California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2017

Introduced
2/5/18  
Introduced
2/5/18  
Refer
2/12/18  
Refer
2/12/18  
Report Pass
3/6/18  
Report Pass
3/6/18  
Refer
3/7/18  
Report Pass
3/21/18  
Report Pass
3/21/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Report Pass
4/4/18  
Report Pass
4/4/18  
Refer
4/4/18  
Report Pass
4/11/18  
Refer
4/12/18  
Refer
4/12/18  
Report Pass
4/18/18  
Report Pass
4/18/18  
Engrossed
4/23/18  
Engrossed
4/23/18  
Refer
4/23/18  
Refer
4/23/18  
Refer
5/3/18  
Report Pass
6/26/18  
Report Pass
6/26/18  
Refer
6/26/18  

Caption

Public employers: employee organizations.

Impact

If passed, AB 2017 would significantly impact state laws regarding public employee representation. By broadening the definitions within the government code, this bill seeks to ensure that a larger group of public sector employees is covered under protections for union membership and organizational rights. This could lead to increased unionization among public employees, especially those in previously excluded categories. Adopting this legislation aligns with labor relations policies aiming to bolster employee rights and support collective bargaining.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2017, introduced by Assembly Member Chiu, aims to amend sections of the Government Code related to public employees and employee organizations. The primary objective of this bill is to enhance the rights of employees within public sectors, expanding the definition of public employers to include employers of excluded supervisory employees and judicial council employees. Furthermore, it establishes protections for prospective public employees, preventing public employers from deterring or discouraging them from joining or remaining part of an employee organization.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 2017 is largely favorable among labor advocates who argue that it strengthens worker rights and representation in the public sector. Supporters believe that the bill enhances the ability of employee organizations to recruit and retain members, thus empowering public employees. However, there could be contention from certain fiscal conservatives who may view expanding employee rights as an increased burden on public resources or a complication in managing public sector employment policies.

Contention

A notable point of contention revolves around the financial implications of increasing public sector union membership. Critics might argue that expanding the definition of public employers and related protections could lead to rising labor costs and complicate negotiations for public agencies. The bill's potential effects on the balance of power between public employers and employee organizations could also lead to debates over public policy strategies related to labor relations.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB344

In-home supportive services: provider orientation.

CA AB252

The College Athlete Protection Act.

CA AB2121

Substance use disorder treatment: licensing.

CA AB1418

Tenancy: local regulations: contact with law enforcement or criminal convictions.

CA AB1672

In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act.

CA AB283

In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act.

CA SB285

Public employers: union organizing.

CA AB2352

Prescription drug coverage.