 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
No More Delay: Proven Policy Solutions for New York City
San Francisco, CA: Paid Sick Leave
The Problem: Nearly one million working New Yorkers do not receive any paid sick days, contributing to negative health outcomes, the spread of contagious disease, and lower worker productivity. As the swine flu continues to spread and scientists predict a resurgence of the disease in the fall, New York cannot afford to have its workers coming to work sick.
No New Yorker should have to make this choice. Unfortunately, low wage workers living paycheck-to-paycheck are the least likely to have paid sick days, and they can least afford to miss work, no matter how ill. Two out of three low-wage New Yorkers do not have any paid sick days.[1] Higher-income earners fare somewhat better, though one third of moderate- and high-income workers in New York still do not receive paid sick leave.[2]
When sick workers don’t take time off, their illnesses may become worse, and workers suffering from infectious disease like influenza or hepatitis may spread it to coworkers, customers, and clients. Since food service workers are among the employees least likely to have access to paid sick days, this represents a particular public health threat. Only 16 percent of the 202,000 New York City restaurant workers have paid sick leave.[3] In a survey of restaurant workers, 52 percent of the respondents said that they have gone to work when they were sick.[4]
While paid sick leave is an issue that affects workers across the country, the densely populated nature of New York heightens the need for reform. Nowhere in America is the threat of contagion more acute. Millions of New Yorkers travel to work on crowded subways and buses and jostle for space on congested sidewalks in the busiest business districts in the country. Additionally, New York City is a major tourist destination for both domestic and international travelers, increasing the risk of spreading illness across state and national borders.
The H1N1 swine flu pandemic that began in April of 2009 is a pertinent reminder of the dangers of contagion and the difficulties that workers without paid sick leave face. After dozens of cases were confirmed in Queens, the New York City Health Department advised, “The most effective way to lower the risk [of infection] is for people with fever and either cough or sore throat to stay home."[5] But for most restaurant workers, retail workers, and home health care workers, staying home is simply not an option. With scientists predicting continued flu activity in the summer and an even greater resurgence of the disease this coming fall and winter[6], New York City must act quickly to ensure that sickened residents can afford to miss work.
The Solution: Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
In 2007, the city of San Francisco became the first place in the U.S. to require that employers provide their workers with paid sick days. The law guarantees that every person working in San Francisco will receive paid sick leave, including temporary and part-time employees.
The success of San Francisco’s policy is easy to illustrate: 116,000 workers who previously lacked the benefit now have paid sick days. Additionally, the business groups that had initially opposed the ordinance in San Francisco admit that it has posed few problems for their members.
Before the ordinance was passed, a study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) projected that it would cost the city and its employers $33.5 million each year in additional wages, payroll taxes, and administrative expenses. These costs, which amount to $5.56 per week per newly covered worker, were a major source of business opposition to the ordinance. However, IWPR also projected that the benefits of guaranteeing paid sick days would amount to $7.64 per newly covered worker per week, achieved by decreasing employee turnover, improving productivity and reducing the spread of disease. Ultimately, San Francisco was projected to see a net gain of $12.5 million annually.[7] While no follow up study has been conducted, the organization did look at the city’s employment rate after the law was passed. Researchers found that employment in San Francisco did not suffer after the implementation of the ordinance, and in fact the industry most affected by the new mandate (restaurant and hospitality businesses) saw strong job growth relative to other counties in the region.[8] These
outcomes are consistent with research from the Center for Economic and Policy Research which concluded that there was no relationship between unemployment and government-mandated paid sick leave.[9]
Today even the strongest business opponents of paid sick leave admit that the policy has not been the economic disaster that they initially predicted. In fact, The Golden Gate Restaurant Association called the law “successful” and acknowledged that employee abuse of the new benefit was not widespread.[10] In 2008, a spokesperson for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce admitted that “we really have not heard much about it being a major issue for a lot of businesses.”[11]
Implications for New York
San Francisco’s experience shows that a city can successfully require employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees without significant disruption to business activity. New York should take similar steps, improving public health and contributing to the well being and financial security of working New Yorkers who currently do not have paid leave.
