Bill for mandatory sick leave

[demopublican]

Unbelievable.
Who he thinks that most people will just happen to get sick enough to max out all of their days. We already heard that teachers abuse their system.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business...,2785842.story

If the cost of mandatory employment benifits is increased, many businesses will simply remove other benifits.

Workers in Maryland would be guaranteed seven paid sick days a year under a introduced Thursday in Annapolis, eliminating what advocates say is an "impossible choice" that thousands of mostly low-wage employees are forced to make between preserving their health or their jobs.

"Folks are now in a place where they have to make these impossible choices," said Del. John A. Olszewski Jr., a Baltimore County Democrat and sponsor, noting that for many people, three unpaid sick days can equal a month's worth of groceries.

But the Earned Sick and Safe Time Act — to be cross-filed in the Senate and the House of Delegates — will likely face stiff opposition from business interests, which argue that the measure would hurt employers with fewer than 50 workers. Under the bill, workers would earn one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

[demopublican]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...eachers-unions

I bet Rodricks endorses this legislation anyway.

[Wizard777]

I was pleasantly surprized by this bill. When I first read the headline my initial reaction was, I thought state employees already got paid sick leave. But as it turns out the legislature is actually thinking about the people in the private sector who also pay that mountain of taxes they like to levee.

Sure you can look at this as a loss. But that can be off set by preventing a loss of productivity due to a sick person coming to work to spread viruses and bacteria to coworkers and customers. Then over the next week or two everyone is sick. Also a loss of business because customers have seen sick employees working and they're not sure which disease will served as a side dish with their lunch. Because they don't get paid sick leave they too cannot afford to get sick. So they just don't patronize your small or large business. That is far more devistating to small businesses than big business. So with paid sick leave companies of all sizes can maintain a firm policy of sick employees do not come to work.

[demopublican]

I was pleasantly surprized by this bill. When I first read the headline my initial reaction was, I thought state employees already got paid sick leave. But as it turns out the legislature is actually thinking about the people in the private sector who also pay that mountain of taxes they like to levee.

Sure you can look at this as a loss. But that can be off set by preventing a loss of productivity due to a sick person coming to work to spread viruses and bacteria to coworkers and customers. Then over the next week or two everyone is sick. Also a loss of business because customers have seen sick employees working and they're not sure which disease will served as a side dish with their lunch. Because they don't get paid sick leave they too cannot afford to get sick. So they just don't patronize your small or large business. That is far more devistating to small businesses than big business. So with paid sick leave companies of all sizes can maintain a firm policy of sick employees do not come to work.

Are you really too dim to understand that these businesses will simply remove other non mandatory benefits from the employee compensation package?

[Informed Thinker]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...eachers-unions

I bet Rodricks endorses this legislation anyway.

Investigating the use of teacher sick days is an issue that can create many unintended consequences that will roll over into the private sector. Yes teachers abuse their sick days there is no doubt about that. However that is not all teachers nor is it most teachers. One of the best ways to examine the issue is to look at retirement data and the number of unused sick days teachers get credited with towards their retirement years worked. However a reality of teaching is the high number of woman in the field. Woman get pregnant and when they have babies they go on child bearing leave and use up their sick days. Thus creating a pool of teachers who are going to use any number of sick days for consecutive weeks. Also much of American culture still has the mom staying home when children are sick. Often the parent who teaches will have a substitute to help fill in for them while the non teaching spouse doesn't. Teaching can be difficult and challenging and some times during the month some folks are just not as able to deal with the human interaction of challenging students. Are students more likely to be disciplined, suspended or not learn as much when their teacher is feeling ill and not well? Should we not hire teachers who get headaches and lots of folks do. Get migraines or clulster headaches and try dealing with the world of teaching. Some jobs are easier to work through when not at the top of your game and others aren't. Schools are cesspools of things that create health issues. Amongst them are old flourescent light bulbs that are known to create headaches etc etc oh yeah and out dated HVAC systems and you have headache factories for students and staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluores...mps_and_health

Flicker Effects

CFLs are driven by electronic ballasts which operate in the range of 25–60 kHz, which far exceeds the human ability to perceive flicker (25–70 Hz). What is perceived as flicker is actually pupillary flicker or pupillary flutter. Pupillary flicker is the effect of the pupil responding to neural stimulation, typically in response to red/blue light (red/blue pupillary flicker).[12][13] While some people who are intolerant of magnetically ballasted fluorescent lighting tolerate electronically ballasted fluorescents (including CFLs), the pupillary flicker response is not dependent on stimulation from line current (mains current) flicker. CFLs share the characteristic of producing light in a spiked spectral pattern, with low illumination between spikes. This 'spiked' spectral pattern is associated with stimulation of the red-blue pupillary flicker response. People subject to this response report various neurological effects ranging from drowsiness to migraines.

So will folks be demanding that lighting be updated in all work places both public and private to eliminate the remaining use of ballast based flourescent lighting? Wow flourescent bulbs with ballast in schools with minimal outdoor lighting. What is that doing to teacher sick days or sickness in the private sector.

[mythoughts]

Who gets sick 7 times a year?......or even for 7 days a year?
I would 3 or 4 days would be plenty. Anything above that should require the employees to use vacation days if they want to get paid.
I think if businesses are forced to do this they will make up the loss by reducing vacation days to their employees. They may not recoup all of their losses from this but instead of offering 2 weeks of vacation they will give the mandatory 7 sick days and only 1 week of vacation. And instead of offering 2 weeks of vacation after 3 years it might take 5 years to earn the extra vacation. So once again the honest employee will wind up being the real loser in this. Businesses will find a way to offset this demand if this passes.

[Fang]

Unbelievable.
Who he thinks that most people will just happen to get sick enough to max out all of their days. We already heard that teachers abuse their system.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business...,2785842.story

If the cost of mandatory employment benifits is increased, many businesses will simply remove other benifits.

This is an excellent bill. I would easily support this. In fact, I would argue 7 days isn't enough. I would like to see at least 10 sick days and 3 weeks vacation mandatory.

[Wizard777]

Who gets sick 7 times a year?......or even for 7 days a year?
I would 3 or 4 days would be plenty. Anything above that should require the employees to use vacation days if they want to get paid.
I think if businesses are forced to do this they will make up the loss by reducing vacation days to their employees. They may not recoup all of their losses from this but instead of offering 2 weeks of vacation they will give the mandatory 7 sick days and only 1 week of vacation. And instead of offering 2 weeks of vacation after 3 years it might take 5 years to earn the extra vacation. So once again the honest employee will wind up being the real loser in this. Businesses will find a way to offset this demand if this passes.

Who get's sick for only one day? Colds can last a week and there have been Flu's that lasted up to two weeks. I think you just told on yourself. You need to quit using your sick days for hangovers.

[demopublican]

This is an excellent bill. I would easily support this. In fact, I would argue 7 days isn't enough. I would like to see at least 10 sick days and 3 weeks vacation mandatory.

Just go ahead and make it 365 sick days and you won't need any vacation.

[demopublican]

Who get's sick for only one day? Colds can last a week and there have been Flu's that lasted up to two weeks. I think you just told on yourself. You need to quit using your sick days for hangovers.

With all this obammycare I didn't think people we going to get sick anymore.

[Fang]

If you get the flu that's 3 or 4 days right there. Head colds, stomach viruses. Go ahead and add a mental stress sick day as well. Stuff happens.

But more importantly, what about family members that employees need to attend to? Employees with young kids in daycare know what it's like when these kids pass an illness back & forth. I have several single friends who have elderly parents to attend to. I have one single friend who's sister is in chemo. Stuff happens in life and to think people only need a couple of sick days is just ridiculous.

People value their personal time and value the time they need to attend to personal matters or to heal. I think overall Americans as a society drive it's work force way to hard.

Speaking from personal experience, I have one more week vacation and several more sick days on my current job than I did on my last job and I'm much more productive. For me more time in the office did not equate to more work getting done. But having a company that respects my personal time is big for me. Likewise, my company gets a better rested employee who turns out better quality work.

[demopublican]

How about sole proprietors?

Shouldn't the state pay for their day off?

[demopublican]

And how about salesmen? I am sure they would have made that big sale of their sick day.
Waiters and waitresses should be paid anticipated tips as well.

[Fang]

How about sole proprietors?

Shouldn't the state pay for their day off?

A sole business owner should be able to do whatever he or she wants. In that situation the state would not pay. There's a huge difference between owning your own business and being an employee. When the business owner hires staff, that is when the laws would apply.

I get that this isn't a cut and dry situation. But when applying laws like this nothing really is ever cut and dry.

[demopublican]

The day this passes vacation times will be reduced by the exact number of days that the state mandates.

[demopublican]

This is an excellent bill. I would easily support this. In fact, I would argue 7 days isn't enough. I would like to see at least 10 sick days and 3 weeks vacation mandatory.

I honestly thought you were kidding. Is this for real?

So you want 25 mandatory days of paid leave for every private employee in the state?

The average employee in Maryland makes $52600. There are about 260 working days in a year. So that is about $200 per day cost to employers or $5,000 in mandated cost to the employers. Not to mention the disruption to the business when people call in last minute. And of course minimum wage is going up, and the fuel taxes, and on and on.

[Fang]

I honestly thought you were kidding. Is this for real?

So you want 25 mandatory days of paid leave for every private employee in the state?

The average employee in Maryland makes $52600. There are about 260 working days in a year. So that is about $200 per day cost to employers or $5,000 in mandated cost to the employers. Not to mention the disruption to the business when people call in last minute. And of course minimum wage is going up, and the fuel taxes, and on and on.

No, I'm dead serious about this. The exact number of days off for vacation and sick is certainly debatable. But I do think the average US worker is worked to hard. Private time off is every bit as important as giving 100% when you're in the office. The balance between work and life needs to be fair for both sides.

I think there are many managers out there that couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Working more hours and setting unrealistic deadlines seems to be the answer to everything. As someone who managed for 10 years I believe letting your employee have more time off for whatever reason equates to a more productive and happy work environment. Everyone wins in that scenario.

I interviewed for a company a few years ago that only gave 10 days a year for vacation AND sick. That's just ridiculous. I turned down their offer and went with another company that gave more time off. The pay was about the same for both companies. I'm glad to say my reviews have all been great for my company. So that company I turned down really missed out.

I almost see this law as making it more fair for employees and also saving managers from their own stupidity.

[Informed Thinker]

No, I'm dead serious about this. The exact number of days off for vacation and sick is certainly debatable. But I do think the average US worker is worked to hard. Private time off is every bit as important as giving 100% when you're in the office. The balance between work and life needs to be fair for both sides.

I think there are many managers out there that couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Working more hours and setting unrealistic deadlines seems to be the answer to everything. As someone who managed for 10 years I believe letting your employee have more time off for whatever reason equates to a more productive and happy work environment. Everyone wins in that scenario.

I interviewed for a company a few years ago that only gave 10 days a year for vacation AND sick. That's just ridiculous. I turned down their offer and went with another company that gave more time off. The pay was about the same for both companies. I'm glad to say my reviews have all been great for my company. So that company I turned down really missed out.

I almost see this law as making it more fair for employees and also saving managers from their own stupidity.

You are a positive example of the axiom:

Benefits offered are a product of skills presented. You had good skills and job performance and you were able to achieve the benefits you wanted. Lesser skilled and performance workers get what is offered at their level.

[demopublican]

No, I'm dead serious about this. The exact number of days off for vacation and sick is certainly debatable. But I do think the average US worker is worked to hard. Private time off is every bit as important as giving 100% when you're in the office. The balance between work and life needs to be fair for both sides.

I think there are many managers out there that couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Working more hours and setting unrealistic deadlines seems to be the answer to everything. As someone who managed for 10 years I believe letting your employee have more time off for whatever reason equates to a more productive and happy work environment. Everyone wins in that scenario.

I interviewed for a company a few years ago that only gave 10 days a year for vacation AND sick. That's just ridiculous. I turned down their offer and went with another company that gave more time off. The pay was about the same for both companies. I'm glad to say my reviews have all been great for my company. So that company I turned down really missed out.

I almost see this law as making it more fair for employees and also saving managers from their own stupidity.

I am glad you found a better job. Sounds like the market worked and you choose they employer that offered a package best suited to you. Great news.
This law will shrink the job market and reduce oppurtunities.

[Informed Thinker]

I am glad you found a better job. Sounds like the market worked and you choose they employer that offered a package best suited to you. Great news.
This law will shrink the job market and reduce oppurtunities.

This is just another example of folks increasing the operating cost for a business to operate in Maryland. Hmmmm how far a drive is suburban Virginia?

What happens if Progressives push us down the path of Illinois and this becomes our future?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0AZ6TQ20130130

CHICAGO, Jan 30 (Reuters) - Illinois yanked a $500 million general obligation bond issue slated for Wednesday because of credit concerns that could boost its borrowing costs, in the latest financial blow to the state, which has failed to fix its bloated public pensions.

Investment banks that planned to bid on the debt indicated investors would demand higher yields on the 25-year bonds, said John Sinsheimer, Illinois' capital markets director.

Folks better think twice about the state becoming involved with bond auctions for building rennovations in Balt City. How quickly can a business or indvidual relocate from Illinois to Wisconsin?