Expanding job protections to new parents can be a controversial issue, especially when applied to small businesses. But it’s still important that as many workers as possible have the job security they need, so when the California Legislature writes a law about it, it should be as inclusive as possible.
On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 654, which would have expanded job protections during parental leave to all Californians working at businesses with 20 or more employees. Brown returned the bill to the Legislature, advising that it amend the law to include some provisions acknowledging employees at smaller businesses instead of excluding them from the text.
All parents – including those working at small businesses excluded from this bill – deserve some form of job protection after their child is born. But the legislature’s bill would only protect workers at businesses with 20 or more employees.
Brown’s veto precludes a huge class of workers from receiving guaranteed parental leave, but without it, another class of workers would have suffered under the guise of victory for working parents.
These workers are a significant part of the workforce and cannot remain excluded from future parental leave laws. In 2011, businesses with less than 20 employees accounted for 19 percent of California’s workforce. As such, it is imperative that the state legislature broaden the scope of the bill to encompass all businesses, so as to provide all employees with basic protections during parental leave.
Extending protections is undoubtedly difficult. In its current form, SB 654 received significant opposition, with 12 out of 36 voting state senators rejecting it in its final stage – a stark contrast with several bills which passed the legislature unanimously. The opposition’s main argument was that extended parental leave would be a job killer, either overwhelming small businesses or pressuring them to further reduce their staffs. They also argued that excluding smaller businesses from the bill would leave them less vulnerable to costly lawsuits.
Nonetheless, Brown addressed this opposition and advised the bill’s author to revisit an amendment that would have allowed employees at these small businesses to pursue mediation with their employers on the issue of parental leave, instead of automatically pursuing litigation. While such a provision wouldn’t guarantee parental leave to these workers, it would at least create a mechanism for them to negotiate with employers outside of a civil suit, thus providing for a compromise between necessary employee protections and conservatives’ concerns for small businesses.
Given the majority – albeit, contested – favorability of the bill, the Legislature needs to understand that Brown’s provision is the kind of compromise that is necessary to make important and all-inclusive headway in the realm of employee protections.
Otherwise, if the Legislature fails to do so, it will continue to force California workers to choose between their jobs and their role as parents.