BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
As Amended June 15, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW
SUBJECT
Employment: Paid Sick Days
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces
Act of 2014 and require employers to provide at least three paid
sick days for an employee who works for 30 or more days in a
calendar year. This bill would authorize an employee to use
accrued sick days only after three months of employment.
This bill would also prohibit an employer from denying an
employee the right to use accrued sick days or in any manner
discriminating against the employee for attempting to exercise
the right to use accrued sick days or enforcing his or her
rights under this bill. This bill would provide a rebuttable
presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer denies an
employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharges,
threatens discharge, demotes, suspends, or in any manner
discriminates against the employee, as specified. This bill
would also authorize the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General
to bring a civil action against the employer for violations and
authorize an award of reinstatement, backpay, the payment of
sick days unlawfully withheld, liquidated damages, as specified,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and interest.
BACKGROUND
In order to address concerns of employees in fear of losing
their jobs when taking sick leave, the Legislature enacted AB
109 (Knox, Ch. 164, Stats. 1999), which established guidelines
for paid sick leave, if offered by the employer, and provided
(more)
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 2 of ?
protections for employees who utilize the employer's paid sick
leave program. AB 109 prohibited retaliation and discrimination
against the employee who uses the program, and authorized the
Labor Commissioner or the employee to enforce the protection
provided in that bill. That bill authorized recovery of wages,
penalties, and other compensation on behalf of the aggrieved
employees, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's fees for
the prevailing employee.
Since 1999, the economic security for working families has
declined. In a recent national study of this problem and how it
is associated with paid sick days, the study found:
nearly 40 million private-sector workers do not have paid sick
time;
employees without paid sick time are likely to go to work
sick, where they will have reduced productivity, at a
significant cost both to their employer and to their
possibility for professional advancement;
without paid sick leave, parents are forced to send sick
children to school, which could potentially impact their
long-term health and educational performance;
a two-child family with two workers earning the average wage
for workers without paid sick time would lose the family's
entire health care budget after just three days of missed
work;
a two-child family with a single working parent earning the
average wage for workers without paid sick time ($10/hour)
cannot miss more than three days of work in a month without
falling below the federal poverty line; and
taking unpaid sick time leaves workers vulnerable to losing
their jobs in an economy with a stubbornly high long-term
unemployment rate. (E. Gould, K. Filion, A. Green, The need
for paid sick days: The lack of a federal policy further
erodes family economic security (June 29, 2011)
[as of June 16, 2014].)
That study also found that, "despite the obvious need for paid
sick time for workers and their families, there is currently no
federal law that ensures all workers are able to earn such paid
leave. As a result, only about 62% of private-sector workers
have paid sick time, leaving almost 40 million workers without
this basic protection." (Id.)
In 2007, San Francisco County passed the San Francisco Paid Sick
Leave Ordinance, which requires employers to provide paid sick
leave for all employees, including temporary and part-time
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 3 of ?
employees, who work within the county. The San Francisco Paid
Sick Leave Ordinance became effective on February 5, 2007.
Since 2008, there have been multiple attempts to address the
economic and financial instability resulting from workers taking
leave without pay. However, legislation to require employers to
provide sick days has been unsuccessful. AB 2716 (Ma, 2008)
would have required employers to provide paid sick days to
employees who work for seven or more days in a calendar year.
AB 2716 was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations; that
bill did not come through this Committee. AB 1000 (Ma, 2009)
was substantially similar to AB 2716 and was held in the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB 400 (Ma, 2012) was
substantially similar to both of those bills and was held in the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
This bill, which would also require employers to provide paid
sick days to employees, is similar to AB 2716, AB 1000, and AB
400 but contains significant differences as discussed further
below.
This bill was heard in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations
Committee on June 11, 2014, and passed out on a 3-1 vote.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law requires an employer to, semimonthly or at the time
of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees,
either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher
paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid
by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in
writing showing specified information, including gross wages
earned and the amount of hours worked by the employee. (Lab.
Code Sec. 226.)
Existing law provides for various forms of unpaid and (in some
circumstances) paid leave for employees. (Lab. Code Sec. 233;
Gov. Code Sec. 12945 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2606 et seq.)
Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees
with paid sick leave, and any employer that chooses to provide
sick leave must allow an employee to use accrued and available
sick leave, 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. (Lab. Code Sec. 233(a).)
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law provides that sick leave can be used by the
employee for any of the following reasons:
being physically or mentally unable to work due to illness,
injury, or a medical condition of the employee;
obtaining professional diagnosis of treatment for a medical
condition of the employee;
other medical reasons of the employee, such as pregnancy or
obtaining a physical examination; or
to attend to an illness of a child, parent, spouse, or
domestic partner of the employee. (Lab. Code Sec. 233(b)(4).)
Existing law does not require this sick leave to accrue, from
one year to the next, nor does it vest. In addition, sick leave
does not extend the maximum period of leave to which an employee
is entitled under other leaves, such as the federal Family and
Medical Leave Act, regardless of whether sick leave is received
during that leave. (Lab. Code Sec. 233(a).)
Existing law prohibits employers from denying an employee the
right to use sick leave or discharge, threaten to discharge,
demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an
employee for using, or attempting to use, sick leave to attend
to an illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner of
the employee, and a violation of this right entitles employees
to reinstatement and actual damages or one day's pay, whichever
is greater, and to appropriate equitable relief. The employee
can either file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner or bring
a civil action for remedies. (Lab. Code Sec. 233(d), (e).)
Existing law provides that an employer absence control policy
that counts sick leave as an absence that may lead to or result
in discipline, discharge, demotion, or suspension is a per se
violation, and an employee working under that policy is entitled
to appropriate legal and equitable relief, as specified. (Lab.
Code Sec. 234.)
Existing law , the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), makes
it an unlawful practice for an employer, unless based on a bona
fide occupational qualification, to refuse to allow a female
employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical
condition to take a leave for a reasonable period of time not to
exceed four months and thereafter return to work. The employee
is entitled to utilize any accrued vacation leave during this
period of time. (Gov. Code Sec. 12945(a)(1).)
Existing law authorizes any person claiming to be aggrieved by
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 5 of ?
an alleged unlawful practice may file with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing a verified complaint, in writing,
that shall state the name and address of the person, employer,
labor organization, or employment agency alleged to have
committed the unlawful practice complained of, and that shall
set forth the particulars thereof and contain other information
as may be required by the department. The Director of Fair
Employment and Housing or his or her authorized representative
may in like manner, on his or her own motion, make, sign, and
file a complaint. (Gov. Code Sec. 12960(b).)
Existing law authorizes, where an unlawful practice alleged in a
verified complaint adversely affects, in a similar manner, a
group or class of persons of which the aggrieved person filing
the complaint is a member, or where such an unlawful practice
raises questions of law or fact which are common to such a group
or class, the aggrieved person or the Director of Fair
Employment and Housing to file the complaint on behalf and as
representative of such a group or class. Any complaint so filed
may be investigated as a group or class complaint, and, if in
the judgment of the Director, circumstances warrant, shall be
treated as such for purposes of conciliation, dispute
resolution, and civil action. (Gov. Code Sec. 12961.)
Existing law authorizes the court to grant relief in a FEHA
action any relief a court is empowered to grant in a civil
action, in addition to any other relief that, in the judgment of
the court, will effectuate the purpose of this part. This
relief may include a requirement that the employer conduct
training for all employees, supervisors, and management on the
requirements of this part, the rights and remedies of those who
allege a violation of this part, and the employer's internal
grievance procedures. In addition, in order to vindicate the
purposes and policies of this part, a court may assess against
the defendant, if the civil complaint or amended civil complaint
so prays, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 to be awarded to a
person denied any right provided under the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, as an unlawful practice prohibited under FEHA. (Gov. Code
Sec. 12965(c).)
This bill would require an employer to include in the required
itemized statement provided to an employee the amount of paid
sick leave accrued and used.
This bill would enact the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces
Act of 2014, and provide that an employee who, on or after July
1, 2015, works in California for 30 or more days in a calendar
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 6 of ?
year is entitled to paid sick days, as specified.
This bill would prescribe that an employee will accrue paid sick
days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours
worked, beginning at the commencement of employment or the
operative date of this article, whichever is later, and an
employee who is exempt from overtime requirements as an
administrative, executive, or professional employee under a wage
order of the Industrial Welfare Commission is deemed to work 40
hours per workweek, unless the employee's normal workweek is
less than 40 hours, in which case the employee shall accrue paid
sick days based upon that normal workweek.
This bill would entitle an employee to use accrued paid sick
days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment, after
which day the employee may use paid sick days as they are
accrued.
This bill would provide that accrued paid sick days carry over
to the following year of employment; however, an employer may
limit an employee's use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three
days in each calendar year of employment.
