Posts

BEWARE OF BONUSES AFFECTING OVERTIME CALCULATIONS

Overtime is paid at the employee’s “regular rate of pay”.   Some new court decisions and subsequent interpretations have also provided that non-discretionary production bonuses, must be included in an employee’s “regular rate of pay” before figuring overtime payments.

The definition of an non-discretionary production bonus is: The employer predetermines the specific criteria that is required to receive a bonus. Employees expect to earn the bonus if they meet the criteria. An employer’s incentive pay plan that provides additional compensation for exceeding performance or productivity goals is an example of how nondiscretionary bonuses are executed in the workplace. 

To calculate overtime for an employee with this bonus program, you must allocate the bonus dollars over the time period the employee earned the bonus (week, month, year, etc.)  The courts explained it this way:

  • Take the bonus earned during the bonus period;
  • Divide the bonus by the total number of hours worked during the bonus period;
  • Multiply the resulting number by 0.5; and
  • Multiply the resulting number by the total number of overtime hours worked during the bonus period.

You must then show this amount on the wage statement (payroll stub) for the pay period that the bonus is paid.

Here is a hypothetical offered by the court:

The hypothetical employee earned a $360 monthly bonus for work performed during the previous month of December, from December 1 to December 31, 2017. This bonus would be reflected on the January 7 to January 20, 2018 wage statement. To calculate the OverTimePay-Override line, the hours worked in December 2017 would be used because that is the time period in which the bonus was earned. In this hypothetical, the employee had worked 160 regular hours and 20 overtime hours in December 2017, for a total of 180 hours. First, divide $360 by 180, which results in $2. This number represents the increase to the regular hourly rate. Multiply $2 by 0.5 and the result, $1, represents the increase to the overtime hourly rate. Then, take $1 and multiply it by 20, the overtime hours worked during December 2017, and the result, $20, is the overtime pay adjustment, which would be identified as the OverTimePay-Override line on the wage statement.​

This is not the calculation you would use for a flat-rate bonus.  The court said that the flat-rate bonus should be calculated as: A flat sum bonus is “factored into an employee’s regular rate of pay by dividing the amount of the bonus by the total number of non-overtime hours actually worked during the relevant pay period and using 1.5, not 0.5, as the multiplier for determining the employee’s overtime pay rate.”

This reasons that a bonus would be further diluted if you include all hours including overtime hours in the calculation.

California has more information about how to calculate overtime for different situations.  Here are a few common questions but you can find more at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Overtime.htm

3. Q. Is a bonus included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime?

A. Yes, if it is a nondiscretionary bonus. A nondiscretionary bonus is included in determining the regular rate of pay for computing overtime when it is based upon hours worked, production or proficiency or as an incentive to remain employed by the same employer. Incentive bonuses include flat sum bonuses. Flat sum bonuses must be computed by dividing the bonus by the maximum legal regular hours worked, not by the total hours worked during the pay period. Bonuses designed as an incentive for increased production for each hour worked are divided by the total hours worked in the pay period. Discretionary bonuses or sums paid as gifts at a holiday or other special occasions, such as a reward for good service, which are not measured by or dependent upon hours worked, production or efficiency, are not included for purposes of determining the regular rate of pay.
4. Q. Are any amounts excluded from the regular rate of pay?
A. Yes, there are certain types of payments that are excluded from the regular rate of pay. Examples of some of the more common exclusions are sums paid as gifts for special occasions, expense reimbursements, payments made for occasional periods when no work is performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, failure of the employer to provide sufficient work, premium pay for Saturday, Sunday, or holiday work, and discretionary bonuses.
5. Q. Are salaried employees entitled to overtime?
A. It depends. A salaried employee must be paid overtime unless they meet the test for exempt status as defined by federal and state laws, or unless they are specifically exempted from overtime by the provisions of one of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders regulating wages, hours and working conditions.
6. Q. How is overtime calculated if I work at different rates of pay in the same workweek?
A. If you are paid two or more rates by the same employer during the workweek, the regular rate is the “weighted average” which is determined by dividing your total earnings for the workweek, including earnings during overtime hours, by the total hours worked during the workweek, including the overtime hours. For example, if you work 32 hours at $11.00 an hour and 10 hours during the same workweek at $9.00 an hour, the weighted average (and thus the regular rate for that workweek) is $10.52. This is calculated by adding your $442 straight time pay for the workweek [(32hours x $11.00/hour) + (10 hours x $9.00/hour) = $442] and dividing it by the 42 hours you worked.

