The more feverish the debate gets over paid sick leave in Connecticut, the more nauseated employers become.
As the 2009 legislative session neared its scheduled deadline, besides taxes perhaps the most contentious business issue revolved around paid sick leave after the appropriations committee of the Connecticut General Assembly voted 34-19 to approve a bill mandating such a benefit. As of press time, it had not been scheduled for a full-chamber vote.
The bill would force companies with at least 50 workers to provide at least six-and-one-half paid sick days annually, a mandate no other state has in effect although a dozen are considering similar bills, including every New England state save Rhode Island.
Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Milwaukee have municipal-level laws in effect, with Milwaukee”™s ordinance currently being challenged in court.
Separately, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced this month a similar bill in Congress, which would allow seven sick days a year as is the case in Washington and San Francisco. DeLauro”™s third district includes parts of the Bridgeport area.
Under the Connecticut bill, eligibility would be restricted to employees that work at least 1,040 hours a year ”“ or four hours daily on the standard work calendar of 260 days per year. Under the version of the bill that emerged from appropriations, employees could take paid leave to care for children.
Sen. Bob Duff of Norwalk was the lone Fairfield County legislator to break with fellow Democrats and vote against the bill in appropriations, one of a seven Democrats to do so including Rep. Richard Roy of Milford.
Four in 10 workers in Connecticut do not receive paid sick days as an employment benefit, according to Teresa Younger, executive director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and nearly twice that percentage of low-income workers lack paid sick days.
The legislative office of fiscal analysis estimated that the bill would cost universities and colleges $1.2 million and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association said that amounts to a tacit recognition by lawmakers on the expense of imposing such a bill during a recession.
“The bill is costly; it”™s a bad time, its unworkable in today”™s economy when so often employers are struggling to keep folks employed,” said Kia Murrell, an assistant counsel with CBIA, following the appropriations committee vote. “The Legislature seems to be out of touch with what”™s happening in the real world.”
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is joining business groups in opposing the bill.
Proponents of the bill counter that in addition to creating a needed benefit for workers, such a law serves a public health need, reducing the risk that food-service workers will attempt to soldier on while sick, creating the risk of passing an illness to patrons.
Dave Rotigliano, executive chef at SBC Restaurant Group whose properties include a Stamford location, rejected that notion in testifying against the bill, saying new employees at his company must sign a form agreeing to notify their managers if they are sick.
Rotigliano added that the restaurant industry is fundamentally different than others, reflected in a lower minimum wage and other exemptions from general laws affecting business.
“We”™re in a ”˜right here, right now business,”™” Rotigliano said. “The restaurant business is inherently flexible. People who are sick, they call; they switch with the next person. If they can”™t come in Tuesday, they”™ll switch with the person working Thursday.”
