Paid Leave Bill Ignites Emotions

Millions of Californians could soon receive the right to paid leave from their jobs to care for ailing relatives or to bond with new children under legislation that would fundamentally change the contract between employers and employees.

Strongly backed by organized labor and vehemently opposed by business, the measure by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) would make California the first state to grant most workers paid time off to deal with crucial but common family situations.

A significant expansion from current state and federal laws that require larger businesses to provide their workers with unpaid family leave during difficult times, the legislation would directly affect the lives of more than 12 million California workers and the bottom lines of thousands of businesses.

As a result, the measure, which has cleared the Senate and now awaits passage in the Assembly, is the focus of a simmering fight in the state capital. Business groups say the costs of the program, which remain unclear, would prove high and would lead to layoffs. But women’s groups and other supporters say the legislation would actually save money by helping businesses retain good workers, citing a recent UC Berkeley study.

“The traditional caretakers--women--are now at work,” said Lissa Bell of the National Partnership for Women & Families, citing the rise of households in which both parents hold jobs. “So people are having to choose between paying the bills or spending time with loved ones [during emergencies]. That’s not a choice they should have to make.”

Europe Has Programs

The United States is one of the last developed nations without some form of paid parental leave. About 127 countries, including most of Europe, have such programs, and many others have passed similar laws to compensate workers who need time off because of family emergencies.

But Congress has repeatedly failed to adopt either, and proponents are increasingly taking their fight to statehouses around the country. Similar bills were introduced in 27 other states--including New York and Massachusetts--over the last two years, according to the National Partnership, a nonprofit Washington group that has been pushing for the measures.

The California legislation, which seems to share the most momentum with the New York bill, would establish a mandatory insurance program in the state that would be funded in equal measure by workers and businesses.

It would be modeled on an existing state program that provides partial compensation to disabled workers. If a worker ever had to miss time because a spouse or parent fell ill, or because the family was bringing a new child into the home, the employee would receive as much as 55% of his salary for as long as 12 weeks from the state-run fund.

With the exception of government employees, nearly every worker would be eligible, but there would be a limit of about $728 a week on the compensation that employees could receive in the program’s first year, 2004. Correspondingly, higher-wage earners would have to contribute to the program only up to a certain portion of their salaries, with the 2004 wage ceiling being about $65,000.

Although the measure does not state exactly how much it would cost to fund the program, a 2000 study by the state Employment Development Department estimated the average cost at $34 annually per worker, or $17 each from workers and their employers if equally split. The more recent Berkeley study pegged the split at about $25 for each side, however, and the California Chamber of Commerce, a leading opponent, estimates that each share could be far higher, more than $100 annually.

Proponents, primarily labor unions but also a number of religious, senior citizen and child care groups, say the current unpaid-leave laws do little to help families in times of need. They point to studies showing that many workers do not take advantage of the laws because, without some compensation, they cannot afford to leave their jobs to care for loved ones, even for a few weeks.

“This is the most important piece of pro-family legislation this year. It’s a very important bill to working people,” said Art Pulaski, treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, the measure’s sponsor. “We are talking about $17 here to allow people to spend some very important time with their families.”

Business Opposition

Opponents, which include an array of trade groups, say the bill is yet another example of California politicians imposing new costs on business that could force them to cut jobs. The incremental fees are adding up, they say, making it harder for them to compete in a global economy.

“The feel-good crowd pushing the bill is unfortunately trying to mandate a fringe benefit,” said Julianne Broyles of the California chamber. “Certainly, it would be great if everyone could also provide day care, but they can’t.”

Gov. Gray Davis, who is seeking reelection in November, has not taken a position on the measure. But Kuehl said she is negotiating with the California Restaurant Assn. and others in hopes of reducing opposition--and indicated that she might be willing to abandon the 50-50 split and have the entire program funded by workers if that is what it takes to appease business and get the governor’s signature.

“Nobody wants to bleed the business community to death in California,” Kuehl said. “I certainly do not. It seems to me that the main sticking point, and the one that may allow them to go neutral [if it is addressed], is the employer contribution.”

Although Kuehl and the bill’s detractors differ on a number of key points, both sides agree on one: It would have profound effects on California.

For backers such as Jeff Norvet, the bill represents a common-sense approach to a problem that might have made one of the most traumatic events in his family’s life a little more bearable.

Two years ago, the daily routine of the movie and television cameraman from Agoura Hills fell to pieces when his wife, Patricia, unexpectedly suffered a ruptured colon. It did not heal properly.

“As I was following my wife there,” he said of the frantic rush to Los Robles Regional Medical Center in nearby Thousand Oaks, “I was thinking, ‘This changes everything.’ I was wondering who was going to pick up my kid.”

Norvet wound up staying home to nurse his ailing wife, whose colon burst a second time, requiring five hospital stays. He changed her bandages, drove their two teenage children where they needed to go and cooked for the family.

His inability to work, combined with the huge hospital bills, took its toll on the family’s finances. Because of her health problems, Patricia had to quit a part-time job at a picture frame store.

The Norvet family still lives in Agoura Hills but had to move to a smaller home. A partial paycheck would have helped, said Norvet, who has traveled to Sacramento to testify in favor of the legislation.

“It just would have taken a little bit of the edge off,” he said. “Something like this that comes out of the blue, there is just no way to plan for that.”

For opponents such as Morton Hirshman, the bill represents yet another government mandate that is going to make it harder for his small business to compete with the Home Depots of the world.

Next year, El Cajon Plumbing and Heating Supply will celebrate its 30th anniversary. But the business, a wholesaler of air-conditioning and plumbing equipment that employs 20 people, is increasingly facing pressure from so-called big-box retailers encroaching on its clientele.

Government regulations have been swelling the size of his payroll, he said, and paid family leave would be yet another cost coming out of his pocket.

Small Firms May Suffer

“It just makes the small-business man smaller,” he said. “Any time there is a piece of legislation that increases our outlay of money, where are we going to make it up? It is not possible for us to pass this along to consumers. We have to compete against Home Depot and Lowe’s these days.”

Though he sympathizes with people who find themselves in family emergencies, Hirshman said they should be purchasing term life insurance to deal with unexpected situations, not looking for a solution from the government. A mandatory family leave program, he contends, would be rife for abuse from unprincipled workers looking for a paid vacation.

Kuehl and other supporters say the measure limits the potential for fraud by requiring workers to obtain written statements from doctors about their relatives’ illnesses. The measure would cover gay and lesbian couples legally registered as domestic partners in addition to spouses, and would also include time needed to assimilate adopted and foster children.

Nonetheless, employers continue to have concerns about the potential for abuse. They also point out that unlike the state’s current unpaid-leave law, which targets only businesses with 50 or more workers, Kuehl’s measure would apply to all businesses regardless of size. And they worry that once it is established, politicians will incrementally increase the employer contributions with little public scrutiny.

“The issues have been around a long time. We’ve all compared it to Europe, but we should also point out that Europe has not created too many new jobs in the past 10 years,” said Martyn Hopper of the National Federation of Independent Business, which has 38,000 members in California and has been sending fax alerts to them about the legislation.

Unlike large corporations, which could relocate if they found California’s business climate to be hostile, “these small Main Street businesses do not have the luxury of moving to Arizona,” Hopper added. “They are stuck.”