Republican Councilman Eric Ulrich is sponsoring a bill that would make paid sick days a basic workplace standard for all employers - called the Paid Sick Time Act. Here's a link to one of the bills strongest supporters - the Working Families Party...
New York City’s campaign to make paid sick days a basic workplace standard continues to gain steam. In an op-ed in yesterday’s Daily News, Councilmember Eric Ulrich (R-Queens) calls paid sick days “tripartisan” legislation that “unites New Yorkers from all walks of life.”
DAILY NEWS
December 8, 2009
Bill to help out ill workers is good for everyone’s health
By Eric Ulrich
As local and national public health officials work overtime to stop the spread of swine flu, they have made sure to highlight common sense measures the public can take to do its part. Almost always, near the top of the list is simply avoiding people you might infect when you are sick: staying home from work and keeping sick children out of school.
But for nearly half of all working New Yorkers, that common sense suggestion may not be an option. A report from the Community Service Society and A Better Balance estimates that 48% of New Yorkers - more than 1.65 million people - have no paid sick days where they work. Low-income New Yorkers suffer the most; fully two-thirds (66%) cannot take a paid day off when they get sick. Nor can an astounding 72% of Latino low wage workers.
For these working families, the next cold or flu means a tough choice between their health (and the health of their co-workers) and the paycheck they need to make ends meet.
...the piece goes on...
Worse, the report suggests that access to paid sick days is on the decline. As recently as 2004, 69% of “near-poor” workers - those just above the poverty line ($22,050 for a family of four) - had paid sick leave where they worked. Today, just 33% of near-poor workers report having paid sick days. It appears that the recession is not only making jobs harder to find; the jobs that do exist are increasingly less likely to provide adequate benefits.
provide adequate benefitsThat thousands of working families live in fear that getting sick could be financially ruinous is troubling enough. But the consequences of lacking paid sick days may extend far beyond individual workers and their families.
New York City has sensibly made it a policy to close public schools only as a last resort in the event of a swine flu outbreak. But key to the success of the city’s swine flu plan is the ability of parents to follow the city’s own advice by keeping flu-stricken children at home where they cannot infect their classmates and teachers.
For many working parents, that plan may sound doomed to fail. According to the report, 54% of public school parents (and 65% of low-income public school parents) lack paid sick days where they work. Unsurprisingly, 30% of low-income parents report having sent a sick child to school.
There is also evidence that the lack of paid sick days may even be contributing to our broken health care system, where preventable illnesses go untreated and the underserved choke our emergency rooms and hospitals.
rooms and hospitalsTwenty-two percent of low-income workers who have health insurance report visiting an emergency room simply because they could not take time off work for a doctor’s appointment.
The statistics are depressing, but the city can and should take action. The Paid Sick Time bill currently under consideration by the City Council would allow all working New Yorkers to earn paid sick leave on the job. With 39 Council co-sponsors, the bipartisan bill is a common sense way to help working families and protect the public health. (Actually, as a major priority of the progressive Working Families Party, it’s a tripartisan bill.)
New York would not be the first city to implement a universal paid sick days law. San Francisco and Washington have made paid sick leave a basic workplace standard, and more than 15 states are considering similar measures.
It is an idea that unites New Yorkers from all walks of life - from single parents to labor leaders and business groups, liberals and conservatives, advocates for women and advocates for family values. It is time to put paid sick days at the top of the agenda.
...the legislation, specifically, would force most employers to offer 72 hours of paid sick leave - that's nearly two weeks of full compensation. And the definition of "being sick" includes a variety of circumstances, many of which have nothing to do with employee illness. Here's a few specifics of the bill in question...
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
- Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} The legislation would ensure that employers allow a certain amount of temporary time off from work to take care of their own health needs or the health needs of members of their families or to deal with health and safety issues arising from domestic or sexual violence.
- Subdivision c of section 22-507 would provide for the accrual of paid sick time. Paragraph one of such subdivision would declare that all employees have the right to paid sick time as provided in this section. Paragraph (2) of such subdivision would require that all employers provide a minimum of one hour of paid sick time for every thirty hours worked by an employee. Under this provision, employers would not be required to provide more than seventy-two hours of sick time for an employee in a calendar year.
- The legislation would benefit society by providing time for domestic violence victims to go to court or to relocate to safety and would allow such victims to protect themselves.
...supporters of the bill, like Mr. Ulrich and the Left-wing, union-based Working Families Party, claim that it would have a positive effect on the health of NYC overall. The main example they cite is that because parents have no paid sick days, they are forced to send their sick children to school in direct conflict to good public health policy and the recommendations of the Department of Education. If these workers had paid sick days, they could stay home and take care of their sick kids and avoid the risk of infecting other children, which could spread the illness widely.
Oddly, there is a strong reference to "domestic violence" cases and "domestic partners" being covered, which seems misplaced in a bill to protect sick workers. There are many "good" reasons why a worker could miss time on the job. Why specifically cite just illness and domestic violence in this bill? It seems that there is the Pandora's box being opened with this legislation, as many interest groups will line up claiming that employers should offer "sick time" for a number of difficult situations for employees - all potentially deserving of paid time off.
deserving of paid time off.As well, the entire burden of this "tripartisan" piece of legislation, as stated by Councilmember Ulrich, will fall on employers. If this is such a good idea, why not have workers themselves pay into the system to fund this new employment benefit? When NYC is already the one of the most un-competitive places to be an employer, how can it make sense for the Council to pass another unfunded employment mandate on the business community?
