Per my previous post, the DLSE issued its "template" for compliant AB 469 disclosures. See the post re DLSE template here.
An impolitic or imprudent employment lawyer might say that the DLSE's waiting until December 29 to issue a template implementing AB 469 disclosures (to begin on 1/1/12) was arrogant, unconscionable, and all but a gift to plaintiff lawyers. But I've never been one of those rash people. :::whistling::::
What makes this all more galling is that the DLSE has imposed requirements over and above what the statute actually provides for. DLSE had the right to expand on the law's requirements becuase the statute says that the required disclosure must include "any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary."
That's all fine, but how about more than 2 work days' notice of what you think is necessary? Not to mention that 90% of management is on vacation. Employers likely planned the new notices would include only the items expressly identified in the law, given DLSE's failure to promptly issue its template. Now they have to re-tool, which may be easier to do in a mom & pop store, but not so easy when there are multiple outlets and hundreds of new hires to process.
Perhaps the DLSE didn't care because the notice provision does not apply to...the DLSE (!) or other government employers. Go figure.
Oh well, enough whining. The DLSE model includes a couple of itsems not specified in the actual statute: 1) the name and address of a PEO or other third party that administers the hiring process (but not a payroll processor or recruiting agency) 2) whether the employment agreement is oral or written... there may be more. I just got the thing today and all...
DGV