California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 469 — Employees: wages.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 655, Statutes of 2011.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 15, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate and enforce statutes and orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission that, among other things, specify the requirements for the payment of wages by employers. Existing law provides for criminal and civil penalties for violations of statutes and orders of the commission regarding payment of wages. This bill would provide that in addition to being subject to a civil penalty, any employer who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the commission shall be subject to paying restitution of wages to the employee. This bill would make it a misdemeanor if an employer willfully violates specified wage statutes or orders, or willfully fails to pay a final court judgment or final order of the Labor Commissioner for wages due. (2) Existing law provides that an action by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations for collection of a statutory penalty or fee must be commenced within one year after the penalty or fee became final. This bill would extend the period within which the division may commence a collection action, as defined, from one year to 3 years. (3) Existing law permits the Labor Commissioner to require an employer who has been convicted of a subsequent wage violation or who has failed to satisfy a judgment to post a bond in order to continue business operations. This bill would extend the time required for a subsequently convicted employer to maintain a bond from 6 months to 2 years and would require that a subsequently convicted employer provide an accounting of assets, as specified, to the Labor Commissioner. (4) Existing law requires an employer to post specified wage and hour information in a location where it can be viewed by employees. This bill would require an employer to provide each employee, at the time of hiring, with a notice that specifies the rate and the basis, whether hourly, salary, commission, or otherwise, of the employee's wages and to notify each employee in writing of any changes to the information set forth in the notice within 7 calendar days of the changes unless such changes are reflected on a timely wage statement or another writing, as specified. No notice would be required for an employee who is employed by the state or any subdivision thereof, exempt from the payment of overtime, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement containing specified information. (5) In addition to the crime and employer obligations imposed by this bill, the Labor Code provides for other work-related standards and duties that, upon violation, are subject to specified penalties. This bill would state that the Labor Code establishes minimum penalties for failure to comply with wage-related statutes and regulations. Because this bill would create a new crime or expand the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 98 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 240, that would become operative only if AB 240 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 226 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 243, that would become operative only if AB 243 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 655, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 51. Noes 27. Page 2907.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 3 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 21. Noes 14. Page 2203.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 22).

  16. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  17. Referred to Coms. on L. & I.R. and JUD.

  18. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  19. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 50. Noes 25. Page 1725.)

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 27).

  23. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  24. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  25. Read second time and amended.

  26. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (April 26).

  27. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  28. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  29. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 13). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  30. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  31. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  32. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  33. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  34. Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.

  35. From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.

  36. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Huffman · Cosponsor
  • Swanson · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Swanson

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Huffman

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

Votes

AB 469 SWANSON Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 51 Yea · 27 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 502502
Democratic 1000
Republican 0200
Total 512702
% of votes cast 64%34%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Butler — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Campos — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Carter — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Lara — Yea
Ma — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Monning — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Gorell — Not Voting
Halderman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Knight — Nay
Mendoza — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Valadao — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Logue — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Williams — Yea
Conway — Nay
Eng — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB469 Swanson By Lieu

Passed 21 Yea · 14 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201304
Republican 0100
Democratic 1001
Total 211405
% of votes cast 53%35%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Evans — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Runner — Nay
Negrete McLeod — Not Voting
Anderson — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Harman — Not Voting
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wolk — Not Voting
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 469 SWANSON Assembly Third Reading

Passed 50 Yea · 25 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0200
Unaffiliated 492305
Democratic 1000
Total 502505
% of votes cast 63%31%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Eng — Yea
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Carter — Yea
Huber — Yea
Fong — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Williams — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Campos — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Halderman — Nay
Fletcher — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Nay
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Pan — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Silva — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Cook — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Not Voting
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Democratic 1000
Total 12500
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

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 AB 469 do?
(1) Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate and enforce statutes and orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission that, among other things, specify the requirements for the payment of wages by employers. Existing law provides for criminal and civil penalties for violations of statutes and orders of the commission regarding payment of wages. This bill would provide that in addition to being subject to a civil penalty, any employer who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the commission shall be subject to paying restitution of wages to the employee. This bill would make it a misdemeanor if an employer willfully violates specified wage statutes or orders, or willfully fails to pay a final court judgment or final order of the Labor Commissioner for wages due. (2) Existing law provides that an action by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations for collection of a statutory penalty or fee must be commenced within one year after the penalty or fee became final. This bill would extend the period within which the division may commence a collection action, as defined, from one year to 3 years. (3) Existing law permits the Labor Commissioner to require an employer who has been convicted of a subsequent wage violation or who has failed to satisfy a judgment to post a bond in order to continue business operations. This bill would extend the time required for a subsequently convicted employer to maintain a bond from 6 months to 2 years and would require that a subsequently convicted employer provide an accounting of assets, as specified, to the Labor Commissioner. (4) Existing law requires an employer to post specified wage and hour information in a location where it can be viewed by employees. This bill would require an employer to provide each employee, at the time of hiring, with a notice that specifies the rate and the basis, whether hourly, salary, commission, or otherwise, of the employee's wages and to notify each employee in writing of any changes to the information set forth in the notice within 7 calendar days of the changes unless such changes are reflected on a timely wage statement or another writing, as specified. No notice would be required for an employee who is employed by the state or any subdivision thereof, exempt from the payment of overtime, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement containing specified information. (5) In addition to the crime and employer obligations imposed by this bill, the Labor Code provides for other work-related standards and duties that, upon violation, are subject to specified penalties. This bill would state that the Labor Code establishes minimum penalties for failure to comply with wage-related statutes and regulations. Because this bill would create a new crime or expand the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 98 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 240, that would become operative only if AB 240 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 226 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 243, that would become operative only if AB 243 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2012, and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 AB 469?
AB 469 is sponsored by Huffman and Swanson.
What is the current status of AB 469?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 15, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 469?
Track AB 469 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 469

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 AB 469

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →