Obama backs mandatory sick leave: What it means to you
March 18, 2009 by Bill MeltzerPosted in: Paid time off, Special Report
Does your company offer employees paid sick leave or a paid time off bank? If not, you may be forced to in the near future.
The House of Representatives recently discussed a bill known as the Healthy Families Act (HFA) that would require paid sick leave as a benefit. It’s likely to come to a vote in the spring.
The act would cover any physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition. The leave would be legally protected — meaning employees could sue if the company discriminated against people who take time off.
In its current form, HFA would make it mandatory for all employers with 15 or more employees to provide at least seven paid sick days a year to FTEs. Part-time employees would get a prorated amount based on the number of hours they work.
HFA would not apply only to employees’ illnesses. Much like FMLA, it would also allow employees to tend to a sick family member.
As currently written, HFA defines “family member” to include any blood relative or anyone whose relationship with the employee is “the equivalent of a family relationship” (e.g., a domestic partner).
What if you already offer paid sick time?
If HFA passes, many employers won’t need to make any changes to their sick-time policies. That’s assuming the company already gives its employees paid sick leave at least equivalent to the HFA seven-day minimum.
It’s unknown at present what the passage of the bill would mean for companies with PTO banks. This will have to be clarified in the final version of the bill. It’s possible that employers would be required to add seven provisional days to the existing bank to be used exclusively for sicknesses.
The bill would prohibit companies from reducing existing paid vacation or PTO time to offset the costs of complying with the mandatory sick days.
Fierce lobbying is expected on both sides of the bill, and passage is far from a certainty.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
people need to quit fear mongering….it has been proven that European workers are more productive even though they have more days off….a segment of American workers are so overworked that they just take the time off at work by being non productive. The American workers put more hours in a week than the rest of the world. Is there something wrong with a economy that depends on the poor people to spend money in order to get the economy jump started, even though these same people will not be able to hold on to their money. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND…THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR KEEP TRYING TO GET THE ECONOMY PUMPED UP.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:55 am
It says the bill would prohibit companies from reducing existing paid vacation or PTO time to offset the costs of complying with the mandatory sick days – does PTO include Holiday pay?? If not, taking away Holiday pay will be one way companies try and offset those costs………….
March 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I don’t quite get this. We got rid of Sick time and Vacation time because people were using their sick time as vacation time (an hour here two there). When I came on board I put a stop to the abuse of sick time. So we would not have to deal with employees complaining about not being able to use their sick time when they wanted in place of their vacation time we just combined the two. They got 3 weeks of PTO in place of 2 week vacation and 1 week of sick leave. If I understand this correctly we have to now give them 3 weeks of vacation in place of the 2 we intended and continue on the week of sick? That is for new employees, longer ones get more time. And what if they don’t use up that time in a year? Do we have to allow them to bank it? what if they quit, do they get it paid out?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I would love mandatory sick days, that way I do not feel guilty about taking a day off when I am sick, or when my kids are sick. My only fear, as an HR rep is abuse. If I give them 7 sick days, will they take advantage?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:12 am
If companies would be fair with their employees, this legislation would not be necessary. But unfortunately, too many companies treat their employees like robots instead of human beings with human conditions. Will there be employees that take advantage or abuse this? Of course there will be. They’re doing it now. So this legislation is not going to encourage what is now already taking place. Incorporate hire screening processes that take care of that issue and you won’t have that problem.
The seven days are a little steep. I think 5 days would be more fair. But too many people are working in what amounts to sweat shop conditions. Government regulation would not be necessary if American businesses would do the right thing.
I particularly like the discrimination clause. I’ve worked for companies that did have sick leave and if you used one day of it, you were treated like a criminal!
March 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am
We went to PTO and we love it, this will make us go back to Vacation/Sick time and people like me that never call in sick will lose time off hours. sick time is a use or lose it, and pto time will accrue. If this bill passes, they need to allow the PTO option as it is still time off offered. I see the bill for employees that are in jobs that currently do not offer paid time off at all (e.g. construstion, etc), however it really messes up those that already have something in place.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I’ve been following this discussion, which was at the outset informative, interesting and on topic.
