BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1000
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
William W. Monning, Chair
AB 1000 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : Paid sick days.
SUMMARY : Requires employers to provide 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 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.
3)Provides that paid sick days shall be carried over to the
following calendar year, but an employer can limit their use
as follows:
a) A small business employer (defined as having ten or
fewer employees during 20 or more calendar workweeks in the
current or preceding calendar year) may limit an employee's
use to 40 hours or five days in each calendar year.
b) All other employers may limit an employee's use to 72
hours or nine days in each calendar year.
4)Specifies that an employee shall be entitled to use paid sick
days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment.
5)Requires an employer, upon oral or written request of an
employee, to provide paid sick days for the following
purposes:
a) Diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health
condition of, or preventative care for, an employee or the
employee's family member.
b) For an employee who is a victim of domestic violence or
sexual assault, as specified.
AB 1000
Page B
6)Defines "family member" to include a child (as specified), a
parent (as specified), a spouse, a registered domestic
partner, a grandparent, a grandchild, or a sibling.
7)Prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to
use sick days, discharging, threatening to discharge,
demoting, suspending or in any manner discriminating against
an employee for using sick days.
8)Establishes a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation
if an employer takes certain action within 90 days of
specified activity on the part of an employee.
9)Requires employers to provide notice of these requirements, as
specified.
10)Requires employers to keep certain records related to paid
sick days for five years.
11)Authorizes the Labor Commissioner to coordinate
implementation and enforcement of these requirements and to
promulgate guidelines and regulations.
12)Authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate alleged
violations and order appropriate relief, including
reinstatement, back pay, the payment of sick days unlawfully
withheld, and additional administrative penalties, as
specified.
13)Authorizes the Labor Commissioner, the Attorney General, a
person aggrieved, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved
to bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction
to recover relief, as specified, including back pay,
penalties, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs.
14)Specifies that this bill establishes minimum requirements and
does not preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability
of any other law or similar requirement that provides greater
accrual or use by employees of sick days, or that extends
other protections to employees.
15)Provides that these requirements do not apply to an employee
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that, among
other things, expressly provides for paid sick days and
finding and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the
AB 1000
Page C
application of those provisions.
16)Provides that these requirements do not apply to employees in
the construction industry covered by a valid collective
bargaining agreement that meets certain conditions but does
not necessarily provide for paid sick days.
17)Specifies that the bill applies to certain public authorities
established to deliver in-home supportive services, except
where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an
incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the
requirements for accrual of sick days.
18)Makes other conforming and related changes to existing law.
19)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the California Labor
Federation, AFL-CIO and California ACORN and is intended to
address the current situation in which a reported 6 million
California workers (or about 40 percent of the workforce) are
not provided paid sick days through their employer.
Existing California law provides for various forms of unpaid and
(in some circumstances) paid leave for employees. Current law
does not, however, generally require employers to provide paid
sick leave, as that term is traditionally used. California law
does impose certain standards to the use of sick leave for those
employers who do provide it (such as "kin care" leave under
Labor Code Section 233) but there is not a general obligation
for employers to provide sick leave.
In 2006, San Francisco voters approved Proposition F, the first
law in the nation that required workers with the ability to earn
and use paid sick days. That measure was implemented and is
enforced by the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards
Enforcement (OLSE). OLSE reports that there is no hard data as
to the utilization of sick leave under the San Francisco law, or
of its impact on employers or employees. However, in terms of
enforcement, OLSE reports that it had approximately 35 formal
complaints the first year of the law and sent an additional 35
cautionary letters to employers about whom anonymous workers had
contacted the office. In addition, OLSE undertook a three-month
AB 1000
Page D
public rulemaking process in early 2007 to clarify outstanding
issues regarding the law and has made over 20 public
presentations to business and merchant associations.
Similar Efforts at the National, State and Federal Levels
Paid sick days legislation has been proposed at the federal,
state and local levels. For several years, a federal Healthy
Families Act has been proposed that would ensure that all
employees working 30 or hours more per week have seven paid sick
days a year. At least fourteen states have proposed legislation
for paid sick days over the last two years. As discussed above,
a San Francisco ordinance enacted in 2006 provides paid sick
days for all workers employed in the city. A similar measure
was narrowly defeated in Madison, Wisconsin.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
The author of this measure states the following:
"Nearly 6 million working Californians - over 40 percent of
all workers in California - are forced to work sick because
they can't earn paid sick days. 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. Any loss of
income may lead to trade-offs between housing, food, health
care, and other essential needs. 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 either have to lose a day's
pay or send their child to school sick and put other
children's health at risk.
[This bill] is modeled after a 2006 San Francisco ordinance
that was passed overwhelmingly by voters. The law has been in
effect for over two years and, according to media reports and
initial studies, employers feel business has proceeded as
usual and the law has not been overly burdensome. The
strength of San Francisco's job market since implementation of
the paid sick days policy suggest that, like minimum and
living wages, adoption of this minimum labor standard does not
adversely affect job growth.
AB 1000
Page E
[This bill] is a win-win for both workers and employers. In
fact, a recent study conducted by the Women's Policy Research
Institute concluded that by allowing workers to earn paid sick
days, the amount which could be saved annually by employers
could reach up to $1 billion. These cost savings are
primarily attributed to the cost of the reduction of worker
turnover."
