SB 985 — Employment: work hours.
Last action — June 22 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 1. Noes 4. Page 4490.) Reconsideration granted.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2015-2016 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law, with certain exceptions, establishes 8 hours as a day's work and a 40-hour workweek and requires payment of prescribed overtime compensation for additional hours worked. Existing law authorizes the adoption by 23 of employees in a work unit of alternative workweek schedules providing for workdays no longer than 10 hours within a 40-hour workweek. This bill would enact the California Workplace Flexibility Act of 2016. The bill, until January 1, 2022, would establish an overtime exemption for an employee-selected flexible work schedule. The exemption would allow, at the written request of an individual nonexempt employee on a form provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and upon employer approval, an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek. The employer would be obligated to pay overtime based on the employee's regular rate of pay, as prescribed, for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or over 10 hours in a workday, whichever is greater. The bill would establish requirements for the termination of an agreed-upon schedule. The bill would require the employer to maintain in its files a signed statement of voluntary participation for all approved voluntary work schedules and to submit a copy of the signed request form to the division. The bill would except from its provisions employees covered by collective bargaining and specific public employees. The bill would require the division to enforce its provisions and adopt or revise regulations as necessary to implement its provisions. The bill would also require the division, by January 1, 2021, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/14/16 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 14, 2016
- Introduced 02/10/16 - Introduced pdf February 10, 2016
- SB985 View text html
Action History
-
June 22 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 1. Noes 4. Page 4490.) Reconsideration granted.
-
Set for hearing June 22.
-
Re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
Referred to Com. on RLS.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 12.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Bates · Cosponsor
- Bill Berryhill · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
Co-sponsors (1)
- Bates
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 20% | 80% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Leno | — | Nay |
| Mitchell | — | Nay |
| Mendoza | — | Nay |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 20% | 80% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Leno | — | Nay |
| Mitchell | — | Nay |
| Mendoza | — | Nay |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 985 do?
- Existing law, with certain exceptions, establishes 8 hours as a day's work and a 40-hour workweek and requires payment of prescribed overtime compensation for additional hours worked. Existing law authorizes the adoption by 23 of employees in a work unit of alternative workweek schedules providing for workdays no longer than 10 hours within a 40-hour workweek. This bill would enact the California Workplace Flexibility Act of 2016. The bill, until January 1, 2022, would establish an overtime exemption for an employee-selected flexible work schedule. The exemption would allow, at the written request of an individual nonexempt employee on a form provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and upon employer approval, an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek. The employer would be obligated to pay overtime based on the employee's regular rate of pay, as prescribed, for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or over 10 hours in a workday, whichever is greater. The bill would establish requirements for the termination of an agreed-upon schedule. The bill would require the employer to maintain in its files a signed statement of voluntary participation for all approved voluntary work schedules and to submit a copy of the signed request form to the division. The bill would except from its provisions employees covered by collective bargaining and specific public employees. The bill would require the division to enforce its provisions and adopt or revise regulations as necessary to implement its provisions. The bill would also require the division, by January 1, 2021, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
- Who sponsors SB 985?
- SB 985 is sponsored by Bates and Bill Berryhill.
- What is the current status of SB 985?
- This bill died with 2015-2016 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 985?
- Track SB 985 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 985
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.
Stay ahead of SB 985
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →