Sick-leave bill introduced in U.S. House
May 28, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Health care, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Leave, policies
The much-talked-about proposal for mandatory paid sick leave makes its appearance before Congress.
Here are the key parts of the proposal:
- Employees would be entitled to accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a total accrual of 56 hours – or seven days – of paid sick time.
- Employees would begin accruing hours as soon as they start working for a covered employer and could begin using the accrued time 60 days from their first day of work.
- The paid sick time would carry over from one year to the next, but the maximum accrued amount would be 56 hours.
- Employees would be entitled to use the paid sick time:
– for their own physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition;
– to obtain medical care, including preventive care; and
– to care for, or help obtain medical care for, a child, parent, spouse, or “any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.”
The bill also sets out employer obligations and procedures for requesting and using the leave:
- Employees would have to “make a reasonable effort to schedule a period of paid sick time… in a manner that does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.”
- Employers would be entitled to request medical certifications if an employee is out more than three consecutive days.
- Employers with existing paid leave policies that are equivalent to, or more generous than, the proposed legislation would not have to change their rules.
The current bill (see Sec. 5) stipulates that the rules would apply to any employer with 15 or more employees.
Tags: congress, paid sick time
May 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am
One part I find interesting. Under Section 7 ‘Prohibited Acts’, (a)(1)(c), it would be unlawful to “count the paid sick time under a no-fault attendance policy or any other absence control policy.” That’s exactly what we do. This is why seven days is just excessive.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:01 am
Who would be a covered employer?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:09 am
The article says “The paid sick time would carry over from one year to the next, but the maximum accrued amount would be 56 hours”. We currently allow 480 hrs maximum so would this stay the same since it is more generous than what the bill provides? It’s kind of confusing.
We also do not provide sick leave for PT employees, which I think they deserve.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
This seems to be an expansion of FMLA that the Dems have been unable to force down our throats. Just what we need, another attendance tracking program. Our company is fortunate to be one of few who currently offer 56 hours of sick time annually (40 hrs paid and 16 hours unpaid) for all employees. Many small businesses cannot operate with paid sick time. I would assume this bill would be in addition to FMLA. Obama talks about the creation of jobs, but he seems to forget we need businesses, of all sizes, to offer jobs. These kinds of legislation do nothing to encourage new business in the US. And we wonder why business if moving out of the US!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I can see this from the employer side but I also know many 19-20 year olds who work for grocery stores and other retail jobs who are scheduled for 40 hours a week but are not given full-time status because the employer does not want to give them benefits. These kids don’t get paid when they are sick so they go to work when they should stay home. I’d prefer to know that the kid behind the deli counter can afford to stay home when he is sick instead of serving me a cold along with my deli meat!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Will the paid seven days of sick leave be in addition to Paid Time Off (”PTO”) banks? We combined our vacation and personal time into a PTO bank last year to alleviate the headache of tracking sick days.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
My problem with this bill is the word “paid”. FMLA and most state mandated leave programs (check out OFLA/Oregon Family Leave Act) are already a huge financial drain on any business. From administration costs to loss of productivity to litigation. Now Congress wants to add yet another expense to doing business in the US.
Where is personal responsibility? Where are savings accounts with those “rainy day” funds? Erosion of personal responsibility, for our health, for our lack of savings, for our over extended debt, for our “gotta have it” attitude is what lies at the root of our social and financial woes today.
My question with this bill is: Is this another 56 hours (regardless of paid or unpaid) that an employee is guaranteed to be able to miss without running afoul of attendance rules. 12 weeks (FMLA) plus 56 hours?
June 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
FMLA has nothing to do with paid sick time or PTO because it is unpaid. As Mary-Ann mention so many retail and grocery stores have their employees scheduled for 40 hours on most weeks however, don’t have them classified as FTEs so they won’t be eligible for benfits. Where can you save if you are making minimum wage and living pay check to pay check? These individuals cannot afford to get sick and neither can their children. I think this bill is more for them. If the company has a PTO policy in place for FTEs, which is usually at least 80 hours of PTO and two paid personal days, then the bill probably doesn’t apply.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Under FMLA regulations, employers may require employees to use any paid leave while they are on FMLA. I noticed this bill does not mention anything one way or the other so I would assume that there would not be a conflict with the FMLA regs. So this would not be in addition to FMLA, but could run concurrent – as long as you have this condition written in your company policy first.
To Mary-Ann, my son worked in a grocery store – if you are sick, FDA regulations require that the employer not allow a sick employee to work, especially if they have direct contact with any food such as in the deli. If you shop at a store that allows sick employees to work, I would start shopping at a different store. As far as employers who offer 56 and up hours sick time but part of it is unpaid, at least 56 hours will have to be paid – the rest (if any) can still remain unpaid.
The company I work at offers 40 hours “vacation” after completing one year, however, we allow the employee to use the time for any way they want. It is actually PTO but we have it described as vacation. Even if we changed the description to PTO, I am still not clear on if we have to add enough hours to equal 56 hours and it would accrue from day 1 instead of day 365, or if we would have to add the whole 56 hours. Then there is the issue of when an employee completes 2 years – he has 80 hours “vacation”. If s/he already has 56 hours, this would only be a 24 hour increase over the previous 40 hour increase. Would we have to increase this to 96 hours – the original 56 hours plus the additional 40 hours the employee would have formerly earned? If I am understanding this bill correctly, this is exactly what we would have to do. I wish this bill was just a little bit more clear on this.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The reality in this country, like it or not, is that many employees have little or no paid sick leave available to them and, as a result, they work despite being ill. So, you have illness being spread from employee to employee, and employee to customer, on a regular basis. If you don’t realize this, you are out of touch.
If a business cannot afford to offer paid sick leave, then they should either raise prices, think of ways to increase business, or go out of business. I, for one, am sick and tired of businesses complaining about the costs of employees on the one hand, while talking about how important their employees are on the other. Either treat your employees properly or don’t go into business. In a rich country like ours, despite the current temporary recession, it is an embarrassment to have full-time employees without a day of paid sick leave.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I think what we are forgetting is that “minimum wage” jobs, mean just that, “minimum wage”. They are not “living wage” jobs. They are second income jobs, high school jobs, supplemental income jobs, college jobs, interim jobs. Not every job/employer can or should be forced to offer “benefits”.
Saving while earning low wages is all the more difficult, yet not impossible, and all the more important. It boils down to choices and priorities. Living paycheck to paycheck is a matter of choice.
If a minimum wage job does not meet the financial and personal needs of the individual, then the individual needs to find one that does. If they are not skilled or educated enough to obtain one, then it is their individual responsibility to get the skills or education necessary. There are plenty of programs out there that provide for those opportunities, again, if the individual is willing to make the effort and sacrifice.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
As an HR Manager I always have went by the attitude “it’s a benefit you use it as you wish” (of course not talking about those who make a career out of calling off) I dont want to hear stories or reasons why you are requesting off, frankly its none of my business and I dont much care unless you are an employee with continuous call offs. What I don’t want are employess lying about being sick to take a day off. Lets face it you give employees time for “sick” leave all of a sudden employees who have never called off in 4 years due to illness are suddenly sick 7 days out of the year. Having said that, in the last 9 years I have never called in sick but have been sent home due to being ridicullously ill. It wasn’t because I did not have sick time I just dont call off.
Just another way for the current administration to try and stick its nose in America’s businesses. and forthose who work in jobs where vacation/sick time is not available why should everyone have to get penalized. This administration is all about suppressing those who are doing well and making them pay for others shortfalls or problems. I work to support myself and MY FAMILY not everyone elses.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 am
The bill says “Any employer with a paid leave policy who makes available an amount of paid leave that is sufficient to meet the requirements of this section and that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as the purposes and conditions outlined in subsection (b) shall not be required to permit an employee to earn additional paid sick time under this section.” As I stated previously, this bill is currently for organizations that do not provide any or a significant amount of sick time needed for their employees. Or if they need to be off to care for a family member. If a company will not give each colleague at least 7 paid days off out of 365 then something is wrong. It doesn’t seem that most companies would have a problem with this. If you cannot afford to give your employees any kind of benefits then YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES! This bill is not designed to make others “suffer”. What does a company giving 7 days or even an extra 7 paid days off, have to do with anybody suffering? Or how does it preventing anybody from taking care of their families? It actually is designed to help people take care of themselves and their families. Is it possible that if you have a employee that has not called off in 4 years, that he/she could not afford to take a day off without pay? Of course you will have abusers of the policy, that’s any policy. That’s the reason for MANAGERS, manage abusers. Cori… As an HR Manager and an exempt colleague, I’m sure you have the option of leaving a little early to take care of personal matters, or go to the doctor, or the option of working from home, or a healthy benefits package that includes a signifant amount of PTO that you don’t have to call off, and still get paid. Minimum/low income/non-exempt employees, that do not have a benefits package cannot do this with out missing pay! For anybody who has a problem with this bill, they should not be managers or people who employee others, because you clearly don’t care about PEOPLE!
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
JLM it sounds like you have anger issues. Don’t tell me that I dont care about people. Our Corporation has plenty of money to give our employees benefits and more perks than any other company I know and we have very low turnover. My point is how do we benefit from giving employees sick days when we already give them an extremely generous ETO amount to use as they choose without specifying it for sick or vacation and also allow flex time to all employees? Even our Part time employees get ETO time and benefits. I am however in healthcare so we do have policies that are a little different than a normal day to day business. You tell me if this passes how many more “sick” call offs you have and how that affects your company. There are many policies that are coming into play that are very suppressive. All of my employees, even those who are lower paid, prefer the use as you choose plan we now have.
I have over 500+ employees that have worked for companies in which I was the HR manager and during exit interviews for a mass layoff in one company I worked for and in satisfaction surveys at my current job MY HR Department gets a perfect score for easy to talk to, helpful, and knowledgable, so state your case why I shouldn’t be a manager? Managers arent suppose to be babysitters or like you said manage abusers (those are micromanagers) we are there to oversee daily business objectives and maintain our customers confidence and trust along with keeping our employees happy. Seven paid sick days will, in our case and many others, drop confidence and hurt employee morale because the staff will be over worked having to cover for someone who is calling in “sick” whether they are or not. That’s an extra 56 hours a year for every employee…may not be too bad if you have 60 employees but try 30,000 . You are failing to look at the big picture.
The suffering is that because some companies have chosen not to provide benefits (Which is not my problem or worry and shouldn’t be yours) the government wants to force a company to put it into play. If you dont like the policies of that company go elsewhere. If you don’t like where you work you arent doing yourself or that business any good.
JLM: I have worked with no benefits, no vacation, no paid holidays, no flex time etc and never once complained. What I did do is work my way up from that and here I am 12 years later. It takes initiative and drive to better yourself…it doesn’t take government intervention and handouts.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
(If you don’t pay the kind of benefits that XYZ deems appropriate, then) “YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES!” Wow, January to June and the Socialists have already taken over. So you dictate who is to have what, and how they get paid? I got a newsflash, it’s called India. (This is why “productivity” in America has increased over the last 20 yrs. It is not because American workers have gotten so efficient, it is because the work down in India is counted as our work, without including those workers in the calc. So if you’ve been patting yourself on the back, go ahead and stop now.)
