This article about a proposed D.C. Council bill on paid sick leave incorrectly said that the Institute for Women's Policy Research lobbies for such legislation. The institute is a nonprofit organization that is prohibited from lobbying. The article also said a report studying the legislation was issued by research fellows at George Washington University. Research students at the university prepared the report for the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, which distributed the report.
| Page 2 of 2 < |
Vote Set in D.C. on Mandating Paid Sick Leave
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Barbara Lang, president and chief executive of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, said the council needs to take more time to study the fiscal impact on businesses. "At the end of the day, what we want to see is that we mitigate any unintended consequences," she said.
Those costs could include trimming 401(k) plans, cutting staffs and offering narrower health plans, she said. "Those are not the kind of trade-offs you want businesses to make," Lang said.
Employers would pay an average of $10.35 more a week per employee to be in compliance, said Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, which studies the District's finances. "It's not nothing, but it's not huge," he said. "It's not as big and scary as they think."
Advocates also say businesses should look at benefits from a reduction in turnover and from workers not spreading illnesses to colleagues. The Institute for Women's Policy Research concluded that there would be "positive net benefits" of more than $10 million a year.
But research fellows at George Washington University issued a report warning that analyses by the women's institute have had "very little outside scrutiny."
"While the policy most directly impacts employees and employers, there may be long-ranging effects of the law on other groups in the community and even residents outside the immediate geographic area," the report says. "This is extremely likely in Washington, D.C. where economic fluctuations within the city have a clear impact on the surrounding metropolitan area in Virginia and Maryland."
The GWU report makes arguments for both sides of the issue, and several of its recommendations, including reducing the burden for small businesses, were adopted in the bill's amended version.
However, council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who proposed the bill, said the changes might go too far. "I wish the bill was closer to what was introduced," he said.
Mendelson proposed the legislation after being approached by the D.C. Employment Justice Center, an advocate for low-wage workers. The center holds legal clinics each week to help employees with problems, such as failing to get paid or suffering discrimination, said Karen Minatelli, the center's deputy director.
"At the clinics, we could see a pattern of workers who were forced to go to work sick or risk losing their jobs," she said. "It's ironic that the ones least likely to be able to afford not getting paid are the ones less likely to get" paid leave.
Said Mendelson, known as a supporter of labor: "It's a matter of basic fairness to workers."







