After hearing an outpouring of concerns from business owners, the City Council decided Monday to put off final action on a paid sick leave ordinance that they had endorsed unanimously last month.
The ordinance was proposed as a public health measure and would permit workers to earn several paid sick days per year. Speaking in favor of it, resident and labor organizer Christian Estevez recalled his mother's struggle without benefits and the hard choice between going in sick or losing pay that put food on the table. Stressing the public health aspect of the proposed law, he drew applause when he said, "I don't want to buy my ice cream from somebody with the flu."
But business owners, even those who saw the need, said if it was passed the law would deter new entrepreneurs and squeeze those with just a few employees.
"I take care of my employees, or they'd be gone," Special Improvement District President and service station owner Nimrod Webb said, but objected to facing fines and outsiders checking his books if the new legislation passed. He said "a long list of business associations" had banded together to try to overturn Trenton's sick leave law as being unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Jeffery Dunn, president of the Plainfield Chamber of Commerce, said Plainfield was on the verge of major growth, but the sick leave law would "push people away."
Bakery owner Arturo Marroquin traced the growth of his business from all family-run to having outside employees after the first five years, but felt having to pay sick leave would put him out of business.
Pharmacy owner Oliver Nkwonta questioned how the law would affect his hiring of part-time students and also went so far as to link the legislation to unemployment and crime. He said his store window had been smashed, adding, "Such crime will escalate."
New Labor organizer Craig Garcia explained that employees would earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours of work. The proposed ordinance says employers with more than 10 employees would not be required to provide more than 40 hours of paid sick time in a calendar year, while those with fewer than 10 need only provide 24 hours per year, with exceptions for those in child care, home health care or food service.
Computer Store owner David Holmes voiced a sore point shared by many, saying the business community was not informed of the legislation, but only learned of it from a blog.
Others who spoke included Donna Albanese of Dairy Queen, McDonald's owner Angela Adderley and Burger King owner Jeff Lichtman and Orlando Espana, who just opened a restaurant downtown but was perplexed over how such a law would affect his business.
The issue brought New Jersey Citizen Action Executive Director Phyllis Salowe-Kaye to the meeting. She praised businesses that have adopted the sick leave plan, saying there should be a sticker identifying them. She said nobody wants to have someone come in to work "sneezing in their linguine."
Salowe-Kaye said research indicated the benefits of paid sick leave far outweighed the cost, which she compared to perhaps a five-cent increase on a $2.50 slice of pizza.
She said three years after a sick leave law was implemented in San Francisco, 70 percent of business owners reported no impact, two-thirds supported it and small business increased.
Council President Bridget Rivers asked both Economic Director Carlos Sanchez and Finance Director Ron West to give their impressions of a meeting Friday with business owners and both said no specific requests were made regarding the legislation.
After nearly 20 speakers expressed their views, the council took a recess.When the meeting resumed Rivers said a majority of the council agreed to bring back a possibly amended ordinance next month. To see the full text of the ordinance, click here and scroll down to page 15.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well-intentioned, but better that it is handled statewide. Such a bill (A2354/S785) is moving through committee in the legislature, and Assemblyman Green is one of four primary sponsors. The City Council can, and should, support its passage because it is good for workers, their families, and the public generally. It can also require that vendors seeking City contracts adopt such a policy as a criterion for doing business with the municipality.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely well-intentioned but there are 2 sides to every story and the business owner will suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteAs much as we don't want to be served a hamburger by someone who has the flu, there will be no more hamburger to be served once the increasing cost of doing business squeezes the small business owner out of business.
As a (small) business owner, by the time you're done
paying the rent, wages, utilities, sales tax, income tax, payroll tax, permit fees, repairs, inventory and a host of other operational expenses so you can walk away with a few bucks at the end of the month, it does not make sense to keep the business open in most cases; and if it is a struggling business you can be assured that service and quality will suffer.
Ideally, it would be great if every person could have full health benefits, 401K, 2 weeks paid vacation and paid sick leave but not every business can afford to offer even a mere fraction of that. Let the business owner make their own decisions.
We don’t need need more inefficient politicians and failed government hacks (federal, state or local) telling us what is best for us. Think "Pro-Choice" -- or are we only selective when and how we want government to intercede in our lives?
It used to be enough to open a business, provide a service or sales of goods and provide local residents opportunity for employment, however, now small business owners are expected to provide similar benefits of big box stores? That’s ridiculous. If a job opportunity does not meet your needs, then don’t take it and find a job that will; or take the job and keep looking for something else in the meantime.
It’s fair to understand the difficulty in having to choose to stay home because you’re sick vs. having to go to work. However, the unfortunate part of this measure is that, ultimately, there will be abuse of the law and employees will start accumulating their sick days and use it as a paid vacation and personal time off and the business owner will have little recourse. If the owner determines that an employee is abusing the system and/or not pleased with job performance and decides to dismiss the employee, then onus is on business owner to prove same or be faced with a potential law suit.
This is a very slippery slope. We need to reduce the amount of government that regulates our lives, not grow it.
Enough already!
I am confused by the actions of this council. There is a constant rant about how they care about people. In fact, this council had no problem supporting an illegal charitable contribution of $8,000 - or more.
ReplyDeleteBut, there is concern of letting people have off if they are sick, or need to care for a child or elderly relative? Are you kidding me?
You would have to work 240 hours to earn ONE 8 hour sick day.
Is anyone looking into the data presented that "70 percent of business owners reported no impact, two-thirds supported it and small business increased?"
Or, is the hidden agenda that Jerry Green is sponsoring a similar bill which would make this a state law, and does not want Plainfield to vote on it at the local level first?
Jeanette: While I am no fan of Jerry Green, I would caution against going after him at this point. After all, he is a prime sponsor of the same law at the state level. Instead, we should be urging him to come out publicly in favor of this ordinance as a good first local step as we wait for the state law to make its way through the legislature. I also think that we should hold off on attacking the council members over this at this point. They did vote unanimously to pass this ordinance at first reading and only took the action of tabling it under extreme pressure from local representatives of national fast food corporations: Dairy Queen, McDonald's and Burger King. The spokespeople for these national chains came ready with their talking points about how providing low wage workers any sick leave would force them to shut down and leave Plainfield. They went so far as to insult Plainfield residents by saying that their employees would abuse any sick time by staying out all night to drink and party then call out sick the next day. They insulted our children by saying that they are too irresponsible to be afforded any earned sick leave. The owner of the local Dairy Queen took it a step further and said that her business has done enough for the people of Plainfield just for opening up in town in the 1970's after the riots as if to say that she did it out of some sense of charity to the lowly beings that continued to inhabit this city. It was all very insulting and degrading. These national fast food chains should be embarrassed by their Plainfield representatives. Their condescending attitude toward the people who work for them and the customers that frequent their establishments is appalling. They have made fools of themselves and they would like nothing better than to have us change our focus back to our usual partisan infighting. There is plenty of time for that later. Right now we need to keep our focus where it belongs: on the struggle against national food chains that are seeking to bully our local government into ignoring the public health needs and basic worker's rights of Plainfield's residents. We need to put aside our political differences with Jerry Green and his allies for a moment and work together with them to defeat a common enemy of they people we represent. We can go back to fighting with each other after we get some good work done for the most vulnerable families in our city.
DeleteWell said. My only comment is that the council should have done their research when they initially voted to move this forward. When the businesses voiced their opposition, the council should have had their facts and figures handy to rebut the businesses. It is frustrating to think that the council votes have no basis for them other than visceral reactions.
DeleteI have to assume that the majority of people in favor of this regulation have never owned their own business and don’t fully comprehend the difficulty in having to deal with employees, in general, and employees who do not respect the workplace, in particular.
DeleteIt’s always easy to sit back and paint the picture you assume to be true; it’s another story to be in the thick of it, trying to run an honest and legitimate business while having to put up with employees who are habitual liars, thieves and are generally disrespectful. Employee abuse is prevalent at all level and all places, whether on Wall Street or Front Street. The fact that you’re trying to characterize it as an attack on Plainfield residents is bogus; and as much as so many people in Plainfield always want to make every issue to be about race (because there is no other argument that can stir the pot like race can), it's not. This law would not be specific to Plainfield in the long run.
And, which vulnerable families are you referring to exactly? Are you referring to the vulnerable families that have chosen to have children without planning, without a job and are on the receiving end of public assistance supported by our tax dollars? Are you referring to the vulnerable families who can’t afford to pay their rent on time, but have enough money to by weed and alcohol and leave their child home alone while they’re partying it up at their neighbor’s house? Or, perhaps you’re referring to the vulnerable families who file bogus insurance claims against their employers or landlords and don’t have to go to work for a couple of years because their settlement will bank-roll them while our insurance rates go up to pay for their pay-day? (PMUA settlements come to mind)
There’s a bigger problem here and it’s not business owners and it’s not white people and it’s not Latinos and it’s not black people. The problem is people! The problem is lack of accountability. The problem is lack of values, morals and guidance. Those are the bigger problems we should be looking to solve which would then alleviate so many of the residual problems that come about.
Granted there are a lot of people who need legitimate assistance and require a helping hand – perfect! Let’s help, help, help those people; but, there are way too many people who consistently abuse the system, every system, at every turn for whatever they can get because they think they deserve it and are entitled to it. That has got to stop.
Dear "Keeping It Real",
DeleteThere is not much that I have to say about your post, because you have said it all. You have confirmed the condescending attitude that many business owners have toward their employees. You have just called them every name in the book, echoing many of the statements made by business owners, including the representatives from McDonald's, Burger King and Dairy Queen at Monday's City Council meeting.
The vulnerable families that I was talking about were those who are headed by parents who work hard at low-wage jobs and still find it hard to make ends meet. Your diatribe about how many children people have, etc shows your bigoted world view.
Also, as for your "assumption" about me never having owned a business, let's just say that you know how the saying goes: when you assume, you make an ass out of U. I have owned my own business and I know what it is like to keep it going. Even when times were tough, I always took care of my employees first. Giving them a few days off with pay when they or thier children were sick was the least I could do. They were hard working people that were deserving of my respect. If you have such untrustworthy people working for you, then you should review your own hiring practices and let me know what business you run so I won't patronize it in order to stay away from your dishonest employees.
If you re-read the first sentence of my commentary, my assumption is a general one and not specific to you.
DeleteI addressed the need to help those who legitimately require assistance. You chose to focus on only one part of my argument and ignore to comment on the fact that there is a lot of systemic abuse at all levels, high-wage and low-wage, and THAT is a fact.
Your comments are very stereo-typical of commenters on these blogs who turn to name-calling if one does not agree with your idea of social justice. We all have different life experiences and backgrounds that lead us to form the opinions we express, however, there is always another side to the story and I provided that in my comments, you did not. You’re only telling one side of the story because if you dare acknowledge the other side your argument becomes weak and flawed and essentially baseless.
If it is your prerogative to fund your employees above and beyond their base pay, then I applaud you. I have done the same only to be burned too many times and, now, I just stick to business.
Government should not be forcing anyone to contribute any more of their hard earned money just because they think it is the right thing to do. If you haven’t noticed by now, socialism does not work.
There are other ways to induce local businesses to provide their workers with earned sick days other than by local ordinance. Community members can just picket the businesses that are against providing earned sick time. These informational pickets can inform these businesses customers to beware of eating at these establishments because they force their employees to come to work when they are sick. If these business owners are against an ordinance that requires all businesses in the city to abide by the same rules, then they can just deal with being targeted by citizens that are concerned by the public health risks posed by those particular businesses unsafe employment practices. If they don't want government to interfere, then they will not call the police when local residents excersize their constitutional rights to freedoms of assembly and freedom of speech. I wonder how their bottom line will survive a prolonged picket?
ReplyDelete