Since the introduction of Paid Sick Leave legislation in the City Council last summer, the Queens Chamber of Commerce has banded together with the other borough’s chambers of commerce and over 25 business organizations, representing a wide range of industries and small businesses in strident opposition to first Intro 1059 and now Intro 97.
Our fundamental argument remains the same as when we testified before the City Council in November, and again recently – we oppose government deprivation of our ability to determine the appropriate benefit package for our employees.
Any business person knows that a successful, profitable organization begins with motivated and healthy employees. In fact, we whole heartedly agree with supporters of Intro 97 in that no worker should ever fear retaliation from their employer or worse, termination if he or she takes a sick day.
Where we differ is the government’s demand that these sick days fall solely on the backs of business. Last November, an internal poll showed that two out of three of our collective Chamber membership already offer some form of paid sick leave. For those businesses that do not offer paid sick days, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said and we agree, it is probably because they can’t afford it.
If the Council considers paid sick days as a moral imperative on par with unemployment insurance, disability insurance or social security – where everyone pays into the system – then help our business community pay for it. Similar legislation in other states have created mechanisms to share the cost of these socially-motivated initiatives to ease the burden on the business community – particularly, small businesses.
During the past few weeks, our coalition followed this vein and drafted bill language that could achieve this. We have shared it with the speaker and some councilmembers in hopes of creating a basis for a new bill that we could all support. Unfortunately, Intro 97 is not that bill.
Intro 97, in fact, falls miserably short of addressing many of the concerns that were voiced in November. Let me go through just three examples of many of the bill’s shortcomings.
The new definition of small businesses as less than 20 employees does not comport with any other legislative definition of small business. The Federal Medical & Family Leave Act (FMLA) and the recently-passed federal health insurance reform bills define small business as 50 employees or less. In fact, in both these instances, small businesses are actually exempt from these requirements.
The bill still allocates five paid sick days per employee for small businesses and nine paid sick days for large businesses. Is there any public policy basis to require more paid sick days at larger businesses? Is anyone prepared to demonstrate that employees who work for larger organizations get sick more often, or is this just government aiming at what is perceived to be deeper pockets?
The bill is still silent as to what regulatory authorities would be responsible for enforcement and most importantly, adjudication of any disputes. There is also no mention of what the costs are to administer such a bill to a city deeply in a budget deficit situation. The absence of such specification could lead to non-essential costs and frivolous private actions which would further add to the court system’s backlog.
Once again, Intro 97 – like its forbearer Intro 1059 – is a well-intentioned but overly broad bill that fails to recognize the diversity of our business community, its varying needs and strategies for creating and maintaining jobs in New York. We urge Councilmember Gale A. Brewer and the bill’s sponsors to seriously study our proposals that feature a shared cost mechanism that will allow worker’s the benefit they deserve while recognizing current pressures business currently face.
Jack Friedman is the executive director of the Queens Chamber of Commerce.
