California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1937 — Public employment: payroll deductions.

Last action — In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

(1) Existing law prescribes various duties of the Controller in connection with deductions requested by employee organizations and other bona fide organizations regarding requests for deductions from the salaries and wages of their members. Existing law defines employee organization in this context as one which represents employees of the state or the California State University and which is registered or recognized, as specified, and defines bona fide organization as an organization of employees or former employees of an agency of the state and the California State University, which does not have as one of its purposes representing employees in their employment relations. Existing law prescribes the duties of the governing boards of school districts in regard to requests by certificated employees for deductions from the salaries and wages, and prescribes similar duties for the governing boards of community college districts. Existing law authorizes a trial court employee or interpreter to permit a dues deduction from his or her salary in the same manner provided to public agency employees pursuant to specified law applicable to the state and the Controller, as described above. This bill would revise and recast these provisions. The bill would expand certain authorizations and requirements currently applicable to the Controller and employees of the state and California State University to apply also to the Regents of the University of California, the Judicial Council, counties, cities, and public authorities, including transit districts, among others, and would correspondingly broaden the definition of an employee organization. In this context, the bill would authorize employee organizations and bona fide associations to request payroll deductions and would require public employers to honor these requests. The bill would require public employers to make rules and regulations for the administration of specified payroll deductions, subject to meeting and conferring with the applicable employee organizations. The bill would prohibit requiring an employee organization that certifies that it has and will maintain individual employee authorizations to provide a copy of an individual authorization to the public employer or the Controller unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization. The bill would authorize charging an employee organization reasonable one-time startup costs, if any, for making deductions. The bill would specify when deductions are to commence following notification from an employee organization. The bill would permit a deduction for an employee organization to be revoked only pursuant to the terms of the employee's written authorization. The bill would require the public employer or Controller to rely on information provided by the employee organization regarding whether the request is in conformity with the authorization. The bill would require the employee organization to indemnify the public employer or Controller for any claims made by employees for deductions made in reliance on information provided by the employee organization. The bill would revise authorizations granted to employees and retired employees to make deductions for dues in, and for services provided by, a bona fide organization, as specified, instead to apply to employee organizations for dues in, or for any other service, program, or committee provided or sponsored by, an employee organization and would eliminate the requirement of public agency approval for these deductions. The bill would require employers to honor these authorizations and would require that the revocability of an authorization be determined by the terms of the authorization. The bill would repeal certain requirements dealing with payroll deduction for state employees of public agencies, other than those under the uniform payroll system. The bill would apply the changes described above to trial court employees and court interpreters, as specified. With regard to school district and community college district employers and employees, the bill would expand the authorization granted to certificated and academic employees to request salary deductions to apply also to dues in, or for any other service, program, or committee provided or sponsored by, an applicable employee organization, as specified. The bill would require reasonable, one-time startup costs of making deductions to be charged. The bill would require employee authorizations to be revoked according to their written terms. The bill would require these employers to honor the terms of employee written authorizations. The bill would require the employers to rely on information provided by the employee organization regarding whether the request is in conformity with the authorization, as described above. The bill would also prescribe when deductions are to commence, following notification from employee organizations, and would prohibit requiring the employee organizations to provide a copy of an authorization unless a dispute arises, as specified. The bill would require employee organizations to indemnify the public school employers or community college districts for any claims made by employees for deductions made in reliance on specified assertions. By increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  2. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  3. Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

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

  5. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 25. Page 5463.)

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (May 25).

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

  9. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S.

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

  14. Re-referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S.

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

  16. Referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S.

  17. From printer. May be heard in committee February 25.

  18. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Santiago · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Santiago

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

Votes

AB 1937 SANTIAGO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 53 Yea · 25 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 381900
Democratic 15000
Republican 0600
Total 532500
% of votes cast 68%32%0%0%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Nay
Baker — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Kiley — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Weber — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Cooley — Yea
Burke — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Chu — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Salas — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Fong — Nay
Harper — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Steinorth — Nay
Voepel — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Daly — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9301
Democratic 3000
Republican 0100
Total 12401
% of votes cast 71%24%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Not Voting
Obernolte — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Fong — Nay
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay

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 1937 do?
(1) Existing law prescribes various duties of the Controller in connection with deductions requested by employee organizations and other bona fide organizations regarding requests for deductions from the salaries and wages of their members. Existing law defines employee organization in this context as one which represents employees of the state or the California State University and which is registered or recognized, as specified, and defines bona fide organization as an organization of employees or former employees of an agency of the state and the California State University, which does not have as one of its purposes representing employees in their employment relations. Existing law prescribes the duties of the governing boards of school districts in regard to requests by certificated employees for deductions from the salaries and wages, and prescribes similar duties for the governing boards of community college districts. Existing law authorizes a trial court employee or interpreter to permit a dues deduction from his or her salary in the same manner provided to public agency employees pursuant to specified law applicable to the state and the Controller, as described above. This bill would revise and recast these provisions. The bill would expand certain authorizations and requirements currently applicable to the Controller and employees of the state and California State University to apply also to the Regents of the University of California, the Judicial Council, counties, cities, and public authorities, including transit districts, among others, and would correspondingly broaden the definition of an employee organization. In this context, the bill would authorize employee organizations and bona fide associations to request payroll deductions and would require public employers to honor these requests. The bill would require public employers to make rules and regulations for the administration of specified payroll deductions, subject to meeting and conferring with the applicable employee organizations. The bill would prohibit requiring an employee organization that certifies that it has and will maintain individual employee authorizations to provide a copy of an individual authorization to the public employer or the Controller unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization. The bill would authorize charging an employee organization reasonable one-time startup costs, if any, for making deductions. The bill would specify when deductions are to commence following notification from an employee organization. The bill would permit a deduction for an employee organization to be revoked only pursuant to the terms of the employee's written authorization. The bill would require the public employer or Controller to rely on information provided by the employee organization regarding whether the request is in conformity with the authorization. The bill would require the employee organization to indemnify the public employer or Controller for any claims made by employees for deductions made in reliance on information provided by the employee organization. The bill would revise authorizations granted to employees and retired employees to make deductions for dues in, and for services provided by, a bona fide organization, as specified, instead to apply to employee organizations for dues in, or for any other service, program, or committee provided or sponsored by, an employee organization and would eliminate the requirement of public agency approval for these deductions. The bill would require employers to honor these authorizations and would require that the revocability of an authorization be determined by the terms of the authorization. The bill would repeal certain requirements dealing with payroll deduction for state employees of public agencies, other than those under the uniform payroll system. The bill would apply the changes described above to trial court employees and court interpreters, as specified. With regard to school district and community college district employers and employees, the bill would expand the authorization granted to certificated and academic employees to request salary deductions to apply also to dues in, or for any other service, program, or committee provided or sponsored by, an applicable employee organization, as specified. The bill would require reasonable, one-time startup costs of making deductions to be charged. The bill would require employee authorizations to be revoked according to their written terms. The bill would require these employers to honor the terms of employee written authorizations. The bill would require the employers to rely on information provided by the employee organization regarding whether the request is in conformity with the authorization, as described above. The bill would also prescribe when deductions are to commence, following notification from employee organizations, and would prohibit requiring the employee organizations to provide a copy of an authorization unless a dispute arises, as specified. The bill would require employee organizations to indemnify the public school employers or community college districts for any claims made by employees for deductions made in reliance on specified assertions. By increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 1937?
AB 1937 is sponsored by Santiago.
What is the current status of AB 1937?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 AB 1937?
Track AB 1937 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1937

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 1937

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →