BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1234
Page A
Date of Hearing: June 20, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Sandre Swanson, Chair
SB 1234 (De Leon) - As Amended: June 13, 2012
REVISED
SENATE VOTE : 23-13
SUBJECT : Retirement savings plans.
SUMMARY : Establishes the California Secure Choice Retirement
Savings Program (Program) to operate as a state-administered
retirement savings plan for private sector workers who do not
participate in any other type of employer-sponsored retirement
savings plan. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings
Investment Board (Board) to consist of the State Treasurer,
the Director of Finance (or his or her designee), the State
Controller, an individual with retirement savings and
investment expertise appointed by the Senate Committee on
Rules, a small business representative appointed by the
Governor, a public member appointed by the Governor, and an
employee representative appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
2)Requires the Board to conduct an initial market analysis to
determine whether the necessary conditions for implementation
of the Program can be met, as specified.
3)Provides that the Program will only become operative if the
Board notifies the Director of Finance that, based upon the
market analysis, the Program can be self-sustaining and only
if implementation costs are made available from a nonprofit or
private entity, the federal government, or a budget
appropriation.
4)Establishes the Program to include one or more payroll deposit
retirement savings accounts for private sector employees to
operate under the following parameters:
a) Individual accounts under the program shall be nominal
accounts and contributions shall be treated as credits to
SB 1234
Page B
an individual's account along with interest and any
additional earnings.
b) The balance of the credits in an individual's account
shall determine the amount to which they are entitled under
the Program upon termination.
c) Requires the Board, prior to July 1 of the initial
Program year and annually thereafter, to adopt a Program
amendment to declare the stated rate at which interest
shall be credited to accounts for the following year.
d) Provides that an individual's retirement savings benefit
under the Program shall be an amount equal to the balance
of the credits in the individual's program account on the
date the retirement savings account becomes payable.
5)Provides that after the Board opens the Program for
enrollment, any employer may choose to have a payroll deposit
retirement savings arrangement to allow employee participation
in the Program. Thereafter the following timeline would
apply:
a) Beginning three months after opening of enrollment,
employers of 100 or more employees must have an arrangement
to allow employees to participate in the Program.
b) Beginning six months after opening of enrollment,
employers of 50 or more employees must have an arrangement
to allow employees to participate in the Program.
c) Beginning nine months after opening of enrollment,
employers of five or more employees must have an
arrangement to allow employees to participate in the
Program.
6)Requires the Board, prior to opening the Program for
enrollment, to disseminate an employee information packet and
disclosure form to employers that, among other things, clearly
articulates that the program is privately insured and not
guaranteed by the State of California.
7)Provides that an employer who, without good cause, fails to
SB 1234
Page C
allow its employees to participate in the Program within 90
days after being notified of failure to comply by the
Employment Development Department, shall pay a penalty of $250
per eligible employee. If the employer if found to be in
willful noncompliance 180 days after the notice shall be
subject to an additional penalty of $500 per eligible
employee.
8)Requires each eligible employee to be enrolled in the Program
unless the employee opts out as specified, and provides for an
open enrollment period.
9)Provides that, unless otherwise specified by the employee, a
participating employee shall contribute three percent of their
annual salary or wages into the Program (which may be adjusted
by the Board to between two percent and four percent).
10)Establishes a trust (Trust) to be administered by the Board
and requires moneys to be segregated into a program fund and
an administrative fund. Annual expenditures from the
administrative fund shall not exceed more than one percent of
the total program fund.
11)Establishes guiding principles and restrictions for
investment policy of Trust assets, and limits the types of
investments which shall be permitted for the investment of
funds.
12)Provides that equities shall not exceed 50 percent of the
overall asset allocation of the fund.
13)Provides that employers shall not have any liability for an
employee's decision to participate or opt out of the Program,
or for the investment decisions of employees.
14)Provides that employers shall not be a fiduciary over the
Program and shall bear no responsibility for the
administration, investment, or investment performance of the
Program. An employer shall not be liable with regard to
investment returns, program design, and benefits paid to
participants.
15)Requires the Board to submit an annual independently-audited
SB 1234
Page D
financial report, as specified.
16)Provides that the state shall not have any liability for the
payment of the retirement savings benefit guaranteed to
Program participants. Any financial liability for the payment
of benefits in excess of funds available shall be borne by
insurance underwriters pursuant to a contract entered into
with the Board, as specified. The state, and any of the funds
of the state, shall have no obligation for payment of the
guaranteed benefits arising from the program.