It has strayed somewhat, but I have one nagging concern -
I remember when owning and managing a business was something to be proud of. When you manufactured a product or provided a service to the best of your ability and met or exceeded your customer’s needs. When you provided steady work for employees in your community with equitable pay and benefits. You stayed in business because you obeyed the law, provided for your employees, maintained a satisfied customer base and made a reasonable profit.
I don’t care which side of the aisle you sit on … this simple definition of doing business is (or was) the backbone of our country. Employers should be allowed to make their own business decisions, not have them dictated by government.
And … if they make poor decisions, whether it be about how many widgets to produce, paid sick days, bonuses etc. etc., and the company fails … so be it. What has happened to hard work and common sense?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:21 am
This bill will also encourge people to call in sick (unscheduled time off) if forced to use it or lose it when sick time is offered. we found by eliminating the sick time and folding it into PTO time, we had less staff calling in sick at the last minute placing a burden on the staff at work carrying their work load (phone calls, etc). PTO time, we have more scheudled time off, less last minute call in sick because someone just needs to use up their sick time or lose it at the end of the year.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am
This is getting to be full blown encroachment into business. European workers are more productive than American workers? Then their GDP must be higher than ours? Let’s all move there.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I would like to know more details, too. If the employee does not use the time will it carry over? If an employee quits is it paid out? I have multiple companies some with PTO and some with vacation/sick. I am alerting all my clients to make changes now just in case it is passed. One company said that they would completely terminate their plan before the vote then create a new one after it is passed.
I agree with employees getting more time off just like they have in other countries but this is not the time to do it. Companies are struggling and laying off employees. Some companies may drop their time off plans completely and only offer the new sick time plan. This could end up doing the opposite of what it was intended to do. Ditto with the new COBRA. Companies are already thinking of just eliminating their company healthcare plan.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Will there be mandated criteria regarding individual company policies on when an employee is eligible for PTO? In other words, we now have “30-day prior” policy before employees are paid for holidays and “1 year” for vacation. Will this bill also have “allowed” waiting periods attached to it?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Oh come on, it’s the right thing to do. We need to stop treating employees like dirt and expect them to be happy, productive, complacent robots. Anyone who has ever had to sit next to a coughing, sniffling co-worker should welcome this move.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am
By the way, our company allows people to use their sick days as personal days if they wish (aside from their vacation days). This way, we get advance notice of someone’s intended absence if they have a schedule procedure or appointments or just want a “mental health day”. Beats having to scramble when they call in sick that same morning.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I hope this does not apply to seasonal workers. It would seem to make sence it a person has a job requireing 40 hours or more per week over a full year. Sick time does not make sense for the casual worker that often does not show up to work on a regular schedule.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’ll agree with this. Anyone who has young children knows how hard it is to take care of the sick ones. My wife and I for the past 5 years has use all of our vacation time to tend to the needs of our little ones and in the end we end up burn out do that we get no time off from work that we get to enjoy our family.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Seemingly Obamy is attempting to fix something that is NOT broken and causing much hardship and more man hours for those in Human Resources. Mandated Benefits has nearly doubled this year and with all of the new rules and regulations, we are spending an inordinate amount of hours trying to keep up with it all. I feel like I am back in school with the all-nighters to stay on top of it.
Concerns of affording sick time to care for a domestic partner in a State that does not allow insurance for domestic partners just does not make sense and one aspect that is certain to be abused. The “change” is already sucking the life out of me…ugh!
March 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Write your congressmen..now!
