(1)Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, counties, and other entities, under which qualified aged, blind, or disabled persons are provided with supportive services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes.

Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or to establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of those services, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law deems a public authority created under these provisions to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs labor relations between local public employers and employees. Existing law also deems a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel for purposes of collective bargaining over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Existing law grants recipients of in-home supportive services the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of any in-home supportive services personnel providing services for them.

Existing law prohibits the state and specified local public employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization. Existing law also requires specified public employers to provide exclusive employee representatives access to new employee orientations. Existing law generally grants the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over violations of these provisions. Existing law defines public employers who are subject to these provisions as including, among others, public agencies, cities, counties, and districts.

This bill would expand the definition of public employer, for purposes of those provisions, to include an employer who is subject to the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which the bill would create. The bill would establish a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers. The bill would provide for the right of employees, also known as individual providers under the act, to form, join, and participate in activities of employee organizations for the purposes of representation on all matters within the scope of employee organizations. The bill would define employee or individual provider for these purposes to mean a person authorized to provide in-home supportive services pursuant to the individual provider mode or waiver personal care services, as prescribed.

This bill would, for purposes of collective bargaining, deem the state to be the employer of record of individual providers in each county. The bill would grant the in-home supportive services recipient with the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providers providing services to them. Among other things, the bill would specify that individual providers employed by a predecessor agency before January 1, 2026, shall retain employee status and not be required by the state to requalify to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services.

Among other things, for purposes of collective bargaining, this bill would provide that existing bargaining units consisting of individual providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization shall be deemed merged into the largest possible multicounty bargaining units represented by that employee organization. In counties where no recognized employee organization exists as of January 1, 2026, the bill would specify that a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county shall be deemed an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Under the bill, if individual providers in a county bargaining unit are represented by a recognized employee organization on January 1, 2026, the state would be deemed the successor employer of the predecessor agency for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, subject to the obligation to meet and confer in good faith and meet other related legal requirements.

This bill would require all recognized employee organizations, as of January 1, 2026, to negotiate jointly on behalf of all bargaining units they represent to reach a single memorandum of understanding with the employer. The bill would authorize the memorandum of understanding to contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms and conditions. The bill would establish procedures for voting and ratification of a memorandum of understanding, and for the employer to assume a predecessor agencys rights and obligations under a memorandum of understanding or agreement between a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization that is in effect on January 1, 2026.

This bill would prescribe the duties of the state under the bill, including requiring the Governor to meet and confer in good faith, and to follow specified procedures regarding collective bargaining. If an agreement is reached by a representative of the Governor and the recognized employee organizations, the bill would require those parties to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding and present it to the Legislature for determination by majority vote. The bill would require the Governor, for any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits not included in the original memorandum or the Budget Act, to provide that to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, as specified. The bill would also establish mediation and arbitration procedures that would apply when the parties fail to reach an agreement.

This bill would make certain actions by an employer and other entities involved in administering the IHSS program unlawful, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees or otherwise interfering with the exercise of their rights. The bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to adopt reasonable rules and regulations pursuant to the bill, including the adoption of emergency regulations, as prescribed.

(2)Existing law requires the Controller to provide for the administration of payroll deductions and salary reductions, and authorizes the Controller to establish procedures for that purpose.

This bill would require the Controller to honor a written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee before January 1, 2026, and to make deductions for payments of dues to a recognized employee organization pursuant to the bill consistent with the above-described payroll deduction procedures.

(3)Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires public records to be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and provides that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. Existing law provides that certain information regarding persons paid by the state to provide in-home supportive services, or other related public services, are not subject to disclosure under those provisions. Existing law further provides that copies of names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other identifying information are required to be made available, upon request, to an exclusive bargaining agent and to any employee organization seeking representation rights under specified collective bargaining provisions.

This bill would, with respect to the above-described personal identifying information, instead require this information to be made available to the exclusive bargaining agent and any employee organization seeking representation under the bill. The bill would require the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium organized pursuant to the IHSS program, to promptly make the information available to the requesting entity.

This bill would revise the IHSS program provisions to require the state to assume responsibilities as set forth in the bill. The bill would also require a county or city and county to continue to have certain IHSS program-related functions set forth in county ordinance or contract performed in accordance with specified provisions.

(4)Existing law requires prospective providers of in-home supportive services to complete an in-person provider orientation at the time of enrollment that is developed by the department, in consultation with counties, that includes requirements to be an eligible IHSS provider and other related matters.

This bill additionally would require that in-person provider orientation include any other information required to be communicated to prospective providers by a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee organizations and the state.

Existing law requires a specified mediation process, including a factfinding panel recommending settlement terms, to be held if a public authority or nonprofit consortium and an employee organization fail to reach agreement on a bargaining contract with in-home supportive service (IHSS) workers on or after October 1, 2023.

This bill would make that provision inoperative. The bill would also require the department to appoint an IHSS Advisory Committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding in-home supportive services, as specified. The bill would require the employer, prior to finalizing a memorandum of understanding with one or more organizations that are the designated representatives of in-home services providers, to consult with specified advisory committee representatives to obtain input on county and public authority programmatic and fiscal implications.

Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public.

This bill would exempt the IHSS Advisory Committee from the act.

This bill would make other related changes. By imposing new duties on local government officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, apply to all counties.

(6)The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(7)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(8)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, counties, and other entities, under which qualified aged, blind, or disabled persons are provided with supportive services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes.

Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or to establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of those services, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law deems a public authority created under these provisions to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs labor relations between local public employers and employees. Existing law also deems a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel for purposes of collective bargaining over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Existing law grants recipients of in-home supportive services the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of any in-home supportive services personnel providing services for them.

Existing law prohibits the state and specified local public employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization. Existing law also requires specified public employers to provide exclusive employee representatives access to new employee orientations. Existing law generally grants the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over violations of these provisions. Existing law defines public employers who are subject to these provisions as including, among others, public agencies, cities, counties, and districts.

This bill would expand the definition of public employer, for purposes of those provisions, to include an employer who is subject to the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which the bill would create. The bill would establish a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers. The bill would provide for the right of employees, also known as individual providers under the act, to form, join, and participate in activities of employee organizations for the purposes of representation on all matters within the scope of employee organizations. The bill would define employee or individual provider for these purposes to mean a person authorized to provide in-home supportive services pursuant to the individual provider mode or waiver personal care services, as prescribed.

This bill would, for purposes of collective bargaining, deem the state to be the employer of record of individual providers in each county. The bill would grant the in-home supportive services recipient with the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providers providing services to them. Among other things, the bill would specify that individual providers employed by a predecessor agency before January 1, 2026, shall retain employee status and not be required by the state to requalify to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services.

Among other things, for purposes of collective bargaining, this bill would provide that existing bargaining units consisting of individual providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization shall be deemed merged into the largest possible multicounty bargaining units represented by that employee organization. In counties where no recognized employee organization exists as of January 1, 2026, the bill would specify that a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county shall be deemed an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Under the bill, if individual providers in a county bargaining unit are represented by a recognized employee organization on January 1, 2026, the state would be deemed the successor employer of the predecessor agency for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, subject to the obligation to meet and confer in good faith and meet other related legal requirements.

This bill would require all recognized employee organizations, as of January 1, 2026, to negotiate jointly on behalf of all bargaining units they represent to reach a single memorandum of understanding with the employer. The bill would authorize the memorandum of understanding to contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms and conditions. The bill would establish procedures for voting and ratification of a memorandum of understanding, and for the employer to assume a predecessor agencys rights and obligations under a memorandum of understanding or agreement between a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization that is in effect on January 1, 2026.

This bill would prescribe the duties of the state under the bill, including requiring the Governor to meet and confer in good faith, and to follow specified procedures regarding collective bargaining. If an agreement is reached by a representative of the Governor and the recognized employee organizations, the bill would require those parties to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding and present it to the Legislature for determination by majority vote. The bill would require the Governor, for any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits not included in the original memorandum or the Budget Act, to provide that to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, as specified. The bill would also establish mediation and arbitration procedures that would apply when the parties fail to reach an agreement.

This bill would make certain actions by an employer and other entities involved in administering the IHSS program unlawful, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees or otherwise interfering with the exercise of their rights. The bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to adopt reasonable rules and regulations pursuant to the bill, including the adoption of emergency regulations, as prescribed.

(2)Existing law requires the Controller to provide for the administration of payroll deductions and salary reductions, and authorizes the Controller to establish procedures for that purpose.

This bill would require the Controller to honor a written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee before January 1, 2026, and to make deductions for payments of dues to a recognized employee organization pursuant to the bill consistent with the above-described payroll deduction procedures.

(3)Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires public records to be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and provides that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. Existing law provides that certain information regarding persons paid by the state to provide in-home supportive services, or other related public services, are not subject to disclosure under those provisions. Existing law further provides that copies of names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other identifying information are required to be made available, upon request, to an exclusive bargaining agent and to any employee organization seeking representation rights under specified collective bargaining provisions.

This bill would, with respect to the above-described personal identifying information, instead require this information to be made available to the exclusive bargaining agent and any employee organization seeking representation under the bill. The bill would require the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium organized pursuant to the IHSS program, to promptly make the information available to the requesting entity.

This bill would revise the IHSS program provisions to require the state to assume responsibilities as set forth in the bill. The bill would also require a county or city and county to continue to have certain IHSS program-related functions set forth in county ordinance or contract performed in accordance with specified provisions.

(4)Existing law requires prospective providers of in-home supportive services to complete an in-person provider orientation at the time of enrollment that is developed by the department, in consultation with counties, that includes requirements to be an eligible IHSS provider and other related matters.

This bill additionally would require that in-person provider orientation include any other information required to be communicated to prospective providers by a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee organizations and the state.

This bill would make that provision inoperative. The bill would also require the department to appoint an advisory committee IHSS Advisory Committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding in-home supportive services, as specified. The bill would require the employer, prior to finalizing a memorandum of understanding with one or more organizations that are the designated representatives of in-home services providers, to consult with specified advisory committee representatives to obtain input on county and public authority programmatic and fiscal implications. The

This bill would make other related changes to these provisions. changes. By imposing new duties on local government officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, apply to all counties.

(6)The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(7)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(8)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, counties, and other entities, under which qualified aged, blind, or disabled persons are provided with supportive services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes.

Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or to establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of those services, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law deems a public authority created under these provisions to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs labor relations between local public employers and employees. Existing law also deems a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel for purposes of collective bargaining over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Existing law grants recipients of in-home supportive services the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of any in-home supportive services personnel providing services for them.

Existing law prohibits the state and specified local public employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization. Existing law also requires specified public employers to provide exclusive employee representatives access to new employee orientations. Existing law generally grants the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over violations of these provisions. Existing law defines public employers who are subject to these provisions as including, among others, public agencies, cities, counties, and districts.

This bill would expand the definition of public employer, for purposes of those provisions, to include an employer who is subject to the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which the bill would create. The bill would establish a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers. The bill would provide for the right of employees, also known as individual providers under the act, to form, join, and participate in activities of employee organizations for the purposes of representation on all matters within the scope of employee organizations. The bill would define employee or individual provider for these purposes to mean a person authorized to provide in-home supportive services pursuant to the individual provider mode or waiver personal care services, as prescribed.

This bill would, for purposes of collective bargaining, deem the state to be the employer of record of individual providers in each county. The bill would grant the in-home supportive services recipient with the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providers providing services to them. Among other things, the bill would specify that individual providers employed by a predecessor agency before January 1, 2026, shall retain employee status and not be required by the state to requalify to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services.

Among other things, for purposes of collective bargaining, this bill would provide that existing bargaining units consisting of individual providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization shall be deemed merged into the largest possible multicounty bargaining units represented by that employee organization. In counties where no recognized employee organization exists as of January 1, 2026, the bill would specify that a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county shall be deemed an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Under the bill, if individual providers in a county bargaining unit are represented by a recognized employee organization on January 1, 2026, the state would be deemed the successor employer of the predecessor agency for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, subject to the obligation to meet and confer in good faith and meet other related legal requirements.

This bill would require all recognized employee organizations, as of January 1, 2026, to negotiate jointly on behalf of all bargaining units they represent to reach a single memorandum of understanding with the employer. The bill would authorize the memorandum of understanding to contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms and conditions. The bill would establish procedures for voting and ratification of a memorandum of understanding, and for the employer to assume a predecessor agencys rights and obligations under a memorandum of understanding or agreement between a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization that is in effect on January 1, 2026.

This bill would prescribe the duties of the state under the bill, including requiring the Governor to meet and confer in good faith, and to follow specified procedures regarding collective bargaining. If an agreement is reached by a representative of the Governor and the recognized employee organizations, the bill would require those parties to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding and present it to the Legislature for determination by majority vote. The bill would require the Governor, for any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits not included in the original memorandum or the Budget Act, to provide that to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, as specified. The bill would also establish mediation and arbitration procedures that would apply when the parties fail to reach an agreement.

This bill would make certain actions by an employer and other entities involved in administering the IHSS program unlawful, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees or otherwise interfering with the exercise of their rights. The bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to adopt reasonable rules and regulations pursuant to the bill, including the adoption of emergency regulations, as prescribed.

(2)Existing law requires the Controller to provide for the administration of payroll deductions and salary reductions, and authorizes the Controller to establish procedures for that purpose.

This bill would require the Controller to honor a written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee before January 1, 2026, and to make deductions for payments of dues to a recognized employee organization pursuant to the bill consistent with the above-described payroll deduction procedures.

(3)Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires public records to be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and provides that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. Existing law provides that certain information regarding persons paid by the state to provide in-home supportive services, or other related public services, are not subject to disclosure under those provisions. Existing law further provides that copies of names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other identifying information are required to be made available, upon request, to an exclusive bargaining agent and to any employee organization seeking representation rights under specified collective bargaining provisions.

This bill would, with respect to the above-described personal identifying information, instead require this information to be made available to the exclusive bargaining agent and any employee organization seeking representation under the bill. The bill would require the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium organized pursuant to the IHSS program, to promptly make the information available to the requesting entity.

This bill would revise the IHSS program provisions to require the state to assume responsibilities as set forth in the bill. The bill would also require a county or city and county to continue to have certain IHSS program-related functions set forth in county ordinance or contract performed in accordance with specified provisions.

(4)Existing law requires prospective providers of in-home supportive services to complete an in-person provider orientation at the time of enrollment that is developed by the department, in consultation with counties, that includes requirements to be an eligible IHSS provider and other related matters.

This bill additionally would require that in-person provider orientation include any other information required to be communicated to prospective providers by a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee organizations and the state.

Existing law requires a specified mediation process, including a factfinding panel recommending settlement terms, to be held if a public authority or nonprofit consortium and an employee organization fail to reach agreement on a bargaining contract with in-home supportive service (IHSS) workers on or after October 1, 2023.

This bill would make that provision inoperative. The bill would also require the department to appoint an advisory committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding in-home supportive services, as specified. The bill would make other related changes to these provisions. By imposing new duties on local government officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, apply to all counties.

(6)The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(7)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(8)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 283

Author: Haney (D), et al.

Amended: 8/29/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/18/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-1, 7/1/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-4, 5/29/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

SOURCE: Service Employees International Union, California

United Domestic Workers of America, Local 3930

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act to shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but leaves it to the states to regulate collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights. (29 United States Code §§151 et seq.)
2. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. Among these, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act governs employer-employee relations for local public employers and their employees. (Government Code §§3500 et seq.)
3. Establishes the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD), which makes it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: a) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; b) authorizing representation by an employee; or, c) authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization. (Government Code §§3550 et seq.)
4. Establishes the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC), which provides California public employee unions with specific rights designed to provide them with meaningful access to, and the ability to effectively communicate with, their represented members. (Government Code §§3555 et seq.)
5. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering certain statutory frameworks governing employer-employee relations, resolving disputes, and enforcing the statutory obligations and rights of public agencies, their employees, and employee organizations. (Government Code §§3541 et seq.)
6. Excludes information about IHSS workers from public disclosure requirements but requires the counties, public authorities, or non-profit consortiums that are their designated employers for purposes of collective bargaining to provide specified information to unions to facilitate their communications to and contacts with IHSS workers. (Government Code §7926.300)
7. Requires under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act that state and public agencies conduct deliberations and take actions openly, as specified. (Government Code §11120)
8. Provides in-home supportive services to aged, blind, or disabled persons unable to perform those services themselves and without which they cannot safely remain in their homes. (Welfare and Institutions Code §§12300 et seq.)
9. Authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to either contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services. (Welfare and Institutions Code §12306.1)

This bill:

1. Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act (“IHSSEERA”) to shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the county or public authority to the state. The IHSSEERA deems the state, instead of the county or the public authority, the employer of record of individual IHSS providers in each county for purposes of collective bargaining.
2. Provides that notwithstanding IHSSEERA, the IHSS recipient maintains the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providing services and that specified requirements of overtime, workweek and other elements of the IHSS program remain the same.
3. Requires the state to assume the responsibilities set forth in IHSSEERA on January 1, 2026.
4. Requires the state to assume a predecessor agency’s rights and obligations under an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a recognized employee organization until the expiration of that MOU.
5. Provides for the merging of existing bargaining units of IHSS providers and requires all recognized employee organizations to negotiate jointly on behalf of all represented bargaining units to reach a single MOU with the employer. The MOU may contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms of employment.
6. Requires the state to follow certain collective bargaining procedures and present the MOU to the Legislature for approval by majority vote.
7. Grants PERB jurisdiction over IHSSEERA, authorizes PERB to adopt related regulations, including emergency regulations, and makes regulations exempt from specified rulemaking requirements. However, this bill grants jurisdiction over violations of IHSSEERA in Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County to their respective employee relations committees.
8. Requires mediation for the state and IHSS employee unions to resolve differences but provides a binding arbitration process if mediation fails. Permits the Legislature to reject the arbitration panel’s decision by a majority vote of the Legislature.
9. Requires the California Department of Social Services to appoint an advisory committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding IHSS. DSS must designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the advisory committee.
10. Makes the state the employer of record for IHSS workers and applies to the state, in relation to those workers, the provisions of the PECC which prohibits subject employers from interfering with a union’s rights, as specified, to communicate and access the workers they represent.
11. Applies the provisions of the Prohibition on PEDD act to the state, which make it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: a) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; b) authorizing representation by an employee; or, c) authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization.
12. Excludes information about IHSS workers from public records disclosure requirements but requires the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium regulating IHSS workers to provide specified information to unions to facilitate the unions’ communication to and contact with IHSS workers.
13. Excludes the IHSS statewide bargaining advisory committee established by this bill from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act’s requirements.
14. Requires a county or city and county to continue to have its public authority or nonprofit consortium perform the functions set forth in the county ordinance, as specified.
15. Requires IHSS employee orientation to include any other information that a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee unions and the state requires be communicated to prospective IHSS providers.
16. Requires, on January 1, 2026, a county or city and county, a public authority or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, when providing for the delivery of IHSS services to comply with, and be subject to, all provisions of any memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto between the state and recognized employee organizations, as specified.
17. Requires the state to assume, and be liable for, any act by a county or city and county, a public authority, or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, that is in violation of a memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters.
18. Allows those violations to be adjusted through a grievance procedure contained in a memorandum of understanding between the state and recognized employee organizations and makes specified remedies cumulative not exclusive.
19. Requires the state to pay 100 percent of the nonfederal share of county administration and public authority costs for each county of any administration costs resulting from the provisions of any memorandum of understanding, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations.
20. Prohibits the rebased County IHSS MOE (Maintenance of Effort) from being adjusted based on any provision of any memorandum of understanding, addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations.

Background:

The IHSS program provides in-home assistance to low-income aging adults and individuals with disabilities, allowing these individuals to receive care safely in their homes. Generally, IHSS providers are family members of the IHSS program participant, although participants may also choose a provider from a list of local providers. The projected program caseload for fiscal year 2024-25 is over 716,000 providers serving over 717,000 recipients.

A mix of federal, state, and local resources fund IHSS provider wages and benefits. The federal government bases its share of cost on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the state’s share covers state minimum wage augmentations, local entities pay for locally negotiated increases above the state minimum wage, and IHSS recipients may pay a share of cost based on their income. Thus, IHSS provider wages vary across California, from the minimum wage of $16.50 per hour in Siskiyou County to $22 per hour in San Francisco County. The median IHSS provider wage in California is $18.13 per hour.

A 2012 state law established the IHSS Statewide Authority to serve as the employer of record of IHSS providers for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the authority covered only a small number of counties, and the Legislature repealed the law in 2017. Current statute designates local public authorities as the employer of record for collective bargaining purposes with IHSS providers, while requiring the state to administer payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits.

This bill shifts collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state level for all counties. Recent amendments require the state to pay 100 percent of the nonfederal share of county administration and public authority costs for each county of any administration costs resulting from the provisions of any memorandum of understanding, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations. They also shield the rebased County IHSS MOE from being adjusted as a result of increased costs from the state’s bargaining.

Need for this bill?According to the author:

“The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to filling the impending long-term care shortage or establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers. The demand for long-term care is expected to grow drastically over the next decade. According to the Department of Finance, the population of older adults who will need long-term services and supports (LTSS) is expected to grow by more than 40 percent between 2019 and 2030, from 6 million to over 8.6 million. However, the availability of quality home care providers is becoming a dwindling resource due to unlivable wages for the work’s difficult demands. Wages and benefits vary between each county, but no county pays providers a living wage. The average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour. In comparison, as of February 2025, the average IHSS worker makes only $18.13 per hour. Additionally, access to health benefits also vary. In fact, as of January 2025, providers in 23 counties have no access to health or dental benefits through the IHSS program.”

Prior/ Related Legislation:

AB 288 (McKinnor, 2025) would create state collective bargaining rights for private sector employees whose rights are unprotected by an incapacitated National Relations Labor Board and require PERB to adjudicate those rights. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

AB 1672 (Haney, 2023), substantially similar to this bill, would have created the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act to shift collective bargaining over In-Home Support Services (IHSS) provider wages, benefits, and conditions of employment from the local level to the state level. The bill was referred to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee but not heard at the request of the author.

SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017, Section 4) repealed provisions relating to the IHSS Statewide Authority, the IHSS Fund, and the IHSSEERA.

SB 1036 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2012) established the IHSSEERA.

SB 1008 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2012) implemented the Duals Demonstration Pilot Projects to achieve savings, and expanded the number of counties in which dual demonstration sites may be established, from four to eight, relating to coordinate care services.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• To the extent that collective bargaining between the State and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers results in higher wages and benefits than otherwise would have occurred, this bill would result in increased costs to the State (General Fund). The magnitude is unknown, but could potentially reach the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
• The bill would result in ongoing annual costs in the low millions of dollars to the State’s bargaining representative (General Fund). The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) would require $3.3 million in the first year, and $3.1 million annually thereafter to support 15 positions if it were to serve as the State’s bargaining representative. The Department of Social Services (DSS) would incur similar costs if it were to perform the workload. This amount was funded in the enacted 2025-26 budget.
• DSS would incur unknown, likely significant costs, to administer bargained changes to the IHSS program. DSS would also incur staff workload costs to establish the advisory committee and provide ongoing support to it (General Fund).
• The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) indicates that it would incur administrative costs first-year costs of $50,000, and $19,000 annually thereafter (General Fund).
• The State Controller’s Office (SCO) would incur General Fund costs to set up new payroll processes for specified IHSS employees. The magnitude of these costs is unknown and would be dependent on the number of covered employees.
• By imposing specified duties on local entities administering IHSS programs, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

Service Employees International Union, California (Co-source)

United Domestic Workers of America, Local 3930 (Co-source)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Democratic Party
California Federation of Labor Unions
County of Riverside Supervisor V. Manuel Perez
County of San Diego Supervisor Joel Anderson

Democratic Club of Claremont
Hand in Hand: the Domestic Employers Network
Majdal Arab Community Center of San Diego
Orange County Employees Association
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
United Domestic Workers of America

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Service Employees International Union, California:

“IHSS is a life-saving program for recipients and a cost-saving alternative for our State. However, the program is struggling to recruit and retain the caregivers necessary to maintain this resource. If California does not adequately invest in this workforce, older adults and those living with disabilities will not receive the proper care that they need, caregivers will continue to live in poverty, and the public expense of caring for these populations will only increase.

While IHSS wages vary across California from the minimum wage of $16.50 in Siskiyou County to $22 in San Francisco, there is not a single county that pays IHSS providers a living wage. The average living wage in California for one adult and one child is $43.44 per hour compared to the median IHSS wage at $18.13. This gross disparity has resulted in a growing shortage in the IHSS workforce, resulting in gaps in care for our most vulnerable communities.

The fragmented nature of the IHSS program, as a county-administered program, is not conducive to standardizing an equitable living wage across this industry. AB 283 will help transition collective bargaining from the county level to the statewide level, resulting in a streamlined bargaining process and the professionalization of the IHSS workforce by providing livable wages and benefits. This bill will also ensure more equitable distribution of long-term care funds and allow the state to meet its long-term care demands.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-4, 5/29/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio, Dixon, Gallagher, Macedo

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarez, Bryan, Castillo, Chen, Ellis, Nguyen, Sanchez, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Tangipa, Ward

Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

9/2/25 17:53:07**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 283 (Haney) - In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

Bill Summary:

AB 283 would establish the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 29, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

• To the extent that collective bargaining between the State and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers results in higher wages and benefits than otherwise would have occurred, this bill would result in increased costs to the State (General Fund). The magnitude is unknown, but could potentially reach the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
• The bill would result in ongoing annual costs in the low millions of dollars to the State’s bargaining representative (General Fund). The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) would require $3.3 million in the first year, and $3.1 million annually thereafter to support 15 positions if it were to serve as the State’s bargaining representative. The Department of Social Services (DSS) would incur similar costs if it were to perform the workload. This amount was funded in the enacted 2025-26 budget.

• DSS would incur unknown, likely significant costs, to administer bargained changes to the IHSS program. DSS would also incur staff workload costs to establish the advisory committee and provide ongoing support to it (General Fund).
• The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) indicates that it would incur administrative costs first-year costs of $50,000, and $19,000 annually thereafter (General Fund).

• The State Controller’s Office (SCO) would incur General Fund costs to set up new payroll processes for specified IHSS employees. The magnitude of these costs is unknown and would be dependent on the number of covered employees.
• By imposing specified duties on local entities administering IHSS programs, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

Author Amendments:

• Prohibit the rebased County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) from being adjusted based on any provision of any MOU, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations.
• Require the State to pay 100% of the nonfederal share of county administration and public authority administration costs for each county of any administration costs resulting from the provisions of any MOU, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the State and recognized employee organization.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 283 (Haney) - In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

Bill Summary:

AB 283 would establish the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• To the extent that collective bargaining between the State and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers results in higher wages and benefits than otherwise would have occurred, this bill would result in increased costs to the State (General Fund (GF). The magnitude is unknown, but could potentially reach the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
• The bill would result in ongoing annual costs in the low millions of dollars to the State’s bargaining representative (General Fund). The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) would require $3.3 million in the first year, and $3.1 million annually thereafter to support 15 positions if it were to serve as the State’s bargaining representative. The Department of Social Services (DSS) would incur similar costs if it were to perform the workload.

• DSS would incur unknown, likely significant costs, to administer bargained changes to the IHSS program. DSS would also incur staff workload costs to establish the advisory committee and provide ongoing support to it (General Fund).
• The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) indicates that it would incur administrative costs first-year costs of $50,000, and $19,000 annually thereafter (General Fund).

• The State Controller’s Office (SCO) would incur General Fund costs to set up new payroll processes for specified IHSS employees. The magnitude of these costs is unknown and would be dependent on the number of covered employees.
• By imposing specified duties on local entities administering IHSS programs, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

Background:

The IHSS program provides personal care and domestic services to low-income individuals to help them remain safely in their own homes and communities. In order to qualify for IHSS, a recipient must be aged, blind, or disabled, and in most cases have income below the level necessary to qualify for the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment cash assistance program (for example, about $1,207 a month for an aged and/or disabled individual living independently in 2024-25). IHSS recipients generally are eligible to receive up to 283 hours per month of assistance with tasks such as bathing, dressing, housework, and meal preparation. Social workers employed by county welfare departments conduct an in-home assessment of an individual’s needs in order to determine the amount and type of service hours to be provided. In most cases, the recipient is responsible for hiring and supervising a paid IHSS provider—oftentimes a family member or relative. The average number of service hours that will be provided to an estimated 771,650 IHSS recipients is projected to be 124 hours per month in 2025-26.

IHSS provider wages and benefits are funded through a combination of federal, state, and local funds. The federal government’s share of cost is based on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the State’s share covers increases to the state minimum wage, and local entities pay the remaining costs for locally negotiated increases above the state minimum wage. Thus, IHSS provider wages vary across California, from the minimum wage of $16.50 per hour in Siskiyou County to $22 per hour in San Francisco County. The median IHSS provider wage in California is $18.13 per hour.

