Who's Getting Snotty About Sick Leave?
Industry Lobbies Are Trying Four Tactics to Undermine a Bill Designed to Help Seattle Workers
Tools
On September 12, the Seattle City Council passed a paid sick leave ordinance, thankfully with none of the amendments outlined below (except for a watered-down version of amendment one). Hurrah!
Keep this in mind as you bite into a juicy burger at your favorite digs this week: An estimated 40 percent of Seattle's workforce can't get a paid day off of work when they're sick.
Stranger Personals
For restaurant workers, this means serving food while they also cough, sniffle, rub their noses... you get the picture. And according to the Economic Opportunity Institute, a research and policy center based in Seattle, one in four grocery-store employees—the people fondling your produce—report coming to work sick because they don't have paid sick days.
But that may soon change.
On Monday, September 12, the Seattle City Council is slated to vote on legislation that would require all Seattle employers to offer up to 72 hours of annual paid sick leave to the 190,000 full-time workers in the city who currently lack that benefit. Not only useful when they're ill, a worker could use the paid days off to care for a family member or deal with domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
"Everybody has agreed that this is a fundamental need, that this is a norm that should be provided," declared Council Member Sally Clark at an August 10 meeting of the council's Housing, Human Services, Health & Culture Committee. The committee then approved a robust version—with a handful of concessions to business lobbies—of the paid sick days legislation.
But don't expect easy passage when the full council convenes on Monday.
"I'm not sure we have exactly the right proposal before us," council president Richard Conlin said in August.
Taking advantage of the council's trepidation, lobbies for downtown businesses, large employers, and the hospitality industry are putting the screws on. With days left before the vote, city hall sources tell The Stranger that lobbies are shopping around various amendments that would weaken the bill. It remains unclear which council members will introduce the amendments (council members were in the midst of a two-week vacation at press time), but all are crafted to kneecap a sick-leave law—similar to one that's already proven cost-effective in San Francisco—in the interest of saving certain industries money while watering down benefits for their employees.
Amendment One:
An Exemption for Large Companies
Who wants a big loophole? The big boys, naturally.
One proposal in the wings would excuse companies with over 1,000 employees from complying with the law (think Nordstrom, Whole Foods, QFC). As some of these companies have pointed out, they already give their employees paid days off work. According to the Washington State Employment Security Department, 75 percent of large companies in the state offer some form of paid leave. But what these companies don't proffer is that the time off isn't designated for sick leave (it could be used for vacation), and this measure would require providing more paid time off than many of them provide now.
For example, let's consider Nordstrom, a member of the Downtown Seattle Association, which opposes the sick-leave bill. Under the current ordinance, Nordstrom would need to provide up to 72 hours—or nine sick days—per year. The retail giant already offers its full-time employees 104 hours of paid time off—but that includes vacation, holiday, and sick leave all lumped together. The ordinance would require Nordstrom to add another 34.7 hours of paid leave for its workers and mandate that half of the total 138.7 hours (or roughly 69 hours—eight and a half days) be reserved for sick leave.
By not specifically distinguishing accrued paid sick leave from vacation time, employees are more likely to work sick, in order to save their paid time off for vacations and holidays. So you may still have sick workers on the job.
Amendment Two:
Singling Out Union Workers
This measure would allow a company that employs unionized workers to exempt its businesses from the sick-leave requirements, on the grounds that the ordinance doesn't comply with current union contracts. If adopted by the council, dozens of major grocery stores in Seattle wouldn't extend sick-leave benefits to their employees (who are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers 21). But being a union member doesn't mean those workers don't need sick-leave coverage. Currently, Safeway employees' sick leave doesn't kick in until their third day of illness, according to their union contract. "I can't afford to take those two days off," says Tracie Chapman, a single mom who's worked for a Safeway store in Seattle for 13 years. Chapman's daughter has a chronic heart condition that lands her in the hospital on a regular basis. "My manager has flat out told me that I need to choose between my job and my daughter," Chapman says. "But what am I supposed to do? Not be there for my infant? She has no one else."
Amendment Three:
Postponing Benefits
As the bill now stands, employees could begin accruing sick leave as soon as they're hired, and then they could use those benefits after six months. But grocers and other lobbies want to postpone that date. During two July meetings convened by the city council (meetings that included the Manufacturing Industrial Council, Northwest Grocery Association, Washington Restaurant Association, and Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, among others), a majority of stakeholders asked the council to delay the date that employees could begin accumulating paid time off, for up to 180 days. That's crazy. If an employee has been working for six months, he or she has already earned a chance to stay home sick for a day or two without being docked pay or getting fired.