This bill would provide that an employer is not required to
provide additional paid sick days if the employer has a paid
leave policy or paid time off policy and the employer makes
available an amount of leave that satisfies the accrual
requirements and that may be used for the same purposes and
under the same conditions, as specified; however, an employer is
not required to provide compensation to an employee for accrued,
unused paid sick days upon termination, resignation, retirement,
or other separation from employment.
This bill would specify that, if an employee separates from an
employer and is rehired by the employer within one year,
previously accrued and unused paid sick days shall be
reinstated, and the employee would be entitled to use those
previously accrued and unused paid sick days and to accrue
additional paid sick days upon rehiring.
This bill would authorize an employer to lend paid sick days to
an employee in advance of accrual, at the employer's discretion,
and with proper documentation.
This bill would require, upon the oral or written request of an
employee, an employer to provide paid sick days for the
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 7 of ?
diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition
of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee's family
member, and, for an employee who is a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as specified.
This bill would prohibit an employer from requiring as a
condition of using paid sick days that the employee search for
or find a replacement worker to cover the days during which the
employee uses paid sick days.
This bill would prohibit an employer from denying an employee
the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to
discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate
against an employee for using accrued sick days, attempting to
exercise the right to use accrued sick days, filing a complaint
with the department or in a court alleging a violation of this
bill, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an
alleged violation, or opposing any policy or practice or act
that is prohibited by this bill.
This bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of unlawful
retaliation if an employer denies an employee the right to use
accrued sick days, discharges, threatens to discharge, demotes,
suspends, or in any manner discriminates against an employee
within 30 days of any of the following:
the filing of a complaint by the employee with the Labor
Commissioner alleging a violation of this bill;
the cooperation of an employee with an investigation or
prosecution of an alleged violation; or
opposition by the employee to a policy, practice, or act that
is prohibited by this bill.
This bill would require an employer to give each employee
written notice of the requirements of this bill in English, in
additional languages, as specified, and any other language
spoken by at least 5 percent of the employees. This bill would
also require the Labor Commissioner to create a written notice
containing this information and make it available to employers.
This bill would require the written notice to state the
following:
that an employee is entitled to accrue, request, and use paid
sick days;
the amount of paid sick days provided for by this bill;
the terms of use of paid sick days; and
that retaliation or discrimination against an employee who
requests paid sick days or uses paid sick days, or both, is
prohibited and that an employee has the right under this
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 8 of ?
article to file a complaint or bring a civil action against an
employer who retaliates or discriminates against the employee.
This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to create a
poster containing this information and make it available to
employers, who would be required, in each workplace of the
employer, to display a poster in a conspicuous place containing
all the information in the notice.
This bill would subject an employer who willfully violates the
notice and posting requirements of this bill to a civil penalty
of not more than $100 for each offense.
This bill would require an employer to keep for at least five
years records documenting the hours worked and paid sick days
accrued and used by an employee.
This bill would require an employer to allow the Labor
Commissioner access to those records with appropriate notice and
at a mutually agreeable time to monitor compliance with this
bill and would require the employer to make these records
available to an employee. This bill would specify that, if an
employer does not maintain adequate records as required, it
would be presumed that the employee is entitled to the maximum
number of hours accruable under this article, unless the
employer can show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to coordinate
implementation and enforcement of this bill and promulgate
guidelines and regulations for those purposes.
This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce
violations under this bill, including investigating an alleged
violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate
the violation or to maintain the status quo pending the
completion of a full investigation or hearing.
This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner, after a
hearing that contains adequate safeguards to ensure that the
parties are afforded due process to determine that a violation
of this bill has occurred, to order any appropriate relief,
including reinstatement, backpay, the payment of sick days
unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum in the
form of an administrative penalty to an employee or other person
whose rights under this bill were violated.
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 9 of ?
This bill would provide that, if paid sick days were unlawfully
withheld, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the
employee multiplied by three, or $250, whichever amount is
greater, which must be included in the administrative penalty.
In addition, this bill would provide that, if a violation of
this bill results in other harm to the employee or person, such
as discharge from employment, or otherwise results in a
violation of the rights of the employee or person, the
administrative penalty shall include a sum of $50 for each day
or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued.
