Need help interpreting Calif Sick Leave Law - temporary empoyees
 

I reviewed some bills this morning and was surprised to see that one of our staffing agencies is charging us for sick days when one of their employees is sick.

In this particular situation: We needed a laborer for one week. The agency sent one person who worked for 4 days but called in sick on the 5th day. The agency sent a replacement for the 5th day. The employee who was sick, came back and worked a 5th day (which was a Saturday). Our company basically had one FT employee for 6 days (combo of 2 different people).

When I received the bill from the staffing agency it was for: 5 days x 8hrs, 1 day x 8hrs, and 1 sick day x 8 hrs.

I asked our HR director why we had to pay sick leave for a temporary agency. Shouldn't the agency be paying the employees sick day? After all, we are charged a substantial fee over and above the employees actual rate which should cover the agencies costs (i.e., taxes, health ins, workers comp, profit). The staffing agency is the actual employer of this employee.

I've been searching the net for a definitive rule on this but I have yet to find anything that specifically covers my situation. Does anyone here have experience with this? Can you point me to a link that would help me?

We pay approximately $500k per year on temp agency help and this could be a substantial additional cost.

What if I am employed by a staffing agency?
Employees of a staffing agency are covered by the new law. Therefore, whoever is the employer or joint employer is required to provide paid sick leave to qualifying employees.

California Paid Sick Leave: Frequently Asked Questions

I agree that the employee is covered by the new California law. My question is; who is the employer responsible for paying? After all, the agency is charging me a premium of 48% over and above the employee's pay rate - presumably to cover employment costs.

Do you have a copy of the contract you've signed with the agency? As stated above, Ca. says "...the employer or joint employer...". Maybe they specify who is to pay.

Stupid ****ing law.

I think the law is less relevant here than the contract with your temp agency...but isn't the whole point of using a temp service so that you don't have to pay for things like sick time?

I mean, you do pay, bc like you said their fee is way more than what an employee costs, but convienence and flexibility come along with it. Their employee calls in sick and you have to pay an extra day because of it?? Time for a new temp service.

So, if the employee falls and files for workmen's comp and long-term disability... are you planning to pay for that? What if the employee needed to be hospitalized for a month? Paying for that too?

As an employer, you are paying for hours WORKED.

But then again, this is Kalifornia. You might be responsible for a temp's labor and delivery if they go into labor on your time...

This is why employers who can are fleeing CA.

Be careful in your contracts. Co-employment is still a federal rule. The reason for contracting with a company vs. 1099 with an individual is to avoid this issue. The new California law requires an overhaul of your 3p contracts.

Not exactly. I use temp help to fill production needs. We have full time employees to cover about 80% of our labor needs but use temp service to fill the gaps and not have to send home permanent employees during slow times.