Imagine this: Your 14-year-old daughter contracts a rare blood infection that threatens her life. You take just two days off of work to take her to the hospital in the hopes of securing sufficient medical attention. The day you return to work, you find out your dedication as a parent has cost you your job. Because your employer is one of many throughout the United States who denies sick days to employees, you have been fired and no longer have an income to help pay for your daughter’s medical expenses. This exact situation mirrors the traumatic experiences of Juana Alvarez.
Thanks to the newly supported New York sick leave bill, headed largely by Council Member Gale Brewer, unfair situations like Alvarez’s will be prevented. Though the bill, which has been in the works for many years now, has spurred some controversy, the hope of passing it is slowly transforming into a tangible conclusion to a long battle. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has refrained from bringing the matter to vote for a while, finally announced her agreement at the end of last month.
The proposed bill, which is said to have a set voting date of April 25, would require businesses with 20 or more employees to provide five paid sick days annually to their workers beginning in April of 2014; coverage would expand to businesses with 15 or more employees by October of 2015. This would save around 300,000 workers from getting fired for calling in sick.
To learn more about her work and the process of getting through what was referred to as “an uphill battle,” Beyond 75th reporter Audrey Rapoport-Martiak ’15 and I sat down with Councilwoman Brewer. Take a look below, where we begin by asking about what made this journey possible:
As a follow-up with the council member, I conducted a phone interview with Hewitt parent Felice Farber about another dimension of the New York sick leave bill. Ms. Farber, who works with General Contractors Association, supports the bill in its fundamental purpose but pointed out some flaws that are being overlooked. As you’ll see in Ms. Farber’s statements below, some people are actually receiving preference in benefits. So, the question becomes one of action: should we ignore these faults for the good of a majority of manipulated workers, or should we take more time considering all layers of the issue?
“I think Gale Brewer really wants to do the right thing,” Ms. Farber explained, “but the intent of the bill is to protect the most vulnterable New Yorkers who don’t have the opportunity or can’t afford to take the day off sick, or with sick children. What the bill does, however, is additionally provide an increased benefit for the union construction workers who already receive significantly more time off than the bill provides. In a sense, it gives the union construction industry a huge raise and double benefits.
“We have said a lot about the issue over the past years, and I don’t think it will change. It is really hard to say you’re opposed to a sick leave because of the title itself, but it essentially provides additional advantages to a workforce that is already privileged. In handling the paid sick leave bill, Gale Brewer is trying to compromise, but some people are only acknowledging what it does for underprivileged workers, and I think we should be having an honest conversation of some of its flaws.
“The amount union workers get paid for time off is already higher than the proposed paid sick leave time, so you can argue that this is interfering with collective bargaining rights, giving one side preference over another. The only point I want to get across is there are really two sides to every issue. Headlines may boast something great on the surface, but we have to ask ourselves about other details. ”
With the above sentiments, Ms. Farber acknowledges the multiple (and possibly conflicting) layers of the bill. Though on one hand it offers security, reassurance, and pay to a number of underprivileged workers, on another it may unfairly overcompensate some workers, demonstrating common conflict and complications involved in legislation.