This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner, where prompt
compliance by an employer is not forthcoming, to take any
appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including
the filing of a civil action. This bill would authorize the
Labor Commissioner, in compensation to the state for the costs
of investigating and remedying the violation, to order the
violating employer to pay to the state a sum of not more than
$50 for each day or portion of a day a violation occurs or
continues for each employee or other person whose rights under
this bill were violated, and would require these funds to be
allocated to the Labor Commissioner to offset the costs of
implementing and enforcing this bill.
This bill would authorize an employee or other person to report
to the Labor Commissioner a suspected violation of this bill,
and require the Labor Commissioner to encourage reporting by
keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by
applicable law, the name and other identifying information of
the employee or person reporting the violation. However, the
Labor Commissioner would be authorized to disclose that person's
name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this
bill or for other appropriate purposes, upon the authorization
of that person.
This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney
General to bring a civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this
bill and, upon prevailing, would be entitled to collect legal or
equitable relief on behalf of the aggrieved employee as may be
appropriate to remedy the violation, including reinstatement,
backpay, the payment of sick days unlawfully withheld, the
payment of an additional sum as liquidated damages in the amount
of $50 to each employee or person whose rights under this bill
were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation
occurred or continued, plus, if the employer has unlawfully
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 10 of ?
withheld paid sick days to an employee, the dollar amount of
paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three;
or $250, whichever amount is greater; and reinstatement in
employment or injunctive relief; and further require an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, provided, however, that
any person or entity enforcing this bill on behalf of the public
as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon
prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive, or
restitutionary relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
This bill would require the Labor Commissioner or court, in an
administrative or civil action brought under this bill, as the
case may be, to award interest on all amounts due and unpaid.
This bill would specify that the remedies, penalties, and
procedures provided under this bill are cumulative, and the bill
would not limit or affect any laws guaranteeing the privacy of
health information, or information related to domestic violence
or sexual assault, regarding an employee or employee's family
member; that information would be treated as confidential and
not be disclosed to any person except to the affected employee,
or as required by law.
This bill would provide that it should not be construed to
discourage or prohibit an employer from adopting or retaining a
paid sick day policy more generous than the one required under
this bill.
This bill would provide that it does not lessen the obligation
of an employer to comply with a contract, collective bargaining
agreement, employment benefit plan, or other agreement providing
more generous sick days to an employee than required under this
bill.
This bill would specify that it establishes minimum requirements
pertaining to paid sick days and does not preempt, limit, or
otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation,
requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater
accrual or use by employees of sick days, whether paid or
unpaid, or that extends other protections to an employee.
This bill would require a public authority, as specified, to
comply with this bill for individuals who perform domestic
services comprising in-home supportive services, as specified.
This bill would provide that a public authority may satisfy this
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 11 of ?
bill by entering into a collective bargaining agreement that
provides an incremental hourly wage adjustment in an amount
sufficient to satisfy the accrual requirements, as specified.
This bill would exclude from the definition of "employee" all of
the following:
an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement
if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of
work, and working conditions of employees, and expressly
provides for paid sick days or a paid leave or paid time off
policy that permits the use of sick days for those employees,
final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the
application of its paid sick days provisions, premium wage
rates for all overtime hours worked, and regular hourly rate
of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum
wage rate; and
an employee in the construction industry, as defined, covered
by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement
expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working
conditions of employees, premium wage rates for all overtime
hours worked, and regular hourly pay of not less than 30
percent more than the state minimum wage rate, and the
agreement either was entered into before January 1, 2015, or
expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and
unambiguous terms.
This bill would define "employer" to mean any person employing
another under any appointment or contract of hire, including the
state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities.
This bill would define "family member" to mean any of the
following:
a child, which for purposes of this article means a
biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, legal ward,
or a child to whom the employee stands in loco parentis, and
this definition applies regardless of age or dependency
status;
a biological, adoptive, or foster parent, stepparent, or legal
guardian of an employee or the employee's spouse or registered
domestic partner, or a person who stood in loco parentis when
the employee was a minor child;
a spouse;
a registered domestic partner;
a grandparent;
a grandchild; or
a sibling.
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 12 of ?
This bill would define "paid sick days" to mean 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.
This bill would include legislative finding and declarations
regarding the need for workers to take time off from work to
take care of his or her own health or the health of family
members.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Under current law, employers are not required to provide
short-term paid sick days. Some cities across the nation,
including San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington D.C., and
recently the state of Connecticut, have all enacted
legislation that sets a number of minimum days of paid sick
leave a worker can use in a year.
