California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 665 — Employment: meal periods.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law requires an employer to provide its employees with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes after working more than 5 hours per day and a 2nd meal period of the same duration after working more than 10 hours per day. Under existing law, these meal periods may be waived under certain conditions by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. This bill would allow an employer of a registered security officer to provide on-duty meal periods instead if the officer is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement containing specified terms or has a written on-duty meal period agreement with his or her employer containing specified terms. Because the bill would make these on-duty meal provisions subject to specified terms, the violation of which would be a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  3. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  4. Set for hearing April 29.

  5. Hearing postponed by committee.

  6. Set for hearing April 22.

  7. To Com. on L. & I.R.

  8. Read first time.

  9. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 30.

  10. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Cedillo · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Cedillo

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 665 do?
Existing law requires an employer to provide its employees with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes after working more than 5 hours per day and a 2nd meal period of the same duration after working more than 10 hours per day. Under existing law, these meal periods may be waived under certain conditions by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. This bill would allow an employer of a registered security officer to provide on-duty meal periods instead if the officer is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement containing specified terms or has a written on-duty meal period agreement with his or her employer containing specified terms. Because the bill would make these on-duty meal provisions subject to specified terms, the violation of which would be a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 665?
SB 665 is sponsored by Cedillo.
What is the current status of SB 665?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 665?
Track SB 665 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 665

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 665

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →