BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1522
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1522 (Gonzalez) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
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 as
specified in this bill.
2)Provides that an employee shall accrue paid sick days at the
rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked, as
specified, and entitles an employee to use accrued paid sick
days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment.
3)Requires paid sick days to carry over to the following
calendar year, but authorizes an employer to limit an
employee's use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three days in
each calendar year.
4)Excludes an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining
agreement that expressly provides for paid sick days or
similar policy as well as an employee in the construction
industry covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement,
as specified.
5)Requires a public authority to comply with the requirements of
the bill for individuals who perform in-home supportive
services, except that the public authority may satisfy these
requirements by entering into a collective bargaining
agreement that provides an incremental hourly wage adjustment
in an amount sufficient to satisfy the accrual requirements of
AB 1522
Page 2
this bill.
6)Requires employers to provide paid sick days for diagnosis,
care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or
preventative care for, an employee or an employee's family
member, as well as for an employee who is a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault or stalking, as specified.
7)Specifies 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 that meets the accrual
requirements and other purposes, as specified.
8)Provides that there shall be a rebuttable presumption of
unlawful retaliation if any employer denies an employee the
right to use paid sick days or takes other specified adverse
action within 90 days of specified protected activities by the
employee.
9)Requires an employer to provide each employee with written
notice of these requirements and retain records for five years
documenting an employee's hours worked and paid sick days
accrued and used, as specified.
10)Requires the Labor Commissioner to coordinate implementation
and enforcement; promulgate guidelines and regulations;
establish administrative procedures, enforcement actions, and
administrative penalties, as specified.
11)Specifies the bill establishes minimum standards do not
preempt, limit or otherwise affect the applicability of any
other law, regulation, requirement, policy, or standard that
provides for greater accrual or use of sick days or that
extends other protections to an employee.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Initial costs of $1.2 million (special funds) to the
Department of Industrial Relations associated with training,
rulemaking, investigation and enforcement of complaints.
Ongoing costs of $1.1 million to DIR for ongoing investigation
and enforcement of wage and retaliation claims.
2)Potential costs of $500,000 to $800,000 (GF) to the Attorney
AB 1522
Page 3
General for investigation and prosecution of statutory
violations, to the extent the bill leads to increased civil
action.
3)Major costs to state and local governments in California, for
example, employee-related costs related to in-home supportive
services (IHSS). There are an estimated 385,485 providers that
average 1,261 hours of work annually. Divided by the accrual
rate of 30 hours specified in this bill, a provider would
accrue approximately 42 hours of sick leave annually.
Providers make an average wage of $12.33. Assuming this
hourly wage adjustment, multiplied by days accrued on an
annual basis, multiplied by the estimated 385,485 providers,
the cost of the annual accrued time would be approximately
$200 million. The bill authorizes a limitation of three days
per year. Assuming this is applied, annual costs for IHSS
providers is approximately $114 million. These costs are paid
with combined county, state, and federal funds. The state
share is 32.5% or approximately $37 million.
This bill proposes to address these costs, 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.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the author, nearly 40 million
private-sector workers do not have paid sick time. Taking
unpaid sick time leaves workers vulnerable to losing their
jobs. Parents with unpaid sick leave are twice as likely to
send a sick child to school and five times as likely to take a
child or family member to the emergency room because of the
inability to take time off during the day. This bill seeks to
reduce the impact illness has on the state's working families.
The bill is substantially similar to prior legislation but is
more limited as it requires employers to provide a minimum of
three sick days, rather than up to nine days.
2)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
AB 1522
Page 4
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. The measure provides for five
to nine sick days, however, a recent study found that the
average level of use was three paid sick days during the
previous year.
3)Opponents , including the California Chamber of Commerce, have
raised concerns over requirements to amend existing leave
policies. Further, they contend that new posting and notice
requirements and additional penalties for noncompliance, put
employers at risk of litigation. The opposition also has
raised concern over the private right of action provision.
They contend that under this provision, a union may file a
lawsuit against an employer on behalf of an employee, thereby
significantly expanding the scope and threat of civil
litigation against small and large employers.
4)Previous legislation
a) AB 400 (Ma) was substantially similar to this bill
except that it limited the use of paid sick days to 40
hours per year or five days (for small businesses) and 72
hours per year or nine days for other businesses. The bill
was held on this committee's Suspense File in May 2011.
b) AB 1000 (Ma), similar to AB 400 of 2011, was held on
this committee's Suspense File in May 2009.
c) AB 2716 (Ma), similar to AB 1000, was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081