 

ALERT!! NEW CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING ON OVERTIME–MUST READ!

Overtime pay in California is based on the employee’s “regular rate of pay,” which is not always an employee’s normal hourly wage and must include almost all forms of pay that the employee receives.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer must calculate the regular rate of pay by dividing the employee’s total compensation by the number of non-overtime hours an employee worked during the pay period, rather than the total number of hours the employee worked, including overtime hours (Alvarado v Dart Container Corporation of California).

Many of you may pay your employees a premium for working on a weekend or a night shift and you should be aware of this distinction in the law.   Others may pay a “make up amount” to compensate workers who have changed from a daily or weekly rate to an hourly rate and have a separate line to increase their pay to meet a minimum payment.  It may be subject to increased overtime rates as well.  This may eventually extend to housing or other items that are considered part of the regular compensation package.  It may all need to be included at some point as this ruling evolves.

In the case, Dart Container Corporation of California, allegedly maintained a policy of paying a flat “attendance bonus” of $15 per day to employees who worked Saturday and Sunday shifts, regardless of the number of hours worked on the weekend shift. An employee sued, claiming he was improperly paid overtime during the weeks that he earned the weekend attendance bonus.

The employee argued that overtime pay on any flat sum bonus should be divided only by the “regular” hours he worked that week (the method in the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement [DLSE] manual), not by the “total” hours worked during the week (regular hours plus overtime hours worked, the federal formula). For example, to determine the employee’s regular rate of pay, you would divide only by 40 regular hours instead of 48 total hours (regular hours plus overtime hours). This would result in a higher regular rate of pay and, thus, a higher overtime rate.

The California Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court and approved the DLSE method of calculating the regular rate of pay when a flat sum bonus is involved: Employers must divide the employee’s total compensation by the employee’s non-overtime hours worked (not by the total hours worked).

The Court reasoned that a flat sum bonus is not tied to the number of hours worked – the $15 will be paid when an employee picks up a weekend shift, regardless of how many hours the employee worked that week. Because the flat sum bonus was payable even if the employee didn’t work overtime, only the non-overtime hours should be considered when calculating the regular rate of pay.

The Court also based its ruling on two other policy factors:

  • California law requires premium overtime pay which is meant to discourage employers from imposing overtime work.
  • California labor laws are interpreted liberally in favor of worker protection.

The Court also decided that this ruling should apply retroactively, not just going forward.

This decision is limited to flat-sum bonuses, but we may see employees argue that it should apply to other types of extra compensation.

We strongly urge employers who want to give “extra pay” to hourly workers should consult legal counsel.

Second Article Printed in Progressive Dairyman Magazine – Marijuana Laws and You

We were again privileged to be asked to submit an article covering the new Marijuana Laws for Progressive Dairyman magazine.  You can read the article here: https://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/management/cutting-through-the-smoke-marijuana-and-the-workplace or  you can read the article in the October 18 issue.

Please feel free to leave a comment or ask questions regarding this or any HR issue.   You can always call our office at 559-625-2322 if you are a customer or would like more information.

 

GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS 15 NEW LAWS, 5 WITH PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS

This past week, Governor Brown signed 15 housing bills into law.  5 of them include a prevailing wage component that goes into effect January 1, 2018.

California has a definite housing problem.  Right now there is a need for 180,000 homes and only 88,000 homes are being built in an average year.

Existing law already requires that prevailing wage be paid to workers on State financed project (ever wonder why it costs so much for the State to do anything?).  This new legislation reaches over into the private sector to tell them how much they must pay everyone and extends the influence of Unions into non-union work-places.

Prevailing wages have been around since the 1930’s and were used to kick-start the economy with projects such as the Hoover Dam.  As an example, if you are a bricklayer in Sacramento, the prevailing wage is $70 per hour.  In San Francisco, that may be $90.  And, of course, there is the story of the person who was paid $46 per hour to vacuum at a construction site because that is the prevailing wage for clean-up work.  The Janitorial description would have been much less at around $12 per hour.

An analysis of the cost of prevailing wage on the average home in California reveals the following:

  1. Almost all employees will be paid a much higher wage.  The range is an increase of 39% for electricians to 116% for construction labor.
  2. The overall increase in labor cost for residential construction would be 89%
  3. Labor accounts for about 41% of the cost of an average home, so this would mean an increase in the total construction cost of 37%
  4. Put into monetary terms, if the average cost of home construction is $88 per square foot, the 37% increase would add another $32 per square foot for a total cost increase on the average home of $84,000!