What NYC needs now are jobs. Additional mandated employee benefits, even if they can be argued as beneficial to the city at-large, will do nothing to increase employment in NYC and, to the contrary, this measure forces employers to think long and hard about adding additional workers to their rolls.
Lastly, this position seems odd for a self-proclaimed "conservative" to writing about in the Daily News. If the average worker and employer can't count on Republican representatiives to fight for thier concerns, who do they have to turn to? In many ways, this piece of legislation could have been just as easily sponsored by Councilmember Leticia James as the GOP's Ulrich. Do UE readers think this is the direction the Republican Party should be going?
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Daniel Peterson , December 11, 2009
I noticed that James Oddo did not sign on to this piece of legislation, which is surprising since he was the only Republican to run and get the Working Families party endorsement.
written by Jay Golub , December 11, 2009
don't forget this section...
Subdivision g of section 22-507 would be entitled “Employer records.” This subdivision would provide that employers retain records documenting hours worked by employees and paid sick time taken by employees, for a period of five years, and allow the administering agency access to such records, with appropriate notice and at a mutually agreeable time, to monitor compliance with the requirements of this section. Furthermore, under this subdivision, when an issue arises as to an employee’s entitlement to paid sick time under this section, if the employer does not maintain or retain adequate records documenting hours worked by the employee and paid sick time taken by the employee, or does not allow the administering agency reasonable access to such records, the legislation would provide that it shall be presumed that the employer has violated this section, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise.
...now employers would need to maintain these "records" for 5 years or be penalized. And the penalty is...
Subdivision l of section 22-507 would address enforcement. Under paragraph one of this subdivision, any employer found to be in violation of any of the provisions of this section would be liable for a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars for each violation.
...a $1,000 penalty! now that's employer friendly, huh?
If it wasn't bad enough that every tax in the world is going up in this State and City right now, employers are faced with fines for not complying with this new unfunded benefit. Who would add an employee under these circumstances?
Will a McDonalds hire more kids knowing that each one of them will get about two weeks in paid sick days?
Will a seasonal retail business hire more workers during the holiday season knowing that even part-time employees must be offered sick days and then the employer, under penalty of law, will have maintain these "sick-day-employment-records" for 5 years?
oh, and by the way, there are provisions to ensure that the employee can sue after the fact as well here...
Paragraph (3) of this subdivision would provide that upon a determination that a violation of any of the provisions of this section has occurred, a court may award any appropriate equitable relief to secure compliance with this section and may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in maintaining the action to any prevailing complaining party.
...sure don't want the lawsuits to be blocked. And for how long can they sue?....
Under paragraph (7) of such subdivision, the legislation would provide that any aggrieved person may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction against an employer for a violation of the provisions of this section within three years of the date the alleged violation occurred.
...what a joke. No wonder NYC's job growth is lagging the rest of the nation...
written by Quickjustice , December 11, 2009
We'd seen hints that Ulrich is anti-small business, but this seems to confirm it.
The Rockaway Rpublicans can stop gloating. Ulrich is a Democrat in sheep's clothing.
Sadly, this hurts the efforts of conservative and libertarian Republicans to re-brand the New York GOP as pro-job creation and small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth when they are prospering.
Eric Ulruich likes to refer to Burke. He clearly doesn't understand basic economics, or worse, doesn't care about small business.
written by bluecollarconservative , December 11, 2009
Eric Ulrich could care less about republican or conservative values. All he cares about is his selfish personal conquest of the entire free world.
Puss in Boots Ulrich screwed the Republican and Conservative party to curry favor with Working Families Party. What's next, Ulrich planting Oak trees in Central park with ACORN?
I wonder if Tom Long likes this legislation. I heard he wiped his ass with the article flushed down the toilet like Eric's next endorsment request!
written by Frank Ammendolea , December 11, 2009
I've met him a couple of times, and he seems like a nice guy, but this could be a troubling indicator of things to come. I cut him some slack for the Bloomberg alliance during the election because I thought it was probably necessary that he align himself with an uncumbent that was going to run strong in his district. It also wouldn't have made sense for him to tick off a billionaire.
