Possible Talking Points to Choose From for AB 889 and SB 411 For July 5th and July 6th Hearings

(Your testimony should be one minute or less)

AB 889 (Ammiano – Domestic Workers Bill of Rights)

  • The vast majority of abuses towards workers happen in the underground and unregulated market, where families or individuals are hiring nannies or caretakers off of Craigslist or other similar scenario where there are no protections for either the worker or the employer. Home care agencies do provide these protections, such as worker’s compensation and minimum wage requirements, and therefore AB 889 should exclude “third party employers” and should focus on the domestic workers that suffer behind closed doors.
  • AB 889 would significantly increase the cost of care for seniors, people with disabilities, and other frail Californians. This would happen as a result of the elimination of the overtime exemption for personal attendants, mandatory paid vacation days (not required by any other private industry), and increased liability of civil action suits and penalties.
  • Wage Order 15 exists specifically for this unique industry and consumer population, and defines a personal attendant. AB 889 would eliminate this Wage Order.
  • AB 889 exempts IHSS and Regional Center providers, but there is no valid policy reason for these exemptions.
  • This bill would open the door for increased litigation since it gives more rights and penalties under civil action than any other industry, including the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as liquidated damages, reinstatement of employment, interest, recover an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.
  • This bill would force a consumer to allow a domestic worker to use their kitchen and appliances.

SB 411 (Price – Licensing of Home Care Aide Agencies and Certification of Home Care Aides_

  • Certification of home care aides is unnecessary and an overkill of regulation. It will be costly, complicated, and produce very little benefit for the consumer. Instead, the state should regulate the home care agencies and require them to conduct background checks of their workers, competency evaluations, carry workers compensation, etc.
  • SB 411 mandates the use of an accrediting body if a home care agency wants to be licensed. This is bad policy. Accrediting bodies are very costly (approximately $5-8 thousand/ year), which, on top of a licensing fee of $5,500, would add up to approximately $12 thousand/year, and would be a major cost burden on small home care agencies throughout the state. SB 411 should be amended to remove mandated accreditation.
  • The bill proposes to create a public website of all certified home care aides that includes the aide’s name, the company/s they work for, and any record of disciplinary action. This is first and foremost dangerous and can compromise the privacy and safety of aides, who are mostly women and may not want people to know where they currently work. Second, there is no precedent for including the names of the company/s on the website; neither home health aides, certified nurse assistants, nor the types of workers regulated by the Department of Consumer Affairs includes this private information. Finally, it will be a tremendous burden on the state to try to keep current with the employers and disciplinary action of this often transient workforce.
  • The licensing of the home care agencies should be put under the Department of Social Services, not the Department of Public Health, as it is not health care.
  • The bill mandates that employers pay for the initial 5 hours of training for each home care aide and the continuous 8 hour annual training. This does not have precedent and is not required for CHHAs or CNAs, and is also complicated by the fact that many workers work for multiple agencies (who is responsible for the training?). Instead the bill should remove the requirement for the agencies to pay for the training.