March 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Ok, If anyone believes that there are more productive workers in terms of value creation, overall productivity, and GDP……they have no clue what they are talking about….this means you justice. The segment most overworked is that in the highest tax brackets. The average person making $100k+ a year works an average of 50+ hours a week. It is no coincidence that they make more. In fact the statistics show that as people make more they work more. That sounds right to me, I should make more if I work more. Also, capital (money rich people use to invest) is needed to stimulate the economy. Democrats like Nancy Pelosi (ultra dem) is saying the stimulous package won’t do what it needs to save or create jobs. This plan will force more jobs cuts and slower hiring as well as drive down wages or increase consumer retail prices. Further more the US has a regressive tax rate. Look into it. The less you make the less taxes you pay as a percentage and as an absolute dollar amount. A person making $100k pay 36% or $36k for taxes. A person making $25k pay 28% or $7K in taxes. The person making $100k makes 4 times more money but pays more than 5 times more taxes. Don’t you dare use tax loop holes as an excuse for this. Those loop holes only apply to the ultra wealthy ($10Mil +) and not 99.999% of the US population. Most A-list celebrities can’t afford tax loop holes. Only a few a-list celebrities and sports superstars can afford to do it that way. Most wealthy (not ultra wealthy) use charity to reduce their tax burden. That’s why every celeb you know of has a charity. They figure if they are going to pay, they may as well pay to great causes. The reason why it is difficult to set up tax loopholes is that you require a lot of money to set up dummy/shell corporations, hire lawyers, and hire accountants. People make even $300k-$1mil a year can’t afford to do this for taxes breaks. The sad fact is whether you argue for rich or poor… Obama’s plan is going to hurt small businesses. Most large companies have already seen this plan and adjusted their HR accordingly. This is going to effect supply and demand of our labor force. By the way I am in the same boat as CS. I own a small business and we did the exact same thing because it became too time consuming to keep track of. I don’t care what people use their time off for, sick vacation whatever.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Our company offers a very good PTO upon hire to all our FT employees. One sector of our business the PTO is 10 days the first year and then 15 days for years 2-5, after 5 years an additional day is added up to 10. For another sector they get 5 days after the first year and 10 days after 3 years then another 5 after 5 years. The use of these days is never questioned. We are a small company with less then 50 employees at one time. If we have to add an additional 7 days paid sick time we are talking about an over $65,000 employee benefit that this company could not afford. An I honestly think that our employees would rather we stayed in business then close because of a “benefit” mandated by the government.
My two cents.. If you don’t like the benefits offered by your employer find another one.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
From what I understand from reading this article, if the bill is passed company’s will require to provide their employees with a minimum of 7 days of sick leave. Currently my company offers 3 days paid of “personal time” not neccessarily sick leave. The employee is presented with the option of using that time for whatever reason, meaning it can be used for personal reasons or for a sick day. So my question, will the seven days be considered the same?
March 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
un freakin believable!!!
are we as small businesses just supposed to close our doors now???
how many other people are we to float somethin for nothin!!!
we work at close margins…not living in the “mansion on the hill” and still…every time I turn around somebody else has their hand in my pocket looking for more-more-more………..
March 19th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
When is this going to end??? We also combined our vacation and sick time so that the employee could use all of the time however they chose. It’s to their advantage! Why does the government claim to know what is best for our company and our employees?! They may find it hard to believe, but there actually are companies out here that treat their employees well and have their best interest at heart. If they force us to give an additional seven sick days, we’ll be forced to cut back on something else. Will the employee have a choice between an extra seven days off or a rate increase? Smaller companies may not be able to do both.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
For those that think I am a slave driver, sweat shop owner..here is a list of our small business benefits. It is better than most if not all companies I know of.
Competitive wages
3 weeks PTO (which you can cash out annually if unused)
Fully paid Health insurance
Fully paid disability
401K with financial planning
Flexible hours (our office is open 6 days a week) you just have to put in 40 in those 6 days.
Like anyone else, I expect to get what I pay for and I pay for good people to work hard.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Why don’t we call it all paid time off and let the workers with good attendance sell back a protion of the paid time off at the end of the year.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I have been thinking how the small business I work for will react to this since we offer combined PTO, not individual sick days. I could see the owner deciding to require a doctors note for all sick days. Is this something that you guys think would be allowed?
March 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
We currently give 6 days of sick time to Full time employees so if the bill passes it would increase the obligation by 8 hours. That does sound like much but it should not be the government who decides to encumber the owner with that obligation. Perhaps we should decrease vacations to offset the costs since they are not manadatory. It is an economic fact that business today cannot continue to obsorb increased overhead costs such as these without making corresponding cost reductions somewhere so it stands to reason, it will be done in non mandatory area such as benefits. That means 401 k, health insurances, vacation time, bonus arrangements, etc. The purpose of our employers is not to take care of us, but to employ us according to the terms of our contracts with them and or the wage, hour and labor laws of our states and the USA, and provide us with a means to our work for them, in return for our providing them with our work product or service. In return they provide a wage and most also provide PTO, sick time, vacation and some array of benefits. Our government seems to have forgotten that the employer should be responsible for their own business decisions and things like benefits. While it is true some business do are abusive toward sick employees, the same can be said can be claimed by employer’s. There are employee’s who abuse sick time as well. Mandating sick time will not change that. Passing this legislation will just be another example of bad legislation being passed without sufficfient thought on the real cost in terms of time and dollars. Small business will have to cut some other benefit to cover it if the cost is not obsorbable. Is this what Obama intended?
March 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
DJ and Kathy are correct. I have 100+ employees in a small local retail chain. This, combined with other plans coming out of the current administration, will make my company say “Enough!”. Those 100 people (who are not skilled labor) will be back out looking for jobs. And the chorus of companies like ours with the same concerns is growing. Our profit margin is slim. Telling us what we must give our employees puts us on the same level as the competition who has not bent over backward to give their employees that little extra (as we have done to attract people).
Tell me again why I have worked so hard in my own life to get positions that have the perks if I will now be able to go out and flip burgers to get those same perks?
March 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Some simple math helps here:
The typical work year is 260 days (2080 hours divided by 8). Subtract out, say 10 days for holidays–pretty average. Subtract out 10 more days for vacation (actually below average). That leaves 240 eight hour work days per employee. Divide 240 by the 7 additional days Obama is now asking each company to add as paid time off and you get 34 and change. Rounding up to 35 and the result is approximately for every 35 employees, you have lost one year of employee effort/work/productivity (while paying them). To put it in perspective, if you have 100 employees you’ve lost three years of work if this bill passes.
Obviously if you have some sick leave plan already on the books the impact is not as great. At our company we have 5 sick days a year; some employees use all of it, many don’t. Now it’s increased 40% and includes “mental” illness and/or caring for other “family” members. Even if you believe the 40% increase in the benefit is insignificant, does anybody think for a minute that employees will not use the full allotment now that is a federally mandated benefit. For these reasons it is clear the impact on all companies will be huge.
An interesting bill to consider during “the worst economy since the depression.”
March 19th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I was in Washington DC at the SHRM Legislative Conference lobbying on this bill last week. The Healthy Family Bill (Last Congress S.910) is very problematic.
The bill’s language makes it impossible for any employer to meet the thresholds, under the bill, to have existing leave programs counted.
No employer (that I know of) is currently meeting the requirments as set forth by the proposed bill. As written S.910 is not consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. It defines Full-time as more than 30 hours and Part-time is more than 20 hours.
· Any definition of Full and Part-time set forth should be consistent with current law.
· Employer’s payroll systems only allow us to code employees once.
· It should also be consistent with Exempt leave–i.e. taking in full day increments.
Any leave granted should be consistent with Family Medical Leave and be allowed to run concurrently. This bill does not allow concurrent leave.
· S910 would in practice extend FMLA 1 week or not allow employees to take paid leave during their FMLA.
Benefits should be scalable.
· Small businesses may not be able to provide the same benefits as large employers. 85% of Pennsylvania employers are small businesses this will be a huge burden.
Employers should get credit for what they already have in place.
· Most employers already offer generous leave programs.
· Paid Time Off plans – which allow employees the ability to take leave as they choose when they choose- would not be counted. Employers with these plans might have to dismantle their plans if they “want credit”.
· At my company we give employee 5 sick days and 2 personal days, and offer employees a great deal of flexibility, in addition we offer 2-4 weeks of vacation (based on longevity) and 12 paid holidays. (That’s 33 days (264 hours) of leave for employees in their first year!)
Define a day! The bill calls for 7 days of leave.
· Does a day mean 8 hours? This is critical definition…
· Many of my employees work 10 or 12 hours days. Does that mean some employees get 56 hours of leave and other could get 70 or 84 hours?
Every HR person and Business Leader should be talking and writing to their Senators and Representatives to let them know the flaws so it can be corrected.
