Posts

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.

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.

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!!!

ALL CALIF. EMPLOYERS BE READY FOR NEW PROP. 65 REQUIREMENTS IN 2018

California has been dealing with Prop. 65 (notice of possible Cancer causing items in use).  Well, recently we were hoping that this bill, which has been a boon to California lawyers, would be pruned and made more practical.  Instead, they have made it much tougher for almost every employer in California beginning in 2018.  There are over 800 chemicals on the present list.  Here is the list:  https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list .   Beginning in 2018, the old sign stating that “chemicals known to cause cancer” that  you see everywhere from every restaurant and hospital to gas stations to ball parks, will now require a sign that lists all chemicals in use at any facility.  That means barber shops to dairy farms will need to have this list posted in plain view for all people entering the property.

On its face this is absurd.  This is another example of politicians trying to show people how they are protecting us, when the reality is that no one pays attention or reads it.  As proof, how many people really read the required postings by every employer near their time clock or break room?  It is another venue for lawyers to file lawsuits against employers while not protecting anyone.

You can read a very good article regarding this story from  Joseph Perrone in the Fresno Bee.   Here is the link: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article114970193.html

While we have time, the recent elections do not give us much hope that any sanity will return to the California State Legislature.  However, with people starting to campaign for the Governor position in 2  years, I would suggest that anytime you are confronted by any of these aspiring politicians, you ask them their stance on this issue and why.  It may provide some attention and action to make this proposition more practical.

 

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.

MORE EFFECTS FROM THE CHANGE TO AGRICULTURAL WORK HOURS

With the coming change, beginning in 2019, to lower the hours worked in agriculture from 10 to 8 per day, there are also other changes to consider.  First, right now, we encourage our employers to give their employees 30 hours of sick pay per year.  As the hours drop after 2019, the hours of sick pay should also drop until they reach 8 hours x 3 days or 24 hours.  So employees will lose 6 hours of sick pay over time.  Again, you cannot make that change now, but understand it will be a change in a few years.

Second and more important, vacation hours will change.  In the past, it was not really correct to say you get “one week” of vacation because that does not define an exact number of hours offered.  So, we changed your employee packets to say 1 week (60 hours).  Now, we need to start changing that again and we need to do it soon.  Many customers also offer 2 weeks of vacation (120 hours) after anywhere from 2-5 years later.  So, an employee hired in 2017 may be seeing his hours reduced by as much as 20 hours in a week by the time they get that 2 week vacation.  For that reason, we are proposing a change to employee vacation policy that states the employee will earn the equivalent of one week of vacation based on the consistent average of the work weeks from the previous year.  In other words, if an employee works around 40 hours a week, they will get a 40 hour vacation.  If they average 45 hours a week, it will be 45 hours of vacation.  It does not have to be an exact average, but based on the common hours worked weekly.  The same will stand for the 2 week vacation.

If you are an HR Mobile Services, Inc. full-service customer, we will be working to change these policies over the next year.  We see the employee packet as a living document and we make changes large and small about 3 times a year for our customers.  If you have an employee handbook from an attorney, it may not be as up-to-date as Federal Law and State laws change constantly.

Seattle, San Jose, and San Francisco are working on new labor laws that may affect you

Seattle, San Jose, and San Francisco are working on new labor laws that may affect you

According to an article from the AP, many employers will be subject to severe new rules regarding scheduling and once it gets a foothold, you can bet this will be going Nationwide and into other industries.  This is the next step in Socializing all employment.  Please note at the bottom that those with collective bargaining agreements (unions) are exempt.  I can’t imagine how an employer will comply with this law.  If an employee calls in sick or quits, the employer will face fines if they ask another employee to come in and work their shift, so they are forced to work the next 2 weeks short-handed or pay penalties.  – Jeff

By PHUONG LE

Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) –Seattle leaders have proposed new rules for retail and food-service businesses with hourly employees, including requiring them to schedule shifts two weeks in advance and compensate workers for some last-minute changes – the latest push by a city that has led the nation in mandating worker benefits.

Seattle was among the first to phase in a $15 hourly minimum wage, mandate sick leave for many companies and offer paid parental leave for city workers.

Now, the mayor, city officials and labor-backed groups are targeting erratic schedules and fluctuating hours they say make it difficult for people to juggle child care, school or other jobs, to count on stable income or to plan for the future.

Seattle’s “secure scheduling” proposal also would require retail and fast-food companies with 500 employees globally to compensate workers with “predictability pay” when they’re scheduled but don’t get called into work or are sent home early; provide a minimum 10 hours rest between open and closing shifts; and offer hours to existing employees before hiring new staff.

