New law requires paid sick leave at Seattle businesses
»Play Video
SEATTLE - A new law that took effect Saturday means Seattle is now one of the few cities in the nation requiring businesses to offer paid sick leave to workers.
Before the law started moving forward, some local companies were worried about how it might affect them financially. But so far, some business owners are seeing the added costs as a benefit too.
One of them is Makini Howell, who just opened up another of her Plum Restaurants in the Seattle Center Armory.
"Everyone that works here is a foundation of keeping our business alive," says Howell.
The new law requires businesses with five to 49 employees to provide a minimum of five paid sick days per year. Larger companies must offer nine days.
Howell says she has been on board with the law even before it was passed.
"I wanted to create an environment where people felt welcome and they felt secure calling out - if it's domestic violence, if it's sickness, whatever it is - you can call out, and you'll have your job," she says. "So I didn't see it as a pitfall. I saw it as a way to make people feel welcome."
But others had fears it would be costly, especially for small businesses. Howell believes businesses that are still unsure about the change will soon see the difference, especially among their workers.
Jacklyn Wagner, manager of Plum Market, remembers working for another place with no paid sick leave. She says she was afraid to ask for legitimate time off.
"It was definitely a really nerve-wracking way to live your life," she says. "You'd be like, 'Oh, I got sick, something happened, my car broke down, but I'm going to get in trouble, and it doesn't matter."
So far, Howell says her workers appreciate the new law. She says it's a no-brainer - to offer another benefit to her employees and keep them happy.
"And I think if you do good things, good things sort of domino," she laughs.
Some say there's the added benefit of letting a sick person stay home - rather than forcing them in and potentially getting others sick, too.
Before the law started moving forward, some local companies were worried about how it might affect them financially. But so far, some business owners are seeing the added costs as a benefit too.
One of them is Makini Howell, who just opened up another of her Plum Restaurants in the Seattle Center Armory.
"Everyone that works here is a foundation of keeping our business alive," says Howell.
The new law requires businesses with five to 49 employees to provide a minimum of five paid sick days per year. Larger companies must offer nine days.
Howell says she has been on board with the law even before it was passed.
"I wanted to create an environment where people felt welcome and they felt secure calling out - if it's domestic violence, if it's sickness, whatever it is - you can call out, and you'll have your job," she says. "So I didn't see it as a pitfall. I saw it as a way to make people feel welcome."
But others had fears it would be costly, especially for small businesses. Howell believes businesses that are still unsure about the change will soon see the difference, especially among their workers.
Jacklyn Wagner, manager of Plum Market, remembers working for another place with no paid sick leave. She says she was afraid to ask for legitimate time off.
"It was definitely a really nerve-wracking way to live your life," she says. "You'd be like, 'Oh, I got sick, something happened, my car broke down, but I'm going to get in trouble, and it doesn't matter."
So far, Howell says her workers appreciate the new law. She says it's a no-brainer - to offer another benefit to her employees and keep them happy.
"And I think if you do good things, good things sort of domino," she laughs.
Some say there's the added benefit of letting a sick person stay home - rather than forcing them in and potentially getting others sick, too.
This seems like it violates our state constitution. Local governments can not pass more restrictive laws than what the state does. I'm all for companies to show enough compassion for their employees to give them these benefits but they shouldn't be forced to by an unconstitutional law.
Have never worked for a company that had sick leave or health care.
A law passed by people who work for the government. Their insight on how to survive in businessâ¦..when money is tapped out just squeeze the tax payers for more or borrow from another program.  Some small businesses are tapped out already, how do they propose that these small businessâs get more money to pay for their new law???
Donât get me wrong I think paid sick leave for employees is a fine idea. But putting a drag net style law out is not fair to struggling businesses! Should be based on a businessâs bottom line not how many employees they have!!
 @SchönLicht "A law passed by people who work for the government."
Hmmm...interesting thought - isn't that part of what government is supposed to do?
Oh, right - you want Tim to do it all for you...fat chance in a soup kitchen...
I am not convinced that this law is the herald of the business Apocalypse. It will be interesting to see if all these dire predictions come true or not.
 @two loons While I am opposed to government mandating a company pay sick leave (but not opposed to a company offering it) I agree with you that the dire predictions will not come to pass. Sure, a few business may fail, a few individuals might be laid off or some potential positions may not be filled but it won't be solely because of this new requirement.
