Miller is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, and Lynn Woolsey is the chairwoman of the labor committee’s Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
The Bill would ensure that the workers don’t miss out on their wages on contracting the illness.
It is anticipated that the final hearing on the legislation would take place on Nov. 16.
If the bill is successfully enacted by Congress, it would take effect 15 days after being signed into law, and would expire after two years, informed Miller.
“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn't have to choose between their livelihood, and their co-workers' or customers' health," stated Miller.
"This will not only protect employees, but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1," he added.
“This bill will ensure that workers who are directed to stay home by their employers can do so without paying a financial penalty,” Lynn Woolsey said.
Mandate’s conditions
Under the bill, called the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, workers would get five paid days off if their employers advise them to stay at home.
Also, these workers cannot be fired, disciplined or retaliated against for staying at home.
However, the paid sick leave would not be guaranteed to those who decide to stay at home on their own, asserting that they are unwell.
All business groups with 15 or more employees would require paying sick leave to their workers.
However, businesses have opposed this move saying that the proposed legislation would mean expensive employee mandates for them.
Millions lack access to sick leave
While announcing the bill, Miller said that nearly 40 million workers do not have access to paid sick leave. And a lack of access means that many millions would report to work with the H1N1 strain and spread the virus because they cannot afford to take a leave if they fall sick.
According to U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a sick employee reporting to work can infect one in 10 co-workers.
As lawmakers craft
As lawmakers craft legislation that would remove an untenable financial penalty for taking sick leave, they should also eliminate the steep penalty for telecommuting. To help contain the spread of the H1N1 virus, the Obama Administration has wisely encouraged employers to permit both leave and telecommuting, and both options must be affordable.
As things stand now, telecommuting can be too expensive for Americans who work for out-of-state employers. If, for example, a Connecticut resident works for a New York company and agrees to telecommute when her son develops the flu, she may be subject to double taxation on the income she earns at home: She may be taxed once by Connecticut on the Connecticut wages and then a second time by New York. The threat of owing two states taxes on the same compensation can force potentially contagious employees to reject the telework option, sending their ill children to school - or ignoring their own symptoms - and going to work.
A bi-partisan federal bill called the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would eliminate the double tax penalty for telecommuting across state lines. It would bar states like New York from taxing the income nonresidents earn in their states of residence. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who has also introduced paid sick leave legislation, has co-sponsored the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act. Any legislation designed to allow Americans to care for themselves and their families without undue financial risk must provide for telecommuter tax fairness as well as paid leave.
Post new comment