Measure would mesh city, state sick-leave laws
A proposition that would bridge some differences between city and state policies on paid sick leave is heading to June’s ballot virtually unopposed.
Proposition E, which the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to place on the ballot, would amend a measure passed by San Francisco voters in November 2006 that established paid sick leave for all employees.
The amendments would largely mesh San Francisco’s policy with new state law, clearing up confusion between the two for both employees and employers.
“The ease of following the law and not diminishing any rights that workers currently have were guiding principles,” said Jason Elliott, a spokesman for Mayor Ed Lee, who introduced the proposed amendments in January. “The way we made this work was to look at the two laws and say, ‘What will be the easiest for businesses
to comply with and for workers to understand?’ The ballot measure was a way to square some of the differences between the two policies.”
In addition to the mayor and Board of Supervisors, Prop. E has backing from the Chamber of Commerce and labor organizations. If passed, the changes would go into effect Jan. 1.
California passed a mandatory paid sick leave law in 2014, becoming the second state in the nation to do so, after Connecticut, and the law went into effect in July 2015. But the state regulations came after San Francisco’s 2006 legislation, and discrepancies have emerged. Differences included opposing definitions of how employees accrue paid leave and when they can use it.
Under Prop. E, employees in San Francisco would begin to accrue paid sick leave on the first day of employment, rather than the 90th day as state law requires. It also would expand the permissible uses for paid leave to include issues related to stalking, sexual assault, domestic violence and bone marrow or organ donation. While state law maintains that only 24 hours or three days of sick leave can be claimed each year, San Francisco has no cap, which would be maintained under Prop. E.
Accrual caps for employees in San Francisco would remain at 40 hours for small businesses and 72 hours for other businesses — more than state law, under which employees can accrue up to 48 hours. Employees would earn one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked, paralleling state law.
San Francisco has some of the strongest sick-day language in the state, said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. He called the amendments a “bureaucratic reconciliation” between the two laws.
“This is making a good San Francisco law even better,” he said. “It will also make it easier for businesses to figure out how their employees accrue sick days.”
The financial impact of paid sick leave legislation was felt by businesses when the San Francisco ordinance initially passed in 2006, but the new measure would not saddle employers with any additional costs.
It simplifies nuances between the differing laws, said Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of public policy for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
“We realized we needed to go to the ballot to clean the ordinance up,” Lazarus said. “We are making sure that if anyone looks at the city ordinance, it’s not going to be in conflict with state law. It’s legally required and a confusing situation because the laws weren’t exactly the same.”
And, in a city so often divided on social issues, the measure seems to be one everyone can get behind, Elliott said. Employers need guidance about what paid sick leave rights their employees have, he said, and workers shouldn’t be confused by the rules.
“This is important, both for the business community and labor community,” he said. “This is not a typical San Francisco us-versus-them kind of issue. This is everybody in the labor universe coming together to say that this is the right thing to do. Clarity is a benefit for everyone.”