With days left in the legislative session, legislators shifted their attention to a rekindled push to require many Connecticut businesses to offer paid sick leave to their workers.
The bill drew reams of amendments amid testimony from more than 250 parties for and against, with supporters including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy arguing it just makes sense as a workplace health issue and opponents saying it punches a permanent hole in Malloy”™s oft-repeated contention that Connecticut is “open for business” under his administration.
“This piece of legislation is a reasonable compromise that represents good public policy,” Malloy said, in a prepared statement. “It exempts industries where appropriate, it ensures that the benefit won”™t be abused and most importantly, it protects public health. It shouldn”™t be the case that people who are frontline service workers ”“ people who serve us food, who care for our children and who work in hospitals, for example ”“ are forced to go to work sick to keep their jobs.”
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association and other groups maintain that by becoming the first state to mandate paid sick leave by many employers, Connecticut risks cementing its status as an anti-business enclave.
“Even New York City recently abandoned its plans to enact a paid sick leave mandate after finding that it would increase employers”™ costs by $789 million,” said Kia Murrell, CBIA assistant counsel, in testimony on the bill earlier this year. “Employee absences are not isolated incidents. When an employee is absent, someone else has to fill the job or provide the services ”“ and that comes with a price in terms of time, money and management.”
Still, supporters brought in multiple San Francisco residents to testify on that city”™s implementation of a paid sick leave mandate.
Donna Levitt, labor standards enforcement officer for San Francisco, said she was not aware of any employer that had cut jobs or made any other significant changes to its business in that city in response to its paid sick leave bill that took effect in 2006. And the owner of a San Francisco restaurant testified she was “pleasantly surprised” that her employees did not appear to abuse the new sick leave policy after it was instituted and that the policy may have helped her reduce staff turnover.
And not all Connecticut business owners testified in opposition ”“ the owner of Queue Inc., a small educational publisher in Stratford, said he offers paid sick leave already and gets good results.
In among the latest bill adjustments before Connecticut”™s legislative deadline on June 8, lawmakers included an amendment that would exempt manufacturers. Several area manufacturers had testified against the bill, including Bridgeport-based PMT Group, Bridgeport Fittings in Stratford and C.O. Jelliff Corp. in Southport.
“Should this bill pass and become law, it will be one more reason why we should move out of the state and consolidate our resources into our facility in North Carolina,” said Rand Glucroft, vice president of C.O. Jelliff. “After operating in Connecticut for over 130 years, this could be the last straw.”
Other companies testified on less-stringent steps they might take that would still impact workers to varying degrees.
Angela Pettini, vice president of Gary”™s East Coast Service appliance repair and maintenance in Shelton, said her company would probably compensate by reducing the amount of vacation time it offers employees. Ashley Cipollone, human resources manager for the LaurelRock Co. in Wilton, said her company would be operating at a disadvantage compared to smaller rivals exempt from the bill. And Marcy Macdonald, vice president of human resources for Bethel-based Memry Corp., said her company might either cut jobs or compensation in response.
Everything comes at a cost. Of course when an employee is out sick the bottom line will be effected? The question is whether someone cover the shift or not a company still looses money. So I believe companies should have the best interest of their employees at hand.