BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1661
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Thomas M. Calderon, Chair
SB 1661 (Kuehl) - As Amended: May 22, 2002
SUBJECT : Disability compensation: family members
SUMMARY : Permits disability compensation for any individual
who is unable to work due to the employee's own sickness or
injury, the sickness or injury of a family member, as defined,
or the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a new child;
and, establishes, within the state disability insurance program,
a family temporary disability insurance program to provide up to
12 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time
off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent,
domestic partner, or to bond with a new child. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Expands disability insurance rights and benefits due to an
employee's need to provide care for any sick or injured family
member, as defined, or the birth, adoption, or foster care
placement of a new child.
2)Creates a family temporary disability insurance program to
provide up to 12 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers
who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child,
spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new child.
3)Defines "family care leave" to mean any of the following: (a)
leave for reason of the birth of a child of the employee or
the employee's domestic partner, the placement of a child with
an employee in connection with the adoption or foster care of
the child by the employee or domestic partner, or the serious
health condition of a child of the employee, spouse or
domestic partner; or, (b) leave to care for a parent, spouse,
or domestic partner who has a serious health condition.
4)Defines "serious health condition" to mean an illness, injury,
impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves
inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health
care facility, or continuing treatment or continuing
supervision by a health care provider.
SB 1661
Page 2
5)Provides that an individual shall be deemed eligible for
"family temporary disability insurance benefits" on any day
that he or she is unable to perform his or her regular or
customary work because he or she is caring for a new or
seriously ill child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner. This
eligibility is subject to a waiting period of seven
consecutive days during each temporary family disability
benefit period with respect to which waiting period no
benefits are payable.
6)Provides that the certificate filed to establish medical
eligibility of the serious health condition of the family
member that warrants the care of the employee need not
identify the serious health condition involved.
7)Requires the certificate to establish medical eligibility to
contain: (a) the probable duration of the condition; (b) an
estimate of the amount of time that the physician or
practitioner believes the employee is needed to care for the
child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner; and, (c) a
statement that the serious health condition warrants the
participation of the employee to provide care for his or her
child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner.
8)States that the term "Warrants the participation of the
employee" includes, but is not limited to, providing
psychological comfort, and arranging "third party" care for
the child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner, as well as
directly providing, or participating in, the medical care.
9)Provides that fifty percent of the benefits must be provided
from the Disability Fund into which the employee's family
temporary disability insurance (FTDI) premium is deposited.
The Director (director) of the Employment Development
Department (EDD) must increase the rate of worker
contributions 0.05 percent to cover the cost of FTDI benefits.
The director must, on or before October 31 of each calendar
year, adjust the FTDI premium rate if a change is necessary to
support the cost incurred by FTDI benefit payments. The
director is to maintain a separate accounting of the cost of
benefits paid pursuant to this program. Beginning in 2004, the
director is to provide an annual accounting of this cost as
part of the fund status report submitted to the Legislature
each May and October.
SB 1661
Page 3
10)Provides that the balance of the benefits be provided by the
employer to the employee, either directly or by means of
insurance procured by the employer.
11)Authorizes an employer to elect to contribute an amount equal
to the employee's FTDI premium into the Disability Fund.
12)Requires employers that do not elect to contribute an amount
equal to an employee's FTDI premium into the Disability Fund
to secure payment of their obligations by providing the
director with the equivalent contribution in the form of: (a)
a bond, issued by an admitted surety insurer; (b) a deposit of
securities approved by the director; or, (c) an irrevocable
letter of credit.
13)Stipulates that employers who elect to not contribute into
the Disability Fund must annually pay a regulatory fee to the
department in an amount, as specified, that is necessary to
fund the department's administrative costs incurred in
administering and monitoring the compliance of those employers
with this program. The regulatory fee may not exceed an amount
equal to 14 percent of the total FTDI premium paid by the
employer's employees into the fund.
