Mandating paid sick leave, blocking certain employee communications aim of bills
(May 18, 2007) Proposals mandating paid sick leave and restricting employer-employee communications are still being advanced in the General Assembly in the final weeks of the session.
SB-601, set for a vote in the Appropriations Committee on Monday, May 21, requires employers of 25 or more employees to provide paid sick leave in increments of one hour for every 40 hours worked at a minimum of 52 hours per year. The bill also allows employees to use sick leave for a variety of reasons unrelated to illness.
In addition, HB-7326 actually cuts off certain communications between employers and employees, is awaiting action by the House.
Both are needlessly intrusive bills that send loud signals that the state is unconcerned with the tight competitive pressures businesses in the state are under.
SB-601 Mandated paid sick leave
Most Connecticut employers already accommodate their workers’ needs with time off for illness. Having the government intrude into the workplace to mandate this policy will be very costly to Connecticut’s employers.
A few of the most problematic features of this legislation are:
• Defintion of “employee”: The term “employee” is defined as any person who is (a) paid on an hourly basis, or (b) not exempt for the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This essentially means that all low level, non-professional, non-managerial employees will be covered by the legislation. Moreover, the legislation makes no distinction between full-time and part-time employees, so some employers may have to provide all of their employees regardless of their employment status or actual amount of time worked for the employer.
• Expands the reasons for which paid sick leave may be used, beyond the actual illness of an employee.
• Employers are liable for “adverse employment action”: In recent federal court decisions, it has been held that the definition of “adverse employment action” in the context of employment law constitutes almost any action an employer takes that a “reasonable employee” in the position of the plaintiff deems to be adverse. This will inevitable lead to increased litigation regarding whether a given action is adverse under the particular circumstances.
• Carryover provision: Prohibits employers from placing limitation on the amount of sick time that can be carried over from one year to the next. This is simply not fiscally prudent for many employers.
Measures like SB-601 restrict the flexibility of Connecticut businesses to operate in the most effective manner, because it prevents employers from determining which leave policies best suit their companies.
HB-7326
HB-7326, the so-called “captive audience” bill is equally frustrating to Connecticut employers. As an efficient way of communicating with their workers so all of them can hear the same message at the same time, many employers frequently hold mandatory staff meetings on key workplace topics.
The bill restricts Connecticut employers from talking about “political or religious” matters in those meetings. But the bill so broadly defines the world “political” that it includes issues that aren’t really political, but are important to employees and their jobs.
Banned topics include any legislative or government developments that could affect jobs and the workplace, or anything that could be collectively bargained for — such as health care and other employee benefits.
HB-7326 is part of a national campaign by organized labor that wants to gag employers so employees have little choice other than to turn to the unions for vital information affecting the workplace and community at large.
Employers are very concerned about this bill because it will hinder their ability to operate and compete most effectively, and keep their employees abreast of some of the most critical workplace issues being debated by policy-makers.
For more information, contact CBIA’s Kia Floyd at 860-244-1931 or floydk@cbia.com.
CBIA Action Center
Comment on this story or issue to your state legislators!
|
