"NYC close to sick day mandate" by Jennifer Peltz | Associated Press, May 09, 2013
NEW YORK — In a significant victory amid a push for paid sick time laws around the country, New York City lawmakers voted Wednesday to make businesses provide the benefit to an estimated 1 million workers who do not have it now.
Saying they hoped that requiring sick leave in the nation’s largest metropolis would set an example, City Council members positioned New York to become the most populous place to approve such a law during a campaign that has scored several victories but also a number of defeats. A mayoral veto is expected, but so is an override.
Advocates see the measure as a signal accomplishment, although it has limits and conditions.
“It’s very important that it’s happening in the biggest city,” said Ellen Bravo, executive director of Family Values at Work, which promotes paid sick time initiatives around the country. Besides the big-city setting, the New York measure also attracted some boldface-name backers, including feminist Gloria Steinem and “Sex and the City” actress Cynthia Nixon.
Related: Healey Will Help Babson
Well, you see who Stienem works for, and the whore from "Sex and the City" isn't a much better role model, sorry.
Supporters see paid sick time as a basic matter of working conditions, akin to a minimum wage, and a way to stop coughing, sneezing employees from spreading germs to their colleagues and customers. The New York measure’s sponsor, Councilwoman Gale Brewer, says it is about “a workplace that is safe, fair, and respectful of the lives of workers.”
I'm for it, but not for their reasons. I'm for it because it's a worker's rights issue.
Critics say some small enterprises cannot afford the benefit, and businesses resent the implication that they are forcing ailing employees to work and creating a public health problem.
Government should let bosses and employees work out sick time arrangements on their own, they say. Some restaurants, for example, have shift-switching systems instead of paid time off, partly on the premise that servers would rather not lose out on tips.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg complained that the measure would “hurt small businesses and stifle job creation” in a statement in March....
The homeless king of the country!
Workers could choose to work extra hours instead of taking sick time, a provision that could be attractive to those who would rather trade shifts than call in sick....
The measure passed 45 to 3.
Supporters view the New York measure as a bellwether for a cause being pressed in Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state by various groups, including the Working Families Party. Saltsman, though, questions whether the idea will gain traction outside a liberal core of cities.
Paid sick time measures have been approved in Portland, Ore.; San Francisco; Seattle; Washington, D.C.; and the state of Connecticut.
But the Wisconsin Legislature blocked a voter-approved Milwaukee paid sick time requirement, Denver voters rejected one, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter vetoed one last month; an override attempt failed.
--more--"
You know, if it's good enough for New York City, it's good enough for....
"GOP seeking alternative to overtime pay in private sector" by Sam Hananel | Associated Press, May 07, 2013
WASHINGTON — It seems like a simple proposition: give employees who work more than 40 hours a week the option of taking paid time off instead of overtime pay.
The choice already exists in the public sector. Federal and state workers can save earned time off and use it weeks or even months later to attend a parent-teacher conference, care for an elderly parent, or deal with home repairs.
Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would extend that option to the private sector. They say that would bring more flexibility to the workplace and help workers better balance family and career.
The push is part of a broader Republican agenda undertaken by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, to expand the party’s political appeal to working families. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week, but the Democratic-controlled Senate isn’t likely to take it up....
Yes, once again we are wasting time and print on s***-show political fooleys.
The idea Republicans promote as ‘‘pro-worker’’ is vigorously opposed by worker advocacy groups, labor unions, and most Democrats, who claim it’s really a backdoor way for businesses to skimp on overtime pay.
Unless it is in New York City.
The White House on Monday issued a veto threat, saying the bill undermines the right to overtime pay and doesn’t offer enough protection for workers who may not want to receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.
‘‘This is nothing more than an effort to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse,’’ said Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Families....
The program was created in the public sector in 1985 to save federal, state, and local governments money, not to give workers greater flexibility, Lichtman said.
Oh, it WASN'T DONE for the people it is CLAIMED in the NAME OF? Again?
Many workers in federal and state government are unionized or have civil service protections that give them more leverage in dealing with supervisors, she added. Those safeguards don’t always exist in the private sector, where only about 6.6 percent of employees are union members....
They are existing less and less in state government, or haven't you been paying attention?
The GOP plan is an effort to change the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which requires covered employees to receive time-and-a-half pay for every hour over 40 within a work week. The proposal would allow workers to bank up to 160 hours, or four weeks, of comp time per year that could be used to take time off for any reason.
The bill would let an employee decide to cash out comp time at any time, and forbids employers from coercing workers to take comp time instead of cash.
Republicans and business groups have tried to pass the plan in some form since the 1990s. Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy for the US Chamber of Commerce, insists it’s not about reducing wage costs.
‘‘It’s an alternative to the mandated paid leave approaches that Democrats typically support,’’ Freedman said. ‘‘We believe it’s more appropriate to give employers the choice on whether they want to do this.’’
Democrats say the bill provides no guarantee that workers would be able to take the time off when they want. The bill gives employers discretion over whether to grant a specific request to use comp time.
Opponents also complain that banking leave time essentially gives employers an interest free loan from workers.
Then why are they complaining in New York?
--more--"
"House passes bill expanding comp time" by Julia Edwards | Globe Correspondent, May 08, 2013
WASHINGTON — The measure is unlikely to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate and President Obama has threatened a veto, but it carries political value for Republicans who can argue they were attempting to give employers and employees a broader range of compensation options. Republicans — who are seeking support from more female voters — are calling the bill fair and pro-family.
I've had it with the games when both parties are stabbing us in the back.
“I think this goes beyond party affiliation,’’ said Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California . “This goes to the core of what America believes, and it empowers the individual.”
The bill, approved 223 to 204, would allow employees who work more than 40 hours a week to save up to 160 hours of earned time off for future use. GOP lawmakers say they want to give busy parents at private firms the same flexibility that public sector workers have to take time off with their children or to care for aging parents.
But Massachusetts legislators and labor unions say the bill, titled “The Working Families Flexibility Act,” offers flexibility in title only.
Democrats say the bill would allow employers to pressure workers into taking time off instead of overtime wages. They also said it gives employers too much power to decide when an employee can take the additional time off.
“It isn’t flexibility for families when they cannot take the time when they need it,” said Elizabeth Toulan, comanager of the Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition.
Employees who elect to take time off would be awarded 50 percent more time off than the number of overtime hours worked. The choice would made by the employee.
The bill allows employers to prevent workers from taking the time off at particular times if it would “unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.” Toulan said that means a parent seeking to use earned time off to deal with a sick child, for example, could be denied a leave at a particular time.
“It should be called the Right to Work for Less Act,” said Representative Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine, during debate Tuesday.
The US Chamber of Commerce defends the measure, rejecting Democrats’ assertions that it would allow employers to avoid paying overtime wages.
“That does not hold up,” said Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the chamber. “The employer is going to be paying that same amount out at some point.”
But Democrats said workers who choose overtime pay instead could be targeted for retaliation by employers.
“If a worker is coerced into taking comp time by his employer, he has little recourse,” said Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado. “This law would also make workers vulnerable to firing, or not being hired in the first place if they inform their employer they would prefer to collect overtime instead of comp time.”
Representative John Tierney, Democrat of Salem, said it could also cause businesses to hire fewer workers. If they can save money by steering employees to time off for extra hours, instead of hiring more workers to avoid paying overtime wages.
“Why would we would want to change our policy to incentivize [employers] to not hire more people?” he said.
Why would "we" want an immigration bill that put$ Americans out of work?
--more--"