17)Makes related and conforming changes to implement the
provisions of this bill.
18)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
COMMENTS : This bill would establish a supplemental retirement
savings program for California's private sector workers that do
not have access to retirement plans through their jobs. The
author states that the program created by this bill would
provide a reliable, affordable and completely portable
retirement savings plan for the millions of Californians without
access to a workplace retirement plan.
The Problem of Retirement Savings for Private Sector Employees
For private sector employees, the American retirement system has
traditionally relied upon a three-prong approach - Social
Security benefits, private savings and employer-provided
pensions. Therefore, a large component of the traditional
retirement system was an employer-based retirement component,
which was generally provided through a defined benefit pension
where the benefit was defined by years of service and the final
wages of the employee. By some estimates, as recently as 25
years ago more than 80 percent of large and mid-sized employers
offered a defined benefit pension. Today, less than a third of
such employers offer such a pension.
In recent decades, employer-sponsored defined benefit pensions
have been largely replaced by defined contributions pensions
such as 401(k) and 457 retirement plans. In these plans,
employees generally make their own decisions about how the funds
are invested, taking on the entirety of the risk of their own
retirement savings. While these plans are portable and have
certain tax advantages, critics have pointed out that the nature
SB 1234
Page E
of the risk shift leaves workers with the sole responsibility of
making investment decisions (for which they may or may not be
prepared) and leaves nest eggs vulnerable to shifts in the stock
market (of which recent retirees are painfully aware).
Another problem which has received less attention is the large
number of private sector employees who have no access to an
employer-sponsored retirement plan at all. Critics contend that
this undermines the historical three-prong retirement system
upon which employees have traditionally relied. This problem is
particularly severe in California, and it is particularly severe
for California's middle class and lower-middle class retirees
and employees of small businesses.
According to a recent UC Berkeley study<1>, 52 percent of
Californians have access to employee-sponsored retirement plans
and 44 percent of California's workers choose to participate in
these plans (nationally, the rate is 58.1 percent and 49
percent, respectively). However, such an aggregation masks
disparities among firm sizes. For firms with 1,000 or more
employees, 75.4 percent of the firms offer access to
employer-sponsored retirement plans, and more than 65 percent of
the workers chose to participate in the plans. For firms that
are 25 employees or less, only 19.7 percent of the firms offer
an employer-sponsored retirement plan and only 16.5 percent of
workers employed by firms of that size actually participate in
these plans.
Similarly, there are significant disparities among upper-middle
class retirees and middle class and lower-middle class retirees
when it comes to the sources of income available retirees.
According to the same UC Berkeley study, the mean total income
for retirees in California is $25,984; 43.5 percent of the
income comes from Social Security and 38.9 percent of the income
comes from retirement funds, dividends, and rental income.
However, when the data is disaggregated, significant disparities
can be seen:
For retirees in the bottom 25 percent of income
brackets, the mean total income for retirees is $6,902;
79.1 percent comes from Social Security and 4.8 percent
comes from retirement funds, dividends, and rental
income.
-------------------------
<1> Rhee, Nari. "Meeting California's Retirement Security
Challenge." U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and
Education (October 2011).
SB 1234
Page F
For retirees in the middle 50 percent of income
brackets, the mean total income for retirees is $18,145;
70.3 percent comes from Social Security and 18.9 percent
comes from retirement funds, dividends, and rental
income.
For retirees in the top 25 percent of income
brackets, the mean total income for retirees is $60,713;
23.4 percent comes from Social Security and 54.8 percent
comes from retirement funds, dividends, and rental
income.
A more recent update to the U.C. Berkeley study<2> indicates
that access is worst among low-wage workers, where only 22
percent have access to workplace retirement plans. Only 25
percent of employees of small firms with less than 100 employees
have access to such plans. And only 32 percent of Latino
workers have access to such plans.
The U.C. Berkeley study concludes as follows:
"For most people, retirement security is not about living
in luxury, nor is it about just surviving; it is about
having adequate resources to enjoy their families and
interests after a lifetime of hard work while they are
still in good enough health to do so. This is an integral
part of the American Dream which traditional pensions,
combined with Social Security, once made achievable for
average working people. Unfortunately, declining access to
employer-sponsored pensions and retirement accounts,
inadequate assets, and a large share of the workforce on
track to retire into serious economic hardship are cause
for deep anxiety among workers about their ability to
retire with dignity, or even to retire at all. Surveys and
journalistic accounts abound with stories of people hoping
they are physically able to "work until I die" because they
have so few assets, and-especially among young
workers-because they believe that Social Security will not
be there for them.
