Why Mandatory Paid Time Off Is Wrong for Home Healthcare Industry

Two costly proposals to make Connecticut the first state in the nation to mandate paid time off (SB-63 and SB-172) have been considered in the legislature this year. While SB-63 would apply to all employers, SB-172 targets the state’s home healthcare industry.

That’s a mistake, says Arlene Horenstein, vice president of Help and Home Inc., in Avon, a home healthcare agency. She says mandatory paid time off advocates completely miss the relationship between home healthcare workers and their clients.

This week, she answered questions about the issue.

Q: What protections do home health care clients have against sick care-givers coming into their home?

A: Most elderly people are extremely nervous about getting germs, and our clients have the right to send away any worker that arrives at their home whom they suspect is ill. It’s important to understand that our home health-care workers are very concerned about the health and welfare of their clients and don’t want to spread germs to someone they have a close relationship with.

Q: Why would a home health care worker voluntarily stay away, even if sick?

A: It’s absolutely in the best interests of a home-care worker not to see a client when he or she is sick, because if germs are passed and their client gets sick, the home worker is probably going to lose working hours. Even a minor illness can send a frail patient to the hospital or rehab facility. The fact is, home-care workers have a deep self-interest in keeping their patients healthy.

Note: Next week, Horenstein will explain further how mandatory paid time off will hurt a vital contributor to affordable health care in Connecticut

For more information about mandatory paid time off proposals, contact Kia Murrell at 860.244.1931 or kia.murrell@cbia.com.