Current Business Related Legislation Pending Signature in California

Mendocino Management Supports the Expansion of Paid Sick Days in California in SB 616.

The bill to increase paid sick days from 3 to 5 annually in California is a progressive step towards ensuring worker welfare and public health. Contrary to the claim of it being a “job killer,” such a policy can instead enhance productivity and reduce employee turnover. According to a 2012 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, providing paid sick days results in savings for businesses due to reduced worker turnover and a decrease in the spread of illnesses at the workplace (Smith & Kim, 2012). Reducing illness spread not only safeguards the workforce but also limits the risks to customers, thus preserving a company’s reputation.

Moreover, a study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that providing paid sick days can lead to net savings for businesses. Such savings, they contend, come from reduced job turnover, minimized spread of illness, and improved productivity overall (Drago & Miller, 2010). It’s vital to recognize that employee well-being directly impacts the success and sustainability of a business. Expanding paid sick days is not about handouts; it’s about recognizing the value of a healthy, motivated workforce.

Mendocino Management believes that group think and party  politics are more at play in attacking this than actual policy debate. One week per year for paid sick time is not an undue burden to businesses, and if they operated in any other Western country not named the United States that number would be double. One week is just one week. If an employee is worth their pay for 51 straight weeks, then the 52nd should be available for sick time, the unforseen, and family care. 

Mendocino Management Supports Vetoing Unemployment Insurance for Striking Employees Under SB 799

While the heart of legislation often aims to protect employees, the bill that would require employers to pay for unemployment insurance for striking workers doesn’t align with the principles of fair play. At its core, a strike is a voluntary action taken by unions and employees, as they choose to walk away from their job temporarily to negotiate better terms. If employees decide not to work, then it seems unreasonable for employers to bear the financial burden of that choice through unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance is typically designed for individuals who lose their job through no fault of their own, such as in layoffs or company shutdowns. However, when workers decide to strike, they are intentionally choosing not to work. Therefore, it doesn’t stand to reason that employers should subsidize this choice. Instead, it should be the responsibility of unions, which often have strike funds to support workers during such times, or the workers themselves.

The governor of California should veto this legislation, as it places an unfair burden on employers for a decision they didn’t make. The principle of choice and consequence should guide our legislative choices, ensuring fairness and accountability at all levels. This is bad for business. 

I am a business owner in California, how can I let the Governor know what I think of these bills? Offer your support or request for veto of these bills by emailing