A 2012 state law established the IHSS Statewide Authority to serve as the employer of record of IHSS providers for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the authority covered only a small number of counties, and the law was repealed in 2017. Currently, local public authorities are the designated employer of record for collective bargaining purposes with IHSS providers, while the state administers payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Establish the IHSS Employer-Employee Relations Act (“IHSSEERA”) to shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the county or public authority to the state. The IHSSEERA deems the State, instead of the county or the public authority, the employer of record of individual IHSS providers in each county for purposes of collective bargaining.
• Require the State to assume the responsibilities set forth in IHSSEERA on January 1, 2026.
• Require the State to assume a predecessor agency’s rights and obligations under an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a recognized employee organization until the expiration of that MOU.
• Provide for the merging of existing bargaining units of IHSS providers and requires all recognized employee organizations to negotiate jointly on behalf of all represented bargaining units to reach a single MOU with the employer. The MOU may contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms of employment.
• Require the state to follow certain collective bargaining procedures and present the MOU to the Legislature for approval by majority vote.
• Grant PERB jurisdiction over IHSSEERA, authorize PERB to adopt related regulations, including emergency regulations, and makes regulations exempt from specified rulemaking requirements.
• Require mediation for the State and IHSS employee unions to resolve differences but provides a binding arbitration process if mediation fails. Permit the Legislature to reject the arbitration panel’s decision by a majority vote of the Legislature.
• Require DSS to appoint an advisory committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding IHSS. DSS must designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the advisory committee.
• Make the State the employer of record for IHSS workers and applies to the state, in relation to those workers, the provisions of the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) which prohibits subject employers from interfering with a union’s rights, as specified, to communicate and access the workers they represent.
• Apply the provisions of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) act to the State, which make it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: (1) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization, (2) authorizing representation by an employee, or (3) authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization.
• Exclude information about IHSS workers from public records disclosure requirements but requires the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium regulating IHSS workers to provide specified information to unions to facilitate the unions’ communication to and contact with IHSS workers.
• Require a county or city and county to continue to have its public authority or nonprofit consortium perform the functions set forth in the county ordinance, as specified.
• Require IHSS employee orientation to include any other information that a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee unions and the state requires be communicated to prospective IHSS providers.
• Require, on January 1, 2026, a county or city and county, a public authority or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, when providing for the delivery of IHSS services to comply with, and be subject to, all provisions of any memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto between the state and recognized employee organizations, as specified.
• Require the State to assume, and be liable for, any act by a county or city and county, a public authority, or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, that is in violation of a memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters.
• Allow those violations to be adjusted through a grievance procedure contained in an MOU between the State and recognized employee organizations and makes specified remedies cumulative not exclusive.

Related Legislation:

• AB 288 (McKinnor) would create state collective bargaining rights for private sector employees whose rights are unprotected by an incapacitated National Relations Labor Board and require PERB to adjudicate those rights. This bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• AB 1672 (Haney, 2023), substantially similar to this bill, would have created the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act to shift collective bargaining over In-Home Support Services (IHSS) provider wages, benefits, and conditions of employment from the local level to the state level. The bill was referred to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee but not heard at the request of the author.
• SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017, Section 4) repealed provisions relating to the IHSS Statewide Authority, the IHSS Fund, and the IHSSEERA.
• SB 1036 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2012) established the IHSSEERA.
• SB 1008 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2012) implemented the Duals Demonstration Pilot Projects to achieve savings, and expanded the number of counties in which dual demonstration sites may be established, from four to eight, relating to coordinate care services.

Staff Comments:

As noted previously, this bill would establish the IHSS Employer-Employee Relations Act, which would (1) shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the State, and (2) make related changes to the Government Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code regulating IHSS services. This bill would shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state level for all counties. Consequently, any future wage and benefit increases for IHSS providers would also presumably shift to the state.

Any local government costs resulting from the changes this bill would make to the definition of a crime are not state-reimbursable.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 283 (Author:Haney)

Version: June 12, 2025

Hearing Date: July 1, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ID

SUBJECT

In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

DIGEST

This bill creates the In-Home Supportive Services Employee-Employer Relations Act to regulate the employer-employee relations between individual providers of services under the in-home supportive services program and establish the state as the employer of individual providers for the purposes of collective bargaining.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is a county-run program that provides elderly, blind, and disabled individuals receiving Medi-Cal who otherwise would be unable to remain in their homes with assistance and supportive services like personal care, meal preparation, laundry, housecleaning, accompaniment to medical appointments, bathing, dressing, and supervision. Under the IHSS program, an eligible recipient of services receives services from an individual provider. The recipient of the services is considered the employer of the individual provider, is in charge of supervising the individual provider, and can fire the provider if necessary. However, the individual provider is paid by the state, with wage rates for IHSS individual providers being determined by the county entity that delivers the IHSS program. In 1999, collective bargaining rights were established for all IHSS individual providers. However, employee organizations of individuals negotiate with each county, rather than the state.

AB 283 would create the In-Home Supportive Service Employee-Employer Relations Act (IHSSEERA) to establish the state as the employer of individual providers for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to establish various rules and processes for collective bargaining and dispute resolution between individual providers, their employee organizations, and the state. AB 283 also exempts specified information regarding individual providers from public disclosure, except as provided, and exempts the advisory committee it creates for the purpose of providing various state agencies advice and recommendations from the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

AB 283 is sponsored by SEIU California and the United Domestic Workers union, and is supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO and AFSCME, AFL-CIO. It is opposed by the County of Kern. This bill passed out of the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee on a vote of 4 to 1.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing Federal law governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but leaves it to the states to regulate collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. (29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.)

Existing state law:

1. Includes various statutes to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. Includes the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), which governs employer-employee relations for local public employers and their employees. (Gov. Code §§ 3500 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD), which makes it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or prospective applicants from: becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; authorizing representation by an employee; or authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization. (Gov. Code § 3550.)
3. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering certain statutory frameworks governing employer-employee relations, resolving disputes, and enforcing the statutory obligations and rights of public agencies, their employees, and employee organizations, and provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (Gov. Code §§ 3541 et seq.)
4. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, that the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   1. Requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   2. Requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
5. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code §§ 7920.000 et seq.)
   1. States that the Legislature, mindful of the individual right to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.)
   2. Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.)
   3. Provides that all public records are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code § 7922.530.)
6. Establishes the Bagley-Keene Act, which requires state bodies to conduct their business in open public meetings, except as provided by the Act, and establishes requirements and procedures for such meetings. (Gov. Code §§ 11120 et seq.)
   1. “State bodies” covered by the Bagley-Keene Act include every state board, commission, or body created by statute or required by law to conduct official meetings, every commission created by executive order, any board or body exercising the authority of a state body by delegation, any advisory body created by formal action of a state body, any state body that is supported by public funds and which a member of a state body serves in their official capacity, and the State Bar of California. (Gov. Code § 11121.)
   2. “State bodies” do not include specified legislative agencies, agencies subject to the Brown Act, and certain educational and health-related agencies. (Gov. Code § 11121.1.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act (IHSSEERA) as a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other and terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers.

1. Lays out the purpose of the IHSSEERA as: to promote full communication between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers to: resolve disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, as provided; to promote improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations by providing a uniform basis for recognizing individual rights of providers, as provided; and to strengthen methods of administering employer-employee relations through uniform and orderly methods of communication between the recognized employee organizations and the state.
2. Provides that the provisions of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) and Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) apply to the IHSSEERA.
3. Provides IHSS providers the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters within the scope of representation, and the right to refrain from employee organization membership and participation in associated activities.
4. Deems the state to be the employer of record of IHSS individual providers in each county for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement in each county, and requires the creation of a statewide public authority for this purpose. Requires the Governor to meet and confer with an IHSS providers’ recognized employee organization on all matters within the scope of representation.
5. Provides IHSS service recipients the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of individual providers providing services to them.
6. Provides that IHSS providers who were employed by any predecessor agency retain employee status with the statewide public authority, and may not be required to requalify.
7. Recognizes existing bargaining units of IHSS providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization, and requires that they be merged into the largest possible multi-county bargaining unit represented by that employee organization. In counties where there is no recognized employee organization, deems a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county an appropriate unit for collective bargaining; and, if employees select an employee organization as the exclusive representative thereafter, requires the county bargaining unit be deemed merged into any existing multi-county bargaining unit represented by the same recognized employee organization.
8. Specifies the manner and structure of collective bargaining negotiations, including by requiring joint negotiations; placing various obligations on employee organizations; and the entering of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Requires, if an MOU is reached between the state and a recognized employee organization, that the MOU be approved by majority vote of the Legislature.
9. Provides that the statewide public authority assumes the rights and obligations contained in an MOU executed by a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization, and prohibits the reduction of any terms and conditions in an existing MOU, except where the public authority and the recognized employee organization mutually agree. Specifies that the State Controller is obligated to continue to honor written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee prior to the effective date.
10. Permits the modification of existing wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment through meeting and conferring in good faith, or, through specified procedures when IHSS providers are not represented by a recognized employee organization, but specifies that the enactment of this bill is not cause for the employer or predecessor agency to modify or eliminate any existing MOU. Requires that the employer give as much notice as practicable to the county of the agreed upon changes, if the employer and recognized employee organization negotiate changes to locally administered health benefits for providers.
11. Makes various legislative findings and declarations that collective bargaining of individual providers is a matter of statewide concern, and that the provisions of this bill apply to all counties, notwithstanding charter provisions to the contrary.
12. Requires that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) interpret and apply the provisions of this bill in a manner consistent, and in accordance, with judicial interpretations of the same language where the provisions of this bill are the same or substantially similar to those in the MMBA.
13. Requires that the state grant exclusive recognition to employee organization designated or selected pursuant to this bill or rules established by the PERB for employees of the employer or appropriate unit thereof, subject to the right of an employee to self-represent.
14. Specifies that the powers and duties of the PERB must apply to IHSS employer-employee relations, as specified, including the powers relating to elections, unit modifications, and requires PERB to adopt rules. Requires that, upon request of all affected recognized employee organizations, the employer must recognize a merged bargaining unit, as provided. Provides that appeals of administrative law judicial decisions regarding recognition, certification, decertification, or unit modification where PERB does not issue a ruling that supersedes the administrative law judicial decision within 180 days, is deemed a final order of PERB. Permits a party aggrieved by a final decision of PERB relating to an unfair labor practice, recognition, or election matter not brought as an unfair practice case, to petition for a writ of extraordinary relief. Prohibits a PERB order directing an election from being stayed pending judicial review. Prescribes specified processes for a petition for a writ of extraordinary relief.
15. Prohibits an individual provider from being subject to punitive action, denial of promotion, or threatened with such treatment, for exercising lawful action as an elected, appointed, or recognized representative of any employee bargaining unit. Specifies that these provisions do not affect the rights of an employee to authorize dues deductions from their salary or wages, and requirements relating to the Controller to make such deductions for payment to a recognized employee organization, as provided.
16. Provides recognized employee organizations the right to represent their members in employment relations with the employer, permits such organizations to establish reasonable restrictions on membership, and authorizes employees to self-represent in their relations with the employer. Prohibits the employer and employee organizations from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing, or discriminating against providers because of the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the bill.
17. Defines the scope of representation to include all matters relating to wages, hours, benefits, other terms and conditions of employment, programmatic changes that affect terms and conditions of employment, and other specified matters within the scope, as provided. Specifies that the consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order is excluded, as well as the right to hire, fire, and supervise an individual provider expressly reserved to the IHSS recipient. Specifies that, notwithstanding the totality of matters within the scope of representation, the employer is authorized to consult and reach an agreement with the recognized employee organization on matters outside the scope of representation, and such matters must not be considered a mandatory subject of bargaining.
18. Requires the Governor, or their designee, to provide reasonable written notice to each recognized employee organization affected by any law, rule, practice, or policy directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the employer, and the opportunity for the recognized employee to meet with the employers, except in cases of emergency; and, in such cases of emergency when such changes must be made in the absence prior written notice or meeting with a recognized employee organization, notice and opportunity to meet must be provided at the earliest opportunity following such action.
19. Requires any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to an MOU that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits and that is not already contained in the original MOU or the Budget Act, to be provided by the Governor to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and requires the committee to determine within 30 days if the side letter or appendix presents substantial additions that are not reasonably within the parameters of the original MOU and requires legislative action to ratify.
20. Specifies that, in the event that the employer and recognized employee organization fail to reach agreement after a reasonable time, that the dispute must be referred to mediation before a mediator mutually agreed upon between the parties, or appointed by PERB absent agreements, and provides that the costs of mediation shall be divided equally between the employer and the recognized employee organizations. If mediation has been exhausted, provides a process and procedures for arbitration by a three-member board of arbitrators at the request of the employer or the employee organizations.
21. Provides that, if the Legislature does not approve or fully fund the provisions of the agreement that requires the expenditure of funds, that negotiations on all or part of the MOU may be reopened. Permits the parties to the agreement to agree to effectuate provisions of the agreement that have received legislative approval or do not require legislative action.
22. Specifies that an MOU between the Governor and a recognized employee organization binds all state departments and agencies; counties; public authorities or nonprofit consortia, as provided.
23. Requires that the employer allow a reasonable number of recognized employee organization representatives reasonable time off without loss of compensation or other benefits when formally meeting and conferring with the employer on matters within the scope of representation.
24. Specifies that it is unlawful for the employer to do certain acts, including: imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees; denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them; refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith; dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of an employee organization; refusing to participate in good faith in any impasse procedure; deterring or discouraging providers from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; refusing or failing to require any county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium to comply with the provisions of an MOU; or refusing or failing to require any county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium to comply with specified law. Specifies that it is unlawful for a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium to do similar acts.
25. Permits PERB to investigate unfair practice charges or alleged violations of this bill, and permits PERB to take any reasonable actions and make any determinations regarding charges or alleged violations as deemed necessary. Permits PERB to adopt reasonable rules and regulations, including emergency regulations, for these purposes, as specified and provided.
26. Defines the following terms for these provisions, including:
27. “Employee” or “individual provider” to mean a person authorized to provide IHSS services, as provided; however, specifies these terms do not include any person providing IHSS services to the county-employed homemaker or contractor modes, as provided; and, that IHSS providers must not be deemed employees of the state for any other purpose, except as expressly provided.
28. “Employer” to mean, for the specific purposes of collective bargaining, the state, the Department of Health Care Services, or any other agency, department, contractor, subcontractor, or political subdivision of the state administering the IHSS program; however, the bill specifies that a IHSS recipient must be the employer of an IHSS provider with unconditional exercise to hire, fire, and supervise the provider.
29. “Predecessor agency” to mean a county, local public authority, or a nonprofit consortium established, as specified, before the effective date of this bill.
30. “Meet and confer in good faith” relating to the labor relations provisions to mean the Governor, through their designee, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, must have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget for the ensuing year. Requires that it include adequate time for the resolution of impasses.
31. Makes various changes to the Welfare and Institutions Code for these purposes as follows, and that also are effective January 1, 2026, except as otherwise specified:
32. Requires the state to assume the previously-described responsibilities on the effective date of the bill.
33. Adds a requirement that a county, or city and county, do any one of the following:
    1. continue to have its public authority perform certain functions, as provided;
    2. continue to have the entity perform the functions in the existing contract at the time of notification, as provided; or
    3. assume the functions performed by an entity or public authority.
34. Authorizes a county, or city and county, to assume certain specified functions, to either:
    1. contract for the performance of any or all of the functions assumed;
    2. contract with an entity for the performance of any or all functions assumed, as provided; or,
    3. establish a public authority for the performance of any functions assumed, as provided.
35. Provides for the appointment of an advisory committee, its appointing authority, the process for appointment, and the composition and duties of the advisory committee relating to IHSS.
36. Authorizes a local public authority or nonprofit consortium acting as the employer of record, or the employee organization, to request mandatory mediation if the parties have not reached an agreement on a bargaining contract with IHSS workers, and provides for the process to select a mediator, among other aspects relating to the process of mediation.
37. Subjects a county to withholding of its 1991 Realignment funding pursuant to a schedule developed by the Department of Finance (DOF) if certain specified conditions are met regarding the mediation process and an inability of the parties to reach a collective bargaining agreement, and requires PERB to provide written notice to the county, employee organization, the DOF, and State Controller of the withholding assessment, as prescribed. In addition, the amount of the county’s 1991 Realignment funding withholding must be equal to 10 percent of its prior fiscal year IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement prior to applying any offsets, and the withholding must continue once per year, each fiscal year, until the county enters into a collective bargaining agreement with the employee organization.
38. Makes other related changes to the Welfare and Institutions Code for these purposes.
39. Makes several legislative findings, declarations, and states legislative intent for these purposes.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s statement