I have 4 employees... I guess I won't be hiring any more.  I don't track sick time - but if they have an appointment or are sick or whatever, go. Just do your jobs, be there when I need you. I pay them hourly but with a minimum every week which they cannot fall under, even if I have little work.
Â
I had a guy working for me with another company who, exactly when he accumulated 8 hours sick time, happened to get sick. I am talking about you, Clarence.
I've never worked for a company that did NOT pay for sick leave, except for when I worked at Mervyn's in high school. Reading all of the comments, I wonder what type of people are hiding behind their keyboards. I just hope none of you ever find yourselves in the situation of working a menial wage job (such as being hired by a small business) and getting sick or having a sick child and needing to take a day off, and not getting paid for it. Most companies let you accrue sick time based on how many hours you work per pay period. And for the person who posted about the spouse taking care of themselves when they are sick, well when I was pregnant I came down with the stomach flu and could not watch my other child, so my husband came home, and yes, he was paid for the day off because he worked for a good company.
 @Chipwrecked I have worked for companies that had no sick leave or vacation plans; you got paid for the hours you worked and that was it. On the flip side, I did work for two different companies over a period of 33 years that DID have sick leave and vacation benefits. Those benefits were a result of UNION membership.
 @Chipwrecked "I just hope none of you ever find yourselves in the situation of working a menial wage job"
Oh, they never will...just ask them...
Uh, the owner could have offered sick leave before the law passed as many employers do. As does mine.Â
Â
Next,  Seattle employers must offer free bicycles and lactation rooms. No wait... lactation rooms on bicycles and free puppies.
 @Sid Vishess Most restaurants and many other businesses would never choose to offer sick leave to an employee. The one I work at requires me to be there 15 unpaid minutes before my shift begins every day, and I am not in Seattle, so I will not get paid sick leave. I will not be offered insurance, nor paid vacation. This work pays minimum plus tips, and tips in the boonies are very different than tips in Seattle metro area. Of course I look for other work, but there will always be a need for servers and bar tenders, so someone will always have to stretch a small paycheck and work sick. I hope no one ever sneezes on your food or change, dude.
So many of our smaller businesses, and even quite a few of larger size already operate at a low profit margin. A person in one of these types of business with 5 employees is MUCH more likely to just fire one and give more hours to the others than to hire maybe two or three to make sure their business can operate.Â
 @FreeCoffeeNow! But if firing one makes it harder - or impossible - to meet the needs of the customer base, what has that business done beyond shooting themselves in the foot?
If they need to raise their prices, or take a reduction in profits to survive, isn't that just part of being in business? Why is it that the employees need to be the only ones who carry the economy? I have small tolerance for an employer who refuses to provide reasonable benefits for their workers, while expecting improving profits for themselves.
I think a lot of folks are missing the big picture here. If you look at the migration patterns people are leaving Washington, not just Seattle. Its no different than the migration changes from Silicon Valley to Austin Tx that started in 2008. Cheaper land, and more business friendly government. It doesnât take a rocket scientist to figure out where a business owner would want to set up shop. I know thatâs why Iâm in S Tx. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html
Â
 @Kodiak If you are in Texas, why do you even feel you should be criticizing what happens in Washington State politics? Aren't you one of those "State's Rights" backers, who insist the States should be able to do what they want, without outside interference? If we in WA choose to treat our working people like human beings, isn't that OUR business?
That's only the side of the migration pattern that can be tracked conveniently. In my town, one of my kids has an increase to her class, of 120 more kids than at the third week of June. Almost all are undocumented Hispanics. So in your big picture, what it really is is that we are forcing out property owners, to bring in those with nothing.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! "Almost all are undocumented Hispanics."
Can you back up that statement with proof?
 @Kodiak http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20111206/america-s-richest-zip-codes-2011#slide52
Where is texas? Oh yeah, its not on the list. In fact, with the exception of atlanta Georgia, there are almost no conservative statesÂ
So where is Texas?
Oh yeah, here is Texas. .
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2563/Texas_myth.jpg
Â
@T H I S
You see the problem is that you fail to see Washington has more people leaving than are coming in. Is Texas the greatest place on earth? No and I never said that, but what I did say is my wife, kids, and business relocated here because we couldnât afford to do business in Washington state anymore. BTW you links donât mean anything. Texas is and will be due to the fracking industry, the nationâs biggest provider of new jobs probably for the next 10 years or so, adding almost 1.5 million new positions.Â
 @KodiakÂ
"BTW you links donât mean anything."
Â
Yeah, I know. Facts don't matter to conservatives.
Â
"almost 1.5 million new positions."
1.5 minimum wage positions  with no insurance and unsafe working conditions.
Good .... Guarantee 9 sick days? I will make sure that I will use them all. Thank you. =D
 @solo2801 In other words, when you complain that the working riffraff will take excess advantage of laws like this, you are describing yourself...
Probably not an inexpensive benefit to provide- I wonder how many businesses will be shuttered in Seattle as a direct result of their inability to afford it...?
Â
I think paid sick leave is fine and dandy if the employer chooses to provide it (mine does), but it should not be mandatory via statute. Just my opinion.
 @Crashbox "I wonder how many businesses will be shuttered in Seattle as a direct result of their inability to afford it...?"
If they are THAT close to failing, perhaps they should - isn't the first rule of capitalism the survival of the fittest?
Is that the daughter from the Cosby show? Man, times are tough.
I think it's great that people who are unable to get to work due to an illness or other problem might not go through the ringer in doing so. Unfortunately, it will be abused. Severely.Â
Â
Unintended consequence: As a small business owner/manager, I will need to hire more people so that I can cover the place when someone calls off - every time someone calls off. I can't just tell my customers "Sorry, Susie is sick today. Come back tomorrow for your sandwich." Of course, by having more employees, everyone will now get less hours and thus make less money.Â
Â
The good news is that it will show more people employed - and that's all that really matters to those who make these laws. It matters not that they will be making less money because the people that make these laws will just provide more free services/food/housing/transportation/college to make up for it.Â
Â
Oye....
 @AuburnGuy "Unfortunately, it will be abused. Severely."
The same can be said for the "productivity standard" of CEOs of larch corporations...who get bonuses based on how many people they can lay off...
my employer gives paid sick leave, and coincidentally, people are always sick on a friday when its sunny.  how strange.
@nobelprizeme We call it yellow fever.
New law pushes more business out of Seattle.
Â
Good. Seattle wants to be like Detroit in the worst way. Go for it. Have your liberal mecca.
Â
Blow the bridges and brick off I-5. Â
Well the word is out. If you are a small business you are not wanted in Seattle. What the heck, with the rent in Seattle being so high, you are better off moving out anyway. As a consumer, I already do not even drive through Seattle except once in a while on I-5. Much as I dislike that hole, I will make it in for King Tut, my first time in the Socialist Republic of Seattle in 4 years. Hopefully I never need to go in there again in the rest of my life.
 @oldster70 "I will make it in for King Tut"
Great - and remember to tip the servers at BK when you dine out.
 @oldster70 Right now there are three places in Seattle I patronize, well, two because the third is where I volunteer. Next year it will be just the two.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor McSchwin....Without your efforts, and without the efforts of the Queen in Olympia, businesses may not want to just throw in the towel and give up. Without all the regulations taxes already in place, this cream on top will surly push those over the edge, rather than just trying to keep balance on the precipice.
Thank You Mike, and Thank you City Council....please do not give up the fight until 1/2 of the City at a minimum is boarded up.
 @Sydthepiper What's the matter, Syd? Afraid all those rundown rental units you own will run out of renters (aka suckers)?
This isn't just a "sick leave" bill - you have to be paid if you choose to stay home because someone in your family is sick or because of "domestic violence". Â I have never worked in a company that extended "sick" benefits. Â If you are sick - stay home and get paid. Â If your husband/wife is sick let them take care of themselves! Â I'm not sure what you would call in for under the domestic violence part of it - if you were abused and treated for some injuries as a result it should just be "sick leave". Â
 @littlesmokie " If your husband/wife is sick let them take care of themselves!"
You have never had a family member fighting cancer, have you?
For their sake, I hope you never do.
And please, smoke more - 3 packs a day, in your car with the windows up...
Job killer. Iâm all for earned paid time off, but an automatic week will be abused. Sure big companies can probably cover the cost of loss of productivity and the added costs, but small businesses of 25 or less will suffer.Â
 @Kodiak "Iâm all for earned paid time off, but an automatic week will be abused."
Since it is provided over a year, is that not just part of the pay? You work a year, you earn 5 days sick leave?