State House expected to pass paid leave bill
HARTFORD — Employers who don’t offer paid days off would be subject to a mandatory three-year phase-in to do so, under legislation that House Democrats predicted would win approval Wednesday. A long debate on the House floor was anticipated before a vote, with Republicans calling the measure an unnecessary new burden for Connecticut business.
The House, dominated by Democrats 97-54, began debate around 11:40 a.m., but Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, House Majority Leader Jason Rojas and state Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New Britain, co-chairman of the legislative Labor & Public Employees Committee all said they were confident the legislation would pass and head to the state Senate.
Under the proposed bill, workers would have to accrue 120 days of employment before being eligible for paid time off. As many as 1.6 million workers could benefit from the legislation if it becomes law.
In introducing the bill on the House floor, Sanchez said he and Rep. Derell
Wilson, D-Norwich, spent the last year reaching out to lawmakers and advocates on both sides of the aisle on the issue. “This bill’s common sense,” Sanchez said. “If you or someone in your family is sick, you could stay home and use earned paid sick time. You keep your place of employment safe and get the time you need to tend to yourself or your loved ones.”
Sanchez noted that the bill would primarily help part-time and low-wage workers. He added that over the years concessions were made and and the scope of the bill was sharpened. “We are so
lucky to live in a state where the vast majority of employers and businesses already do this.”
Republicans led by House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora and Rep. Steve Weir, of Hebron, a ranking Republican on the Labor Committee, focused on a section of the bill that would create a task force to study potential tax breaks for business owners who comply.
Weir, a small business owner, stood in the House debate and agreed that he had opportunities to confer with Democrats on the bill, and believes small business owners are concerned.
“The proponents feel that this is something good, that this is something we should do,” he said, noting that generally, Democrats have in recent years called the legislation paid sick leave. “Number one, this is not sick leave. This is leave that can be taken for any reason, whether sick time to be with a family, or mental health.”
He added that a provision that would have required the consultation of a physician was deleted from the legislation. “This could be for someone to take a day off and go to the beach,” Weir said. “Let’s just be honest. It provides an unfunded mandate on our employers.”
Candelora, speaking with reporters prior to the House session, said that Democrats recognize the potential impact on the economy, “because this is a benefit that businesses cannot afford to pay.” He blasted the proposal for “micromanaging businesses” by preventing employers from even asking workers why they are taking time off. “You’re going to need an accountant to calculate every hour that accrues for each employee. It’s unworkable. Only government could pass a bill like this and thinks it’s okay. If they wanted to do this mandate, they could make it workable for businesses.”
Businesses with 50 or more employees are required to offer paid time off based on the number of hours worked. Under the bill, employers of as many as 25 people would have to offer paid time off starting next Jan. 1. Under the phase-in, the threshold would decrease to 11 workers in 2026, and finally down to one employee in 2027.
Seventeen other states have adopted similar rules. Candelora said that more-acceptable legislation should have used some of the $700-million surplus in the state’s Paid Leave Authority program, which offers up to 12-weeks of salary replacement for people whose pay is deducted by a 0.5 percent tax.
Before the day’s session, Ritter, Rojas, Sanchez and Wilson explained the bill. Ritter said last year the bill failed but the current proposal reflects the work that was put into it. Seasonal workers, such as summer camp employees and those at amusement parks, would not be eligible because they would have to work for 120 days to qualify. Workers whose bosses offer 40 hours of vacation time would also be exempt.
“If your child is sick at school, if you’re sick, and you can’t have any time off, and you’re choosing between paying your rent or getting a day off, and you’re working 35, 40 hours a week, I think a lot of us would say people deserve time off,” Ritter said. “I just think this ends up covering a very small subset of persons, mostly part-time people, probably working at very large fast-food type establishments, chain type establishments, not the good local employer. I think the pandemic taught us a few things about that.”
“We’re trying to strike a balance between work and life,” Rojas said.