Amendment Four:
Exempting Construction and Manufacturing Workers
This amendment would excuse the construction and manufacturing industries from the ordinance. "It's certainly not wildly popular to go to bat for major employers," began Clark on August 10 (before swinging that bat hard). "How does this work in the culture of the construction industry?" Clark asked, expressing concern about so-called enforceability issues with contracts. Yes, construction and manufacturing jobs are cyclical, and jobs are not always based within city limits. And, sure, that makes accruing and tracking paid sick time for Seattle's 65,000 construction and manufacturing employees more complicated. But is it fair to argue that some workers are entitled to get sick while others—the ones operating heavy machinery and power tools—aren't?
While businesses with the council's ear are clearly motivated to protect their bottom line, their claims that paying for sick leave would cause economic harm appear unfounded.
A 2010 report conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research studying the aftereffects of paid-sick-leave laws in San Francisco indicates that employers' profitability didn't suffer and employees were unlikely to abuse their paid sick days. Seventy percent of the 727 business owners polled said the ordinance didn't affect their profitability; typically, workers used only three paid sick days per year (and one quarter of workers used none).
Besides, council members have already made numerous concessions in the draft of the bill that's before them. For example: They've exempted businesses with fewer than five employees, excluded work-study students, and stipulated that employees must wait six months before they can use the sick days.
If passed, Seattle would be the fourth city in the country to pass a law like this. In San Francisco, "businesses are doing better than surrounding cities and counties after the implementation of their ordinance," assures Marilyn Watkins, policy director of the Economic Opportunity Institute. "It promotes healthy small businesses." 
How laughable.That's like saying unionized workers are exempt from any labor laws because they are not written in the contract. The Family and Medical Leave Act,the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Jones Act, along with many other labor laws applies to me, even though they are not specifically written in the contract with my employer.
"But is it fair to argue that some workers are entitled to get sick while others—the ones operating heavy machinery and power tools—aren't?"
Remember the Staten Island ferry accident in 2003 that killed 11 people? The operator was on medication that affected his situational awareness. Do I want somebody operating a bulldozer or bus that is on medication that is affecting their situational awareness? Fuck no.
I call bullshit on all of the exemptions cited in this article. They are pathetic excuses. Sick workers ultimately hurt employers' bottom lines because a sick worker is less productive and unsafe. Offer paid sick leave you asshole employers who don't already do so. Nobody should be going to work sick.
3
You probably think Ayn Rand was writing NONFICTION. And I'll bet you had Fox News on while you were writing that post.
Also, there are a lot of people(in Seattle and other places) doing unpaid full-time work...they are called interns. They work as hard and for as many hours as paid staff, yet receive no wages or benefits(or, at best, a "stipend").
I assume arguments like "it's the right thing to do" or "that's how human beings are SUPPOSED to treat each other" carry no weight with someone like you, since you're probably just the sort of 20-year-old "eight feet tall and bullet-proof" white kid who thinks "the magic of the market" is the shit. Perhaps, when you get a little older and you realize that we're all mortal, we're all connected, and that nobody really makes it "all on their own", you'll grow a bit of a soul.
If businesses (especially small businesses) are forced to provide paid sick leave, the higher costs will translate into fewer employees or fewer hours for employees, since costs per worker will be higher.
That means this benefit will actually decrease employment (and possibly decrease hours for many of those still employed thereafter).
Regulations have consequences. This will not be just a simple benefits change.
It isn't ALWAYS about money, folks. And, sometimes, business SHOULD be obligated to make some investment in the greater good...which includes public health.
Making employees choose between working sick and either losing pay or their jobs harms workers, customers(and thus, in the long run, the businesses themselves, who will lose money if their customers either stop coming in due to contagion in the business or come in any way or sicken and even die of employee-borne illness).
Keeping everyone healthy should be part of a truly moral "bottom line".
And, let's face it, rather than doing anything to boost the economy with their current profits, most corporations today are just putting the profits in the bank, which helps no one other than the shareholders(and most of us will never be shareholders, since you have to be rich to buy a significant number of shares)and which does nothing to bolster the economy.
Why should business be allowed to behave like that?
