Adobe Stock image

California employers have recently seen a slew of new laws and regulations go into effect.

Beginning in January, employers are prohibited from asking about a job applicant’s cannabis use or discriminating against an employee’s off-hours cannabis use.

Employers are required to give both hourly and salary workers a minimum of five paid sick days a year.

The California minimum wage increased to $16 starting this year, and beginning April 1, fast-food workers’ minimum wage was raised to $20 dollars an hour.

The California Legislature is drafting, introducing and amending a number of bills for this session. As always, business groups are keeping a close watch.

Last week, the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) released its initial 2024 job killer list, with more expected to be added in the coming weeks.

 

SB 1434 (Maria Durazo; D-Los Angeles) Increases to Unemployment Insurance (UI)

California’s UI program is financed by employers paying unemployment taxes on up to $7,000 in wages paid to each worker.

Current law excludes from the definition of “wages” for unemployment insurance renumeration more than $7,000 paid to a worked by an employer during any calendar year.

This bill would increase the amount of remuneration excluded from the definition of wages beginning in 2025, but before Jan. 1, 2027, with another increase after Jan. 1, 2027.

If passed, taxes for employers would increase to bolster the unemployment fund. The bill has not listed a specific amount yet.

The bill would also require an annual cost of living increase to start in 2028, but that amount has not been specified either.

The bill would make a change in statute that would result in a higher tax rate.

The Cal-Chamber opposes Senate Bill 1434, saying that it will call for subsequent increases based on inflation. The Chamber claims it creates an entirely new UI program to give benefits to those who do not qualify for traditional UI.

 

SB 1116 (Portantino’ D-Burbank) Unemployment insurance for striking workers

Under existing law, striking employees are ineligible for benefits if they left because of a trade dispute and specifies that an employee remains ineligible for the duration of the dispute.

Employees that are out of work because of a lockout by the employer, even if it was in anticipation of trade dispute, are eligible for benefits.

If passed, SB 1116 would restore eligibility after the first two weeks for an employee who left work because of a trade dispute.

CalChamber opposes the bill, saying that the UI fund is paid for by employers and would saddle them with more debt.

CalChamber claims SB 116 would “effectively force” employers to subsize strikes at unrelated businesses because the UI fund’s debt adds taxes for all employers, whether they’ve had a strike or not.

Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar proposal in 2023.

 

SB 1345 (Lola Smallwood-Cuevas; D-Los Angeles) Applicant criminal history information

If passed, SB 1345 would prohibit an employer from taking adverse action against an applicant because of their criminal history information unless the employer can demonstrate the applicant’s history will affect their job duties.

“Adverse” is defined in the bill as withdrawal of a conditional offer of employment, denial of employment, termination, reduction in pay or benefits, loss of privileges or transfer.

CalChamber said the bill would prohibit most employers from considering the conviction history of an applicant, existing employee, or contractor in employment or contracting decisions.

 

AB 2499 (Pilar Schiavo; D-Chatsworth) Leave Expansion

Current law prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee taking time to serve on a jury, appearing in court as a witness or for their status as a victim of a crime.

This bill would remove the threshold of 25 or more employees from the provisions for victims of crime and would apply its provisions to a person who directly employs one or more persons.

In its opposition, CalChamber says it significantly expands uncapped leave related to crimes.

 

AB 2751 (Matt Haney; D-San Francisco) Prohibition on employee communications

Employers are already prohibited from requiring an employee to work for longer hours than those fixed, but this bill would codify when employers can communicate with their employees.

This bill would require a public or private employer to create a work policy that provides employees the right to disconnect from the employer during non-working hours.

Besides emergency situations, or for scheduling, the employee has the right to ignore calls from their employer during non-working hours.

CalChamber said if passed, this would subject employers to costly litigation for any dispute as to whether the communication was permissible.

 

AB 2200 (Kalra; D-San Jose) government run health care

Assembly Bill 2200, The California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act, would create a program, CalCare, to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and health care cost control for the benefit of all residents of the state.

CalCare would cover a wide range of medical benefits and other services and would cover costs for services such as the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medi-Cal and services provided by regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities.

CalChamber opposes the bill, saying it would force Californians into a new untested government health plan with no ability to opt out and will increase taxes at $250 billion a year on workers, income, jobs, goods and services.