BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1908
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1908 (Alejo) - As Introduced: February 22, 2012
Policy Committee: PERSSVote:4-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill increases, from 45 days to 60 days, the layoff notice
requirement for classified school employees working in
California's school and community college districts.
FISCAL EFFECT
This bill will not result in a fiscal impact to the state.
There will not be reimbursable costs because
1)The decision to lay off employees is at the district's
discretion; therefore laws regarding procedures are not
usually considered a reimbursable mandate.
2)The bill does not mandate a new program or a higher level of
service.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. According to the author, AB 1908 seeks to address
an inequity in the law regarding layoff notices for school
employees. School districts must give teachers and
administrators layoff notice, with a March 15 layoff notice
requirement. The author notes that this bill does not provide
classified school employees (i.e. bus drivers, cafeteria
workers, custodians) with the same March 15 layoff notice, but
simply provides them with two additional weeks to prepare for
a layoff, extending the current layoff notice from 45 to 60
days. The author argues that AB 1908 recognizes the economic
conditions of California and the high unemployment rate and
affords classified employees with additional time to prepare
for their job loses.
AB 1908
Page 2
2)Support. Supporters -primarily labor groups- argue that the
state's budget crisis has dramatically impacted classified
school employees - 30,000 of whom have been laid off and the
majority of those who remain being placed on some type of
furlough. Supporters note the additional notice in no way
obligates school districts to employ classified employees for
additional time, but rather simply ensures that they have a
few more days to prepare for unforeseen job loss.
3)Opposition. Opponents -school management groups- argue that
the unintended consequences for school districts will be
significant. They state the change in timeline will force
school districts to give notice to the maximum number of
classified employees since the district will have to issue the
notice prior to the release of the state budget May Revision.
Opponents argue that providing more notices has a tremendous
negative impact on employee morale and causes employees to
panic when districts do not have firm financial information to
use for their layoff decisions. They conclude that the more
time school districts have to make informed decisions, the
better it is for everyone involved.
4)Related legislation.
a) AB 290 (Firebaugh), Chapter 880, Statutes of 2003,
required school and community college districts to provide
classified school employees with 45-day notice of layoff
and required short-term employees to be given layoff
notices before permanent classified employees are laid off.
b) AB 2578 (Wesson) of 2000 would have required districts
to give 60 days advance notice of layoff when the
termination date is other than June 30. Governor Davis
vetoed the bill, and stated, in part, "I cannot support
this measure because it would require school or community
college districts to foresee their personnel needs 60 days
in advance, which is not always possible. Many districts
are not notified until the final weeks of the fiscal year
of programs that will continue to be funded for the next
fiscal year."
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1908
Page 3