City Council passes sick leave ordinance

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The City Council on Wednesday voted unanimously to make Portland the fourth U.S. city to mandate that businesses offer sick leave, requiring employers to give workers up to five days of sick leave each year.
The number of cities could soon expand to five. Philadelphia City Council members are expected to vote on a similar measure on Thursday.
Portland follows Seattle, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., in requiring earned sick time. Connecticut is the only state to pass such a law, but sick-leave bills have been introduced in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont.
"All of this is building the critical mass that we're going to need to pass it on the federal level," said Ellen Bravo, executive director of Family Values (at) Work, an advocacy group that works for paid sick days.
Portland's new policy says employees can earn one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked and businesses with at least six workers must offer paid sick leave. Smaller companies can provide unpaid time off.
Supporters of Portland's effort said the law will improve public health by allowing workers to stay home sick without fear of losing a day's pay or getting fired. Forty percent of Portland's private-sector workers currently do not get sick leave.
Susan Lund, who works at Fred Meyer, a Portland retail-and-grocery store, was joyous after the council's vote. Her company already provides sick pay, but workers can't access it until the third day of an illness.
"I can't afford that. I absolutely can't," she said. "So if my children are sick, if I'm sick, I now have a little cushion to fall back on."
Making the first two days of sick leave unpaid is vital in the perishable-foods industry because it cuts down on workers taking paid days off when they aren't really sick, Northwest Grocery Association president Joe Gilliam said. For example, there tend to be high absentee rates around three-day holidays and events like the Super Bowl, he said.
Gilliam and other business leaders said Portland should have granted exemptions to certain employers.
"Our criticism is that it's very myopic and one-size-fits-all," he said. "And it's going to cost the city jobs."
Opponents of mandatory sick leave are seeking to limit the ability of cities to pass such measures. Legislation to that effect is being considered in Florida, Washington, Mississippi and Michigan.
In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter vetoed such an ordinance in 2011.
Bravo said she believes the Philadelphia council can override another expected veto. There's more support from unions this time around and among new council members, she said.
Commissioner Amanda Fritz, the chief proponent of the Portland measure, acknowledged there will be costs to businesses, but said many Portland companies came forward to support the ordinance.
"This is not an extreme left-wing idea," Commissioner Steve Novick said. "One of my conservative friends, who constantly tells me that the United States is going to hell in a Communist hand-basket, constantly holds out Singapore as a shining example of unbridled capitalism. But Singapore has earned sick leave."
Gilliam said one provision in the ordinance is too far-reaching. Workers who are employed by companies in other cities but work the equivalent of 30 full-time days a year in Portland are also covered by the new policy.
"They are biting off more than they can chew," Gilliam said.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
I currently give all my Employees part-time and full time matching 401k up to 3% of their income, Vaction to the tune of 5 weeks, and the full time workers get 5 days sick leave already. If an employee is sick we have to have someone else cover their shift, adding to the cost of now paying them for sick leave. I feel that my companies benifits plan is more then generous! I can tell you this will cost my employees part of their generous vacation when this takes affect!  I've also heard that you better check your current Sick leave policy, because you just might have to give your employees 10. Depending upon how your wording reads in your policy.
This will have zero effect on my business, as I've always told my employees "if you're sick, stay home. That's why there is a sick leave policy." Any employer who doesn't provide sick time is probably losing 10% of productivity daily due to people fighting low level illness instead of taking a day off and getting well.
If giving people some paid sick days is going to break your business, you have more problems then sick days.
How can Portland afford it, Sam wasted all their money on toilets?
Restaurants already have a smaller than other businesses profit margin and now management will have to have an extra person scheduled at all times just in case. Be prepared to see dining out to cost us more.
@johncantrall Vastly superior is to have sick people preparing and serving your food. Read about Typhoid Mary (Anthony Bourdain wrote a very good book about her) who was a carrier and didn't appear sick. Now envision someone who knows thy're sick and worksin a restaurant and infects a few hundred. (You did know 25,000 -35,000 people die from the flu each year in the US, didn't you? Making it easier to spread is a really bad idea.)
I have yet to hear a good reason why the govt. should be making  this decision instead of  the owners of a  business.  I personally believe that in many  cases offering sick pay is a good thing. But just cause I think  its a reasonable idea,  doesn't make it something a govt should be able to compel a business to do......It should be the employers decision to make.  Especially on a city level where it will hurt the businesses within the city trying to compete with businesses outside the city.Â
I believe employers should provide a reasonable amount of sick leave but I also believe that is an employer's choice. Government dictating health and safety standards in the workplace is both necessary and appropriate. Government dictating employment policies and benefits is neither necessary nor appropriate. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
@I812Â IMO, working while sick IS a health and safety issue, particularly for those who come in contact with large numbers of people and those who handle food. Â If a person stays home for a few days while sick, that can translate to hundreds if not thousands of others not getting sick. Â This is such a no-brainer to me and frankly, I'm surprised there are still employers functioning in the dark ages regarding this issue. Â It's a cost of doing business, no different than providing clean bathroom facilities and ventilation. Â Probably more than anyone, this impacts the working poor, minimum wage (and close) workers. Â Even if an employee takes the full 5 days off a year, the cost to the employer is approximately $350 in wages. Â But if that employee infects 10 employees, the cost skyrockets to $3,500 plus the resulting loss in productivity. Â Â Â
@Sundowner @I812 It is substantially different than workplace safety and health issues which deal with equipment, chemicals, ventilation, air quality, respiratory protection, etc. Not everyone who comes in contact with someone who is ill gets sick. And the general public is full of people who are sick to one degree or another at any given time and they expose others they come ito contact with.Â
But, you miss my point. Government should not be dictating employment and benefit policies. Those are, and should remain, the purview of the employer.
Glad to see that this will welcome new business's to Portland. One step closer becoming the Detroit of the West Coast. Glad I left, and that the City I live in welcomes new business's.
@samsloohouse How would you like it if you went out to diner and the person waiting on you is sick?
@hokeywolf @samsloohouse apparently this guy wouldnt care and if he was the employer he wouldnt mind spreading sickness and causing a health concern all to save some money.Â
@samsloohouse Since you don't live in Portland or even Oregon, what difference does it make to you?  This is going to affect you in no possible way, but it will be wonderful for the working poor.  But then that really doesn't matter to you, does it?
@samsloohouse I am just curious, so you would rather employees get sick and not be able to afford being sick? Maybe I am just not seeing how this is bad.
One of my jobs requires constant contact with the public, most of whom are ill. Â That part is bad enough, but when an employee shows up feverish, runny nose, sneezing -- then all the employees end up sick within a few days. Â Any intelligent employer will provide paid sick leave to keep sick employees home. Â I'm no math whiz, but it's much more cost-effective to pay one person to stay home when ill than to have 75% of your workforce out due to their spreading their crud to everyone. Â
@Sundowner """""" Any intelligent employer will provide paid sick leave to keep sick employees home.  I'm no math whiz, but it's much more cost-effective to pay one person to stay home"""""""
I believe that to be true, and even assuming that it is....... what gives the govt. the right to dictate how the business is to be run. And hell, if its only 5 days out of the whole year.... what's wrong with expecting the employee to sock away one weeks pay just in case? its the responsible thing to do..... one or two less starbucks a week would go a long way in financing  the I'm too sick to work fund.Â
@kramr Apparently City Council has that right since they did it...just like they enact any number of things that impact employers, employees and citizens.  This will vastly improve the lives of the lowest-paid employees, IMO, the ones who can't sock away one week's pay (ever try that on minimum wage when you have kids to feed?).  Hopefully you're playing devil's advocate and not just being a hater, but can't you conservatives ever, ever cut poor people just a hair of slack?  Â
@Sundowner @kramr  so to your way of thinking..... is there no end to the power govts can exert over business??
Hell, why not require business to pay $20 an hour,  four  weeks pd vac, every year and must increase their pay at twice the CPI rate.Â
If thats not enough,  how about  having the govt  dictate what foods could be served and what can't at restaurants,  dictate what size soft drinks we can buy.Â
I'm sure you'd also be fine with local govt's dictating what we can set our home thermostats at. Â
Where should govt. intrusion  into our lives stop??