“Creating equity in Seattle means providing workers with access to a reliable schedule that meets their life and financial needs, while balancing the daily realities facing large employers,” Mayor Ed Murray said earlier this month.

In 2014, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to pass similar legislation. A District of Columbia bill requiring 14-day scheduling notice advanced out of a council committee in June but has yet to be taken up by the full council. A November ballot measure before San Jose, California, voters would require businesses to offer additional hours to existing part-time employees before hiring new staff.

The Washington Retail Association and other businesses have criticized the Seattle proposal, saying many employers already provide advance scheduling notice. They say the measure is too restrictive and will create more problems for workers.

“It will wipe out the scheduling flexibility that benefits both employ yees and employers,” said Jan Teague, association president. If store managers can’t add to labor costs to cover the predictability pay, they’ll operate with fewer employees or fewer hours when someone can’t make it into work, she said.

Others say they want to see changes to some provisions, such as ensuring employers aren’t penalized for offering shifts directly to workers who want them.

Across the country, companies have faced increasing pressure to make schedules more predictable. Last month, Wal-Mart launched a new scheduling system to give thousands of hourly employees more certainty about their hours.

The sponsors of Seattle’s ordinance say it’s as much about closing the city’s income gap as giving entry-level workers, many of whom are women and minorities, more control over schedules. Median household income, housing prices and rents have soared in booming Seattle as the city has grown to about 687,000 and added about 50,000 tech and other jobs in five years.

“We want this to be a city where our workforce, the people who are keeping this place running, can afford to live here,” said Councilwoman Lisa Herbold, a bill sponsor. “When people have more secure hours, they can do things that make the city more affordable, such as holding down a second job or going to school so they can get a better job.”

Crystal Thompson, who works at Domino’s Pizza, often scrambles to find child care when she gets her schedule one day before the work week begins. The short notice makes it difficult to plan her life.

“This will be good for a lot of people,” she said.

Oliver Savage, 22, a Starbucks barista, said he has asked to work 30 hours but currently gets 20. For a period this summer, a previous store manager scheduled him for only eight hours, reducing his one source of income. He said the store hired a new barista during that time, so he supports the provision requiring current workers be offered hours before additional staff is hired.

Jennifer England, who owns a Subway franchise, said she works with her three employees to accommodate their scheduling needs. She said she won’t be able to pay extra for last-minute shift changes if a worker wants time off or calls in sick.

“They’re making it harder for us to schedule and if anything comes up, we’re going to be penalized and we can’t afford that,” England said.

The bill exempts companies whose employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with similar scheduling provisions.

US Dept of Labor Issuing new Rules for Salary Exemptions

Below is a release from the US Department of Labor.   Many states take their labor rules directly from the US  DOL but many others have their own rules under which employees are eligible for overtime pay.  For instance in California, a salaried person must be paid twice the minimum wage and be in a largely administrative position not doing the same work as the hourly employees.  They must exercise independent thought and actions and this is a pretty high standard to be exempt from overtime requirements.  Further, if you have salaried people, you better have a written agreement of what the salary covers as far as expected hours of work each day\week and if there is any overtime figured into the salary.  Otherwise, it is not considered as covering overtime due.  Check with your own state for their rules on overtime, but here is the statement from the US Department of Labor:

 Wage and Hour Division (WHD)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Overtime

President Obama signing the memorandumToday the Department of Labor has announced a proposed rule that would extend overtime protections to nearly 5 million white collar workers within the first year of its implementation. Failure to update the overtime regulations has left an exception to overtime eligibility originally meant for highly-compensated executive, administrative, and professional employees now applying to workers earning as little as $23,660 a year. For example, a convenience store manager, fast food assistant manager, or some office workers may be expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week or more, making less than the poverty level for a family of four, and not receive a dime of overtime pay. Today’s proposed regulation is a critical first step toward ensuring that hard-working Americans are compensated fairly and have a chance to get ahead.

On March 13, 2014, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department to update the regulations defining which white collar workers are protected by the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime standards. Consistent with the President’s goal of ensuring workers are paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, the memorandum instructed the Department to look for ways to modernize and simplify the regulations while ensuring that the FLSA’s intended overtime protections are fully implemented.

