Wilson Signs Family Leave Bill Into Law : Work force: Governor breaks with business backers in requiring major employers to give workers unpaid time off for childbirth or adoption, or to care for seriously ill relatives.

Gov. Pete Wilson on Tuesday signed legislation long sought by labor and women’s organizations requiring major employers to give workers up to four months of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for seriously ill family members.

In signing the proposal, Wilson broke with two of his influential political allies in business, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers Assn., and his own Department of Personnel Administration and State and Consumer Services Agency.

“A worker shouldn’t have to choose between a job and caring for a sick child. Similarly, parents shouldn’t have to forfeit their jobs to have a family,” the governor said.

In 1987 and 1990, then-Gov. George Deukmejian sided with business and industrial executives and vetoed similar legislation on grounds it could disrupt business and mean higher costs for hiring and training temporary replacements.

Wilson, who on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have outlawed job discrimination against homosexuals, saying it would be bad for business, termed the employee leave bill by Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles) a pro-family initiative that would improve worker attitudes and productivity.

The new law, a high-priority issue with women’s organizations and labor, will apply to employers of at least 50 workers, or 5.6% of the 746,330 public and private employers in California.

The legislation, which will take effect Jan. 1, will cover about 9 million of the estimated 13.4 million men and women in the California work force. Similar federal legislation is pending that would provide a maximum of three months of unpaid leave a year.

The state statute will make it illegal for an employer to deny a worker’s request to take the unpaid leave to care for a newly born or adopted child or to tend to a seriously ill spouse, parent or child.

Opponents, including lobbies representing banks, savings and loans, truckers, hotels and school districts, argued that the “Family Rights Act of 1991” would impose an unfair burden on small businesses, discourage business development and stifle creation of new jobs.

But in a statement, Wilson said Californians have a vested interest in the productivity of the work force. “A worker cannot be productive if his or her child or spouse lies ill and is not receiving the proper care they need,” he said.

Wilson said he negotiated changes in the bill “to limit its financial impact” on small businesses and to “prevent abuse” by employees. Originally, the measure would have applied to employers of 25 workers or more.

The legislation enables a worker to take a “family leave” in increments up to a maximum of four months during a 24-month period. However, the leave would be limited to one month if taken in addition to a maximum four months of pregnancy leave.

An employer could deny applications for leave in cases of “undue hardship.” Likewise, the highest-salaried employees could be rejected. Additionally, an employer could choose to substitute an employee’s accrued vacation or other earned leave, except for sick leave, for the unpaid leave.

As expected, Wilson also signed legislation by Assemblyman John L. Burton (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco) exempting nonprofit and so-called free newspapers from paying the sales tax that recently was extended to for-profit newspapers and magazines.

Wilson said the extra revenue produced from free-distribution and nonprofit publications was never part of the calculations of new taxes needed to help balance the state budget.