YourCT.com header image 2

Sick leave Bill Is Scary


by turfgrrl


May 2nd, 2008 · 15 Comments

While the budget deficit is derailing the small business tax credit, and the rail yard debacle is being punted, the Connecticut state senators have, in a 20-16 vote, proved that they have lost touch with how small businesses really work. They of course think that they have passed a sick leave bill that protects the worker from something. The essential protection, that any Connecticut employer who employs over 50, must provide 6.5 days of paid sick days. Connecticut would be the first state enacting such a law, if it passes the House, according to the Courant.

Let’s put this in mathematical terms, there are on average 249 work days in a year. 50 employees with 6.5 sick days is a total of 325 days. Connecticut senators have effectively reduced that mythical man day workforce by a whole productive employee. Oh sure, there are arguments to be made on behalf of the employees who can’t afford to get sick, and lose wages because of it. But those arguments speak to the larger issue of why it is that employers can make decisions that reduce benefits to employees despite shrinking workforces.

My short list:

1. Employee really doesn’t have any skills worthy of employment elsewhere

2. Employee afraid of losing health insurance

3. Employee really likes job

4. Employee can’t find a better paying job

5. Employee can’t relocate because of various reasons

Feel free to add more. My point is that they are about employee’s making choices. Each are solvable by the employee, except the health insurance one. In some families the health insurance benefit is a big deal, and that’s why, at least at the national level, health insurance and health care are policy issues in much debate.

The problem with this bill is that it targets the wrong thing. We don’t need to focus on sick workers, we need to focus on encouraging employers to support healthy workers. Why not a bill that rewards companies that do the types of things that keep workers from getting sick, or helping workers who have sick family members? Instead, this bill doesn’t target the workers who need help the most, it just raises the cost of doing business in Connecticut by treating all workers the same.

Tags: Connecticut · Economy · healthcare

15 Responses so far “Sick leave Bill Is Scary”



  • 1 anonymous // May 2, 2008 at 10:04 am

    The income gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. I’m as capitalistic as anybody but as a humanitarian, I think the time has come again to beef up protections for the working poor.

  • 2 old union man // May 2, 2008 at 10:54 am

    TG: You assume each employee will take 6.5 days off as sick time, even when they are well. The bill does not promise that, and fraudulent taking off sick days can still get you fired. Ths bill is aimed at providing a sick time benefit for those who really need it and do not have any sick time now. Take a couple of days off sick and loose a couple of days pay, is the rule for the working poor. Employers can comply with this at a very small cost, in most cases, but need to guard against fraud. The people benfitting from this don’t get health care insurance or paid vacation.

  • 3 Anonymous // May 2, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    If its’s a law why wouldn’t a business have to pay the time to all employees old union guy?

  • 4 old union man // May 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    it is not a law yet, it is a proposed law. If it passes, employers with 50 or more employees will be reguired to provide paid sick leave of 6.5 days to all full time employees. Many already do and won’t be affected. The ones who don’t will be. It is SICK time, not extra paid vacation. Taking a day off, calling in sick when you are not, is fraud. An employer who decided to play hardball could even call it larceny and have somebody arrested. His/her union could not be much help. The people who have paid sick time and use every minute of, sick or not, are stealing from the company and playing into TG’s calculation at the start of this thread. She is right, if every employee took off 6.5 days, the cost to a small company would be a burden(2.6% of payroll). If people are honest and do not steal from the company, the burden should be insignificant.
    Anybody that says “in some families” health insurance benefits are a big deal hasn’t tried to buy health insurance for a family recently.

  • 5 anon432 // May 2, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Turfgrrl, I ended up in the hospital a few years back for a week and I was truly very ill. My spouse could only see me at night and I had small children who needed to have a sitter when I was being visited. Then when I came home to heal I was lucky to have friends who helped me. I would have preferred my spouse. This Bill will help others recover sooner with the help of their loved ones. Just a different spin on it from a view of someone who went through it.

  • 6 Adam Blank // May 3, 2008 at 9:43 am

    As a general principle I believe employees should have some paid sick time. I have some concerns that this bill may harm small businesses. That being said, old union man’s calculation is that the cost to the company is 2.6% of payroll if every employee uses each sick day. Aside from the obvious (that not every employee will use every sick day each year), as things currently stand, sick employees often work while sick rather than take an unpaid day or risk termination. Those sick employees are paid, but are certainly not working as productively as a healthy employee and they are also more likely to sicken other employees at work. Therefore, having the sick employee out of the office on a day when the employee is sick does not cost a company the same as having a healthy employee out of the office on a sick day, which TG’s analysis assumes.

  • 7 fed up // May 3, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    more government intervention where it has no business. slippery slope to socialism.

  • 8 Anonymous // May 3, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Guess that means you’ll be returning that economic incentive check the guvvamint is giving out.

  • 9 Old union man // May 3, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Any of you guys who see this as the end of the world as we know it have any real data on how many businesses will be affected, a percentage of all the businesses with over 50 employees in the state ? A lot already have some minimal paid sick leave, voluntarily. Taking care of employees has proven to be good business. This will only really change things for a few employers.

  • 10 turfgrrl // May 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    anon432: I don’t think this bill would help the situation you described. First is applies to just full time employees and second that the employers must have 50 or more full time employees. In reality, because this bill would mandate that employers pay for sick leave time for full time employees only, the decision process of staffing will shift more payroll to part time staffing. Already, companies like Walmart, have a reputation for building staff levels to get around all the increased costs of employing full time staff. That is the unintended consequence of tackling the issue through a tactic that impacts the employer only.
  • 11 turfgrrl // May 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Adam Blank and Old union man: Any self respecting manager who staffs the types of positions which are accounted for on an hourly coverage basis will have to staff according to the max possible outage of every employee taking those 6.5 days. You can’t run, say a call center, on the belief that not every employee will take the time off because shifts must be covered. That will mean an increased cost form the standpoint of number of employees, but managed through reducing the hours per employee. As I see it, a shift to more part time employees. A mandated benefit of paid sick leave, is not “stealing” from a company. Most companies will infact prefer to pay out a sick day as unused time off then actually have an employee stay home. That, I think, is the more interesting aspect.
  • 12 Old union man // May 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    I guess that means, if you worked for one of the companies that will now have to provide 6.5 days paid sick leave per year, you would feel you were entitled to take the time off, sick or not. If that is correct, and that attitude is widespread, then this bill will be a burden on any employer who allows it to be abused. All it takes is one person taking sick time when they are not sick to get fired, and abuse will be limited. Some employers check on people who call in sick and make it clear the job is at stake if sick time is abused. Some allow other employees to work in your place, if you are severely sick and have used all your sick time. Others allow sick time to accumulate and pay for a percentage of it when you retire.

  • 13 Old union man // May 5, 2008 at 8:50 am

    TG:
    Max possible outage on any given day would be everybody off sick at the same time. Realistically, a good manager staffs based on historical data that says the average is a certain percentage out on any given day, If that average is 2%, in a minimum 50 person operation you will need one extra hire to cover all slots, all the time. Good luck, in a company that provides vacation time. That percentage will go wild in July & August. Imagine how you would manage in a 24/7 operation, like Police or fire depts with sick time, job injuries, vacations, court time on a different shift, terminal leave, etc. It is no wonder they are short handed. City will not fund the numbers actually needed.

  • 14 turfgrrl // May 6, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Old union man: As someone who managed a 24/7 call center, I can assure you the management decision process is to consider max outage due to mandates. For the same reason that you have to account for paid holidays, despite having to cover the hours, you would have to factor in the max sick time and build schedules accordingly. There are obviously work situations where that doesn’t apply, but it tends to be hourly workers that fall into shift coverages that require max and min capacity planning.
  • 15 Old union man // May 6, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    I repeat, maximum possible would be everybody, fifty out of fifty, all out sick on the same day. Nobody plans for that. Nobody needs to, but most companies have some allowance for overtime so people who have a regular forty hour schedule can be asked to work an occasional extra shift when a lot of people are all out at the same time. Some actually plan on filling all those slots with overtime as it gives the boss more flexibility in scheduling and is sometimes cheaper than hiring more people.

Leave a Reply