Out of concern for Michigan employers, the Michigan Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee gathered Tuesday to hear additional testimony on a proposal to reduce the new earned sick time regulations, which are slated to go into effect in ten days.
The committee decided not to vote on the legislation, leaving the future of the Senate’s reduced sick leave requirements unclear despite the February 21 deadline and the short amount of session days before the Senate could take action before businesses are subject to additional paid sick leave provisions.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled over the summer that the 2018 Republican-led Legislature had violated the Constitution by passing and altering two ballot initiatives, and ordered the reinstatement of the elements that had been removed.
Employers with fewer than ten employees would be required to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave and 32 hours of unpaid leave accrued over the course of the year, while companies with ten or more employees would be required to provide 72 hours of paid sick leave annually if lawmakers do not take action by February 21.
The Senate, which is governed by Democrats, and the House, which is led by Republicans, have both submitted bills to limit these changes.
The Supreme Court-restored provisions would be largely eliminated by the House proposal, H.B. 4002, which would exempt companies with fewer than 50 employees from the new sick leave requirements and remove language allowing employees to sue their employer for breaking the law.
S.B. 15, introduced by Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing), proposes a more restrictive definition for small businesses. It defines a small business as one that employs fewer than 25 people and mandates that companies give their workers 40 hours of paid sick leave and 30 hours of unpaid sick leave at the start of the year, rather than the 40 hours of paid leave and 32 hours of unpaid leave that are accrued throughout the year. Additionally, instead of allowing workers to accrue sick leave over time, employers would be permitted to provide them with 72 hours of paid leave at the start of the year.
The Senate’s attempt is still in committee, and it is unknown when it will be put to a vote, even though the House’s proposal has already passed the floor.
Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), the chair of the Regulatory Affairs Committee, told reporters following the meeting that the committee was trying to move as quickly as possible this week in light of the deadline of February 21 and the five-day rule of the Legislature, which stipulates that a bill must be in each chamber for at least five days before it can become law.
House Republicans have made it a major priority to address the upcoming changes to the earned sick leave law, phase out the state’s tipped minimum wage, and raise the state minimum wage. On January 23, they advanced their proposal to the Senate with bipartisan support. House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton), however, contended that the deadline of February 21 was not as severe as Republicans had claimed because some states had passed comparable legislation without seeing a large-scale layoff.
There are several things senators may change to mitigate the impact of these new requirements if they don’t approve legislation before February 21, Moss said, even while Senate members are working to achieve that goal and the committee’s action is governed by that timetable.
Everyone is discussing this. If a Republican-led House and a Democratic-led Senate agree on a product that is submitted to the governor, that is the only way we can get this done, period. That will be a timeless phrase that applies to everything, including this. Moss stated, “I am aware that discussions are still going on with our House counterparts.”
A number of business advocacy groups crowded the committee room on Tuesday to highlight the effects of the impending changes to the Earned Sick Time Act on small businesses. Some organizations asked how the changes would affect interns, seasonal workers, and part-time employees, while others demanded an exemption for small businesses.
“The upcoming changes to Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Act are a big change for businesses, even those that already offer generous paid time off to their employees, including those that offer unlimited paid time off,” Wendy Block, senior vice president of business advocacy for the Michigan Chamber, told the committee.
Every day, we receive calls and emails asking us what’s going on with this legislation. “We are reassuring them that we are cautiously optimistic that a deal can be found on this legislation,” Block said, adding that something would happen.
Small business owners frequently take on many roles, according to Amanda Fisher of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
They serve as the manager, the accountant, the human resources representative, and frequently collaborate closely with their staff. According to Fisher, the majority of small business owners do consider their staff members to be family.
However, the changes that will go into effect on February 21 establish a one-size-fits-all approach that may force business owners to reduce the overall amount of paid time off that their employees receive in order to create a bank of PTO that may only be utilized for the purposes specified by the legislation, Fisher said.
The expenses small firms will incur to assure compliance with the new rule, both directly and indirectly, were another issue she brought up.
Fisher stated that any type of pure exemption for small firms would be appreciated, but when asked what a small company exemption might look like, he cited the House’s provision of companies with fewer than 50 employees as the ideal.
The committee was asked to include an exemption for 911 and emergency services by Patricia Coates, Oakland County’s 911 coordinator, who expressed concern that the incoming sick leave changes, if left unaltered, would permit people to no-call, no-show for up to three days without warning.
This job involves a lot of work. It’s a long shift and an extremely difficult job. I can assure you that toward the conclusion of the shift, you will be keeping an eye on the clock if you are the dispatcher who has been there for eight, ten, or twelve hours and it is your fifth, sixth, or seventh consecutive day. You are eagerly awaiting the moment when your relief will arrive. Additionally, they don’t show up or call. “Now it’s a scramble, because the next shift has to be staffed,” Coates stated, adding that although workers can stay voluntarily in some situations, there are other instances where overtime is merely required.
Emergency service workers are already required by law to contact ahead if they are unable to report to work, according to Coates, who also stated that she is removing them from the schedule if they fail to show up for three days without warning.
The Michigan Association of Justice and the Michigan AFL-CIO both objected to S.B. 15’s striking out language that permits employees to file a civil action against their employer for violating the Earned Sick Time Act, even though the majority of Tuesday’s testimony focused on the effects the ordered changes would have on employers and small businesses.
Because S.B. 15 preserves some of the protections for workers, particularly the ongoing ban on companies taking retaliatory action against workers who attempt to exercise their rights under the act, it starts off better than its House counterpart. Accordingly, Mitch Albers, legal counsel for the Michigan Justice Association, stated, “We are particularly concerned with the removal of the ability of Michigan workers to bring their own claims when an employer violates the Earned Sick Time Act.”
Albers argued that the requirement for employees to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity would require additional staff to investigate, as well as additional staff within the Department of Attorney General if the matter is appealed. Albers said the change in the bill is both unfair to employees and an inefficient use of tax dollars. According to Albers, eliminating the private right of action would put more strain on these organizations and restrict workers’ ability to promptly seek reparation.
S.B. 15 has also drawn criticism from Ryan Sebolt, director of government affairs for the Michigan AFL-CIO, who said that it exempts employees whose companies have set staffing ratios and requires them to follow their employer’s paid sick leave policy if their need for sick leave is unexpected. He maintained that the law had to have more precise wording mandating that firms give their employees a copy of their sick leave policy. They cannot refuse that employee paid sick leave if they don’t.
All employees, including those in small enterprises, are entitled to sick leave. For the past six years, Michigan workers have been denied salaries and benefits in violation of the Constitution. Sebolt stated that rather than undermining the Supreme Court, legislation should concentrate on enhancing their access to those pay, benefits, and other support.
GET THE HEADLINES FOR THE MORNING.