Look Around HR

One of the under-the-radar labor related bills that Democrats (and labor unions) are promoting is what is known as The Healthy Families Act. This bill would mandate that businesses with 15 or more employees provide a certain number of paid sick days each year. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

While it may have fizzled out in Washington (at least for now), this issue is alive in many states. There are currently two cities that have policies like this (San Francisco and Washington D.C.), although they may vary in scope. A number of states are considering mandatory paid leave (including AK, CA, CO, CT, MA, MN, NC, PA, RI, WV, and WY).

The Connecticut Senate recently debated this measure, and here is some of what was reported in the Hartford Courant:

Proponents said the bill would give average people the chance to address the health needs of themselves and their families- a chance they need more as they work harder while disposable income, job security and benefits shrink in the “global economy.”

But opponents said the increasing business competition of that same economy is the reason that lawmakers should not approve the bill: It would put Connecticut at a disadvantage and cost the jobs of some of the very workers it is intended to help, they said.

I understand the arguments of both sides.

The specifics of this bill included one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. This would equal about 6 ½ days per year (in a typical 2080 hour year).

I think that 6 ½ days per year is a reasonable amount of paid time off as long as the number of hours work determines the amount accrued. I must admit I am a little shocked that many companies do not offer some form of PTO for full-time employees. Being in a competitive, professional field (healthcare)- it is rather foreign to me. We currently offer 20 days of PTO after one year of service (with a prorated amount during the first year that employees can use after 90 days). That number goes up to 25 after five years and 30 after 10.

The Heritage Foundation has a well thought out essay opposing the mandatory sick leave, while offering other proposals that would not be as costly to employers. Of course costs are the number one concern of business when legislation like this is considered.

From Heritage:

Congress should make it easier for employees to manage the demands of work and family life, but requiring employers to provide paid time off is the wrong approach. Employers would respond to mandatory greater sick leave benefits by reducing other benefits and wages. Congress should not force workers to take a pay cut to receive more sick leave. Instead of making this choice for workers, Congress should raise incomes by reducing taxes, creating sick leave savings accounts for workers, and allowing employers to offer comp time. Unlike a mandatory sick leave benefit, these policies would give workers more choices and greater flexibility to balance work and family life.

Read the entire essay here.

For the record, I think we will see legislation begin passing in state legislatures, and then Congress- possibly as soon as the next session.