An act to amend Sections 19829.9853, 19829.9854, 19829.9855, 19851, and 22944.5 of the Government Code, relating to state employment, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget.
AB 139 is a budget-related state employment measure that approves memoranda of understanding and addenda between the state and State Bargaining Units 9 and 12. It ratifies the agreements’ fund-requiring provisions, but makes their effectiveness contingent on specific legislative appropriations. If those funds are not appropriated, either side may reopen negotiations. The bill also states that the agreements can become effective even if approved in legislation other than the annual Budget Act, and it declares the measure to be an immediate appropriation bill.
The bill makes several conforming changes to state employment statutes governing compensation, personal leave, and retiree health care contributions. It updates continuous appropriation provisions for the 2025-26, 2026-27, and 2027-28 fiscal years so that, if a budget is not enacted on time, the Controller can continue paying employees covered by the relevant bargaining unit agreements. It also extends and modifies the Personal Leave Program 2025 for Bargaining Units 9 and 12, requiring a 3% pay reduction in exchange for five hours of monthly leave credits during the 2025-27 period. In addition, it adjusts Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act contribution rules, including suspending certain employer prefunding contributions for Units 9 and 12 in 2025-26 and 2026-27 and setting later employee contribution schedules.
AB 139 also reduces specified Budget Act of 2025 appropriations by a total of $88.773 million, reflecting savings measures tied to the Unit 9 and Unit 12 agreements. The bill further ratifies other late-June 2025 agreements that include savings measures contributing to the budgeted reductions, and it coordinates with related legislation AB 140 and SB 140 through contingent operative provisions. Overall, the bill directly affects state payroll, leave, and retiree health benefit obligations for covered employees, while also altering budget authority and contingency spending rules for those bargaining units.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears favorable. The Assembly third reading vote was 53-17, and the later committee vote was 14-0, suggesting broad support for the bill’s budget and labor provisions. Because no committee transcript was provided, there is limited direct evidence of debate, but the vote margins indicate the measure was treated as a routine budget implementation and labor agreement bill rather than a highly contested policy proposal.
The main points of contention are likely fiscal and procedural rather than ideological. The bill conditions payment provisions on specific appropriations, allows negotiations to reopen if funding is not provided, and reduces existing budget items to achieve savings, which may raise concerns about cost, bargaining leverage, and the use of non-Budget Act legislation to implement labor agreements. The bill’s repeated cross-references and contingent amendments with AB 140 and SB 140 also suggest a technical and coordination issue that could be important to legislators tracking the final form of the state employee compensation package.
AB 139 amends Government Code sections governing state employee bargaining agreements, emergency payroll authority, personal leave programs, and retiree health care prefunding. It expands continuous appropriation authority for the Controller for covered bargaining units if the Budget Act is delayed, updates the legal treatment of the Unit 9 and Unit 12 MOUs, and modifies contribution and leave rules for those employees. It also reduces selected Budget Act of 2025 appropriations by $88.773 million and ratifies certain related agreements that include savings measures, thereby affecting state payroll administration, employee compensation, and budget implementation for state workers represented by Units 9 and 12.
The available vote history suggests the bill was generally well received. It passed the Assembly on third reading by a substantial margin and later received a unanimous committee do-pass vote. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded floor or committee opposition in the provided materials, but the votes indicate broad support for the budget agreement and its associated labor terms.
The likely areas of contention are the fiscal cost of the agreements, the reduction of existing budget appropriations, and the bill’s use of statutory changes to implement labor contract terms outside the annual Budget Act. Opponents could object to suspending employer retiree-health contributions, authorizing continuous appropriations if the budget is late, or ratifying agreements that require later specific appropriations. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor locking in the negotiated terms for Bargaining Units 9 and 12 and ensuring payroll continuity and budget savings.