But it seems that when you lay down with dogs, you inevitably end up with fleas. I would not be a bit surprised if Ulrich is being played by Mayor Mike to support this legislation. I think this is something you will see a lot of over the next four years as the Mayor puts pressure on his young protege to do exactly what he wants. Eric will have to ask himself if the unholy alliance was really worth it.
written by osher g. , December 11, 2009
I'm sure he has good intentions but like most do gooders, he forgets about the unintended consequences if this legislation passes. At a time when businesses of all sizes are struggling, extra expenses are the last thing they need. But let's forget about business owners for a second. Imagine your boss had to pay you for 54 weeks a year do you think you would make more money? Most probably he would divide whatever he is paying you now per year by 54, and just give you a little less money each week. This bill affectively does the same thing; it mandates business to pay employees for two weeks that they are not working. This will not help employees, it will only decrease salaries, or perhaps your boss will give a little more work to his current employees and hold off on hiring a new worker. Or he might even fire a current employee, after all businesses have to balance their expenses, if they go up in one place than they have to cut back somewhere else. (Introducing that idea to the city council would be a much better idea; it would help NYC run a lot smoother.)
written by Daniel Peterson , December 11, 2009
When councilman Ulrich got elected in a primary earlier this year and pretty much got sworn in as a man who needs to run for re-election, it did make sense to blend in nicely and achieve a goal of serving a full term.
He got his wish and got re-elected. He now has January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013 to serve his district. He can't be thrown out of office until an election that will be well down the road (unless some scandal materializes which seems unlikely since he's a good christian man).
So it would make sense for him to be a true conservative, like the one he claimed to be prior to getting elected. Defend your constituency and buck all the players you object to. Stand on principle. If that upsets the mayor or the speaker of some rogue faction in the council, whatever. No one can do anything to him for the next four years!
This is all a learning experience, I'm sure. He's new to the game and Leader Oddo should be in charge of his team in the council. I think I know Halloran well enough to know he is very libertarian and has core principles he will not break from. I hear Peter Koo is very committed to representing his district and anything that would go against reasonable practices for small business would get a no-vote as well. And Oddo & Ignizio have been our duly trusted Republicans for many years now. So where will Ulrich fit in? I'm curious.
written by insider , December 11, 2009
Never let it be said that socialism sleeps during even the most sever economic contractions.
No. The march of social progress must never stop.
Getting something at someone else's expense is now a birthright. Once you had to purchase disability insurance coverage; now you'll get it free. IF you have a JOB.
Jobs just got harder to find. Jobs just got harder to create. Nice work if you can get it, now has a new connotation.
That the sponsor is a REPUBLICAN is the cherry on top. Which doesn't belong and why?-- Socialism, Republican, NYC. Republican you ninnies.
Now. Which doesn't belong and why? -- Socialism, Jobs, NYC. Jobs, naturally.
Just when you think it couldn't get worse, New York gets a dumber.
written by Tom Lynch , December 11, 2009
To Quickjustice, the Rockaway Republicans are proud we found and helped Councilman Eric Ulrich to run in our district, as for a decade or more there was no challenge until we came along. Time will tell as to our new Councilman’s choices and leanings.
Someone suggested the idea of setting up a personal pay in system, rather than small business picking up the tab, that suggestion would be the best way to go. But as good intentions are sometimes unfortunately abused, instead of the possibility of abuse or a worker having to get a doctors note which cost either the individual or taxpayer monies if at a emergency room for a simple cold. As the worker paid into a pool much like unemployment insurance, then they could either use the sick hours or get reimbursed if hours were not used. But my biggest question and concern is how would one apply this to all the off the books employers and employees? Which in our city is an enormous amount of the workforce. Insuring the health of the well citizens would still remain unresolved. Tom L
written by enterprise , December 12, 2009
I love the way that the rabid right-wingers of UE have to be awakened from their much deserved slumber on the issue of local paid sick-leave legislation by the site progressive: me!
Yet it took not only one but actually two distinct articles:
http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/myblog/GOP-NYC-COUNCILMAN-ULRICH-STANDS-TALL-WITH-WORKING-FAMILIES.html
and
http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/myblog/NY-LEGISLATION-NEEDED-FOR-A-LIVING-WAGE-PAID-SICK-LEAVE.html
(the first almost a month old) to rouse you from your usually mistaken “righteous indignation.”
Meanwhile, Ulrich (bless him) has been a sponsor and supporter of Intro 1059-2009 since August, 2009! It’s so nice that it took four months for it to be given the usually implausible “UE treatment” by supposedly “astute” bloggers allegedly keenly aware of city politics. Remember, too, that Ulrich (bless him again) is a sturdy supporter of New York City rent regulation as well.
p.s. If you have difficulty accessing the above links simply copy them and paste them in your browser.
written by Jay Golub , December 12, 2009
"progressive"
Enterprise, you are not "progressive." More accurately you are "regressive," where you still think socialism and a government-run economy will work.
The Left always steals the good codewords of the Right. You guys stole the term "liberal" about 50 years ago and now you're working on stealing "progressive." Good luck with that...
The only reason why I wrote a piece on UE about it today is not because of your piece, but because I saw that a Republican was endorsing it and sponsoring it in the City Council. Wacko Lefty policy has been proposed and voted on all year long, but when it's sponsored by Democrats and WFP electeds I don't think it newsworthy.
As well, real Republicans were busy with elections this year, so much of the legislative agenda of the Council had to be put aside so that we could run elections, trying to get Real Republicans elected. You were working for a slew of incumbent Democrats who were shoe-in's for victory - so you could spend time reading up on anti-business legislation...
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Union-leader, the tides are changing. Your man Obama is cracking quickly and slowly, but surely the electorate is starting to get behind the forces of the private sector...
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
