Calif. could be first to mandate paid sick leave

FRESNO, Calif. -- Supporters are pleased and business groups are worried now that legislation requiring paid sick leave for 6 million California workers has cleared the Assembly.

Assembly Bill 2716, authored by Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, was approved by the Assembly last week on a 43-25 vote and now moves to the Senate. There, it likely faces a tougher challenge as it moves through several committees, starting in late June.

If the bill is approved, California would become the first state in the nation to ensure paid sick days for workers.

"We are hopeful that it will squeak through," said Jeremy Smith, legislative advocate for the California Labor Federation. "But the Senate is a little more moderate, and it will be a bit more difficult."

The bill faces tough opposition from the National Federation of Independent Business/California and the California Chamber of Commerce, which has placed the legislation on its "job killer" list.

Since taking office, the governor has vetoed about 90 percent of the bills that make the list, the chamber said last year.

California Labor Federation and California ACORN officials, co-sponsors of the bill, said they have picked up support from more than 50 organizations and the attention of researchers.

Korey Capozza, a health policy analyst for the University of California at Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education, found that California's sick-day bill not only benefits individual workers but also the public at large.

Capozza said allowing workers the time off to care for themselves or their family members can help reduce the transmission of food-borne illnesses, decrease disease outbreaks and reduce the spread of infections in work places and care facilities.

Without paid time off, supporters said workers are more likely to continue working while they are sick for fear of losing money or their jobs.

As part of the bill, employees in small businesses can accrue paid sick time for up to 40 hours, or five days, each calendar year. It gives all other workers 72 hours, or nine days, per calendar year.

"This has larger implications that should not be left to individual business to decide if they want to do it or not," Capozza said. "The cost to public health is something that is best addressed by a larger intermediary like the state or government."

Small business owner Ruth Evans of Fresno said she isn't against the idea of paid sick leave; she has it for her six employees. But what she objects to is government telling businesses they have to provide the benefit.

"Employers who can afford it will provide it and provide as much as they can," said Evans, owner of The Evans HR Group, a Fresno human resource services company. "But this is an added cost for businesses and some may not be able to afford it."

John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California, said that while the bill is well-intended, it not only puts the burden of providing the benefit on the employer but also opens companies up to costly litigation if they make a simple mistake.

"In a seriously down economy, our Legislature should be looking at supporting and providing incentives to business," Kabateck said. "They shouldn't be imposing costly mandates."

(E-mail Robert Rodriguez at brodriguez(at)fresnobee.com)

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)