While some care for new paid sick leave law, others see it as ill fit

Cory Bilicko
Managing Editor
California employees, including part-timers and temp workers, soon won’t have to worry about getting a smaller paycheck or putting their job in jeopardy after missing work because of an illness.

The right to accrue and use sick leave under AB 1522, the Healthy Workplace-Healthy Family Act of 2014, will take effect July 1, meaning that an employee who, on or after that date, works in the state for 30 or more days within a year from the beginning of employment, is entitled to paid sick leave. Employees, including part-time and temporary workers, will earn at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. The accrual will start on the first day of employment or July 1, 2015, whichever is later.
In other words, a California employee qualifies for paid sick leave by working for an employer on or after Jan. 1, 2015, for at least 30 days within a year. The employee must also satisfy a 90-day employment period.
There are some exceptions, however. Workers covered by qualifying collective-bargaining agreements, in-home supportive-services providers and certain employees of air carriers are not covered by AB 1522, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. (Those employed by an air carrier as a flight-deck or cabin-crew member, if they receive compensated time off at least equivalent to the requirements of the new law, are exempt.)
Also, an employer may limit the amount of paid sick leave an employee can use in one year to 24 hours or three days. Accrued paid sick leave may be transferred to the following year, but it may be limited to 48 hours or six days.
Employees may: use accrued paid sick days beginning on the 90th day of employment; request paid sick days in writing or verbally; and take paid leave for his or her own or a family member’s diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition or preventive care or for specified purposes for an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Additionally, a worker cannot be required to find a replacement as a stipulation for using paid sick days.
To be in compliance with the new law, employers are required to: display the poster on paid sick leave where employees can easily read it; provide written notice to employees with sick-leave rights at the time of hire; provide for accrual of one hour for every 30 hours worked and allow use of at least 24 hours or three days or provide at least 24 hours or three days at the beginning of a 12-month period of paid sick leave for each eligible employee to use per year; allow eligible employees to use accrued paid sick leave upon reasonable request; show how many days of sick leave an employee has available on a pay stub or document issued the same day as a paycheck; and keep records showing how many hours employees have earned and used for three years.
AB 1522 mandates a minimum requirement, but employers can provide sick leave through their own plan or establish different plans for different categories of workers. Each plan, however, must satisfy the accrual, carryover and use requirements of the law or put the full amount of leave into the employee’s leave bank at the start of each year in accordance with the paid-time-off policy. Employers who provide policies that exceed the minimum requirements, including specific caps, must make their policies clear with regard to the additional terms that apply to their employees.
One example of a local part-time worker is the per-diem substitute teachers who work for the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). Previously, the school district did indeed pay those teachers sick leave, if they had accepted an assignment then fell ill before showing up to work. That policy changed in recent years when LBUSD was forced to make cutbacks because of budget constraints.
“Our current practice is that day-to-day substitutes do not accrue sick leave unless they are serving in a long-term substitute position,” said Chris Eftychiou, public information director for LBUSD. “In 2009, due to the budget crisis, we discontinued accrual of sick leave for day-to-day subs. It’s possible that we may see some changes in light of the new law, but our school district is still finalizing those details.”
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), who represents the 80th District, introduced the bill in January 2014. The State Assembly passed it 52-23 on Aug. 30 of that year, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law on Sept. 10.
“As a single working mom, I know first-hand the challenge of having to juggle a sick child who needs to see a doctor and your responsibilities at work,” Gonzalez said in a statement issued after the bill’s passage. “But no parent should have to experience the heartache of having to choose between making the rent and taking care of their child. I am exceptionally proud to have authored this pro-family, pro-worker and pro-public health legislation and very grateful that my Democratic colleagues in the Legislature and Gov. Brown also appreciate the need enough to make California the leader in the nation on this issue.”
Attempts to reach Gonzalez earlier this week for a follow-up statement by press time were unsuccessful.
The governor also released a statement after approving the bill, emphasizing its impact on the state’s diverse work force.
“Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job,” Brown said. “Make no mistake, California is putting its workers first.”
This week, 70th District Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach), who assumed office last December, expressed his support of AB 1522 in an emailed statement to the Signal Tribune.
“Nobody should have to choose between risking their employment and taking their child to the doctor,” O’Donnell wrote. “Providing three days of paid sick leave protects public health and the well-being of millions of hard-working Californians. The ultimate success of the measure, however, will depend on mindful implementation and the close monitoring of any economic impacts on our small business community.”
However, the bill has had its detractors. Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner (R-Irvine) called AB 1522 an “ill-considered, heavy-handed, one-sided piece of legislation,” according to media reports, after it had cleared the Assembly. (The Signal Tribune attempted to reach Wagner this week to determine if he had changed his position in the last year. Although his legislative director, Matt Hedges, did email back that Wagner was willing to speak to the Signal Tribune by phone, direct communication with the Assemblymember by press time had not been made.)
Calling AB 1522 a “job killer,” the California Chamber of Commerce also criticized the bill.
“In opposing AB 1522, the CalChamber notes that although many employers voluntarily offer sick leave for full-time employees, expanding that benefit to mandate paid sick leave for temporary, seasonal and part-time employees will create a huge burden on employers,” the organization states on its website. “The bill also creates a private right of action for employees and unions, thereby dramatically increasing an employer’s risk for legal fees and costs.”
The Chamber raised other concerns as well, citing that, given the cumulative costs and existing protected leavings of absence with which California employers already are struggling, the State should refrain from implementing new mandates such as AB 1522.
“Rather, California should incentivize employers to offer these additional benefits by reducing costs in other areas— such as providing an exemption from daily overtime or a tax credit— so employers have the capacity to offer paid sick leave.”