This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Fight Over Mandatory Paid Sick Days Pits Workers, Politicians Against Business Community

A bill proposed by the State Labor Committee, and supported by Gov. Dannel Malloy, would require employers with 50 or more employees to provide mandatory paid sick leave.

A bill that is pending senate action is once again pitting labor unions and politicians, including Gov. Dannel Malloy, against the state’s business community.

 Senate Bill 913, proposed by the State Labor Committee, requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide mandatory paid sick leave for the employee’s sickness, and the employee’s child’s, parent’s or spouse’s sickness, or to deal with sexual assault or family violence issues. Employees will be eligible for the benefit after working three months on the job.

Employers who fail to comply will be penalized with a fine of $600 for each violation. However, businesses that already provide paid time off in line with the bill’s requirements will be deemed compliant.

Find out what's happening in Windsor Locks-East Windsorwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The proposal, which initially germinated nearly four years ago and is back on the table now, calls for a minimum of one hour for every 40 hours worked by an employee, up to a total of five working days in a year. It was passed by a narrow Labor Committee vote of 6-5 on March 3.

Rep. David Kiner (D-Enfield) is among those who voted in favor of the proposal, while those against it included Sen. Anthony Guglielmo, a Republican who represents Vernon, Ellington and Tolland.

Find out what's happening in Windsor Locks-East Windsorwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Inc. (CBIA) estimates that if the bill is passed, a small business of 50 employees could face additional personnel cost of $20,000 per year. This figure is  based on an employee wage rate of $10 per hour..

“The traditionally liberal nature of labor laws makes the proponents of the bill think Connecticut will become the first state to enact. No other state has taken this issue seriously,” said Kia Murrell, Assistant Counsel at CBIA. “No state should be put into a disadvantaged position on labor costs compared to other states.”

 Murrell pointed out that businesses might have to pass on the extra costs to consumers.

“In seasonal work like construction, where a company might work only five months in a year, employers must still provide for one week of paid leave. Eventually consumers will bear the added cost,” she said.

 CBIA member-companies sent a deluge of letters to the legislature's Labor Committee in February, urging lawmakers to refrain from voting in favor of proposing a bill that could impose an added burden on the state’s already beleaguered businesses.

 Some excerpts:

  • “The collective bargaining agreements we have with our unionized associates address a wide variety of employee benefit and compensation issues, and by mandating that all employees accrue paid sick leave according to a one-size-fits-all formula the proposed bill would disrupt comprehensive benefit packages that have been specially negotiated with and agreed to by our union associates. For the same reason, the proposed bill would be very costly and difficult to administer.” – Mark McGowan, President, Stop & Shop, New England Division.
  • “I find it preposterous that the Connecticut legislature would once again choose to consider such a bill as SB-913 in what continues to be a dire economic time for small businesses.” – Sheila C. Mahoney, President, Mahony Fittings, Inc., East Windsor.
  • “This proposal will substantially increase business cost to our membership and could force them reevaluate the other benefits they provide for their employees.” – Candice L. Corcione, Executive Director, Tolland County Chamber of Commerce.
  • “No other states have such a mandate. The proposal will make Connecticut a higher cost, less competitive and ultimately less desirable place to do business.” – Steve Dufresne, Parts Manager, Camerota Truck Parts, Enfield and North Haven.
  • “It should be up to the individual company to set policies. It’s all about freedom.” – Hedwig Palliardi, Owner, Flat Dog LLC, Manchester.
  • “If this committee wants to signal that Connecticut is in fact open for business then you need to stand up to powerful special interests and defeat the bill.” – Thomas R. Peck, Director of Operations, ABA-PFT, Inc., Manchester.
  • “This proposal will substantially increase our business costs and could force us to reevaluate the other benefits we provide our employees,” Teresa Morrison, Human Resource Manager, J. Walter, Inc., Windsor.

Rep. David Baram, a Democrat who represents Windsor and Bloomfield, is one of the bill’s co-sponsors. He argues that contrary to what business owners say, the bill will benefit them.

“I fail to understand how businesses say this is going to cost them extra money and make them non-competitive when it will actually save them money and improve employee morale. If employees can’t afford to take time off when sick, it affects productivity and morale,” he said. “I do think with Gov. Malloy’s backing there is more momentum now than in the past.”

Baram said the bill makes for good business policy because it promotes employee morale, and promotes good public health policy because sick workers can cause other workers to fall sick, as well. Right now, people are forced to come to work since they need the money, he added.

Martin Alvaranga, Council Representative, local union chapter 43, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, said he couldn’t see how it can hurt employers to provide some kind of minimal benefit for hourly workers with very restrictive income.

 “An awful lot of hourly workers don’t have any benefits. I think the benefits of this bill are far more than the costs. It’s not a large amount of money – a worker is not going to take a sick day and put that money in the bank,” he said. “You can only squeeze the worker so much.”

 Alvaranga was keen to point out the differences between employers in North America and Europe.

 “The European Union provides two-and-a-half months of vacation and sick time to workers. We have none of that as hourly employees in the U.S.,” he said.

 He also questioned the logic behind the argument that a bill that’s good for workers can be bad for employers.

 “What benefits the working class benefits America,” he said.   

 Lori Pelletier, a Connecticut-based spokeswoman for the national AFL-CIO labor union, said the argument put forth by those that oppose the bill make her scratch her head.

 “This bill is really for companies who offer nothing to employees,” Pelletier said, and added that several of union members consist of restaurant workers in north central Connecticut.

 “I sat through restaurants testifying against the bill and couldn’t help wondering if I’d want to eat at those places where food is handled by sick employees. Businesses don’t want regulation, but as a consumer and as a worker, I want to be protected. And it’s the government’s job to do that,” she said.

According to a new report released by the Economic Policy Institute, the proposed paid sick leave bill would have a minimal impact on business as a share of company sales.  The report shows a scenario of cost-savings for employers that provide paid sick days, largely resulting from reduced employee turnover.

Nicole Griffin, Executive Director of the Connecticut Restaurant Association, whose members include Shady Glen in Manchester and Skyline Restaurant in Windsor Locks,  said the industry doesn’t need legislation because it already has a good system in place.

“If this bill is passed, employers will be double paying for the same job – pay an employee to stay at home, and pay another employee to do his/her work,” she said.

“As of now, employees switch shifts between them. In the food industry, we especially don’t want sick employees to come to work, but there are others who are happy to take their shift so they can make some extra money. The system we have right now is working just fine,” Griffin said.

Griffin said members who have four to five restaurants across the state have estimated that if passed, the bill will cost them an extra $100,000 or so each year.

 But not all restaurant owners are against the concept.

Anthony Scarpace, owner of Adams Mill in Manchester, said paid time off for hourly workers is a good idea. However, he thinks the bill comes at a time when the economy is still weak.

Per the industry norm, Scarpace does not pay employees if they’re out sick. He is conscientious about not having workers who are ill handle food, and encourages them to swap shifts among themselves. Employees in the restaurant sector – chefs and waitstaff – are typically paid hourly minimum wage and depend upon tips.

 “The bill would be an extra burden on businesses and will increase labor costs by at least three percent,” he said.

 Sue O’Connor, who serves as president of Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber opposes mandatory paid sick leave because businesses know what’s good for them.

 “Business owners know what they can and can’t afford, and the vast majority do the best they can for their employees. We believe that passing this bill will cause many employers to cut back on other benefits provided for their employees, such as education,” she said.

 Jared Carillo, the president of the Windsor Locks Chamber of Commerce, and owner of Charles S. Carillo Insurance Agency, Inc., said the bill sends the wrong message to companies who want to move to Connecticut.

 Though he employs 13 people – below the mandated 50 in the bill – he said he is weary of the government telling businesses what’s good for them.

 “Where does this stop? Tomorrow they’ll come up with something else,” he said.

 Carillo said chamber members in manufacturing or seasonal type of work will be affected the most.

 “It’s harder for employers who have blue-collar workers. If you’re running an assembly line and a customer is waiting for a widget while the machine worker is out sick, you’ve got to pay someone else to get the job done. That’s an added cost to the employer,” he said.

 Carillo also said society should ask deeper, relevant questions such as the obligation of an employer to an employee.

 “For example, you have to ask why people get sick. If someone is obese and has an unhealthy lifestyle, should the employer be responsible? If an employee takes out a mortgage based a 40-hour work week, should the employer be responsible? These are people making bad decisions," Carillo said. "Paid time off is not something that employees should be entitled to just because they have a job. It’s a by-product of hard work.”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?