BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 830
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Sandre Swanson, Chair
AB 830 (Olsen) - As Amended: April 27, 2011
SUBJECT : Employment: flexible work schedules.
SUMMARY : Authorizes individual employees to request flexible
work schedules, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits an employee to work up to ten hours per workday
without overtime if the employee requests such a schedule in
writing and the employer approves the request.
2)Requires the employer, where such a schedule is adopted, to
pay overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek or
over ten in a workday.
3)Authorizes an employer to inform its employees that it is
willing to consider employee requests to work flexible work
schedules, but prohibits an employer from inducing a request
by promising an employment benefit or "threatening an
employment detriment."
4)Authorizes an employee or employer to discontinue a flexible
work schedule at any time by giving written notice to the
other party.
5)Specifies that these provisions do not apply to any employee
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement or
specified public employees.
6)Makes related conforming changes.
7)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines a day's work as eight hours of labor.
2)Requires that any work in excess of eight hours day, in excess
of 40 hours a week, and the first eight hours on the seventh
day of work are to be compensated at no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay, and provides
AB 830
Page B
corresponding exemptions for certain classifications of
employees.
3)Requires that any work in excess of 12 hours a day and in
excess of eight hours on the seventh day of work are to be
compensated at no less than twice the regular rate of pay, and
provides corresponding exemptions for certain classifications
of employees.
4)Allows employees of an employer to adopt a regularly scheduled
alternative workweek that authorizes work by the affected
employees for no longer than ten hours per day within a 40-
hour workweek without the payment of overtime. Such
alternative workweek schedules are permissible only if they
receive approval in a secret ballot election by two-thirds of
the affected employees.
5)Permits an employee, upon written request, to make up lost
work time during the same workweek without incurring daily
overtime.
6)Provides an exemption to the overtime and alternative workweek
provisions of the law to an employee covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly
provides for wages, hours of work, and working conditions of
the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage
rates for all overtime hours worked and a regularly hourly
rate of pay at least 30% above the state minimum wage.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill is the latest in a long series of attempts
to revise various provisions of California law related to
overtime and alternative workweek schedules. Those provisions
of law were codified by AB 60 (Knox), the "Eight-Hour-Day
Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999." Debate in
recent years has centered around questions of whether the secret
ballot election process should be maintained, or whether
individual employees should be authorized to establish their own
individualized alternative workweek schedules. The author has
titled this bill the "Workplace Flexibility Act of 2011."
Brief Background on AB 60
Beginning in 1913, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) had
AB 830
Page C
jurisdiction over working hours only of women and minors.
Exercising its authority, the IWC established daily overtime
after eight hours for those groups. In 1974, the discriminatory
impact of this approach was struck down in federal court. The
IWC's efforts to adopt new wage orders led to a protracted legal
battle. In 1980, the California Supreme Court upheld the
adoption of final wage orders incorporating the eight-hour day
for male and female employees.
Those wage orders remained in effect until January 1, 1998, when
the IWC amended five of them to eliminate daily overtime and
provide that: "No overtime pay shall be required for hours
worked in excess of any daily number" (Emphasis added). The
five wage orders that were amended were Wage Order 1
(manufacturing industry), Wage Order 4 (professional, technical,
clerical, and mechanical occupations), Wage Order 5 (public
housekeeping industry), Wage Order 7 (mercantile industry), and
Wage Order 9 (transportation industry).
That action resulted in an unsuccessful legal challenge,
legislation including SB 680 (1997) which was passed but vetoed
by Governor Wilson, and ultimately AB 60, which was successfully
passed and signed by Governor Davis effective January 1, 2000.
AB 60, among other things, codified daily overtime after eight
hours as the general rule in California.
Scheduling Flexibility Under Current Law
AB 60 contained several features related to flexibility in
employee work schedules. First, it provided for the adoption of
alternative workweek schedules pursuant to an employee election.
The alternative workweek schedule may authorize the employees
to work no more than ten hours per day within a 40-hour workweek
without receiving overtime. Such an alternative schedule must
be adopted in a secret ballot election by at least two-thirds of
the affected employees.
Labor Code Section 511(a) also provides that, "The regularly
AB 830
Page D
scheduled alternative workweek proposed by an employer for
adoption by employees may be a single work schedule that would
become the standard schedule for workers in the work unit, or a
menu of work schedule options, from which each employee in the
unit would be entitled to choose."
Moreover, Section 3(C)(1) of the IWC Wage Orders states: "If the
employer proposes a menu of work schedule options, the employee
may, with the approval of the employer, move from one menu
option to another."
Section 3(B)(1) of the IWC Wage Orders provides that, "Nothing
in this section shall prohibit an employer, at the request of
the employee, to substitute one day of work for another day of
the same length in the shift provided by the alternative
workweek agreement on an occasional basis to meet the personal
needs of the employee without the payment of overtime."
Section 3(C)(2) of the IWC Wage Order also provides that the
term "affected employees in the work unit" may include all
employees in a readily identifiable work unit, such as a
division, a department, a job classification, a shift, a
separate physical location, or a recognized subdivision of any
such work unit. A work unit may consist of an individual
employee as long as the criteria for an identifiable work unit
are met.
