Mandatory paid sick leave: Sure thing? Or bad bet?
December 12, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, FMLA, Leave, Money, Special Report, Supervisors, policies
The move to institute paid sick and maternity/paternity leave in the United States got a boost from the election of Barack Obama and a slap from the economy. So where’s the movement headed?
Read into this what you will, but First Lady to-be Michelle Obama has identified “work/family balance” as one of the issues she’ll focus on when she moves into the White House.
And President-elect Obama and the Democratic members of Congress have said they’ll give priority to legislation like the Healthy Families Act — which, among other things, guarantees paid sick leave (see a summary of the act). Standing in the way of those promises is a rough economy that has a lot of businesses operating on the edge already.
So where are proposals like paid sick and FMLA leave going? Even some Democrats aren’t sure about what to do now.
3 States say ‘no’ — for now
Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, for instance, withdrew a ballot measure for paid sick leave in his state for fear of weakening businesses there in already tough times and putting them at a competitive disadvantage with businesses in neighboring states that don’t have paid sick leave. Democratic strongholds like Washington State and New Jersey have stalled on similar measures, for the same reasons Strickland cited in Ohio.
That doesn’t mean the movement is dead. More likely, state leaders are waiting for Congress to set up a national program so that no state will be at a business disadvantage. And Congress and Obama may be ready to take up the cause.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D., CT), who wrote the original Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, has said he supports and will push for a proposal to offer eight weeks of paid family leave, funded by the combined contributions of employees and employers. And Obama campaigned on the idea of changing the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover companies with as few as 25 employees, instead of the 50-employee minimum in the act now.
Add up the two proposals and you get paid leave for anyone who works for a company of at least 25 employees.
U.S. v. the world
Right now, the U.S. has three cities that mandate paid sick leave — Milwaukee, San Francisco and Washington. One state, California, has paid FMLA, and eight other states have legislation pending on the matter.
Proponents of paid sick/FMLA leave point to statistics that appear to put the U.S. behind developed countries on the issue:
- 66 countries guarantee that fathers receive paid paternity leave or have a right to paid parental leave.
- Only four countries of 173 surveyed don’t guarantee some form of paid maternity leave. The four are Liberia, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and the United States.
- At least 145 countries provide paid sick days, and 136 offer at least one week a year.
Got an opinion on the subject? Please take the poll on our home page (on the right), and see what other HR managers think, too.
Tags: Dodd, Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, Healthy Families Act, obama, Ohio, washington
December 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
It will be interesting to see if employers offset new paid sick time requirements by decreasing the amount of paid vacation offered…
December 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Jim Giuliano – I think you need to check your facts. California does NOT mandate paid FMLA, as you write in your article. But it does have a program called California Family Temporary Disability Insurance (”FTDI”) in which the state of California pays NOT the employer. I am against mandating paid sick leave. This issue is, it gives a benefit to sick employees and those choose have children. But those that are healthy and choose to not have a family LOSE.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I think it would be great for the employee but could see that it could put a great hardship on the employer. I think it could further hurt our economy at this time.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
This should be an employer offered benefit not a government mandated one. Government stay out of running businesses. We see how you run/riun the government, please keep your “good” ideas to your self.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Great! Another unfunded mandate that the government wants to impose on small businesses. The cost of compliance with all the government regulations is growing at an unprecented rate and the new Obama Administration and Democratic Congress are due to take over for another month. Between them they will decimate small private industry. The unions will do the rest. Welcome to The USSA (United Socialist States of America).
December 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
It’s probably a good thing Sherry doesn’t have kids, she sounds like one miserable person.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Ditto Tom. Lawmakers should not be allowed to pen legislation that mandates companies to increase benefits until they work in a company (preferably small/medium size) and experience the conditions that employers are faced with day after day. Let’s just hope Dodd doesn’t write the law similiar to the FMLA – that took charts, an Excel spreadsheet and a law degree to figure out both the Federal law and the state laws.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I really hate to see this law come to life as it stands in Ohio. Fortunately, Gov. Stricland took it off the first pass, but I do know that this leave was “in addition to” what was already offered and once it was passed, you were unable to reduce any other time. Otherwise, we would have only needed to add one additional paid day off and our company could manage that much more so than adding and tracking 7 paid days under the government’s terms. This really hurts the companies that are already responsible in giving paid time off to employees to the extent they can afford. It’s a shame that this whole thing even got started. Now we have to jump in the fire pit and dance our way around hoping we can get through this without a lawsuit because of the vagueness of this law (like all others) if it in fact passes. It will…just a matter of time. Everyone keep your eyes open because if you don’t do a preemtive strike, you are going to be stuck with these days being in addition to current days!
December 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I am the HR Manager at a small construction company, and I absolutely am all for paid FMLA/sick leave, especially in these hard economic times. I have had two children in the past 4 years, and I know from experience how hard it is to make it through maternity leave with no income. The way the economy is now, I don’t know if I would have been able to afford to take the time. It makes it seem like people are more concerned with how the company fares, than the valued employees. Happy employees make productive workers, productive workers make money for a company, i.e. employers who support their employees will have employees who work hard for them.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Quick Summary
Paid Family Leave means California is the first state to offer wage benefits for employees who take time off from their jobs to care for a new child or a family member with a serious health condition. The California law, knows as Paid Family Leave, creates a Family Temporary Disability Insurance program within the State Disability Insurance program. Employees may receive partial reimbursement of their pay for up to six weeks during any 12-month period.
The catch: Anyone who directly employs 50 or more need to meet the FMLA law.
to Learn more visit:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/state/fmla/ca.htm
December 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
While I understand the intent of the Obamas on this one, it is not an employer-friendly policy at all. We have so many potential abuses of FMLA leave already–especially “intermittent leave”. Add to that paid leave for maternity/paternity FMLA and/or mandated paid sick leave and you will be costing employers a lot of money. Not only will employers be paying for the worker’s “leave”, but they will either be trying to find replacement workers for those gone and/or paying overtime to the co-workers who have to cover for the absent person. I guarantee there will be very few employees who won’t find a reason to “need” their paid leave each year. There is also the “equity” issue for the maternity/paternity leave. I believe in treating employees equitably, and many singles and those past child-bearing ages will not be getting an equitable benefit on the paid maternity/paternity benefit. I hope it is left up to the individual companies to decide what benefits they can afford to offer and to whom. This is especially important for retailers, many of whom already operate on a small profit margin. Our government has no business mandating paid sick or maternity/paternity leave!
December 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Until late 07, I always worked in an industry that provided sick days and felt it was appropriate that employees be paid for time away for an illness that, to a certain extent, is not in a person’s control. However, I now work in a mid-sized industry that does not offer paid sick time due to the impact on the bottom line and I now see how those days directly relate to a company’s financial soundness. Therefore, I am conflicted about what I feel should be a company’s obligation to pay employees when sick (within limits, of course) and a company’s struggle to manage expenses. There is validity to both sides.
However, I am opposed to the federal government mandating such actions. The proposed legislation sounds great, warm and fuzzy, and I am sure we all understand the need for balance between work and home. However, the application of a new law is not felt equally and it opens the door to even more federally-manadated laws that could ultimately strangle small to mid-sized companies.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The nanny state marches on.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Katey –
I completely agree with you, employees deserve the right to have the security of knowing that if they get sick that they will not be terminated or extremely short on their pay. The bad part is that the companies who offer the paid time off, would have to offer this “in addition” and the fact this is something that would have the government involved in the business. Being in HR, surely you know what kind of knightmare this could cause for reporting and complying with the unestablished rules created by the government?
December 15th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Kathy,
I hope the additional expesne your small construction incurs from the paid time off they are forced to offer does not mean they have to cut someone like the HR person. Unemployeed workers are pissed off workers.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Jim, I’m not sure what the surveyed countries results show? This is just taking one issue, that you brought into this comparison. Not others that cover the same issues. And are you talking about these being all government mandated issues, or What the countries businesses really do? It’s like your trying to compare this bunch of grapes, to an other bunch by only picking out the sour one. These are quick statements that need more facts!
Like Sherry says…check your facts!
December 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I think that mandatory sick time would allow for a great deal of abuse. We have 8 hours per month based on full time employment. The person’s job is guaranteed under the OFLA/FMLA but if they get paid the entire 12 weeks or more sick time than they have earned we would be unable to hire temporary employees for replacement. The cost would be more than any business could complensate for. The employers need a break for a change. Our organization also has short term disability that is available to qualified employees. Please don’t add any more unfunded mandates to companies that have between 50-100 employees.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
And how could the writer of this article not mention New Jersey’s new Family Leave Insurance Act? It offers 6 weeks of PTO for care of a family member or bonding with a new child. Starting in January ‘09, every employee must contribute to a new state tax — appx $26/year. The benefits start in July’09 for all eligible workers. This “insurance” can run concurrently with FMLA or NJ FML. Aren’t we lucky?
December 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Sick days used to be common, we used to have more holidays off in a year, we used to have insurance that covered our expenses. I am tired of companies watching the bottom line so they can give a huge payoff to a CEO marching us to the poor house. Saving money is great but employees get no benefit from it then you see a massive decline in morale. Laws are being put in place because companies are not doing what in the past was expected. They belief that a company will take care of its employees has suffered a few body blows in the last 10 years.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Getting paid for NOT working is not right. When I had my children, no one offered me pay to stay home. I took the time to get them up to school age. I have had 3 jobs in my life & 2 of those did not even give you paid vacation. The salaried positon I have now offers vacation, but I very seldom use it (it is hard to coordinate w/ my husband’s schedulea0. I have been sick one day in the past 45 years. Darn! I guess it’s awful to be healthy. LOL In my opinion, each employer should set his own policy & make it work for his particular industry. We don’t need more mandates from Washington D.C. They have been there so long, they have forgotten what it is like to live in the “real world”.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I have to chuckle at the comments about the employer watching the bottom line. If they don’t, who will? And, if they have no black numbers on the bottom line, who can they employ? It sure won’t be the cry baby who wan’t to be paid for being sick.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
1st the article is in error when it states the US is “behind” in this issue. It is not a matter of being ahead or behind this is not a race. The truth of the matter is we in the US have to compete in the gobal economy and more “required” programs and their cost make that more difficult. But if we could get Congress to pass the Fair Tax, then companies could easily compete even with additional cost of programs such as this. The passing of the Fair Tax will be the biggest boost to the US economy in history. It will improve life for all Americans especially the poor and middle class. This tax makes so much sense that no one but the politicans and lobbiest are against it.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Our contry needs to focus on the root of the problem, and stop putting bandaids on. Don’t coddle the sick, but rather, reward the healthy. Educate the unhealthy. People need to lose weight, exercise, and take responsibilty for their poor health.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I thought the age of virgin births was over. If you plan to have children, then, plan accordingly. Why is it that some couples who have children then look to someone else to fund their life style. If you need or want to takes a few months off with your child, then save up for it, then have the child rather than having the child and looking for handouts. Lets take responsability for our own lives people. As for sick days, I think I speak for everyone who has a job, companies already provide paid sick leave in almost every full time job.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Gloria and Jon, do you have children?
December 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Squash the socialist accusations. It’s so old and unnecessary. Unless I missed it, I’ve never heard of these terms used for other Democrat Presidents, but now we have a major historical change and here comes the unfair accusations. Most surprising coming from the HR industry that promotes “dealing with change” and “diversity.” Why can’t the industry that’s supposed to steer others through the hurdles of change deal with it when it drops directly in their laps? Deal with it, find solutions, and move on – isn’t that what we do?
December 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Sorry Gloria, the question about the children was meant exclusively for Jon. However Gloria, caring for the sick is why we have hospitals and doctors. Employees have to take time off to visit them don’t they? Have you considered some people are born with birth defects, ailments, and sicknesses that no amount of exercise and healthy eating will cure?
