Connecticut’s much-publicized new law requiring some businesses to provide paid sick leave to some workers is a pretty moderate drug, economically, but it could still have some nasty side effects.
The legislation that goes into effect in January is the first in the nation to mandate paid sick leave at the state level. Under the new law, employees classified as “service workers” must increase at least five days of paid sick leave per year. In addition to taking care of the worker’s own health, leave can be taken to help with the medical needs of a spouse or child, or to address problems stemming from family violence or sexual assault.
Labor sees the law as a clear win for the workers. Jon Green, executive director of the Connecticut Working Families Party, which campaigned for the law, told the Daily Kos blog: “Especially in tough times like these, it’s not right to make people choose between their health and their health. work, or between being a good parent and a good employee. ” When the law takes effect, he said, low-income workers will be able to “live a little easier.” (1)
But the law’s carefully constructed limitations indicate that even its drafters were aware of its potential drawbacks. The law’s definition of “service worker” contains a long list of job categories, from butchers to social workers. What these jobs have in common is that almost all of them, at least on the surface, are difficult to outsource. A crossing guard, one of the jobs on the list, can’t do much good unless you’re at the intersection where people are trying to cross. A dental hygienist, another similar job, should be in the same place as the denture you are cleaning. The law specifically excludes manufacturers, who can more easily relocate or outsource their work, and companies with fewer than 50 employees, which would likely be forced to close due to strict regulations.
Connecticut already has a relatively high minimum wage: $ 8.25 an hour, a dollar above the federal minimum. Like this higher minimum wage, the new law will increase the cost of hiring workers in Connecticut. As minimum benefit laws advance, the paid sick leave requirement will have relatively less of an impact, much less than, say, a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage. Still, it will have an impact.
Jobs covered by the new law may be more difficult to relocate than other types of work, but that doesn’t mean they can’t disappear or move elsewhere. A butcher who works a supermarket meat counter must, of course, be employed in the state where the supermarket is located. But supermarkets don’t need to put their butchers behind meat counters. If in-store counter staffing becomes too expensive, stores can rely on pre-cut chops, brought in from an out-of-state supplier.
If a store employs a human cashier, that person must be in the store. But if the state makes hiring a human cashier too expensive, the store can install self-checkout lanes. Yes, those automated voices telling you “please swipe your card now” can be annoying, but machines don’t have to have sick days.
In still other cases, employers may simply pass on the costs of the new benefit to customers in the form of higher prices, which will likely mean less business and, in turn, fewer jobs.
So while Green is right that the law will make life easier for service workers who have jobs, it will make life more difficult for those who do not have jobs and who will now have to compete for fewer opportunities. Still, because the costs of the law are modest, its direct negative effects should also be small.
However, in addition to its direct costs, the law demonstrates a meddlesome attitude that can have a chilling effect on business decisions disproportionate to those modest direct costs.
I am a business owner, and for my part, I think it makes management sense to allow sick people to stay home. But I don’t think it makes sense for management to designate certain time off as paid “sick day.” It does not promote fairness or honesty in the workplace. Some people see nothing wrong with playing truant or going to bed for every case of a cold, while others outgrow anything other than double pneumonia. Providing paid sick leave forces bosses to visit every employee’s bedside, thermometer in hand, or risks rewarding those who are creative, or even downright dishonest, in their self-reported diagnoses.
As I explained in October 2009, when New York City proposed a regulation similar to the recently passed law in Connecticut, the Palisades Hudson does not offer “sick days.” Instead, employees here receive three “personal days” per year. These can be used to cure a cold, to consult a doctor about an ongoing condition, or to cheer on a children’s soccer game. Generally, employees can also use vacation days, of which everyone receives at least 10 per year, for any of these purposes. If necessary, employees can make up for extra time lost over a weekend or other scheduled time off. We also try to offer unpaid time off when appropriate.
Because Connecticut will allow paid personal or vacation days to count as “sick days” under its new laws, our policies would easily meet state requirements, if we were subject to them. But that doesn’t mean I want the Connecticut Legislature to tell me which combination of cash and benefits is best for my business or my employees, and it doesn’t offer me much assurance that the next instance of state meddling in my workplace it would be just as harmless. .
Interestingly, Daniel Schwartz, a Pullman & Comley attorney who blogs about Connecticut labor law, wrote that the new law may allow the state to monitor compliance with all paid time off policies created by employers with 50 or more employees, whether they apply to “service workers” or not. While most of the text of the law uses the term “service worker”, the section on anti-retaliation uses the broader term “employee” instead. In accordance with the law, “No employer shall retaliate against personnel or discriminate against an employee because the employee (1) requests or uses paid sick leave, either in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of this law. or in accordance with the employer’s paid sick conditions leave policy […]”(two)
The effect is that even employees who are not “service workers” can appeal to the Labor Commissioner if they are discriminated against for requesting or taking medical leave. Since “retaliatory action” as defined by the law includes “refusal to promote,” the law could prevent a company from promoting a highly dedicated employee who schedules their time off to correspond to periods of less workload. than one who takes days off. As long as the spirit moves you, regardless of the needs of your employer or the employer’s clients.
Although the Palisades Hudson does not currently have an office in Connecticut, I have already told employees that I might consider relocating our Scarsdale, NY headquarters to Fairfield County, Connecticut when our lease ends in five years. But I will think twice before moving to a state that feels the need to interfere with policies that work well for my company and its employees. When New York City considered its sick leave mandate, I wrote that I was glad I didn’t have offices within city limits. With its new law, Connecticut, in my opinion, has diminished its advantages over the New York suburbs.
That’s a side effect that supporters of Connecticut’s new sick leave law may not have fully considered. In economic terms, the legislative cure may prove more damaging in the long run than the now compensated illnesses in the workplace.
Sources:
1) Daily Kos, “Interview with Jon Green, Connecticut Working Families”
2) Bill No. Connecticut State Senate 913, Public Law No. 11-52