This Week in Politics and Policy.  June 1, 2007

Pull Quote – This is another example of legislators run amuck and California as a nanny state at its worst.

It’s time for our weekly tour around this great nation, highlighting what’s new in politics and policy what’s happening around the country and the world that affects you, your family and your business.

This week, the California State Senate took another step in their effort to completely control businesses in this state, adding “familial status” to the categories protected by the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  This means that employees who have extraordinary outside demands on their time--caring for children, sick spouses or parents--cannot be denied promotions or raises.  Current categories rightfully covered by the Fair Employment and Housing Act include marital status, age, sexual orientation, disabilities and national origin.

The bill was sponsored by the state’s most liberal legislator – Santa Monica’s State Senator, Democrat Sheila Kuehl. Now Kuehl, and every Democrat in the Senate, want employers to be forced to ignore the impact that family demands place on an employee and the employer.  It should be noted that the vote was straight down party lines; every Republican voted against it.  As the bill moves to the State Assembly, you can expect the same party-line vote. 

Democrats say that too often, an employee is passed over for promotions or raises when he frequently has to miss work, takes excessive sick days, leaves early, comes in late, or switches around shifts . By their definition, an employer is discriminatory when promoting a worker who is on time, stays through the prescribed hours, does not take excessive time off, and can be consistently counted on to contribute to his assigned team.

Ridiculous.

The dramatic difference between the categories already covered and familial status is that none of the previously covered categories impacted job performance.  If a woman did a better job than a man, she should be promoted, same if a Catholic did a better job than a Jew, or a 50-year old employee outperformed a 30-year old.  However, an employer should be allowed to promote the person who is best serving the company ,and a demonstrated ability to be at work should be included in that evaluation.

It is not that employers are insensitive to the needs of those with extraordinary demands on their time.  However, if they impact job performance – and not being able to count on them to show up does impact job performance – they should not be forced to promote them over someone who is able to commit to the job.

This is another example of legislators run amuck and California as a nanny state at its worst.