AB 140 prescribes unit-specific schedules for employee contributions to prefund retiree health care (other postemployment benefits, or OPEB) and requires matching contributions by the State of California, with the stated goal of reaching a 50-percent employer/employee split of actuarially determined normal costs. The bill maps contribution percentages and phased increases to many state bargaining units and the judicial branch, and gives the Department of Human Resources limited authority to set contribution percentages for certain noncovered employees.
Beyond baseline schedules, the statute builds in two recurring mechanisms: (1) automatic, actuarially driven adjustments to both employer and employee rates to maintain the 50-percent split, limited to 0.5 percentage points change per year; and (2) specified temporary suspensions of employee or employer contributions in selected fiscal years. Money collected is deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund, and negotiated memoranda of understanding can supersede statutory rates subject to budget approval when expenditures are required.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates binding employee contribution schedules for each named state bargaining unit and the judicial branch, requires the state to match those employee contributions, and directs that contributions be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund. It also establishes a process to adjust employer and employee percentages to maintain a 50/50 split of actuarially determined normal costs, with an annual adjustment cap of 0.5 percentage points.
Who It Affects
State employees in the enumerated bargaining units (including permanent intermittent employees who are eligible for health benefits), the judicial branch workforce, the Department of Human Resources, payroll and benefits administrators, and the state treasury. Negotiating parties (unions and management) are affected because ratification timing and MOUs can change statutory implementation.
Why It Matters
The bill converts OPEB liability management into a predictable, unit-specific payroll policy that directly impacts employee take-home pay and the state's recurring budget profile. Its adjustment and suspension mechanics create operational and fiscal trade-offs between short-term budget flexibility and long-term prefunding goals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 140 turns prefunding retiree health care into a statutory, unit-by-unit payroll program. For each listed bargaining unit (and for judges in the judicial branch), the bill lists one- to multi-step increases in employee contribution percentages of pensionable compensation and requires the state to make a matching employer contribution.
Where the statute ties an increase to actuarial results, adjustment formulas require both employer and employee rates to move together so the employer-employee split remains 50/50 of the actuarially determined normal cost.
The law also builds operational guardrails: adjustments tied to actuarial changes trigger only when total normal costs move by more than 0.5 percentage points, and any single-year change in either an employer or employee rate cannot exceed 0.5 percentage points. Several units have contributions phased in on fixed calendar dates; others make rate changes effective the first day of the pay period following ratification by both parties, which links timing to contract negotiations.
For selected fiscal years the statute temporarily suspends contributions — in many units employee contributions for 2020–21 are suspended while employer payments continue, and in some units the employer contribution is suspended for 2025–26 and 2026–27 while employee contributions remain.The bill treats Unit 5 differently: it redirects a statutory 3.4 percent salary increase to prefund OPEB, incorporates that redirection into the salary survey and negotiation process, and provides a multi-step schedule to reach a balanced 3.4/3.4 percent split by 2024. All contributions required by the statute must be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are explicitly nonrefundable to employees or beneficiaries.
Finally, if a negotiated memorandum of understanding (MOU) or addendum conflicts with the statute, the MOU controls unless the MOU requires expenditures that have not been approved in the annual Budget Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Unit 6 employee schedule requires contributions of 1.3% (7/1/2016), 2.6% (7/1/2017), and 4.0% (7/1/2018) of pensionable compensation; employee contributions for 2020–21 are suspended, and the employer’s contribution is suspended for 2025–26 and 2026–27 while employee contributions continue.
The statute caps any single-year increase or decrease in employer or employee contribution percentages at 0.5 percentage points and triggers adjustments only when actuarial total normal costs move by more than 0.5 percentage points from the reference contribution levels.
Unit 5 redirects a 3.4% statutory salary increase to prefund OPEB, counts that 3.4% toward the employee share for the 50/50 goal, and phases in matched contributions so that by July 1, 2024 the contribution split is 3.4% employee / 3.4% employer.
All contributions are deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are explicitly nonrefundable to employees, beneficiaries, or survivors.
A negotiated MOU or addenda supersedes inconsistent statutory provisions, but any MOU provision that requires additional expenditures will not become effective unless the Legislature approves the funding in the annual Budget Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prefunding goals by bargaining unit
This subdivision states the overarching objective: the state and employees in listed bargaining units must prefund retiree health care with the aim of reaching 50-percent cost sharing of actuarially determined normal costs by unit-specific target dates. Practically, it establishes the policy end-state that later rate schedules and adjustment rules are designed to achieve.
Detailed employee schedules and matching contributions
Subdivision (b) contains the meat: a separate schedule of phased-in employee contribution percentages for each bargaining unit (9, 10, 6, 12, 2, 7, 1/3/4/11/14/15/17/20/21, 8, 13, 18, 19, 16, and the judicial branch) and instructions that the state shall match employee contributions. Several schedules are calendar-driven (fixed July 1 dates), while others make increases effective the first day of the pay period following ratification, tying implementation to collective bargaining outcomes.