14)Provides that, in no case, shall the total amount of benefits
payable be more than the total wages paid to an employee
during his or her disability base period.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the offering of a non-occupational disability
insurance program.
2)Establishes the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program
covering approximately12 million workers in California. Some
employees are exempt from SDI (i.e., railroad employees, some
employees of non-profit agencies, employees who claim
religious exemptions, and most government employees). Some
local government workers, including school employees, may be
entitled to SDI benefits as a function of collective
bargaining. Self-employed individuals may elect, under
specified conditions, to be covered.
3)Authorizes EDD to pay SDI benefits as partial wage replacement
to employees who are disabled.
SB 1661
Page 4
4)Defines "disability" as any mental or physical illness or
injury that prevents an employee from performing his or her
regular or customary work. (This includes elective surgery
and illness or injury resulting from pregnancy, childbirth or
related conditions.)
5)Permits an employer to offer employees a voluntary disability
plan (VP) in place of SDI coverage.
6)Mandates a VP to provide all the benefits of SDI and at least
one benefit superior than SDI. Requires director to approve a
VP. Also requires a majority of the employees to consent to
the plan. (Neither an employee nor his or her employer is
liable for worker contributions to the Disability Fund while
the worker is in a VP. However, an employer must pay into the
Disability Fund an amount equal to 14 percent of the amount
employees would have otherwise paid into the fund had the
employee not been in a VP.
7)Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
refuse to allow a female employee affected by pregnancy,
childbirth, or related medical condition to take a leave on
account of pregnancy for a reasonable period of time, not to
exceed four months. "Reasonable period of time" means the
amount of time the female employee is disabled on account of
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition. (The Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).)
8)Establishes that it is an unlawful employment practice for any
employer to refuse to grant a request by any employee with
more than one year of service and who has worked at least
1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period, to take
family care and medical leave for up to 12 workweeks: (a) in
connection with the birth or adoption or serious health
condition of the employee's child; (b) to care for a parent or
spouse who has a serious health condition, or; (c) because of
the employee's own serious health condition. This provision
applies to an employer who employs 50 or more employees within
75 miles of the employee's work-site, the state, and any
political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. (The
California Family Rights Act (CFRA).)
9)Provides that any employer authorizing sick leave for an
employee must permit the employee to use, in any calendar
SB 1661
Page 5
year, the employee's accrued and available sick leave
entitlement. This sick leave shall be in an amount not less
than the sick leave that would be accrued during six months at
the employee's then current rate of entitlement, to attend to
an illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner of
the employee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : It is the intent of the author to create the Family
Temporary Disability Insurance Program to help reconcile the
demands of work and family. In recognition of the shared
benefit, the program will be implemented through employee
contributions and the provision of benefits by employers, and
shall be administered in accordance with the policies of the SDI
program.
The United States is one of the few developed countries in the
world without a national paid parental leave program. One
hundred and thirty countries have leave policies. Just three of
those countries - Ethiopia, Australia and the United States -
provide only unpaid leave.
SDI is financed through a mandatory employee payroll
contribution that is paid into the Disability Trust Fund. The
director of EDD determines the contribution rate, based upon a
statutory formula. On or before October 31 of each calendar
year, the director is required to prepare a public statement
declaring the rate (rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one
percent) of worker contributions for the calendar year and
promptly notify all employers of covered employees.
A claimant employee establishes medical eligibility for each
uninterrupted period of disability by filing a first claim for
disability benefits supported by the certificate of a treating
physician or practitioner.
The current contribution rate is 0.9 percent of wages not to
exceed approximately $46,300 per year (i.e. the worker's
contribution is about $ 417). In 2003, the wage base will
increase to about $56,900. The maximum contribution rate cannot
exceed 1.3 percent.
The weekly benefits replace 55% of base period earnings, from
$50 per week to a maximum of $490. Future SDI benefit increases
SB 1661
Page 6
are tied to the level of workers' compensation temporary
disability benefits for work-related injuries. Workers'
compensation temporary disability benefits are scheduled to
increase from $490 to $602 for injuries occurring on and after
January 1, 2003, to $728 for injuries occurring on or after
January 1, 2004, and to $840 for injuries occurring on or after
January 1, 2005. Commencing January 1, 2006 and each January 1
thereafter, the maximum and minimum benefit is increased by an
amount equal to the percentage increase in the "state average
weekly wage" as compared to the prior year.
Every claim is assessed a seven-day non-payable waiting period.
Benefits may be collected for up to 52 weeks.
An employer is not required to hold a job simply because an
employee is receiving SDI benefits. An employee does have the
right to return to his or her job if the employee is covered by
mandatory leave laws such as pregnancy leave or family care and
medical leave.
For 2001, total first claims paid for disability insurance
equaled 656,400. Of these claims, 145,700 were for
pregnancy-related first claims.
The average duration for a claim in 2001 was 13.87 weeks. The
average weekly benefit amount was $292.60 in 2001.
Voluntary Plan
An employer may assume all or part of the cost of a VP and may
deduct wages for the purpose of providing benefits. An
employee's rate of contribution cannot exceed the amount paid by
an employee who is covered by SDI.
EDD Pregnancy Disability Policy
EDD allows up to four weeks pre-partum and six weeks post-partum
disability leave without requiring the worker to obtain
additional information from her treating physician beyond
stating that the disability is for a normal pregnancy. EDD has
based this policy on established medical guidelines for medical
disabilities and accepted practice in the medical community to
allow four weeks pre-partum and six weeks post-partum leave.
SB 1661
Page 7
Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL)
An employer is not required to pay an employee on PDL unless the
employer pays for other types of disability leave. If an
employer pays for other disability leave, the employer must pay
an employee on PDL up to six weeks paid leave. PDL applies to
any person that regularly employs five or more persons, or any
person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or
indirectly, the state or any political or civil subdivision of
the state, and cities, with specified exceptions.
Family Care and Medical Leave
Under the CFRA, an employee's pregnancy is not considered a
serious health condition that would allow her to take CFRA
leave. However, the employee can take CFRA leave for reason of
the birth of a child of the employee. CFRA leave is unpaid
leave.
Sick Leave
All conditions and restrictions placed by the employer upon the
use by an employee of sick leave also apply to the use by an
employee of sick leave to attend to an illness of his or her
child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner.
No employer can deny an employee the right to use sick leave. In
addition, no employer can discharge, threaten to discharge,
demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an
employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use,
sick leave to attend to an illness of a child, parent, spouse,
or domestic partner.
However, although an employee cannot be discriminated against
for taking time off to care for a child, parent spouse, or
domestic partner, an employer may have an "absence control
policy" that allows the employer to discipline an employee for
excessive absenteeism. Therefore, all conditions and
restrictions placed by the employer upon the use of sick leave
also apply to the use by an employee of sick leave to attend to
an illness of his or her child, parent, spouse, or domestic
partner. An employer may use these latter absences as part of an
absence control policy.
SB 1661
Page 8
Coverage
The SDI program and this bill do not cover government employees,
with limited exceptions.
Local public employers, including public school employers, may
elect SDI coverage for employees of a specified bargaining unit,
provided the election is the result of a negotiated agreement.
Employees of the State of California, California State
University and the California Legislature are not eligible for
the SDI program and, instead, are provided non-occupational
disability payments through the Non-Industrial Disability
Insurance (NDI) program that is funded through the General Fund.
The NDI program was created in 1976 and the formula for
establishing weekly benefits was tied to the average state
employee's salary at the time. Since 1976, NDI weekly benefits
have been increased once, by $10 per week. The weekly maximum
benefit under NDI is $135. Unlike SDI, however, NDI benefits are
taxed as income. Further, while SDI benefits continue for 52
weeks, NDI benefits are available for only 26 weeks.