Such a bleak future does not have to come to pass. Social
-------------------------
<2> Rhee, Nari. "6.3 Million Private Sector Workers in
California Lack Access to a Retirement Plan on the Job." U.C.
Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education (June 2012).
SB 1234
Page G
Security can be strengthened to ensure that it continues to
protect American retirees from poverty for generations to
come. Meanwhile, states like California can take
leadership in building toward retirement security for all
by establishing a publicly sponsored retirement system for
private sector workers who lack access to an
employer-sponsored plan. Given the needs of California
workers, such a system should be thoughtfully designed to
pool some of the risks that have been shifted onto
vulnerable workers to the great detriment of families.
Closing the private sector pension gap will not only help
individual workers take responsibility for their
retirement; it will improve the social and economic future
of California."
How This Program Would Operate
In terms of retirement products currently in use, the Program
proposed under this bill would most closely follow the structure
of a cash-balance retirement type plan<3>. With a cash-balance
retirement plan, the plan tries to blend components of a defined
benefit and defined contribution plan by providing a guaranteed
benefit, but tying that guaranteed benefit to a balance in the
account.
In a traditional defined benefit plan, the employee is
guaranteed a benefit based on a formula, generally reflecting
the employee's age, final compensation and years of service at
retirement. However, in a cash balance plan, payment of a
benefit is also guaranteed, but the nature of the guarantee is
different than in a traditional defined benefit plan. Rather
than basing the benefit on a formula, the payment of
contributions previously made is guaranteed, as well as the
earnings that were credited to the account.
In a defined contribution plan, often a 401(k), the employee has
an individual account in which contributions and any investment
earnings are credited to the employee's account. At the time of
retirement, disability, death or termination of employment, the
---------------------------
<3> Although the Program created by this bill resembles a "cash
balance" type plan, supporters of the bill argue that because
the "balance of credits in an individual's account shall
determine the amount to which the individual is entitled" and
other features of the Program, it is really more akin to a
defined contribution plan under federal law.
SB 1234
Page H
employee receives a benefit equal to the balance in that
account. However, in a cash balance plan, the employee also has
a nominal account in which contributions and any investment
earnings are credited to the employee's account. At the time of
retirement, disability, death or termination of program
membership, the employee also receives a benefit equal to the
balance in that account as they would in a defined contribution.
With a typical cash-balance plan, a participant's account is
credited each year with a "pay credit" (such as five percent of
compensation from his or her employer) and an "interest credit"
(either a fixed rate or a variable rate that is linked to an
index such as the one-year Treasury bill rate. With this bill,
the employee puts his or her own compensation into the Program,
rather than a payment from the employer. The Board would then
have the responsibility of setting an interest rate/credit on an
annual basis.
Similar to the CalSTRS cash-balance type retirement plan, this
bill also requires the creation of a Gain and Loss Reserve
Account, which brings in money during good years and disburses
money during bad years in order to credit the rate of interest
set by the Board. Such decisions would be based on an annual
actuarial valuation. Additionally, this bill requires the Board
to purchase insurance against any loss and secure underwriting
to insure that the benefits are paid to participants.
The actual day-to-day operation of the Program is left largely
unspecified in the bill. There are allowances for the
appointment of a Program Administrator and staff, but there is
also the flexibility to retain or contract with CalPERS and/or
private financial institutions "as necessary". Finally, there's
also a catch-all to allow for collaboration with CalPERS and
private entities for outreach and administration.
The Model "Secure Choice Pension" Program
This bill appears to be patterned, at least in part, after the
"Secure Choice Pension" program developed by the National
Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) as a
program to enhance retirement security and income for private
sector workers.
SB 1234
Page I
A recent white paper<4> prepared by NCPERS states that the model
program is designed to provide the following:
The Secure Choice Pension is designed as a
public-private enterprise for those who currently do not
have a pension (particularly for small and mid-sized
businesses).
The Secure Choice Pension is not a replacement for
existing pension plans in the public or private sectors,
nor is it intended to replace 401(k)s.
The Secure Choice Pension will be modeled after a "cash
balance" type defined benefit plan.
