City of San Francisco Paid Parental Leave for City Employees, Proposition B (November 2015)

Voting on Labor and Unions

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

Local labor and unions
Local project labor agreements
Local pensions

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Ballot simplification digest
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Editorials
* 4 Reports and analysis
* 4.1 Controller analysis
* 4.2 San Francisco Government Television
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 Recent news
* 7 Other elections
* 7.1 Mayoral election
* 7.2 Board of supervisors
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

A measure to allow parental leave for both parents if they are both city employees was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on November 3, 2015. It was approved.

Proposition B was designed by its sponsor, Supervisor Katy Tang, to amend the city charter to allow the parents of a newly born or adopted child who are both city employees to both take the full 12 weeks of parental leave allowed, instead of having a total of 12 weeks between them. Under Proposition B, both parents would also qualify for the four-week extension allowed for any temporary disability caused by pregnancy. Proposition B also allowed parents to have at least 40 hours of sick leave remaining at the end of paid parental leave, whereas without Proposition B parents would have been required to use up all of their sick leave before accessing paid parental leave.[1]

The city controller's analysis of Proposition B estimated an annual increase of between $570,000 and $1.1 million to the city's staffing costs.[2]

Parental leave benefits of between 12 and 16 weeks for one parent were granted to city employees in 2002, when 53.75 percent of voters approved Measure I.[3]

## Election results[edit]

San Francisco, Proposition B

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  133,718|  68.02%
No| 62,864| 31.98%

Election results from San Francisco Elections Office

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question for this measure appeared on the ballot:[4]

“  |

Shall the City amend the Charter to allow parents who are both City employees to each take the maximum amount of paid parental leave for which they qualify for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child, if both parents are City employees; and to provide each parent the opportunity to keep up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave?[5]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot simplification digest[edit]

The following summary of the measure was provided by the San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee:

“  |

The Way It Is Now: The Charter provides City employees with 12 weeks of paid parental leave to care for a child after birth or adoption or becoming a foster parent. A City employee may receive an additional four weeks of paid parental leave if, as certified by a healthcare provider, the employee is temporarily disabled by pregnancy. If two City employees qualify to take paid parental leave, they may not each take 12 weeks of leave for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child. The combined total of paid parental leave allowed for the same child is 12 weeks, or 16 weeks if one employee has been temporarily disabled by pregnancy. Before receiving paid parental leave, an employee must first use all other paid leave, including sick leave, vacation, and floating holidays. If an employee does not use all available paid leave, the amount of unused leave is subtracted from the paid parental leave benefit.

The Proposal: Proposition B would amend the Charter to:

* allow each parent to take the maximum amount of paid parental leave for which they qualify for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child, if both parents are City employees; and
* provide City employees the opportunity to keep up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to allow each parent to take the maximum amount of paid parental leave for which they qualify for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child, if both parents are City employees; and provide each parent the opportunity to keep up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes to the Charter.[5]

| ”

|
|

—San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee[1]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of this measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

Proposition B was sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang.[6]

The San Francisco Labor Council supported a "yes" vote on Proposition B.[7]

### Editorials[edit]

The San Francisco Examiner editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition B. The board argued that, despite its cost, it was a worthwhile measure. The board wrote:[8]

“  |

Proposition B, Paid Parental Leave For City Employees, would allow each parent of a new child to use up to 12 weeks of parental leave, and they could each keep up to 40 hours of sick time following the parental leave. The cost of this measure, between $570,000 and $1.1 million annually to fill the positions with other workers during both the parental leave absence and for the 40 hours of sick time is a worthwhile expense to help attract top talent to city positions and to ensure those workers with infants can better care for their families.[5]

| ”

|
|

—San Francisco Examiner editorial board[8]

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board also endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition B. The board argue that the extra paid leave the proposition provides is very important to new parents, providing a benefit that significantly outweighs the minor cost to the city budget. The board wrote:[9]

“  |

Proposition B’s proposed expansion San Francisco’s parental leave policy would be relatively minor in terms of substance and budget. But it would be an enormous help to the few families that would be affected by it.