In addition, AB 60 allowed employees to take off time for a
personal obligation and makeup that time during the same
workweek without payment of daily overtime. Labor Code Section
513 provides that, if an employer approves a written request, an
employee may makeup work time during the same workweek without
incurring daily overtime, except for hours in excess of 11 in
one workday.
Finally, AB 60 contained an overtime exemption for employees
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the
agreement expressly provides for wages, hours of work, and
working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement
provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a
regularly hourly rate of pay at least 30% above the state
minimum wage.
AB 830
Page E
"Workplace Flexibility" Has Its Benefits
There has been significant debate and discussion in recent years
(both at the state and national levels) about "workplace
flexibility" and the benefits it can provide to workers and
their families. For example, a report<1> by the Institute for
Women's Policy Research noted the following:
"The large majority of high-income countries have
introduced flexible working statutes aimed at making it
easier for employees to change how many hours, and when and
where they work within their current job. Patchy progress
towards more diversified work arrangements is pushing
workers out of the labor market altogether, or into jobs
that are below their skill levels and potential. Few
economies can afford such a waste of human resources in
view of changing demographics, reduced labor force growth,
and global competition for knowledge.
U.S. employers are faced with a dramatic increase in the
share of older workers and a significant slowdown in labor
force growth, even if demographic trends in the United
States are less dramatic than in most other high-income
countries. The growth in mothers' labor force
participation, a major source of additional labor in recent
decades, has stalled and U.S. labor force participation for
women has fallen behind in cross-national comparison.
Demand for more diverse work arrangements is high, yet
workplace change is lagging behind changing workforce
demographics.
Flexible working statutes strengthen the ability of
individual employees to find solutions that allow work-life
-------------------------
<1> Hegewisch, Ariane and Janet C. Gornick. "Statutory Routes
to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective."
Institute for Women's Policy Resrach, Center for WorkLife Law,
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (2008).
AB 830
Page F
reconciliation, but in a manner that takes account of
employers' business and operational requirements. Of 20
high-income countries examined in comparison with the
United States, 17 have statutes to help parents adjust
working hours, six help with family care giving
responsibilities for adults; 12 allow change in hours to
facilitate lifelong learning; 11 support gradual
retirement; and five countries have statutory arrangements
open to all employees, irrespective of the reason for
seeking different work arrangements. Evaluation of
statutes supporting flexible working hours shows that the
laws have caused few problems for employers, and that
gender equality improves most where laws are interpreted
broadly, not narrowly focused on part-time work."
But Does "Workplace Flexibility" Benefit All Workers Equally?
As stated above, there has been much discussion in recent years
about the benefits to employers and employees of "workplace
flexibility" and "flexible work schedules." However, a recent
report<2> raised some interesting points for consideration
regarding whether "workplace flexibility" in fact benefits all
workers equally. For example, the report stated the following:
"'Workplace flexibility' is the buzz phrase in debates
about how to help busy parents better juggle the competing
demands of work and family. But the public conversation has
been shaped largely by the experiences of professional and
managerial workers - the target of their demands has been
the archetypal fixed schedule of a full-time, salaried
office worker who often puts in far more than the requisite
40 hours a week. As such, the workplace flexibility
discussion remains somewhat tone deaf when it comes to the
needs of low-wage workers.
Low-wage workers face a completely different set of
challenges - they are much more likely to be paid hourly,
work less than full time, and have erratic schedules with
little advance notice of when they are expected to work.
Their hours - and therefore pay - often vary from week to
week and even month to month. So while full-time
professional and managerial workers have sought flexibility
-------------------------
<2> Cauthen, Nancy K. "Scheduling Hourly Workers: How Last
Minute, 'Just-In-Time' Scheduling Practices Are Bad for Workers,
Families and Business." Dmos (2011).
AB 830
Page G
to diverge from rigid schedules, low-wage workers typically
need more predictability and stability within fluid
schedules.
To meet the needs of all workers, we must first change the
terms of the workplace flexibility debate. Solutions such
as four-day work weeks, varying the start and end time of
the work day, or telecommuting can provide critical
flexibility for professional and managerial workers. But
the term "flexibility" muddies the water when it comes to
low-wage hourly workers: over the last couple of decades,
such workers have been increasingly subject to greater
demands for flexibility for the benefit of their employers.
As a result, hourly workers have had to endure more
uncertainty in their schedules, greater fluctuations in
their hours, and less predictability in the size of their
paychecks.
The recent trend toward "just-in-time" scheduling
epitomizes the unstable unemployment environment faced by
low-wage workers. Just-in-time (JIT) scheduling, also
called "scheduling to demand," is a practice that closely
links labor supply to consumer demand. Used widely in the
service sector, employers rely on scheduling software and
measures of demand (such as floor traffic, sales volume,
hotel registrations, or dinner reservations) to match
workers' hours to labor needs. In doing so, they often
change posted schedules at the last minute even if it means
sending workers home after they arrive for work or asking
them to stay beyond the end of their shift.
