Rebimbas Opposes Anti-Business Sick Leave Bill
This afternoon the Appropriations Committee took up legislation that would place undue burdens on all Connecticut businesses that employ more than fifty people by requiring them to provide paid sick leave to all employees at a rate of one hour per every 40 hours worked. The measure would apply to part-time employees as well as full-time.”I think this legislation is well-meaning, but ultimately this bill can hurt businesses in a tough economy, and unintentionally result in lay-offs,” said Rebimbas. “By requiring businesses to pay for these days, we are essentially requiring them to pay people when they are not working. There is no other state in the nation that has enacted such a benefit, and in this economy we don’t have the luxury.”
The leave in the legislation can be used for an employee’s or the employee’s child’s illness or injury, treatment of an illness or injury, diagnosis, and preventive medical care. It can also be used for reasons related to the employee being a victim of family violence or sexual assault. Current law does not require employers to provide sick leave, whether paid or unpaid.
Rebimbas noted that the cost of the bill to the Naugatuck YMCA alone would be $17,600 per year. “If we put ourselves in the position of being the only state in the nation that mandates this, we will be sending more businesses and jobs out of state,” said Rebimbas. “Do we think we can afford to do that?”
The measure also will cost $500,000 per year to the state by extending the benefit to workers at the State University System and Regional Community Colleges. It will also have a corresponding impact on municipal governments and state agencies directly related to the cost of sick hours taken by employees.
Rebimbas voted against the bill in the Appropriations committee, but the measure still passed overwhelmingly and will now head to the full House of Representatives for action there.
2 Responses to “Rebimbas Opposes Anti-Business Sick Leave Bill”
I’m disappointed to see my new Rep. voting against such a common sense bill as this.
No one should have to go to work sick. And especially in this economy, no one should lose pay or lose their job just because they have a sick child.
This is an extremely modest bill whose time has come.
There’s still time to change you mind and show your constituents that you’re putting working families first.
Comment made on May 21st, 2009 at 12:28 amNancy,
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree, no one should lose their job because they are sick or have a sick child. Most jobs already have provisions put into place that would allow their employees to take paid or unpaid sick leave, vacation time, or if they qualify temporary disability. These provisions are also already seen in contracts between employers and employees.
This bill is not modest. It puts in place a system that has been implemented nowhere else in the United States with the exception of San Francisco and a small college town in the midwest. Certainly no state has ever done such a thing.
I have been contacted by and have met with many companies and manufacturers in and outside of Naugatuck that explained that if they had to change their policies to meet the requirements of this bill they would have to let people go. It places too great a burden on businesses in this state, particularly small businesses. As I noted in the above post, the Naugatuck YMCA opposes this measure because it would cost them $17,600 annually. If they have to pay that, it may mean some people lose their jobs there or make fundraising for a non-profit more challenging.
With the current state of the economy, forcing businesses to incur more expenses will likely result in the loss of a number of those businesses. That means instead of having a job without sick leave, many residents will simply no longer have jobs. Since Connecticut would be the only state with such a measure, businesses that are strained by this law can simply move to another state, which will also cost jobs.
I believe opposing this bill does put working families first by keeping jobs here in Connecticut and in Naugatuck.
Comment made on May 21st, 2009 at 2:28 amLeave a Comment