MEMORANDUM filed with Senate Bill Number 8077, entitled:
 
"AN  ACT  to  amend  the civil service law, in relation to expanding
        excused leave for certain purposes"
 
    APPROVED
 
  This bill completes a legislative process that has  resulted  in  five
enacted  chapters  since  2002,  and  has established a statutory regime
allowing public employees to take leave for breast and  prostate  cancer
screenings.  This bill extends the leave benefit to additional groups of
public employees, such as those employed by public benefit corporations,
and makes clear that the leave is paid.
 
  My concerns about the potential health benefits of the bill on the one
hand, and the possible costs to public employers on the other, led me to
publicly solicit input on the bill before acting on it.  I  am  grateful
for  the  many  thoughtful  responses  I received from a wide variety of
organizations, governmental units and individual citizens. The  opinions
presented  to me were varied, and deeply divided. Proponents of the bill
stressed the role that such leave can play in early detection  of  these
terrible  illnesses,  as  permitting  employees to take time off without
financial consequence will undoubtedly allow and encourage more  employ-
ees  to  undergo  the  appropriate tests. Opponents of this bill contend
that the leaves at issue can impose a hardship on employers, that exist-
ing sick and personal leave time could be used for such screenings,  and
that the benefit could be achieved through collective bargaining.
 
  While  the  arguments  made  against the bill are not without basis, I
believe the crucial public health gains from this legislation ultimately
outweigh its costs, for certain specific reasons that apply uniquely  to
this case. First, I note that the present bill does not enact this bene-
fit for most public employees, but rather fills in gaps in existing law.
I  have  not been presented with a good rationale for distinguishing the
employees covered by this bill - such  as  those  working  at  community
colleges  and  public  authorities  -  from  other  public  workers, for
purposes of these leaves. Second, while many opponents expressed concern
that the bill makes the leave "paid," I am informed by the Department of
Civil Service that it already reads the  existing  statutes  to  require
that  the  screening be paid leave. Moreover, two court decisions issued
last week came to the same conclusion, which seems the  correct  reading
of present law. Thus, it appears that this legislation would essentially
clarify  an existing statute, and would have the added benefit of limit-
ing needless litigation over its meaning. Finally, a  number  of  groups
have  stressed  the documented preventative benefits of these particular
screenings.
 
  Nonetheless, while I believe this legislation is  warranted  in  these
specific  circumstances, I believe strongly that the opponents' concerns
should not be ignored. Requiring public employers to grant paid leaves -
even when such leaves advance public health  -  may  impose  significant
costs.  For  some  employers,  replacements  must  be  hired.  In  other
instances, continuity  of  work  can  be  interrupted.  I  am  therefore
concerned  by  the  proliferation  of bills that have been introduced in
recent years that would add new required leaves to the present list.
 
  All these proposals serve some worthy and admirable  purpose.  Contin-
uous expansion of permissible paid absences, however, can quickly become
an  undue burden on public employers. For that reason, I wish to clarify
that my endorsement of this legislation should not be taken to mean that
I  believe  that  this bill should be a template to be followed with the
legislative imposition of additional leaves. To the  contrary,  I  think
this bill provides a good opportunity to set a boundary.
 
  Given  that this bill largely fills in gaps in an existing mandate and
clarifies what appears to be current law in any case, and  in  light  of
the documented and important medical purpose it serves, I have concluded
that it should be approved. I do not believe, however, that every legit-
imate  health  purpose can be served by proliferation of such leaves.  I
think the time has come to limit their further expansion.
 
  The bill is approved.                     (signed) DAVID A. PATERSON
       
Page Content