Such practices can wreak havoc in the lives of workers and
their families, complicating child care arrangements,
transportation, and eligibility for both employer-sponsored
and government benefits. These conditions are challenging
not only for parents but can create tremendous chaos and
stress for children as well." (Original emphasis included).
How Many California Employers Have Established an Alternative
Workweek Schedule?
The Division of Labor Statistics and Research, under the
Department of Industrial Relations, provides on their website a
database listing all California employers that have filed
alternative workweek election results with the division pursuant
AB 830
Page H
to Labor Code section 511(e). According to the database, there
are currently 20,389 employers that have successfully
established an alternative workweek for their employees. This
is an increase from last year, when the database reported that
there were 18,844 employers that had successfully established an
alternative workweek schedule.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
The author states the following in support of this bill:
"California is one of only four states that does not
conform to the �f]ederal Fair Labor Standards Act and of
those four states, California's overtime laws are the most
restrictive. This harms employees who would prefer to work
an alternate work schedule that better suits their personal
and family needs.
California's antiquated labor standards do not provide
enough flexibility for working families, which make up the
majority of the workforce?
Finally, California has the second highest unemployment
rate in the country. This is a result of California's
anti-jobs climate and requires improvement of our outdated
labor standards.
�This bill] is an employee-driven, voluntary process that
creates options. It gives working families, caregivers,
students and other with scheduling conflicts the
availability to choose an alternative work schedule.
Choosing a flexible work schedule of four 10-hour days
could give employees 50 additional non-working days per
year."
The California Independent Grocers Association argues that this
bill will help accommodate workers' diverse family obligations,
personal pursuits, commuting issues and environmental concerns.
They also state that a more flexible work life is good for one's
health, citing a report in the Journal of Occupational and
AB 830
Page I
Environmental Medicine that if employees have the ability to
compress workweeks, they are more likely to make healthier
lifestyle choices, to exercise more and to sleep better.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents argue that, contrary to this bill's assertion that it
is "virtually impossible" for an employee to enjoy the benefit
of an alternative work schedule, current law already allows
employees to vote on a menu of alternative schedules, which may
include among the options a weekly schedule of five eight-hour
days in addition to the option of four ten-hour shifts without
payment of daily overtime. Current law allows an employee to,
with employer consent, change from one work schedule on the menu
to another on a weekly basis. Additionally, current law
provides that an employee may, with employer permission, make up
work time during the same workweek without incurring daily
overtime.
Opponents also state that current law governing alternative
workweeks was specifically designed to protect employees from
being pressured, overtly or in more subtle ways, from waiving
their right to daily overtime pay. Given the inherent imbalance
of power in the employer-employee relationship, the inclusion in
this bill of language stating that an employer shall not
"induce" by means of "promises" or "threats" does not prevent
pressure from being exerted on employees to forgo their right to
daily overtime.
Moreover, opponents contend that this bill enables favoritism by
affording employers unfettered discretion to grant and revoke
individual alternative work schedules. This sort of favoritism
pits employees against each other and lowers morale. Thus, in
addition to removing protections against involuntary waiver of
overtime rights, this bill undermines the values of employee
cooperation and workplace engagement fostered by the election
procedure in current law.
RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION :
As mentioned above, this bill is the latest in a long (and
almost annual) history of bills seeking to amend the overtime
and alternative workweek provisions of existing law.
Currently, SB 367 (Dutton) would permit an individual nonexempt
AB 830
Page J
employee employed by an employer with 25 or fewer employees to
request an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing
for workdays up to ten hours per day within a 40-hour workweek,
and would allow the employer to implement this schedule without
any obligation to pay overtime compensation. SB 367 failed
passage in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial
Relations.
In addition, SB 378 (Dutton) would provide that an alternative
workweek schedule adopted pursuant to those existing law may
include a regularly scheduled alternative workweek that
authorizes work by the affected employees for more than ten
hours a day, as long as the employees are paid at the
appropriate overtime rate. The bill further would exempt from
current law employers with five or fewer employees, but would
permit such employers and their employees to voluntarily enter
into a revocable written agreement setting forth an alternative
workweek schedule that allows an employee to work up to ten
hours a day, 40 hours a week, without the payment of overtime
wages. SB 378 is pending in the Senate Committee on Labor and
Industrial Relations.
Over the past several years, the following bills have been
introduced which were similar, but not identical, to the current
proposal. Each of the following bills failed passage in the
first policy committee:
SB 1335 (Cox) of 2010
SB 187 (Benoit) of 2009
AB 2127 (Benoit) of 2008
AB 510 (Benoit) of 2007
AB 2217 (Villines) of 2006
SB 1254 (Ackerman) of 2006
AB 640 (Tran) of 2005
AB 244 (Maze) of 2003
AB 830
Page K
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
California Association of Licensed Investigators, Inc.
California Independent Grocers Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
California League of Food Processors
California Restaurant Association
California Veterinary Medical Association
Construction Industry Legislative Council
Pflueger Design (Hughson, CA)
Opposition
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Nurses Association
California Official Court Reporters Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Consumer Attorneys of California
Engineers and Scientists of California
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
SCOPE, Laborers International Union of North America
UNITE HERE!
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Conference
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091