In San Francisco, the paid sick leave ordinance was passed through a popular referendum. Sixty-one percent of the voters approved the legislation. In New York, the Mayor and City Council could simply pass an ordinance that mandates paid sick leave. This makes Mayor Bloomberg’s recent support for paid sick days enormously encouraging. The city has the legal authority to legislate paid sick days without going to Albany for approval. The city would need to identify or create an agency that would be responsible for enforcing the new law. In San
Francisco, the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces labor laws that are specific to the city, such as the paid sick leave law. New York City, on the other hand does not have this type of agency. The City Comptroller’s Bureau of Labor Law is responsible for investigating violations of the city’s prevailing wage laws, and could take on the enforcement of paid sick days. The city’s Commission on Human Rights has also been suggested as a possible enforcement agency for paid sick days.[12]
San Francisco’s law made concessions for small businesses, requiring that employers provide fewer sick days at businesses with fewer than ten employees. Sherry Leiwant, Executive Director of A Better Balance, a major advocacy group for paid sick days in New York, suggests that New York City could make similar allowances, “It seems appropriate to require fewer days from smaller businesses. It is sensitivity for the difficulties that smaller businesses might face.” However, there should not be exemptions for certain industries, such as the restaurant or health care industries. Because workers in these industries commonly come into contact with the general population during the course of a working day, “these are the industries where you would not want exemptions.”
According to polling data, three in four New Yorkers voice support for a law requiring at least seven days of paid sick leave per year for full-time workers.[13]The biggest obstacle to passing paid sick leave legislation in New York City would be overcoming the opposition of business interests. However, the experience of San Francisco proves that there is no good reason not to guarantee paid sick leave. Despite the dire predictions from businesses, job growth in San Francisco remained high. It turns out that a healthy workforce and a healthy business environment can coexist.
[1] The Unheard Third 2007. Community Service Society. 2007.
[2] The Unheard Third 2007.
[3] Behind the Kitchen Door. The Restaurant Opportunities Center. 2005.
[4] Behind the Kitchen Door.
[5] “Health Department Updates Flu Status; Survey Reveals that 1 in 3 St. Francis Prep Students Had Flu-like Symptoms,” The City of New York. May 1, 2009.
Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2009/pr020-09.shtml.
[6] “CDC Telebriefing on Investigation of Human Cases of Novel Influenza A (H1N1).” Centers for Disease Control. June 18, 2009.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090618.htm.
[7] Vicky Lovell. “Valuing Good Health in San Francisco: The Costs and Benefits of a Proposed Sick Leave Policy,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2006 July.
[8] Vicky Lovell and Kevin Miller. “Job Growth Strong With Paid Sick Days,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2008 October.
[9] John Schmitt, Hye Jin Rho, Alison Earle, and Jody Heymann. “Paid Sick Days Don’t Cause Unemployment,” Center for Economic and Policy Research.2009 June.
[10] Stephen Singer. “State pushes law to require paid sick days,” USA Today. August 20, 2008.
[11] Kelly Spors. “Should Employers Be Required to Give Paid Sick Days?” Wall Street Journal Blogs. August 25, 2008.
[12] “Marketplace of Ideas: Sara Flocks on Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave,” Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. May 28, 2008.
[13] The Unheard Third 2007.
San Francisco, CA: Paid Sick Leave
The Problem: Nearly one million working New Yorkers do not receive any paid sick days, contributing to negative health outcomes, the spread of contagious disease, and lower worker productivity. As the swine flu continues to spread and scientists predict a resurgence of the disease in the fall, New York cannot afford to have its workers coming to work sick.
