By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 28, 2007

The District could become the second U.S. city to require employers to provide paid sick leave to all workers, a move advocates say could protect employees from having to choose between keeping themselves healthy and keeping their job. Opponents say such a law could prompt businesses to reduce benefits and lay off workers.

The D.C. Council is scheduled to vote on the measure Jan. 8 after several months of negotiations.

Under the bill, large businesses, defined as having 51 employees or more, would have to provide up to seven days of paid leave. Small businesses -- those with 10 or fewer workers -- would have to offer up to three days. Two other categories of employers would fall in between, and part-time workers would get half the number of days.

Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) worked with business and employee representatives on the bill, reducing an initial mandate of up to 10 days of paid leave for employers with six or more workers.

"It really is a good compromise that I worked hard to fashion," she said.

Schwartz will meet with business leaders Thursday to discuss the measure and address concerns.

A growing national movement is pushing for mandates on paid sick leave, especially for workers receiving low wages and working part time. Legislation is pending in eight states and in Congress.

About 48 percent of U.S. workers do not receive paid sick leave, including an estimated 210,000 people employed in the District, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, which lobbies for legislation on sick leave.

The D.C. measure falls short of a law on sick leave in San Francisco, which became a pioneer when 61 percent of voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative to require that employers of 10 or fewer workers provide five days of paid leave and that larger employers give nine days. The law went into effect in February.

"From our perspective, the implementation has been very smooth," said Greg Asay, a senior analyst with the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. "We spent a lot of time educating employers on the front end."

But the District proposal also applies paid leave to "safe days," meaning that workers could take time off for medical, legal or psychological reasons related to domestic violence or sexual abuse.

Opponents say they are concerned that such a law in the District could significantly hurt businesses. "The biggest problem we see at this point is that there has not been adequate effort to assess the costs of this to businesses," said Andrew Kline, general counsel to the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington.

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."