Business is supposed to be just ONE part of this country...not the only part that matters.
We need a modern day Robin Hood. If the corporations suddenly lost all their ill-gotten taxpayers' bailout dollars (oh, boo hoo!), wouldn't that also take away their relentless power, too?
19
Advocate for this law all you want, folks, but don't pretend it will not be a new burden on business to comply with it, whether we're in favor of it (I am) or not; and kindly spare us your sophomoric broad brushstrokes about business and how all of us in business are Simon Legree. Yeah, I mean you @6.
And don't use code phrases like "a burden on business". That's straight out of the Michele Bachmann phrasebook.
You might support a federal leave subsidy, which would re-imburse companies such as yours for any paid sick leave.
Whether or not you're personally a bad person isn't the issue. The issue is this:
It is dangerous to public health(to say nothing of being stone immoral)to force anyone to choose between working sick and losing wages or possibly losing their job. Something has to be done to make sure that NOBODY faces that choice. That's what a decent society does.
@2 I work somewhere with decent vacation time and extremely generous sick time, and people rarely come to work sick.
23
24
But there's another side that is always ignored, by all the groups, the poor. Raising the price to do business hurts us, a lot, it is one of the driving forces behind increasing how much things cost, but hey, if everyone is happy trying to cure a symptom without ever looking for the cause, that's fine, I'll just figure out how to live on your tax dollars to cover those increases in prices. It's worked great for many of us so far.
25
27
Until a year ago, I had 10 days of sick leave and 20 days of vacation time, and 10 paid holidays.
When I had time off, I would stay home when I was sick. I don't anymore. This legislation would be good for me, my employer, my fellow employees, and the city. And it's the right thing to do even if it didn't have a health impact on other people.
And if I could steal it back, believe me, I'd give you, and everyone else a big chunk!
"Raising the cost to businesses" is just a corporate codephrase for "no one has the right to expect us to treat our employees like human beings".
Ever since 1980, we've done it YOUR way in this country...and no good has come of letting business call the tune on these issues. The rich have won and everyone else has lost.
It's time to stop treating corporations like angry gods who have to be appeased. At some point our economic system stopped being capitalism and turned into extortionism.
31
32
Which is entirely preferable.
HOWEVER it is easier to change locally than it is nationally.
That would be good legislation - to address the few bad employers who behave that way.
But this legislation makes businesses pay for being sick and a few other reasons. Adults are capable of saving their money for vacations and for the inevitable times when they are sick a few days. Those of us who are self-employed know what this is all about, and decide how much we want to or can work, and earn accordingly. Stupid law for and by stupid people.
37
Do any of those kids have health issues?
Do you have student loans to repay?
Do you want your kids to be able to go to college(the only chance anyone has to get a decent job these days)?
Do you have physical and/or mental health issues?
Does the person you share your life with have them?
Can you(as most of us can't)afford private insurance to cover those health issues?
Do you have elderly parents to take care of?
Do you have a small home you're desperately trying to hang onto?
If you don't have any of the above situations in your life, you're not entitled to judge other people for being unable to save money for contingencies(in the REAL world, most people are forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck, with more being forced into that situation every day, due to the corporate obsession with lowering wages as much as possible) and if you DON'T face any of those situations(most people face several of them at once) you really can't make an assumption about whether other people can save based solely on your own experience.
Try a little humility sometime. A little basic empathy as well. Or at least try listening to what most typical human beings are going through in this magical market economy of ours.
We're all in this together. Nobody has ever really made it solely on their own efforts. Nobody ever really will. Life just doesn't work that way.
39
I certainly do know about humility. Up until the last couple of years, I had both my beloved elderly parents with Parkinson's to help care for---at least to the best of my ability until they required visiting caregivers around the clock.
I often felt terribly helpless because I had no clue what my parents were feeling, or what their symptoms were, dosages, or side effects from the medications they were taking. But I would still visit them, prepare meals, help around the house, play music, card games, share in laughter---what I COULD do, as a daughter. I miss my parents terribly still, but know that they're proud of me and the life I live.
I know what it's like to live on Kraft Macaroni and Cheese for weeks at a time in order to get through college. Learning what local resources are available can be a big help. The DSHS can provide excellent assistance with food stamps and other public services.
I don't have any children of my own. One big reason, besides my choosing not to reproduce, is that I have struggled financially---even with a college degree---and wouldn't have the sufficient means to support dependents. Anyway--being an auntie for me is more fun.