Following issuance of the memorandum, the Department embarked on an extensive outreach program, conducting listening sessions in Washington, DC, and several other locations, as well as by conference call. The listening sessions were attended by a wide range of stakeholders: employees, employers, business associations, non-profit organizations, employee advocates, unions, state and local government representatives, tribal representatives, and small businesses. In these sessions the Department asked stakeholders to address, among other issues: (1) What is the appropriate salary level for exemption; (2) what, if any, changes should be made to the duties tests; and (3) how the regulations could be simplified. The Department’s extensive outreach helped in shaping a proposed rule that is intended to be responsive to concerns raised by the regulated community.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on July 6, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR 38515) and invited interested parties to submit written comments on the proposed rule at www.regulations.gov by September 4, 2015. Only comments received during the comment period identified in the Federal Register published version of the NPRM will be considered part of the rulemaking record.

Written comments received during the comment period will be helpful in shaping any final rule. Based on past experience and extensive work with the regulated community on other FLSA-related matters, we believe a 60-day comment period provides sufficient time for interested parties to submit substantial comment. Equally important, a comment period of this length, coupled with the feedback already received during the initial outreach sessions, will meet the goal described above of ensuring the Department has the level of insight from the public needed to produce a quality regulation. For these reasons we will not be extending the comment period.

Additional Information

 

   

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL TO END AG OVERTIME EXEMPTION (AB2757) PASSES COMMITTEE

AB 2757 (Gonzalez), which seeks to repeal longstanding law allowing California Agriculture to pay overtime after 10 hours of work in a day passed the California Assembly’s Labor and Employment Committee on April 6, 2016.

Presently, Labor Code section 554 exempts agricultural employees from Labor Code provisions regarding wage and hour, meal break requirements and other working conditions.  Known as the Phase-In Overtime for Agricultural Workers Act of 2016, this bill would remove this exemption and would create a schedule that would phase-in overtime requirements for agricultural workers over the course of four years, beginning in 2017.  Under the proposed legislation, beginning July 1, 2017, agricultural workers would receive overtime for all work after nine and one-half hours daily or in excess of 55 hours in one workweek.  The thresholds for daily and weekly overtime would be further reduced each subsequent year until January 2020, at which point agricultural employees would receive overtime for work beyond eight hours daily or 40 hours weekly.

Obviously, California Agriculture should do everything it can to oppose this ill-thought legislation. Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC will continue to monitor AB 2757 and all other pending employment and labor law bills pending in the California Legislature.  Please call us at 559-421-7000 if you have any questions.

This bill will reduce the paychecks of thousands of agriculture workers.  This bill forces employers to cut 20 hours a week out of the agriculture workers check.  It also reduces their mandated sick pay hours to 24 (from 30) and most of these families will not be able to exist on this amount of pay.  This could mean the end of Agriculture in California.  If employees cannot feed their families they will move away.   If they go, there won’t be anyone to tend the animals and crops.  This is a bill that needs to see the light of day and have a vigorous voice from all Ag employers.  Do it today!!

California is Reaching into Your Pockets AGAIN – 6 weeks Paid Time Off

I may be jumping the gun a little on this one, but yesterday, the city council of San Francisco UNANIMOUSLY voted that employers with over 20 employees will be required to allow family leave AT FULL PAY for 6 weeks!!

California already has California Paid Family Leave Act in place.  It is run through the EDD and is similar to State Disability Insurance.  It is paid for through payroll deductions and the employee receives about 55% of their normal pay while they are “bonding” with the new baby.  Now, San Francisco wants every employer to make up the 45% difference so that the employee is receiving 100% of their normal pay.  They do not say where this mystery money is supposed to come from, but you can imagine higher costs for everything, again, and another reason NOT to go to San Francisco.

I bring this new law up now because as we are painfully aware, all of our State Leaders come from San Francisco with a couple from Los Angeles.  So, every time San Francisco does something like this, it ends up in Sacramento a few months later.  So don’t be surprised when we are discussing this on a State level within the year.

So let’s review…..

We are raising payroll by 50%, then requiring that you give people at least 3 free days a year called sick pay, then we mandate that you provide health insurance and now you have to pay someone 45% of their normal wages for 6 weeks of non- productive work time.  And economists will tell you this will have no effect on business…..which shows the quality of education in California universities.  But that is for another day.

UPDATE!!!!!!.

On Monday, Governor Brown signed a new addendum that increases the payout to people on Paid Family leave to 60%.  This benefit could, in the future also create a new classification of worker.  Under a new definition, if an employee is earning below the poverty line they could fall into this new classification and be eligible for increased State funding for a variety of payouts.  This could mean that they would receive 70% of normal pay while other employee would only receive 60% for the same Paid Family Leave.  This could be extended to Unemployment Benefits, State Disability Pay and even employer covered expenses such as temporary disability under worker’s compensation benefits.  The costs to tax payers and employers just keep surging with no end in sight.