This bill restates California’s policy that a standard state workweek is 40 hours and a workday eight hours while preserving agency flexibility to set alternative schedules. It also codifies several Personal Leave Programs (PLP) — PLP 2012, PLP 2020, and an expanded PLP 2025 — each pairing a temporary pay reduction with monthly leave‑credit allotments for covered state employees.
The PLP 2025 provisions are the most detailed: they apply to specific bargaining units for the period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 (with a delayed start for some units tied to ratification), cap pay reductions (often at 3 percent), and specify differing monthly leave‑credit rates (including a higher rate for certain Fire Captain schedules). The bill also confirms that memoranda of understanding (MOUs) prevail over statutory text but that MOU provisions triggering new expenditures require legislative approval in the annual Budget Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
It reaffirms a 40‑hour state workweek policy while allowing agencies to adopt different schedules. Separately, it enacts multiple PLP provisions that require covered employees to accept temporary pay reductions in exchange for monthly leave credits, with unit‑specific rates and timeframes.
Who It Affects
State classified and excluded employees represented in the listed bargaining units (Units 1–21 as enumerated), excluded employees when directed by departments, and state departments that administer payroll and leave. Fire Captain classifications receive a distinct leave‑credit rate.
Why It Matters
The statute creates a repeatable template for exchange‑style salary concessions tied to leave credits and codifies where those concessions override or yield to collective bargaining and budgetary approval. Employers, payroll units, and labor negotiators must track unit‑specific rules, ratification timing, and Budget Act exceptions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill preserves California’s baseline policy that state employees work a 40‑hour week and an eight‑hour day but makes clear agencies may set different schedules when operational needs demand it. That baseline is a policy statement rather than an absolute prohibition — it coexists with the statute’s explicit allowance for agencies to establish alternative workdays or workweeks.
A key operational feature is how the statute treats collective bargaining. If a memorandum of understanding (MOU) conflicts with the statutory policy, the MOU controls.
There is a carve‑out: when an MOU requires additional spending, those provisions don’t take effect unless the Legislature appropriates funds in the annual Budget Act. That creates a two‑track system where negotiated terms can govern day‑to‑day work rules, but costlier commitments still require budget approval.The bill then lists a series of temporary Personal Leave Programs that pair payroll reductions with monthly leave credits.
PLP 2012 and PLP 2020 appear as historical templates (5 percent with eight hours monthly and up to 10 percent with up to 16 hours monthly, respectively). PLP 2025 is operative for multiple bargaining units from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027: for many units it caps pay reductions at amounts set in MOUs or by departmental direction, and it specifies leave‑credit rates (commonly up to five hours per monthly pay period).
For Bargaining Unit 6 the statute fixes the pay cut at no greater than 3 percent and sets the leave credit at up to five hours monthly, except that Fire Captains on certain rotating schedules get up to seven hours. For Units 8, 10, and 18 PLP 2025 starts on the first day of the pay period after ratification and continues through June 30, 2027.Throughout, the statute excludes retired annuitants and employees of entities listed in the relevant annual Budget Act section (Section 3.90) from each PLP.
The combined effect is a statutory framework that standardizes temporary, unit‑specific pay/leave exchanges while preserving agency flexibility and the supremacy of negotiated agreements — subject to budgetary control when additional spending is implicated.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section (a) restates state policy that a standard state workweek is 40 hours and a workday is eight hours, while allowing agencies to adopt alternate schedules to meet operational needs.
Section (b) makes MOUs controlling over conflicting statutory language but requires legislative approval in the annual Budget Act for any MOU terms that create additional expenditures.
PLP 2012 (Section (c)(1)) required up to a 5% pay reduction in exchange for eight hours of leave credits issued on the first day of each monthly pay period (excluded: retired annuitants and entities named in Budget Act Section 3.90).
PLP 2020 (Section (c)(2)) required up to a 10% pay reduction in exchange for up to 16 hours of monthly leave credits for the July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021 period (same exclusions as above).
PLP 2025 (Sections (c)(3)–(6)) applies July 1, 2025–June 30, 2027 to listed bargaining units with pay reductions generally capped at 3% for several units, unit‑specific leave credit rates (commonly up to five hours monthly), a special seven‑hour rate for certain Fire Captain schedules, and delayed start for Units 8, 10, and 18 pending ratification.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State workweek policy and agency scheduling flexibility
This subsection sets the default policy of a 40‑hour workweek and eight‑hour workday for state employees while explicitly allowing agencies to establish alternative workweeks and workdays. The practical effect is to enshrine a norm without precluding agency‑level scheduling practices (e.g., compressed schedules or different shift lengths) that managers may need for operational coverage.
Priority of memoranda of understanding and Budget Act constraint
This provision makes any conflicting MOU provisions controlling over the statute, which protects negotiated terms. It also introduces a fiscal check: if an MOU requires added expenditures, that portion of the MOU cannot take effect until the Legislature approves it in the annual Budget Act. For negotiators and financial officers, that means operational agreements can govern rights and schedules immediately, but any cost increases (raises, employer contributions, new benefits) still need appropriation authority.
Personal Leave Program 2012: 5% cut for eight hours monthly
PLP 2012 is described as a time‑limited program (July 1, 2012–June 30, 2013) that paired up to a 5% pay reduction with eight hours of leave credits issued at the start of each monthly pay period. The text also reiterates standard exclusions (retired annuitants and agencies listed in Budget Act Section 3.90), making clear which employee groups were outside the program’s reach.
Personal Leave Program 2020: 10% cut for up to 16 hours monthly
PLP 2020 (July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021) authorized a deeper payroll reduction—up to 10%—in exchange for up to 16 hours of monthly leave credits. The clause mirrors PLP 2012’s exclusion language and serves as a precedent for how the state structures temporary, across‑the‑board leave‑for‑pay reductions.
Personal Leave Program 2025: unit‑specific rules, timelines, and exceptions
PLP 2025 spans July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 and applies to specific bargaining units with different mechanics by unit. For Bargaining Unit 6 the statute caps the pay reduction at 3% and provides up to five hours of monthly leave credits (seven hours for certain Fire Captain schedules). Units 9 and 12 are similarly set at up to 3% with five hours monthly. Other listed units receive reductions and leave credits at rates set in their MOUs or by departmental direction for excluded employees. Units 8, 10, and 18 enter PLP 2025 only from the first day of the pay period following ratification through June 30, 2027. Every PLP 2025 subsection restates the Budget Act Section 3.90 exclusion.
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
- State fiscal managers — the temporary pay reductions reduce payroll outlays for the defined PLP periods, giving departments short‑term budget relief without permanent changes to compensation schedules.
- Employees who value paid time off more than immediate cash — covered employees receive monthly leave credits that can be used for rest or scheduling flexibility, effectively trading salary for time.
- Fire Captains in specified ranges — the bill grants these classifications a higher leave‑credit rate (up to seven hours) than other covered employees, providing a targeted benefit for specified rotating schedules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered state employees in the enumerated bargaining units — they accept an actual pay reduction (often capped at 3%) during the PLP 2025 window, reducing take‑home pay and affecting earnings‑based calculations such as overtime or some benefit formulas.
- State departments and payroll offices — they must implement unit‑specific leave‑credit accruals, enforce exclusions tied to Budget Act listings, and handle ratification‑linked start dates, increasing administrative complexity.
- Excluded employees directed into programs by departments — the statute allows departments to require participation for excluded employees, exposing them to pay cuts without the collective bargaining protections that represented employees enjoy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing short‑term fiscal relief for state budgets against the concrete financial impact on individual employees: it formalizes an exchange—less pay for leave credits—that achieves savings and scheduling flexibility but shifts real earnings and administrative burdens onto workers and payroll systems, producing distributional and operational trade‑offs with no one‑size‑fits‑all solution.
The statute layers a policy norm about a 40‑hour workweek onto a separate, detailed mechanism for temporary salary concessions exchanged for leave credits. That layering raises practical issues that the text does not fully resolve.
For example, the statute uses “up to” language for leave credits and pay reductions, leaving open how prorations, part‑time status, or mid‑period hires/resignations are handled; payroll directives or MOUs must fill those gaps. The interaction with overtime, differential pay, and retirement calculations also remains opaque: the text does not specify whether the reduced base pay for a PLP period changes regular rate calculations, pensionable compensation, or employer benefit contributions.
Another implementation tension concerns the MOU/Budget Act split. MOUs override statutory text, but any MOU that creates additional expenditures waits on the Budget Act.
That creates a predictable negotiation dynamic where unions can negotiate program mechanics but cannot bind the state to new spending without appropriation. It also shifts timing risk: employees may consent to an MOU expecting certain terms, only to find those terms dormant until the Legislature acts.
Finally, the statute carves out entities listed in Section 3.90 of the Budget Act for each PLP year, but it does not provide a durable rule for agencies that move in or out of that list across budgets, generating potential coverage disputes between HR, unions, and departments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.