According to the author:

Without secure contracts for workers, the State estimates that we will face an IHSS caregiver shortage due to the rapid growth in California’s senior population and the low wages of IHSS workers. Existing problems in the IHSS collective bargaining process have resulted in workers being denied a fair wage. While the average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour, the average IHSS worker makes only $18.13 per hour. The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers, or filling the impending long-term care shortage. To provide for our essential workers and ensure that IHSS recipients receive the care they need, AB 283 would allow IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at a State level instead of at the county level.

1. The In-Home Supportive Services program

California’s elderly population is growing. Estimates suggest that, by 2030, Californians who are 60 or older will comprise 25 percent of the state’s population, amounting to 10.8 million people.^[1] As the state’s population ages, the need for supportive services for the elderly will also grow. While many older Californians receive care and support by living in an assisted-living facility or nursing home, others are able to receive in-home supportive services and care. In-home supportive services provide an alternative to living in care facilities and allow recipients to remain in their homes while also receiving the support they need.

The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is a county-run program that provides elderly, blind, and disabled individuals receiving Medi-Cal who otherwise would be unable to remain in their homes with assistance and supportive services like personal care, meal preparation, laundry, housecleaning, accompaniment to medical appointments, bathing, dressing, and supervision. While the IHSS program is overseen by the state, delivery of services under the program is otherwise run by the county, either through a nonprofit consortium or a public authority established by ordinance. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 12306.1.) The IHSS program also receives funding from a mix of federal, state, and local funding.

Under the IHSS program, an eligible recipient of services receives services from an individual provider. The recipient must first apply for services, and be assessed by a county social worker for eligibility and need. Once approved for services, the recipient must hire the individual provider who will provide them with services. The recipient of the services is considered the employer of the individual provider, is in charge of supervising the individual provider, and can fire the provider if necessary. However, the individual provider is paid by the state, with wage rates for IHSS individual providers being determined by the county entity that delivers the IHSS program. Thus, the program is stratified: the IHSS recipient acts as the IHSS provider’s employer, but pay and benefits are managed by the county and state governments.

In 1999, collective bargaining rights were established for all IHSS individual providers through AB 1682 (Peace, Ch. 90, Stats. 1999). That bill required counties, a public authority established by the county, or a nonprofit consortium to act as the employer of IHSS individual providers for the purposes of collective bargaining. While this allowed IHSS providers to organize and collectively bargain, they could only do so at the county level. This led to an increase in IHSS provider wages; however, wages and the benefits provided to IHSS providers continue to vary significantly by county.^[2] Wages range from $16 to $21.50 an hour, and only 16 percent of IHSS providers receive at least some health benefits.^[3] 75 percent of IHSS providers are women, and about 70 percent care for a relative.^[4]

1. Previous legislation creating statewide collective bargaining rights for IHSS providers

In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1036 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2012) to establish the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employees Relations Act (IHSSEERA). Under that legislation, a statewide authority for the IHSS program was established, and this authority was deemed the employer of record for the purposes of collective bargaining with IHSS providers. It required separate bargaining units to be created that were consistent with bargaining units that were recognized by predecessor county agencies, and required the statewide authority to assume any rights and obligations established by an agreement previously entered into between a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization. It also specified that IHSS providers that previously had employee status from the county agency would not be required by the statewide authority to requalify, and provided the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) with authority over labor relations and disputes regarding IHSS providers. However, the IHSSEERA only applied to eight counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, San Diego, and San Mateo. Moreover, the IHSSEERA was repealed in 2017 through a budget trailer bill. (SB 90, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 25, Stats. 2017.)

1. AB 283 would create a thorough, statewide collective bargaining process for IHSS service providers

AB 283 would re-establish the IHSSEERA. It would provide IHSS providers the right to form, join, and participate in employee organizations for collective bargaining, and would subject to disputes to a specified process with PERB authority to review and adjudicate. For the purposes of collective bargaining, it also would deem the state to be the employer of record of IHSS providers in each county. For IHSS providers who were employed by a county agency before January 1, 2026, AB 283 would provide that the provider would retain their employee status and would not be required to requalify as an IHSS provider.

In determining collective bargaining units for the purposes of collective bargaining, AB 283 would specify that existing bargaining units of IHSS providers in a single county represented by the same recognized employee organization is deemed merged into the largest possible multi-county bargaining unit represented by that single employee organization. AB 283 would require all existing recognized employee organizations to negotiate jointly on behalf of all bargaining units they represent to reach a single memorandum of understanding with the state. If a county IHSS program has no recognized employee organization, AB 283 would deem a collective bargaining unit made of all employees in that county is an appropriate recognized employee organization for collective bargaining.

AB 283 also specifies a number of duties of the state. It would require that the Governor meet and confer with recognized employee organizations in good faith, and to follow specified procedures in negotiating with employee organizations. If the Governor or their representative and a recognized employee organization come to an agreement, this agreement would have to be memorialized in a written memorandum of understanding, which would then be presented to the Legislature for approval by majority vote. Additionally, the bill would prohibit certain retaliatory acts by the state and agencies involved in administering the IHSS program, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on a provider for exercising their collective bargaining rights, or otherwise interfering with employees’ collective bargaining rights. If the state and a recognized employee organization cannot reach a collective bargaining agreement, AB 283 would require the parties to participate in specified mediation and arbitration procedures.

1. AB 283 would exempt specified information from the Public Records Act

The California Constitution and laws generally recognize that public access to information regarding the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental right. However, this right must be balanced against the right to privacy. Thus, the general right of access to public records may be limited where the Legislature finds a public policy justification necessitating limiting access.

Under the California Public Records Act, the information of IHSS providers is not subject to public disclosure, except that specified personal information must be made available upon request to an exclusive bargaining agent and any labor organization that is seeking representation rights for the purposes of employee organization, representation, or assistance. (Gov. Code § 7926.300.) AB 283 amends these provisions to specify that the state, a county, public authority, or a nonprofit consortium organized to administer the IHSS program must promptly provide this information about IHSS providers to the requesting entity.

Thus, AB 283 limits access to public records by strengthening this existing limitation in the public’s access to IHSS providers’ personal information. An exception is provided for collective bargaining and organizing purposes. AB 283 does so to protect the privacy of IHSS providers and their sensitive information like their address and contact information, while still allowing the information be available for an exclusive collective bargaining agent or employee organization carrying out collective bargaining activities. Given that the information limited is incredibly personal information relating to specific IHSS employees, it seems reasonable that this information is not public. If it was public, IHSS providers could be subject to unwanted calls or other communications that are not related to their employment or to organizing their workplace. Thus, AB 283’s limitation on the public’s access to this information seems warranted.

1. AB 283 would exempt the proceedings of the Advisory Committee from the Bagley-Keene

The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code § 11120) generally requires that state bodies conduct their meetings openly and make those meetings accessible to the public. A state body covered by the Act is a board, commission, committee, council, or any other public agency created by state statute or executive order. (Gov. Code § 11121.) It does not apply to individual officials, advisory committees with no decision-making authority, or to the Legislature. The Act requires that state bodies provide notice of their meetings and agendas for such meetings, and that they permit public comment on the items considered at meetings. (Gov. Code § 11125.) However, these requirements do not apply to closed meetings called to discuss personnel issues or pending litigation. (Gov. Code §11126.)

AB 283 requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS) to appoint an IHSS Advisory Committee comprised of 17 members, 50 percent of whom must be current or past users of in-home supportive services, to provide advice and recommendations to CDSS and the Department of Health Care Services (CDHCS) regarding the IHSS program. In addition, it would require the state, prior to finalizing a memorandum of understanding with a recognized employee organization, to consult with advisory committee representatives to obtain input regarding county and public authority programmatic and fiscal implications. AB 283 exempts the IHSS Advisory Committee from the public meeting requirements of the Bagley-Keene Act.

AB 283 asserts that this exception is necessary to allow arbitration proceedings to be conducted in conformity with the law governing the arbitration process. Considering that arbitration can include both parties sharing sensitive information for negotiations, exempting arbitration proceedings from public access seems reasonable. Doing so also best ensures the satisfactory completion of such proceedings without any outside influence. However, the advisory committee established by this bill also does more than engage in arbitration – it also provides CDSS with advice and recommendations regarding the IHSS program. It is less clear how any advisory committee proceedings related to this function would benefit from being private. In fact, it seems the opposite may be true – that public proceedings would be essential for the advisory committee to gather feedback with which to inform its advice and recommendations to CDSS regarding the IHSS program.

1. Arguments in support

According to SEIU California, which is a co-sponsor of AB 283:

Under the current bargaining structure, wages are determined by individual counties, which have vastly different economic conditions and local priorities. This has resulted in decades of underinvestment and inconsistency in IHSS provider wages and benefits across the state. Sadly, in certain counties, IHSS negotiations have been politicized by local leaders, leading to years of stalling and stalemate before bargaining agreements are reached. In the interim, provider wages and benefits lag far behind increases in the cost of living. Providers face the desperate choice between providing services to clients and making ends meet.

This has resulted in a severe shortage of IHSS providers around the state. Despite both provider unions’ longstanding efforts to secure fair contracts, progress has been unacceptably slow. IHSS providers’ wages range from $16.50 to $22 per hour, with an average hourly wage of $18.13. This is far below the estimated $28.72 per hour living wage for an adult without children or $51.15 for a household with two adults (one working) and two children.

According to a report from UC Berkeley Labor Center, only 16% of IHSS providers receive health benefits. Two-thirds of those enrollees are concentrated in just three counties: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa Clara.

From 2017 to 2023, the average annual turnover rate of IHSS providers not related to their clients was 23.76%, while the turnover rate for family providers averaged $11.59 per year. High turnover significantly disrupts the quality and continuity of care, resulting in adverse health outcomes for recipients, particularly those without family members who can serve as their providers. Without urgent action, low-income seniors and people with disabilities will continue to lose access to lifesaving services to which they are entitled under California law. This leads to unnecessary hospitalization and institutionalization at a much greater expense to the state.

According to a February 2021 Report by the State Auditor:

“The number of recipients statewide who did not receive services in a given month increased from about 33,000 per month on average in 2015 to more than 40,000 in 2019. Over the course of the period we reviewed, this represented 132 million hours of services approved but not provided... We surveyed all counties in the State regarding their IHSS programs and their ability to provide caregivers for recipients. With 51 of 58 counties responding, 32 reported that they did not have a sufficient number of caregivers to provide all approved services.”

Other states with statewide collective bargaining systems for homecare workers, such as Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, have successfully implemented standardized benefits. This has led to increased efficiency, consistent standards, and improved retention rates.

Transitioning to statewide bargaining is a much-needed investment in California’s long-term care infrastructure, one that will begin to stabilize the workforce and improve care outcomes.

1. Arguments in opposition

According Kern County, which is opposed to AB 283:

Counties play a critical role in administering IHSS, ensuring services meet the unique needs of vulnerable residents. Centralizing employer responsibilities at the state level would remove county discretion in managing provider relationships, making it more difficult to address local challenges, respond to workforce shortages, and maintain service continuity. Existing local public authorities and nonprofit consortia have established effective structures for managing IHSS employment. AB 283 disregards these in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Though AB 283 shifts the employer-of-record status to the state, it lacks clear funding assurances. Counties currently contribute to IHSS provider wages, and without statutory guarantees, they may continue to bear financial responsibilities without having a role in employment decision-making. This could result in increased costs and reduced budget flexibility at the county level.

Transitioning to a state-managed employer structure introduces uncertainty for both providers and recipients. Counties have built systems to manage provider enrollment, training, and case management that ensure timely delivery of services. AB 283 could disrupt these systems, cause delays, and create confusion during implementation—ultimately affecting the most vulnerable residents who rely on IHSS.

While Kern County shares the goal of improving provider rights and wages, AB 283 undermines local authority, imposes fiscal risk, and threatens service continuity. For these reasons, the Kern County Board of Supervisors strongly opposes AB 283.

SUPPORT

Service Employees International Union, California State Council (SEIU California) (sponsor)

United Domestic Workers/AFSCME Local 3930 (sponsor)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

OPPOSITION

County of Kern

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1672 (Haney, 2023), would have created the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act to shift collective bargaining over IHSS provider wages, benefits, and conditions of employment from the local level to the state level. AB 1672 was substantially similar to this bill. It died in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee.

SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 25, Statutes 2017) repealed various provisions relating to the IHSS Statewide Authority, the IHSS Fund, and the IHSSEERA.

SB 1036 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2012) established the IHSSEERA that provided the state responsibility to engage in collective bargaining with the employee organizations of IHSS providers, applicable to eight specified counties.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 1)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 64, Noes 4)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 2)

Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)

**************

1. Cal. Dept. of Aging, California 2021-2025 Older Americans Act State Plan (Jun. 30, 2021). ↑

2. Nari Rhee, et al., Analysis of the Potential Impacts of Statewide or Regional Collective Bargaining for In-Home Supportive Services Providers, UC Berkeley Labor Center (Dec. 2024), available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ihss-statewide-bargaining/. ↑

3. Id., p. 2. ↑

4. Id. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 283 Hearing Date: June 18, 2025

SUBJECT: In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

KEY ISSUE

This bill establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act, which shifts collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state and would make related changes to the Government Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code regulating IHSS services.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but leaves it to the states to regulate collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights. (29 United States Code §§151 et seq.)
2. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. Among these, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) governs employer-employee relations for local public employers and their employees. (Government Code §§3500 et seq.)
3. Establishes the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD), which makes it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: a) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; b) authorizing representation by an employee; or, c) authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization. (Government Code §§3550 et seq.)
4. Establishes the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC), which provides California public employee unions with specific rights designed to provide them with meaningful access to, and the ability to effectively communicate with, their represented members. (Government Code §§3555 et seq.)
5. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering certain statutory frameworks governing employer-employee relations, resolving disputes, and enforcing the statutory obligations and rights of public agencies, their employees, and employee organizations. (Government Code §§3541 et seq.)
6. Excludes information about IHSS workers from public disclosure requirements but requires the counties, public authorities, or non-profit consortiums that are their designated employers for purposes of collective bargaining to provide specified information to unions to facilitate their communications to and contacts with IHSS workers. (Government Code §7926.300)
7. Requires under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act that state and public agencies conduct deliberations and take actions openly, as specified. (Government Code §11120)
8. Provides in-home supportive services to aged, blind, or disabled persons unable to perform those services themselves and without which they cannot safely remain in their homes. (Welfare and Institutions Code §§12300 et seq.)
9. Authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to either contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services. (Welfare and Institutions Code §12306.1)

This bill:

1. Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act (“IHSSEERA”) to shift collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the county or public authority to the state. The IHSSEERA deems the state, instead of the county or the public authority, the employer of record of individual IHSS providers in each county for purposes of collective bargaining.
2. Provides that notwithstanding IHSSEERA, the IHSS recipient maintains the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providing services and that specified requirements of overtime, workweek and other elements of the IHSS program remain the same.
3. Requires the state to assume the responsibilities set forth in IHSSEERA on January 1, 2026.
4. Requires the state to assume a predecessor agency’s rights and obligations under an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a recognized employee organization until the expiration of that MOU.
5. Provides for the merging of existing bargaining units of IHSS providers and requires all recognized employee organizations to negotiate jointly on behalf of all represented bargaining units to reach a single MOU with the employer. The MOU may contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms of employment.
6. Requires the state to follow certain collective bargaining procedures and present the MOU to the Legislature for approval by majority vote.
7. Grants PERB jurisdiction over IHSSEERA, authorizes PERB to adopt related regulations, including emergency regulations, and makes regulations exempt from specified rulemaking requirements.
8. Requires mediation for the state and IHSS employee unions to resolve differences but provides a binding arbitration process if mediation fails. Permits the Legislature to reject the arbitration panel’s decision by a majority vote of the Legislature.
9. Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to appoint an advisory committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding IHSS. DSS must designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the advisory committee.
10. Makes the state the employer of record for IHSS workers and applies to the state, in relation to those workers, the provisions of the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) which prohibits subject employers from interfering with a union’s rights, as specified, to communicate and access the workers they represent.
11. Applies the provisions of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) act to the state, which make it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: a) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; b) authorizing representation by an employee; or, c) authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization.
12. Excludes information about IHSS workers from public records disclosure requirements but requires the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium regulating IHSS workers to provide specified information to unions to facilitate the unions’ communication to and contact with IHSS workers.
13. Excludes the IHSS statewide bargaining advisory committee established by this bill from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act’s requirements.
14. Requires a county or city and county to continue to have its public authority or nonprofit consortium perform the functions set forth in the county ordinance, as specified.
15. Requires IHSS employee orientation to include any other information that a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee unions and the state requires be communicated to prospective IHSS providers.
16. Requires, on January 1, 2026, a county or city and county, a public authority or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, when providing for the delivery of IHSS services to comply with, and be subject to, all provisions of any memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto between the state and recognized employee organizations, as specified.
17. Requires the state to assume, and be liable for, any act by a county or city and county, a public authority, or a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county, that is in violation of a memorandum of understanding or addenda, appendices, or side letters.
18. Allows those violations to be adjusted through a grievance procedure contained in a memorandum of understanding between the state and recognized employee organizations and makes specified remedies cumulative not exclusive.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

The IHSS program provides in-home assistance to low-income aging adults and individuals with disabilities, allowing these individuals to receive care safely in their homes. Generally, IHSS providers are family members of the IHSS program participant, although participants may also choose a provider from a list of local providers. The projected program caseload for fiscal year 2024-25 is over 716,000 providers serving over 717,000 recipients.

A mix of federal, state, and local resources fund IHSS provider wages and benefits. The federal government’s share of cost is based on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the state’s share covers state minimum wage augmentations, local entities pay for locally-negotiated increases above the state minimum wage, and IHSS recipients may pay a share of cost based on their income. Thus, IHSS provider wages vary across California, from the minimum wage of $16.50 per hour in Siskiyou County to $22 per hour in San Francisco County. The median IHSS provider wage in California is $18.13 per hour.

A 2012 state law established the IHSS Statewide Authority to serve as the employer of record of IHSS providers for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the authority covered only a small number of counties, and the Legislature repealed the law in 2017. Current statute designates local public authorities as the employer of record for collective bargaining purposes with IHSS providers, while requiring the state to administer payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits. This bill shifts collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state level for all counties. However, it is unclear whether the state would directly bear responsibility for any future wage and benefit increases negotiated between the state and the IHSS workers’ unions or whether the state would fund such increases from existing realignment funds directed to the counties. In the latter case, IHSS provider compensation increases would presumably encroach upon county services for other county administered programs barring any increase in realignment funds.

With respect to this committee’s remit, consolidating collective bargaining for IHSS workers under state auspices would potentially provide more uniform and professional standards for IHSS provider services and improved IHSS worker compensation and benefits that may attract increased providers to the field.

Concerns raised by Counties, Public Authorities (PAs), and County Welfare Directors

The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS (CAPA), and the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) have expressed the following concerns:

“If collective bargaining transfers to the state, it should do so in a manner that works effectively for all entities involved. With that in mind, counties and PAs have drafted amendments for several key areas of this bill and are engaging with the author and sponsors in a collaborative manner. These issues include:

• Providing clarity that the state would be responsible for the full nonfederal share of cost for any negotiated wage and benefit increases agreed to in state bargaining. Under state bargaining, the state would be solely responsible for agreeing to wage and benefit increases and counties would have no ability to manage the associated costs within Realignment funding and county budgets. A recent analysis by the UC Berkeley Labor Center clearly highlighted that county IHSS costs are growing faster than Realignment revenues and that there will be decreased funding for health, mental health, and other social services programs within realignment if counties have a share of cost in IHSS state bargaining increases.
• Eliminating several items included within the scope of representation. There are currently items within the scope of representation outlined in this bill that are functions performed by PAs and not currently bargained at the local level including provider registries, backup providers, and provider orientations. It is essential for PAs and counties to have input on any changes to these items as these would be new mandates on counties and because county and PA input can help ensure that the changes will work at the local level. This currently occurs through the legislative and budget process where the Legislature, Administration, counties, PAs, and consumers can all engage directly and provide input. Our organizations believe that any changes to these items should continue to be handled in this manner if collective bargaining is moved to the state level.
• Ensuring full funding is provided in order for counties to comply with any new program requirements. As currently drafted, this bill would legally hold counties and PAs accountable for program changes agreed to between the state and provider unions in state collective bargaining, yet provide no assurance that funding will be provided for counties and PAs to meet these new mandates.”

It is the committee’s understanding that the author and the above referenced groups continue to work on developing amendments related to the concerns expressed above.

2. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to filling the impending long-term care shortage or establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers. The demand for long-term care is expected to grow drastically over the next decade. According to the Department of Finance, the population of older adults who will need long-term services and supports (LTSS) is expected to grow by more than 40 percent between 2019 and 2030, from 6 million to over 8.6 million. However, the availability of quality home care providers is becoming a dwindling resource due to unlivable wages for the work’s difficult demands. Wages and benefits vary between each county, but no county pays providers a living wage. The average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour. In comparison, as of February 2025, the average IHSS worker makes only $18.13 per hour. Additionally, access to health benefits also vary. In fact, as of January 2025, providers in 23 counties have no access to health or dental benefits through the IHSS program.”

3. Proponent Arguments

According to Service Employees International Union, California:

“IHSS is a life-saving program for recipients and a cost-saving alternative for our State. However, the program is struggling to recruit and retain the caregivers necessary to maintain this resource. If California does not adequately invest in this workforce, older adults and those living with disabilities will not receive the proper care that they need, caregivers will continue to live in poverty, and the public expense of caring for these populations will only increase.

While IHSS wages vary across California from the minimum wage of $16.50 in Siskiyou County to $22 in San Francisco, there is not a single county that pays IHSS providers a living wage. The average living wage in California for one adult and one child is $43.44 per hour compared to the median IHSS wage at $18.13. This gross disparity has resulted in a growing shortage in the IHSS workforce, resulting in gaps in care for our most vulnerable communities.

The fragmented nature of the IHSS program, as a county-administered program, is not conducive to standardizing an equitable living wage across this industry. AB 283 will help transition collective bargaining from the county level to the statewide level, resulting in a streamlined bargaining process and the professionalization of the IHSS workforce by providing livable wages and benefits. This bill will also ensure more equitable distribution of long-term care funds and allow the state to meet its long-term care demands.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

According to Kern County:

“Loss of Local Control and Oversight Counties play a critical role in administering IHSS, ensuring services meet the unique needs of vulnerable residents. Centralizing employer responsibilities at the state level would remove county discretion in managing provider relationships, making it more difficult to address local challenges, respond to workforce shortages, and maintain service continuity. Existing local public authorities and nonprofit consortia have established effective structures for managing IHSS employment. AB 283 disregards these in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Financial Implications for Counties Though AB 283 shifts the employer-of-record status to the state, it lacks clear funding assurances. Counties currently contribute to IHSS provider wages, and without statutory guarantees, they may continue to bear financial responsibilities without having a role in employment decision-making. This could result in increased costs and reduced budget flexibility at the county level.

Potential Disruptions to IHSS Service Delivery Transitioning to a state-managed employer structure introduces uncertainty for both providers and recipients. Counties have built systems to manage provider enrollment, training, and case management that ensure timely delivery of services. AB 283 could disrupt these systems, cause delays, and create confusion during implementation—ultimately affecting the most vulnerable residents who rely on IHSS.

While Kern County shares the goal of improving provider rights and wages, AB 283 undermines local authority, imposes fiscal risk, and threatens service continuity. For these reasons, the Kern County Board of Supervisors strongly opposes AB 283.”

5. Dual Referral:

The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee

6. Prior/ Related Legislation:

AB 288 (McKinnor, 2025) would create state collective bargaining rights for private sector employees whose rights are unprotected by an incapacitated National Relations Labor Board and require PERB to adjudicate those rights. This bill is pending before the Senate, Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee.

AB 1672 (Haney, 2023), substantially similar to this bill, would have created the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act to shift collective bargaining over In-Home Support Services (IHSS) provider wages, benefits, and conditions of employment from the local level to the state level. The bill was referred to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee but not heard at the request of the author.

SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017, Section 4) repealed provisions relating to the IHSS Statewide Authority, the IHSS Fund, and the IHSSEERA.

SB 1036 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2012) established the IHSSEERA.

SB 1008 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2012) implemented the Duals Demonstration Pilot Projects to achieve savings, and expanded the number of counties in which dual demonstration sites may be established, from four to eight, relating to coordinate care services.

SUPPORT

Service Employees International Union, California (Co-sponsor)

United Domestic Workers of America, Local 3930 (Co-sponsor)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Federation of Labor Unions
Democratic Club of Claremont
Office of San Diego County Supervisor Joel Anderson
Orange County Employees Association
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

OPPOSITION

County of Kern

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 283

Author:(Haney)

As Introduced Ver:January 22, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act (IHSSEERA) as a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other and terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing independent In-Home Support Services (IHSS) providers, among other provisions.

Major Provisions

1. Prescribe, effective January 1, 2026, transitional provisions relating to a transfer of obligations and rights from the local level to the state, and establish labor relations provisions.
2. Establish the purposes of act; employee rights; and, that the provisions of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership and Public Employee Communication Chapter apply.
3. Make various changes to the Welfare and Institutions Code for these purposes, effective January 1, 2026, except as otherwise provided:
4. Require the state to assume the previously-described responsibilities on the effective date of the bill.
5. Add a requirement that a county, or city and county, do any one of the following: (i) continue to have its public authority (PA) perform certain functions, as provided; (ii) continue to have the entity perform the functions in the existing contract at the time of notification, as provided; or (iii) assume the functions performed by an entity or PA.
6. Authorize a county, or city and county, to assume certain functions, as provided, to either: (i) contract for the performance of any or all of the functions assumed; (ii) contract with an entity for the performance of any or all functions assumed, as provided; or, (iii) establish a PA for the performance of any functions assumed, as provided.
7. Provide for the appointment of an advisory committee, its' appointing authority, the process for appointment, and the composition and duties of the advisory committee relating to IHSS.
8. Authorize a local PA or nonprofit consortium (NPC) acting as the employer of record, or the employee organization, to request mandatory mediation if the parties have not reached an agreement on a bargaining contract with IHSS workers, and provides for the process to select a mediator, among other aspects relating to the process of mediation.
9. Subject a county to withholding of its 1991 Realignment funding pursuant to a schedule developed by the Department of Finance (DOF) if certain specified conditions are met regarding the mediation process and an inability of the parties to reach a collective bargaining agreement, and requires the Public Employment Relations Board to provide written notice to the county, employee organization, the DOF, and State Controller of the withholding assessment, as prescribed. In addition, the amount of the county’s 1991 Realignment funding withholding must be equal to 10% of its prior fiscal year IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement prior to applying any offsets, and the withholding must continue once per year, each fiscal year, until the county enters into a collective bargaining agreement with the employee organization.

(The specific provisions regarding mediation and withholding of 1991 Realignment funding remain operative as of October 1, 2023, but become inoperative on January 1, 2026.)

1. Include legislative findings, declarations, and intent for these purposes.

COMMENTS

What is the IHSS Program and What Do IHSS Providers Do?

Operating using a mix of federal, state, and local funds, the IHSS program helps to pay for services provided to an individual so that they can safely remain in their own home. To be eligible for IHSS services, a person must be 65 years of age and older, or disabled, among other criteria, and disabled children also are potentially eligible for IHSS services. The IHSS program is considered an alternative to out-of-home care, such as nursing homes or board and care facilities. For this program, county social workers currently determine eligibility for IHSS after conducting a standardized in-home assessment and periodic reassessments of an individual’s ability to perform specified activities of daily living. Once eligible, recipients are responsible for hiring, directing and supervising their own IHSS provider or providers, or terminating/firing the provider. The counties or local PAs must conduct a criminal background check and provide an orientation before a provider can receive payment. Local PAs are designated as “employers of record” for collective bargaining purposes, while the state administers payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits.

Generally, providers of IHSS services are family members of the IHSS program participant; however, this is not exclusive as program participants can also choose a provider from a list of local, i.e., county, providers for care. IHSS providers perform a range of necessary tasks for recipients such as cleaning, bathing, other healthcare, cooking, providing social interaction, assistance with errands, and other numerous common day-to-day living activities or responsibilities. IHSS provider wages and benefits are funded through a mix of federal, state, and local funds. The federal government has a share of cost based on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. Beyond this allocation to IHSS providers, the state covers the nonfederal share for state’s minimum wage increases, and local entities pay the remaining costs for locally negotiated increase above the state minimum wage.

Need for the Bill

Historically, IHSS providers and their exclusive representatives negotiate at the local level under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act on matters involving employment relations relating to the IHSS program. However, because of a dissimilar approach or lack of uniformity and inconsistent outcomes among the various counties in their employer-employee relations regarding this program, including inconsistent achievement of a MOU/A with represented IHSS providers and their exclusive representatives in some counties, exclusive representatives of IHSS providers seek a uniformed approach to employer-employee relations. In several respects, this bill is similar to the former IHSSEERA enacted in 2012 and later repealed in 2017.

Key Findings of a Report by the State Auditor Regarding the IHSS Program

In its report, “In-Home Supportive Services Program: It Is Not Providing Needed Services to All Californians Approved for the Program, Is Unprepared for Future Challenges, and Offers Low Pay to Caregivers.” California State Auditor, February 2021 [Report 2020-109], the State Auditor noted and discussed that:

1. Lack of preparation for future IHSS needs and low caregiver wages could result in more recipients not receiving services, and that a growing number of recipients lack necessary IHSS care each month;
2. Counties generally did not meet deadlines for approving program services and ensuring that services were provided;
3. The state and counties have not prepared for rapid increases in the number of IHSS recipients;
4. Counties do not pay caregivers a living wage; and,
5. The state’s funding structure and recent shortfalls in county funding sources create a disincentive to increased caregiver pay.

In its recommendations to the Legislature, the State Auditor states that, “[to] balance the need to attract a sufficient number of caregivers into the IHSS program with the need to maintain control over the State’s costs, the Legislature should consider using the annual budget process to allocate additional funds to counties to enable [them] to better afford increasing caregiver wages.” Further, “[to] ensure that these offset funds are used to best address wage disparities, the Legislature should prioritize their availability to counties where caregivers earn the least, relative to a living wage, and should exempt these wage increases from Section 12306.16 (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, so that the amounts allocated are not included in adjustments to the county contributions.” The State auditor also offered recommendations to the California Department of Social Services (DSS) and counties relating to, among other things, prompt approval for services and receipt of services; submittal of annual plans; and, monitoring for compliance, as applicable.

Key Findings of a University of California at Berkeley Labor Center Final Report to the Department of Social Services

Following the DSS contracting with the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center (UCB Labor Center) pursuant to legislation enacted in 2023, in its final report to the DSS, the UCB Labor Center analyzed the potential impacts of statewide or regional collective bargaining for IHSS providers. (“Analysis of the Potential Impacts pf Statewide or Regional Collective Bargaining for [IHSS] Providers.” UCB Labor Center, February, 2025.) Key findings of the report identify that:

1. IHSS providers are predominantly female and care for relatives, and more broadly, are workers of color, [where] one half were born outside of the Unites States;
2. IHSS wages and benefits vary significantly among counties;
3. Other states with Medicaid-funded consumer-directed home care programs have statewide bargaining with varied structures (with particular note to the programs and structures in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington);
4. There is a strong link between home worker pay and benefits, turnover/retention rates, and quality of care, where the impacts of statewide or regional collective bargaining on workforce turnover/retention and consumer access to care are contingent on bargaining outcomes;
5. IHSS wages have seen significant growth recently, and future wage growth under potential statewide bargaining will depend on the state budget, union negotiation capabilities, and regional costs-of-living disparities;
6. Statewide collective bargaining would requires changes to Maintenance of Effort (MOE), while at the same time, the potential cost implications of statewide collective bargaining for MOE and 1991 Realignment are overshadowed by the existing long-term challenge of funding a rapidly growing IHSS program (it is noted that the MOE is a methodology that determines the distribution of additional IHSS costs and offsetting revenue to counties); and,
7. Several funding sources could be considered to cover any increased state or county costs incurred due to statewide or regional bargaining.

Common Themes and Takeaways Identified in a Report by the DSS to the Legislature

Pursuant to Chapter 38, Statutes of 2023 (Assembly Bill 102, Ting), the DSS submitted its report to the Legislature. (“In Home-Supportive Services Statewide Collective Bargaining” (April 2025)),^[1] that includes, among other things, an analysis by a workgroup consisting of various stakeholder interests as to the costs and benefits of approaches that transition IHSS collective bargaining from counties to the state or regional model. Common themes and takeaways identified in the report include the following:

1. Statewide bargaining is more viable than a regional model, which introduced significant additional complexities.
2. Involving IHSS recipients in collective bargaining is a priority for workgroup members, but there is no consensus on how to include them and solicit participation across the state.
3. If statewide or regional collective bargaining moved forward, there would be a material shift in the responsibilities of the PAs and NPCs. Specifically, that the responsibilities related to collective bargaining and conditions of employment would transition to the entity responsible for collective bargaining in a statewide or regional model, but the other duties related to the provider registry, provider enrollment, training and other related duties would remain with the PAs and NPCs.
4. There is a need to clearly define the scope of statewide or regional bargaining in statute. However, a variety of opinions exist as to how broad or narrow the scope of bargaining should be if collective bargaining moves to a state or regional model.
5. Six other states have Medicaid-funded personal care services programs with statewide bargaining. Although there are meaningful differences between those programs and IHSS, this information affords opportunities to view various options or possibilities of statewide collective bargaining in home and community-based services programs.
6. There would be an impact of statewide or regional bargaining on recruitment and retention. However, there is insufficient data to understand direct implications.

Further, the CDSS provided cost modeling based on point-in-time data and estimates the fiscal impact to the program for each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would be at least an additional $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion per year depending on the growth rate in IHSS cases, with the costs split between federal, state, and county funds.

The workgroup also discussed liability, costs, program growth, funding sources, identified legislative considerations, and highlighted impacts to the county MOE and realignment.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

“Without secure contracts for workers, the State estimates that we will face an IHSS caregiver shortage due to the rapid growth in California’s senior population and the low wages of IHSS workers. Existing problems in the IHSS collective bargaining process have resulted in workers being denied a fair wage. While the average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour, the average IHSS worker makes only $18.13 per hour. The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers, or filling the impending long-term care shortage. To provide for our essential workers and ensure that IHSS recipients receive the care they need, [this bill] would allow IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at [the] State level, instead of at the [local] level.”

Arguments in Support

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California, states in part that, “IHSS is a life-saving program for recipients and a cost-saving alternative for our State. However, the program is struggling to recruit and retain the caregivers necessary to maintain this resource. If California does not adequately invest in this workforce, older adults and those living with disabilities will not receive the proper care that they need, caregivers will continue to live in poverty, and the public expense of caring for these populations will only increase. [This bill] will help transition collective bargaining from the county level to the statewide level, resulting in a streamlined bargaining process and the professionalization of the IHSS workforce by providing livable wages and benefits, […] will also ensure more equitable distribution of long-term care funds, [and] allow the state to meet its long-term care demands.

Among other things, the United Domestic Workers (UDW), AFSCME Local 3930 states that,

Under the current bargaining structure, wages are decided by individual counties with vastly different economic conditions and local priorities. This has resulted in decades of underinvestment and inconsistency in IHSS provider wages and benefits across the state. Other states with statewide collective bargaining systems for homecare workers, such as Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, have successfully implemented standardized benefits. This has led to increased efficiency, consistent standards, and improved retention rates. Transitioning to statewide bargaining is a much-needed investment in California’s long-term care infrastructure, one that will begin to stabilize the workforce and improve care outcomes.”

Other supporters offer comments similar to those of the bill cosponsors.

Arguments in Opposition

Among other things, the Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS) expresses that, this bill would result in “loss of local control and oversight” by “centralizing employer responsibilities at the state level,” which “removes county discretion” relating to responding to workforce shortages and other unique local challenges. The Kern County BOS also expresses that this bill has “financial implications for counties” as the bill “does not provide clear funding mechanisms to ensure counties are not left with ongoing obligations,” which “could lead to increased costs with little local input, placing additional strain on county budgets….”

Further, the Kern County BOS states, that this bill “introduces significant uncertainty for IHSS providers and recipients” that may lead to potential disruptions to IHSS service delivery.”

Although not formally registering a position of “opposed” as of this writing, the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Welfare Directors Association express the need for amendments, generally described here, as follows: (a) additional clarity is needed relating to state’s responsibility for the full nonfederal share of costs for any negotiated wage and benefit increases agreed to in state bargaining since counties would have no ability to manage associated costs with Realignment funding and county budgets resulting from increases; (b) several items included within the scope of representation labor provisions should be eliminated; and that, (c) full funding is provided for counties to comply with any new program requirements because, as drafted, this bill would hold counties and public authorities legally accountable for program changes agreed to between the state and provider unions in collective bargaining.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in the following:

1. Ongoing costs of an unknown, but likely significant, amount to the state, to the extent collective bargaining between the state and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers results in higher wages and benefits for IHSS providers (General Fund (GF)).
2. Ongoing annual costs in the low millions of dollars to the state entity that serves as the bargaining representative (GF). If selected, the California Department of Human Resources estimates needing approximately 15 positions at a cost of approximately $3.3 million in the first year and $3.1 million annually thereafter. If selected, DSS estimates needing a similar number of positions to establish a state collective bargaining team and make other programmatic changes.

The author has submitted a letter to the Assembly Budget Committee requesting $1 million for staff to support implementation of statewide collective bargaining.

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant, amount to DSS to administer bargained changes to the IHSS program, including changes to the provider orientation curriculum and Case Management, Information, and Payrolling System. DSS would also incur staff workload costs to establish the advisory committee and designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the committee.
2. Costs of approximately $50,000 in the first year and $20,000 annually thereafter to PERB to adopt and implement related regulations (GF).
3. Costs of an unknown amount to the State Controller to set up new payroll processes for certain IHSS employees (GF). The magnitude of costs, and whether such costs would be absorbable, depends on the number of covered employees.

Ongoing costs of an unknown amount to local entities administering IHSS programs, to the extent local entities must implement new collectively bargained provisions at the local level. If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local entities (GF).

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 7-0-0

YES: McKinnor, Lackey, Alanis, Boerner, Elhawary, Garcia, Nguyen

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-2-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

NO: Dixon, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: January 22, 2025

CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0000789

1. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/Adult-Programs/IHSS/Reports/CDSS%20IHSS%20Collective%20Bargaining%20Analysis.pdf ↑

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 283

Author:(Haney) – As Introduced Ver:January 22, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Employer-Employee Relations Act, which shifts collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers. The state is deemed the employer of record of individual IHSS providers in each county for purposes of collective bargaining, but the IHSS recipient has the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providing services.
2. Requires the state to assume a predecessor agency’s rights and obligations under an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a recognized employee organization until the expiration of that MOU.
3. Provides for the merging of existing bargaining units of IHSS providers and requires all recognized employee organizations to negotiate jointly on behalf of all represented bargaining units to reach a single MOU with the employer. The MOU may contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms of employment.
4. Requires the state to follow certain collective bargaining procedures and present the MOU to the Legislature for approval by majority vote.
5. Authorizes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to adopt related regulations.
6. Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to appoint an advisory committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding IHSS. DSS must designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the advisory committee.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing costs of an unknown, but likely significant, amount to the state, to the extent collective bargaining between the state and recognized employee organizations representing IHSS providers results in higher wages and benefits for IHSS providers (General Fund (GF)).
2. Ongoing annual costs in the low millions of dollars to the state entity that serves as the bargaining representative (GF). If selected, the California Department of Human Resources estimates needing approximately 15 positions at a cost of approximately $3.3 million in the first year and $3.1 million annually thereafter. If selected, DSS estimates needing a similar number of positions to establish a state collective bargaining team and make other programmatic changes.

The author has submitted a letter to the Assembly Budget Committee requesting $1 million for staff to support implementation of statewide collective bargaining.

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant, amount to DSS to administer bargained changes to the IHSS program, including changes to the provider orientation curriculum and Case Management, Information, and Payrolling System. DSS would also incur staff workload costs to establish the advisory committee and designate an employee to provide ongoing support to the committee.
2. Costs of approximately $50,000 in the first year and $20,000 annually thereafter to PERB to adopt and implement related regulations (GF).
3. Costs of an unknown amount to the State Controller to set up new payroll processes for certain IHSS employees (GF). The magnitude of costs, and whether such costs would be absorbable, depends on the number of covered employees.
4. Ongoing costs of an unknown amount to local entities administering IHSS programs, to the extent local entities must implement new collectively bargained provisions at the local level. If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local entities (GF).

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers, or filling the impending long-term care shortage. To provide for our essential workers and ensure that IHSS recipients receive the care they need, [this bill] would allow IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at a State level instead of at the county level.

