By RONALD DEROSA

TORRINGTON — A local organization is hoping to revise a bill that, if passed this year at the state House, would make Connecticut the first state to require businesses to offer paid sick days to their employees.

The state Working Families Party pushed for a bill during the first General Assembly session in 2008 that would have mandated businesses, of 25 people or more, to provide paid sick days to their employees. The bill would allow employees to accrue paid sick time at a rate of one hour for every 40 hours worked, up to maximum of 52 hours or six days.

The bill, known as Senate Bill 217, passed in the Senate of the General Assembly but never made it to the House floor to be voted on, said House Speaker Chris Donovan, a Democrat from the 84th District.

The executive director of the Working Families Party, Jon Green, said the platform for their party remains the same, despite the lack of success from the previous try. Jim Amman, the previous speaker of the house, was on record for being opposed to the legislation, Green said, but Donovan’s progressive stance and support of such topics means the bill could see some headway this year.

Requiring someone to come to work while ill means they will not be as productive as they would be when they are well, and causes a threat to other employees, he said.

“The premise of requiring employees to come to work when they’re sick, spreading illness in the work place, reducing productivity and increasing absenteeism, that’s supposed to be the more efficient business model?” Green said. “The (Connecticut Business & Industry Association) can sell that all day, but I’m not buying it.”

In explaining his rationale, Green cited The National Partnership for Women and Families and that 44 percent of private sector employees in the state have no paid sick days. Of that percentage, many of those employees are people who work in sectors with the highest exposure to the public, such as food services and retail, Green said.

Both Donovan and Rep. Roberta Willis, D-64, said that they would have supported the bill if it was debated in the House and that, despite harsh economic times, they would support it again in 2009.

“I’m not sure why the economics would change sick days,” she said. “It’s not fair to those who are sick and to have to come to work... It creates a level playing field in Connecticut between all businesses.”

If anything, the bill should apply even to contracted employees at the state capitol building, Willis said, such as security guards, who receive no paid sick, personal or vacation days.

“I would be happy to

support it this time,” Donovan said.

The state currently projects that there will be a $6 billion budget deficit within two years.

“Being around others who are sick... that could hurt the economy,” he said. “A lot of businesses have sick time already.”

Employer-provided sick days is important and necessary, but is not the issue, said Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-30.

“The issue is whether Connecticut should be the only state in the nation that tells employers how many sick days that employees have to have,” Roraback said. “It also sends a pretty foreboding message to any business that might think about coming to Connecticut.”

Thousands of jobs lost in recent months, combined with the current economic times, put the state in a precarious situation even without a paid sick day bill, he said.

This is not the climate to be bringing this bill forward, said Sen. Kevin Witkos, R-8.

“Business owners have stated that they can’t afford it,” he said. “Really, that’s the wrong road to travel during these economic times, to say you must provide x amount of sick days.”

Certain large businesses, like WalMart and McDonald’s, may not give paid sick days but, at least, they offer health insurance, Witkos said.

“You can’t look at just one side of the argument, which is what I think (The Working Families Party) are doing,” he said.

Rep. Craig Miner, R-66, said that this could be a year of cuts in health care and an increase in taxes. A bill requiring paid sick days would not fit during a time when the state is facing significant problems, he said.

“I couldn’t imagine the legislators supporting a bill that would require a surviving business to pay for a benefit that it doesn’t already do voluntarily,” Miner said.

Ronald DeRosa can be reached by e-mail at torrington@registercitizen.com