KittenKoder: Thanks for including me in your list of non-idiots, although there are plenty of days when I feel clueless as hell.
42
I knew when I opened, the busybodies would come up with some crap like this, I didn't know what, but I knew more was coming. Locating in the city of Seattle offers no advantages and a huge pile of dis-incentives for business. Screw y'all.
And the sweetheart deal for the unions? Typical. No surprise what-so-ever.
A worker could also use the paid day off to beat their wife, sexually abuse a child, or stalk someone.
Bottom line is: making it more expensive to run a business equals fewer jobs to be had.
she gets unpaid time off, that's unfortunate that her manager is strict, but if you have a job to return to, with medical/health benefits, you shouldn't be able to claim a sick day, when it's her daughter who's actually sick!
46
50
"The legislation is patronizing and infantalizing. Nobody should work somewhere where they they may not be sick and stay home for fear of being fired."
l'm wondering: how is this "infantilizing"? l agree with the last part quoted, but unfortunately, not everyone has the option of working at a place where the threat of termination isn't looming over their heads every time they fall ill, or a field/job where they can choose their own hours and increase or decrease their workload whenever they like based on how much they'd like to make.
@42: "I wasn't implying that all those who have families are idiots, just that being single and with no kids shows you are not one of the idiots who have families before they can support them."
Kittenkoder, the ignorance of this statement is astounding when made in a failing economy where regular folks -many of whom have families- are losing their jobs every day. l'm certain a number of those people didn't anticipate this economy when they had children, or thought they were safe because they had high work ethic and didn't expect to be included in any major layoffs, but hey, shit happens. You actually did imply that people with families were stupid with your first statement, then you backed it up with the one quoted above. Yes, there may be some families that choose to keep children they can't afford, but the majority you're referring to probably weren't prepared to be in dire straits, or dealt with unexpected and exorbitant expenses that depleted their savings, like a major (and possibly ongoing) illness in the family.
@47: "This leads to more absences and more man hours (and MONEY) lost than if the initial carrier was paid to stay home."
EXACTLY. This is a very simple, logical fact most of the naysayers don't understand, and l'm not sure how they don't. l worked in the restaurant industry for over ten years. Of course, nobody had sick leave, and because being shorthanded in a restaurant can ruin EVERYONE else's day, the threat of losing one's job due to illness was always extremely high. Most of those years l was working in Georgia, where servers were paid $2.13/hr because the assumption was that our tips would put us in minimum wage range, which was utter bullshit 90% of the time unless we worked weekends and busy shifts, and meant that most of us working in that industry showed up sick whether our employers were generous with sick days or not. We had numerous instances of illnesses making several rounds through the employee base before finally disappearing, and I can't even begin to imagine the number of customers we passed it on to, even if we weren't preparing the food.
l now do senior care, an environment where sick days are EXTREMELY important because we are working with people with already compromised immune systems, some of whom we could straight up kill if we came into work sick and happened to pass it on. A few days into the new year, l came down with some sort of utterly miserable bug that left me completely useless and with 103 degree fever for four days. Because l was so sick l couldn't get up and bus it to a doctor, l described my symptoms to my doctor brother-in-law, who prescribed me some antibiotics. l got better for a little under a week, then for whatever reason, it came back and put me out of commission for almost a week after that until l could get my ass to the doctor for a proper checkup. Work told me to just take some time off and let them know when l was better. Then they proceeded to deny me work for over two months, despite my providing a note from the doctor, and calling them repeatedly to let them know l was fine and in desperate need of income. l called into work sick for the first time since January a couple of weeks ago, after exemplary work performance and no sick days, and was informed that the next time l called in, it would be grounds for termination. l still have no idea how they justify terminating me for not showing up with an infection to care for a client who is already infirm to some degree or another, especially when at least a third of the time, we actually catch whatever illness the client might have at the time due to their compromised immune systems. lt's totally fucked.
This legislation would protect me and others in my field from shit like this, and provide us at least one of the benefits we have every right to in the first place.
@50: I'm NOT calling you an idiot for having a family, already! You sound like a responsible person who's just fallen on hard times. A lot of us have. While I'm not in your position, I can still empathize.
Please refer to my above response to KittenKoder. Peace.
52
So l wasn't referring to you at all, which is why l included the quote by KittenKoder. lt's all good.
RSS
Twitter
Comments (53) RSS