PDL applies to employers with five employees or more. CFRA
applies to employers with 50 or more employees within a 75mile
radius. These thresholds were established to balance the needs
of the employee against undue hardship to the employer caused by
the employee's absence.
SDI covers private sector employees regardless of the size of
the establishment within which the employee works.
Benefits Period
Existing law and the amendments to existing law by this bill
apply to benefits payable up to 52 weeks. The new program
created by this bill relating to seriously ill family members
limits benefit payment to 12 weeks.
Job Security
An employer is not required to hold a job for an employee who is
receiving SDI benefits. There are approximately 5,368,000
private sector employees who work for enterprises employing less
than 50 workers, i.e. not covered by CFRA, and, therefore, do
SB 1661
Page 9
not have job protection for taking sick leave.
Financing
The new program created by this bill provides that 50 percent of
the benefits are to be provided by the employer to the employee,
either directly or by means of insurance procured by the
employer. An employer may elect to contribute an amount equal
to the employee's FTDI premium into the Disability Fund. Those
employers who can pay the benefit directly or obtain insurance
will do so, presumably, because the cost would be less that
contributing into the Disability Fund. In essence, such
employers would not be paying their "fair share." Employers
must furnish benefits in excess of SDI.
SUPPORT ARGUMENTS:
SB 1661 helps families to help themselves by expanding the State
Disability Insurance Program to provide up to 12 weeks of paid
leave to care for a seriously ill family member or new child.
This Family Temporary Disability Insurance Program will be fully
funded by equal contributions from employees and employers.
EDD studied the fiscal impact of extending disability benefits
to employees granted family care and medical leave. In EDD's
June 2000 report to the Legislature, they estimate that
providing this expanded benefit would cost a maximum of $46/year
per employee, or less than $1 a week.
The need for family temporary disability insurance benefits has
intensified. This is particularly evident as both parents'
participation in the workforce has increased, and the number of
single parents in the workforce has grown. The need for partial
wage replacement for workers taking family care leave will be
exacerbated as the population of those needing care, both
children and parents of workers, increases in relation to the
number of working age adults.
Developing systems that help families adapt to the competing
interests of work and home not only benefits workers, but also
benefits employers by increasing worker productivity and
reducing employee turnover.
FMLA and CFRA entitle eligible employees working for covered
employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for up to 12-work
SB 1661
Page 10
weeks in a 12-month period. Under the FMLA and the CFRA, unpaid
leave may be taken for the birth, adoption, or foster placement
of a new child; to care for a seriously ill child, parent, or
spouse; or for the employee's own serious health condition.
SDI benefits currently provide wage replacement for workers who
need time off due to their own non-work-related injuries,
illnesses, or conditions, including pregnancy, that prevent them
from working. SDI does not cover leave to care for a sick or
injured child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or leave to
bond with a new child.
The majority of workers in this state are unable to take family
care leave because they are unable to afford leave without pay.
When workers do not receive some form of wage replacement during
family care leave, families suffer from the worker's loss of
income, increasing the demand on the state unemployment
insurance system and dependence on the state's welfare system.
The California Labor Federation, the sponsor of this bill,
states that while federal and state laws guarantee unpaid family
and medical leave for childbirth or family illness, many
families simply cannot afford to take time off. This is a
family values issue. This legislation will go a long way in
supporting working families in their efforts to cope with work
and family.
The California Medical Association (CMA) states that the program
proposed in this bill could offset costs of hospitalization or
skilled nursing services for persons that could be cared for at
home in a hospitable and less costly setting. Perhaps, even
more importantly, it would promote caring for family members and
loved ones by family members and loved ones.
The California National Organization for Women argues that most
people cannot afford to take time off work without pay and are
therefore unable to help family members who are in urgent need
of care. Employees who have family responsibilities should not
be put in the position of having to choose between a paycheck
and a loved one.
