Workplace of Choice

Last month Connecticut became the first state to require paid sick time to employees.  Gone are they days when sick time was an employee benefit, but now a requirement.  While the act does not require paid sick time for all employees, it does mandate that eligible employees accrue one hour of sick time per 40 hours of work up to 40 hours per year.  San Francisco previously implemented a similar law and, back in 2009, the Obama administration supported such legislation in light of the H1N1 outbreak. 

There are arguments both for and against such legislation.  Those who support mandatory sick time feel that such requirements would stop employees from coming to work sick and spreading germs or putting co-workers at risk of exposure.  Paid sick time also offers flexibility to employees who cannot afford to take a day off from work.  Opponents of the law say it would be costly for businesses to implement, especially small businesses without the resources of a larger company.  Offering paid sick time for some employers would increase their payroll costs and might force them to raise prices to off-set the costs or decrease employee's take home pay in lieu of added paid time off.

As more cities such as Denver and Seattle consider such legislation, employers are lining up and taking sides.  Where do you stand?  What do you see as the pro's and con's of mandating paid sick time?