None of the bills we were tracking were signed into law, except SB 940. (See my original list, here.) Of the bills opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, only AB 2075 was signed into law. For that reason, we’ll take an in depth look at it below.
An attempt was made to reverse the Ragingwire decision (AB 2279), and including marijuana use within the protections of the FEHA. The Legislature failed—again—to address the rest/meal period issue. There were a number of bills introduced attempting to grapple with the changing realities of the workplace relating to the use of independent contracts. (SB 940, which is law, was one of those.)
SB 940 …
This bill requires that temporary services employers, with certain exceptions, pay their employees weekly, regardless of when the assignment ends, unless the employee is discharged, quits, is assigned to work for a client on a day-to-day basis, or if the employee is assigned to work for a client engaged in a labor dispute.
This law was supposed to do just that, and clarify the procedure created by Smith v. L’Oreal. Now take a look at the law. Very long and complicated for such a task. Let’s thank the Legislature and the Governor for continuing to ensure full employment for labor lawyers.
The question remains, as pointed out here, is this: does this clean up when a temp agency stops being an employer for FEHA purposes as well? Hopefully this law does clarify as stated.
AB 2075 which was a rare bird, signed by the Governor over the Calchamber’s objection, amplifies the penalties in place for “forcing” employees to sign a false time sheet as a condition of a release.
This year, I have developed a theme that what should be important to employers is clarity first, leniency, when reasonable, second.
Given the economic circumstances that may not have been apparent to everybody when this session started (unless they had an investment account at Bear Stearns and a checking account at IndyMac), I think it is doubly the case. It would not have been unjustified for the Legislature and the Governor to refuse making any major changes to the labor laws at this time. Because the two bills reviewed above do purport only to clarify or slightly amplify existing law, that goal seems to have been in mind.
It’s also worth pointing out that there are literally hundreds of bills introduced each year that reflect everything from issues of global importance, to trivial “pet” projects, like whether or not someone can have a dog in their lap. Even if that were not the case, our Legislature melodramatically and predictably wastes most of its session on the budget, which means even important bills come second.
For some issues, this lack of time may be damaging. For labor law in this state, it is probably a good thing, because it continues to let things settle down and clarify for a while. Again, I think given the economic circumstances that is best.
However, at some point, the Legislature is going to have to catch up with the 21st century workplace. That means tackling the meal/rest period question, the independent contractor issues, all in a fair a modern manner. I would also hope that both sides could get behind some form of “exempt/non-exempt” clarification. A pragmatic trade might be to keep or slightly tighten existing law as labor’s consideration for more safe harbor rules for management.
None of the usual suspects in the Legislature, or their offices, would give me anything about what they might introduce next year. Given that most are out running for office, or are otherwise involved in campaigns, and that the last session just ended (for the most part), it’s understandable.
There were other laws I could address, but I won’t be reduced to explaining how the text messaging ban affects employers. It may; but I don’t think it affects how we as practitioners do employment law.
As always, I appreciate any feedback you may wish to leave.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }