Bill Requires Paid Sick Leave
Rob Varnon (Connecticut Post)

A bill being considered by the state Legislature's Judiciary Committee, that would force employers to grant paid sick leave to employees, has ignited a fight over how best to protect workers from abusive employers.

Senate Bill 217 is sitting in the Judiciary Committee and all sides are expecting it be discussed and possibly voted on by the committee on Friday. It would require any employer with 25 or more employees to grant paid sick leave.

On one side of the fight, the state's largest business lobby, the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, calls S.B. 217 another mandate that will make the state less business friendly. On the other side, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a growing force representing the working class and the poor, backs the bill and says it's needed to prevent abuse.

ACORN and Connecticut Working Families, a union-backed political action organization, support the bill and will hold an informational meeting on it in Bridgeport on Saturday at the library on Madison Avenue around 10 a.m.

Rachel Haymann, an ACORN organizer in Bridgeport, said this bill protects workers and helps many who are working lower-paying jobs. She said about 40 percent of employers in the state don't offer paid sick leave to employees, and of those, about 90 percent are in the restaurant, hotel and retail business.

"It puts the worker in a difficult spot," Haymann said, because workers worry about losing their jobs if they call in sick to

The bill would require employers of 25 people to grant an hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked.

"The intent is noble," said Newman Marsilius III, president and chief executive officer of Bridgeport-based Producto Moore Tools, but, he added, the bill is flawed.

Marsilius said he employs 140 people, provides vacation, personal holidays and 10 paid holidays and other benefits to them as part of his way to attract and keep good employees.

He said this bill would just add costs and push more company heads like himself to think about shifting work elsewhere. Marsilius said his utility costs have increased 40 percent in recent years and he's paying high taxes to remain in Bridgeport. He doesn't need this expense.

By mandating benefits, he said, it takes away one of his competitive advantages. It also punishes businesses that are doing the right thing, he said.

Marsilius said he thinks the government is overstepping its bounds. It should be there to provide a safety net, he said. This type of legislation goes too far.

There are abusive employers out there, Marsilius said, but there comes a point where workers have to be willing to say no to jobs at these places. He said he understands it's not an easy thing to do for a person who is working in a restaurant or other type of job where there is so much competition for employment.

But, if the workers stand up and the market is allowed to function properly, many of these abusive employers will go out of business.

"We could support this," said Mark Thompson, executive director of the Fairfield County Medical Association, "But why stop at 25?"

Thompson said his organization supports any policy that expands the ability of workers to take care of themselves or their children, whether it's paid or unpaid.

But he said it is a difficult issue and worth discussion on how best to tackle the problem of forcing people to work when they are sick, or making it difficult to stay home or see a doctor.

Thompson said leaving a job because of lack of benefits is easier for people with college degrees and other skills, than those who work in professions such as "flipping burgers."

It creates fear, he said, that if the person doesn't work when sick, someone else will take his or her job.

"They shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs," he said.

Because of this fear, Haymann said one problem her group has is getting people to come forward and talk about their experiences on jobs like this.

Kia Murrell, CBIA's assistant counsel on labor and employment, cited the same concerns over cost that Marsilius did. She said surveys her group has conducted show that almost 70 percent of its members offer paid sick days and the business owners who don't might have good economic reasons to not offer paid sick days.

She said those companies are choosing to offer other benefits and sometimes just offering to employ someone is as much as the business can handle and remain viable.

"Sick leave is a fringe benefit," she said. "It's not a right."

As for abuse, Murrell admitted there is some of that.

"It would be great if every one would be a model employer," she said. But to find out how to go after these employers, she said lawmakers should actually identify them and study the problem.

She said it would make sense to come up with a specific approach to deal with this problem, not just create blanket legislation.

"Legislation should be the last stop," she said.

ACORN and other groups agree, but they say that time has come.