Massachusetts Paid Sick Leave Act

[MotF Bane]

Two bills have been proposed by the Massachusetts legislature to force all companies to provide at least but not more than seven days paid sick time, with an outline for what they may officially be used for, if the company does not already provide at least 20 days vacation that fulfill the same outlined criteria.

That criteria includes any sort of illness, physical or mental, of the employee or anyone in their family; or for routine medical appointments; or for recovering from domestic abuse. Sick days would accrue at one hour sick leave per thirty hours worked.

These are .PDF files, 12 pages each. You have been warned.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00pdf/st00688.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01815.pdf

What fantasy world does the legislature live in, that they think this is good for businesses? It's terrible news for small businesses. I work in retail during the school year; a total of about eight people on the staff, including the managers, for a store that is open ten hours a day, six days a week, and seven hours on Sunday. We're already short a person due to the recession, but forcing payment for sick leave, probably on short-notice, is a terrible idea. And that's certainly not the smallest business - what about contractors and landscaping companies? No indications that I'm reading to exempt them from these bills.

Edit: Fuck you all.

 

[Vette73]

So you work at a place that has less then 20 paid days off a year?

and no it is not a "minimum of seven days paid sick time" it is a maximum of 7 paid sick days based on one hour of pay for every 30 hours worked. That is what has been reported in the final agreement.

If you are going into a faux rage fit, at least try and get the facts, not faux BS.


"

(d) Paid sick days leave shall accrue at the rate of one hour of pay for every 30 hours worked up​

to the maximum of 7 paid sick days."

"

(d) Paid sick days leave shall accrue at the rate of one hour of pay for every 30 hours worked up​

113 to the maximum of 7 paid sick days."

Same lang in both bills.

 

[MotF Bane]

Sorry Marlin, I'll fix that.

 

[Vette73]

I think DC also did this. So if you think it will hurt see what has happened to DC. Mind you its much smaller area but the effect shoudl still show up if it was a problem.

 

[Vette73]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402963.html

In March 2008, the D.C. Council unanimously passed the sick-leave measure, which requires seven paid sick days to be offered at the largest companies and three days for those with 24 or fewer employees. The District followed San Francisco in mandating paid sick leave, and the law was expected to affect about 200,000 workers.


Seems SF was even before DC, so see if it hurt them as well.

 

[MotF Bane]

I think DC also did this. So if you think it will hurt see what has happened to DC. Mind you its much smaller area but the effect shoudl still show up if it was a problem.

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Pages/Washington,DCPaidSickLeaveLaw.aspx

• An employer with 100 or more employees must provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 37 hours an employee works, but no more than 7 days total per calendar year.​
• An employer with at least 25, but no more than 99, employees must provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 43 hours an employee works, but no more than 5 days total per calendar year.​
• An employer with 24 or fewer employees must provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 87 hours worked, but no more than 3 days per calendar year.​

For the purposes of the Act, an employer’s total number of employees is the average monthly number of full-time equivalent employees for the prior calendar year.


Employer Exemptions and Employee Duties​

There are significant exemptions in the Act. Restaurant wait staff and bartenders are not covered. Nor does the Act apply to most student work-study arrangements, health care workers who opt for premium pay programs in lieu of benefits, or to independent contractors. Under forthcoming regulations, individual employers will be able to apply for a hardship exemption from the Act.​

Employees also have important duties under the Act. Except in cases of emergency or unforeseeable need, employees must give 10 days--or the earliest possible--written notice before taking paid leave. They may also be required to provide appropriate documentation to their employers to certify that leave was used properly. An employee who takes leave for medical appointments must make a "reasonable effort" to schedule leave so that it does not "unduly disrupt the operations of the employer."​

Two very different bills, assuming the Gibson Dunn site is accurate. I see nothing similar in the Massachusetts version.


​

 

[MotF Bane]

It also seems to be both a minimum and a maximum of seven days; it's a bit strangely worded.

"95 (b) All employees who work in the Commonwealth who must be absent from work for the
96 reasons set forth in subsection (c) shall be entitled to not less than 7 sick days with pay during a
97 12month period, or to a pro rata number of paid days or hours under the provisions of
98 subsection (d). The 12month period for each employee shall be calculated from the dateofhire
99 or subsequent anniversary date."

 

[MotF Bane]

http://www.sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6443

Again, there's a change for smaller businesses, but it's much closer to the MA edition.

 

[MotF Bane]

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=164

Going through unemployment figures, divided by county, for the entire state, from 2005 through current, the unemployment rate goes down, then back up, and excepting '05, the rank of SF county compared to other counties remains stable. Compared geographically, unemployment rates seem to form a ring outwards, weighted west, away from SF - suggesting the city is able to create employment anyways because of already established businesses, location, and tourism.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not sure I see the problem.... shouldn't everyone be able to take a few days per year to handle stuff like an illness of a child, dr's appointment etc? If they have to take those without pay, you're forcing a lot of folks to choose between health and work. I'm fine with requiring a minimum number of paid days off, provided it's a reasonably small number.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not sure I see the problem.... shouldn't everyone be able to take a few days per year to handle stuff like an illness of a child, dr's appointment etc? If they have to take those without pay, you're forcing a lot of folks to choose between health and work. I'm fine with requiring a minimum number of paid days off, provided it's a reasonably small number.

Then why don't you negotiate that with your employer?

 

[rudder]

I'm not sure I see the problem.... shouldn't everyone be able to take a few days per year to handle stuff like an illness of a child, dr's appointment etc? If they have to take those without pay, you're forcing a lot of folks to choose between health and work. I'm fine with requiring a minimum number of paid days off, provided it's a reasonably small number.

the problem is that when you hit a small business with an increase in cost... they either a) cut the numbers of employees or b) pass that cost onto consumers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5383413669781840.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Same thing with minimum wage increases. You have to weigh the consequences. My wife is a teacher... and she has seen parents drop off kids with fevers that almost got the child into an emergency room. So a law like that might help in such cases.

I just get pissed because where I work we get a generous amount of sick days, but buttheads still come in coughing over everything.

 

[MJinZ]

Two bills have been proposed by the Massachusetts legislature to force all companies to provide a minimum of seven days paid sick time, with an outline for what they may officially be used for, if the company does not already provide at least 20 days vacation that fulfill the same outlined criteria.

That criteria includes any sort of illness, physical or mental, of the employee or anyone in their family; or for routine medical appointments; or for recovering from domestic abuse. Sick days would accrue at one hour sick leave per thirty hours worked.

These are .PDF files, 12 pages each. You have been warned.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00pdf/st00688.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01815.pdf

What fantasy world does the legislature live in, that they think this is good for businesses? It's terrible news for small businesses. I work in retail during the school year; a total of about eight people on the staff, including the managers, for a store that is open ten hours a day, six days a week, and seven hours on Sunday. We're already short a person due to the recession, but forcing payment for sick leave, probably on short-notice, is a terrible idea. And that's certainly not the smallest business - what about contractors and landscaping companies? No indications that I'm reading to exempt them from these bills.

Fixed.

And and I already have nearly that many sick days.

 

[MotF Bane]

Fixed.

And and I already have nearly that many sick days.

Congratulations, read the thread and the bill. Some parts of the bill say maximum, some effectively say minimum.

 

[MJinZ]

Congratulations, read the thread and the bill. Some parts of the bill say maximum, some effectively say minimum.

No, count the number of minimums and the number of maximums. The Abstract/Preamble says MINIMUM.

Use your brain.

Apparently, the bill writers did not catch that typo.

"(b) All employees who work in the Commonwealth who must be absent from work for the
reasons set forth in subsection (c) shall be entitled to not less than 7 sick days with pay during a
12-month period, or to a pro rata number of paid days or hours under the provisions of
subsection (d). The 12-month period for each employee shall be calculated from the date-of-hire
or subsequent anniversary date."

It makes no sense to legislate maximum sick days.

Companies can provide as many paid sick days as they want.

 

[Vette73]

Jesus; even if it was Min it then only adds up to 8.6days in a year per the conversion in both bills of 1 Hr of sick leave for every 30hours worked. Or 1.33hrs per 40hr work week.

 

[MotF Bane]

No, count the number of minimums and the number of maximums. The Abstract/Preamble says MINIMUM.

Use your brain.

Apparently, the bill writers did not catch that typo.