Growing Elder Care Needs
In 1997, one in four Americans had an elderly relative to care
for, and many reduced their work hours or took at least a brief
SB 1661
Page 11
leave to care for that person. In the coming years, the need for
this type of family leave will only become more urgent. Nearly
two-thirds of American men and women under the age of 60 believe
that they will have to care for an older relative in the next
decade.
Risk to Newborns
With only unpaid leave available, parents of new babies are
forced to rush back to work, often leaving their babies in
less-than-optimal care. When babies are six or even eight weeks
old, it is extremely difficult to find care for them in a
licensed center. Most states prohibit centers from taking babies
under six weeks old, and for good reason. A young infant's
immune system is not yet mature, making babies highly
susceptible to infection.
OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS:
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA)
is not opposed to establishing, within the state disability
insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance
program to provide up to 12 weeks of wage replacement benefits
to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill
child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new
child.
However, the bill also proposes to pay for the additional
benefits through additional employee contributions, and by
requiring employers to provide benefits either directly, through
private insurance, or by an election to contribute to the
Disability Fund. CMTA is opposed to the mandate on employers to
provide these additional benefits in any form except on a
voluntary basis. "Our past experiences with proposals similar to
SB 1661 have all indicated that it is an expensive program that
may be greatly expanded by aggressive utilization."
The state disability insurance program is an employee-paid
program through payroll deductions. If employees are interested
in adding dependent coverage, "I don't believe CMTA would oppose
it even though it would add more administrative costs and
disruptions of work due to more employee absences." However,
along with making the decision to add dependent coverage,
employees should expect to have to pay more for the coverage.
SB 1661
Page 12
The California Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill because it
mandates the establishment of a new paid leave benefit program
paid for by new taxes levied on all employers and their workers.
The California Chamber strongly opposes SB 1661's establishment
of two new taxes to pay for the proposed paid leave benefit
program; a proposed increase in the current state disability
insurance tax formula; plus the proposed new 14 percent
"regulatory fee" to be levied on voluntary employer SDI plans.
The Chamber avers that the SDI Trust Fund is nearly bankrupt;
and, according to EDD, the SDI Trust Fund reserve adequacy level
has dropped
The Chamber notes that legislation enacted in 1999 permanently
linked the level of SDI benefits to workers' compensation
benefits. At the time, EDD advised that the linkage would
reduce SDI Trust Fund reserves from a high of 91 percent in 1996
to only 54 percent by the end of 2001 and that annual average
worker SDI taxes would increase from $191 to $278 (a 53 percent
increase).
In 2000 the administration imposed a two-tier SDI tax increase
on all workers to avoid SDI Trust Fund bankruptcy. The Chamber
believes SB 1661 places additional strain on an already stressed
program.
The Chamber argues that earlier EDD cost projections have proved
inadequate and far too optimistic. According to the Chamber, new
EDD information shows that as of January 1, 2002, the SDI Trust
Fund reserves plummeted to only 15.4 (a drop of nearly 70
percent). In addition, over the same period, California
worker-paid SDI taxes have more than tripled. Because the
legislature recently increased the workers' compensation
benefits, SDI benefits must increase to match the increased
workers' compensation benefit. Worker taxes will need to
increase to meet the demands of the higher benefits. Proponents
of SB 1661 now want to increase the percentage SDI taxes paid by
workers; plus impose additional, new taxes on both workers and
businesses.
Moreover, the Chamber believes that SB 1661's new paid leave
benefits, paid for by new mandated taxes is impermissible under
federal law. The Chamber claims that the federal Employment
Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) forbids states from
establishing mandated employee welfare benefits such as those
SB 1661
Page 13
contained in SB 1661.
Finally, the Chamber notes that employers are concerned that SB
1661 does not contain any size limitation. The proposed leave
program will apply to all employers regardless of size. The
Chamber believes that this is unnecessary and will harm small
businesses in our state. The Chamber claims that bills like SB
1661 make it even more difficult, and certainly much more
expensive, to do business in California.
Committee Comments
SB 1661 references the CFRA in its intent section. The intent
section may include the public sector.
According to EDD the SDI Trust Fund is healthy. EDD estimates
that there will be a $768 million balance in the SDI Trust Fund
at the end of 2002. EDD estimates the SDI Trust Fund balance at
the end of 2003 to be $1.04 billion and $1.36 billion at the end
of 2004.
The SDI Trust Fund has a statutory rate setting mechanism that
attempts to achieve at 45% reserve at September 30th of a given
year. This level is what is needed to maintain SDI Trust Fund
adequacy. When the SDI Trust Fund balance on September 30th
falls beneath 45% (of prior years' disbursements), the tax rate
automatically triggers a .1% increase. When the SDI Trust Fund
balance exceeds 45% on September 30th, the tax rate
automatically triggers a .1% decrease. The Director of EDD has
limited authority to either increase or decrease the tax rate by
an additional .1% in order to maintain an adequate SDI Trust
Fund balance.
Rather than dropping alarmingly, the reserve adequacy level has
improved in recent years and will continue to be within adequacy
levels under EDD estimates either with or without SB 1661.
Figures comparing the mid-year SDI Trust Fund balance with the
year-end SDI Trust Fund balance may be misleading.
Historically, SDI Trust Fund balance and adequacy levels drop
during the last quarter of the calendar because while benefits
are generally paid out at the same rate throughout a calendar
year, revenue into the SDI Trust Fund falls once workers reach
their taxable wage ceiling.
SB 1661
Page 14
Did the administration impose an unprecedented two-tier SDI tax
increase on workers to avoid SDI Trust Fund bankruptcy in 2002?
To correct an error in establishing the 2000-contribution rate,
a mid-year increase did occur in 2000.
This correction was necessary because, when the Director of EDD
established the SDI contribution rate on September 30, 1999, he
used his discretion to decrease the contribution rate - even
though the September 30th balance would have required an
increase in contributions. By setting the rate at .5% instead
of at the higher rate necessitated by the formula (which may
have been as high as .8%), fund solvency was jeopardized in the
year 2000 until a mid-year increase to .7% was implemented to
correct the inappropriate use of the Director's discretion.
SB 1661's new paid leave benefits are permissible under ERISA.
Section 1003 of ERISA specifies that ERISA provisions do not
apply to employee benefits plans maintained for the purpose of
disability insurance laws.
Prior Related Legislation
AB 109 (Knox), Chapter 164, Statutes of 1999, stipulates that
any employer who provides sick leave for employees must permit
an employee to use, in any calendar year, the employee's accrued
and available sick leave entitlement, in an amount not less than
the sick leave that would be accrued during six months at the
employee's then current rate of entitlement, to attend to an
illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner of the
employee. ("Domestic partner" was added by AB 25 (Migden),
Chapter 893, Statutes of 2001.)
AB 2815 (Kuehl), allowing employees of the State of California,
the California Legislature and the California State University
to be covered by the State Disability Insurance program, was
vetoed by the Governor. The Governor stated in his veto message,
"To the best of my knowledge, this bill conveys no new rights or
benefits to employees. Whether or not this bill becomes law,
employees have the very same rights to negotiate at the
bargaining table for these benefits."
SB 118 (Hayden), providing that an employee may take family care
and medical leave to care for a grandparent or sibling, or
domestic partner, as defined, as well as an adult child, who has
SB 1661
Page 15
a serious health condition or to care for an individual who
depends on the employee for immediate care and support, who
shares a common residence with the employee and who has a
serious health condition was vetoed by the Governor. In his
veto message, the Governor stated: "This measure, while
well-intentioned, extends the right (to take time off) far
beyond what any other state has permitted to a relationship
outside the family - specifically, to individuals who live
together to share expenses if one of those individuals
subsequently becomes seriously ill."
SB 1149 (Speier), providing that the CFRA applies to employers
who employ 20 or more employees within 75 miles of the work-site
where that employee is employed.
