[Commander_Cool]

Washington DC mandates paid sick time: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/14/smbu...ion=2008031414

(FORTUNE Small Business) -- Details of Washington, D.C's. new law requiring all city businesses to provide paid sick leave to their employees were finally released this week, clarifying the last-minute amendments to the legislation that will exempt recent hires and certain classes of workers, as well as allowing hardship exceptions for employers.

The law makes D.C. the second municipality to require businesses to pay for sick leave, a policy under consideration in a number of other cities and states .

The Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act was originally approved by the council in an 11-2 vote on February 6, but city rules required a second vote four weeks later before the measure could become law. That vote was held on March 4, following a marathon session in which the council debated a flurry of amendments proposed by councilmembers Jack Evans and David Catania.

When the dust cleared, the law that was unanimously approved by the council differed significantly from the one initially passed last month.

The basics are the same: All businesses within the District must provide their employees with paid leave time, which can be used in cases of illness or injury from domestic abuse, or to care for a sick family member. Businesses with 100 or more workers must provide seven days of leave, those with 25 to 99 must provide five days, and those with 24 or fewer, three days. Part-time workers get pro-rated time.

Sick-leave mandates make businesses queasy
The final legislation, however, exempts workers who have been at their jobs for less than a year, or who have worked less than 1,000 hours total for their current employer. It also does not require businesses to provide paid leave to restaurant waitstaff and bartenders who earn part of their pay in tips, or for health care workers who are working second jobs but are not eligible for overtime pay.

Estimates of how many workers total will be exempted by the new amendments run as high as one-third of the D.C. workforce. According to an analysis of 2006 census figures by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 32.9% of D.C. workers earning in the bottom third of the wage range and 23.4% of those in the top two-thirds have been at their current jobs for less than 12 months.

Another amendment requires the mayor's office to come up with rules for exempting all "businesses that can prove hardship" as a result of the new sick-leave requirements. A spokeswoman for Mayor Adrian Fenty says the mayor is still awaiting instructions from the council on when and how these rules are to be formulated.

Several of the new measures were passed at the behest of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, which, citing the bill's "potentially devastating impact on small businesses," had previously sent the council a list of 14 desired amendments to the bill, ranging from hardship exemptions to a sunset provision that would expire the law in two years if it was not renewed (which was not approved).

Chamber president Barbara Lang said in a statement following last week's vote that her organization was "extremely pleased with the end result," adding, "'Sick & Safe,' in its original form, threatened to heap untold hardship on businesses in the District. But now, thanks to these amendments, our region's economic outlook appears that much better."

Once D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty signs the bill, as expected, Congress has 30 legislative days to review it before it becomes law. At that point, a six-month waiting period will begin, meaning the new rules will most likely take effect late this year.

I think additional government regulation of businesses is horrible, they already remove enough freedoms from employers. Why should employers be forced to pay for employees who aren't actually working?

[Haga652001]

why should somebody be forced to work when they are sick?

[Jim96SC2]

Originally Posted by Haga652001

why should somebody be forced to work when they are sick?

Why should a company be forced to pay you for a non-productive day. Someone who OWNS a business doesn't get paid if they need to close it for the day because they are sick.

I swear, the government is taking things that were at a time "perks" and mandating them. No wonder we're outsourcing. They are "perks" for a reason. You get a good job, you get good perks, and you can live a bit easier.

[Cass]

This is bull****. Employment is an agreement between two people, exchanging a service for pay of whatever it may be. If one doesnt hold up their end then why should the other? Offering paid sick days is a personal choice and is a good thing because perks attract employees. This is almost as stupid as minimum wage.

[Haga652001]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Why should a company be forced to pay you for a non-productive day. Someone who OWNS a business doesn't get paid if they need to close it for the day because they are sick.

Not many businesses close becuase the owner can't work when they are sick, thats one of the reasons they hire employees.

[things2auction]

Originally Posted by Haga652001

Not many businesses close becuase the owner can't work when they are sick, thats one of the reasons they hire employees.

Yeah but that still doesn't mean that businesses should have to pay employees for days they don't work. Obviously if an employee is sick they should be able to take the day off, but that doesn't mean they should be paid for it.

