BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 400
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 400 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 14, 2011
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-1
Judiciary 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires employees, who meet certain criteria, to be
paid sick days, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that an employee who works in California for seven or
more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days,
compensated at the same wage as the employee normally earns
during regular work hours.
2)Specifies that paid sick days accrue at the rate of no less
than one hour for every 30 hours worked. Provides that an
employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning
on the 90th calendar day of employment.
3)Limits the use of paid sick days to 40 hours per year or five
days in each calendar year for small businesses (10 or less
employees) or 72 hours per year or nine days in each calendar
year for other businesses.
4)Requires that sick leave be provided to an employee and/or for
the care of the employee's family member for the diagnosis,
care, or treatment of and existing health condition, and for
victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
5)Defines family member to include a child, parent, spouse,
registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild, sibling,
step child, or a legal ward.
6)Provides that the sick leave requirements specified in the
bill do not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective
AB 400
Page 2
bargaining agreement that includes paid sick days and
arbitration procedures. Provides that the requirements do not
apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a
valid collective bargaining agreement that meets various
conditions but does not necessarily include sick leave.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DSLE) within the
Department of Industrial Relations anticipates that it would
incur costs of approximately $875,000 in 2010-11, $559,000 in
2011-12, and $464,000 in 2012-13 and thereafter (special
funds) associated with rulemaking and ongoing investigation
and enforcement of complaints.
2)Major costs to state and local governments in California,
particularly for employee-related costs related to in-home
supportive services and child care programs. As an example,
the accrued sick leave would increase costs for the In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS) program by about $13 million per
year, which would be borne by a combination of federal, state,
and local funds.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Existing law provides employees the opportunity
to take both paid and unpaid leave from work without fear of
discharge or discrimination for a number of specified
purposes, including personal and family sick leave. Current
law does not, however, generally require employers to provide
paid sick leave. In 2006, San Francisco voters approved
Proposition F, the first law in the nation that requires
employers to provide sick leave. That measure is enforced by
the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "The lack of paid sick days
negatively impacts family economic security and harms public
health. Workers who have no paid sick days are forced to make
an impossible choice: lose pay and risk job loss to care for a
personal illness or care for a sick family member. Many
workers who show up to work sick handle our food at
restaurants, take care of our kids at daycare centers, and
nurse the sick and elderly. When workers are forced to work
sick, their germs become our germs. Parents without paid sick
days put other children's health at risk." This bill requires
AB 400
Page 3
employers to provide paid sick leave, as specified.
3)Opponents of this measure argue this bill places a significant
burden on employers and will ultimately lead to litigation.
Specifically, opponents cite California's 12% unemployment
rate and argue this additional mandate will lead to more
businesses closing, which will exacerbate the state's
unemployment problem. They also argue that if businesses
close, they state will ultimately see a decline in revenue
during this difficult fiscal time.
4)Previous legislation . AB 1000 (Ma), similar to this bill, was
held on this committee's suspense file in May 2009.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081