It may be time to say, "As Connecticut goes, so goes the nation." Any day now, Connecticut's governor is expected to place his John Hancock on a bill that will make Connecticut the first state in the nation to enact a minimum standard for paid sick days. That sends "an important signal to the other 49 states," as state House Speaker Christopher Donovan noted when the bill passed.
State law is necessary because the United States has no federal paid sick days law for private sector employees. The United States is an outlier among the 15 most competitive nations when it comes to providing paid sick days. It's the only country in the bunch that doesn't have a law mandating sick time. The lack of federal law has sown a growing movement at the state and local level to pass paid sick days legislation. That's because 42 percent of the nation's private sector workforce -- 44 million workers -- do not get paid if they take a day off when the flu strikes or after Johnny breaks his arm sliding into first base. For the 44 million workers, taking time off for health can translate not only into lost wages but, too often, lost jobs.
With Connecticut leading the way, paid sick days laws may be contagious. There are active advocacy campaigns in about 20 cities and states, and bills are progressing in a number of states including California and Massachusetts.
The Connecticut law mandates that service-sector employers with more than 50 employees provide paid sick days. Employees get one hour of sick leave for every 40 hours worked. Between 200,000 to 400,000 service workers, including restaurant workers, cashiers, security guards and hotel workers will be covered starting in 2012.
Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy puts it plainly: paid sick days is "good public policy and specifically, good public health." Malloy, notably, spoke up for paid sick days as a gubernatorial candidate. His election demonstrates that paid sick days is not just good public policy -- it can be good politics too.
In politics, public opinion is nothing to sneeze at. Polls repeatedly demonstrate that the public wants legislation that provides paid sick days. A 2010 national poll (PDF) found the overwhelming majority of Americans, fully 86 percent, think there ought to be a law in which workers earn seven days. Nearly 65 percent of self-described "strong Republicans" view paid sick days as a basic workers' right. A recent New York City poll (PDF) found nearly 90 percent, including 75 percent of Republicans, support all workers being allowed to earn at least five paid sick days.
In Connecticut, members of the Small Business Network for Paid Sick Days were a key part of the winning coalition. In the words of Louis Lista, who owns the Pond House Cafe, "providing decent benefits like paid sick days, even to workers in the food service industry, can pay real dividends for a business." Although some employers -- and particularly their trade associations -- in Connecticut oppose anything but business-as-usual, employers around the country are coming out in support.
Employer voices for paid sick days laws are changing the political calculus in states and cities around the country. In Massachusetts, where a bill is pending in the legislature, at least 14 employers are already on record in support of government action. In New York City, numerous businesses not only testified and spoke at rallies last year, but many have also helped mobilize other employers.
Employers in San Francisco are perhaps the strongest voice for paid sick days, since they have actual experience with a law approved four years ago. Nearly two thirds of San Francisco employers support the law. Even some San Francisco business owners who had been skeptical are now advocates for paid sick days. Sam Mogannam who owns Bi-Rite, a local community market and creamery, was originally apprehensive about the legislation, but now views the law as a morale booster for employees. Zazie restaurant owner Jennifer Piallet says she initially worried that employees would abuse the leave, but has been "pleasantly surprised" that her workers have taken leave "responsibly; " Piallet now says the policy improves her profitability in part because contagious workers stay home.
The public wants it, politicians can win office with it, employers with experience of it overwhelmingly support it. It's just a matter of time before it spreads to many more places. Of course, for big employers who would be faced with implementing distinct local and state laws across their national workforce, that could translate into more than a sinus headache; indeed, the best medicine just might be a federal standard.
Connecticut Service Workers to Get Paid Sick Leave - NYTimes.com
Connecticut legislators first to pass paid sick leave bill - CNN
Mandatory paid sick leave: How has it worked in San Francisco ...
there are usually 7-8 paid holidays a year
employees get 5-15 days of paid vacation a year
there are 20-23 work days a month
so we already pay some folks to not work a whole month
This article does a great job of undermining it's own objective of selling the need for this law.
Next, they'll be a 3 sneeze and you have to go home law.
1). Any benefit that executives can have, everyone in the company can have. It is both bad business and morally wrong for executives to have great benefits when the rank and file have no benefits or barely acceptable benefits. Institute the same benefits for all employees, esp. at publicly held companies.
2). Stockholder approval of executive compensation. Stockholders are the actual owners of a company. Why, then, do so many companies not only keep them from voting on executive compensation, but keep the amount of executive compensation from their stockholders? We need a law to end this abusive practice and give the company owners back their rightful say in the compensation of their employees.
3). Stop the loophole that allows executives to steal employees' pension funds. As it is now, a special pension fund can be set up for execs that can be funded from employee pension funds....even if employee pension funds then default on their obligation to employees.
There are many more I have ideas for, but am running out of space. More later.
And of course what give you the right to dictate such business management concepts on anyone else? Would you appreciate if some majority of business owners mandated a different set of business management practices on YOU, and mandated that you could NOT have all these enlightened policies? What's wrong with freedom, and letting people decide for themselves?
You're certainly welcome to promote your ideas on management and try to persuade others that it's good for business or ethical, or whatever. Why isn't that enough?
Paid sick days are fine. Go ahead and subsidize them with tax dollars. I feel better about that than giving money to Afghanistan or illegal wars. However placing the burden on small business owners in America when they can least afford it is a sure fire way to drive more businesses into the ground.
Just pass single payer healthcare and 7 federally subsidized sick days instead of guarenteeing insurance company profits by a citizen's tax and making America a perfect storm for big box corporate players while small American businesses drown.
Noblese Oblige is great as long as it is your money.
If that's true, then why use the coercive force of government to intrude on and dictate the terms of a private economic transaction? If it's true, then businesses that choose to offer benefits will gain a competitive advantage and prosper.
- 7 paid sick days
- 7-14 paid vacation leave
- Maternity leave
- Health care/Day care
- Mandatory paid Federal holidays (I'm sure this will gain traction also.)
So, as an employer I need to pay an employee for a number of weeks when they are doing no work and generating to revenue. I hope everyone understands the simple math (unlike our govt), that when money goes out and doesn't come in you have a deficit. Let's also throw in things like a livable wage (what does that mean), shorter work days, collective bargaining over work conditions, etc. etc. etc. Don't forget, employers also match employees MC/C contributions (contribution, I call it a tax) and pay a higher percentage of the unemployent taxes than employees, which in itself is grossly unfair.
The entitlement mentality of this country will bury our economy. An employer cannot be responsible for picking up all these extras for pampered employees. Unfortunately, things won't change until our younger generations suffer through catastophic economic collapse and they lose all those perks, which they haven't earned.
Dayne
As one company motivational poster put it "The flogging will continue until morale improves."
1. I'm sure you're willing to pay for all this time off (LOL)
2. You're not a biz owner - not even close.
Dayne