Actuarial-triggered, symmetrical adjustments with annual caps
Multiple subparagraphs require employer and employee rates to be adjusted together to maintain a 50/50 split when actuarially determined total normal costs move beyond a 0.5 percentage point threshold. Where adjustments are triggered, neither an employer nor an employee contribution may change by more than 0.5 percentage points in a single fiscal year. Some provisions specify the fiscal year or earliest date when automatic adjustments may begin (for example, July 1 of designated years or the first pay period following ratification).
Temporary suspension windows for employee or employer contributions
The statute lists temporary suspension windows: for many units, employees’ monthly contributions scheduled for 2020–21 are suspended (commonly July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021) while employer contributions continue; in certain units the employer’s contribution is suspended in later fiscal years (notably 2025–26 and 2026–27 for some units) while employee contributions continue. These suspensions alter the timing of prefunding and create asymmetric cost-bearing across fiscal years.
Scope, fund destination, and nonrefundable rule
Subdivision (c) confirms the section applies only to employees eligible for health benefits (including permanent intermittent employees). Subdivision (d) requires that contributions be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and expressly states those contributions are nonrefundable to employees or beneficiaries, limiting portability or opt-out options.
Interaction with MOUs and Director authority
Subdivision (e) makes negotiated MOUs controlling over the statute where they conflict, except that any MOU provisions that require expenditures will not take effect unless approved in the annual Budget Act. Subdivision (f) and (g) grant the Director of the Department of Human Resources authority to set total employee contribution percentages as a percentage of pensionable compensation for employees who are excepted from the definition of state employee or not related to a listed bargaining unit, and provides a 2020 target date (with a 50/50 goal by July 1, 2020) for that authority to be exercised.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Retirees and future annuitants — The statute strengthens prefunding discipline and channels contributions to the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund, improving the long-term funding outlook for retiree health benefits if contributions are maintained.
- State budget planners and credit analysts — Predictable, unit-specific contribution schedules and built-in actuarial adjustments reduce some uncertainty around OPEB liabilities and can improve long-term fiscal forecasting.
- Bargaining units that negotiate ratification timing — Units that secure ratification dates that trigger slower phased-in contributions or delay ratification can manage the timing of member payroll impacts; the law’s linkage to ratification gives unions a lever over implementation timing.
Who Bears the Cost
- State employees in affected bargaining units — The bill requires defined percentage payroll contributions (many reaching multiple percentage points of pensionable compensation) that reduce take-home pay and are largely nonrefundable.
- The State of California (employer) — The law commits the state to matching contributions and to potential upward rate adjustments to maintain the 50/50 split, creating recurring budgetary obligations and exposure to actuarial cost increases.
- Payroll, benefits, and actuarial administrators — Complex schedules, suspension windows, ratification-linked effective dates, and annual actuarial triggers increase administrative burden and require more frequent coordination between HR, CalPERS/actuaries, and the Department of Finance.
- Future taxpayers and budgets — Temporary suspensions and phased schedules shift prefunding timing; if economic downturns coincide with suspended employer contributions, future budgets may face larger funding needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 140 tries to resolve is straightforward but unavoidable: require steady prefunding of retiree health obligations to protect retirees and the state’s fiscal health, while doing so through mandatory employee payroll contributions and matched employer payments that reduce current disposable income and increase recurring state costs; temporary suspensions and annual caps ease short-term pain but push funding burdens forward, trading short-term relief for long-term risk.
Several implementation ambiguities and trade-offs could complicate the statute’s practical effects. The mixture of calendar-driven dates and ratification-linked effective dates means identical contribution percentages may take effect at different times across units, creating disparate treatment and administrative complexity.
The 0.5 percentage-point trigger and the 0.5 percentage-point annual cap limit short-term volatility in contributions but can delay necessary adjustments if actuarial costs rise steadily, shifting the true cost burden into later years.
The suspension windows create the sharpest tension. Suspending employee contributions for 2020–21 reduces immediate payroll pressure on workers — but it also reduces prefunding in a year when market losses (2020) and demographic pressures may have increased liabilities.
Similarly, suspending employer contributions in 2025–27 moves near-term state savings to a later date and concentrates funding pressure in the years that follow. Because contributions are nonrefundable and deposited into a dedicated fund, individual workers cannot opt out, and MOUs that alter statutory rates require the Legislature to appropriate funds when they expand costs; that creates an odd hybrid of negotiated flexibility constrained by budgetary approval.
Finally, the bill assumes actuarial valuations will provide clear, timely signals for adjustments, but it does not standardize valuation frequency, smoothing methods, or which actuarial assumptions govern the ‘‘total normal cost’’ reference point. That gap leaves room for disputes over the need for adjustments and the baseline against which the 0.5 percentage-point trigger is measured, putting pressure on agencies to coordinate assumptions and timing to avoid litigation or negotiation friction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.