[A] more business-friendly version of a paid sick leave bill emerged Tuesday in the House, prompting Gov. Peter Shumlin to endorse the bill and a House committee to delay a vote on it.
The version of H.187 that came back to life last week included fewer requirements on employers. The new legislation proposes three mandated sick days for full-time workers after working a minimum of 1,400 hours.
Shumlin said the bill is “well on its way toward addressing the needs of employers with those of their employees.”
The governor opposed a broader paid sick leave bill last legislative session, and instead made increasing the minimum wage a higher priority.
In a press conference on Tuesday, Shumlin said the new legislation is a “fair bill” that “doesn’t impose any burden on most Vermont businesses who are doing the right thing” and ensures that women don’t lose their jobs to care for sick children.
“It’s unfair to ask people who are really sick to go to work when none of us want them preparing our food because it hurts us all,” Shumlin said.
A vote by the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee was postponed until later this week, after lawmakers receive an analysis of the changes from the Joint Fiscal Office. The full House will take up the bill next week, when five members of the Democratic caucus return from illness or vacations.
The Main Street Alliance and Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, which backed previous versions, supports the compromise legislation. Michelle Fay, spokesperson for the Vermont Paid Sick Days campaign, said she is pleased that the bill is gaining traction this year.
Rep. Tristan Toleno, D-Brattleboro, presented the H.187 amendment Tuesday that includes more business-friendly sections, clarifications to make the law comply with federal labor laws and guidance from the state departments of Labor and Human Resources.
Federal employees, exempt state employees, certain temporary health care workers, substitute teachers, temporary workers and seasonal workers would not be eligible to earn “sick time” under the proposal. The language used to describe the exemptions is more consistent with other labor laws, said Annie Noonan, commissioner of the Department of Labor.
The new bill would postpone implementation to Jan. 1, 2016, and the provision that lets employers impose a waiting period for new hires to use their earned sick time after 90 days or 500 hours was increased to one year or 1,400 hours, whichever comes first.
The language has been further clarified so employers, such as the state of Vermont, that already offer robust benefits packages — including combined time off, personal leave or vacation instead of “sick time” — would not need to change their policies.
The minimum number of sick days would stay capped at three full days for the first two years, which are now calendar years instead of fiscal years, and the minimum number of sick days would not increase to five days until Jan. 1, 2018. An employer could not force workers to find coverage for missed shifts or retaliate against someone for taking their earned leave.
Even with the changes, 19 business lobbying groups, including the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, remained strongly opposed.
The groups issued a news release saying they oppose the law on philosophical grounds, calling the law a “one-size-fits-all” mandate on businesses. The statement said businesses across Vermont are already paying high rates for unemployment insurance, workers compensation, local taxes, state taxes and increases in the minimum wage, which is scheduled to increase from $9.15 to $10.50 in 2018.
Cathy Lamberton of the Association of General Contractors told the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs that paying for three days of leave for each construction worker would increase contractors’ estimates when they bid for jobs.
The higher bids would mean a Vermont contractor could lose the project to regional companies, Lamberton said, and construction workers would be out of work. She said the price differential between competitive bids on a single project can be as low as 1 percent.
Lamberton also said it would be a problem if several flag-holders, for example, called in sick on the same day.
“I’m not saying that we don’t encourage people to stay home when they’re sick, but sometimes they may choose to overindulge the night before and then not come in the next day,” she said.
Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, the committee’s vice chair, challenged Lamberton’s testimony.
Stevens said in an interview that employers who are opposed to the law and start giving three days of leave to full-time workers will be pleasantly surprised when they get loyal workers in return.
“(If) they truly respect their employees, and their employees are with them for more than two years, then why would you deny them that benefit?” Stevens asked.
“It’s odd because most of the people who are testifying against the bill are representatives of businesses where they mostly provide this benefit, and they’re objecting to the concept of the mandate rather than the policy, perhaps, itself,” he said.
Noonan testified that the labor department is prepared to distribute posters describing the new laws so that businesses can post them in a conspicuous place for workers to see. The department will not produce a study, as planned in last week’s version of the bill, but would monitor data from business inquiries and complaints, investigations and enforcement actions, she said.
Noonan said the department might require an appropriation if compliance costs increase, but she is expecting minimal pushback from businesses. She said Connecticut, which enacted a paid leave law in 2012, has only received 50 calls, and none have taken the state to court. (Connecticut’s law requires five full days of leave with a 680-hour waiting period but does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees.)
Maribeth Spellman, commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, said the administration needed to change the bill so the state wouldn’t violate its collective bargaining agreement.
“It really was this sort of crazy juxtaposition not only for the state but for any employer or any large employer,” Spellman said of the original language. She told lawmakers to think about compliance questions when writing a law, such as an accidental mandate that a self-employed person would have to provide sick leave to herself.
