Paid Sick Day Bill Will Be Amended, But Passage Is Still Uncertain
by Christine Stuart | May 19, 2011 5:00am
(8) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Health Care, Labor
It was one of the last big pushes for a piece of legislation that will mandate private employers to allow their employees to earn paid sick time.
The Connecticut Working Families Party, the main proponents of the legislation, was talking to lawmakers outside the House chamber Wednesday evening trying to get their support, but the bill’s first and most difficult hurdle will be in the Senate where the vote count is razor thin.
Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, was cornered by a group of Working Family Party members Wednesday who were trying to convince him the bill wouldn’t harm Connecticut’s business environment.
“If paid sick days passes, Connecticut will be the only state in the country to pass such a piece of legislation and what kind of message does that send?” McKinney said. “It says Connecticut is not open to business.”
He said there’s nothing the group could have said that would have convinced him to vote for the legislation, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t enjoy the conversation.
McKinney said he can’t support the legislation because something like 86 percent of businesses with 50 or more employees already offer paid sick leave and those that don’t can’t afford to. Mandating companies with 50 or more employees “would make Connecticut much less business friendly,” said McKinney.
Kia Murrell, assistant counsel at the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said there‘s rumors the bill could come up for a vote in the Senate as early as this week, but she thinks there‘s sufficient opposition to the legislation.
“I think the votes we have aren‘t going to change,” Murrell said Wednesday.
Even if there are amendments to change the types of businesses the bill applies to Murrell said she‘s confident Senators opposed will remain opposed. She said any amendment to the legislation is “smoke and mirrors,” because if the bill is limited to certain industries then it comes at an expense to those advocates say need it most.
She said a lot of the businesses with low wage earners can’t afford to offer paid sick leave benefits and even if they were they can’t afford to pass them along to their customers because they’d lose their competitive edge.
Jon Green, executive director of the Working Families Party, acknowledged that his group is looking to amend the legislation and perhaps woo a few more lawmakers by limiting it to service employees such as waitresses, chefs, bus drivers and health care workers who deal directly with the public.
“Unlimited breadsticks but no paid sick days,” Green said. The saying is a reference to the Olive Garden where the group hosted a protest last week.
Green said amending the legislation to include only service workers goes to the heart of the issue, which is making sure disease doesn’t spread. He also said it helps make sure low wage workers that get no other benefits are able to choose to stay home, instead of come to work sick and spread their illness to others because they can’t afford to miss a paycheck.
Since the amended version will only impact the service industry, which is not competing across state lines in many cases, there won’t be any economic impact, Green said.
As he’s traveled the state explaining the legislation Green’s learned there are many misconceptions. At a recent visit to a small manufacturing company Green asked what benefits they currently offer their employees. When the company told him it included paid vacation and paid sick time he explained to them that the legislation wouldn’t apply to them. But he said it wasn’t until the third time he said it that it began to sink in.
He said that’s when he realized instead of having to explain this to hundreds of companies across the state, it may just be simpler to amend the legislation.
But with slimmer margins in the Senate than previous years both Green and Murrell agree the vote is close.
There are anywhere from seven Democratic Senators possibly voting against the measure and with only two Republicans voting in favor of it the vote tally is within one vote of a tie. A tie vote would need to be broken by Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman who is in favor of the legislation.
Click here for our previous coverage of the issue this session.
Tags: paid sick days, lobby, senate, mckinney, green
(8) Comments
posted by: Dave in Branford | May 19, 2011 8:23am
This is a NEW tax on businesses - not what we need.
Further I assume many lower paid workers will just use these sick days akin to vacation days. They will still go to work with colds and the like. (Ever hear of a Union worker with unused sick days??).
posted by: Disgruntled | May 19, 2011 9:12am
Are those the values they teach at Fairfield Prep Mr. McKinney? Denying minimum wage workers a paid day off while sick?!
Passed or not,Connecticut will be open for business.At least that is what The Nutmeg King has decreed.
Get to work and try to do something substantive.
posted by: Tessa Marquis | May 19, 2011 9:32am
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (3rd CD) has introduced a similar bill (“Healthy Families Act”) on the Federal level.
This issue goes beyond the food service industry, as anyone with a business knows. (1) Sick employees are unproductive, and may cause others to become ill. (2) People with certain medical procedures may put off appointments for fear of missing a day at work (3) many children are sent to school while ill because the caretaker or parent cannot afford to miss work.
Ask a School Nurse about that last one.
posted by: Matt W. | May 19, 2011 12:59pm
Tessa, perhaps if your points are repeated often enough they will become true but not yet.
1) Sick employees are not unproductive they are LESS productive. I suffer from severe allergies which have all the benefits of being sick without the risk of contiguity. I come to work every year and suffer through the first 3 weeks of May. I am probably less productive but markedly more productive than I would be on my couch which is the whole point. If a business determines that having sick employees in the workplace reduces productivity so severely that they lose money then those businesses would make the decision out of survival to provide paid sick time or otherwise send sick employees home.
2) Those who have appointments (or are sent home) should talk to their managers about SCHEDULING. Many businesses have the ability to change employee schedules or provide additional shifts or overtime to assist employees who need time off during the work week. This is a fairly common practice among normal working human beings. Incidentally, a medical appointment that must be scheduled is by definition not an emergency and might be more appropriately addressed on the employee’s time rather than the employer’s time.
3) Many children are sent to school/daycare sick and that is simply a fact of having children. Children have developing immune systems and when young are sick about as often as they are healthy. If we were to stay home every time our kids were sick we would never get to work and they would never get to school/daycare. For serious child illnesses, I refer you to #2 above on scheduling or in this case re-scheduling.
posted by: saramerica | May 19, 2011 5:55pm
Dave in Branford - if you actually look at factual studies following the implementation of paid sick days in San Francisco rather than just making assumptions based on your personal prejudices, you will find that you are Just Plain Wrong.
“Despite the availability of either five or nine sick days under the PSLO, the typical worker with access used only three paid sick days during the previous year, and one-quarter of employees with access used zero paid sick days.” Facts, not assumptions.
posted by: CitizenCT | May 19, 2011 8:03pm
Sara, give us a break. You pull a quote from a survey of a self serving liberal hack group and declare it a fact? We expect better from you.
