SB 801 changes California Labor Code section 859 by creating an explicit exception: ‘‘sheepherders’’ and ‘‘goat herders,’’ as defined in Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 14-2001 (rev. 07-2014), are not treated as "employed in an agricultural occupation" for the purposes of the chapter that implements agricultural overtime and related labor standards. The bill leaves the underlying overtime schedule and wage orders unchanged; it operates by narrowing the statutory coverage definition.
Separately, SB 801 contains a legislative intent clause directing that future climate-related legislation should require the state to consider any potential cost burden on Californians when pursuing greenhouse gas goals under the Global Warming Solutions Act. That clause is nonbinding but signals a legislative priority that could influence later bills or administrative rulemaking.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Labor Code §859 to exclude sheepherders and goat herders (as defined in IWC Order No. 14-2001) from the statutory definition of "employed in an agricultural occupation" used in the chapter that implements agricultural overtime. It also states a nonbinding legislative intent that future climate legislation should require the state to consider potential cost burdens on Californians when implementing greenhouse gas reductions.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are employers and workers in grazing and herding operations (ranchers who employ sheepherders or goat herders) and the state agencies that administer and enforce agricultural wage-and-hour law (Department of Industrial Relations). Industries regulated under California climate law and agencies that implement greenhouse rules may feel the influence of the intent clause when crafting future bills or regulations.
Why It Matters
By narrowing the definition used to trigger overtime protections, the bill changes who can claim protections under the Phase-In Overtime for Agricultural Workers Act without altering pay rates or schedules themselves. The legislative intent language, while not creating immediate legal duties, signals that future climate measures should explicitly account for cost implications — a political and policy steer that could shape later statutes and regulatory analyses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 801 operates on two distinct tracks. First, it alters a single definitional provision in the Labor Code.
Section 859 currently ties the statutory phrase "employed in an agricultural occupation" to the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Order No. 14-2001; SB 801 inserts an exception so that, for the chapter implementing agricultural labor standards, the phrase does not include sheepherders or goat herders as those jobs are defined in that same wage order. The change is narrow: it does not rewrite wage schedules, overtime formulas, or penalties; it changes who falls within the scope of those rules.
Practically, that means protections that rely on the Labor Code’s cross-reference to Order No. 14-2001 — most significantly the Phase-In Overtime for Agricultural Workers Act — will not apply to workers who meet the herder definitions. Because the amendment is expressly limited "for purposes of this chapter," it may leave other statutory regimes or administrative wage orders unchanged, but it creates a coverage gap with real consequences for enforcement, litigation, and payroll practices.Second, the bill includes a nonbinding legislative intent statement about climate policy: the Legislature expresses its intention to pass future laws that require the state to consider potential cost burdens on Californians as it pursues greenhouse gas reductions under the Global Warming Solutions Act.
That language does not impose new regulatory duties on agencies today, but it provides a cautionary signal for future lawmakers and regulators to document and weigh economic impacts when designing climate interventions.Taken together, the bill is procedural rather than rate-setting: it changes the boundaries of who is covered by existing agricultural overtime and simultaneously signals a legislative preference for cost consideration in climate policymaking. The real-world effects will depend on how frequently employers and workers invoke the herder definitions, how enforcement agencies interpret the jurisdictional carve-out, and whether the intent language is carried into subsequent binding statutes or regulatory rulemakings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 801 amends Labor Code §859 to exclude ‘‘sheepherders’’ and ‘‘goat herders’’ (as defined in IWC Order No. 14-2001, revised 07-2014) from the statutory phrase "employed in an agricultural occupation" for the chapter governing agricultural labor standards.
The change is a definitional carve-out only — the bill does not alter overtime rates, meal/rest break requirements, or the Phase-In Overtime schedule itself.
The exclusion is expressly limited "for purposes of this chapter," which creates a scoped coverage change that may not affect every other statute or wage order referencing the same IWC order.