AB 1522 will add California to this growing movement of
providing all employees with the ability to take care of
themselves or a family member without risking economic or job
security. This bill will also reduce the impact of
"presenteeism" which deals with the loss of productivity of
sick employees that show up [to] work. Finally, this bill will
decrease health care costs with an expected reduction of
emergency room visits by allowing workers to get preventive
treatment before serious complications.
2. Requiring employers to provide paid sick leave
This bill would enact the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces
Act of 2014 and require employers to provide at least three paid
sick days for an employee who works for 30 or more days in a
calendar year. Existing law authorizes an employer to provide a
paid sick leave program and provides discrimination and
retaliation protections to employees who use that program.
The author asserts that studies have found that providing sick
days to workers saves money for businesses by reducing turnover,
reducing the spread of illness in the workplace, and improving
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 13 of ?
workers' morale and productivity. Further, the author asserts
that this bill would allow workers to earn paid sick days to use
for personal illness, care for a sick family member, and recover
from domestic violence or assault.
California Nurses Association (CNA), in support, asserts that
"[t]he need for this bill is real and urgent. A new study by
the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that in San
Diego alone, 44% or about 433,000 private sector employees lack
a single earned sick day. The same study found that the
industries with the lowest access to earned sick days are those
that require frequent or direct contact with our food which
raises important health concerns." CNA argues that this bill
will decrease health care costs, reduce community contagion when
employees are able to take time away from work when sick, and
supports children and families by allowing a parent to stay home
with a sick child, keeping the child away from other children
and school teachers. In these ways, CNA asserts that this bill
will have a ripple effect and save tax-payers' dollars going to
health care costs by limiting the amount of emergency room
visits and reduce the community contagion caused by sick
employees reporting to work or sick children unable to stay at
home with a parent.
3. Discrimination and retaliation protections
This bill would also prohibit an employer from denying an
employee the right to use accrued sick days or in any manner
discriminating against the employee for attempting to exercise
the right to use accrued sick days or enforcing his or her
rights under this bill. This bill would provide a rebuttable
presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer denies an
employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharges,
threatens discharge, demotes, suspends, or in any manner
discriminates against the employee, as specified.
Notably, this bill would mirror existing discrimination and
retaliation protections provided to employees of employers who
establish paid sick leave programs. Arguably, providing the
same protections for mandated employer paid sick leave programs
as those for voluntary employer paid sick leave programs
furthers the same public purpose of helping to provide financial
stability to those most vulnerable to losing their jobs in an
economy with a stubbornly high long-term unemployment rate.
4. Enforcement actions
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 14 of ?
This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner or Attorney
General to bring a civil action against the employer for
violations under this bill. Existing law authorizes either the
Labor Commissioner or the employee to file the civil action for
paid sick leave violations. Notably, this bill no longer
provides for a private right of action.
Further, under existing law for paid sick leave violations, the
employee is entitled to reinstatement, actual damages or one
day's pay, whichever is greater, and equitable relief. The
employee is also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's
fees and costs. Similarly, this bill would provide
reinstatement and an award of backpay, the payment of sick days
unlawfully withheld, liquidated damages, as specified,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and interest. Liquidated
damages are typically used to deter violations of labor laws.
Arguably, these remedies would further the legislative purpose
of providing employee's with strong employment protections.
5. Oppositions' concerns
Opponents representing many large and small business
associations, including the National Federation of Independent
Business, California Employment Law Council, and the California
Chamber of Commerce, argue that this bill would unreasonably
expand employers' burdens, costs, and liability. Opponents also
state that many California employers provide paid sick leave
and/or paid vacation time even though current law does not
require it. Opponents conclude that in an already troubled
economy California should be seeking ways to stimulate job
growth and avoid forcing costly mandates on employers.
In response, the author asserts that the chief concern of
employers deals with their objections to a mandate to provide at
least three days of compensated sick leave every year.
Currently, there are an estimated five million to six million
employees in California who cannot take an hour off of work to
care for themselves or a family member without fear of losing
pay or even their job. The author argues that a mandate is
necessary in order to provide this necessary workplace
protection, similar to the Legislature's actions on rest and
meal breaks, minimum wage, and overtime. Further, the author
asserts that this bill would actually deliver substantial cost
savings to businesses both large and small because it would
reduce the number of sick employees passing illnesses to
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 15 of ?
co-workers, which reduces productivity, nonfatal occupational
injuries would decrease, and jurisdictions that have passed a
paid sick day ordinance giving qualified workers between five
and nine sick days per year report no discernible negative
impacts on employment figures.
