BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1000
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1000 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 4-2
Judiciary 7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires employers to provide paid sick days for
employees meeting certain criteria. 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 some 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 for
small businesses (10 or less employees) or 72 hours per year
for other businesses.
4)Requires that sick leave be provided to an employee and/or 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
bargaining agreement that includes paid sick days and
AB 1000
Page 2
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 within the
Department of Industrial Relations anticipates that it would
incur costs of $875,000 in 2009-10, $559,000 in 2010-11, and
$464,000 in 2011-12 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 in-home supportive
services and child care programs. As an example, the accrued
sick leave would increase costs for IHSS by about $13 million
per year, which would be borne by a combination of federal,
state, and local funds.
COMMENTS
1)Background . 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. 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)Rationale . The bill is intended to address the current
situation in which numerous Californians are not provided paid
sick days through their employer. The author asserts that the
bill is a win-win for both workers and employers, citing a
study that claims allowance of paid sick days can reduce
employer costs related to high turnover.
3)Opponents (numerous public and private employer associations)
claim that the ever-increasing burden of costly mandates on
employers can cumulatively result in lower wages, reducing
available health insurance, limiting training programs, and
even job loss or reduced work hours. They further assert that
AB 1000
Page 3
declining tax base leads to decreases in state revenues,
further job loss, and increased demand for unemployment
insurance.
4)Prior legislation . AB 2716 (Ma) of 2008 was identical to this
bill. That bill was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081