Posted on 07/29/2002 11:58:01 AM PDT by John Jorsett
First of two articles
SACRAMENTO -- In perhaps the most emotional clash of the waning 2002 legislative session, unions and businesses are marshalling forces for an all-out, monthlong slugfest starting next week over making California the first state to grant most workers paid leave from their jobs to care for ill family members or new children.
Labor unions are calling the proposal, which advanced swiftly before lawmakers' summer lull, a blessing for working families. But big and small businesses alike, surprised by the measure and its progress, are now attacking it as a costly "job killer" in an already ailing economy.
The cost of the paid-leave program for births or family illness is estimated at anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually and would be shared by employers and workers. The program would provide about half an employee's wages for about three months.
The bill cleared its first committee hurdle in the Assembly after narrowly winning the approval last month of the Senate before it recessed for the summer. Both houses officially reconvene Aug. 5 for the final four weeks of their annual legislative session.
The measure poses an election-year dilemma for the Democrats who dominate the Legislature, and for Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, who hasn't
taken a position on the bill, but would ultimately determine the fate of the proposal if lawmakers pass it.
Like the more moderate among the Democratic legislators, Davis has tried to please both labor and corporate leaders. He is running for a second term against Republican businessman Bill Simon of Los Angeles.
State and federal laws already authorize leave -- with no pay -- for employees to take care of family members. But under the paid-leave proposal, the State Disability Insurance program would partially replace wages for up to 12 weeks of "temporary family disability."
The specifics are laid out in SB1661 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a bill that has draw emotional support from unions and advocates for the families and for the working poor.
"Paid leave is critically important to California workers," says Netsy Firestein of the Labor Project for Working Families, a nonprofit group based in Berkeley.
"No one should have to choose between caring for a child, or seriously ill family member, and a paycheck," Firestein says. "California law already recognizes the importance of family medical leave, but most workers cannot afford to take unpaid leave when their families need them most."
Moreover, supporters say, the need for paid family leave is increasing in the United States, which is one of only a few nations in the world -- along with Australia and Ethiopia -- that do not provide national paid family leave.
Under the proposal, employees could take paid leave to care for any seriously ill or injured family member -- such as a spouse, parent or domestic partner -- beginning in 2004. They also would have a right to disability pay following the birth or adoption of a child, as well as after taking in a foster-care youth.
Workers providing proof of their need for leave would receive 55 percent of their wages, up to a current maximum of $490 a week. The maximum payment would increase each year based on inflation.
The majority of the state's work force -- about 13 million Californians employed by private firms of all sizes -- would be eligible to participate in the program that would become part of the State Disability Insurance system.
Most government workers, however, would not be eligible. Their disability benefits are provided through a taxpayer-funded alternative to the SDI, which is funded by mandatory deductions from workers' paychecks.
In the private sector, workers and employers would divide the cost of the paid-leave program but there are wildly varying estimates of the price tag.
Supporters figure the cost would be about $50 annually per employee, for a total of roughly $650 million a year. And much of the cost to businesses would be offset by the decreased turnover of workers, according to proponents.
But the California Chamber of Commerce believes the toll would hit a crippling $2.5 billion a year. Differing state estimates fall between those of supporters and foes.
"It is unwise to burden California employers and workers with new taxes when the economy is still shaky," says Julianne Broyles, a spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce, which represents many of California's largest corporations.
"The added cost of this mandated paid family leave program, plus the recently increased workers' compensation benefit levels, will place new strains on the nearly bankrupt SDI trust fund, which will mean even more SDI tax increases in the future," Broyles says.
Small businesses, which employ six of every 10 working Californians, say it would have the most impact on them.
"If it becomes law, it will be the biggest financial burden for small businesses in decades, coming at a time when the state's economy is the most precarious it has been in a quarter of a century and when Main Street firms are least able to afford it," says Martyn Hopper of the National Federation of Independent Business.
The business sector, now gearing up to defeat the bill, concedes it was largely surprised by the measure and its rapid advancement.
"It was not on our radar," says Steven Gottlieb, a spokesman for the Bay Area Council, a business group.
The bill passed swiftly through initial committees and won approval on a 21-15 vote in the Senate last month, barely gaining the simple-majority margin needed in the 40-member upper house. One Democrat, Sen. Jim Costa of Fresno, joined with GOP members in opposing the plan but it was supported by the Bay Area's liberal senators.
After failing to gain universal support among the Democrats who control the Senate, analysts say the bill is likely to divide the moderate, pro-business and liberal Democrats who together control the Assembly.
The measure last month passed the Assembly Insurance Committee, largely along party lines.
The swift progress of the bill represents a major victory for organized labor, which has fought for a paid family leave law for years but was thwarted by former Republican Govs. Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.
This time around, the measure has garnered an impressive array of groups supporting it -- and those in opposition.
Supporters include the California Labor Federation, the National Organization for Women, the California Catholic Conference, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Among foes are the state's Association of Health Facilities, Farm Bureau Federation, Restaurant Association, Taxpayers Association, Retailers Association and Milk Producers Council.
The family leave bill is pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
It could advance to the full Assembly early in August. But with major controversy surrounding it and lawmakers rushing to deal with hundreds of bills by Aug. 31, its fate is more likely to be determined amid the usual 11th-hour, end-of-session legislative chaos.
TUESDAY: A look at the array of pending bills
You are right. When Clinton was pushing this legislation at the federal level Rush jumped on it immediately and predicted this very outcome.
Someone should change the words to that song from California, Here I Come to California, There She Goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.