In last week's e-News, the Sacramento Metro Chamber asked members what they think of AB 2716 that would require employers to offer paid sick days. So far, 86 percent of respondents oppose the bill and yet 80 percent of the respondents' businesses currently offer sick leave benefits.

Nevertheless, 86 percent of those responding want the Metro Chamber to oppose the Paid Sick Leave Bill. The Metro Chamber's Executive Committee will be taking up the matter and making a decision in the upcoming weeks.

The survey is currently open, and a significant percentage of Metro Chamber members so far had replied.

Other survey findings:

• 30 percent had businesses with more than 100 employees, 25.3 percent had 6-20 employees, 25 percent 21 to 100 employees and 19 percent five or fewer employees.

• 65 percent offered between one and 10 sick days; and 15 percent offered 11 or more sick days.

• 40 percent reported the sick day benefit cost their firms more than $25,000 annually; of those, nearly 29 percent reported costs of greater than $100,000 annually.

• 45 percent reported they would cut other benefits if they had to free up resources to implement this new burden to business.

• 34 percent would not hire additional employees to free up resources.

• 40 percent would lay-off employees or reduce employees' salaries.

• 31 percent would increase prices.

Among comments as to what effect the proposed law would have on their business, Metro Chambers said:

• As a small business, we try and control our payroll depending on the season to contain costs. This will hurt us financially especially if it is cumulative. There will be certain employees who will take advantage of this perk. There will also be employees who could use it. I just resent government telling me how to run my own business.

• Every condition for using the time would be utilized. This would be like workers comp. before the reforms, people would game the system!

• It would provide a negative impact. It promotes staff to take more days off. We find employees taking their sick leave now for questionable reasons....

• The mandated benefit doesn't come out of thin air, and a smart business owner will find away to make either the customer or employee pay, one way or the other. It's simple economics, I think the legislators either don't understand the complete issue or don't care about the unintended consequences.

• I would have to close the business.

• We do provide paid sick days, but accruing unused sick (leave) is onerous. It would cost us a substantial amount of money.

• Increase payroll costs, increase timekeeping costs, reduce flexibility with employee benefits.

• Multiple levels of change. Accrual methods that differ from other benefits. Software changes needed in new and older programs that may not have upgrades available. More burden placed on employer, while employee has no burden. Extra hours of unproductive time and wages will have to be passed down to consumers. This would have a great negative impact on our business.

• The additional cost of this new bill in paid sick pay to the rest of my employees would be enormous.

• The company would immediately decrease the number of sick days currently awarded full-time employees. The negative impact is severe and would take many hours to calculate.

• It will increase the cost of our product and force us to pass those costs on to consumers. If the market is unwilling to pay a higher price, then we will have to layoff employees to reflect higher costs associated with being an employer. At some point soon, we may move our business out of the state. California is not a business-friendly state. I love it here, but it is getting very hard to maintain a profitable business with the high direct taxes and indirect ones such as this bill.

The survey also asked for respondents for comments to pass to the region's 12-member state legislative delegation. Here's a sampling:

• I feel that the legislature has no idea how difficult it is to run a small business, and the fact that someone is in "business" must mean they can accommodate health plans, mandated sick leave etc. We already pay a lot of matching taxes, and I assume, in addition to pay more taxes, we have to pay the employee too! We already have to have workman's comp. It feels like local governments are desperately trying to tie the lack of a universal health plan by state and federal governments onto businesses because they have no other resource.

• This is simply one of the worst bills of all time. The originators of this bill have obviously never worked with human resources, payroll, or even general business practices. Employers should only have to pay for time worked, all other payments for time not worked MUST be left at the employers discretion. Employee retention is the motivation for an employer, not ridiculous legislation.

• Why does this legislature persist in dis-incentivizing employment and driving employers out of state?

• If they don't oppose this bill more company's will be required to reduce benefits, cut salaries, raise fees, and lose out to out-of-state companies. It will also drive out businesses in California. It seems the state has already put a major burden on the backs of companies in California. Enough is enough!

• Government should be focused on the real problems of its citizens, not expanding and dictating fringe benefits. Shouldn't the government be trying to improve the economy (by less regulation), not creating a more-hostile business environment in California?

• Do not allow government to dictate the "benefits" an employer offers to employees. Let the market determine what is fair and equitable.

• One particularly loony provision of this bill allows an employee who does not have a spouse or domestic partner to "designate a person for which he or she may use paid sick days to provide care" (a neighbor, a friend, his dog or cat, who knows?). This is "nanny government" at its absolute worst!!

• This is another obstacle in doing business in California. This is especially true for the mid and small size businesses which are the backbones of this country. Legislature needs to remember if there are no businesses there will be no employees or jobs. If business taxes are down, government spending will be down or the State will go into bankruptcy.

• This is one of the most outrageous proposals I have heard in a long time. I already offer my employees paid vacation and holidays.

• It is bad enough that the government workers have as many holidays, sick days and other perks that do not mandate that they work, and now they want us in the private industry to follow suit. Well, we do not have the deep pockets the government has. And it is so easy for them to spend it, due to them extrapolating it from our lives and businesses. Enough is enough when it comes to the government telling us how to spend our money.

• While I believe that every responsible employer should provide their employees with sick benefits, the law as currently written is too restrictive and will place an excessive burden on small business...and, let's face it, if employer's costs go up everybody's costs go up.

• Strongly oppose this bill. Leave the running of businesses to the business men and women. The state has a large deficit due to the brilliant business practices of our legislature. The private business person can't stay in business if the costs to run it keep escalating.

• I feel private businesses with 50+ employees should be looking to improve the quality of life for their employees. It leads to retention, loyalty. I think it's a shame that my tax dollars go to state employees, rather than supporting our community and the private business owner. I do feel the law should take into account the number of employees on the payroll. Larger businesses, that employ 50+ can certainly afford the benefit.