Last week, Washington became the second city in the country to force businesses to provide paid sick leave to their employees. While the Council should be commended for following San Francisco’s lead and protecting the city’s working poor, it should reverse the pro-business amendments that dramatically reduce the legislation’s effectiveness.
Early incarnations of the bill met with heavy corporate opposition, leading to a series of mitigating amendments.
The worst requires workers to hold a job for a full year before being able to qualify for sick leave. It’s understandable that employers don’t want to cover long-term sick leave for new employees, but a year is too long to withhold paid sick leave.
The bill is expected to cover 100,000 to 200,000 workers in the District. The estimate has a wide range because no one knows exactly how many people will be disqualified by the harmful year-long waiting period.
“So many people in low wage jobs, especially in the retail industry, have turnover as high as 100 percent in a year,” Ed Lazere, policy director for the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, said.
People who move from job to job in short periods of time are completely uncovered by the bill, yet they are the ones who are most in need of the support.
“Every year people are pushed further into poverty because of sickness,” Lazere said.
The bill allows many District residents to cope with illness without fear of losing their jobs and sliding into poverty, but it leaves others unprotected. While D.C. needs to amend the bill to expand coverage, other cities should emulate Washington’s step to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