Proponents of this measure cite to various studies and reports
in their arguments in support of this legislation. First,
supporters contend that lack of paid sick days is a public
health hazard. They point out that the Centers for Disease
Control recommends workers who are ill "stay home from work and
school"<1> to prevent the spread of disease in the community and
workplace. However, they argue that only 15 percent of food
service workers in restaurants and food processing plants have
paid sick days<2>. They also contend that the risk of
occupational health hazard is increased in industries without
paid sick days, and note that 51 percent of all mining
employees, 73 percent of sanitation workers and nearly 500,000
manufacturing employees do not have access to paid sick days<3>.
Proponents also argue that paid sick days reduce the costs of
employee turnover and claim that employees with paid sick days
are less likely to leave their jobs<4>. Every time an employee
leaves a job, it costs the employer 25 percent of a worker's
total compensation, on average, to replace that worker<5>.
Finally, supporters argue that the productivity of workers with
even minor illnesses goes down compared to the productivity of
---------------------------
<1> Centers for Disease Control website: www.cdc.gov
<2> Hartmann, Heidi, Ph.D., Public Testimony, February 2007
hearing on the federal Healthy Families Act.
<3> 2006 National Compensation Survey Analysis by the Labor
Project for Working Families
<4> Lovell V. (2005). Valuing Good Health: An Estimate of Costs
and Savings for the Healthy Families Act. Washington, D.C. :
Institute for Women's Policy Research.
<5> Employment Policy Foundation. (2002). "Employee Turnover - A
Critical Human Resource Benchmark." HR Benchmarks. (December
3): 1-5.
AB 1000
Page F
their healthy co-workers<6>. Moreover, sick workers, or workers
with sick loved ones, who are able to take paid sick days
recover faster from illnesses than those who are forced to go to
work. Therefore, supporters conclude that paid sick days
actually increase employee productivity.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents argue that the ever-increasing burden of costly
mandates on employers can cumulatively result in lower wages,
reducing available health insurance, limiting training programs
and - in the worst case scenario - job loss or reduced work
hours. California's declining tax base results in declining
state revenues, leading to further job loss as well as increased
utilization of unemployment insurance.
Opponents cite to a study by the National Federation of
Independent Business that predicted that, under last year's
proposal, an estimated 370,000 more jobs would be lost over the
next five years if paid sick leave was mandated. They contend
that in an already troubled economy California should be seeking
ways to stimulate job growth and recovery while avoiding costly
mandates on employers.
Several public sector employers oppose this bill, arguing that
leave policies are part of a total compensation and benefits
package that should be determined locally, especially for
employers covered by collective bargaining agreements. They
contend that this bill undermines local control and the
integrity of the collective bargaining process. In addition,
the administrative burdens and additional costs to provide sick
leave will severely restrict the use of extra help and seasonal
employees, which in turn will increase costs and reduce
efficiencies in the delivery of services to the public.
They also argue that this bill poses a particular problem for
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) employees who do not work a
traditional scheduled work week. IHSS providers are paid for
services provided and calculated by the hours they work. This
program is funded by a mix of federal, state and local funds.
They contend federal reimbursement would not be available for
sick leave hours and it is not clear what portion of the cost
burden the state would share. They estimate the annual
statewide liability for providing paid sick days to IHSS
---------------------------
<6> Smith, A. (1989). "A Review of the Effects of Colds and
Influenza on Human Performance." Journal of the Society of
Occupational Medicine. 39: 65-68.
AB 1000
Page G
providers to be $13 million (based on about 39 million hours
worked in 2008 at an average salary of $9.98 per hour).
PRIOR LEGISLATION:
This bill is virtually identical to AB 2716 (Ma) from 2008.
That measure was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
9to5 National Association of Working Women
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California ACORN
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Communities United Institute
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing
Committee
California Professional Firefighters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Engineers and Scientists of California
Family Caregiver Alliance
ILWU, Local 6
International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Jericho
Labor Project for Working Families
Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center
Numerous Individuals
Paid Family Leave Collaborative
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
Strategic Committee of Public Employees, LIUNA
UAW, Local 2865
UNITE HERE!
United Domestic Workers of America/AFSCME
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council
United Transportation Union
United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care
Professionals
AB 1000
Page H
Opposition
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Association of California Water Districts
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association
California Apartment Association
California Association of Collectors
California Association of Health Services at Home
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Automotive Wholesaler's Association
California Bankers Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Chapter of the American Fence Contractors'
Association
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Employment Law Council
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fence Contractors' Association
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
California League of Food Processors
California New Car Dealers Association
California Newspaper Publishers Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Canal Street Grille
Carmelitas
Colombo's Restaurant
Crow's Nest Restaurant
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
Delaware North
Downtown Dining
Employers Group
Engineering Contractors' Association
Far West Equipment Dealers Association
Flasher/Barricade Association
AB 1000
Page I
Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp
Gourmet Fresh Pasta
Granite Bay Golf Club
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
League of California Cities
Ledyard Co.
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
Lyon's of California, Inc.
Marin Builders' Association
McGrath Rentcorp
National Federation of Independent Business
National Right to Work Committee
Numerous Individuals
Paradise Beach Grille
Patisserie Boissiere Restaurant & Patisserie
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Rio Grill Restaurant
Sal's Mexican Restaurants
Shadowbrook Restaurant
State Farm Insurance Companies
Stevenson Restaurants, Inc.
Tomatina
Tresetti's World Caffe
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Growers
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091