So I find it interesting that everybody here has just rolled over on the comment about working 40 hrs and not getting benefits because they are not “classified” as full time. If there’s some secret, legal way to accomplish that, let me know, because I believe the test is based on hours worked not titles.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Obviously the policy will not apply to you or your company because they already have a PTO policy. I didn’t say you were not qualified to be a manager. But, anybody who doesn’t want to give employees benefits should not have employees. Somebody is working at these places, if not they will go out of business. Therefore, my statement is the same, if you don’t want to/can’t afford to give your employees any type of benefits, you should not have employees. If you worked yourself up to where you are, great, so have I. However, if a person is working for a company, and they are also working themselves up to a better position, or better life; that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have benefits in the meantime if they or their children get sick. If you have worked w/o any benefits then you shouldn’t have. Something as simple as a PTO policy, should not have to come from government, but since some employers don’t treat their employees properly, that’s where government comes in, just like the EEO, AA laws, or any other law. The government should step in when people are not being treated fairly (obviously, not saying government is right all the time, the whole system is flawed in my opinion). As an HR Manager, you know first hand that just like employees abuse policies, there are also managers who do not treat employees fairly. Yes, people can quit and move on to the next, better job, but someone will replace them to be treated the same way. To me, that’s the bigger picture, somebody will always be in that position to be treated unfairly unless someone stops it. Not angry just stating facts. I agree managers are not babysitters, but… in any work environment and any level, managers have to deal with people who abuse policies, it’s a shame but it’s fact, that’s just one of the many responsibilities of management.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Just another stake in the heart of small business (15 employees is in all likelihood a small business!))…..Is our Government bent on destroying all small businesses out there???
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Yes, Danny, clearly the American government is bent on destroying all small businesses. You may want to think before writing and tone down the hyperbole a bit. It’s obnoxious. I work for a company of 300 employees where 90% of them receive no sick leave, period. If they don’t come to work, they don’t get paid. These are not minimum wage jobs, but rather family supporting jobs. I’m frankly taken aback by the cold-hearted attitude out there amongst many folks that believe it’s OK in our country to have no sick leave for employees. The vast majority of other countries around the world have far more generous time off policies than the U.S. In our country, apparently work is the most important part of daily life and society, and who gives a darn if you’re ill, you have an ill child or spouse, you have Dr. Appt’s, or anything in your life besides work during the entire year. Companies make millionaires of the management, but yet won’t pay decent wages and benefits to most of their workforce. That’s the reality.
The only reason government is involved is because the private sector isn’t offering something, like sick leave, that they should be offering and there is enough public outcry for it to change. That’s why we have legislators – to address the needs and wants of our citizenry. I realize Republicans would prefer to have no government or laws, but that’s not going to happen. Thankfully, we have a new administration that isn’t going to kowtow to every wont of businesses, remove too many regulations and engage us in needless, expensive wars.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I’ve worked for the same company for 14 years but the company has been sold twice. Our last owners were a large corporation. Now we are family owned. I’ve tracked time off through all three owners. The first one offered no sick leave, the corporation offered 5 paid sick days and the current owner offers no sick leave. Guess what? Just about everybody in the company got “sick” exactly 5 days a year when we had 5 paid sick days. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Prior to the paid sick leave and currently, without the paid sick leave, we are back to people taking time off only when they are truly sick.
Did you know that you are contageous for 3 full days before you even know you have a cold? by the time you feel sick you have already passed it around. The argument about keeping the other workers healthy by having the sick people stay home just went down the tubes didn’t it? What really happens then is the people who have already been exposed have to work even harder to make up for the people out sick, their resistance is therefore lowered and they are more likely to get sick than if everybody just came to work and did their job.
What a concept. Perform work for pay? Why has that become such a problem for everybody?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Well you know what Mark W~I own three small companies that employ a total of 20 employees and this MAY impact me. How can you compare where I sit to your 300 employee company?? Maybe you should know all the facts before you comment so you don’t sound so ignorant.
We do all that we can to help our employees and treat them quite well. We’ve paid bills for some, medical care for others, rent, utilities, helped purchase a car for another, etc. We do what we can, when we can, and feel we can better serve our employees with LESS Government intervention. State and Federal Government already has a stranglehold on business and let’s face it; what does our government actually run well?? It’s not always a lack of compassion you know, and if you ever owned a business you might have a clue…
It’s obvious you’re someone who wants government to do EVERYTHING for you. You’re probably unmotivated and jealous of others who risked capital and staked out their own claim while you prefer to sit on the sidelines safely and just criticize what you don’t like. And finally, if don’t like your job go find another!
June 4th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Well sid Sharon D……
June 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I don’t want to get into a prolonged personal attack on another writer to this blog, so this will be my last post on the topic and I’ll let it go.
Danny: you accuse me of being ignorant of your situation, but yet assume that I’ve never owned a business and don’t currently own one. Interesting how we all make assumptions.
I don’t agree that the government has a stranglehold on business, especially after the last 8 years where regulations were eased considerably and you had a completely pro-business administration, to excess. Beyond that, there are plenty of things the government does well. You can mail a letter from Maine to Hawaii for less than 50 cents and it gets there reliably, and fairly quickly. Millions of Americans receive Social Security checks every week, on time and accurate. There is far more waste, fraud, abuse, corruption in private business than in American government, without question, but most of what you hear in the media concerns governmental problems because it’s transparent, accountable, and publicly funded. I wish more companies that have average American citizens as investors were subject to the same level of scrutiny.
It is not obvious that I want government to do everything for me – I’ve never been on unemployment and wouldn’t claim it even if I became unemployed. I don’t intend to accept Social Security payments. I pay my taxes and pay them honestly. All I’m suggesting is that businesses offer a baseline of paid sick leave to employees – and, by the way, it should be available for more than just personal illness, for also for medical and dental appointments and other acceptable, relevant reasons. It should be seen as a cost of doing business, which you can either pass on to your customers or find some efficiencies to cover. If you cannot, then I suggest, sir, that you cannot adequately run a company.
Good day.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Mark W….let’s start w/ your own words to me…..”You may want to think before writing and tone down the hyperbole a bit. It’s obnoxious.” Certainly sounds like you cast the first stone. If you want to portray yourself as “above the fray” than maybe you should choose your words a little more carefully in your responses….
As for our government; social security and Medicare are damn near bankrupt and wait until they get their hands on our healthcare. As for the post-office have you seen how much money they claim to have lost?? Oh yeah, don’t forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…..You can’t possibly sit there and tell me that the government is effective at running anything.
The burdens and cost of running a business are already extreme. We’re over-taxed to the point that many businesses cannot do the things we may want for our employees.
The bottom line is this; there are businesses out there that treat employees like garbage and scam the public; that’s a fact. However, it’s also a fact that there are employees out there who treat their employers like garbage and steal from them whenever possible. What we don’t need is a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats taking over the private sector; we’ll do a better job in the long run then the politicians will.
Good day to you sir.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
One more time – if you can’t afford to miss a day or two of work, if you are playing it that close with your personal finances, then you have a problem….one that should NOT have to be the responsibility of your employer to deal with.
Danny, I applaud your choices as an employer. But lets make this clear, those are your “choices”. You were not forced by legislation to do the things you do. It’s fantastic that you are doing so well that you can afford to do these things. However, there are many small business owners who could not afford the 7 days unproductive pay per employee. Also, you speak as though this is the only legislative mandated benefit out there, or that it is the only one we have to be concerned with. This 7 day paid sick leave is only one of many currently on the books, as well as only one of many we are looking at coming down the pike.
Making business choices appropriate to our individual circumstances also does not make us “cold hearted”.
Benefits are just that, benefits, offered as an inducement, a supplement to wages, a way to attract and retain quality employees. They have not been, nor should ever be, mandatory. Offering benefits does not make one employer more socially responsible employer. Employers offer “wages” to compensate employees for the time they spend doing the work they were hired to do.
We’ve been legislated into a society of victims where the pervasive line of thought is everyone else needs to take care of me and mine. That includes government, employers, social programs, courts, etc. etc. etc.