The Secure Choice Pension in conjunction with Social
Security and personal savings, including 401(k)s, will help
close the existing $4-8 trillion retirement savings gap as
estimated by several research groups.
The Secure Choice Pension will decrease the burden on
state and local governments by reducing the need for
retirees to rely on public assistance.
The Secure Choice Pension will manage downside funding
risk through conservative assumptions as developed in a
model plan design and/or determined by each state.
The Secure Choice Pension will provide workers with a
guaranteed pension but will permit some opportunity for
increased benefits in good economic times.
NCPERS concludes that, "In summary, the goal of the Secure
Choice Pension is to provide private-sector workers who
currently do not have access to a pension - particularly those
who work for small to mid-sized companies - with a guaranteed,
affordable, sustainable pension through a public-private
structure that shares the risk between employers and employees
and manages funding risk."
"Opt-Out" or "Automatic Enrollment" Features of This Bill
---------------------------
<4> Kim, Hank H., Esq. "The Secure Choice Pension: A Way
Forward for Retirement Security in the Private Sector."
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
(September 2011).
SB 1234
Page J
This bill provides that each eligible employee shall be enrolled
in the Program unless the employee elects not to participate.
An eligible employee may elect to opt out of the Program by
making a notation on an exemption certificate produced by EDD.
The bill also provides that, at least once every two years,
participating employers shall designate an open enrollment
period during which eligible employees that previously opted out
of the Program shall be enrolled unless the employee again
elects to opt out.
The bill provides that an employee who elects to opt out of the
Program who subsequently wants to participate through the
employer's payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement may
only enroll during the employer's designated open enrollment
period or if permitted by the employer at an earlier time.
Finally, an eligible employee may also terminate his or her
participation in the Program at any time in a manner prescribed
by the Board and thereafter by making a notation on the
exemption certificate produced by EDD.
According to the author, the opt-out nature of this bill
conforms to recent research that suggests that individuals need
a "nudge" in the form of automatic enrollment in retirement
savings programs<5>. According to information submitted by the
author, in one study comparing opt-in to automatic enrollment,
researchers found that participation rates in opt-in plans were
just 20 percent after three months, increasing to 65 percent
after 36 months. With automatic enrollment, by contrast, the
rates were 90 percent and 98 percent, respectively<6>.
In a recent report by the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) examining enrollment in 401(k)
plans, the GAO stated that automatic enrollment "appears to
significantly increase participation in 401(k) plans according
to existing studies, but may not be suitable for all plan
sponsors. Some studies found that participation rates can reach
as high as 95 percent under automatic enrollment?In most cases,
these plans automatically enroll only new employees, rather than
all employees. We also found that automatic enrollment may not
be suitable for all plan sponsors, such as those with a
---------------------------
---------------------------
<5> See, for example, Thaler, Richard. Nudge: Improving
Decisions About, Health, Wealth and Happiness (2008).
<6> Id.
SB 1234
Page K
SB 1234
Page L
high-turnover workforce."<7>
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
The author states the following in support of this bill:
"Across the United States, millions of workers will retire into
poverty because they will not have enough in assets to meet
their basic needs in their senior years. Here in California,
nearly one-half of workers will face significant economic
hardship in retirement, with incomes below 200% of the federal
poverty threshold.
The most at-risk groups are young workers age 25-44 and
low-income workers, but even middle-income workers will be at
substantial risk of not having enough retirement income to be
self-sufficient.
Since the nation's personal savings rate is extremely low and
retirement planning is now largely controlled by private
for-profit Wall Street investment firms, the United States is
staring at an economic time bomb that left unaddressed will
overwhelm taxpayer-funded entitlement and other safety net
programs. The lack of retirement savings affects all
Californians, as seniors without sufficient retirement savings
will more likely need to rely on government assistance for
housing, health care and other basic necessities?
? California workers in the private sector need a lifelong
retirement savings system that provides them with the
opportunity to build their assets and achieve financial
stability in retirement. The California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Program would provide a vital supplement to
Social Security income by offering participants a low-risk,
low-cost, and completely portable retirement savings plan that
will have a guaranteed interest rate on their retirement
savings.
Employers that want to offer their employees a retirement
savings plan also need a way to help their employees save for
retirement. Private sector employers often face significant
barriers in setting up their own workplace retirement plans-in
addition to the costs of hiring service providers and paying
service fees, plans such as 401(k)s can be complex to maintain
---------------------------
<7> United States Government Accountability Office. "Retirement
Savings: Automatic Enrollment Shows Promise for Some Workers,
but Proposals to Broaden Retirement Savings for Other Workers
Could Face Challenges." (October 2009).
SB 1234
Page M
and administer, employers must accept fiduciary responsibility,
and they are subject to an array of rules and regulations.
Under the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program,
voluntary contributions from employees and employers would be
pooled into a professionally-managed retirement fund that
leverages economies of scale and longer investment horizons to
offer every California worker the chance to enroll in a
retirement savings plan.
Here in California, over 6.3 million private sector workers do
not have access to a retirement plan at their place of
employment. If these workers contributed 3% of their earnings
towards a retirement fund, the fund would have over $6 billion
to invest in the first year alone."
Taxpayer Protections
The author also contends that this bill contains the following
protections for California taxpayers:
Prior to the development of the California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Program, direct the Board to conduct a
market analysis to determine the viability of
implementation, including the assessment of likely
participation rates, contribution levels, and the
feasibility of investment vehicles.
The market analysis would only be conducted if
sufficient funds are made available through a non-profit or
private entity, federal funding, or an annual Budget Act
appropriation for this purpose.
Following the market analysis, forward the Board's
findings to the Chairs of the Senate Public Employment and
Retirement Committee and the Assembly Public Employees,
Retirement and Social Security Committee.
The implementation of the California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Program would only move forward if the
Board notifies the Director of Finance that based on the
market analysis the program will be completely
self-sustaining.
Before studying, developing and obtaining the necessary
SB 1234
Page N
approvals to fully implement the California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Program, the Board would have to receive
sufficient funding to cover start-up costs through a
non-profit, private entity, federal funding, or an annual
Budget Act appropriation.
Once fully implemented, the California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Trust would be self-sustaining and
extremely low-risk due to the modest guaranteed benefit
(likely tied to the 30-year Treasury-bond rate) and long
investment horizon. In guaranteeing the rate of return for
the retirement savings plans, ensure zero-liability to the
state by requiring the Board to secure private underwriting
and reinsurance to manage risk.
There would be no state liability for the retirement
savings benefit that is guaranteed to program participants.
Any financial liability for the payment of benefits that
exceeds the funds available in the program would be borne
by the private underwriters pursuant to the contract
entered into with the Board on behalf of program
participants.
Employer Liability Protections and Disclosures for Employees
The author also argues that the bill contains the following
protections for employers and employees:
Employees would receive a program information packet
with a disclosure form that includes the benefits and risks
of making retirement contributions, the mechanics of how to
participate or opt out of the program, the process for the
withdrawal of retirement savings, and how to obtain
additional information about the program.
The disclosure form would clearly inform employees that
employers are not liable for their decisions whether to
participate in or opt out of the program, or for employee
investment decisions, and state that their employer is not
a fiduciary of the California Secure Choice Retirement
Savings Trust or program, the employer does not bear
responsibility for how the program is administered, and the
employer is not liable with regard to investment returns
and benefits paid to program participants.
SB 1234
Page O
In addition, the disclosure form would notify employees
that their employers are not in a position to provide
financial advice, and that they should contact financial
advisors if they want to seek financial advice.
To notify employees that the state is not liable for the
retirement savings benefit, the form would also specify
that the program fund is privately insured and is not
guaranteed by the State of California.
Employees would be required to sign and date the
disclosure form acknowledging that they have read all of
the disclosures and understand their content.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents, including the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, argue that California already faces
hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liability
for its public sector workers. They contend that now is not the
time for the state to create and assume liability for any new
plan for private sector employees. Moreover, they contend that
the legislation is unnecessary as California already has a
robust and highly competitive retirement savings market.
Opponents contend that, among other things, this bill could
create undue pressure on the General Fund, could create a
multi-billion dollar liability for the state, unnecessarily
enters the federal government's domain, and is inconsistent with
the Administration's efforts to reduce government.
Opponents also argue that this bill continues to raise problems
for the small employers by imposing a mandated benefit rather
than giving employers the flexibility to offer the mix of
compensation and benefits that best meets the needs of their
employees. They note that this bill seeks to eliminate an
employer's potential federal liability and responsibility but do
not believe that a state bill has that authority under federal
law (ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code). Opponents also state
that recent amendments reduce but do not eliminate the
employers' operational responsibilities and compliance costs.
