Paid Sick Days Bill Clears First Hurdle
by Christine Stuart | Mar 9, 2010 11:54pm
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Capitol
The controversial paid sick days bill moved forward Tuesday when the legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee sent it to the Senate floor by a vote of 6 to 4.
The bill will require companies with more than 50 employees to give their employees up to 5 days of paid sick time per year.
It passed mostly along party lines, with the exception of Rep. Ernest Hewett, a Democrat from New London, who voted against it.
Before the vote Tuesday lawmakers briefly debated the bill. Rep. Selim Noujaim, R-Waterbury, said it will only add more mandates on employers at a time they can least afford it.
“We need to help employers so they can help return us to prosperity,” Noujaim said.
One of the bill’s main proponents, Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, said she didn’t think Noujaim’s criticism of the bill was accurate.
She said as legislators they may find it hard to understand what it means to lose a day of pay because they are sick or their child is sick.
“We are in a very comfortable position so it may be difficult for some legislators to imagine what it’s like to not have paid sick time,” Prague said. “This is America where we care about other people.”
The legislature has failed to pass similar legislation over the past few years. In fact, no state has passed this type of legislation. But their efforts have prompted Connecticut’s Congressional delegation to introduce similar legislation in Congress.
“Connecticut was the first state in the nation to see a bill like this pass one of our legislative chambers, and with today’s vote we are now one step closer to seeing it become law,” U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd said in a press release Tuesday. “No one should have to choose between their job and their health or that of their family. And thanks to the leadership of people like Edith Prague, Rosa, and my late friend Ted Kennedy, they hopefully won’t have to make that unfair choice for much longer.”
(4) Comments
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | March 10, 2010 8:33am
good idea. wrong time.
drop this and get to work on the budget.
HST
posted by: one-mans-voice | March 10, 2010 8:59am
It is time for Prague to retire. She has become so painfully out of touch with the economic engine of our state, the small business owner. What was the last substantial contribution she has made? All she advocates for is spending and tax increases. The residents of the 19th need to step up and vote her out.
posted by: CT Jim | March 10, 2010 10:04am
Edith is far from out of touch with her constituants and in fact her and her husband ran a VERY successful small business for many many years and she definetly cares about small businesses as well as working families across not only her district but the state.
If the only person the other side can come up with is Coutou I am sure the districts answer would be NO -THANKS! this guy is so far to the right he wakes up in England every morning. He is anti-worker and basically anti- person.
Some of his stances are he is against healthcare for all, he believes Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and medicare is unconstitutional.
I am sure the senoirs in that district can’t wait for him to run.
posted by: thebpp | March 10, 2010 11:50am
The pro-business groups didn’t want to give workers sick time when times were good, so when exactly is the right time to enact important protections for workers?
CT businesses and top income brackets already enjoy tax rates lower than all of our neighboring states…so where is that prosperity these rich people are suppose to lead us to? It’s a pipe dream. They are back to flipping houses and driving up the price of real estate. Trickle down economics is a failure.
