Remember the basics
City had plenty to do without sick- pay fight
Pennsylvania’s highest court traveled an interesting route in reaching the conclusion that Pittsburgh employers can be required to provide paid sick leave to their workers. The Supreme Court justices viewed the municipal ordinance through the lens of public health.
The city’s Paid Sick Day Act was passed in August 2015 and has been battled since by some in the business community, who had won their argument at the Commonwealth Court level. The point of contention was whether the city had overreached its authority.
Setting aside that question for a minute, the right to paid sick leave seems a no- brainer for the smart employer. One sick employee can lead to another then another in a matter of hours. And that can lead to sick customers. A sick employee is an unproductive employee. A sick customer isn’t good business. The Supreme Court is right: Paid sick time is a public health matter. And it’s humane.
As to city overreach, the Supreme Court settled the argument, albeit on the narrowest of votes ( 4- 3). The cost to the city’s property owners, who financed the fight, shouldn’t be overlooked. And it’s unfortunate that it took Pittsburgh’s taxpayers to wrangle an edict that should have been embraced by the business community at large, if not state government and the federal government. Those with even a glimmer of enlightened self- interest should see the value of paid sick leave.
The city’s ordinance requires employers to offer workers one hour of sick leave for every 35 hours worked. Businesses with 15 or more employees must offer up to five days of sick leave annually. Businesses with fewer than 15 employees must offer up to three days. Some estimates reflect that 40% of employees in Pittsburgh have no sick leave.
The court acknowledged a “not insignificant” burden on businesses as a result of its decision but concluded the ordinance “bears a direct nexus with public health” and, therefore, is within the authority of the state’s 1955 Disease Prevention and Control Law, which allows cities to enact regulations pertaining to disease prevention.
The decision should herald change across Pennsylvania. That’s a good thing. And Pittsburgh’s forwardthinking approach to workers’ rights — toward creating a humane environment — wins applause. But, seeking and battling for these initiatives — the cost of which is shouldered by city residents — should be weighed in advance of lengthy and expensive court battles. Alternatives should be sought. For example, could city leaders have whipped votes in the Legislature? Or could they have formed a consortium with like- minded municipalities across the commonwealth so the costs of the legal battle were shared? Most important, initiatives that push the envelope on overreach should not come at the expense of meeting traditional municipal obligations: patching potholes, maintaining city- owned and public used properties, and properly staffing and training public safety employees.