A revised bill that would exempt certain custodial workers from the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is raising questions about what additional professions might be exempted from the controversial law.
Under SB 646, PAGA would not apply to custodians who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
SB 646, which started out as an electricity resource planning bill, underwent gut and amend in the change to a PAGA exemption measure. The California Legislative glossary defines gut and amend as replacing a bill’s entire contents with different provisions.
The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee approved SB 646 on Tuesday.
If enacted, the measure would become the second PAGA exemption for a specific profession; the first – AB 1654 from 2018 – applied to unionized construction workers, Tom Manzo, founder and president of the California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA), told the Northern California Record.
“This is a special carveout for only unionized employers in the janitorial Industry,” Manzo said. “First the construction industry and now janitorial companies. What does that say about the PAGA statute? PAGA is so bad now labor wants out of it.”
ABM Industries is sponsoring the bill, which is also backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, according to the Senate Bill Policy Committee Analysis.
It is not clear if SB 646 will also help move forward other PAGA-related legislation introduced earlier this session – AB 385, sponsored by Assemblymember Heath Flora, R-Ripon, and AB 530, sponsored by Assemblymember Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield. Both of those bills also are mentioned in the Senate Analysis.
“And what about all the other small and mid-sized janitorial companies that aren’t unionized?” Manzo said. “Why are we protecting this law? Why big labor feels they need an exception truly demonstrates how severely flawed this law truly is.”
The Senate Analysis states, “In an effort to level the playing field for responsible contractors and their workers, [this bill] exempts janitorial employees from PAGA if the employee’s work is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for, among other things, a grievance and binding arbitration process to redress violations that would otherwise be remedied under PAGA.”
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, an author of SB 646, did not reply to a request for comment from the Record.
ABM Industries states in the Senate Analysis that the janitorial industry has had low barriers to entry since the mid-1970s, resulting in a “race to the bottom” with a primary goal of cutting costs.
“This has negatively impacted janitorial workers who are predominantly women of color and immigrants and has effectively cheated them out of legal wages and exposed them to unsafe working conditions,” ABM states. “While these underground employers have negatively impacted their employees, union represented employees have thrived in the state.”
ABM in 2010 also successfully litigated a California Appellate Court case involving PAGA claims, Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. The California Department of Industrial Relations website shows ABM Industries has received 15 PAGA notices.
SB 646 is scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on July 13.