1. IHSS. The IHSS program provides in-home assistance to low-income aging adults and individuals with disabilities, allowing these individuals to receive care safely in their homes. Generally, IHSS providers are family members of the IHSS program participant, although participants may also choose a provider from a list of local providers. The projected program caseload for fiscal year 2024-25 is over 716,000 providers serving over 717,000 recipients.

IHSS provider wages and benefits are funded through a mix of federal, state, and local funds. The federal government’s share of cost is based on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the state’s share covers increases to the state minimum wage, and local entities pay the remaining costs for locally negotiated increases above the state minimum wage. Thus, IHSS provider wages vary across California, from the minimum wage of $16.50 per hour in Siskiyou County to $22 per hour in San Francisco County. The median IHSS provider wage in California is $18.13 per hour.

A 2012 state law established the IHSS Statewide Authority to serve as the employer of record of IHSS providers for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the authority covered only a small number of counties, and the law was repealed in 2017. Currently, local public authorities are the designated employer of record for collective bargaining purposes with IHSS providers, while the state administers payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits. This bill shifts collective bargaining with IHSS providers from the local level to the state level for all counties. Accordingly, any future wage and benefit increases for IHSS providers would also presumably shift to the state.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by SEIU California, which argues this bill will result “in a streamlined bargaining process and the professionalization of the IHSS workforce by providing livable wages and benefits.” This bill is supported by other labor organizations and the Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration.

This bill is opposed by the County of Kern, which argues this bill “undermines county authority, imposes financial risks, and threatens service stability.”

The California State Association of Counties, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, and County Welfare Directors Association do not have a position on this bill, but are identifying key areas for amendments to ensure the effective transfer of collective bargaining to the state “for all entities involved.” The coalition also notes the Budget Act of 2023 required DSS to convene a workgroup and produce a statewide analysis on the costs and benefits of moving IHSS collective bargaining to the state level, but the report due January 1, 2025, is not yet released.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 1672 (Haney), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, was substantively similar to this bill. AB 1672 was referred to the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee, was not heard by that committee at the request of the author.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Tina S. McKinnor, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 283 (

Author:Haney) – As Introduced Ver:January 22, 2025

SUBJECT: In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act

SUMMARY: Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act (IHSSEERA) as a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other and terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing independent In-Home Support Services (IHSS) providers, among other provisions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes that the provisions of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) and Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) apply.
2. Establishes the purpose of the act to: a) promote full communication between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers to: a) resolve disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, as provided; b) promote improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations by providing a uniform basis for recognizing individual rights of providers, as provided; c) strengthen methods of administering employer-employee relations through uniform and orderly methods of communication between the recognized employee organizations and the state; however, the act is not intended to require changes to existing bargaining units or memoranda of understanding or agreement (MOU/A).
3. Establishes employee rights to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their choosing for purposes of representation on all matters within the scope of representation, as well as rights to refrain from employee organization membership and participation in associated activities.
4. Sets forth the following transitional provisions relating to a transfer of obligations and rights from the local level to the state, among other relevant provisions, effective January 1, 2026:
5. The state would be the employer of record of individual providers in each county, including as the successor employer of a predecessor agency, for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement in each county.
6. Meet and confer obligations would be borne by the state and the recognized employee organization on all matters within the scope of representation.
7. IHSS service recipients must retain the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of individual providers providing services to them.
8. Individual providers employed by any predecessor agency must retain employee status and clearance, among other things, as specified.
9. Recognition of existing bargaining units of individual providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization must be maintained and merged into the largest possible multicounty bargaining units represented by that employee organization; however, in counties where there is no recognized employee organization as of that date, a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county must be deemed an appropriate unit for collective bargaining; and, if employees select an employee organization as the exclusive representative thereafter, the county bargaining unit must be deemed merged into any existing multicounty bargaining unit represented by the same recognized employee organization.
10. The manner and structure of collective bargaining in which negotiation is to occur, including joint negotiations; obligations of employee organizations; and, MOU/A, including a single MOU/A with the employer; addenda to a MOU/A reflecting regional or county-level terms and conditions; and, requirements relating to employee organization and individual provider ratification of a MOU/A.
11. Authority for the employer and employee organizations recognized by predecessor agencies to meet and negotiate the terms of a MOU/A before the aforementioned effective date, in which the terms thereof must not take effect until January 1, 2026.
12. Assumption by the employer of predecessor agency rights and obligations contained in a MOU/A, including the duration of the MOU/A, and if a MOU/A has expired and not replaced by a new MOU/A on the effective date; employer assumption of the obligation to meet and confer in good faith with the recognized employee organization; and, a prohibition to reduce the terms and conditions within a MOU/A, except by mutual agreement between the recognized employee organization and the employer.
13. A requirement that the State Controller is obligated to continue to honor written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee prior to the effective date.
14. That the provisions of this bill must not be a cause for the employer or predecessor agency to modify or eliminate the terms of an existing MOU/A, wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise expressly provided; however, the modification of existing wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment through the meet and confer in good faith process, or, through appropriate procedures in situations where employees are not represented by a recognized employee organization, is permissible.

In addition, predecessor agencies are not relieved of their obligation to meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) until the effective date, but, predecessor agencies are not required to meet and confer with such organizations after the employer assumes the agency’s rights and obligations on the effective date.

1. A requirement that the employer give as much notice as practicable to the county of the agreed upon changes, if the employer and recognized employee organization negotiate changes to locally administered health benefits for providers.
2. Establishes labor relations provisions that include or provide for:
3. A legislative finding and declaration that collective bargaining of individual providers is a matter of statewide concern, and that the provisions of this bill apply to all counties, notwithstanding charter provisions to the contrary.
4. A requirement that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) interpret and apply the provisions of this bill in a manner consistent, and in accordance, with judicial interpretations of the same language where the provisions of this bill are the same or substantially similar to those in the MMBA.
5. A requirement that employers grant exclusive recognition to employee organization designated or selected pursuant to this bill or rules established by the PERB for employees of the employer or appropriate unit thereof, subject to the right of an employee to self-represent.
6. The powers and duties of the PERB must apply, as specified, including the powers relating to elections, unit modifications, and adoption of rules; that upon request of all affected recognized employee organizations, the employer must recognize a merged bargaining unit, as provided.
7. Appeals of administrative law judicial decisions regarding recognition, certification, decertification, or unit modification, and final decisions of the PERB, as provided.
8. The processes, procedures, and timelines for challenges to, or appeals of, decisions or orders of the PERB, as specified, and petitions for a writ of extraordinary relief from such decisions or orders.
9. A prohibition against individual providers from being subject to punitive action, denial of promotion, or threatened with such treatment, for exercising lawful action as an elected, appointed, or recognized representative of any employee bargaining unit.
10. That these provisions do not affect the rights of an employee to authorize dues deductions from their salary or wages, and requirements relating to the Controller to make such deductions for payment to a recognized employee organization, as provided.
11. The granting of rights to recognized employee organizations to represent their members in employment relations with the employer; authorizing such organizations to establish reasonable restrictions on membership; and, authorizing employees to self-represent in their relations with the employer.
12. Prohibiting the employer from certain specified activities or actions against employees in their exercise of guaranteed rights, as prescribed.
13. The scope of representation, which includes all matters relating to wages; hours; benefits; other terms and conditions of employment; programmatic changes that affect terms and conditions of employment; and, other specified matters within the scope, as provided; however, the consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order is excluded, as well as the right to hire, fire, and supervise an individual provider as this is expressly reserved to the IHSS recipient.

Notwithstanding the totality of matters within the scope of representation, the employer is authorized to consult and reach an agreement with the recognized employee organization on matters outside the scope of representation, and such matters must not be considered a mandatory subject of bargaining.

1. Reasonable written notice by the Governor, or its designee, to each recognized employee organization affected by any law, rule, practice, or policy directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the employer, and the opportunity for the recognized employee to meet with the employers, except in cases of emergency; and, in such cases of emergency when such changes must be made in the absence prior written notice or meeting with a recognized employee organization, notice and opportunity to meet must be provided at the earliest opportunity following such action.
2. The “meet and confer” process and the exchange of proposals among, and by, the employer and a recognized employee organization, including the resolution of impasse.
3. The process, timeline, and determination by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee or Legislature, as applicable, of side letters, appendices, or addenda to an original properly ratified MOU and relating expenditures, as provided; and, adoption of a MOU/A by the Legislature is an agreement is reached between representatives of the Governor and the recognized employee organization.
4. Mediation, in the event that the employer and recognized employee organization fail to reach agreement, and the responsibility for costs of mediation, as specified.
5. The process and procedures for arbitration, in the event that after all mediation procedures have been exhausted and no agreement has been reached between the parties, as specified.
6. Reopening negotiations on all or part of the MOU, if the Legislature does not approve or fully fund the provisions of the agreement; however, the parties to the agreement may agree to effectuate provisions of the agreement that have received legislative approval or do not require legislative action.
7. Binding contractual rights and obligations borne by all state departments and agencies; counties; public authorities or nonprofit consortia, as provided; before the effective date of the IHSSEERA, and any other political subdivision of the state involved in the administration of the IHSS program, as well as relevant contractors and subcontractors of those departments and agencies.
8. A requirement that the employer allow a reasonable number of recognized employee organization representatives reasonable time off without loss of compensation or other benefits when formally meeting and conferring with the employer on matters within the scope of representation.
9. Making unlawful certain acts or actions by the employer, as specified and provided.
10. Authority to the PERB to adopt reasonable rules and regulations, including emergency regulations, for these purposes, as specified and provided.
11. A severability clause to shield otherwise valid provisions and the application of the law from becoming invalid, if certain provisions are later deemed to be invalid.
12. Defines several terms for these purposes, including:
13. “Employee” or “individual provider” to mean a person authorized to provide IHSS services, as provided; however, these terms do not include any person providing IHSS services to the county-employed homemaker or contractor modes, as provided; and, that IHSS providers must not be deemed employees of the state for any other purpose, except as expressly provided.
14. “Employer” to mean, for the specific purposes of collective bargaining, the state, the Department of Health Care Services, or any other agency, department, contractor, subcontractor, or political subdivision of the state administering the IHSS program; however, the IHSS recipient must be the employer of an IHSS provider with unconditional exercise to hire, fire, and supervise the provider.
15. “Predecessor agency” to mean a county, local public authority, or a nonprofit consortium established, as specified, before the effective date of this bill.
16. “Meet and confer in good faith,” relating to the labor relations provisions, to mean the Governor, through its designee, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, must have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses.
17. Makes various changes to the Welfare and Institutions (W&I) Code for these purposes as follows, and that also are effective January 1, 2026, except as otherwise specified:
18. Requires the state to assume the previously-described responsibilities on the effective date of the bill.
19. Adds a requirement that a county, or city and county, do any one of the following: (i) continue to have its public authority perform certain functions, as provided; (ii) continue to have the entity perform the functions in the existing contract at the time of notification, as provided; or (iii) assume the functions performed by an entity or public authority.
20. Authorizes a county, or city and county, to assume certain specified functions, to either: (i) contract for the performance of any or all of the functions assumed; (ii) contract with an entity for the performance of any or all functions assumed, as provided; or, (iii) establish a public authority for the performance of any functions assumed, as provided.
21. Provides for the appointment of an advisory committee, its' appointing authority, the process for appointment, and the composition and duties of the advisory committee relating to IHSS.
22. Authorizes a local public authority or nonprofit consortium acting as the employer of record, or the employee organization, to request mandatory mediation if the parties have not reached an agreement on a bargaining contract with IHSS workers, and provides for the process to select a mediator, among other aspects relating to the process of mediation.
23. Subjects a county to withholding of its 1991 Realignment funding pursuant to a schedule developed by the Department of Finance (DOF) if certain specified conditions are met regarding the mediation process and an inability of the parties to reach a collective bargaining agreement, and requires the PERB to provide written notice to the county, employee organization, the DOF, and State Controller of the withholding assessment, as prescribed. In addition, the amount of the county’s 1991 Realignment funding withholding must be equal to 10 percent of its prior fiscal year IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement prior to applying any offsets, and the withholding must continue once per year, each fiscal year, until the county enters into a collective bargaining agreement with the employee organization.

(These specific provisions regarding mediation and withholding of 1991 Realignment funding would become operative on October 1, 2023, and inoperative on January 1, 2026.)

1. Makes other related changes to the W&I Code for these purposes.
2. Makes several legislative findings, declarations, and states legislative intent for these purposes.
3. Includes pro forma provisions relating to mandated reimbursement of costs to local agencies or school districts as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but leaves it to the states to regulate collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. (Sections 151 et seq., Title 29, United States Code.)

While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights.

1. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. Among these, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) governs employer-employee relations for local public employers and their employees. (Sections 3500 et seq. of the Government (Gov.) Code.)
2. Establishes the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD), which makes it unlawful for public employers to deter or discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: a) becoming or remaining members of an employee organization; b) authorizing representation by an employee; or, c) from authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization, apply. This statute is within the jurisdiction of the PERB. (Sections 3550 et seq. of the Gov. Code.)
3. Establishes the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC), which gives exclusive representatives of California public employees specific rights designed to provide them with meaningful access to, and the ability to effectively communicate with, their represented members. This statute is within the jurisdiction of the PERB. (Sections 3555 et seq. of the Gov. Code.)
4. Establishes the PERB, a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering certain statutory frameworks governing employer-employee relations, resolving disputes, and enforcing the statutory obligations and rights of public agencies, their employees, and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (Sections 3541 et seq. of the Gov. Code.)
5. Expands the jurisdiction of the PERB to include the “Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act,” also commonly referred to as the Childcare Provider Act (CCPA), which provides collective bargaining for family childcare providers who participate in a state-funded early care and education program. (Sections 10420 et seq. of the W&I Code.)

The statutory purpose of the CCPA is to promote quality, access, and stability in the early care and education system by authorizing an appropriate unit of family child care providers to choose a provider organization to act as their unit representative on all matters specified in the CCPA, and to promote full communication between family child care providers and the state by permitting a provider organization certified as the representative of such providers to meet and confer with the state regarding matters within the scope of representation and other areas as mutually agreed upon in negotiations. (Section 10420.5 of the W&I Code.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is flagged as fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: Information provided by the author states that, “[t]he current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to filling the impending long-term care shortage or establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers. The demand for long-term care is expected to grow drastically over the next decade,” and, “[a]ccording to the Department of Finance, the population of older adults who will need long-term services and supports (LTSS) is expected to grow by more than 40 percent between 2019 and 2030, from 6 million to over 8.6 million. However, the availability of quality home care providers is becoming a dwindling resource due to unlivable wages for the work’s difficult demands.

