Housekeepers and other home care workers would get new benefits, including lunch breaks, overtime and paid sick and vacation time under a bill now under consideration in Sacramento.
The bill, AB889, is called the California Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. It’s authored by two Assembly Democrats, Tom Ammiano and V. Manuel Pérez.
AB 889 Rally -- April 13, 2011 - From Facebook page of V. Manuel Pérez. Click photo for Facebook page.
The California Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee voted for the bill 5-1 on July 6. Voting no was State Sen. Mark Wyland, a Republican. Voting yes were State Sens. Ted Lieu; Mark DeSaulnier; Mark Leno; and Alex Padilla.It is now before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The Los Angeles City Council has passed a resolution endorsing the bill.
Among its provisions, the bill gives workers the right to one hour of paid vacation for every 30 hours worked, cost of living wage increases; and for those who work more than five hours, the right to use kitchen facilities to prepare their own food, at no cost.
However, the latest draft of the bill, July 12, removes the vacation benefit. It remains to be seen what version, if any, the Appropriations Committee will ultimately approve. Since supporters of the bill are still making reference to the vacation benefit as of today, I’m also retaining the reference.
From a summary of the bill at Around The Capitol:
“This bill would specially regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions of domestic work employees, as defined. Specifically, this bill would, among other things, provide a private right of action for a domestic work employee when those regulations are violated by his or her employer and provide an overtime compensation rate for domestic work employees.
“This bill would also expressly state that the provisions of Wage Order Number 15 of the Industrial Welfare Commission, with specified exceptions, apply to a domestic work employee, but would provide that these new domestic work provisions shall prevail over protections in that order or any other law that afford less protection to a domestic work employee.”
Supporters (PDF) of the bill say it’s a matter of basic working rights. Opponents (PDF) say it will drive up the cost of hiring home workers, including those for seniors and those with disabilities.
————————————————-
(DISCLAIMER: This post does not necessarily represent the views of my employer, the North County Times.)
Comments 23
They’re going to give workers lunch breaks!! The horror!!!
most of the “domestic workers” in this county are taking care of their own relatives. Back in the Day you took care of Gramps because you loved him. These folks want the taxpayers to pay them to do it, and now they want tax-paid benefits as well. The greed of some public employees continues to be astonishing.
How are domestic workers, “public employees”? LOL.
Author
Alger visits the Real World,
This isn’t about public employees, but about those in the private sector. Here’s a description from the bill of who they’re targeting:
(e) The vast majority of domestic workers are women of color and immigrants and are particularly vulnerable to unlawful employment practices and abuses. Domestic workers usually work alone, behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, leaving them isolated, vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, and unable to advocate collectively for better working conditions. Domestic workers often labor under harsh conditions, work long hours for low wages without benefits or job security, and face termination without notice or severance pay, leaving many suddenly without both a job and a home.
In the worst cases, domestic workers are verbally and physically abused or sexually assaulted, forced to sleep in conditions unfit for human habitation, and stripped of their privacy and dignity.
(f) Domestic workers are still excluded from the most basic protections afforded the rest of the labor force under state and federal law, including the rights to fair wages, safe and healthy working conditions, workers’ compensation, and protection from discriminatory and abusive treatment. The treatment of domestic workers under federal and state laws has historically reflected stereotypical assumptions about the nature of domestic work, specifically that the relationship between employer and “servant” was “personal,” rather than commercial, in character, that employment within a household was not “real” productive work, and that women did not work to support their families.
(g) Given the limited legal protections historically provided to domestic workers, and bearing in mind the unique conditions and demands of this private, home-based industry, the Legislature, as an exercise of the police power of the State of California for the protection of the public welfare, prosperity, health, safety, and peace of its people, further finds that domestic workers are entitled to industry-specific protections and labor standards that eliminate discriminatory provisions in the labor laws and guarantee domestic workers basic workplace rights to ensure that domestic workers are treated with equality, respect, and dignity.
If you are talking about domestic workers working in private homes, these regulations will kill these jobs (unless it’s government paid caretaking of relatives).
Our children should be cleaning their own rooms anyway….
This bill will have the usual unintended consequences. Only more so.
A few we should anticipate:
1. A recordkeeping and reporting burden on individuals ill-prepared for such paperwork — paperwork that will further discourage people from hiring domestic help — and will result in more “lawbreaking” with off-the-books employment.
2. A rich mother lode for cheap-ass Gloria Allred lawyers talking domestics into suing their employers (much “he said, she said” nonsense) — which will lead to the “Amazon effect” where families no longer employ help.
3. A downward adjustment in domestic hourly pay to offset the mandated breaks and benefits — and to justify the onerous, dangerous recordkeeping and reporting.
But give Sacramento credit. With 11.7% state unemployment (2nd worst in nation) these pompous bozos have found yet another way to unemploy people and reduce our quality of life.
In poor countries the hiring of domestic help by the relatively affluent is viewed as a duty (share the wealth by letting others do work for you). In CA we view such work as exploitation, and seem hellbent in ending this evil practice.
Richard,
So rich people hire maids and other domestic servants so they can “share the wealth by letting others do work for you.”
Thanks for a good hearty laugh to start my day.
alger,
You misquoted Richard. Drink your coffee and read it again.
RR called someone called the kettle “cheap-ass?”
Good for Mark Wyland!
I say this is another issue we can blame on Schwarzenegger…. for shtupping his “domestic worker.”
Actually, “sharing the wealth” by paying others to do things you don’t (or can’t) do is the essence of a successful economy. It’s called specialization of labor, and is based on voluntary interaction.
It is not altruistic — it’s selfishness, as Ayn Rand points out. But such selfishness is essential if we are live above cave man subsistence levels.
