State Legislature's Labor Committee is considering:

Paid sick leave proposal would hike costs, disrupt workplaces

(March 4, 2008) A proposal from the legislature’s Labor Committee would make it harder for many businesses in the state to operate and continue offering jobs with good benefits.

Connecticut employers are among the most generous in the U.S. for employee wages and benefits — including paid time off.

But Senate Bill-217 requires employers with 25 or more hourly and non-exempt employees to provide a minimum of one hour of paid time off for every 40 hours worked, for illness, domestic violence treatment and associated reasons. It also allows employees to carry over their accrued paid sick leave from year to year — indefinitely.

A government “one-size-fits-all” approach, the bill ignores the dynamics of the workplace as well as Connecticut employers’ excellent track record for paid time off. The bill would increase business costs, cause workplace disruptions and potentially hurt employees instead of help them.

In a CBIA survey, Connecticut companies overwhelmingly (24-to-1) said mandatory paid sick leave would negatively affect them. For many businesses, including those that rely on a part-time or a seasonal workforce, paid time off mandates would hurt their operations and productivity.

According to the survey, 69% already offer paid sick leave to their employees, 79% say the employees’ length of service doesn’t affect the number of sick days allowed, and 60% allow workers to carry over or be paid for their unused sick days at the end of the year.

Employers have to be competitive
“This would add to administrative costs as well as labor costs,” said Christel Brooks, HR director, Tyler Technologies Inc., in Tolland. “Employers already have to offer competitive benefits and salaries to get and retain a good workforce,” she said “This is not an area for legislation.”

Still, the Labor Committee has proposed requiring employers to carry over unused vacation time or pay a lump sum for the unused time at the end of the year and require them to give employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time for every 40 hours worked.

Cost of carry-overs
The burden of carry-overs of unused paid time off would be devastating to Connecticut companies and would actually encourage employees to avoid taking needed sick time off — in favor of longer vacations or larger payouts.

For example, an employee with three weeks of paid time off/vacation time who uses only one week in 2008 would have five weeks available in 2009.

“How will a company operate with a key employee not available for over a month in one year?” asks Steven Pretto, vice president of operations at Goldenrod Corp., in Beacon Falls. “If there are several employees doing the same thing, the company could have serious problems.”

Flexibility needed
Not all companies can afford to provide the same level of benefits. Companies need the flexibility to determine which time-off policies work best for their workforce. Business leaders say efforts by the legislature to require specific paid time off would hurt their company’s productivity, their financial situation and their ability to remain competitive.

Lawmakers should reject bills such as SB-217, which would make it harder to operate a business in the state and instead focus on the health of Connecticut’s economy and its ability to create and retain good jobs.
For more information, contact CBIA’s Kia Murrell at 860-244-1931 or kia.murrell@cbia.com.