Opposition Points on Family Leave

Opposition by Business:  Criticisms from Chamber of Commerce

SB 1661 erases important employer rights contained in current state and federal family leave laws.  Current state and federal family leave laws only apply to employers with 50 or more workers and permit qualified employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave.  The leave is unpaid to prevent abuse of the leave laws.  SB 1661 eliminates the 50 or more worker coverage level requirement and eliminates requirement of 1250 hours on the job in the previous twelve months before one is eligible for leave.

The state and federal leave acts exempt small employers for good reason:  because our Small companies can’t afford to lose key workers or a large percentage of their workforce for up to three months. These additional costs and loss of workers will put some of our Mountain View Chamber members out of business!

Leave can be taken the first day on the job.  Keep in mind that SDI benefits are portable and move with the worker if the worker changes jobs.  If a worker has sufficient SDI contributions, SB 1661 entitles a worker just hired by a very small company on Monday to take up to three months of paid leave beginning Tuesday to care for a family member.

Legislation like SB 1661 makes California less competitive with similarly situated businesses in other states. California employers believe that bills like SB 1661 make it even more difficult, and certainly much more expensive, to do business in California.

This is the wrong time for any new program, no matter how laudable the intent.  SB 1661 establishes new taxes for both California workers and employers.  CA faces a nearly $24 billion budget deficit this year and we can’t even afford to pay for existing programs. Therefore, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce urges a “NO” vote on SB 1661.

“This bill fails miserably to address the real cost concerns of employers—the costs of replacement workers and additional overtime to cover for absent workers, training costs and loss of productivity.”

1. Quote from LA Times

The main argument against Paid Family Leave is that small companies can’t afford to lose key workers or a large percentage of their workforce for up to three months.

However, as in the original federal and state Family Leave laws, small businesses with less than 50 employees are not required to hold a job open for a worker on leave.

Furthermore, for Small Business’ with more than 50 employees, it levels the playing field.  Customarily, larger employers are able to provide better family leave benefits because they have larger budgets. California's new law will allow small businesses to offer employees the same type of benefits that previously only larger businesses could afford.

Many argue family leave is not a good idea, from an economic standpoint, because States are facing budget deficits. Why should State legislatures put in place new programs when financial resources are already sparse?

The answer is simple.  When analysis shows that the passage of California’s SB 1661 will not only extend benefits to 12 million  California employees currently covered by SDI, but also create significant financial savings for employers and the State of California. Researchers find:

• Californiacompanies could save $89 million under a paid family leave program due to increased employee retention and decreased turn-over;
• The State of Californiacould save $25 million annually, due to decreased reliance on assistance programs, including TANF and Food Stamps. Many individuals currently turn to these programs when taking unpaid leave causes them financial hardship.

(Courtesy of the National Partnership for Women and families)

home | login | my profile | join our network | about us | contact us | forums | site map