Share

Sick Leave Expansion Bill Would Bring New Mandate for Cities

The bill would require employers to offer sick time benefits to workers who currently don't get paid time off.
(Published Mar 10, 2010)

Proposed legislation would make expansive changes in sick leave benefits to employers. Entitled the Emergency Public Health Protection Act, HF 2959 (Rep. John Lesch, DFL-St. Paul)/SF 2553 (Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-Saint Paul) could be back on the agenda by or before March 12 as sick leave and union advocates work to get a hearing before the first deadline.

The legislation would mandate that employers, including cities and counties, offer sick time benefits to workers not currently getting paid time off—such as temporary or part-time workers. Additionally, the bills greatly expand how employees could use their sick time. Specifically, the bill would require that an employee working at least 56 hours has the right to paid sick leave.

An employer with fewer than 10 employees would be required to provide an employee working 30 hours or more per week with 40 hours of paid sick leave in a calendar year. Employers with 10 or more employees would have to provide an employee working at least 30 hours a week with 72 hours of paid sick leave per year. The employees working less than 30 hours would receive sick leave on a prorated basis.

The House version was scheduled for the House Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee the first week of March, but was pulled from the agenda. The bill will likely have other policy committee stops, such as Commerce and Labor. SF 2533 was referred to the Senate Business, Industry and Jobs Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

Cities need to speak against this bill
Even though passage of this bill appears slight this session, this is a key bill to communicate with legislators on—especially from the unfunded mandate perspective. Many legislators signed onto this year’s bill—and last year’s—which indicates support for the idea.

The bill is similar to last year’s legislation by the same authors—but is geared this year more toward the H1N1 virus and its possible effects. The League opposes the legislation as a mandate.

Read the current issue of the Cities Bulletin