California workers would still get paid if their boss cancels a shift under proposed law

California workers could still get paid if their boss abruptly cancels their shift under a proposed law backed by a Democratic lawmaker and former union leader.

Under legislation state Sen Connie Leyva, D-Chino, is announcing on Monday, workers would be entitled to “modification pay” if their shift gets canceled or rescheduled without advanced notice.

They’d also earn wages for “on-call” shifts, when employees are required to be available without the promise of getting called into work. The legislation would further require employers to hand out schedules at least a week in advance of the first shift on the calendar.

Leyva, a former president of the California Labor Federation, said creating the so-called “Fair Scheduling Act of 2020” would empower workers through greater personal and professional flexibility in their parenting, medical and other life responsibilities.

“If you don’t know how many hours you’re working, how are you supposed to pay the bills,” Leyva said in an interview with The Sacramento Bee.

Senate Bill 850 would include “modification pay” exemptions for uncontrollable events, like public utility failures, weather disasters and when employees work out shift swaps, according to Leyva’s office. Disciplined or fired workers would also qualify as an exemption to the requirement.

California already enforces “reporting time pay,” meaning employees are entitled to half a day’s compensation if they are sent home or don’t have enough tasks to finish a full shift, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations.

For example, if someone shows up on time to work an eight-hour day but is sent home after an hour of labor, that worker is still entitled to four hours of pay.

The University of California Berkeley’s The Shift Project surveyed 30,000 employees in October working in 120 large retail and food-service companies, and found that 80 percent of respondents reported “little to no input” over when they work .

Nearly 70 percent of those questioned are required by their bosses to be “open and available” to work, and three-fourths of the workers said they’d prefer a more predictable schedule. About a third of the workers also reported insufficient shifts, meaning they’re involuntarily working less than 35 hours each week.

The researchers also found significant racial and ethnic inequality within those numbers, and determined the “dire spillover consequences” of erratic scheduling hit certain demographics harder than others, according to Daniel Schneider, one of the author’s of the report and an assistant professor of sociology at Berkeley.

“Among similar workers at the same company, we still see that women of color are getting worse schedules than their white counterparts,” Schneider said. “This is an urgent issue in terms of a social problem for many workers, but we see it particular as an issue of inequality within the sector.”

Schneider said unreliable schedules correlate to household economic uncertainty, increased hunger, greater turnover among workers and anxiety and behavioral issues for employees’ children. Parents’ stress can “spill over” into the home and disturb family routines. Scheduling chaos also increase anxiety in an environment that should be “warm and supportive,” the report noted.

Though Leyva’ effort, Senate Bill 850, is sure to earn endorsements from labor organizations representing retail and food workers, pro-business groups have historically viewed “fair scheduling” legislation as a threat to companies.

A similar bill by Leyva stalled in 2016 and was opposed by both the state and local chambers of commerce.

Dozens of organizations signed on to a letter nearly four years ago that marked the previous bill as a “job killer,” alleging the proposal would “eliminate flexibility in the workplace” and “subject employers to unnecessary layers of penalties, investigative actions and costly litigation.”

The California Chamber of Commerce said it hadn’t yet seen SB 850’s language, but prior “fair scheduling” efforts had harmed both employers’ and employees’ work flexibility.

“The Legislature should focus on policies that improve workplace flexibility rather than curtailing it,” the chamber’s policy advocate Laura Curtis said.

“While we have not seen the language of SB 850, prior versions of similarly proposed legislation have hindered scheduling flexibility for employees and employers alike. This bill seems ill timed considering Assembly Bill 5 just went into effect on January 1, 2020. AB 5 prevents many individuals from being able to operate as independent contractors and these freelancers often choose independent work because they are able to control and create a more flexible schedule. The Legislature should focus on policies that improve workplace flexibility rather than curtailing it.”

Several cities throughout the U.S. — including San Francisco, Emeryville, San Jose and possibly Los Angeles — have passed “fair” workweek and scheduling efforts. Democrats in Congress are also keen on the idea of reliable shifts.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote a federal bill that would allow workers to request changes to their shifts without fear of retribution and require “more predictable and stable” schedules.

Julie Vogtman, director of job quality and senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, said the federal measure would fundamentally transform economic opportunities for women and workers of color. The restrictions would allow the employees greater flexibility over coordinating childcare, dealing with disabilities and keeping doctors appointments.

“And certainly if you want to go to school to improve your credentials to get a better job, it’s hard to plan classes,” Vogtman continued. “It keeps them trapped in the jobs where employers are creating these circumstances because the scheduling challenges block the different paths that they could take to move into a better job.”

This story was originally published January 13, 2020 at 12:07 PM.