___________________________________
When workers without paid sick days become ill, they are faced with an unfortunate decision: they can either come into work and risk infecting those that they come into contact with, or they can call in sick and lose a day’s pay (and in some cases risk losing their job). Additionally, these workers are unable to take time off in order to care for their children when they become ill. Parents must decide whether to send their sick children to school and daycare or face the consequences of missing work. No New Yorker should have to make this choice. Unfortunately, low wage workers living paycheck-to-paycheck are the least likely to have paid sick days, and they can least afford to miss work, no matter how ill. Two out of three low-wage New Yorkers do not have any paid sick days.[1] Higher-income earners fare somewhat better, though one third of moderate- and high-income workers in New York still do not receive paid sick leave.[2]
When sick workers don’t take time off, their illnesses may become worse, and workers suffering from infectious disease like influenza or hepatitis may spread it to coworkers, customers, and clients. Since food service workers are among the employees least likely to have access to paid sick days, this represents a particular public health threat. Only 16 percent of the 202,000 New York City restaurant workers have paid sick leave.[3] In a survey of restaurant workers, 52 percent of the respondents said that they have gone to work when they were sick.[4]
While paid sick leave is an issue that affects workers across the country, the densely populated nature of New York heightens the need for reform. Nowhere in America is the threat of contagion more acute. Millions of New Yorkers travel to work on crowded subways and buses and jostle for space on congested sidewalks in the busiest business districts in the country. Additionally, New York City is a major tourist destination for both domestic and international travelers, increasing the risk of spreading illness across state and national borders.
The H1N1 swine flu pandemic that began in April of 2009 is a pertinent reminder of the dangers of contagion and the difficulties that workers without paid sick leave face. After dozens of cases were confirmed in Queens, the New York City Health Department advised, “The most effective way to lower the risk [of infection] is for people with fever and either cough or sore throat to stay home."[5] But for most restaurant workers, retail workers, and home health care workers, staying home is simply not an option. With scientists predicting continued flu activity in the summer and an even greater resurgence of the disease this coming fall and winter[6], New York City must act quickly to ensure that sickened residents can afford to miss work.
___________________________________
The Solution: Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
In 2007, the city of San Francisco became the first place in the U.S. to require that employers provide their workers with paid sick days. The law guarantees that every person working in San Francisco will receive paid sick leave, including temporary and part-time employees.
- Employees begin to earn paid sick leave after 90 days of work in the city. Beyond that point, they earn one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work
- Employees that work for companies with fewer than ten employees can amass a maximum of 40 hours of paid sick leave at any one time; those that work for larger companies are limited to 72 hours of paid sick leave at any one time under the ordinance (employers are free to offer more generous policies if they choose).
- Paid sick leave may be used to recover from a personal illness or injury, seek medical care, or provide care for a family member or other person (the employee must designate this person in advance).
- Employees can take the leave in hourly increments and must be paid their hourly wage or an equivalent fraction of their salary.
- Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who use paid sick leave.
- A poster notifying employees of the ordinance in six languages must be posted at all workplaces.
- Employers who are found to have unlawfully denied paid sick leave must pay the employee four times the value of any leave withheld as well as any additional back pay owed and must reinstate the employee if they were fired
- The city’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces the law and employees can also sue under the statute.
The success of San Francisco’s policy is easy to illustrate: 116,000 workers who previously lacked the benefit now have paid sick days. Additionally, the business groups that had initially opposed the ordinance in San Francisco admit that it has posed few problems for their members.
Before the ordinance was passed, a study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) projected that it would cost the city and its employers $33.5 million each year in additional wages, payroll taxes, and administrative expenses. These costs, which amount to $5.56 per week per newly covered worker, were a major source of business opposition to the ordinance. However, IWPR also projected that the benefits of guaranteeing paid sick days would amount to $7.64 per newly covered worker per week, achieved by decreasing employee turnover, improving productivity and reducing the spread of disease. Ultimately, San Francisco was projected to see a net gain of $12.5 million annually.[7] While no follow up study has been conducted, the organization did look at the city’s employment rate after the law was passed. Researchers found that employment in San Francisco did not suffer after the implementation of the ordinance, and in fact the industry most affected by the new mandate (restaurant and hospitality businesses) saw strong job growth relative to other counties in the region.[8] These
outcomes are consistent with research from the Center for Economic and Policy Research which concluded that there was no relationship between unemployment and government-mandated paid sick leave.[9]
Today even the strongest business opponents of paid sick leave admit that the policy has not been the economic disaster that they initially predicted. In fact, The Golden Gate Restaurant Association called the law “successful” and acknowledged that employee abuse of the new benefit was not widespread.[10] In 2008, a spokesperson for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce admitted that “we really have not heard much about it being a major issue for a lot of businesses.”[11]
Implications for New York
San Francisco’s experience shows that a city can successfully require employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees without significant disruption to business activity. New York should take similar steps, improving public health and contributing to the well being and financial security of working New Yorkers who currently do not have paid leave.
