Skip to main content

Two Bills Designed to Block Local Paid Sick Leave Laws Pass Texas Senate


Readers might recall that last year, the City of Austin approved a paid leave ordinance that would require most employers in the city to offer their employees 8 days of paid sick leave for a year of work (or 6 days for employers that employ fewer than 15 employees.)  Unsurprisingly, employers and pro business groups mobilized against the ordinance, immediately filing suit in District Court in Austin to block its implementation.  In fact, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a plea in intervention and argued that the paid leave ordinance was "an attempt to unlawfully and inappropriately usurp the authority of the state lawmakers..." by providing a higher rate of compensation than what was laid out in the Texas Constitution.  In a 24 page opinion, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued a ruling in November that found the paid sick leave ordinance to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

With the Texas Legislature back in session this year (they convene on the second Tuesday in January only in odd numbered years), eyes turned to whether legislation would be introduced to ban these type of local paid sick leave ordinances.  It turns out, we have several relevant bills on the topic that are currently working their way through the Texas Legislature.  (Readers might recall that Republican Representative Matt Krause had introduced HB 222 several months ago that seeks to prohibit cities from passing ordinances such as Austin's paid sick leave bill.  That bill has been referred to State Affairs for further review.)

However, last week, two other bills, SB 2485 and SB 2487, passed the Texas Senate and are now headed to the House of Representatives for further debate and a vote.  Of note:

  • SB 2485 stipulates that a political subdivision may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, order, rule, regulation, or policy mandating a private employer's terms of employment relating to employment benefits, including health, disability, retirement, profit-sharing, death, and group accidental death and dismemberment benefits.
  •  SB 2487 stipulates that a political subdivision may not adopt, or enforce an ordinance, order, rule, regulation, or policy regulating a private employer's terms of employment relating to any form of employment leave, including paid days off from work for holidays, sick leave, vacation, and personal necessity.

Both pieces of legislation passed along party lines, 18 - 12.  After the votes were announced, Austin City Council member Greg Cesar (who was a leading advocate of Austin's paid leave ordinance) criticized Republicans in the Texas Legislature and characterized the two bills as stripping "...Texans of their rights to sick days."  With Republicans having majority control of both the House and Senate and a Republican Governor, I think it is likely (if not inevitable) that local paid leave ordinances like the ones in Austin have their days numbered.


For more information on SB 2485:  https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB2485

For more information on SB 2487:  https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB2487

For more information on HB 222:  https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB222

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more