Businesses battling paid sick leave mandate
in State Senate

(June 2, 2009) The vote in the State Senate could come at any time, so business leaders were at the State Capitol on Monday to tell their state senators why mandatory paid sick leave, as proposed in HB-6187, would be bad for their companies and for Connecticut.

CBIA's Kia Murrell
Ed Gillespie, Fortune Plastics  

Blanca Gonzalez, B&N Homemaking and Companion Services


Fran Delaney, president, West State Mechanical, Inc.

Last week, the House approved the proposal that will significantly increase workplace costs and administrative burdens, and could lead to more job losses. Now awaiting action in the Senate, HB-6187 mandates Connecticut employers of 50 or more employees to provide their hourly and non-exempt workers a mandatory minimum number of paid sick days per year.

Given the state’s economic situation and the 65,600 Connecticut jobs already lost in the past year, making sick days more important than jobs is both ill-timed and ill-advised. Residents of the state have repeatedly said that jobs are their No. 1 priority, but the legislature continues to bypass that concern with measures such as HB-6187 that will make it more difficult to retain jobs.

After a nine-hour debate and despite the concerns of many employers struggling just to stay open, HB-6187 was approved in a 88-58 vote, with a number of Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the proposal.

See who supported, and who opposed, CBIA's position in the House

Mandating paid sick leave is yet another example of the sharp disconnect between state lawmakers and the realities of today’s poor economy. It is a costly policy that disregards the many different types of workplaces and industries found in Connecticut and the financial health and business demands of employers.

The reality is that the only way many employers can accommodate this additional unbudgeted cost is by reducing other employee benefits, wages, and in some cases, the jobs themselves. What’s more, the bill will create a huge administrative burden on employers, especially smaller ones, in managing varying amounts of time-off for their employees.

Curiously, state lawmakers found the mandate too costly for the state to afford—$1.2 million over two years—so they revised the bill to reduce its fiscal impact on government. But they turned a blind eye to the huge impact it will have on municipalities and employers.

For more information, contact Kia Murrell at 860-244-1931 or kia.murrell@cbia.com.

More scenes from the State Capitol on June 1:

 

 

 

 


CBIA/The Connecticut Business & Industry Association
350 Church Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103
860-244-1900
cbia.com