BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 243
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 30, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Sandre Swanson, Chair
AB 243 (Alejo) - As Proposed to be Amended: March 30, 2011
SUBJECT : Labor contractors.
SUMMARY :
1)Requires an employer who is a farm labor contractor (FLC) to
disclose on the itemized payroll statement furnished to
employees the name and address of the grower or other FLC that
secured the employer's services.
2)Provides that the listing by the FLC of the name and address
of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer
on the itemized payroll statement shall not create any
liability on the part of that legal entity.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that every employer must furnish each employee with
an itemized statement at the time of each payment of wages
that shows, among other things, the name and address of the
legal entity that is the employer. A knowing and intentional
violation of this provision is a misdemeanor.
2)Exempts the state or a city, county, city and county,
district, or other governmental entity from the above
provisions.
3)Prohibits a person from acting as a FLC until a license to do
so has been issued by the Labor Commissioner (LC).
4)Prohibits a person from knowingly entering into an agreement
for the services of a FLC who is not licensed.
5)Requires all garment contractors provide the name of the
garment manufacturer on an employee's payroll statement.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), more than 40,000 California farms
AB 243
Page 2
grow fruits and vegetables on almost four million acres in this
state. Therefore, CRLAF states that it is not surprising that a
2006 survey of Central Valley farm workers found that 70% could
not identify the name of the farm they were working on.
The same survey by CRLAF found that 56% had not been paid
minimum wage when working by a piece rate; 31% had not been paid
all the overtime they were owed; and that 42% had unexplained
deductions made from their pay.
Most growers do not hire their farm workers directly. Industry
experts estimate that between 60% and 80% of harvest work is
supplied to growers by FLC's. Without being able to readily
identify the grower or other FLC who hired the contractor,
enforcement actions against the contractor are unlikely to
either make the worker whole for wages owed or to have any
deterrent effect at all against a grower who may, under certain
circumstances, share legal responsibility for the contractor's
labor law violations.
Finally, the sponsor states this bill simply requires a FLC to
list on the farm workers' pay stub information about the grower
or other FLC to whom the worker was furnished during the pay
period. Current state law already requires this information to
be provided by garment contractors since 2002, and some
responsible FLC's already provide it on a voluntary basis
suggesting it is already technically feasible to do so and also
suggest that honest growers and FLC's have nothing to fear from
providing the information.
A coalition of agricultural groups opposes this measure, stating
that it will impose joint liability for the illegal acts of a
farm labor contractor on a grower. They support penalties for
FLC's that choose not to follow the law, however, they argue
this bill fails to distinguish the good from the bad creating
new liabilities for all.
The sponsor of this bill, CRLAF and the author, hope to address
the oppositions concerns with the proposed amendment to be taken
in Committee that the listing by the FLC of the name and address
of the grower or other FLC that secured the services of the
employer on the itemized payroll statement shall not create any
liability on the part of that legal entity.
PRIOR AND RELATED LEGISLATION :
AB 243
Page 3
This bill is similar to AB 377 (Arambula) of 2007. AB 377 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger his veto message stated, in
part, "While I maintain my support for the concept of helping
farmworkers secure all wages owed to them, I am still concerned
that this bill does nothing to bring unlicensed farm labor
contractors and others who flaunt the law into compliance.
Those who have not bothered to obtain the necessary licensure
required by the state or otherwise comply with labor laws are
highly unlikely to comply with this new requirement. As such,
the only practical effect of this bill is to impose a new
liability on farmers and growers who have lawfully contracted
with licensed contractors."
AB 2327 (Arambula) of 2006 was nearly identical to this bill and
was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 101 (Battin), Chapter 103, Statutes of 2005, was a technical
clean-up bill related to SB 1618 (Battin), Chapter 860, Statutes
of 2004,which added the provision that only the last four digits
of an employee's social security number shall appear on pay
stubs no later than January 1, 2008.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (Sponsor)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Northern California District Council of the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union
United Food and Commercial Workers-Western States Conference
Opposition
Agricultural Council of California
Allied Grape Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Citrus Mutual
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Growers
California Cotton Ginners
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
AB 243
Page 4
California Pear Growers
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Wheat Growers Association
California Women for Agriculture
Family Winemakers of California
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
Nisei Farmers League
Ventura County Agricultural Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Pistachio Association
Wine Institute
Analysis Prepared by : Lorie Erickson / L. & E. / (916)
319-2091