Connecticut 1st state to require paid sick time
By Stephen Singer, Published: July 5
HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut has become the first state to require companies to provide employees with paid sick leave with legislation signed into law by Gov. Dan Malloy (D), who announced his action Tuesday...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Net profit is the number that matters, since that's what will be paying for this benefit.
I WOULD RATHER PACK UP MY BUSINESS AND LEAVE TOWN ENTIRELY THAN PAY MY SERVERS NOT TO BLOW SNOT ALL OVER THE FOOD FOR A FEW DAYS EACH YEAR
I am taking my business ELSEWHERE, SEATTLE. Enjoy your fucking GHOST TOWN
And good riddance.
@6, your question is stupid.
I once worked for a legislator, and lobbyists would regularly button-hole him in private to plead their case. He always told them to come to the committee hearing, identify who they are working for (who's paying their salary), and make their case in public. If they didn't, he would assume they were not serious.
I hope City Councilmembers have similar attitudes.
I promise you that much of the food you eat out is prepared and served by people who should not be working with food but cannot miss work and still pay the bills. I remember distinctly checking my temperature one particularly miserable night and finding I was running 102 fever. I hate to imagine how many of the 500 people we served that night went home with whatever I had.
By paying people who are sick to stay home instead of getting on the bus and coming to work everyone is protected.
I don't agree with #6. But is it too much too ask for a bit of professionalism from the stranger news department?
That said, on this legislation, the proponents worked with progressive small businesspeople to craft a pretty decent ordinance. It's not going to put people out of business. Though It will cost businesses some money, let's no pretend otherwise. But that is also ok. Better working conditions often have a cost, while the benefit is nothing more than the workers having a better life. And that is valuable in itself. We don't need to value everything financially.
Some things to consider. While the public health argument seems compelling, remember that the most common airborne illnesses are contagious before symptoms are apparent. So there will be little public health benefit overall. This is evidenced in San Francisco where the law has been in effect for 4 years and there has been no measurable decrease in the spread of flu or the common cold. However, on an individual level, there's no doubt that a sick worker can infect you (or me) when they are preparing or serving your meal, let alone taking care of you at a hospital or your grandma at a nursing home.
As for the argument that this rule made at a city level creates an uneven playing ground for local business. That's mostly true. But for me, that's an argument for the County to step in an make this law be county-wide. Then the argument is gone. Right? Dow, help us out here.
The business community would do well trying to make some amendments to this ordinance rather than kill it altogether. Take a look around you - the idea of mandated paid sick leave is popular nationwide. One poll shows 86% of people supporting it, including 75% of Republicans. This is coming to Seattle, and will be nationwide soon. So if you spend the money to move your business you'll end up eating that cost, cause you are going to end up paying this wherever you go that is civilized (so maybe not Tacoma...).
Let's pass this thing and then get on to finding ways to make it easier to do business in Seattle. Ideas that don't punish workers.
I think from now on, I'll restrict my comments to the Times, PI and PSBJ who have not taken such creative liberties with interview statements.