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 employees to undergo the appropriate tests. Opponents of this bill contend that the leaves at issue can impose a hardship on employers, that existing 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 benefit 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 limiting 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. Continuous 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 legitimate health purpose can be served by proliferation of such leaves. Ithink the time has come to limit their further expansion.

The bill is approved. (signed) DAVID A. PATERSON