Paid Sick Bill’s Local Impact Could Be Serious

Paid Sick Bill’s Local Impact Could Be Serious
typewriter

Maryland’s perception of an anti-business state seems secure as the General Assembly’s current session nears its conclusion in Annapolis next week.

Topping the examples this year is the controversial paid sick leave bill, which passed the House this week easily after clearing the Senate Finance Committee and will head to the Senate for almost certain approval.

House Bill 580: Mandated Paid Sick Leave, also foolishly called Maryland Healthy Working Families Act, would require any business with 15 or more employees to give full- or part-time employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours of work. An employer who does not comply with the bill could face punitive damages for violations, resulting in a financial and administrative burden on business owners.

Governor Larry Hogan reportedly opposes the legislation as written but as it stands now the bill is veto proof because of the clear support it has received from lawmakers.

While we oppose the intent of the bill in the first place, it would certainly be more acceptable if there were some measures put into place to address the unique aspects of Maryland. First there is the requirement that it would apply to all businesses with 15 or more employees. That basically includes all operations except the micro retail shops and home-based businesses with no overhead. Additionally, it would have a huge impact on seasonal destinations, such as the Ocean City and Deep Creek Lake resorts.

That’s why Delegate Mary Beth Carozza’s proposed amendment to add a 120-day requirement to the legislation makes sense. However, not surprisingly, the support was not there in the liberal-dominated House to add the fairness clause.

Carozza was trying to add an exemption to the legislation that would exempt businesses that employ workers for less than 120 days. The current bill has that threshold at 90 days, which is less than the peak tourism season here as well as other areas of the state.

We oppose this bill for its intense legislative immersion into private business that we view as unnecessary in the first place. This is not a major problem requiring legislative action. Most businesses have some sort of paid sick leave or excused absences built into their payroll already and this only confirms the unfavorable feeling most small businesses have of state lawmakers.

Secondly, the one size fits all concept, including all businesses with 15 or more employees, whether full- or part-time workers, is absurd. It’s going to hit businesses hard and brings an unfair burden. It will certainly harm businesses while maybe helping certain workers.

The unfortunate aspect here is the bill heads to the Senate with approval a certainty. The hope here is some sort of amendment, like Carozza’s, can be put in place to protect the seasonal businesses as well as remove the part-time employees from the equation.

Employees deserve certain rights and protections but not while harming their very employers with serious ramifications on resources.