Assembly Bill Would Mandate Paid Sick Days

Ventura County Star, April 10, 2008

By Timm Herdt

SACRAMENTO - State lawmakers on Wednesday took the first step toward making California the only state in the nation to require employers to provide paid sick days to workers.

Although paid sick days have long been a benefit enjoyed by higher-income workers, sponsors of the bill say 6 million California workers, or about 42 percent of the work force, must choose between going to work sick or missing a day's pay.

That choice, argued Dr. Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, puts millions of Californians at risk.

Bhatia testified before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, which approved AB2716 on a party-line vote, with majority Democrats in support.

Calling the issue "as much a public health policy as a labor policy," Bhatia noted that only 15 percent of workers in the food service industry have paid sick days, the lowest rate among major industries.

"Food-borne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses in the United States each year," he said. "More than half of all food-borne illness outbreaks in the United States occur in restaurants. … Ninety percent of those cases trace back to employees who are ill."

He also noted other categories of low-income employees who generally do not have paid sick time include those who are also in a position to easily spread disease: home healthcare workers and child-care workers.

The bill by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, would allow workers to earn one hour of sick pay for every 30 hours worked.

Those who work for employers with 10 or fewer employees could accumulate up to five sick days per year. Those who work for larger employers could accumulate up to nine days.

The bill is opposed by every major employer group in the state, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Restaurant Association, the Hospital Association, the National Federation of Independent Business and the League of Food Processors.

"Of course, paid sick leave is a good thing," said Michael Belote, lobbyist for the California Employment Law Council. "The question is whether it is now the time to impose this obligation on every California employer."

Marti Fisher, lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce, argued the bill is so expansive that it would disrupt policies even at companies that now have generous sick leave policies. For example, she said, companies that cluster vacation days and sick days under the umbrella of "paid time off" would have to abandon that policy.

The bill is sponsored by the California Labor Federation, which on Wednesday released a new study conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Among its findings: Newly covered workers would use an average of 1.7 sick days per year, the program would cost employers $1.3 billion a year, and employers would save $2.3 billion annually, mainly from reduced turnover costs.

"Our research shows that it is possible to provide Californians with paid sick days without negatively impacting California employers," said Vicky Lovell, author of the report.

Although opponents expressed fear that mandated paid sick time would create the potential for abuse — employees calling in sick when they are not — Lovell noted the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that half of workers who now have paid sick days do not take any days off for illness in a given year.

The city of San Francisco implemented mandated paid sick days in February 2007, and the District of Columbia passed a similar statute earlier this year. No state has adopted such a policy, although legislatures in

Massachusetts and Ohio are also considering bills this year.