What I referenced is the very REAL additional factor in poor countries that it is EXPECTED that the affluent hire people. It is often part of their culture, and you face disdain (and worse) if you choose to not do so.
In Alger’s world, it would be best if the productive amassed wealth (without “sharing”) so the state could periodically confiscate it and then distribute it to the “needy” — defined as political allies. The fact that the wealthy would stop earning wealth in his commie workers’ paradise escapes him completely.
There’s another factor in play here that’s not being considered. More often than not, people pay their domestics a fixed amount per visit. When the job is done, the domestic (or gardener, or valet, or whatever) leaves. The amount of time to do the job is pretty much up to the employee (within reason).
The government wants to mandate hourly pay, with all the attendant record keeping, liability assumption and necessary employer oversight. Under a per-hour plan, the employer is going to be more concerned with productivity and efficiency, whereas the employee is PENALIZED for demonstrating these very traits — penalized in the form of less hours worked (and billed).
Oh yeah, this is going to work well!
Some domestics have their own house key (or the door is unlocked for their arrival), as their employer is off at work or otherwise engaged.
Who tracks the domestic’s hours on the job? Oops.
It’s more than you’d think who are trusted to do the work while the homeowner is away. But, easy answer…the employer will just take the day off from work to ensure the domestic worker’s hours are tracked and they get their lunch break. Simple.
Spin Zone, your laser insight solved that problem. Many thanks!
BTW, can requiring fitted sheets in homes be far behind?
Richard,
“”his commie workers’ paradise…”
You are starting to have an annoying habit of using labels and attributing beliefs and words to me I never spoke nor thought. I believe this is something you regularly complain about when done by a “liberal.”
My comment specifically referred to your claim that “In poor countries the hiring of domestic help by the relatively affluent is viewed as a duty (share the wealth by letting others do work for you).”
I haven’t been to every poor country in the world, but I still doubt the validity of your statement and I think most thinking people would consider it ridiculous on its face.
Note that I didn’t say domestic workers were exploited by the wealthy; I said, or at least inferred, that those who can afford to hire domestic help do not generally do so out of a desire to “spread the wealth.” I would believe that it is done out of a desire not to have to do domestic work. I also don’t believe there is anything wrong with that; I just don’t believe the hiring is generally done for altruistic reasons.
Maybe those on this blog who hire domestic help can correct me if I am wrong. Let me know if the maid, nanny or gardener was hired for the express purposes of helping you spread the wealth.
Alger acknowledges that Rider was making a reference to the motivations of the affluent in poor countries, even saying “I haven’t been to every poor country in the world.” Then, he reverts back to asking “those on this blog who hire domestic help” to weigh in. Once again, apples and oranges. Unless Rostra has a lot of foreign readers.
Alger, what part of “in poor countries” do you not understand? Asking folks in one of the RICHEST countries in the world about why they hire folks gives the same answer I gave earlier — we do it for ourselves — the evil-selfish motive. Did you read that post? OF COURSE you did.
Rather than asking this American blog group, better you go ask people in Africa who have earnings above the norm what pressures they would face if they refused to hire domestic help.
I note that you have wandered off (again) down this byway, desperately trying to deflect comments from the core topic — this nutty new proposed domestic law (which you support, but apparently won’t defend). Right out of the commie — oops, sorry — the liberal — my bad — the slightly left of center playbook.
The law’s bottom line: Under this proposed law, there will be less “spreading of the wealth” (via domestic labor hiring) — harming both the workers and the people who now have to do tasks they’d sooner pay others to do.
One other point for Alger, and then hopefully we can drop this discussion.
The pressure I mentioned in third world countries to hire domestic help is NOT altruism — an assertion he makes, not me. It is peer pressure, societal pressure, mores, tradition — whatever. To choose not to hire help when clearly one can afford to do so can have negative consequences, subtle or otherwise. If nothing else, one can be resented for doing so. Again, that’s not altruism.
In Alger’s mind, a third world affluent person who chose not to hire domestic help would be seen by the locals as some sort of hero to the populace for not “exploiting” others. Riiggghhhhhttttttt.
Richard,
I, too want to drop this topic, but you keep putting words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) and I can’t let that go unchallenged.
I never said hiring a domestic worker was exploitative; in fact, I specifically wrote that there was nothing wrong with hiring domestic workers.
I also never wrote that I was in favor of this law; for many of the reasons outlined here, I do not think this is good legislation.
I do, however, think you fail to attract the majority to your side when you headline a requirement for a lunch break as if it were a bad thing. Perhaps a headline such as “New California bill to require unreasonable paperwork and record-keeping; law would hurt domestic workers ability to gain employment” would have attracted more supporters.
One last thing: While I said “I haven’t been to every poor country in the world,” I have been to a few (admittedly, none in Africa) and I still disagree with your original premise that the relative wealthy are just trying to spread the wealth when they hire domestic help.
Author
Alger and Richard,
You are both talking past each other. You agree the bill is bad, but run into trouble when you state what the other is saying.
Richard: You should accept that alger said this is bad law, and is not advocating it.. He just thinks the way you’re stating your opposition is wrong.
Alger: You inaccurately implied that Richard wrote the headline when I did. And I was being strictly factual.
Also, Richard never said “the relatively wealthy are just trying to spread the wealth when they hire domestic help.” Richard said they view hiring domestic help as a duty because the culture views it as sharing the wealth.
One helpful exercise is to attempt to restate what the other is saying, in words the other will accept as valid. Keep on trying until you get it right. Then don your chain mail and have at each other until victory!
And both of you, have a great weekend!
Bradley,
Well said on all accounts. Thank you!
Bradley is such a diplomat, he almost doesn’t even belong on Rostra. 😉