Proponents of the bills say the cost will be mitigated by the fact you are hiring professionals who will work faster, more efficiently, with less errors in the construction process.  However, they have no significant evidence to back up this assumption.  Rather, I refer you to the Bay Bridge retrofit project in San Francisco built by Union workers and under prevailing wages that is crumbling and needs millions of dollars to be fixed.  I also refer you to our present high-speed rail project with it’s original cost going from $9 billion to $65 billion (or more) as costs continue to rise.  These projects do not support the idea that if you pay a person more, they will save you money.

So far, these bills only apply to projects that take advantage of certain State fast-track waivers for environmental reviews and permitting process.  However, based on past history, the next round of legislation may be to impose prevailing wage on all “trades” work.  And, it may reach over to regular private work that is not regulated by State laws.  It could move next to any work permitted by the county, city or municipality.  The cement slab you want for a patio may double in cost.

This is a long, slippery slope that has no factual standing.  At the end of the day, there may be no increase in building homes because the cost savings of fast-tracked government regulations may not off-set the increase labor costs.  In fact, it may not even off-set the increased worker’s compensation insurance costs associated with the significant increase in wages.  If labor costs increase 87%, then worker’s comp costs will almost double for the contractors.  Also, there is an a large increase in payroll taxes associated with the increased payroll.  The State likes that.

So, what we have here is another example of legislation written to make the Politicians look like they are doing something, and appeasing their select groups (unions).  But, there is very little evidence it will actually improve the housing problem in California and even less chance that those homes will reduce the cost of housing.  We will have to wait and see what comes next.

A Short Explanation of the 7-day Work Week Penalty In California

The article below was originally  emailed to many of our customers and we felt we should share this information with all.  We  hope it is helpful.

 

The state of California says that an employee should not be forced to work 7 days in a week and has attached a penalty for doing this.  This is not new, but recently, there was some misunderstanding of the rule.  I will try to explain.

When we first meet with you to discuss your employee packet, we ask all of you to define your workweek.  This is NOT your pay period and it does not change.  Your work week is permanently listed as a 7-day period that has an exact starting and stopping time.  As an example, your work week may run from 12am Monday morning to 11:59 pm Sunday night.  Let’s use this example:

If an employee works on Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat and Sunday, then they worked all 7 days in the SAME workweek.  In this case, the employee would be entitled to be paid regular pay through Saturday, but the first 8 hours that they work on Sunday are paid and 1 ½ times their normal hourly rate.  All hours worked on that 7th day after 8 hours is at double-time pay.  Everything resets on Monday morning.  You cannot pick a different day to pay this “penalty pay” and you also may owe for daily or weekly overtime as usual for the week.

Using this same example of Monday-Sunday as the workweek, if the employee had Monday off, but worked every day for the rest of the week and continued working Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the next week before getting a day off on Thursday (9 days in a row), there is no penalty or 7-day rule pay because the employee had Monday off in one defined work week and Thursday off in the next work week.

The 2 places where we see the most use of the 7-day rule are in harvesting and when an employee switches shifts with another employee.   There are also some issues when milkers change from day to night shifts.

Most harvesters work a shorter day on Sunday and this reduces the cost of the 7th day pay.

In your handbook we give notice to employees that they must obtain consent from the supervisor before making any changes to their work with another employee.  This is so you have a chance to check and avoid having an employee work all 7 days in the same work week.

Finally, if you are going to have situations when employees work all 7 days, it may be a good idea to include the release form in your employee packet so you have advance notice of your employee’s wishes.

As always, if you have any questions regarding these issues, please contact us at our office number (559) 625-2322 and ask for the client services department or legal department.

You may also obtain more information on our other blog posting “work weeks upheld by California Supreme Court” from May 9, 2017  https://www.hrmobileservices.com/work-weeks-upheld-by-california-supreme-court/

 

UPDATE TO CALIFORNIA IRRIGATORS AND OVERTIME

Late last  year and early this year we discussed the new Agriculture Labor laws going into effect in California.  Mostly it was centered on the reduction of hours over time from a 10 hour work day to an 8 hour work day.

