Paid Sick Leave- Connecticut

Corsendonk

Connecticut has become the first state in the US to have a law requiring employers to provide paid sick days with New York City, Massachusetts and Georgia set to follow. Just really shows you how much the Irish employee is pampered but in the midst of the worst recession in years is this not the wrong time for laws such as this?

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news19053.html

Once Governor Malloy signs the Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Act, Connecticut will become the first state to mandate paid sick leave. The act, which will become effective on Jan. 1, 2012, applies to employers of 50 or more persons within Connecticut, except for manufacturers and certain nationally chartered charitable organizations.
The law presents a few challenges for Connecticut employers. While many covered employers may already provide paid sick leave, the act provides a minimum standard for these benefits and those benefits meet the new legal thresholds. The act also provides a good reason for employers to review their overtime-eligible employment classifications to ensure coverage for eligible hourly service workers.
Individuals eligible for paid sick leave include certain hourly service employees who fall within the act’s 68 different categories of workers. Those categories include food service managers, dental assistants, fast food workers, medical assistants, waiters, child care workers, data entry and information processing workers, and retail salespersons. Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, eligible employees will be entitled to accrue one hour of leave for each 40 hours worked, up to a maximum of 40 hours of paid leave each calendar year. Employees may use accrued sick leave once the employee works for 680 hours (about four months for full-time employees).
Employers may assume that because they already provide paid leave, their policies comply with the act. But the act requires employers to offer a combination of paid vacation, personal days or other paid time off that satisfy minimum hour and accrual thresholds. Existing policies that might fall short include policies requiring a substantial waiting period — such as a typical six-month waiting period before paid time off accrues or may be used. Extended waiting periods, however, will not satisfy the act as they impermissibly lengthen the period of full-time service the act requires. The act also provides that employees may begin to accrue (but not use) paid sick time when they begin employment.
Qualifying leave under the act is not co-extensive with other leave laws. For example, while the act’s reasons for leave are generally co-extensive with the federal and Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Acts (illness, injury or need for medical care), the new act grants paid leave to employees for medical care related to family violence or sexual assault.
The act only applies to hourly “service workers,” a broadly defined group of workers under the Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification system (http://www.bls.gov/soc/major_groups.htm). It is not co-extensive with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act or Connecticut regulations governing overtime eligibility.
Employers who are uncertain if an employee qualifies as an hourly “service worker” should proceed carefully to ensure that a classification error is not made.
Employers may mistakenly assume that if they classify an employee as “salaried,” the employee is not “hourly” and therefore is exempt from overtime. Labeling an employee as “salaried” or “hourly” is neither relevant nor persuasive to the classification analysis because exemptions from overtime depend upon the nature of the employee’s job, with reference, as appropriate, to the employee’s educational background, role, and supervision over other employees.
While day and temporary laborers are expressly exempt under the act, employers should not attempt to classify employees as “temporary” or “independent contractors” to evade the act. A classification error resulting in the non-payment or underpayment of overtime (or failure to collect employment withholdings) could expose employers to damages and costs far exceeding the penalties the act provides.
The Labor commissioner may assess civil penalties and require offending employers to rehire employees and pay back wages and benefits. The act also prohibits retaliatory action or discrimination against employees for the request, use or complaints about paid sick leave.
The act also requires employers to notify employees, at the time of hiring, about entitlements under the act. Employers may comply with their notice obligations by posting a notice in a conspicuous location incorporating these requirements.

20Cent

Corsendonk wrote: »

Just really shows you how much the Irish employee is pampered but in the midst of the worst recession in years is this not the wrong time for laws such as this?

Just shows how backward US employment law is.

Gandhi

A bill like this recently got shot down in Philadelphia. The mayor vetoed it because the city is already hemorrhaging jobs to suburban townships with more competitive tax policies, and this would have accelerated it. He reckoned (correctly, IMO) that people would not gain any sick days. Instead they would lose their job entirely, or end up having a long commute to some far-flung suburban office park.

Amerika

I’m sure businesses will now be flocking to start up new operations or expanding their businesses in Connecticut.... NOT!

(Looks like the light at the end of the tunnel comes from the lone star of Texas.)

Overheal

Not good for business that works on thin margins.

FISMA

20Cent wrote: »

Just shows how backward US employment law is.

Irish employment laws are soooo much better.

The only problem is Irish employment!:D

FatherTed

I've worked in CT for 11 years and have had paid sick time as part of my benefits. Just because it's not in the law doesn't mean companies don't provide it.

Stheno

20Cent wrote: »

Just shows how backward US employment law is.

Irish employment law does not compel an employer to pay sick pay.

gargleblaster

Stheno wrote: »

Irish employment law does not compel an employer to pay sick pay.

This makes me wonder if most companies in Ireland offer sick pay.

In the US just under half of the private employers do not offer sick leave (as of 2007, the trend would indicate that more employers have reduced or elmiminated this benefit). Employees have to take unpaid leave, or use vacation time if they can't afford to do without the money.

A Primal Nut

Another area where US is different is regarding annual leave. If you are one of the 25% with no vacation time and you also don't get sick leave, you'd be pretty screwed if something happens.

US law does not require employers to grant any vacation or holidays and about 25% of all employees receive no vacation time or holidays: No-Vacation Nation. For employees that do receive vacation, 10 working days with 8 national holidays is fairly standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country

Its one thing more than any that would put me off working in America. Take a two-week holiday, and thats all your days used up!

I can imagine that if America did try to bring in statutory leave regulation; the ones who get none would be the first people out there opposing it on the basis that its government interference in the free market.

Amazing that workers in Brazil, considered a developing country get 30 days.

Manach

A Primal Nut wrote: »

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country

None! I'd be on the conservative side of political spectrum, and I'd find that not lending itself to good work practices. In that a demotivated staff are a poorly performing staff.
At the very least a democracy needs a semi-informed electorate to make decisions, so having no vacation time mitigates against that.