The bill mandates that all state entities, with the exception of the California Highway Patrol, create and maintain policies regarding the management of shift assignments, vacation requests, and overtime for supervisory employees. By institutionalizing these policies, AB 183 serves to standardize the treatment of excluded employees across the state, thereby potentially increasing job satisfaction and reducing disputes over working conditions. The implementation deadline set for January 1, 2019, indicates an urgency in addressing these employee rights.
Summary
Assembly Bill 183, introduced by Assembly Member Lackey, aims to enhance the rights and working conditions of state excluded employees in California. Specifically, it seeks to amend the Bill of Rights for State Excluded Employees, which governs the rights and various terms of employment for certain categories of state employees. The bill requires state entities to develop specific policies concerning shift assignments, vacations, and overtime for supervisory employees who are required to work shifts, ensuring these policies are in consultation with employee organizations representing the affected workers.
Sentiment
The general sentiment around AB 183 appears to be supportive, particularly among labor advocates and employee organizations that view the bill as a necessary step in protecting the rights of excluded state employees. Supporters argue that by establishing formal policies, the bill will provide clarity and fairness in work conditions. However, there may be concerns among some management entities regarding the implications for flexibility in staffing and operational management, though these concerns were less prominent in the discussions surrounding the bill.
Contention
While there was broad support for the intent of AB 183, some points of contention likely stemmed from the specifics of how these policies are developed and enforced. The bill requires significant changes to current practices, which some supervisory entities may view as a bureaucratic burden. Moreover, discussions hinted at a potential conflict between ensuring employee rights and the operational flexibility necessary for effective management in state services.