Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Business owners did their best yesterday to scare off Council members mulling a bill that would require all employers in the city to provide up to nine paid sick days. The owners insist such a law would force small businesses to slash salaries and benefits, lay off employees, and eventually flee the city. "Pile on another expense to us, you’re gonna put people out of business. You’re gonna encourage people to move their business out of New York City. I’m a mile from New Jersey. It’s a hop over the bridge. And it’s very tempting," said Tom Scarangello of Scaran Heating & Air Conditioning.
"I’m predicting that if this bill is passed in its current form, it’s going to result in the layoff of thousands of workers in New York City," declared Metro Optics Eyewear owner John Bonizio. It's unclear which way City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is leaning, and it's anyone's guess when she'll bring it to a vote. But Mayor Bloomberg told NY1, "Everybody would love to be able to have paid sick leave, and at the same time, it’s true that a lot of small businesses probably can’t afford it, and so we’ve got to find some ways of balancing those two things."
Advocates of the bill, who claim that half of the city’s workforce has no paid sick leave, weren't afraid to get alarmist either. "Think about going to breakfast in the morning, and ordering a bagel, and getting a side dish of H1N1, because the person who served it was not feeling well," warned Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. According to the Daily News, advocates on each side of the debate presented vastly different cost estimates: Kevin Miller of the Institute for Women's Policy Research said at least 850,000 workers would receive leave under the law, costing $332 million. But the business coalition claims it will soak them for $8.8 billion.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Nine?! That's seems like a pretty ridiculously excessive number of paid sick days to mandate. Five = more than enough. If you get sick any more than that, why should the company have to pay for it? Either you have no immune system, or you're a lazy fuck. Either way, your company shouldn't be responsible.
Fuck yea! Next thing you know they want the whole Christmas day off. Christmas Day, indeed! Just another excuse for being lazy. Christmas is just an excuse for picking a man's pocket!
What a stupid, arbitrary number. So you just decide 5 days is normal for being sick, and any more than that means you're lazy? Who friggin' made this rule? How can you control being sick?
People take advantage of everything, but we cannot punish those who need things because there are a-holes out there.
Good luck enforcing this in the food service industry. Or any industry, actually...
Go ahead Mr Scarangello. Pussy
I think 9 days may be a little too much. Such policies should we weened in to avoid too much disruption. And if such a rule is instituted, employors should have the power to ensure when sick leave is taken, its taken because the employee truly is sick. Many employers have a lax policy regarding sick leave, only requiring doctors notes after 2-3 days.
*2-3 days, consecutively.
yes, but you can't always get in to see the doctor when you're sick and get a note - I guess you could go to the emergency room but then you're splashing out for that and your filling up the emergency room with a nasty cold
this bill is egregious and the gov't should not be mandating this type of shit in any way. do something useful like fix the budget or massage my ballbag.
If a small business owner can't afford to pay out sick leave to sick employees, then maybe they should pack it in and go work for someone who can afford to do just that. Sick employees aren't going to be very productive, and they will also help spread disease making other employees sick.
Do you think corporations are big, evil and greedy?
$332 million? Kevin Miller's math is fuzzy...
850,000 people X 9 sick days X 8 working hours per day = 61,200,000 Total hours.
Divide 332 million by 61 million and he's saying that these people are only making $5.45 on average.
I know that there are a lot of waiters out there, but not enough to skew the numbers that low. I mean, minimum wage is over $7, so all these people at McDonald's and other fast food places would probably cancel out those waiters.
I also think $8.8 Billion is a ridiculous claim too though. Although I'm unsure as to the number of workers they claim will actually need to be covered to come up with that number.
It should be 5. I have a real, 9-5 job, and I get 5 sick days. McDonald's workers deserve as much.
Whenever you give these filthy "people" rights, you just encourage them to think they are human beings. Next you fascists will want to make a "minimum wage" & give people "health care." Back to your sweatshop, minions! Don't you know, the people you hire are your slaves. You pay them, don't you!? You don't owe them anything.!
Employees should have as many paid leave days as they feel is appropriate.
You're being sarcastic, I know, but why do you think a minimum wage helps the lowest skilled workers?
Isn't there plenty of evidence that it doesn't? We actually make it prohibitive for certain businesses to hire the unskilled---who tend to be poor and a minority?
It's a backwards policy as is a mandatory paid sick leave as is any amendment to a health care bill forcing small businesses to subsidize health benefits.
I would like to hear your rationale for minimum wage and mandatory sick days, though. How does it help more than hurt the lower skilled workers we're discussing here.