SB 801 adds a nonbinding legislative intent that future climate-related legislation should require the state to consider potential cost burdens on Californians when pursuing greenhouse gas reductions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
The bill bases the herder exception on the existing IWC Order No. 14-2001 definitions (rev. 07-2014), so qualification will turn on the order’s existing criteria rather than new definitions in the Labor Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a narrow exclusion for sheepherders and goat herders from the agricultural-occupation definition
This amendment changes the cross-reference in Labor Code §859 so that, for the chapter that governs agricultural labor standards, the phrase "employed in an agricultural occupation" no longer includes individuals who qualify as sheepherders or goat herders under IWC Order No. 14-2001 (rev. 07-2014). Mechanically, the bill does not supply new definitions; it relies on the order’s existing language. Practically, administrative determinations and litigation will center on whether a specific worker meets the IWC criteria for a herder and thus falls outside the chapter’s coverage.
Nonbinding legislative direction to consider cost impacts in future climate laws
The bill contains an expressed legislative intent that subsequent legislation should require the state to consider potential cost burdens on Californians when pursuing climate goals under the Global Warming Solutions Act. This clause does not create enforceable duties for agencies like CARB; instead, it functions as a policy signal intended to shape drafting priorities and cost-analysis expectations in later bills or regulatory guidance.
Relies on existing wage-order definitions to determine who qualifies as a herder
Because SB 801 points to the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Order No. 14-2001 (rev. 07-2014) for the herder definitions, the operational question becomes whether a worker meets that order’s criteria — a fact-sensitive inquiry about duties, living arrangements, and the nature of the employment. Employers and enforcement agencies will need to consult the order text rather than the Labor Code to classify workers, increasing reliance on wage-order interpretation and historical administrative practice.
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
- Ranchers and employers who use sheepherders or goat herders — the carve-out reduces the likelihood those employees will trigger agricultural overtime obligations under the chapter, lowering potential payroll costs and overtime liability.
- Operators of extensive grazing operations who rely on small crews or remote herders — the exclusion preserves labor-flexibility for roles that are often seasonal, mobile, and logistically distinct from field crop crews.
- Industries and stakeholders subject to future climate regulation — the statutory intent to consider cost burdens signals that future climate measures may incorporate explicit economic-impact assessments, which regulated parties can use to press for more measured implementation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sheepherders and goat herders — by being carved out of the chapter’s coverage, these workers may lose access to overtime pay and other protections tied to that statutory framework, depending on how overlapping wage orders apply.
- Department of Industrial Relations and enforcement agencies — the amendment creates a new, fact-intensive classification task that will increase investigation complexity, administrative adjudications, and litigation over who qualifies as a herder.
- Labor advocates and plaintiff-side counsel — the carve-out raises the bar for successful wage claims by certain livestock workers and may require additional resources to challenge employer classifications.
- Policymakers and regulators working on climate rules — while the intent clause is nonbinding, it creates an expectation to document cost burdens, which could complicate or slow future regulatory actions if agencies must build more detailed economic analyses into rulemaking.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is classic: recognize the operational realities of remote, mobile herding work and preserve flexibility for ranchers, or apply uniform overtime protections that ensure pay equity for all agricultural workers. Narrowing statutory coverage reduces employer costs and administrative burden for certain operations but does so by removing a safety net for a defined group of workers — a trade-off with no purely technical resolution.
The bill's practical impact depends less on rate-setting than on classification disputes. Carving a small, occupation-specific exception out of a cross-reference invites litigation over borderline roles and encourages employers to reorganize duties to fit the herder profile.
The IWC Order definitions were written for wage-order administration; repurposing them as an exclusion in the Labor Code creates a governance mismatch that enforcement agencies will need to reconcile in guidance or rulemaking.
The intent clause creates policy friction without immediate legal effect. It signals legislative preference for cost-aware climate policy, but it does not require agencies to change procedures today.
That ambiguity matters: if future legislators treat the clause as a drafting constraint, future climate laws could include explicit cost-limiting language or more demanding economic-impact requirements; if they ignore it, the clause will remain aspirational. Either way, the provision raises questions about how to balance economic burdens against the urgency of climate targets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.