[Haga652001]

Originally Posted by things2auction

Yeah but that still doesn't mean that businesses should have to pay employees for days they don't work. Obviously if an employee is sick they should be able to take the day off, but that doesn't mean they should be paid for it.

why? every day that they spend at work sick is just as unproductive as days they don't actually work. yet they will still get paid for them.

it provides a way for Employees to not feel like they should have to be at work and run the risk of infecting other employees/customers.

[Cass]

If they dont feel like the NEED to go to work then they wont lol...people will just take advantage of this

[vantrepes]

I love how they threw spousal abuse in there.....
Just another reason for more businesses to move out of DC, and into the 'burbs. Such a smart move, drive even more jobs out of a pit of a city.

As for the whole "They deserve it argument", if they did deserve it, then the employer would give it to keep good employees. If you do not get paid time off, then find a job that offerers it, and work there.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by Cass

This is bull****. Employment is an agreement between two people, exchanging a service for pay of whatever it may be. If one doesnt hold up their end then why should the other? Offering paid sick days is a personal choice and is a good thing because perks attract employees. This is almost as stupid as minimum wage.

I see someone believes in laizzes faire capitalism...

And I agree, most jobs do have paid sick days, it is a perk that helps attract even better people to work. DC needs some major economic help, and this will probably hurt the city rather than help it.

-CP

[I love Impulses]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Why should a company be forced to pay you for a non-productive day. Someone who OWNS a business doesn't get paid if they need to close it for the day because they are sick.

I swear, the government is taking things that were at a time "perks" and mandating them. No wonder we're outsourcing. They are "perks" for a reason. You get a good job, you get good perks, and you can live a bit easier.

[things2auction]

Originally Posted by Haga652001

why? every day that they spend at work sick is just as unproductive as days they don't actually work. yet they will still get paid for them.

it provides a way for Employees to not feel like they should have to be at work and run the risk of infecting other employees/customers.

Actually no, because if they are at work, even sick, they will be more productive than staying home. A person taking the day off makes you nothing. If they are too sick to work at all, any smart business would send them home, paid or not.

I'm not saying that paid sick days are bad, because they do serve as a great job perk. However the government mandating that businesses provide paid sick days is ridiculous.

A couple years ago I had about 25 employees working for me making on average $10 per hour, costing me about $12 per hour after taxes. Assuming everyone took their sick time I would be spending $12,000 per year in paid sick time. Thats would have been a big chunk of change out of my bottom line.

[Craigers]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Why should a company be forced to pay you for a non-productive day. Someone who OWNS a business doesn't get paid if they need to close it for the day because they are sick.

I swear, the government is taking things that were at a time "perks" and mandating them. No wonder we're outsourcing. They are "perks" for a reason. You get a good job, you get good perks, and you can live a bit easier.

.

[kjjm4]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

I swear, the government is taking things that were at a time "perks" and mandating them. No wonder we're outsourcing. They are "perks" for a reason. You get a good job, you get good perks, and you can live a bit easier.

I absolutely agree. Every crappy low-wage job I had before I graduated from college didn't have paid sick time or paid vacations. That's part of the incentive for getting a better job. People are not entitled to "perks", they have to earn them. If you feel you deserve more perks, you're free to negotiate with your employer or to seek employment elsewhere. That's the beauty of the free market.

I also agree with the outsourcing comment. Everything our government does to make it more expensive to do business here makes it more likely that they'll go other countries where its cheaper.

[Swerve22]

There's going to be a lot of "sick" people in DC...I know I would be!



Oh well...

[timmyt]

Eh, thankfully I can work from home when I'm sick, so even though I get paid for sick days, I'm still being productive because I don't want **** to pile up when I get back to the office.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by timmyt

Eh, thankfully I can work from home when I'm sick, so even though I get paid for sick days, I'm still being productive because I don't want **** to pile up when I get back to the office.

Same goes for 16 year old McDonalds employees

[timmyt]

Everyone knows DC has had its head up its own *** for a long time now.

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Same goes for 16 year old McDonalds employees

I don't get what you mean. Do you think 16 year old mcdonald employees should get paid when their sick? I thought this mandate was city businesses only.

[things2auction]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Same goes for 16 year old McDonalds employees

lol.... nothing like pre-cooking burgers for the next day from home.

[things2auction]

Originally Posted by timmyt

I don't get what you mean. Do you think 16 year old mcdonald employees should get paid when their sick? I thought this mandate was city businesses only.

Thats what they are trying to do. They want to make it so all business in the city have to offer paid sick leave.