BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 36|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 36
Author: Gonzalez (D), et al.
Amended: 6/18/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/25/14
AYES: Hueso, Padilla, Mitchell
NOES: Wyland, Leno
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-11, 5/1/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Special Minimum Wage Certificate Program
SOURCE : National Federation of the Blind
DIGEST : This resolution urges the United States Congress to
phase out the use of the Special Minimum Wage Certificate
provision, and eventually repeal a section of the 1938 Fair
Labor Standards Act.
ANALYSIS : This resolution makes the following legislative
findings:
1.The State of California has supported opportunities for
employment for all disabled workers, specifically in the
adoption of the Employment First Policy which states that "it
is the policy of the state that opportunities for integrated,
competitive employment shall be given the highest priority for
working age individuals with developmental disabilities
regardless of the severity of their disabilities."
CONTINUED
AJR 36
Page
2
2.The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act's subminimum wage provisions
were created in the era of the Great Depression with the
intent of subsidizing sheltered workshops which could not
afford to pay their workers full wages and, some may argue,
incentivizing private companies to employ disabled persons.
3.Some entities have claimed that the special minimum wage
certificates are an essential stepping stone to permanent and
fully paid employment in the general workforce. The
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal published empirical
evidence in 2004 which suggested that sheltered workshops are
generally ineffective at progressing the disabled workers,
while for other employers the special minimum wage
certificates serve as an incentive to exploit disabled workers
rather than integrate them into the mainstream economy.
4.Some employers, such as the National Industries for the Blind,
have already recognized the exploitive nature of paying
disabled workers subminimum wage and have been able to
transition to the payment of Federal minimum wage, or higher,
to their disabled employees without a significant change in
profitability or a reduction in their workforce.
This resolution urges the United States Congress to phase out
the use of the Special Minimum Wage Certificate provision, and
eventually repeal a section of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards
Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/14)
National Federation of the Blind (source)
Association of People Supporting EmploymentFirst
Association of Regional Center Agencies
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Community Employment Services
Disability Rights California
Lifehouse
National Association of Social Workers-California Chapter
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/26/14)
AJR 36
Page
3
Achievement House, Inc.
Advocacy for Respect and Choice
California Disability Services Association
Concord City Council
Contra Costa ARC
NCI Affiliates, Inc.
On My Own
Pleasantview Industries
PRIDE Industries
The Alliance Supporting People with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
The California Disability Services Association
United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that the Special
Minimum Wage certificates, allowed by Section 14(c) of the 1938
Fair Labor Standards Act (14(c)), have meant that in some cases
disabled workers were paid less than a dollar per hour.
Proponents note that these subminimum wages are determined by
time studies, which compare the disabled worker's "productivity"
as determined by the speed of task to that of a non-disabled
person. However, proponents argue that these time studies make
inaccurate comparisons by not fully accounting for the external
work environment and assuming productivity can be tied to the
speed of menial labor.
Proponents further argue that the law is antiquated in that it
reflects not only an outdated perception of disabled persons,
but also the economic practices sparked by the Great Depression
rather than current industry. Proponents maintain that it is an
immoral and unjust practice to maintain, which perpetuates a
discriminatory environment for disabled workers. Proponents
argue that the United States should be striving toward
competitive integrated employment for all individuals, with or
without disabilities, especially since it has already been seen
that with modern technology, vocational rehabilitation, and high
expectations people with disabilities have been able to reach
their full vocational potential in meaningful, fulfilling, and
productive ways.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that this resolution
is a well-meaning but very damaging effort to improve employment
outcomes for people with significant disabilities. They contend
AJR 36
Page
4
that this resolution implies that all workers, regardless of
their disability, should be able to compete with workers without
disabilities. Opponents argue that people with disabilities can
and do work but it makes the implementation of a number of
strategies, starting with extensive and individual discovery of
each person's expectations and skills as well as matching each
person with a job they want to do with an environment they want
to work for. Opponents argue that the elimination of 14(c)
would tell persons with disabilities that if they cannot compete
then they will be denied opportunities to work. Lastly,
opponents argue that the passage of this resolution would
undermine the employment efforts of thousands of Californians
with severe disabilities by forcing them to remain at home
rather than participate in paid work activities that are
designed to meet their individual needs.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-11, 5/1/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta,
Bradford, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Dababneh, Daly,
Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray,
Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Medina, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk,
Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Ch�vez, Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman,
Harkey, Jones, Melendez, Patterson, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Bonilla, Brown,
Buchanan, Cooley, Dahle, Fox, Frazier, Gordon, Gorell, Hall,
Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Nestande,
Olsen, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Waldron, Wilk, Vacancy
PQ:nl 6/26/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****