Mayor vetoes sick-leave bill

Mayor Nutter exercised his veto power last week on a bill that would have mandated private companies provide their employees the opportunity to earn paid sick days.

Nutter vetoed the controversial Earned Sick Days bill June 28, after months of expressing opposition to the measure but stopping short of saying he’d kill the bill.

Supporters are hoping to rally enough Council votes to override the veto this fall, and Council could also consider a narrower proposal being drafted by Councilman Wilson Goode Jr.

The bill the mayor vetoed would require all companies operating in the city with 11 or more employees to offer workers up to seven earned sick days a year, while businesses with 10 or fewer employees would offer four sick days. Businesses with five or fewer employees would be exempt.

The employee could use the time to take care of him or herself or another family member, including a same-sex domestic partner.

The Coalition for Healthy Families and Workplaces, the leading agency backing the bill, estimated that about 210,000 workers in the city are not afforded paid sick days.

Nutter, however, said during a Chamber of Commerce meeting last week that the measure would have a negative impact on business, predicting it would “put thousands of jobs at risk and discourage businesses from coming to the city. I do not believe that this is the time or the place for this piece of legislation, and certainly during this recession.”

Nutter added that the issue may be best addressed at the state or federal level.

Councilman-at-Large Bill Greenlee, who introduced the bill with Councilman Darrell Clarke (D-5th Dist.), said fears about business backlash are unfounded.

Greenlee explained that San Francisco is the only municipality to approve such legislation and that measure, in place for several years now, has seen few negative repercussions.

“San Francisco is the only place where you can test this, and San Francisco hasn’t experienced these problems,” Greenlee said. “The word San Francisco gave us was that there was minimal impact on business. Businesses didn’t flee, they didn’t see abuse by employees — everything the city of Philadelphia fears about this, San Francisco feared three or four years ago, but it just didn’t come to pass.”

Greenlee noted that San Francisco’s laws are actually stricter, in that they mandate companies provide health-care plans for their employees, offer more earned sick days and don’t exempt “mom and pop” shops.

Some critics have argued that San Francisco’s business operates differently from that of Philadelphia, but Greenlee argued that the core issues are the same.

“San Francisco has businesses, San Francisco has workers and the workers in San Francisco get sick too. It’s not that different,” Greenlee said. “I think this is basically fear of the unknown. But there’s no evidence that the things people are saying would happen have actually happened.”

Council narrowly approved the bill 9-8 last month.

In order to override a veto, the bill would need to garner 12 votes, which couldn’t take place until Council returns to session this September.

“There could be that possibility,” Greenlee said of a veto override. “We’re going to work on it, and we’re going to be talking to the members throughout the summer.”

Goode’s measure would limit the number of companies to only those that must abide by minimum-wage standards, which include all city agencies, for-profit service contractors and subcontractors with an annual city income of more than $10,000 or annual gross revenue of more than $1 million, or public agencies that benefit from at least $10,000 in annual city funding.

Nonprofit contractors and subcontractors under certain conditions would also be required to participate.

Goode may introduce his bill as an amendment to the vetoed measure.

Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].

Newsletter Sign-up