Our quarterly Legislative Report outlines potential laws and upcoming ballot measures that could affect businesses and professionals in the Burlingame area. Read an excerpt of the report and download the entire document at the end of the post for more information.
AB 688 (Gomez – D) 1155 (Alejo – D) Disability Compensation: Paid Family Leave
AB 688 would amend current law which authorizes an employer to require an employee to take a certain number of weeks of earned but unused vacation before, and as a condition of, the employee’s initial receipt of wage replacement benefits for workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a minor child.
Background:
- Current law establishes within the state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a minor child within one year of birth or placement.
- Current law authorizes an employer to require an employee to take up to 2 weeks of earned but unused vacation before, and as a condition of, the employee’s initial receipt of these benefits during any 12-month period in which the employee is eligible for these benefits.
- AB 688 eliminates the employer authorization and other related provisions.
Arguments in Support:
5. AB 688 intent is to minimize administrative costs for the Employment Development Department (EDD).
Arguments in Opposition:
- The Calchamber argues that AB 688 which creates a conflict with the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Paid Family Leave program (PFL), by eliminating an employer’s right to have employees utilize accrued, but unused, paid time off before receiving wage replacement benefits under PFL.
- Currently, an employee who takes leave under CFRA or FMLA may concurrently receive partial wage replacement benefits from PFL. CFRA, FMLA, and PFL all allow an employer to require an employee to utilize paid time off as a part of their leave. AB 688 proposes to delete this employer right for the purposes of receipt of wage replacement benefits under PFL, which will conflict with CFRA and FMLA.
- This conflict created by AB 688 will increase employers’ burden with regard to compliance with CFRA, FMLA, and PFL, as well as their costs. While we appreciate the intent of AB 688 is to minimize administrative costs for the Employment Development Department, it will directly increase the cost and burden for employers.
- AB 688 was amended in early January 2016 and is awaiting a hearing in Assembly Insurance Committee.
SB 368 (Berryhill – R) Employment: Work Hours
SB 368 would enact the Workplace Flexibility Act of 2016 and permit an individual nonexempt employee to request an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing for workdays up to a specified number of hours per day within a standard workweek.
Background:
- SB 368 would also allow the employer to implement the schedule without the obligation to pay overtime for additional hours in a workday.
- SB 368 prescribes a method for calculating overtime hours and provides an exemption for employees covered by collective bargaining and public employees.
- Current law, with certain exceptions, establishes 8 hours as a day’s work and a 40-hour workweek and requires payment of prescribed overtime compensation for additional hours worked.
- Current law authorizes the adoption by 2/3 of employees in a work unit of alternative workweek schedules providing for workdays no longer than 10 hours within a 40-hour workweek.
- Various versions of SB 368 have been introduced over the years. SB 368 is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.
Arguments in Support:
- Calchamber argues that California is one of only three states that requires employers to pay daily overtime after eight hours of work and weekly overtime after 40 hours of work. Even the other two states that impose daily overtime requirements allow the employer and employee to essentially waive the daily eight-hour overtime requirement through a written agreement. California, however, provides no such common sense alternative.
- Rather, California requires employers to navigate through a multi-step process to have employees elect an alternative workweek schedule that once adopted must be “regularly” scheduled. This process is filled with potential traps for costly litigation, as one misstep may render the entire alternative workweek schedule invalid and leave the employer on the hook for claims of unpaid overtime wages.
Arguments in Opposition:
9. Currently, none on file.
Download the full report here!