This is a terrible signal to send. It just interferes with the workplace. This should be left to employers and their workers….[How can employers ensure that workers are properly taking time off?] How do you police any of that? What is an employer going to do, set up a whole office to audit this stuff?
We're opposed to a lot of bills, but this is one of the worst. When you're the only state in the country with paid family leave and they've tried it in 27 other states and it's failed in each and every one, we see it as a competitive disadvantage in attracting or keeping businesses here.
The signing of this proposal places California in the position of being the first state in the nation to implement a program that pays for workers to take non-work related time off. This will cause California to lose some of its competitive edge, as many businesses will look to other states when relocating or starting up to avoid these types of mandates.
It's a very anti-business bill. This is not any time to be looking at a bill like this.
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.
I hope this is a lesson for the next Republican governor or next Republican president before they sign this kind of bill. Once Democrats control everything they are going to start raising taxes and raising benefits to pay for these screwball ideas….A tax on a job eliminates jobs; this is a tax on a job.
It's seems like it's not good timing -- that we could be chasing business out of California. We definitely support employees and family issues and want to make sure we create a good working environment. However, putting California businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to other states only means that business will go elsewhere.
You've got new taxes and new costs on employers and employees at a time when the economy is not doing well.
The complexity of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the added state provisions can be costly to employers of any size. The administrative burden and potential for overlap with other benefits can have a serious impact on workforce productivity.
President Clinton touted his new ‘family leave’ bill, sold as free time off to care for children. It turns out the employers of 50 or more covered by the bill have to pay medical care during the leave. At an average cost of $2,000 for the leave, it is not surprising that a Gallup study for the National Federation of Independent Business, found that half of the businesses said they would be reluctant to hire young women under the law, would try to replace low-skilled jobs with machines, and would trim other benefits.