Those on the left  foolishly think that just cause we don't want any new laws don't think there should be any...... Of course there needs to be some reasonable laws, but dictating  benefits that business MUST  pay is asinine.Â
@Sundowner @kramr
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2010/12/those-stingy-liberals.html
@kramr Since there IS no link, it's a little difficult for me to read whatever rightie info you decided to share.  Good luck with the "govt off the back of business"....if they weren't, the EPA violations alone would have ensured we'd have filthy water, contaminated food and no protection for workers from workplace health/safety hazards.  I really hoped you WERE playing devil's advocate.....sadly, you come across as most conservatives do -- it's all about the mighty buck.  Your last paragraph tells me you still are a part of the 'stupid party' and just don't get what it's like for the poorest of the poor.  But don't stop -- that mindset is what keeps your 'side' from winning the elections that matter.Â
@Sundowner @kramr  not being a hater,  just want the govt  off the back of business.Â
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals can be so generous with other peoples money, but as a whole they are the most  stingy  people on earth when it comes to giving their own money.  Â
%s
from the link
""""""Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.""""
Just look at B HO's own tax records....... his giving to charities  (as a %% of his income) was next to nothing up until the year  he started running for national office  and his tax records would  become public. Â
BTW  SD,  the min wage mom you talk about  would be getting  hundreds in food stamps each month,  her kid would be on the OHP and possibly the mother as well.  She would also qualify for rent assistance.  oh and lets not forget her free obama phone.  yes, i do believe it is quite possible for virtually anyone to save  a few bucks each month.Â
When you work for a long period of time in any industry that doesnt provide benefits, having to take sick days can make or break you. It can make it harder for you to do your job and even put you or your employer in a state of liability depending on which job you have. It would seem to me that this should be common sense that people get paid sick leave. Its pretty bad when people have to fear being sick for fear of losing their job.
I worked in grocery for 10 years, and I guarantee all you people whinging about this will benefit from it. Â Epidemiological studies have traced a HUGE portion of the spread of viruses like influenza to grocery stores and restaurants because service workers make too little to take an unpaid sick day. Â This endangers the elderly, the very young, and pregnant mothers, as well as costing the economy hundreds of billions in lost productivity. Â Mandating paid sick time is a no-brainer, and only a wingnut would complain about it.
@Diogenes well apparently people would rather a sick person handle their food than force private industry to allow people to have paid sick time. I may not like our current president, but I remember him saying someone that struck true to me, no person should have to fear getting sick for not being able to afford being sick. Something along those lines.
Simple solution, Send the city the bill for wages for the sick employee's absents! If the city is unwilling to pay the bill, why should employers!
IMHO its a stupid idea for a city to require this.... for example  take the Beaverton-Hillsdale hwy just east of the intersection of  Scholls ferry road is the Portland city limits (multco line).  So businesses in Multco are required to pay sick time and  the businesses just a few feet a way west  in Washco do not.   So Safeway  on BH hwy  @ scholls  has to pay sick time but Freddies just a couple blocks west does not ...... how stupid is that.Â
This is the kind law that should be state wide or not at all....... Â and my hope is not at all since its the should be the choice of the business owner if they want to pay sick time or not. Â
@kramr I agree with you, sort of, right up to the point where the food worker has to come in to work with E. Coli to keep his job.  At that point, I sorta start thinking PTO is a pretty good thing.  Ever the realist, if it actually keeps people sick at home where they belong, I got no problem.
If PTO isn't going to be offered, I'd be mollified with improved regulations allowing up to 40 hours unpaid sick time off per year legally guaranteed to not impact your performance rating. Â People get sick, it's a reality that can't be avoided. Â You shouldn't have to fear for your job if you get the flu. Â But really, folks at the bottom of the economic ladder can't afford even unpaid time off. Â Giving them PTO isn't a gift to them, it's a self-serving enlightened self-interest gift to ME.
