BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1792|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1792
Author: Gomez (D)
Amended: 8/21/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/25/14
AYES: Hernandez, Beall, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Evans, Monning
NOES: Morrell, Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Public benefits: reports on employers
SOURCE : California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
SEIU, Local 1000
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States
Council
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to
prepare an annual report that identifies each employer in the
state that employs 50 or more employees who receive benefits
from specified public assistance programs.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/14 delete references to the
Department of Social Services (DSS) and to the Director of the
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
2
Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, and incorporate
changes to avoid chaptering out issues with SB 1028 (Jackson)
and SB 1141 (Hancock).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and, under which
qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits.
2.Establishes the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, under which each county distributes nutrition
assistance benefits provided by the federal government to
eligible households. In California, federal nutrition
assistance benefits are known as CalFresh.
3.Requires each county to provide cash assistance and other
social services to needy families through the California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program
using federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block
grant program, state, and county funds. CalWORKs and CalFresh
are administered by DSS.
4.Requires the Director of the Employment Development Department
(EDD) to permit the use of any information in his/her
possession to the extent necessary for any of specified
purposes, and to require reimbursement for all direct costs
incurred in providing any and all information, with specified
exceptions.
This bill:
1.Requires DHCS to annually inform EDD of the names and social
security numbers of all recipients of public assistance
programs.
2.Requires DHCS to determine the average per-individual cost of
state and federally funded benefits across the public
assistance programs and inform EDD of these costs.
3.Requires EDD to collaborate with DHCS to determine the total
cost of state and federally funded benefits provided to each
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
3
identified employer's employees, as specified.
4.Defines an employer as an individual or organization that
employs 50 or more beneficiaries of public assistance
programs.
5.Requires DOF to, after obtaining specified information from
EDD, annually transmit to the Legislature and post on its
Internet Web site a report no later than the third week of
January of each year beginning in 2016 that, among other
things, identifies employers that employ 50 or more
beneficiaries in the state.
6.Requires the Director of EDD to permit the use of specified
information in his/her possession by DOF to prepare and submit
the above-described report.
7.Prohibits an employer from discharging or in any manner
discriminating or retaliating against an employee who enrolls
in a public assistance program and from refusing to hire a
beneficiary for reason of being enrolled in a public
assistance program.
8.Prohibits an employer from disclosing to a nongovernmental
entity that an employee receives or is applying for public
benefits.
9.Contains double-jointing language to avoid chaptering out
issues with SB 1028 (Jackson) and SB 1141 (Hancock).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Annual staff costs of at least $130,000 to collect information
and prepare the required report by DOF (General Fund).
One-time costs of about $30,000 and ongoing costs of about
$60,000 per year to match beneficiary data with employer data
by EDD (General Fund).
Ongoing costs of about $230,000 per year to analyze Medi-Cal
beneficiary data and report it by DHCS (General Fund).
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
4
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/22/14)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
SEIU, Local 1000 (co-source)
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council
(co-source)
AFSCME
California Conference of Machinists
California Conference of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Communications Workers of America, District 9
Engineers and Scientists, Local 20
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Coast Division
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
UDW/AFSCME Local 3930
UNITE HERE
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/14)
Agricultural Council of California
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Association of Health Underwriters
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractor
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
International Franchise Association
Latin Business Association
National Federation of Independent Business
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
5
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
UnitedAG
Western Growers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill is co-sponsored by the
California Labor Federation, United Food and Commercial Workers,
Western States Council, and SEIU Local 1000, which state that in
2013, California had the highest number of working poor families
in the country, with more than one-third of the state's working
families are low-income, making less than 200% of the federal
poverty line. When low wages and lack of benefits leave workers
unable to make ends meet, they turn to public assistance
programs for health care, food, and other basic necessities.
Supporters argue that employers that pay low wages and offer no
benefits shift the cost of doing business onto taxpayers, and
the cost of subsidizing low-wage work is not cheap. A recent
study found that taxpayers spend $7 billion annually on public
assistance for fast food workers alone. Supporters argue that
employers that shift their costs onto taxpayers put responsible
employers at a competitive disadvantage, creating an unfair
playing field for business in the state. They also require
taxpayers to subsidize their business model, rather than
supporting responsible employers. Supporter state that, since
2006, Massachusetts has produced an annual report on which
employers have 50 or more workers enrolled in public benefit
programs. Policy makers have used the report to analyze
utilization and financing of publicly subsidized programs,
identify trends and to track the effect of policies on the use
of public programs. The annual report required by this bill
would give policymakers a deeper understanding of the causes and
sources of underemployment, poverty wages, and the economic
impacts on Californians, businesses and the state budget, would
allow for identifying trends and tracking the impact of
legislation, and can be used by legislators in a variety of ways
to inform and craft effective policies. Supporters conclude
that employers will not have to submit any documentation to the
state, and the report will use only existing state data, 24
states have released similar data, and that Massachusetts and
Missouri produce annual reports on employers with workers on
public health care programs to the public.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of Commerce
and business groups write, arguing this bill will paint a very
misleading picture about the factors that affect utilization of
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
6
benefits and the different pressures faced by employers in
different sectors of the economy, all of which could lead to
misguided legislation that further burdens California employers
without helping the working poor. Opponents argue the
requirement in this bill that the dollar amount of benefits
utilized by a particular employer's employees using the average,
per-individual cost for each type of benefit undermines the
ability to infer anything about an employers' wages or to
distinguish between employers whose employees receive only
minimal benefits in a program and those whose employees utilize
significant amounts of benefits, particularly for CalFresh and
CalWORKs as the average, per-individual cost is problematic
because it would reflect benefits received by unemployed
individuals and disabled individuals who are likely to need a
larger benefit, thereby averaging their level of need with the
need of employed individuals, who should arguably utilize fewer
benefits. In this way, the report would misrepresent the need
of employed individuals and how much the state is spending to
provide benefits to them. Opponents argue this bill would
expose employers to blame for benefits received by these
individuals even though their eligibility does not reflect
employer policies. Opponents also contend this bill ignores the
impact of household size and the number of employed adults in a
household on eligibility, the measure counts employees who are
out on unpaid leave for extended periods of time, who are
therefore not working and have no income, even though their need
for public assistance does not reflect employer policies, and
the measure does not address concerns about including seasonal
workers in retail and agriculture, as their busy seasons last
longer than three months. Opponents conclude that this bill
will do nothing to drive up wages, make health care more
affordable, or otherwise improve the lives of workers, and it
could actually lead to misinformed policies that would hurt
those very individuals it seeks to help.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 5/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger
Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina,
Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
7
Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle, Daly,
Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,
Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Quirk-Silva, Vacancy
JL:e 8/22/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED