If enacted, SB135 would amend multiple sections of existing labor and unemployment insurance laws to strengthen protections for employees needing family leave. It would repeal restrictions under the New Parent Leave Act and replace them with more comprehensive provisions that reflect the needs of modern families. This change could lead to increased job security for employees taking leave, potentially reducing the threat of job loss while addressing personal and familial health issues as well as creating a healthier work-life balance.
Senate Bill 135, introduced by Senator Jackson, seeks to significantly expand the provisions of paid family leave in California. Under the current law, only employers with 50 or more employees are mandated to provide unpaid leave for family care and medical leave. SB135 aims to lower this threshold to employers with 5 or more employees, allowing a broader range of workers to access up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family-related matters after only 180 days of employment. The bill also broadens the purposes for which leave can be taken, now including the care of grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, and designated persons, making it more inclusive for families with varying dynamics.
The general sentiment surrounding SB135 appears to be positive, especially among labor advocates and family rights organizations. Supporters argue that the bill is essential for promoting the well-being of working families and for providing equitable access to job-protected leave. However, there is some concern voiced by certain business groups regarding the potential impact on small businesses, particularly regarding the financial implications of increased leave-related costs and adjustments needed for compliance with the expanded leave provisions.
Notably, one of the primary points of contention may center around the bill's potential effects on smaller employers who might struggle with staffing and financial burdens posed by mandatory leave for a larger portion of their workforce. Critics argue that while the intentions of the bill are commendable, the practical implications could result in increased operational challenges for small businesses. Nonetheless, proponents maintain that the long-term benefits of adequately supporting families far outweigh these potential downsides.