Pollina: Earned sick days make sense for Vermont

Editor’s note: This commentry is by Vermont state Sen. Anthony Pollina, a Progressive who represents Washington County.

Vermont may be the healthiest state but Vermonters do get sick. And, common sense says when we do, we may need to stay home and take care of ourselves, to get better faster and get back to work.

Common sense also says healthy workers are good for business. They are more energetic, efficient and happy, less likely to have accidents and more customer friendly. After all, we would rather have service with a smile than a sniffle or a sneeze.

If common sense isn’t enough, economists and studies say that when sick workers are given time to get better there is less unemployment, improved productivity and a stronger economy.

But, common sense aside, Vermont has no laws or rules giving workers paid sick time and half of Vermont’s private employers don’t offer any. So, for many Vermonters, getting sick means going to work anyway, bringing sniffles, sneezes, aches and pains with them, because staying home means losing pay or maybe even their job. For many working families losing a few days’ pay because of illness means not buying groceries or not paying an electric bill, so we go to work sick, maybe getting sicker and possibly spreading illness to co-workers and customers, rather than losing income or a job. This can be a particularly difficult bind for women, who contribute needed family income or head single parent households but also have primary responsibility for caring for sick children.

Recognizing the need to keep families, workers and the economy healthy, many Vermont employers, workers, health professionals and families are working together to support giving workers the ability to take a small number of paid sick days off from work. Under the proposal, workers could “earn” up to seven sick days a year to recover from an illness, care for a family member or get preventative or therapeutic care.

It’s good for the health of families and the economy and levels the field for employers. Many Vermont businesses already provide paid time off, so there will be no new costs at all. Those who don’t currently provide sick time may see a slight increase (1 percent-2.5 percent) in payroll costs.

For employers concerned about the proposal it is important to know that where earned sick day laws exist, businesses have come to appreciate the benefits and experience shows increased costs offset by economic and workplace improvements.

Connecticut for example, has seen an increase in jobs in tourism, education and health services, the sectors most impacted by their paid sick days law.

In San Francisco, the main lobbyist against their law switched positions, telling Businessweek the paid sick day policy is “the best policy for the least cost.” After all, “Do you want your server coughing over your food?”

In another reversal, two thirds of San Francisco’s employers, once opposed, now support the law. And the city is ranked as one of the best in the world to do business.

A study of the proposed Vermont law by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found a net gain for businesses, showing that any new costs for some businesses would be more than offset by reduced turnover and a healthier, more efficient, productive workforce. And, keeping people healthier, the law would even save $5 million in emergency room visits.
No surprise, in a recent poll over 70 percent of Vermonters support the idea.

Vermont employers know how valuable long-term, committed workers are to growing a business and they know healthier workers work better. We know a strong, healthy workforce is the foundation of a strong local economy, spending less on health care and more at local businesses. And, Vermonters pride ourselves on our willingness to reach out and care for our neighbors, in time of need. So when we get sick, getting a little time to get better, without the worry of losing income or our job is good for all of us. For Vermonters it’s just common sense.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Linda Quackenbush

    Obama and the Progressive Party has put America into default…

  • Jamal Kheiry

    Sen. Pollina,

    It seems counterintuitive that you can say one policy prescription for every business in Vermont – regardless of their size, profitability, what stage their business is in, etc. – is a good idea. To make that assertion, you would have to have much more information at-hand than any one person can regarding the thousands of businesses in the state.

    If it’s a good idea from a business standpoint, as you say, then surely Vermont businesses will make that decision for themselves; to force them to do so assumes they simply don’t know what’s best for them. Even worse, such a move also assumes that you DO know what’s best for them, even though you have no knowledge about their unique business challenges.

    • Lee Russ

      The same policy underlies minimum wage laws, overtime laws, employee safety laws…even voting age laws (surely some 16 year olds are advanced enough to vote, while some 18 year olds are not).

      You have to set a floor that applies to everybody if you really think the policy needs to be in place. That’s simply how legislation works.

  • Cynthia Beaudette

    When my Grandson was in first grade, he had a medical condition which his teacher had to be aware of because he was capable of getting into life and death situations. His teacher had 26 “earned” sick days and she took everyone of them off. Each time my daughter had to be notified by the school and I’d say the school left it up to her if she wanted to “chance” it with a sub. She now homeschools because of many reasons but that was what initiated her decision.
    I don’t believe the State needs to “nanny” business and I don’t believe the statistics sited that only half of businesses in this state give paid sick time.

    • Lee Russ


      I don’t see how the teacher’s sick day rights have anything to do with the need for all employees to have some sick days. I hope you don’t let your anger about your grandson’s condition color your opinion on whether everyone should be entitled to some paid sick time.

      In fact, think about your grandson as an adult in the workforce. What if he is working in a job without sick days, and desperately needs them because of his medical condition?

  • Tom Haviland

    If I go into a business and an employee is obviously sick I’m going there again. Not allowing sick leave shows a contempt for both the employee and the customer

    • Tom Haviland

      Jeezum Crow. I’m *not* going there again

  • Dave Bellini

    The state of Vermont is one of the largest employers in the state. Sadly, not all full time state employees get sick days.

  • John Williams

    This makes total sense from a public health standpoint and probably saves way more money in health care costs than can be adequately quantified .

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Pollina: Earned sick days make sense for Vermont"