One more time – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
June 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
djc..I agree with you but I think you’re taking my position the wrong way. I am not for this legislation and my point is that I feel that most businesses are better equipped to make their own decisions on what they can or can’t do without government intervention. Additionally there are many other pieces of legislation that I disagree with but my answers were specific to this topic only. There is still freedom of choice in this country and if a person does not like their job, for whatever reason, they are free to pursue another.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
WOW! This topic has fueled fires. I had my say and thankfully it did not get heated with another person who felt differently. We all have our views and opinions and our business, vendors, clients, etc are all different and for some, for various reasons, may see this bill as great and others as poor. If you see my posts from earlier on you will see my position. But different views doesn’t make anyone more right or more wrong so please can we please not resort to personal attacks on eachother. Were all professionals here and we deal with enough drama throughout the day.
My biggest problem is the government cant even handle their own affairs appropriately let alone getting involved in America’s business practices and policies.
If you dont see a problem with government dictating the terms of your business (in a sense) you’re not paying attention to whats been happening lately and I’m sure you didn’t go into business hoping for this. Who goes into business thinking “Gee I want a business where the government tells me how to set up my healthcare plan and time off for my employees, and pay for their COBRA benefits at 60%, eventhough this employee was the biggest jerk ever who lost my company a 2 million dollar contract. What A great idea this business venture is” It will be interesting to do a study on the impact it has had on businesses if the bill passes. But that’s just my opinion!
June 4th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Danny – sorry I have you mixed up with Mark….my apologies
I agree totally, and have told employees the exact same thing….if we are not what you are looking for in an employer (whether it be in relation to wages, benefits, rules, expectations, whatever) than maybe it would be better for all concerned if you found employment elsewhere. Life is too short to spend 1/3 of each day unhappy. When folks hire with us, they know what to expect…it is all laid out in front of them, they make the choice to hire on under the conditions we have to offer (which includes a very generous benefit package). It’s unfair to later cry foul. Yet…… after a while, despite advance knowledge, despite the generous benefit package, there are still those who think it is not enough.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Well stated djc and coriHR.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Pat yourself on the back, Danny. It sounds like you and your like-minded cohorts have it all figured out. Good luck with that.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Mark W~I thought you were saying good day?? Good luck to you too sir…
June 5th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Mark W seriously stop with the negativity and smart comments. What next you want to fight Danny by the dumpster at recess, lets grow up. We think for ourselves Danny did not pursuade anyone, however he bases a more solid case. We just happen to be astute to the issues. Again, you are showing that you are very close minded because you can not accept others opinions when they differ from yours, which is a very socialist attitude…we all know who you voted for.
Your sort of attitude encourages poor employee morale, try listening to others rather than talking, you can gain valuable insight. Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt give you the authority to act like everyone is beneath you and you are the almighty wise one.
Again, if the bill passes I am very curious to see how things with your company turn out…or are you a union rep and in that case…….enough said. Now everyone lets see how Mark W bashes me.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hello All,
I definitely agree that the negativity and the smart comments should end. I also believe the comments of this topic should have died days ago, that’s just my opinion. However, there are contradictions going on with the bashing, while Cori is telling Mark W to stop bashing and being negative, she just made smart and negative remarks. And while Mark is telling Danny “Good Day Sir” he still has condescending comments.
Whatever happens with the bill, I’m almost 100% certain, nobody’s going to go out of business and I’m almost 100% sure nobody’s company is going close, because of these 7 days. Government (Democrats and Republicans) makes decisions all the time that work for some and not others and vice versa.
Also, the socialist comments are ridiculous… It would be wrong to assume, if you think that government involvement is NEVER necessary in “private” sectors then you are prejudice, because, you want the authority to treat your employees badly, or to be able to not hire someone because of their gender or color and that’s clearly an ignorant just plain stupid assumption. One should think that people just want the right to do what they want, with what they have worked for. Therefore, it is equally wrong to assume that people who think that government is sometimes needed in “private” sectors to ensure that employers are treating their employees properly are NOT socialist.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, nobody here has expressed a more “astute” comment on this issue than anybody else. How people view issues of government, are based on his/her experiences in life… It may be possible that people who think we need less government are people who grew up and were taught hard work will get you everything, and hard work got you just that, everything, you didn’t need any help from anybody. However, if you think we need more government, maybe you grew up with a lot of prejudices and hatred and no matter how hard you worked you were judged by the color of your skin, or your gender, or religious background. So government has worked for you in these cases.
Everyone is speaking from their own personal lives and experiences of government.
I hope everyone has a great weekend!!! I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE… HAPPY FRIDAY!
June 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
JLM – I trust you had a good weekend
]
I agree that probably no one is going to go out of business. But just a little math on potential costs:
Assuming all 17 employees use all 7 days / 56 hours per employee x 17 = 952 hours
Oregon minimum wage: $8.40 x 952 = $7996.80
+ FICA/Medicare 611.76
Sub Total $8608.56
Then add in the varying workers’ comp and state unemployment rates, plus the overhead costs of administering the sick leave program. And lets not forget the fact that while you are paying these wages and their associated costs, you are not getting any productivity to offset the expense (un-worked/paid time off). You can begin to see how these additional payroll expenses can add up fairly quickly, and could become a financial burden for the small mom & pop operations.
In addition, after all the changes we’ve seen thus far, and aside from the obvious monetary consequences associated with this particular piece of legislation, I think many business people are asking themselves…….What next? When did the employer become “big brother” and assume (whether voluntarily or not) such a large responsibility for the individual?
I think we do a disservice to business owners everywhere to perpetuate the attitude that today’s employer is no better than the sweat shop owners of years past. We’ve come a very long way, and many of those strides forward were done out of a sense of good business practice, not because they were mandated. The majority of employers have always been “good citizens”. Unfortunately all we hear about are the minority and the horror stories associated with them. I think that poor employers do not typically stay in business long because they cannot get quality staff to work for them. Natural selection……
June 8th, 2009 at 11:32 am
We provide a very good PTO benefit for our employees and it is earned by the number of hours worked. It also holds the employee accountable for working the hours needed to meet our clients’ expectations. About 50% of our employees actually accrue hours or they use it up as soon as they earn it. Adding another 7 days is just another way our employees can abuse time off and leaving us short-staffed (our employees rarely give any notice at all, let alone 7 days!). I don’t disagree that employees should receive paid time off when needed, but we have a business to run as well.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Doesn’t anyone else see this as an open door for the unions? How about the guaranteed increase in PIT for the government? And what about this new ‘living wage’ idea being pushed around? Capitalism works. The carrot is out there for those who strive to get it. If there were a carrot on every corner, how many people would be willing to move beyond that?
Nobody appreciates what they get for free.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
we provide 40 hrs of sick leave, that includes, fishing, baby sitting,working in the garden, hunting, they konw the rules and most sick days are on MOnday and Friday
June 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
DMG articulated my thoughts exactly. All along I’ve been asking if the idea is to create jobs, why is the Obama administration trying to make it so hard for employers? Especially the smaller, family owned employers. Why the anti-employer stance??
June 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I guess I don’t love or hate this topic. I just know that it may help our company reestablish controll over our aged policies. I see it in other companies too where people try to use time off benefits to run their attendance policies and vice versa. Yeah it sucks if people are just using paid time off just cuz it is available and I can’t really do anything about it, but if it impacts their performance, that is entirely different.
I can’t wait to separate our PTO into Vacation and Sick time. It has been an administrative nightmare not being able to enforce proper requests for time off for vacation rather than calling off sick, etc.
One thing I have never like is requiring doctors notes etc for time off of 3 days or more unless it is for FMLA certification or for an illness or injury that could cause concern for safety if they weren’t fully prepared to return to work. But for just being sick, well most people can’t see their doc that fast and most don’t have the money. So really if they are following proper procedure for using paid sick leave, then I could care less. I wouldn’t require doctors notes.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
In Ontario we have 10 unpaid days per year called emergency leave – we can and do demand Dr. notes and other items to evidence the employees need for time off – these notes are at the employees expense of time and money. Unsure if you folks can do the same. This time cannot be carried over from year to year.