Jon, the first line of your comment is very insulting to me as a mother. Having children is beautiful and natural. Your parents had to raise and take care of you when you were a child. There’s no stork carrying our babies on schedule either.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
As mentioned elsewhere, look for reductions in staff employment (we sure don’t need HR and benefits weenies if the feds are going to mandate sick leave, health coverage, terminate 401(k) in favor of some side car account to social security, etc.). Or, perhaps look to see other benefits or pay reduced (or not increased) to counter the cost of this program – reduce other time off programs or forego salary increases, etc. Simply, Obama and the Dems want to buy your vote, substitute their judgement for others. We voted for their “share the wealth” ideas. Don’t forget, Barak also signed onto a bill in support of “Comparable Worth” – so – expect them to wanna set salaries too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Yes, S.L., my parents did raise and care for me as all parents should. They planned to have me and I arrived. as “Schuduled”. My mom and dad worked hard to get ahead and save up so my mom could take some time off to be with her new born. Why of all places, would people look to an employer or government to fund this event?
S.L. no disrespect intended, it’s just my point of view.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Jon, I had to go on short-term disability for premature labor before the “planned” maternity leave. Would you consider the employer approving the short-term disability as a handout or would you have preferred me to be denied this extra paid time off to safeguard the employer’s bottom line? What about the sick days I had to take off due to well-baby and well-mother check-ups?
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
S.L.
Your case is the perfect example of why the government should not mandate paid leave. In your case it sounds like the employer made a good decision by allowing you paid leave in the form of short term disability. The key is the employer got to decide what was best for himself and the employee. I am sure you are a more loyal employee as a result of his actions. The employer on the other hand gained goodwill from you and other employees that far exceeds the cost of your leave. However, if the employer decided it was not in the company’s best interest for whatever reasons, he could have decided to decline the leave as well. When there are options, more times than not, good things will happen.
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Andy,
It all sounds rosy from your point of view when you don’t know the whole story. I had to go through hoops for the employer to give me the short term disability because I was warned that if I took another paid sick day off (even with physican’s orders) I was going to be written up for excessive absences. I was a loyal, respected and high-performing employee…. until I got pregnant.
Prior to the disability leave, I had taken 2 days off on ordered bed rest and used and estimated 10 vacation hours for check-ups. I had to write a note and leave it on my desk every time I went to the restroom! The day I returned from maternity leave, management and HR slid a warning slip to me in front of other employees saying that I was being written up for excessive absences and they moved me into a lower position. I kept my mouth shut and refused to sign every warning they slid to me. The entire workplace treated me like dirt. But thank goodness I had the common sense to fight them by filing a complaint with EEOC and my lawyer. I had every note I had to write for going to the restroom, documented verbal abuses, and every phone call documented while I was on maternity leave. Two weeks later I was back in my correct position and all warnings were dropped.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 am
haha ^^ nice, is there a section to follow the RSS feed
March 8th, 2009 at 7:34 am
appreciate the info thank you, Liz
June 20th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Interesting Article. Thanks for the read!
August 31st, 2009 at 10:44 am
I am in Human Resources and two years ago I had to go on Maternity leave. This was not a planned pregnancy. I had to take off early due to complications. Luckily my company offered Short Term Disability as a supplemental insurance. (Which I paid 100% for) I think that companies should provide paid maternity leave. A lot of employers do not have supplemental insurance and in these times, women can’t afford to take time off. This endangers their health and their job when they go back to work too soon. I can see where a company would not want to pay a new employee to be off work for 3 months but maybe the law should be after an employee has been with a company for a year, they get paid maternity leave. I think it should definitely be law, but they should keep the employer in mind as well when making it. Actually, it should probably be a government funded law. Just like the new Cobra ARRA law.
For all you who think it is the parents resposiblity only: You know, having children is a natural circle of life. If everyone stopped having children, there would be no employees, there would be no employers, there would be no politicians and there would be no government. In essence there would be no future of life. So why shouldn’t the government take some of the responsiblity? They are more than happy to throw money at every other country in the world, I think it is about time they started taking care of their own.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
I’m not an expert, but wouldn’t providing paid maternity leave be discriminatory? I believe that’s why FMLA was established. I know it’s not paid leave, but why should your employer pay you to have a baby? Your employere is paying you to do a job and if you are on “maternity leave”, you are not doing the jopb for which you were hired.
I agree that our government spends money like a drunken sailor, but remember that government has no money that they haven’t taken from its citizens through taxes.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Having a child can be a wonderful thing, and so is having a Porsche. Can we have an employer or government program for that for us singles out in the world? It’s only fair, Oh and 3 months off to drive around in it, paid of course.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Jon- my thoughts exactly.