Support : Alameda Labor Council, AFL-CIO; American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; American Civil
Liberties Union; Breathe California; California Catholic
Conference of Bishops; California Conference Board of the
Amalgamated Transit Union; California Conference of Machinists;
California Employment Lawyers Association; California Federation
of Teachers; California Latino Legislative Caucus; California
Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California Professional
Firefighters; California School Employees Association;
California Teachers Association; California Teamsters Public
Affairs Council; Consumer Federation of California; Engineers
and Scientists of California; Glendale City Employees
Association; Hollywood Remembers, Inc.; International Longshore
& Warehouse Union; International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Southern California District Council; National Association of
Social Workers - California Chapter; Organization of SMUD
Employees; Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21; San
Bernardino Public Employees Association; San Luis Obispo County
Employees Association; Santa Rosa City Employees Association;
UNITE HERE!; Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132; Young
Invincibles
Opposition : Acclamation Insurance Management Services; Air
Conditioning Trade Association; Alhambra Chamber of Commerce;
Allied Managed Care; Associated Builders and Contractors - San
Diego Chapter; Associated Builders and Contractors of
California; Associated General Contractors; Association of
California Healthcare Districts; Automotive Services Councils of
California; Brawley Chamber of Commerce; Brea Chamber of
Commerce; California Asian Chamber of Commerce; California
Association for Health Services at Home; California Association
of Joint Powers Authorities; California Association of Licensed
Security Agencies, Guards and Associates; California Association
of Winegrape Growers; California Attractions and Parks
Association; California Beer & Beverage Distributors; California
Business Properties Association; California Business Roundtable;
California Chamber of Commerce; California Chapter of American
Fence Association; California Concrete Contractors Association;
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 16 of ?
California Employment Law Council; California Fence Contractors'
Association; California Grocers Association; California Hotel &
Lodging Association; California Independent Grocers Association;
California Manufacturers and Technology Association; California
New Car Dealers Association; California Newspaper Publishers
Association; California Professional Association of Specialty
Contractors; California Restaurant Association; California
Retailers Association; California Special Districts Association;
California State Association of Counties; California State
Council of the Society for Human Resource Management; California
Travel Association; California Trucking Association; CAWA -
Representing the Automotive Parts Industry; Chambers of Commerce
Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties; City of La Mirada;
Consolidated Communications (formerly SureWest); Dana Point
Chamber of Commerce; Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce and
Visitors Center; El Centro Chamber of Commerce; Engineering
Contractors' Association; First Choice Business Brokers; Flasher
Barricade Association; Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce;
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce; Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater
Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce; Greater Riverside Chambers of
Commerce; Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce;
Higher Power SEO; HOCOA; Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce;
Independent Energy Solutions; James M. Morrison Insurance
Services, Inc.; Kennedy & Associates; League of California
Cities; Lodi Chamber of Commerce; Long Beach Area Chamber of
Commerce; Marin Builders Association; National Federation of
Independent Business; National Right to Work Committee; North
Coast Signs; North County Administrative Services Incorporated;
Orange County Business Council; Oxnard Chamber of Commerce; Palm
Desert Area Chamber of Commerce; Plenums Plus;
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California;
Porterville Chamber of Commerce; Premierehire; R & L
Alvarez-Malo, Inc.; Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce; Reiker
Machine; Rural County Representatives of California; San Diego
East County Chamber of Commerce; San Gabriel Valley Coalition;
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce; Santa Clara Chamber
of Commerce and Convention-Visitors Bureau; Simi Valley Chamber
of Commerce; Society for Human Resource Management; Southwest
California Legislative Council; Tahoe Chamber of Commerce; The
Gardens; Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce; The Joint Encinitas;
The Joint Oceanside; Turlock Chamber of Commerce; Urban Counties
Caucus; Visalia Chamber of Commerce; Visiting Angels; Western
Electrical Contractors Association; Wine Institute; Three
Individuals
AB 1522 (Gonzalez)
Page 17 of ?
HISTORY
Source : California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California State
Council of the Service Employees International Union
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 400 (Ma, 2012) See Background.
AB 1000 (Ma, 2009) See Background.
AB 2716 (Ma, 2008) See Background.
AB 109 (Knox, Ch. 164, Stats. 1999) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations (Ayes 3, Noes
1)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 52, Noes 23)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment (Ayes 5, Noes 1)
**************