@Festivus @kramr Â
Fest, Â I personally think its a good idea for businesses to pay sick time, I just think its should be the decision of the business and not the govt. Â
I know  several small business owners in the construction type  businesses  that to keep it simple just pay their employees a better hourly wage than break it out into vacation and/or sick time  and their employees seems to be fine with that.  Fortunately for all of  owners that I know their business address is outside Portland  so they are not stuck with this nonsense.Â
@kramr @Festivus But then it's like voluntary vaccinations - what's the point? Â
@Festivus I kinda like your idea of 40 hours sick without pay and without it affecting your performance rating. I also think an employer should be able to ask you not to come to work if you're sick. It could devastate a small company or an entire department.
We have all seen those employees who are only sick on Mondays, who only have Dr. appts on Fridays. Who have so many car problem you wonder if their car shouldn't be condemned. The people who over the last year have had every family member either in the hospital, in an accident or die unexpectedly.
I think as long as you can legally document and reprimand those that use their sick days with that type of pattern, then your idea would work.
a little less government, please.Â
Just in time before my upcoming back surgery.I can make good use of the money.Nothing exciting about paying the bills though.
This benefits me, But I'm still against it for some reason.
looks like the new regime is picking up where the old one left off. Sticking their fingers in business it doesn't belong!
Why is the city council dictating how a private business should operate? What exactly gives them this legal right? So glad I moved out of Multnomah Co.
@axpman RIght.  And what's with all those minimum wage, child labor, pollution, and workplace safety laws?  What happened to my freedom?
Since there's no real place to ask this question, is anyone else finding Livefyre and the KATU sight in general to have become slow and buggy to the point of uselessness? Â It's gotten so bad I almost don't want to participate here some days, no doubt to the delight of many.
@Festivus """"""Since there's no real place to ask this question, is anyone else finding Livefyre and the KATU sight in general to have become slow and buggy to the point of uselessness?  ,"""""""
I have experienced the same thing..... its the worst with  MS explorer but gets a little better with Chrome or firefox. Â
"""""""Â It's gotten so bad I almost don't want to participate here some days no doubt to the delight of many."""""""
I want to see you around, I enjoy your comments ..... even if I don't agree with many of  them  you at least put some thought  into them...... now sarg on the there hand  LOL
@kramr @FestivusThanks, Kramr.  It wouldn't be any fun without a little back and forth, would it?
@Festivus @kramr Hahahaha!  Wrong lady for that but thanks for the laugh!Â
@Sundowner @kramr @Festivus Quit lookin' for a three-way around every corner.
@kramr @Festivus Why, Mr. kramr -- are you being all warm and fuzzy and you left me out?  I think I've "known" you longer than Festivus -- my feelers are hurt.
@Festivus @kramr  exactly,  :)Â
 far more interesting to hear comments on both sides.Â
@Festivus If you are currently using Internet Explorer, try downloading mozilla firefox web browser and using it when you visit this site. Another one to try is google's chrome web browser. You can have both, (or all three) on your computer and pick and choose which one you want to use I use IE for most everything else,and firefox for katu.
@danoseknows @Festivus I haven't used IE in several incarnations now.  I'm a software developer by trade, so I know a POS when I see it.  Even Firefox got too big and bloated a while back.  Been using Chrome for some time now, but for a truly lean experience, try Opera.  But for a few compatibility issues, I'd probably use it full time.
@Owt_Raged @Festivus I liked Opera in that it really was nothing but a nuts and bolts browser with no frills.  It's been a couple of years since I tried it, so I can't speak to its compatibility now, which was a little weak back then - but not terrible.  I think they were missing an extension for my password management plug-in at the time, or some other annoying fatality.  Performance wise, it beat both Firefox and IE.  I've never compared it to Chrome.
@Festivus what is up with FF lately? I used to love it. I too have migrated over to chrome for most things. I had heard about opera a few years ago. Not useful then. Is it better now?
And who uses IE anymore?
@Festivus @danoseknows If you design software, then you know a great deal more about all of this than I do, but I was having nothing but trouble on this web site until I started using firefox. Also a big drop in the number of tracking cookies as well.
This comment has been deleted
@feral Ghostery works great, aside from the amount of work it takes to whitelist a site.
@feral I've got cookies turned off.  AdBlock's probably not a bad idea, but in general this is the ONLY site I have trouble with. Â
@Festivus It was very bad yesterday starting about 5pm.  So no, this isn't the wrong place to ask -- it's the perfect place!