Paid Sick Days . . . sky did not fall

[Amskeptic]

When Connecticut mandated paid sick days, Republicans reliably whined and mewled that it would lead to lost jobs higher prices etc:

Well, 18 months in . . .

Employee turnover was reduced 3.3%.
Employees coming to work sick was reduced 18.8%.
Illness was spread 14.8% less often than before the law.
Productivity increased 14.9%.
Morale, motivation and loyalty increased among employees (according to their employers).
Payroll costs increased by 3% or more for only 10% of employers.
Only 10.6% of employers reported reducing employee hours because of the law.
Only 15.6% of employers reported increasing prices because of the law.
Only 3.4% of employers reported reducing operating hours because of the law.
Only 1.3% of employers reported reduced quality of service because of the law.
Only 1.0% of employers reported reducing wages because of the law.
A strong majority of employers were "very supportive" (39.5%) or "somewhat supportive" (37.0%) of the law a year-and-a-half after it went into effect.
The law covers about 400,000 workers
The law had minimal impact on employers that already offered paid sick days.
Little abuse of the system has been reported by employers.
Paid sick day coverage increased from 88.5% of employers to 93.7% that offer five or more paid sick days annually.
The number of paid sick days offered to all employees rose from an average of 6.9 days to 7.7 days.
About two-thirds of eligible workers used paid sick days, with an average of four days used per year.
Unionized employers were half as likely to report cost increases because of the law (compared to nonunion employers).

I say "decency pays".
Colin

[TrollFromDownBelow]

Interesting productivity was up by 15% - that is impressive. My company provides "PTO days" which you can use for either vacation or sick days. Start at two weeks, but after 5 years it goes to 4 weeks.

[Westy78]

Interesting. My company offers up to 40 days of sick pay earned at a rate of 6 days a year. However the disciplinary policies used against you if you do call in sick are so ridiculous and convoluted that many people just come to work sick and spread it to every one else instead of accruing points towards a write up.

[Amskeptic]

Interesting. My company offers up to 40 days of sick pay earned at a rate of 6 days a year. However the disciplinary policies used against you if you do call in sick are so ridiculous and convoluted that many people just come to work sick and spread it to every one else instead of accruing points towards a write up.

Can you offer a brief run down of what those disciplinary policies are?

An interesting analysis of the increase in productivity was that if sick people stayed home and reduced the spread of sickness, fewer other workers would subsequently call in sick.
Ahhhh, duh.
Colin

[Westy78]

Interesting. My company offers up to 40 days of sick pay earned at a rate of 6 days a year. However the disciplinary policies used against you if you do call in sick are so ridiculous and convoluted that many people just come to work sick and spread it to every one else instead of accruing points towards a write up.

Can you offer a brief run down of what those disciplinary policies are?

An interesting analysis of the increase in productivity was that if sick people stayed home and reduced the spread of sickness, fewer other workers would subsequently call in sick.
Ahhhh, duh.
Colin

Here you go...





One of the major complaints people have is with the amount of time it takes to have one point roll off. Nine months is just enough time for the flu and cold season to be on top of you before a point comes off. If you are already on the edge of a write up and only one point drops off at nine months and you call in sick for more than one day here comes a step in discipline. There is also another way for points to roll off further complicating the policy and making it nearly impossible to figure out where you stand.

One that really annoys me is that if you call in sick, the first day is a point. If you call in a second consecutive day you receive another point. Why is the second day another point when it is the same incident of calling in?

You also receive a half point for punching back in from lunch late or early. Even if you never left the premisses. How is this an attendance issue if I never left? Again if you are a day away from that last point to roll off and avoid a write up and you punch in from lunch incorrectly it puts you into a write up.

We are never informed when a point is accrued. This is a problem because we only have 15 days from the date the point was accrued to grieve it through the union. There have been several people given a write up without knowing they were even close to it.

Overall it just seems way over complicated. Most of the time if you have a question about the policy, the management can't even figure it out.

[Amskeptic]

78 Westy, that was sheer agony. They should be ashamed of themselves.

If they ever need another job, the IRS would love them.
Colin

[TrollFromDownBelow]

Jasan, i couldn't read the whole list....it was .... draconian. To be honest, I don't even keep track of direct report vacation days etc....as long as the work gets done, and I don't feel that my trust is being abused, frankly that is all that matters. All my folks bust their tuckus, and they care; and it shows...my clients are happy.

[yondermtn]

At a government job I had sick days accrued to a certain point and when you maxed out you were forced to take a paid day off. It was to the employees advantage to max out their vacation accrual and they'd have approximately 10hrs paid per month. On top of that, upon retirement the employer would pay the employee for their accrued sick time at the average of their final 3yrs salary. Some employees who retired with sick and vacation time maxed out would end up with significant payouts. This system also encouraged employees to come to work sick because they always wanted to be maxed out.

I don't know what the fix is, but I always thought it was a broken system.

As an auditor, it is important to look at vacation/sick policies to see if there is possible fraud. A fraud red flag is an employee who never takes time off and some employers will require employees to take time off to reduce fraud.

[rallybug]

When I worked in retail banking in the UK, every employee had to take two weeks off at once at some point during the year (granted, the UK, like all EU countries) has to give a minimum of 20 days vacation a year to full-time employees, pro-rated for part-timers). This was because if someone was committing a fraud, they couldn't afford to be absent from that for 2 weeks, as it would all come to light.

On another upside - it only really got sticky for people once they were off for 6 months with an illness - yes, a doctor's note was required after 3 days, I think, but none of that draconian disciplinary stuff even with prior notification. Here's the staff union's information on being off work sick.

It is one of the few things I miss from the UK - but then, as I moved to being a self-employed contractor 2 years before emigrating to the US, I've got used to not being paid when not working now...