If it’s going to pass (which seems likely) let’s have something that we can live with that acknowledges benefits that already exhist.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Another fine example of legislating against business. I wait for the first time this president finds it in his heart to actually look at a proposal from the side of an employer. I guess since he never worked for a business enterprise, other than a law firm, it makes sense that he doesn’t realize the massive costs involved in this kind of change. He never mentions any requirement of the sick employee to provide proof of sickness to justify the day off. Mental illness? Since when is that something you can call in for on a daily basis? I can hear it now, “my partner has a raging hangover and I need to take care of him with my special treatment”. Where will it end? Can anyone make him stop. I think I need a sick day.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I work for a company now that does not pay sick time. For over 20 years I worked for a company that had the following policy. You earned 5 days sick time a year. Whatever was left over at the end of the year you could carry over a maximum of 3 days and sell back the rest at half price. 90% of employees kept 3 days and sold back the rest and half price. Hence, they were motivated NOT to abuse sick time but secure in knowing it was there if they were sick enough to NOT need to be in the office infecting everyone else. A win-win situation!
March 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
How would it work in conjunction with the current “use it or lose it”allowance? We have a “use it or lose it” for sick time only. Would we be able to stick to that policy? Otherwise, I think employees are more productive and are better able to not get other employees sick when they have sick time available and have the comfort of knowing they will still be able to pay the bills.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Two things….
injustice – Can I come to work for you? That is very appealing. LOL No we own our own business, and I would love to be able to offer what you have. And anyone would be stupid to take advantage of it. I am betting you keep employees around for a while.
Mike – Good Idea on the holiday pay. We pay for 7 so that would make up for the seven more they will expect me to hand out. That might just be my next step, or just go back to the divided sick and vacation now before it goes into effect.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
We do keep people but this plan will mean I have to hire one more just to make due. Most of our employees are unskilled data entry, and most of our skilled workers are trained by us. Our competitive wage for data entry is $12-15 for our area (Philadelphia). I refused to outsource to India (I am Indian) because I know what goes on over there. I more than fairly compensate my employees and this is just Obama’s next step towards unionizing our country. Our current unemployment is closing in on 7% ( and american’s are freaking out), Normal European unemployment is 10-13% because of socialist labor policies. France the great bastion of civility boast a very socialized democratic government, look where it got them. They have low GDP, high labor costs, a heavily unionized workforce, high taxes, high inflation, and 13% average unemployment prior to this year. They did all that in the last 20-30years. If Obama succeeds in socializing our democracy, we will have lost ground in terms of competitive advantage to countries like Brazil, China, India, and Russia. We as a country can’t afford that right now. Those countries have low low benefits and low labor costs because their labor force is huge. USA as a country will go the way of our automakers if Obama is allowed to continue. Sad I voted for him…..I guess he never said he was going to make good change.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
To clear up some confusion:
According to the HFA, if your company (size of 15 employees or greater) already offers seven or more paid days off per year for full-time employees you are set, provided these days can be unscheduled (ie, emergency/sick). That is, if your company already offers more than seven days of paid-time-off (vacation, sick days, personal time, etc.) the company would not be required to offer more time. Part-time employees would be offered a pro-rated amount of paid-time-off.
Personally, I’m on the fence about this issue–leaning against it’s support. I need to learn more about the issue. I kind-of agree with DJ, except noting there is a line. The government does make some business decisions: think HR compliance (FLSA, ADEA, ERISA). The question is not simply about what’s good for business. It is also about what is good for families. I’m very thankful my company has a very generous PTO policy that has already been extremely useful, now having a baby in the house.
InJustice,
Your in the wrong forum. This is about the HFA, not a rant about the tax tables or partisan politics.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
InMyOpinion, where do you work? They must be pretty bad for you to have that kind of belief system.
Have I just been lucky all these many years to work at some truly good small businesses? I don’t think so. Smart entrepeneurs know for them to be successful, their employees need to be well compensated.
Congress can’t run itself and now it wants to run business? Enough, I say; enough!
