SACRAMENTO – California’s employee-funded Paid Family Leave program has long been out of reach for most working Californians due to the program’s insufficient income replacement rate. Assembly Bill 123 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) to establish historic increases in the amount of income workers receive when they use paid family leave now heads to Governor Newsom’s desk for consideration.
“It’s unacceptable that workers who pay into our Paid Family Leave program can’t reap the benefits because the program doesn’t provide enough income to live on,” Assemblywoman Gonzalez (D-San Diego) said. “This bill is about ensuring all workers can actually take time off during the most critical moments in life to bond with their newborn and care for their loved ones.”
Under the current program, workers can earn 60 to 70 percent of their income while taking paid family leave. Right now, a minimum wage worker earning $14 dollars per hour would still only qualify to receive 60 percent of their wages – the lowest wage replacement rate for any minimum wage worker in the country. Even if they were working full-time, the current rate would only provide them about $1,344 per month, barely covering the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment.
Governor Newsom released the Master Plan on Early Learning and Care in December of 2020 which recommends increasing wage replacement rates to at least 90 percent for workers earning less than 70 percent of the state average weekly wage to expand equitable access to Paid Family Leave program. AB 123 adopts this recommendation by January 1, 2025, and effectively expands paid family leave benefits for the 18.7 million working Californians covered under this program.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez represents California’s 80th Assembly District, located in southern San Diego County, including the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and National City. She serves as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Latina Inequities. For more information on Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, visit http://asm.ca.gov/gonzalez
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
2655.
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), an individual’s “weekly benefit amount” shall be the amount appearing in column B in the table set forth in this subdivision on the line of which in column A of the table there appears the wage bracket containing the amount of wages paid to the individual for employment by employers during the quarter of the individual’s disability base period in which wages were the highest.
A Amount of wages in highest quarter | B Weekly benefit amount |
$75–1,149.99 …………………… | $50 |
1,150–1,174.99 …………………… | 51 |
1,175–1,199.99 …………………… | 52 |
1,200–1,224.99 …………………… | 53 |
1,225–1,249.99 …………………… | 54 |
1,250–1,274.99 …………………… | 55 |
1,275–1,299.99 …………………… | 56 |
1,300–1,324.99 …………………… | 57 |
1,325–1,349.99 …………………… | 58 |
1,350–1,374.99 …………………… | 59 |
1,375–1,399.99 …………………… | 60 |
1,400–1,424.99 …………………… | 61 |
1,425–1,449.99 …………………… | 62 |
1,450–1,474.99 …………………… | 63 |
1,475–1,499.99 …………………… | 64 |
1,500–1,524.99 …………………… | 65 |
1,525–1,549.99 …………………… | 66 |
1,550–1,574.99 …………………… | 67 |
1,575–1,599.99 …………………… | 68 |
1,600–1,624.99 …………………… | 69 |
1,625–1,649.99 …………………… | 70 |
1,650–1,674.99 …………………… | 71 |
1,675–1,699.99 …………………… | 72 |
1,700–1,724.99 …………………… | 73 |
1,725–1,749.20 …………………… | 74 |
(2)
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.
Section 3301 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, as amended by Section 40 of Chapter 24 of the Statutes of 2019, is amended to read:
3301.
(a) (1) The purpose of this chapter is to establish, within the state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program. Family temporary disability insurance shall provide up to eight weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or domestic partner, to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption, or to participate in a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States.
3 comments
This has already caused many employers to go out of business and more of this will be happening. Why should an employer continue paying someone who is not working? Makes no sense!
No wonder people are leaving California for states which operate in a normal manner. Businesses are moving out in droves! If you don’t work, you don’t get paid! If you want to have children you probably cannot afford to raise anyway — then save money for that and then take a leave of absence. Why should an employer have to pay your for doing being absent?
More handouts! Is there ever a bill that this women proposes that actually saves the State money? JFC
Comments are closed.