“Wages and benefits vary between each county, but no county pays providers a living wage. The average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour. In comparison, the average IHSS worker makes [less than half of the average living wage in California] per hour. Additionally, access to health benefits also vary. In fact, providers in 20 counties have no access to health or dental benefits through the IHSS program.”

In addition, “[a]ccording to a state audit released in February 2021, in 2019 – before COVID-19 – nearly 32 million hours of IHSS care went unused. And the state not only needs to find people to do this work, these workers need to be retained. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the average annual turnover in IHSS is roughly 33 percent. California needs tens of thousands of caregivers just to meet turnover and current shortage.”

When left up to the counties, history shows a completely disaggregated and inefficient framework for investment in, and implementation of, the program. There are several counties where the only raises the providers have seen in the last decade are due to the state minimum wage increases. In fact, Siskiyou County has never had a settled collective bargaining agreement for its IHSS providers. Up and down the state, these types of disparities keep the collective power of these workers disaggregated and keeps this program from doing what it’s supposed to do, which is to provide the most cost effective quality care in the setting people want.”

For purposes of this bill, the author states that, “[w]ithout secure contracts for workers, the State estimates that we will face an IHSS caregiver shortage due to the rapid growth in California’s senior population and the low wages of IHSS workers. Existing problems in the IHSS collective bargaining process have resulted in workers being denied a fair wage. While the average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour, the average IHSS worker makes only [less than half of the average living wage in California] per hour. The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers, or filling the impending long-term care shortage. To provide for our essential workers and ensure that IHSS recipients receive the care they need, [this bill] would allow IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at a State level instead of at the county level.”

1. What is the IHSS Program and What Do IHSS Providers Do?

Operating using a mix of federal, state, and local funds, the IHSS program helps to pay for services provided to an individual so that they can safely remain in their own home. To be eligible for IHSS services, a person must be 65 years of age and older, or disabled, among other criteria, and disabled children also are potentially eligible for IHSS services. The IHSS program is considered an alternative to out-of-home care, such as nursing homes or board and care facilities.^[1]

For this program, county social workers currently determine eligibility for IHSS after conducting a standardized in-home assessment and periodic reassessments of an individual’s ability to perform specified activities of daily living. Once eligible, recipients are responsible for hiring, directing and supervising their own IHSS provider or providers, or terminating/firing the provider. The counties or local public authorities must conduct a criminal background check and provide an orientation before a provider can receive payment. Local public authorities are designated as “employers of record” for collective bargaining purposes, while the state administers payroll, workers’ compensation, and benefits.

Generally, providers of IHSS services are family members of the IHSS program participant; however, this is not exclusive as program participants can also choose a provider from a list of local, i.e., county, providers for care. IHSS providers perform a range of necessary tasks for recipients such as cleaning, bathing, other healthcare, cooking, providing social interaction, assistance with errands, and other numerous common day-to-day living activities or responsibilities.

IHSS provider wages and benefits are funded through a mix of federal, state, and local funds. The federal government has a share of cost based on the Medi-Cal Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. Beyond this allocation to IHSS providers, the state covers the nonfederal share for state’s minimum wage increases, and local entities pay the remaining costs for locally negotiated increase above the state minimum wage.

1. Key Findings of a Report by the State Auditor Regarding the IHSS Program

In a report by the State Auditor,^[2] the State Auditor noted and discussed that:

1. Lack of preparation for future IHSS needs and low caregiver wages could result in more recipients not receiving services, and that a growing number of recipients lack necessary IHSS care each month;
2. Counties generally did not meet deadlines for approving program services and ensuring that services were provided;
3. The state and counties have not prepared for rapid increases in the number of IHSS recipients;
4. Counties do not pay caregivers a living wage; and,
5. The state’s funding structure and recent shortfalls in county funding sources create a disincentive to increased caregiver pay.

In its recommendations to the Legislature, the State Auditor states that, “[to] balance the need to attract a sufficient number of caregivers into the IHSS program with the need to maintain control over the State’s costs, the Legislature should consider using the annual budget process to allocate additional funds to counties to enable [them] to better afford increasing caregiver wages.” Further, “[to] ensure that these offset funds are used to best address wage disparities, the Legislature should prioritize their availability to counties where caregivers earn the least, relative to a living wage, and should exempt these wage increases from Section 12306.16 (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, so that the amounts allocated are not included in adjustments to the county contributions.”

The State auditor also offered recommendations to the California Department of Social Services (DSS) and counties relating to, among other things, prompt approval for services and receipt of services; submittal of annual plans; and, monitoring for compliance, as applicable.

1. Key Findings of a University of California at Berkeley Labor Center Final Report to the Department of Social Services

Following the DSS contracting with the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center (UCB Labor Center) pursuant to legislation enacted in 2023,^[3] in its final report to the DSS, the UCB Labor Center analyzed the potential impacts of statewide or regional collective bargaining for IHSS providers.^[4] Key findings of the report identify that:

1. IHSS providers are predominantly female and care for relatives, and more broadly, are workers of color, [where] one half were born outside of the Unites States;
2. IHSS wages and benefits vary significantly among counties;
3. Other states with Medicaid-funded consumer-directed home care programs have statewide bargaining with varied structures (with particular note to the programs and structures in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington);
4. There is a strong link between home worker pay and benefits, turnover/retention rates, and quality of care, where the impacts of statewide or regional collective bargaining on workforce turnover/retention and consumer access to care are contingent on bargaining outcomes;
5. IHSS wages have seen significant growth recently, and future wage growth under potential statewide bargaining will depend on the state budget, union negotiation capabilities, and regional costs-of-living disparities;
6. Statewide collective bargaining would requires changes to Maintenance of Effort (MOE), while at the same time, the potential cost implications of statewide collective bargaining for MOE and 1991 Realignment are overshadowed by the existing long-term challenge of funding a rapidly growing IHSS program;^[5] and,
7. Several funding sources could be considered to cover any increased state or county costs incurred due to statewide or regional bargaining.

The committee is informed that enactment of Chapter 38, Statutes of 2023, also requires the DSS to issue its analysis to the committees on the state budget of the Assembly and Senate no later than January 1, 2025. To date, the DSS has yet to issue its analysis. However, should this bill advance beyond this committee and the DSS, thereafter, issue its analysis during the remainder of this legislative session, the Legislature will have an opportunity to consider that analysis and contemplate what changes to this bill, if any, may be appropriate.

1. What is Proposed by this Bill is Not New: A Brief History of the Former Statewide IHSSEERA

Historically, IHSS providers and their exclusive representatives negotiate at the local level under the MMBA on matters involving employment relations relating to the IHSS program.

Because of a dissimilar approach or philosophy, a lack of uniformity, and inconsistent outcomes among the various counties in their employer-employee relations regarding this program, including inconsistent achievement of a MOU/A with represented IHSS providers and their exclusive representatives in some counties, exclusive representatives of IHSS providers sought a uniformed approach to employer-employee relations and collective bargaining in support of establishing the former IHSSEERA, which was enacted in 2012.

Generally, among other things, the former IHSSEERA established the IHSS Statewide Authority to serve as the employer of record of IHSS providers – for purposes of collective bargaining – in several Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI) demonstration counties,^[6] while the recipient of IHSS services retained rights, i.e., hire, direct, supervise, and terminate/fire, over the provider prior to, and after, the IHSSEERA transition of collective bargaining from the MMBA to the state for those counties, similar to the provisions of the current bill.

The original IHSSEERA initially covered only eight counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, San Diego, and San Mateo. On July 1, 2015, the Counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Los Angeles transitioned to the IHSS Statewide Authority under the IHSSEERA, and it was the first time that Los Angeles was under the PERB’s jurisdiction; whereas, the other three counties were formerly subject to the PERB’s jurisdiction under the MMBA.^[7]

As the employer of record for IHSS providers, the former IHSS Statewide Authority was responsible for employer-employee relations. Thus, the responsibility for collective bargaining was largely removed from those counties. In 2017, the original IHSSEERA was repealed, which returned responsibility for employer-employee relations and collective bargaining to the local level under the MMBA.

1. This Bill: The IHSSEERA, Redux

Although not entirely identical, the provisions of this bill are substantially similar to the former IHSSERA. In practical effect, this bill proposes to reestablish the IHSSEERA for similar purposes as to its predecessor act.

1. Statement by the Author

“Without secure contracts for workers, the State estimates that we will face an IHSS caregiver shortage due to the rapid growth in California’s senior population and the low wages of IHSS workers. Existing problems in the IHSS collective bargaining process have resulted in workers being denied a fair wage. While the average living wage in California is $43.44 per hour, the average IHSS worker makes only $18.13 per hour. The current structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage standard for these essential workers, or filling the impending long-term care shortage. To provide for our essential workers and ensure that IHSS recipients receive the care they need, [this bill] would allow IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at [the] State level, instead of at the [local] level.”

1. Comments by Supporters

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California, states in part that, “IHSS is a life-saving program for recipients and a cost-saving alternative for our State. However, the program is struggling to recruit and retain the caregivers necessary to maintain this resource. If California does not adequately invest in this workforce, older adults and those living with disabilities will not receive the proper care that they need, caregivers will continue to live in poverty, and the public expense of caring for these populations will only increase. The fragmented nature of the IHSS program, as a county-administered program, is not conducive to standardizing an equitable living wage across this industry. [This bill] will help transition collective bargaining from the county level to the statewide level, resulting in a streamlined bargaining process and the professionalization of the IHSS workforce by providing livable wages and benefits, […] will also ensure more equitable distribution of long-term care funds, [and] allow the state to meet its long-term care demands. Change is long overdue within the IHSS program, and it is time for California to uplift and empower those individuals caring for our loved ones and most vulnerable communities.”

Among other things, the United Domestic Workers (UDW), AFSCME Local 3930 states that,

Under the current bargaining structure, wages are decided by individual counties with vastly different economic conditions and local priorities. This has resulted in decades of underinvestment and inconsistency in IHSS provider wages and benefits across the state. Sadly, in certain counties IHSS negotiations have been politicized by local leaders, leading to years of stalling and stalemate before bargaining agreements are reached. In the interim, provider wages and benefits lag far behind increases in cost of living. Providers face the desperate choice between providing services to clients and making ends meet. This has resulted in a severe shortage of IHSS providers around the state. Despite both unions’ longstanding efforts to secure fair contracts, progress has been unacceptably slow. Other states with statewide collective bargaining systems for homecare workers, such as Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, have successfully implemented standardized benefits. This has led to increased efficiency, consistent standards, and improved retention rates. Transitioning to statewide bargaining is a much-needed investment in California’s long-term care infrastructure, one that will begin to stabilize the workforce and improve care outcomes.”

Other supporters offer comments similar to those of SEIU California and UDW/AFSCME Local 3930.

1. Comments by Opponents

None.

1. Other Comments

The California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Welfare Directors Association of California express, among other things, that, while they have not yet formalized a an official position on this bill, ongoing discussions with the author and sponsors continue. Further, they state, ‘[c]ounty social workers, Public Authority (PA) staff, and IHSS providers are the backbone of this social services program which has proven to reduce care costs and improve the well-being of individuals. […] if collective bargaining should transfer to the state, it should do so in a manner that works effectively for all entities involved.”

The coalition has identified key areas in its ongoing efforts working with the author and sponsors of this bill. These areas are: (1) providing clarity regarding the state’s responsibility for certain costs relating to negotiating wages and benefits; (2) eliminating several items included within the scope of representation; and, (3) ensuring that full funding is provided for counties to comply with new program requirements. In addition, the coalition also notes the pending release of the DSS analysis previously discussed in this writing.

1. Prior or Related Legislation

Senate Bill 309 (Jones, 2025), as of this writing, proposes to make technical and nonsubstantive changes related to IHSS program provider wages. This measure is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Rules.

Assembly Bill 346 (Nguyen, 2025) proposes to define “licensed health care professional” relating to the IHSS program. This measure is currently pending in the Assembly Committee on Human Services.

Assembly Bill 1672 (Haney, 2024) proposed to Establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act (IHSSEERA) as a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other and terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing independent In-Home Support Services (IHSS) providers, among other provisions. This measure was held in the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement at the request of the author.

Assembly Bill 2819 (Bains, 2024) proposed to make changes to existing law relating to the 1991 Realignment funding withholding and IHSS MOE funds to counties until they enter into a collective bargaining agreement with represented IHSS providers. This measure was held in the Assembly Committee on Human Services.

Chapter 38, Statute of 2023 (Assembly Bill 102, Assembly Committee on Budget) requires the DSS to engage in a stakeholder process and convene interested parties, including but not limited to, the recognized employee organizations of IHSS providers and representatives from the California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Public Authorities, and the County Welfare Directors Association of California. The Department shall also consult with representatives from IHSS consumer organizations, among other provisions.

Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 90, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), among other things, repealed provisions relating to the IHSS Statewide Authority, the IHSS Fund, and the IHSSEERA.

Chapter 45, Statutes of 2012 (Senate Bill 1036, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), established the IHSSEERA.

Chapter 33, Statutes of 2012 (Senate Bill 1008, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), among other things, implemented the Duals Demonstration Pilot Projects to achieve savings, and expanded the number of counties in which dual demonstration sites may be established, from four to eight, relating to coordinate care services.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Service Employees International Union, California (Sponsor)

United Domestic Workers/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

Local 3930 (Co-Sponsor)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957

1. California Department of Social Services – IHSS Program. Visit: www.cdss.ca.gov/in-home-supportive-services. ↑

2. “In-Home Supportive Services Program: It Is Not Providing Needed Services to All Californians Approved for the Program, Is Unprepared for Future Challenges, and Offers Low Pay to Caregivers.” California State Auditor, February 2021 [Report 2020-109]. ↑

3. Chapter 38, Statutes of 2023 (Assembly Bill 102, Assembly Committee on Budget). ↑

4. “Analysis of the Potential Impacts pf Statewide or Regional Collective Bargaining for [IHSS] Providers.” UCB Labor Center, February, 2025. ↑

5. The MOE is a methodology that determines the distribution of additional IHSS costs and offsetting revenue to counties. (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 90, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)) relating to Public Social Services: 1991 Realignment Legislation and IHSS MOE and Collective Bargaining. This was followed by Chapter 27, Statutes of 2019 (Senate Bill 80, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), a Human Services Omnibus Bill. ↑

6. The purpose of the CCI was aimed at coordinating care for individuals who were receiving Medicare and Medi-Cal program benefits, and to achieve cost savings. ↑

7. “2021-2022 Annual Report.” PERB, October 15, 2022. Visit: https://perb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/annualreports/annual-report-2021-2022.pdf ↑