However, in the language of the bill was a very important phrase that said this bill affects “all Agricultural workers”.  This created quite a stir among lawyers and the split was about 50\50.  Some took this literally to mean that all workers in the agriculture profession, were now subject to the same rules and there would be no exceptions.  Others, pointing to the history going back the the 1930’s that exempted irrigators from the overtime regulations, that this would be cleaned up by the Labor Commissioner who is charged with rewriting the Wage Orders to comply with the legislation.

So far, we have not seen a new Wage order 14 so the one that is on the books is all we have to direct our work for now.

At the beginning of the year, we advised people, based on legal opinions, to continue treating irrigators as exempt employees until we heard from the Labor Commissioner.  At that time, we figured we would see something in writing by March and since it was raining, most employers were not working irrigators over 10 hours a day.  However, now we are into July with no definitive answer.  So, at this point, we are changing our recommendations, and it is our opinion that you SHOULD pay irrigators for overtime if they work over 10 hours in a day or over 60 hours in a week, just as you do other workers.

We base this opinion on the following:

  1. Previously, if the decision came down that you would have to pay overtime to irrigators going back to January 1, 2017, we were most likely not talking about a lot of hours and the employer can pay it out in one check and would most likely avoid any penalty fines.
  2. Now that we are in the heat of the year and irrigators are working full time, there is more possibility of them working overtime and the bill to pay back-wages is increasing.  At this time, it would be better to pay overtime incurred since July 1 and if we hear later that you must pay overtime from January 1, you can still pay that smaller amount in one check and avoid penalties.
  3. We don’t want to create a situation where you have many employees who have moved on to other employers and they come back to you and accuse you of not paying overtime.  This becomes more of an issue as time goes by.

The decision to pay overtime is still your at this writing, but we feel it is the better position to pay it now and avoid more trouble potentially in the future.  Even if the Labor Commissioner ultimately corrects the wording or interpretation and exempts irrigators from overtime, it is a small price to pay for avoiding litigation later.

WORK WEEKS UPHELD BY CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Monday, the California Supreme court voted 7-0 in favor of the seven days in the same  work week interpretation.  This means that, if you define your work week, as long as an employee has one day off in that workweek, they are not eligible for premium ovcr-time payments.  They rejected the interpretation that employees should only work 6 days and affirmed the wording that employees may only work 6 days in the same work week.

Here is how it works.  If your work week is Monday through Sunday, and the employee works every day in the week, the hours they work on Sunday would be subject to the 7th day penalty where the first 8 hours are at time and a half and all hours after the 8th hour are double time.  However, if an employee worked Wednesday to the following Wednesday, there is no violation of the seven day rule because they had at least one day off in each work week as defined.

This is why it is so important to establish and notify your employees of your work week in your employee handbook and other documents.  It does not have to align with paydays, but it is preferable.  Remember, if you pay twice a month, it is possible that a payday falls in the middle of a pay period and you may miss an employee working through the seven day rule because part falls in 2 different pay periods.  You are still responsible for paying the penalty overtime if this happens.  You would apply it in the pay period where the seventh day was worked.

Overall, this is a victory for employers who have been following these rules as written for many years.  To change them now would have been a huge hit to employers across California.  Having one day off a work week is good for employer and employee, but a new law of 1 day off in any seven days could be hard to adjust.  This is especially true of businesses such as restaurants where you have high turnover, people calling in sick and then you have to ask another employee to come in to cover a shift.

So, rejoice, the courts did the right thing.  The best way to keep the government out of these things is to pay properly, follow the law and make sure your competition is doing the same.

Final Thoughts on 2016 and a Caution to Legislators and Employers for 2017

I will begin this by saying that some of this article is focused on California, while much can be applicable to the rest of the United States.  The San Joaquin Valley is a microcosm of what has taken place across this country.  The rural, farming and agriculture areas of this country are tired of being ignored.   And finally, they stood up in November and got the attention of the people that think that life is only lived in big cities.

California politicians are very good at double speak.  They say they are supportive of Agriculture, but none of them every actually come to the Valley to talk to business owners.  On the rare occasion they do come to the Valley it is to talk to the workers or to point at a High Speed Rail train that is not going to do anything for people here.

The fact is, California, and many State governments across the country, would prefer if Agriculture would just go away.  They would much rather we were all working in a state full of Silicone Valley businesses.  They are cleaner, there would be no fight over water, and we could just ignore it altogether.  In the past election, we did not get visits by Hillary (Trump dropped in quickly) and Kamala Harris (the new Senator) didn’t bother with and knows nothing about this side of California.  The Governor has only been to Fresno a few times in 6 years and that is never to learn about real issues (he knows it all I guess).