SB 1149 (Hayden), vetoed by the Governor, was essentially the
same as SB 118 (supra), providing that an employee may take
family care and medical leave to care for a grandparent or
sibling, or domestic partner, as defined, as well as an adult
child, who has a serious health condition, but does not include
the provision relating to caring for an individual who depends
on the employee for immediate care and support, who shares a
common residence with the employee and who has a serious health
condition. The Governor stated in his veto message: "As I said
when I vetoed an earlier bill by this author [i.e. SB 118], I
would be pleased to consider reasonable changes to the Domestic
Partner Act next year."
SB 656 (Solis), Chapter 973, Statutes of 1999, Increases the
maximum disability benefit from $336 to $490 per week, making
SDI benefits equal to weekly benefits for workers' compensation
temporary disability and indexes SDI levels to future workers'
compensation temporary disability increases. Also requires EDD
to conduct a cost study and report to the Legislature by July 1,
2000, on expanding the definition of "disabled" for the purpose
of qualifying for SDI benefits individuals on leave pursuant to
the Family Rights Act (FRA).
AB 1844 (Washington), allowing a pregnant woman to be eligible
for disability benefits for a period of 10 weeks, as specified,
died in the Senate Appropriations Committee (2000).
SB 1197 (Romero), prohibiting a public or private employer from
adopting an absence control policy that disciplines employees
for use of sick leave to attend to an illness of an employee's
SB 1661
Page 16
child, parent, or spouse was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto
message, the Governor stated: "I agree employees should have a
right to use one half of their paid sick leave to attend to a
sick child, parent or spouse. That is why I signed those
provisions into law in 1999 (AB 109 Knox)."
SB 1471 (Romero), prohibits a public or private employer from
adopting an absence control policy that disciplines employees
for use of sick leave to attend to an illness of an employee's
child, parent, or spouse.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AFSCME
Alliance for Retired Americans, Region 9
American Association of University Women
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Asian Law Caucus
Association of California Caregiver Resource Centers
Banana's
Breast Cancer Fund
California Advocates for Social Change
California Alliance for Pride and Equality
California Association for the Education of Young Children
California Catholic Conference
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network
California Children and Families Commission
California Coalition for Youth
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
California HIV Advocacy Coalition
California Independent Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation (sponsor)
California Medical Association
California National Organization for Women
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Women's Law Center
Center for Community Change
SB 1661
Page 17
Center for the Child Care Workforce
Center on Policy Initiatives
Childcare Health Program
Childcare Law Center
Children NOW
Coalition of Labor Union Women, Capitol Chapter
Coalition of Labor Union Women, East Bay Chapter
Communication Workers of America, District 9
Communication Workers of America, Local 9400
Congress of California Seniors
Compassion in Dying Federation
East Bay Community Law Center
Engineers and Scientists of California
Equal Rights Advocates
Family Caregiver Alliance
Fresno-Madera-Tulare-Kings Central Labor Council
Gray Panthers
Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union
Jericho
Latino Coalition for a Health Family
Labor Project for Working Families
Lambda Letters Project
Legal Aid Society, Employment Law Center
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Older Women's League
Orfalen Family Foundation
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Sacramento Central Labor Council
San Mateo County Central Labor Council
Teamsters
United Farm Workers
United Food & Commercial Workers Region 8 States Council
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 870
United Nurses Association/Union of Health Care Professionals
UTLA
Women's Employment Rights Clinic, Golden Gate School of Law
Women's Cancer Resource Center
Opposition
Agricultural Council of California
Auto Repair Coalition
California Association of Health Facilities (CAHF)
California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors
SB 1661
Page 18
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Healthcare Association
California Healthcare Association (CHA)
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA)
California Milk Producers Council
California Restaurant Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Taxpayers Association
Campaign for California Families
Employers Group
Karl Storz Imaging
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
Solar Turbines, Inc.
TOC Management Services
Analysis Prepared by : Michael Mattoch / INS. / (916) 319-2086