Studies have repeatedly shown that raising the minimum wage has no impact on employment. Historically, interest rates are the main determining factor, as far as government-set economic factors.
If macroeconomic forces---like low interest rates---can try and create wealth there is, of course, a bigger piece of the pie to be doled out.
But when the bust part of the business cycle begins, minimum wage is now a burden on Mom of Mom and Pop's c-store.
If you believe that will we never see our economy contract, then a reasonably set wage floor is negligible---as some papers and studies claim.
But other studies point out my point.
I would agree with you that interest rates are paramount and thusly is our money supply and its stability.
Lastly, it's a matter of freedom, too. A person should be able to set the price for their labor and an employer should be able to negotiate and bid for labor. The government should not have any authority to meddle in what two consenting adults do---whether its how the made love in a bedroom or how they want to trade labor for cash.
The "Free Market" will only make rational decisions when robots, not humans, run it. Until then, regulating it is the only way to make semi-reasonable outcomes happen. If you want a middle class-- that is, you want to avoid a super rich 1% & a super poor labor pool-- you have to regulate.
Regulators/bureaucrats don't work in their own best interests? There's never poor budgeting, excessive debt, raising of bonds, and outright corruption with state or federal officials?
Regulators don't work in their best interest? There's never been a case of corruption with a state official? There's never been budget overruns, deficits, or bond raising? There's never been cronyism? There's never been low-level officials taking bribes?
I like Gothamist, but the commenting needs work...
But we're not talking about the freedoms and rights of individuals, we're talking about the freedoms and rights of business. I don't care how much of a homey, mom and pop sheen you put on it, it's still a business and has to play by the rules of business.
Besides, right now the lack of flow of capital is a much graver concern for your average true small business (as opposed to small businesses that are just shells for people to manage their assets) than the fact that they might have to pay their employees an extra 25¢ an hour.
What do you mean by "rules of business?" Work should always be "at will" unless you sign a contract.
And payroll is always a concern for a small business. To dismiss any additional operating costs and lost time (with this original post) is dishonest. Lack of capital flow for a true small business is what the Obama administration still talks about. But commercial paper is not for a small business. So I don't understand why its a constant talking point for them? Actually, I know what it is---it's an attempt to sound hard against the banks and make it sound like they're really sticking it to them.
Disregarding the latter tangent, this is about freedom and you imply that you have rights in the workplace. The workplace is actually the one places where you lose a lot of these 'rights'.
When I had my business, we gave employees that were there at least a year, 5 paid sick days. Like most small businesses we had had just enough workers to do the job. If someone was out sick the burden fell on the rest of us. However, to their credit, the vast majority never took those days frivolously. At the end of the year we paid them for unused sick days. It was a win-win situation.
Fine, move your business to another city. The world capital of commerce will do just fine without you.
hong kong?
Another way to look at it is the amount of money saved. One person who isn't feeling too hot may make the decision to stay home and take care. Wala - onset of [fill in blank] is deterred and all fellow co-workers rejoice as they were not put "at risk." Workforce stays healthy. Company remains productive.
I've noticed a change in last few years -- on the rare occasions I begin to come down with something - I was strongly encouraged to stay home. The number of days in the bill might be excessive - but it is a good start towards healthy and happy workplaces. Small businesses who oppose this are missing the big picture.
I do think 5 days would be sufficient. In the case of restaurant workers, I'd imagine that legislating protection against termination for taking even a currently unpaid sick day might take precedence. I've heard so many horror stories from friends who fear calling in sick for this reason.
That said, I'm annoyed at anyone hacking, coughing, and sneezing on the train obviously going into work sick. Chances are, nobody is dying and if so, a dying person doesn't need to be exposed to your flu.
Stubborn refusal to acknowlege common sense is a terrific way of keeping your small businesses...small.
Let me tell you, every time you buy any food or beverage at a restaurant, bar, or coffee shop in New York your food or drink at some step along the way is passing through the fingers of someone sick. Just keep hoping that they washed their hands.
Just wait for it... less sick days for fatties and smokers, add a day if you exercise 3x a week, add 2 if you're a vegan...
This law is begging to be abused.
Fine. So make sick leave require a doctor's note. All the employer needs to do is call in the office and verify that the employee actually visited. It won't stop all fraud, but it would curb it quite a bit.
People who work for places that don't provide sick leave probably don't have health insurance either.
this law is a redheaded step child?
Definitely! Statistics already show that 40% of all sick days are taken Mondays and Fridays.
Don't Monday and Friday make up 40 percent of the typical workweek? Just saying...
You beat me to it. :)
If this statistic is accurate, it's not really saying that much. Most people who can take sick days are on a Monday-Friday schedule, and two days out of five=40% of the available days.
that's funny.
when I was working for the city if I took a sick day on a Monday, Friday or the day after Payday, I must have a MD's note. yeah, I had a note in my employee file.
If the City Council forces me to pay my employees for 9 sick days a year, I expect that the City Council will reimburse me for my costs... because that is going to crush me.
Why do people feel entitled to receive money when they don't work? If a business is willing to offer paid sick days, that's great. But how is that in any way a right?
Yea, I don't get it either. Why do people get unemployment benefits when they get laid off? They're not working so they shouldn't be getting any money. Once you start giving away this free money people will start to feel entitled. We should just follow India's model when you can't work just start begging on the streets and if you're really smart blind or maim some kid and have they beg for you! FTW!!
Pass this and your employee will not come to work sick where they can possibly pass the germ onto other employees who will then have to take off. Healthy happy employees produce more and better results.
I currently work for a company where I do have health insurance but no sick days. Twice I've come in sick as a dog because I had no vacation left over - as have some of my co-workers which obviously leads to more people sick. I welcome this law as it addresses a pressing need but also feel 9 days is excessive
they could pass this law along with the other law I see posted in some places.
"new incentive program, work or get fired"
another law that won't matter to the working people. I hope everyone's immune system is up to snuff, it's going to be a cold winter according to the farmer's almanac.
Let's work on getting them health insurance first.
The small business owner can make less than his employees, so he's a working stiff, too.
It takes a tremendous amount of work, guts, and guile to attempt to start your own business---laws like this do not help the cause.
Even with a bit a fibbing on the statistics, small businesses fail more often than not and many people---who by no means are rich---are left with a lot of debt from their risk.
My company actually is very generous in the allotment of sick days. But I don't see a lot of abuse going on---for the most part people come in, get their work done, and if a day's tasks are particularly crucial it's unheard of for someone to call in sick and leave the rest of the team hanging. People that do take a lot of days tend to be low performers overall and would find a way to underperform and overexploit resources regardless of where they work and what the company's policies are----and in many small businesses they would be much easier to hire than in large employers where they tend to be more careful about liability, policies, etc.
Sorry, I meant underperformers would be easier to FIRE, not hire, in many small businesses.
i agree. i don't get paid sick days and it really sucks. if i had it i certainly wouldn't abuse it - because then what do you do when you really are sick? also for people with kids this would be a tremendous help. there are a lot of parents who send kids to school when they're sick just because they can't afford to miss work or pay a babysitter.
Perhaps mandatory sick leave is in response to the scummy businesses that fired workers for calling in sick.
The flip side of this is that some places will find a way to fire you down the road if you take a sick day. No easy answer here.
Let's go back to the turn of the last century where few
workers had any rights at all and kissed butt just to
keep a job,then let's hope somebody gets an idea called
"Unions" that say workers are just important as our
bosses and employers and we deserve some human rights
and a modicum share of the employers wealth
Odd that this comes up at all ,in the year 2009.
F*ck you jew-hater.
We are the most overworked labor force in the world; we take an average of 9 days off a year. I'm sure the people who were fed up with this shit left for France years ago.
This is yet another problem that results in ridiculous health costs, we eat such shitty food and work such long hours that our immune systems break down, and then so we fight it with ridiculously expensive, harmful medication, and then go get tests on overpriced equipment. Go us!
These figures are from 2006:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html
Great, so we have massive GDP and gains, or did at some point. But at what cost? Why the fuck should I care? What ever happened to just...living well?
A lot of companies look down on you if you work less than 10 hours a day. You take a lunch break and you get the stinkeye. And every company wants one person to do the job of 3 people so they can save money. No wonder everyone is sick.
This is a great idea. One will have holidays punctuated by working days!
This kind of policy is already pretty standard with larger employers. I'm not sure why we make so many exceptions for small businesses.
Because they don't do the volume of business to absorb the loss.
Of course we could just have nothing but box stores and multinational conglomerates take over everything and every one can have their 9 sick days.
/s
Mandatory Paid Sick Leave: Will It Crush Small Businesses?
Hell ya!
i doubt that it will crush small businesses, but it will certainly crush the unemployment figures. small business will hire less and we can all expect a lower level of service. thanks politicians