Focus on the output of the employee – not just time at the office – results are what pay the bills.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I see a couple of problems with the bill’s provisions as stated.
1. If an employee is only allowed to accrue a maximum of 56 hours, wouldn’t it encourage an employee to “use it or lose it” whether the employee is sick or not?
2. How does an employee make a “reasonable effort to schedule a period of paid sick time”? Who determines what is “reasonable”?
More bureaucratic rules to follow = job security for HR staff.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Tom, yes you make great points. But again, it comes down to responsibility and following policy. If they are doing a great job and just happen to use all the sick time, who cares. If you have a poor employee who doesn’t perform well at all is always out sick you don’t need to count days away from work address poor performance.
I think the reasonable effort is a no brainer and just worded as such to give some room for situational interpretation. But come on… if I have some doctors appointments in two weeks I need to be letting someone know. But if I wake up spewing, obviously calling in before my scheduled work time (or whatever your policy states) would be reasonable.
Job security… no doubt!! I like that but I don’t like employers who don’t pay enough to HR or don’t hire enough people to handle the overload of paperwork etc.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
We have a small, family-owned company with about 25 employees, some have been with the company 40+ years and others are new hires. All earn good wages. Some have raised families with 3-4 children (including single parent families), own nice houses and reliable cars and very seldom use any sick time. Others are month to month on rent, drive wrecks and have used up all their sick/vacation time and take more time without pay. I marvel at the difference in financial management styles of the different people. All with the same amount of money on their paycheck! It comes down to being responsible with what you have been given, both for employees and employers. If only all lived by the Golden Rule……….Do unto others as you would have them do unto you……..the government wouldn’t have to worry about who was being treated fairly. Maybe Washington could start leading by example?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
No matter how the bill is administered, if it indeed passes, it presents an unecessary financial and administrative burden to private sector employers. I’m sure there is some exclusion in this bill, as with most others, that does not apply the benefits of this bill to any branch of the government. As with every other democratic effort to make things better, the people who can pay for those who WILL NOT. We do not have people standing in lines saying, “where can I sign up to give my paycheck away?” We do, however, have lines miles long signing up for dibs on my paycheck. Govenment belongs in govenment…not in school, not in private sector employment. If they were so great at running things we would not be in the shape we are to begin with.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I’ve read the statement that “anybody who doesn’t want to give employees benefits should not have employees” several times but have not read anyone stating “anybody who cannot afford to care for children shouldn’t have children.” Just because an employer cannot afford to give benefits or great benefits does not mean the employer does not want to. If all employers waited to be financially set to be employers then the US would not have much of anything… just like if parents waited to be financially set the population would be greatly reduced.
This is a matter of government interference with free will. There are enough rules and regulations. If this passes we will have to modify our sick policy -40 paid hrs per year that can all be carried over and cashed out at 1/2 price when leaving, used in 1/2 hr increments for appointments or saved for a short term disability self insurance- not too shabby for a company of 32 employees. When does this decision get made?
June 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Addressing Josh’s last comment…your ire seems to be at your personal situation. Reason would dictate if the employer did not have to subsidize all the government “give aways”, quite possibly the employer would have more to spend in terms of salaries and additional manpower. When are American’s going to stop expecting everyone else to make their life grand? Responsibility with accountability and consequences worked for many years. What happened?
June 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Great analogy CK
June 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Beside a couple tacky remarks, cori is right on target, this bill is nothing more than a union sponsored bill to keep the one’s that abuse the absence policy and they are not sick and can lie and take off work, When you have this policy every employee will be sick for at least 7 days, better way to put it will get the day off sick or not
July 7th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I searched on google and I had a hard time located the right info….until I found your blog.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 am
Business, you know, may bring money, but friendship hardly ever does.