For the rest of the country, the story is similar.  President Obama flew over the rest of the US and only visited a few coastal states in 8 years in office.  He came to California almost monthly to San Francisco or Los Angeles to attend a fund raiser, but on the ONE occasion that he came to the valley to discuss the drought, he got off the plane, went to a dirt field for about 1 hour and then flew out because he had a golf date in Southern California (where they had water to make beautiful greens for his putting).  We never saw a thing done about the drought after that and still have not until last week when a bill (0pposed by outgoing Senator Barbara Boxer) was signed by the President to help us build dams.  This was not because of any work done by the President, but by the work of our Representatives from the Valley that finally got enough support from  enough people in both parties to get this to the President despite Barbara Boxer.

One of the most telling examples of how Legislators view business owners is how they write regulations.  Almost all regulations start with the assumption that most employers are bad.  In fact, many times it is actually written into the introduction and states that this bill must be passed to protect the workers, etc.  The reality is that most employers work very hard with their employees to create a family atmosphere.  The regulations get in the way of much of this.  Every time the government mandates a benefit that many people are already doing for their employees, they add cumbersome requirements, and many pages of fines and penalties if you do not do it exactly right.  In a more practical world, doing your best should count for something, but not according to our Legislators.  So, every time they add a benefit, many employers remove another benefit so they can afford the one the government wants.  There is only one pot of money, but Legislators think employers can just invent more money like Congress does and it just isn’t the case.

If there is one takeaway from the recent Presidential elections is that middle-America and rural areas are tired of being ignored or shoved aside by our representatives.  If you don’t visit and really listen to their issues, you run the chance of being replaced.  Not all issues affecting business and employees can be handled by looking out the window in Los Angeles or Sacramento or Washington, D.C.  I hope they pay attention or 2018 could be a very turbulent year as well.

BUT THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER\EMPLOYER AS WELL:

In 1999, in California, Governor Gray Davis signed the labor bills establishing daily as well as weekly overtime rules.  It also established a 30 minute employee meal with stern regulations.  Here we are 17 years later and there are still a number of employers who ignore, or do not know of these laws, or simply choose to go their own way.  This affects all of us.  When an employer does not follow the simple laws and refuses to do things like installing a time clock and paying people for the hours they work, they give every employer a black eye and give every Legislator an easy excuse to add new laws and regulations.  In other words, a few stubborn bad employers are making business hard for everyone else.  Instead of just complaining about the State or the Federal government, if  you know an employer that is not following the law, talk to them and let them know they are a big part of the problem.

The easiest way to pay people with the least amount of work on your part is to pay people exactly what they work based on a time clock.  Anything else you are doing is why we keep getting more “wage theft” headlines.  Let’s all resolve in 2017 to pay people for what they work and hold them accountable for the job.  Spend your hard time enforcing your rules instead of working hard to explain a poor payroll practice.  With minimum wages going up and other regulations coming to many States, 2017 is a good year to get on board the right train.  HR Mobile Services, Inc. is there to help you do it, but you have to follow the program to make it successful.

Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!!!

GOV. BROWN SIGNS INDOOR HEAT ILLNESS MANDATE

Yes, you read that correctly.  The State of California feels that people working in-doors deserve the same protections from Heat Illness training as outdoor workers.  Now, on some levels this makes sense.  For instance, a worker in a factory could be exposed to severe heat conditions. Other similar places could be electrical generation areas, greenhouses, building construction, attic insulation installers, electricians, plumbers, etc.  So, this could have some practical applications in the workplace.

That being said, it is a very poorly written bill, SB 1167 (Mendoza; D-Artesia) , which gives almost no direction as to the definition of an “indoor occupation” that would be covered under this act.  In fact, the entire project is left almost completely to Cal\OSHA to write and implement this program.  They have to begin the rule making process in 2017 to submit a proposed rule to the Cal/OSHA Standards Board by January 1, 2019.

This is a stakeholder driven process, so it is very important that your industry is part of the conversation.  If you have an advocacy group, get them involved early to state your position before the rules are written.  It is almost impossible to fight or have them re-written later.

 

GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS BILL SETTING UP RETIREMENT FUND FOR LOW WAGE WORKERS

 

Before anyone panics, let me say up front that employers do not have to fund any of this with their own money, you just have to set this up in your payroll so that a percentage of an employees check goes to a State run retirement programSo now let me tell you what we know:

Gov. Jerry Brown is scheduled to sign legislation Thursday to automatically enroll nearly 7 million people in a retirement savings account, an attempt to address growing fears that many workers will be financially unprepared to retire.

The legislation creates a state-run retirement program for workers who don’t have an employer-sponsored plan, many of them working in lower-wage positions. It requires employers to automatically enroll their workers and deduct money from each paycheck, though workers can opt out or set their own savings rate. The account could also be carried from job to job.  It is suggested that originally 5% would be deducted and it would go up by 1% per year until it settles at 10%.  I do not know many workers, especially low income people that can afford 10% of their income being taken away for this program.

Supporters of the concept hope that requiring workers to affirmatively opt out will make them less likely to do so, but it is up to employers to make sure all employees will be aware of this program and that they can opt-out.  Experience from the health insurance program is that most employees will opt-out if it involves their own money.

This bill is known as SB1234 by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles.  It will be called SECURE CHOICE.  You may thank him directly if you are so disposed or let him know what you think of his idea at   https://sd24.senate.ca.gov/contact/email

Below are some key points.  This program will not open until the 9 member panel charged with oversight of the program is installed, so this may not start for a year or two.

KEY FEATURES OF THE CALIFORNIA SECURE CHOICE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PROGRAM:

Governing and Oversight Board

The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board (https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/scib/) is modeled after ScholarShare, California’s 529 College Savings Plan. The Board is comprised of nine members: the State Treasurer (Chair), State Controller, Director of the Department of Finance, a retirement savings and investment expert appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, an employee representative appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, a small business representative appointed by the Governor, and three additional public members appointed by the Governor. Page 3 of 4

The Board is charged with the administration of the Secure Choice Program, and to date has overseen the completion of the legal analysis and the mandated market analysis and feasibility study. In moving forward with the full implementation of the program, the Board will be the ongoing administrator for the hiring of private firms to manage the investment portfolio and the individual retirement savings accounts.

Disclosures for Employees and Employer Liability Protections

Employees offered the opportunity to participate in the Secure Choice Program will 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 in 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 will 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.

In addition, the disclosure form will notify employees that the program is not an employer-sponsored retirement plan, 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 disclosure form will also specify that the Secure Choice program fund is not guaranteed by the State of California.

Employees that choose to participate in the program will be required to acknowledge that they have received and read all of the disclosures.

Employee Participation in the Secure Choice Program

When the Secure Choice Board officially opens the program for enrollment, only employers that do not offer their own employer-sponsored retirement plan (such as a 401(k), SEP, or SIMPLE plan) or automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA will have to perform the ministerial duty of supplying the information packet and disclosure form, and allow their employees to remit contributions through payroll deduction.

Employees will be automatically enrolled, and employee participation will be phased-in over a three year timeframe, starting with the largest employers:

 Employers with 100+ employees: allow employee participation within 12 months of the Board opening the program for enrollment;

 Employers with 50+ employees: within 24 months;

 All other eligible employers: within 36 months.

Participation by employees will be completely voluntarily, and employees will retain the ability to opt out at any time.

The default employee contribution rate will be set at 3%, with Board authority to adjust the amount between 2-5%. Through regulation, the Board could also establish an auto-escalation contribution rate, capped at 8% of salary with a limitation on increasing the rate no more than 1% annually. Employees will be able to specify their level of contribution if they do not want to contribute the default rate, and could also opt out of auto-escalation at any time. Page 4 of 4

Employees that already have access to a workplace retirement plan could also voluntarily participate in the Secure Choice Program. However, their employer will not be obligated to allow them to use their payroll system to make automatic payroll contributions to the program.

Role of Employers

Employers that opt to make the Secure Choice Program available to their employees will not bear any fiduciary responsibility and will not be required to pay administrative fees or comply with federal quarterly-reporting mandates. The administrative function of employers will be limited to providing employees with the program information packet and disclosure form, and allowing their employees access to their payroll system to make payroll deductions to the program.

Due to current federal prohibitions, voluntary employer contributions to employees’ individual retirement accounts will only be permitted if there is a future change in federal law and employer contributions would not cause the Secure Choice Program to be treated as an employee benefit plan under ERISA.

WE WILL WRITE MORE ON THIS TOPIC WHEN THERE IS MORE INFORMATION AND WE ARE NEARER TO IMPLEMENTATION.