"(b) All employees who work in the Commonwealth who must be absent from work for the
reasons set forth in subsection (c) shall be entitled to not less than 7 sick days with pay during a
12-month period, or to a pro rata number of paid days or hours under the provisions of
subsection (d). The 12-month period for each employee shall be calculated from the date-of-hire
or subsequent anniversary date."

It makes no sense to legislate maximum sick days.

Companies can provide as many paid sick days as they want.

Companies can provide, but they are only forced to provide a maximum of seven days, no matter how the 30 hours to 1 hour formula works out.

 

[drebo]

Jesus; even if it was Min it then only adds up to 8.6days in a year per the conversion in both bills of 1 Hr of sick leave for every 30hours worked. Or 1.33hrs per 40hr work week.

Why does the amount matter?

Paid time off (including sick days) are a part of compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I don't like the idea of government mandating compensation for employees.

(That said, there is nothing technically wrong with them wanting to do this, as it's being done at the state level. If it were done at the federal level, I would scream bloody-fucking-murder. As it is, though, I will simply not live or do business in MA because I do not agree with this, among others, law.)

 

[PokerGuy]

Problem still not found.....

 

[MJinZ]

Companies can provide, but they are only forced to provide a maximum of seven days, no matter how the 30 hours to 1 hour formula works out.

LOL, so much for smart conservatives.

If I say you I can give you a max of 1 million dollars, guess what - you NADA from me.

 

[MJinZ]

Why does the amount matter?

Paid time off (including sick days) are a part of compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I don't like the idea of government mandating compensation for employees.

(That said, there is nothing technically wrong with them wanting to do this, as it's being done at the state level. If it were done at the federal level, I would scream bloody-fucking-murder. As it is, though, I will simply not live or do business in MA because I do not agree with this, among others, law.)

So much for minimum wage, rest periods, worker's comp, and all that other government mandating mumbo jumo eh.

 

[Kappo]

Then why don't you negotiate that with your employer?

Because in an economy where hiring managers have the upper hand, it removes the ability to abuse them by saying "I don't care that your kid is sick, get to work". It's a tough spot for the employee, and right now, no one wants to lose their job. Most employers wouldn't have a problem with this unless they are sleezy, and I have no interest in letting sleezy people take advantage of someone wanting somewhat civil treatment at work.

Why does the amount matter?

Paid time off (including sick days) are a part of compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I don't like the idea of government mandating compensation for employees.

(That said, there is nothing technically wrong with them wanting to do this, as it's being done at the state level. If it were done at the federal level, I would scream bloody-fucking-murder. As it is, though, I will simply not live or do business in MA because I do not agree with this, among others, law.)

Exactly. These are the kinds of things they SHOULD be doing at the state level. Providing basic infrastructure and guidelines. This isn't micromanagement IMO, which is what I usually bitch about.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, lets pay people not to work. I am sure that won't backfire.

 

[MJinZ]

Yes, lets pay people not to work. I am sure that won't backfire.

Can you tell us who employs you so we can ask them to take away your sick, vacation, and personal days since you obviously do not need them?

 

[CycloWizard]

Because in an economy where hiring managers have the upper hand, it removes the ability to abuse them by saying "I don't care that your kid is sick, get to work". It's a tough spot for the employee, and right now, no one wants to lose their job. Most employers wouldn't have a problem with this unless they are sleezy, and I have no interest in letting sleezy people take advantage of someone wanting somewhat civil treatment at work.

So you think you can coerce companies into paying for sick days without adversely affecting employment even further? Where will the money come from? All of the appeals to emotion in the world won't make money grow on trees. The reason no one can afford to hire right now is because it is too damn expensive because of all of the things employers have to pay for. I could be fined or imprisoned for hiring someone at $5 an hour, even if we both agreed that that was a fair wage. Because of this, the cheapest employee costs over $10 an hour after we factor in unemployment insurance and other mandatory benefits. All of these regulations force businesses to try to cut as many corners as they can rather than doing what is right of their own volition. You admitted as much, saying, "Most employers wouldn't have a problem with this unless they are sleezy." If they have no problem with it, then why wouldn't they enact such a rule on their own? When will you see a link between cause and effect instead of treating these things as if they are all unrelated?