In San Francisco, the paid sick leave ordinance was passed through a popular referendum. Sixty-one percent of the voters approved the legislation. In New York, the Mayor and City Council could simply pass an ordinance that mandates paid sick leave. This makes Mayor Bloomberg’s recent support for paid sick days enormously encouraging. The city has the legal authority to legislate paid sick days without going to Albany for approval. The city would need to identify or create an agency that would be responsible for enforcing the new law. In San
Francisco, the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces labor laws that are specific to the city, such as the paid sick leave law. New York City, on the other hand does not have this type of agency. The City Comptroller’s Bureau of Labor Law is responsible for investigating violations of the city’s prevailing wage laws, and could take on the enforcement of paid sick days. The city’s Commission on Human Rights has also been suggested as a possible enforcement agency for paid sick days.[12]
San Francisco’s law made concessions for small businesses, requiring that employers provide fewer sick days at businesses with fewer than ten employees. Sherry Leiwant, Executive Director of A Better Balance, a major advocacy group for paid sick days in New York, suggests that New York City could make similar allowances, “It seems appropriate to require fewer days from smaller businesses. It is sensitivity for the difficulties that smaller businesses might face.” However, there should not be exemptions for certain industries, such as the restaurant or health care industries. Because workers in these industries commonly come into contact with the general population during the course of a working day, “these are the industries where you would not want exemptions.”
According to polling data, three in four New Yorkers voice support for a law requiring at least seven days of paid sick leave per year for full-time workers.[13]The biggest obstacle to passing paid sick leave legislation in New York City would be overcoming the opposition of business interests. However, the experience of San Francisco proves that there is no good reason not to guarantee paid sick leave. Despite the dire predictions from businesses, job growth in San Francisco remained high. It turns out that a healthy workforce and a healthy business environment can coexist.
[1] The Unheard Third 2007. Community Service Society. 2007.
[2] The Unheard Third 2007.
[3] Behind the Kitchen Door. The Restaurant Opportunities Center. 2005.
[4] Behind the Kitchen Door.
[5] “Health Department Updates Flu Status; Survey Reveals that 1 in 3 St. Francis Prep Students Had Flu-like Symptoms,” The City of New York. May 1, 2009.
Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2009/pr020-09.shtml.
[6] “CDC Telebriefing on Investigation of Human Cases of Novel Influenza A (H1N1).” Centers for Disease Control. June 18, 2009.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090618.htm.
[7] Vicky Lovell. “Valuing Good Health in San Francisco: The Costs and Benefits of a Proposed Sick Leave Policy,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2006 July.
[8] Vicky Lovell and Kevin Miller. “Job Growth Strong With Paid Sick Days,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2008 October.
[9] John Schmitt, Hye Jin Rho, Alison Earle, and Jody Heymann. “Paid Sick Days Don’t Cause Unemployment,” Center for Economic and Policy Research.2009 June.
[10] Stephen Singer. “State pushes law to require paid sick days,” USA Today. August 20, 2008.
[11] Kelly Spors. “Should Employers Be Required to Give Paid Sick Days?” Wall Street Journal Blogs. August 25, 2008.
[12] “Marketplace of Ideas: Sara Flocks on Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave,” Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. May 28, 2008.
[13] The Unheard Third 2007.