposes this
measure and argues that it would require compensation of
employees who make a voluntary decision to avail themselves of
optional, free transportation from a remote parking location to
the work site. CELC contends that this would have the perverse
consequence of discouraging employers from providing
transportation from remote locations. Instead, employees would
simply be forced to walk. In addition, CELC argues that
shuttling employees en masse has environmental benefits which
could be compromised if this transportation option is
eliminated. Finally, they contend that many employers other
than the four categories covered by the bill, including
universities, oil refineries, and other, offer shuttle
transportation. CELC questions the policy rationale for
limiting the bill to the covered categories.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0001162