The Legislature is busy this week preparing analysis and determining the fiscal impacts to the state on legislation that requires government resources. May 23 is the final day for all bills with fiscal implications to the state of $150,000 or greater to pass out of the appropriations committees and make their way to their respective floors. If passed to the floor next week, the bills have until May 30 to pass out of the original house of origin to be considered in the second house.
PAID SICK LEAVE
AB 1522 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales (D-San Diego) would require an employer to provide an employee with three days of paid sick leave, which would be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, that could be used after the 90th day of employment.
The rationale for mandating paid sick leave is the claim that employees are being forced to work while sick-endangering themselves, their coworkers and the general public. Without question, food safety is the restaurant industry's top priority, but a one-size-fits-all approach to sick leave is not appropriate. It's unfair to ask an employer to pay double wages for the one person's work. The restaurant industry is not comparable to a traditional employer that can continue to operate with a variable number of people at a time.
The current fiscal analysis for AB 1522 suggests initial costs to the state of $1.2 million in special funds which would be used for training, rulemaking, investigation and enforcement complaints. In addition, the appropriations committee suggests ongoing costs of $1.1 million for ongoing investigations and enforcement of wage and retaliation claims.
B 935 by Senator Mark Leno (D- San Francisco) would increase the state's minimum wage to $11 per hour in 2015, $12 per hour in 2016, $13 per hour in 2017 and beginning 2018, the state minimum wage would be adjusted annually with the rate of inflation.
The fiscal analysis for SB 935 highlights the cost to the state as a direct employer of approximately 4,500 minimum wage workers, mostly student assistants and seasonal employees. As a direct employer, the bill would lead to an estimated increase of $9.4 million in 2014-15, $18.7 million in 2015-16, and $23.4 million in 2016-17 (General Fund and various special funds). In 2017-18, the first fiscal year that the CPI adjustment is used, the estimated increase would be $30 million, assuming a 3% inflation rate. Costs would continue to rise relative to current law in the out-years and would be reflective of future inflation rates.
The fiscal analysis prepared by the Appropriations Committee only takes into account costs associated to the state and does not take into account the costs incurred by private business.
In preparation of the May 23 hearing, the CRA will launch a campaign May 15 asking restaurateurs to oppose these measurers and voice their concerns. Visit CRA's Action Center to voice your concerns.
For more information , contact Kara Bush at email@example.com.