March 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
This is just another example of a mis-named bill; it should be called the Chinese Full Employment Act! 7 additional paid days off for all employees would exceed our total profit in some years and is about 10% of our record profit year. Instead of doing everything possible to keep work here, we would be forced to source more and more of our product offshore. Government needs to stop trying to control small businesses or there will be no small businesses.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
To be honest, this is really going to cause headaches for employers who already deal with employees who abuse FMLA and PTO. As of right now I’m not saying I’m for it or against it because, as stated above by others, I need more details of the plan. I do know that there are employers that even though they have a sick leave policy in place frown when used, vacation is the prefernce when taking time for illness, this is because they don’t have to pay out accrued sick leave at year end or upon retirement. My husband works for the USPS and was put on probation last year for missing 3 days for a sever ear and sinus infection, stating he had a an absentee problem, he has over 750 hours of accrued “Sick Leave” not including his vacation. I could go either way, if a company offers good PTO already then there is no need for this plan but if they don’t this legislation is needed, but not for 7 days…FMLA starts after 3 days.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
This bill takes nothing into consideration for the many millions of small businesses in America. I own a small business and have been working my tail off for the last 5 years to reach profitability. I only pay myself in profitable months and over the last 5 years have made an average of only $3 per hour as the Owner!!! We were almost there when the 2008 economic turn sent us backwards a few steps. We simply cannot afford to provide insurance, vacation and sick leave benefits… never have. That’s pretty standard in our industry (personal services) and the people who choose this industry are, for the most part, not expecting benefits. I pay my employees well, provide commission, incentives, complimentary services and provide a fantastic place to work, but they know coming in that we don’t pay for benefits. Passing a bill like this would possibly be the catalyst to me giving up on reaching the black with my American Dream. I can’t spin my wheels much longer…. somethings gotta give!!
March 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Ahhhh….another indication that President Obama is truly looking out for the welfare of Main Street.
I think employees deserve to have separate designated PAID sick days, and to be able to take one of those designated days off to care for a loved one is fabulous. I would imagine that there will have to be company policies put into effect, e.g. medical certification required espcially in cases involving time off to take care of a sick relative. I like this proposal and hope it works out. However, I do agree that 5 days would seem more reasonable.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
For those who do not wish for this plan to succeed what about those employees who truly would rather be @ work, but because of poor immune systems and bad genetics they get sick a lot?? We have had some that have tried to come to work running fevers, etc. even. Of course we send them home because we don’t want everyone else sick. And yes, we already offer paid sick time. My point is this, not everyone is abusing the system so much as they simply cannot help being sick so much. If you have bad genes and therefore a weak immune system, no amount of Vitamin C, eating healthy, etc. is going to keep you well. I have worked with supervisors who look down their nose and even go as far as to write up employees that are deemed “absent too often”. And we’re not talking about workers who’ve used all the time allotted to them. These are ones who are trying their hardest and being discrimnated against because they get sick. That is not the right response, people.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I have a great idea. Leave businesses to run their own businesses. Congress has not done too well at running their business. If any employee does not like the benefits I give then maybe they should consider working for some other business that offers what they want. After all it is America.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I am usually against such rules on business imposed by the government but the selfish part of me is wishing that it would go through.
I’ve been at my company for 16 years and all we get is 2 weeks vacation (forever). No sick days, no personal time, very minimal benefits. I can only wish for 7 sick days a year and I hate to admit this, but I would use them. I am so burnt out but have to support my family, so what can I do. I should have left the company a couple years ago but with the economy being as it is – I wouldn’t dare.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was head of HR for several years at a large company (800 employees) that did not have sick time for hourly employees. None. It was not because they could not afford it – they just didn’t want to spend the money. Employees all just came in when they were sick because they couldn’t afford not to – and I couldn’t blame them for it.
These are the reasons this law is needed. I emphasize with small businesses that will really feel the burden of the increased costs becaue of mandates, and understand all the fears of abuse. But we also need to treat employees like the assets they are. We all get sick sometimes, and a minimal amount of paid time for illness is only fair.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Email your congressman now.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I don’t like how this bill would not allow employers to consider and/or amend their current sick, PTO and or vacation benefits. Add in holidays, bereavement and jury duty and on average our employees receive 100 days off with pay per year. We would most likely have to lay off more people to afford providing more paid sick leave.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I meant 27 days off with pay per year.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
In response to Payroll Tech – Our company does not have sick pay. We changed to a more generous PTO plan several years ago. Our new employees earn 16 days PTO each year. Longer years of service earn more – up to 26 days per year and can be carried over from year to year. Employees can use this time for sick or vacation. According to the article above it says “It’s unknown at present what the passage of the bill would mean for companies with PTO banks. This will have to be clarified in the final version of the bill. It’s possible that employers would be required to add seven provisional days to the existing bank to be used exclusively for sicknesses.” That is what concerns me. Silly we might have to go back to the old days of keeping track of sick time – when it is not FMLA related.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
My question is this: Why, if the government is able to put all these rules in place that Employers have to follow, why is it necessary to have Unions? Just to get money from employees in the form of dues?
If the Obama Administration is not careful, they are going to run every small business OUT of business. Doesn’t everyone realize that the more expensive it is to run a business, the more they are all going to have to pay for any product of that business? Every employee should be a policeman of their work place to make sure there are no abuses. Abusing a system is a crime against all other workers who play by the rules. It runs up costs, and if the business does not make a certain level of income, it goes out of business. Bottom Line!
I wish every worker had to own a business just once in their lives. Then they might appreciate what goes into supplying a job to someone else. I sometimes wish I could just go to work, do my 8 hrs. and not have to worry about anything else. And with the government putting so many restrictions, etc. on small business, I would probably come out with about the same “personal money” if I just forgot about trying to employ people and add to the wealth of America.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I think both positively for this and have concerns.
1) People should be allowed to stay home sick when they are ill. When you are forced to come to work either due to no sick days, peer pressure from bosses or your own personal “my job needs me too much”, you end up being sick for a longer period of time, plus get all your co-workers & customers sick. I am happy to say that my company has the philosophy if you are sick – stay home & get well.
2) My concern is that 7 days is a lot of days to offer. I think if the Gov’t were to mandate it – stick to 3 days. The companies that can offer more, will. Those that can’t will stick to the basic 3 days. Unless you have children, 3 days is more than enough.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I have issue with this being put in “days” format. 7 days for a person who works firve 8-hour days is a week plus 2 days. Many of our employees work 10 hour shifts, this is almost 2 weeks of paid sick leave!
One of our vital roles as HR has always been to find that place where something is both right for the company and the employee. We do want to make sure that those who need it get it, but not in a manner which will place an undo hardship on the company.
Wheter or not an employee has children is not a factor that should be considered when deciding this issue…after all, it is not a factor we can use in the hiring or promotional process.
Government needs to remember the difference between an idea that is good in theory and how that theory will look in practice and the realities of companies (and therefore employees who may get laid off because company’s have to cut costs).
March 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
If every worker had an opportunity to own a business just to see what it takes, I would hope that most of us would recognize that it is vitally important to value our employees, respect them and see to it that they are given fair and in most cases well-deserved benefits. That would involve decent pay, good working conditions, employee appreciatiation activities, and most importantly a decent amount of vacation time and sufficient number of sick days so that they wouldn’t have to drag themselves to work because they just can’t afford to miss even a single day of pay. I personally don’t understand how giving employees a fair number of sick days will cause a signficant increase in business expense. Can someone explain? In general, our country is very stingy when it comes to the amount of time a regular, middle class, worker is given. As pointed out above, other countries give a significantly greater amount of time off to their workers.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Well put Joyce! Let government worry about getting jobs for those people who are out of work because of their outrageous/expensive mandates! Oh, I forgot… they already started passing bills to do that, so you will still be paying for those employees. Just indirectly.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Here is the bottom line on this issue and many others … as I see it:
Do you really want the government telling you how to run your busines (even more)?
If you (or your company) wants to provide paid sick days – fine. If not, you may
shrink your available labor pool … but it should be a business decision not a government mandate.
Take your personal optionion out of it (how it affects you), and just think about it.
As the government gets BIGGER, you and I get smaller.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I live/work in Milwaukee, WI where an act very similar to this is being disputed. In November, 2008, voters passed a Referendum requiring employers with 10 or more employees to offer up to 9 days paid sick leave per year. These sick days would be earned at a rate of 1 hour paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. New employees would begin accruing time immediately but would not be able to use it until they have been employed for at least 3 months. Any time not used at the end of the year would be rolled into the next year so long as the “bank” does not exceed 9 days. If an employee is terminated, this time would not be paid out to them as vacation time would be.
On the surface, this seems like a great plan. Get the sick people to stay home when they should, etc. However, from a business perspective, it is grim. We are all suffering from the current economic downturn and doing anything we can to keep our employees employed – we recently cut ALL overtime, put a temporary stop to 401(k) matches and even cut some departments to 32 hours a week. The good news is we have not had to lay off any employees. If we now have to start paying for all 250 of our full time employees to have an additional 6 days off with pay (we currently offer 3 paid personal days after 3 months) and the average employee earns $15 hour, that is an additional cost of $720 per employee. I am not including our current vacation schedule in this calculation because I know that if this goes into effect, we will lump the current 3 days of paid sick time with the new requirements into a PTO bank and drop our current vacation plan.
