On May 11, 2010, the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Carl Hum and the representatives of the other four boroughwide chambers, collectively known as the 5 Boro Chamber Alliance, met at City Hall to testify in opposition to the proposed Paid Sick Leave bill (Intro No. 97) that was recently re-submitted with minor revisions by the New York City Council. Staten Island Chamber Executive Vice President Jack Friedman delivered the following testimony on behalf of the 5 Boro Chamber Alliance to the Committee on Civil Service and Labor of the City Council:
Good morning Chairman Sanders and members of the Committee on Civil Service and Labor. My name is Jack Friedman and I am the executive vice president of the Queens Chamber of Commerce. I am also here on behalf of the 5 Boro Chamber Alliance, representing each borough’s Chamber of Commerce and over 5,000 dues-paying members across the city.
Since the introduction of Paid Sick Leave legislation in the City Council last summer, we have banded together with over 25 business organizations, representing a wide range of industries and small businesses – some of which you will be hearing from later today – in strident opposition to first Intro 1059 and now, Intro No. 97. Our fundamental argument remains the same as when we testified before this Committee in November – our business coalition opposes government deprivation of our ability to determine the appropriate benefit package for our employees.
Any businesswoman knows that a successful, profitable organization begins with motivated and healthy employees. In fact, our coalition agrees with supporters of Intro No. 97 in that no worker should fear retaliation from her employer or worse, termination if she takes a sick day. It is the government’s mandate that these sick days be compensated by the business community, however, is where we differ. As we reported last November, two out of three of our collective Chamber membership already offer some form of paid sick leave. And for those businesses that do not offer paid sick days, it is probably because they can’t afford it as Mayor Bloomberg has said.
If the Council considers paid sick days as a moral imperative on par with unemployment insurance or social security – where everyone pays into then system – then help our business community pay for it. Similar legislation in other states have created mechanisms to share the cost of these socially-motivated initiatives to ease the burden on the business community – particularly, small businesses. During the past few weeks, our coalition followed this vein and drafted bill language that could achieve this. We have even shared it with some Council members in hopes of creating a basis for a new bill that we could all support. Unfortunately, Intro No. 97 is not that bill.
Intro No. 97, in fact, falls miserably short of addressing many of the concerns that were voiced in November. And at a time when the Council has been making great strides in addressing small business concerns through the Regulatory Review Panel and the Access to Credit summit, Intro No. 97 will only undo all the good that has been done thus far. Let me go through just three examples of many of the bill’s shortcomings.
- The new definition of small businesses as 20 or less employees does not comport with any other legislative definition of small business. The recently-passed federal health insurance reform bill defines small business as 50 employees or less. This discrepancy could affect the bottom line of thousands of small businesses.
- The bill still allocates five paid sick days per employee for small businesses and nine paid sick days for large businesses. Is there any public policy basis to require more paid sick days at larger businesses? Or is this just government aiming at what is perceived to be deeper pockets?
- The bill is still silent as to what regulatory authorities would be responsible for enforcement and most importantly, adjudication of any disputes. The absence of such specifics could lead to frivolous private actions which would further add to the court system’s backlog.
Once again, Intro No. 97 – like its forbearer Intro No. 1059 – is a well-intentioned but overly broad bill that fails to recognize the diversity of our business community, its varying needs and strategies for creating and maintaining jobs in New York.