BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman

                                           2716 (Ma)
          
          Hearing Date:  8/4/08           Amended: 8/4/08
          Consultant:  Bob Franzoia       Policy Vote: Labor 3-2
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY: AB 2716 would provide that an employee is entitled  
          to paid sick days which shall be accrued at a rate of no less  
          than one hour for every 30 hours worked. Employers would be  
          required to provide paid sick days, upon request, for diagnosis,  
          care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an  
          employee's family member, or for leave related to domestic  
          violence or sexual abuse.  The bill would require employers to  
          satisfy specific posting and notice and recordkeeping  
          requirements.  The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to  
          administer and enforce these requirements, including the  
          adoption of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief  
          of violations of these requirements.  The bill would specify  
          that it applies to in-home support services (IHSS) except where  
          a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental  
          wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill's requirements for  
          accrual of sick days.  The provisions of the bill would not  
          apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement  
          that provides for sick days, nor would it lessen any other  
          obligations of the employer to employees.  The provisions of the  
          bill would not apply to employees in the construction industry  
          covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement  
          expressly waives the requirements of this bill in clear and  
          unambiguous terms.
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

          Major Provisions         2008-09      2009-10       2010-11     Fund
           Enforcement            $840       $560        $460      General

          Regulations            $30        $60                   General

          Compensation of IHSS   Unknown, potentially millions of  
          dollarsGeneral
          workers                
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____











          STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the  
          Suspense File.
          
          This bill would define paid sick days means any time that is  
          compensated at the same wage as the employee normally earns  
          during regular work hours and is provided by an employer to an  
          employee for diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health  
          condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an  
          employee's family members or for an employee who is a victim of  
          domestic violence or sexual assault.

          The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement would have an  
          estimated 1,398 new claims annually.  It is estimated each claim  
          would require about 2.5 hours of deputy labor commission time.   
          The estimate assumes an average annual caseload of 700 claims  
          per deputy labor commission.  Claims which proceed to hearings  
          would require 

          Page 2
          AB 2716 (Ma)

          one industrial relations counsel.  Additionally, there are one  
          time costs for regulations and ongoing costs of office technical  
          assistance and operations.

          As noted by the Legislative Analyst, beginning in the late  
          1980s, California appellate courts issues a series of opinions  
          addressing the definition of a state-reimbursable mandate.  The  
          courts found that a mandate is created when the state requires  
          local governments to provide a new or upgraded program to the  
          public, or imposes a unique requirement on local governments  
          that does not apply generally to residents and entities of the  
          state.  In County of Los Angeles v State of California (1987)  
          and City of Sacramento v State of California (1990), the  
          California Supreme Court ruled that state laws that extended  
          worker compensation and unemployment insurance protections to  
          local employees did not constitute reimbursable mandates.   
          Specifically, the court found that local government employer  
          obligations were comparable to other employers, and were not  
          attributable to providing a new program to the public.   
          Together, these cases form the basis of what is commonly  
          referred to as the "law of general applicability."  That is, if  
          a statute imposes similar obligations on the private and public  
          sector, the public sector's costs to comply with the requirement  
          do not constitute a state-reimbursable mandate.











          While the "law of general applicability" appears to indicate  
          that the state is not responsible for a reimbursable mandate, it  
          is less clear at this time how the requirements of the bill  
          impact the IHSS program, which provides various services to  
          eligible aged, blind, and disabled persons who are unable to  
          remain safely in their homes without such assistance.  The  
          counties may incur major costs as a result of this bill, and  
          those costs would not be reimbursable, the state may incur major  
          costs for a portion of the IHSS costs, or all of the costs if  
          the counties prevailed in mandate claim.

          In IHSS, the recipient is technically the employer and a  
          provider can work for more than one recipient.  It is unclear if  
          a provider would get seven days of sick leave per provider and  
          who the provider would contact regarding sick leave and how the  
          county is notified.  How this information would be tracked,  
          records on sick leave balances maintained and compensation  
          adjusted is also unclear.  This bill proposes to address this,  
          in part, by allowing a public authority to enter into a  
          collective bargaining agreement that provides an hourly wage  
          adjustment in an amount sufficient to satisfy the accrual  
          requirement (paid sick leave at the rate of no less than one  
          hour for every 30 hours worked), essentially money instead of  
          sick leave.

          How IHSS providers are compensated could have a major cost  
          impact.  There are an estimated 348,383 providers that average  
          1,180 hours of work annually.  Divided by the accrual rate of 30  
          hours specified in this bill that amounts to approximately 39  
          days of sick leave per provider.  At an average wage of $11.22,  
          the hourly wage adjustment would amount to $441 annually per  
          provider.  Multiplied by the estimated 348,338 providers, that  
          is approximately $154,000,000 annually.  The state share of this  
          would be approximately $50,000,000 (32.5 percent cost sharing  
          ratio) and the county share would be approximately $27,000,000  
          (17.5 percent) with the rest being the federal share (50  
          percent).

          Page 3
          AB 2716 (Ma)

          An estimated 58 percent of IHSS providers are related to the  
          IHSS recipient for whom they provide care.  Additionally, many  
          IHSS recipients cannot go for even one day without the services  
          provided to them.  If the usual provider is sick, a back-up  










          provider would likely be provided from the registry maintained  
          by the public authorities that act as the employer of record for  
          IHSS providers in most counties.  (There are a few counties that  
          do not have public authorities).  Unlike other jobs where the  
          work can be put over to the next day or other employees can  
          absorb the work without incurring a second payment of wages, for  
          many cases in IHSS, the back-up provider will be paid in  
          addition to the sick leave payment.