This plan will threaten many small businesses within the city; many of which are already barely staying alive. In addition to the economic impact this will bring, the administrative burden involved in tracking hours worked will require additional hours or the addition of headcount until current time-keeping/attendence software can be upgraded to track the information.
While I feel that it is important to give employees ample time off to care for themselves and their families, I think it’s more important, at this time, to keep jobs available for people to continue to be able to provide for their families. Let’s stabilize our economy and be able to look US workers in the eye and ensure them that they will still have a job tomorrow before we start legislating the amount of paid time off they have.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Partisan politics…..I voted democrat and now I’m sorry I did. Even the hired Dem economists and Nancy Pelosi have said the same thing. In fact, Pelosi is grumbling more about a second economic stimulous package. The taxes have a huge impact on small business and entrepreneurs. Small business drives our economy. Most people in this country are employed by small business. We are proping up failed companies with poor business management. Instead we should be rewarding successfully run companies that are making money and creating jobs. This policy does nothing more than punish those that are successful along with a stimulous package that rewards bad business practices. It also does take a toll on any competitive advantage we may have as american companies. Businesses are there to make money not give it away. Any extra labor costs on top of our already over inflated salaries will definately force more small businesses to close or find cheaper sources of labor (other countries). Most small businesses have razor thin operating margins and cash flow. If you only have a 5% profit, this represents an almost 2% increase in the cost of labor. Where is that two percent going to come from…..either cutting jobs or increased prices.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
We seem to line up to the left or right on all these issues. Trying to identify the ones that we feel may or may not benefit us and forming our arguments accordingly. I seldom see discussion on the legality or the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. It’s as if we accept the fact that our government has the power granted by the governed to inact these laws. This country was not created by submissive individuals. It was created by those wanting to decide for themselves what was in their best interest. We as a nation have earned everything that we have because we have had a system in place that allows individuals to earn and achieve all that they can. The question is not whether or not this issue and many others are good, bad, right or wrong, there are plenty of arguments on both sides. The question is about where we want to go as a governed body.
Daniel Webster once said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the World”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
TO Author, Left or Right: Very well said. Wished I had said that.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The government should not mandate the fringe benefits that an employee gets. That is one of the selling points some companies use to attract and retain employees. From my experience at most companies you can use your PTO if you are sick. Some people say that if there are mandatory sick days provided then you won’t feel like a criminal for using them. I disagree with that. People’s attitude won’t change over you being sick just because the government says it’s ok. If you’re in a job where the burden of your work will fall on someone else because you call in, you’re still going to get the same irritated response from your co works and/or supervisor with or without mandated sick days.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Am I missing something here, or does President Obama not have the best interest of the employee in mind here assuring that all workers are entitled to paid sick leave????
March 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Yes MP, you’re missing something
March 26th, 2009 at 10:51 am
When Congress pays the employees’ salaries, then they can provide them with whatever benefits they desire. What they are proposing is basically another cost (tax) on business.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:06 am
We had no idea what he meant when he spoke of “change”. There are so many leasons to be learned from this – the most important of which is that “Information is Power”. The steps being taken by our Federal Government (this being one of them) are intended to level the field – and socialize the country. Had he been honest durning the campaign we would not be having this discussion.
Margret Thather once said: “The reason socialism fails is because eventually you run out of other peoples money”
Within us – as a people- granted by the Constitution – lies the ultimate power to inact “change” – use the next 19 months to gather the power of information – and vote.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am
We had no idea what he meant when he spoke of “change”. There are so many lessons to be learned from this – the most important of which is that “Information is Power”. The steps being taken by our Federal Government (this being one of them) are intended to level the field – and socialize the country. Had he been honest durning the campaign we would not be having this discussion.
Margret Thather once said: “The reason socialism fails is because eventually you run out of other peoples money”
Within us – as a people- granted by the Constitution – lies the ultimate power to inact “change” – use the next 19 months to gather the power of information – and vote.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Oh this is good news! Genious Obama.