Duking It Out Over Sick Days
A battle is brewing this spring over a legislative proposal to mandate a minimum amount of paid sick days for all employees.
In one corner stands a majority of Connecticut business owners who feel the mandate would adversely affect their bottom line.
Across the ring are advocates, like Connecticut Working Families, fighting because they believe the mandate will protect families and the health of workers.
In 2007, a similar bill made its way through the state Senate but died in the House. That means 2008 is shaping up as round two, and both sides have already started throwing haymakers.
“Most businesses in Connecticut pay over the minimum wage, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a basic minimum floor,” said Joe Dinkin, communications director for Connecticut Working Families. “Everyone should have access to paid sick days.”
More Business Costs
“Economic development in the state and the country is being hurt by increasing costs,” said Kia Murrell, assistant counsel for labor and employment issues for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. “It’s so darn expensive to operate in the state; we can’t afford to add another government mandate.”
If passed, employees would accrue sick leave at the rate of one hour for each 40 weeks worked.
At the heart of the issue is the difference of opinion on whether or not the mandate would be good for business.
Advocates of the bill point to a survey of human resources executives, which found that 56 percent of HR professionals said “presenteeism” is a significant problem. Presenteeism is the phenomenon of employees coming to work despite being ill.
“I don’t think this mandate is bad for business at all,” Dinkin said. “I think it’s good because it would eliminate people coming to work sick, potentially spreading illnesses to others.”
Healthful Workplace
Those in favor of the bill also believe that workers with paid sick days would be healthier, which in turn would lead to higher productivity.
The CBIA, though, counters that a recent survey found 69 percent of Connecticut employers offer sick leave and 60 percent allow workers to carry over unused sick days.
Furthermore, Connecticut businesses are against the proposed mandate by a 24 to 1 margin.
One area of concern is unique, seasonal or small businesses that would be forced to grant more sick time than they can fiscally afford.
“A lot of these businesses, because of their nature, can’t afford to give their guys that much time off,” Murrell said. “And if it’s, say, a business at the beach that only runs for five months a year, it’s going to be hard to do that. It’s an unfortunate thing to say, but sick time is a fringe benefit.”
Murrell pointed out that the current trend is for businesses to lump together vacation and personal days together for employees to use as they see fit. The mandate would effectively end that practice.
As the bill weaves its way through the state Capitol, Murrell said that she is concerned that many legislators pushing for the bill’s approval have no business experience.
“Some of these legislators have their experience in education or government or nonprofits,” she said. “They’ve never had to run a business for profit. They’ve never had to produce a product on time and under budget.”
While Murrell is confident that the wave of opposition from businesses would kill the bill, Dinkin and Connecticut Working Families are confident they can push the bill from proposal to law.
Sean O’Leary is a Hartford Business Journal staff writer.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments