California would become the first state to require paid sick leave for every worker under legislation passed Wednesday by the Assembly.
The measure would allow the sick leave to be used for a personal illness, to care for a sick family member, or to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault.
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said her Assembly Bill 2716 would protect more than 5 million Californians – about a third of the work force – who are forced to choose between working while sick or losing pay.
"(It's) a win-win for workers and employers alike and is an important part of maintaining a healthy economy here in California," Ma said.
When employers offer paid sick days, employee morale is better, turnover is less, and health care costs decrease, Ma said.
The Assembly approved the bill, 43-25, with no Republican support. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on the legislation, which now goes to the Senate.
Opponents said AB 2716 would impose a one-size-fits-all mandate that many small businesses simply could not afford.
"It's an anti-business mentality," said Assemblyman Bill Maze, R-Visalia.
Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said the bill targets small businesses that are the "backbone of the economy."
"The message it sends is that the liberal side of the aisle continues to do job-killing bills that drive jobs out of California," Berryhill said.
Under AB 2716, businesses of 10 employees or more would be required to provide up to nine days of sick leave per year. Smaller firms would provide up to five days.
The California Labor Federation and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now were sponsors of the bill.
Full-time and part-time workers would earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The benefit could be used after 90 days of employment.
If signed into law, the requirement would be overseen by the Department of Industrial Relations, whose costs would be about $600,000 annually, according to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure also could be enforced through civil lawsuits.
San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have passed mandatory sick leave legislation, but no states have done so, Ma said.
The California Chamber of Commerce, in a letter of opposition, noted that many employers voluntarily offer paid sick leave.
But AB 2716 could hurt businesses that lack the money or expertise to expand their record-keeping and payroll reporting, the chamber said.
"In an already troubled economy, California should be seeking ways to stimulate job growth and avoid forcing costly mandates on employers," the group wrote.
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said that his family's auto dealerships offer paid sick leave but that he opposes dictating every other business do so, too.
In priority order, most employees want strong wages first, then health care benefits, then perhaps a retirement plan and vacation days before paid sick leave, Niello said.
"What we're going to do is impose (sick leave) on businesses that simply can't afford to provide everything," Niello said.
Businesses face lost productivity and potential overtime costs when employees don't report to work, he said.
But Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who owns a small sign-making business, countered that illness is an unfortunate fact of life and that it is not necessarily productive to force sick employees to report to work.
"Clearly, business never likes to be told or regulated by government whatsoever. But this bill, I think, can actually benefit employers because you'll have a healthier, more productive work force," Leno said.
Call Jim Sanders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5538.