Employers will still have to distribute information, answer
questions, collect opt-out forms, and transfer contributions to
the Program.
Opponents object that this bill raises "serious cost issues."
SB 1234
Page P
Initial costs to study and develop the program and to obtain the
necessary federal approvals will likely be significant. Such
costs will increase dramatically if the program faces a legal
challenge. While this bill sets aside one percent (1%) of the
total program fund to administer the program trust on an ongoing
basis, it is highly likely that administrative, compliance,
insurance, premiums and other costs will exceed that amount.
Opponents contend that the guaranteed rate of return on
investment creates the very real possibility that the state will
have to fill the gap between the promised and the realized rates
of return. Insurance - which, of course, comes at a cost - may
assist in this process, but the ultimate responsibility rests
with the state, either as an explicit or "implied" guarantee.
With respect to potential "funding shortfalls" opponents state
the following:
"As with any defined benefit plan, the employer/plan
sponsor bears investment risk. Changes in the value of the
plan's investments (usually managed by the employer or an
investment manager) generally do not affect the amount of
benefits owed to participants. The funding rules for
defined benefit plans also apply to cash balance plans.
Under a cash balance plan, funding obligations are
determined actuarially based on the plan's benefit
commitments which include interest credits, the value of
the plan's asset and expected plan demographic experience.
Required contributions do not necessarily equal the sum of
contributions to the hypothetical accounts. Under the
Program, based on annual actuarial valuations of plan
assets, if participant contributions to the plan do not
equal the required minimum funding obligation for a year
based on the funding rules, then additional contributions
must be made.
Under the bill, the Board is directed to annually adopt a
statement of investment policy and to select an investment
management entity or entities. However, it does not address
who is responsible for any funding shortfalls. Generally,
under the Ýfederal law] provisions applicable to multiple
employer plans, each employer is treated as maintaining a
separate plan for purposes of minimum funding standards.
This would suggest that each participating employer will be
left liable for any funding deficiencies. What if a
participating employer has gone out of business? What if
SB 1234
Page Q
the employer no longer employs any participating employees?
Would the State (state taxpayers) step in?
Sponsors of the bill counter that an insurance policy will
address this issue. The state assumes the existence of an
insurance policy that would cover market risk regarding the
assets, longevity risk (because defined benefit plans must
offer an annuity form of payment), benefit guarantees set
by the Board, and a risk regarding administration. If this
type of coverage is available, we expect it will be very
expensive. This expense would also likely be paid from the
administrative fund, which has the 1% limit on expenses
cited above. Note however, that even if an insurer did
cover these costs, ERISA would not shift liability to the
insurer; the participating employer would retain liability
for payment of any underfunding. This is significant
because in the event the insurance contract is discontinued
or for some reason the specifics of the contract do not
require payment in any case, the participating employer is
the entity who would be left responsible for these amounts
under the federal tax code."
Opponents conclude that, "In the case of a market downturn, such
as occurred in 2008, a devastating funding shortfall would be
likely. The liability will be left to a state which is already
struggling financially, or to California employers who were
forced to participate. We do not believe that an insurance
contract is enough to address these significant concerns."
PRIOR RELATED LEGISLATION :
AB 125 (De Leon) of 2009 would have created a California
Employee Savings Program to be administered by CalPERS. That
bill was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
AB 2940 (De Leon) of 2008 was nearly identical to AB 125 of
2009. AB 2940 was held in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AARP-California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
SB 1234
Page R
AFL-CIO
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Communities United Institute
California Faculty Association
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters
California Retired County Employees Association
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers
Congress of California Seniors
Earned Assets Resource Network
East Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Greenlining Institute
JERICHO
Latinos for a Secure Retirement
Little Armenia Neighborhood Association
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
National Hispanic Council on Aging
Numerous individuals
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Professional Engineers in California Government
SEIU United Long Term Care Workers
Service Employees International Union Local 1000
Service Employees International Union Local 99
State Association of County Retirement Systems
TELACU
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428
United Teachers Los Angeles
Western Prelacy Armenian Schools
Workers United-SEIU Western States Regional Joint Board
Opposition
American Council of Life Insurers
Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies
California Association of Health Underwriters
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
SB 1234
Page S
California Retailers Association
California Small Business Association
Financial Planners Association
Financial Services Institute
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce
Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West
Investment Company Institute
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors of
California
National Federation of Independent Business
Orange Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Life Insurance Company
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
Small Business California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091