08/15/2008
A proposed mandate that would have made California the first state in the nation to universally require employers to provide workers with paid sick leave was defeated in the state's Senate Appropriations Committee last week. NFIB opposed the mandate, as it would have forced small business owners to implement a policy regardless of whether it was in the best interest of their company or employees.
NFIB has historically opposed sick leave mandates, as they assume small business owners do not offer flexible leave policies, which is not true. According to an NFIB Small Business Poll, 96 percent of small business owners provide flexible working hours for employees in the event of a personal situation, and 75 percent already voluntarily offer some form of paid sick leave to their workers.
In California, AB 2716, the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces bill, sought to allow workers to earn one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours of paid work. In smaller businesses, employees would have been allowed to take up to 40 hours or five days of leave in each calendar year, and all other workers would have been able to take up to 72 hours or nine days of leave per year.
Although AB 2716 was approved by the Assembly Labor and Employment and Judiciary committees earlier this year, the Senate Appropriations Committee killed the proposal for the remainder of the year on Aug. 7.
A study released in June by the NFIB Research Foundation showed the loss of approximately 370,000 jobs within five years in California had AB 2716 become law. In addition to significant job losses, the bill would have imposed a direct cost, just like a tax, of $4.6 billion on California employers that would have disproportionately affected small businesses.
"In the face of a multi-billion dollar state budget deficit and an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent, committee members saw the wisdom in not loading more burdens on California businesses," said John Kabateck, NFIB/California's executive director, "Small business budgets are like those of a family: When their costs increase in one area, they're forced to make cuts in other areas. Cutting other benefits, forgoing pay raises, reducing hours or letting employees go are some of the difficult choices small business owners would have been forced to make."
The bill's author, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, has already expressed her intent to reintroduce a similar bill next year, according to the L.A. Times. But NFIB will be ready to fight the costly and onerous mandate again.
"California's fiscal health depends on a vibrant, growing small business economy," said Kabateck. "New mandates on small businesses lead to fewer jobs and, for the state coffers, less tax revenue."