Under current law, the result of a 2002 ballot measure, city employees are allowed up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a newly arrived child — whether by birth, adoption or foster care. The city covers the cost after a worker’s accrued paid time off is exhausted.

However, in cases in which both parents work for the city, each is allowed only six weeks off.

This measure would assure that each parent is provided with a 12-week benefit. It also would allow city employees who take parental leave to retain up to 40 hours of their accrued sick leave. As all parents know, the first years are often accompanied by frequent illnesses for the child and everyone else in the family.[5]

| ”

|
|

—San Francisco Chronicle editorial board[9]

## Reports and analysis[edit]

### Controller analysis[edit]

The following estimate of the fiscal impact of this measure on the city's budget was prepared by the city controller and appeared on the ballot:

“  |

Should the proposed charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, there would be an increase in the cost of government of between $570,000 and $1.1 million annually.

The amendment allows City employees whose spouse or partner is also a City employee to receive paid leave for up to 12 weeks upon the birth or adoption of a child. The cost to the City depends on the number of employees whose spouse or partner is a City employee, the amount of City parental leave taken, pay rates, and other factors.

Based upon historical parental leave usage patterns, we estimate a cost of $100,000 to $160,000 to pay overtime or hire temporary replacements for employees taking additional parental leave who work in 24- hour operations. If these new users took the full 12-week benefit, the cost to backfill positions would range from $270,000 to $410,000 annually. This does not include the cost of replacing employees who are not in 24-hour operations, where a given employee's absence does not reflect an increase in cost but rather a loss of productivity.

Additionally, the amendment allows employees to retain 40 hours of sick leave rather than being required to use those hours prior to using parental leave. The cost to backfill all users of parental leave for the additional 40 hours of leave ranges from $470,000 to $700,000 per year. Again, this amount does not include reduced productivity that may result from absences in non-backfilled positions.[5]

| ”

|
|

—San Francisco Controller[2]

### San Francisco Government Television[edit]

San Francisco Government Television, "Proposition B: Parental Leave for City Employees," October 16, 2015

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang and put on the ballot by a vote of the board of supervisors.[6]

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco paid parental leave Proposition B. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

City of San Francisco Paid Parental Leave for City Employees, Proposition B (November 2015) - Google News

## Other elections[edit]

### Mayoral election[edit]

See also: San Francisco, California mayoral election in 2015

Mayor Ed Lee was the incumbent candidate in the city's 2015 mayoral race. Mayor Lee was re-elected on November 3, 2015.[10]

### Board of supervisors[edit]

See also: San Francisco, California board of supervisors election in 2015

The consolidated city-county's District 3 board of supervisors position was up for election on November 3, 2015. Aaron Peskin defeated incumbent Julie Christensen.

## See also[edit]

* Local labor and unions on the ballot
* San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures
* November 3, 2015 ballot measures in California
* San Francisco, California municipal elections, 2015

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* San Francisco Elections Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee, "Final digest," accessed August 26, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 San Francisco Elections Office, "Controller Analysis of Proposition B," accessed August 26, 2015
3. ↑ Smart Voter, "Measure I Paid Parental Leave County of San Francisco," accessed August 27, 2015
4. ↑ San Francisco Elections Office, “Ballot Question text,” accessed August 25, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 San Francisco Elections Office, “Local Ballot Measure Status,” accessed July 15, 2015
7. ↑ San Francisco Labor Council, "Endorsements," accessed August 27, 2015
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 San Francisco Examiner, "San Francisco Examiner’s 2015 Endorsements," October 15, 2015
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. B," October 5, 2015
10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `Article`

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

2022|

April 12 •

* * *

2021|

March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31

* * *

2020|

March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3

* * *

2019|

February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2018|

January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6

* * *

2017|

January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7

* * *

2016|

January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8

* * *

2015|

January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17

* * *

2014|

February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4

* * *

2013|

March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2012|

February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6

* * *

2011|

January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22

* * *

2010|

January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2

* * *

2009|

January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15

* * *

2008|

February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4

* * *

2007|

March 6 • May 7 • November 6

* * *

2006|

March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy