Since the last election considerably increased the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, NUCA and most of the business community fully expected more left-leaning legislation hostile to industry. The Democrats didn’t disappoint, and although all eyes are currently on the health care debate and the impasse over a “public option,” there are other bills out there that would negatively impact the way you conduct your business. Further, although the goals of most of these bills are said to protect and empower workers, some of them will inevitably cause more harm to workers than good. The so-called “Healthy Families Act” (HFA) is a case in point.

Last spring, the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on the HFA (HR 2460/S 1152), a bill that would require the vast majority of employers to provide paid leave to their workers, including those who work part-time. NUCA and a group of like-minded contractor associations quickly got together to evaluate the situation and just as quickly agreed to collectively oppose the measure. The provisions of the bill are not only unfriendly to business, but also potentially harmful to the very workers the bill aims to protect.

Specifics of the HFA

Under the HFA, employers with 15 or more employees who work 20 weeks or more a (calendar) year would have to provide up to 56 hours (approximately 7-8 days) of paid sick leave to all “full-time” employees (those working 1,680 hours a year or more, an average of 32 hours a week). The bill also includes language that would require paid sick leave for part-time employees. Workers would begin accruing paid sick time on their first day of work and would be allowed to begin taking the leave as soon as 60 days thereafter. Under the HFA, both full- and part-time employees would accrue paid sick time at the same rate (one hour of paid sick time for 30 hours worked).

Paid sick leave would carry over from year to year under the bill, but an employer would not be required to permit an employee to accrue more than 56 hours at a given time. There would be no restriction, however, on how much paid sick leave an employee could accrue over the course of a given year. Thus, employees who carry over paid sick time from prior years would be allowed to take more than 56 hours over the course of one calendar year.

Employees could use paid sick time for their own medical condition, including absences related to preventive medical care, or to care for a relative with a medical condition, including assisting a relative to attend medical appointments. Under the bill, a “relative” is considered anyone related by blood or a relationship with the employee that is the “equivalent of a family relationship.” On top of that, the HFA prohibits employers from requiring that employees assist in the “search for...a replacement worker to cover hours during which the employee is using the paid sick time.”

In the only positive provision in the legislation, the HFA would not require employers with existing sick leave and paid time off (PTO) policies to provide additional leave if the employer’s leave is available to employees on the same terms as those provided by the legislation.

Battle Lines Quickly Drawn

Supporters of the legislation claim that the mandate is needed to ensure that workers are not forced to choose between their jobs and their own or their family’s health, and that providing employees with paid sick leave would increase morale, productivity and reduce the possibility of employees showing up at the workplace sick, thereby prolonging their own illnesses or spreading illnesses to co-workers and the public.

Opponents of the measure, including most business organizations and certainly those representing the construction industry, maintain that a “one-size-fits-all” mandate on paid sick leave would limit an employer’s flexibility in designing compensation and benefits packages that meet the needs of their unique workforce and that a debate over an expensive mandate is not appropriate at a time when employers are struggling to avoid layoffs and business closures.
As noted above, NUCA and a group of fellow construction contractor organizations signed on to a letter to Congress indicating the industry’s strong opposition to the HFA in an effort to educate lawmakers about the harmful ramifications the bill might have on employees. The letter stated in part: “According to Department of Labor (DOL) data, 82 percent of private employers currently offer some form of paid leave to their workforce. At the same time, employers face economic realities and must balance leave benefits with other compensation offered to employees such as wages and health benefits.” The letter also states: “The HFA’s one-size-fits-all approach threatens an employer’s ability to provide the benefits that best fit the needs of their workforce. The unique nature of the construction industry demands that the benefits reflect the reality of the industry workforce.”

In an attempt to back up its position with some hard numbers, NUCA conducted a survey of its contractor members on the subject of paid leave and other benefits offered by utility construction companies. When asked about the impact that mandated paid leave would have on their companies, 77 percent of 85 respondents indicated that a mandate would force cuts in employee compensation, and 50 percent said it would force cuts in personnel.

Common Sense Wanted

The goals of the HFA are sound, but the bill appears to be another case of a short-sighted “solution” that is likely to create more problems than it solves. Employers of all stripes, especially in construction, develop their own balance of compensation and benefits to meet the distinctive needs of the workforce they represent. Throwing a blanket requirement of mandated paid leave on virtually all American businesses would only result in significant costs to employers and potentially threaten jobs held by employees who might prefer compensation or other benefits to paid sick leave. The results of the survey NUCA conducted fully support this conclusion.

The fate of the HFA is uncertain, but what is clear is that this legislation again illustrates that Capitol Hill is long overdue for a healthy shot of common sense. Rest assured that NUCA will stand among the rest of the construction contractor industry to ensure that our industry is not subject to arbitrary employee benefit mandates dictated by the federal government.

Eben Wyman is NUCA Vice President of Government Relations.