I wrote about this the other day. Evidently it died today in Senate.
Strong opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce and businesses up and down the state has stopped legislation that un-reasonably expands an employer’s costs and liability by mandating a specific paid sick leave policy.
Held in the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File on August 7 was AB 2716 (Ma; D-San Francisco)…
…Thomas Sheehy, deputy director of legislation for the California Department of Finance, also opposed the bill, telling Senate Appropriations on August 4 that AB 2716 would cumulatively result in lowering wages, reduce available health insurance, limit job training programs and create job loss and a reduction in work hours for many employees.
“Because this bill would impose a significant burden on California employers at a time when efforts are being made to stimulate job growth and to improve California’s business climate, we can’t support this measure,” Sheehy said.
The bill mandated, without exception, that all employers provide paid sick leave to an employee after seven days of work in a calendar year to care for their own illness, or to provide to a sick child, spouse, domestic partner or other relative.
Sheehy labeled the costs of the bill as a strong reason why the Finance Department opposed AB 2716. The General Fund costs would approach $600,000 in the 2008-09 fiscal year and $1 million in 2009-10, and it would be ongoing for the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement at the Department of Industrial Relations, he said.
Not included in the Finance Department’s cost estimate was the significant unreimbursed costs the bill would cause for cities, counties and school districts to pay sick leave for part-–time workers, student assistants, seasonal and temporary employees.
Lukewarm to me at best.