Momentum Is Growing In N.J. To Require Paid Sick Time
When a New Jersey worker gets sick or needs to care for a family member, should she have to lose wages and risk losing her job? To us, and the thousands of advocates working to bring earned sick days to the 1.2 million Garden State workers who lack this basic benefit, the answer is clearly no.
And, as it turns out, an overwhelming majority of our neighbors agree.
New Jersey does not currently require its private employers to extend earned sick days to their employee’s -- a policy choice that has negative consequences not only for the workers who need this time the most, but for all of us. On the heels of Jersey City’s decision to sign a paid sick time bill into law, and in light of Newark’s movement toward a similar ordinance, there is real momentum in the Statehouse to enact a statewide policy that would cover all of the state’s workers.
Guaranteed access to earned sick days is commonplace in most developed nations and has been passed in other American cities and states, including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Washington, D.C., New York City and Connecticut. While this policy makes common sense and is widely supported, there’s still an uphill climb to get strong policies enacted. This must be because earned sick leave is a particularly controversial and divisive issue, right?
Wrong.
In fact, despite increasing political polarization and what appears to be a lack of consensus on just about everything, New Jerseyans strongly support earned sick days, according to recent findings by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, which were detailed in a research brief by the Rutgers Center for Women and Work.
More than four in five – 83 percent – have favorable opinions toward the policy and about just as many – 81 percent ¬– support the legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt that would extend earned sick days to all New Jersey workers. The strong support cuts across political, economic and demographic boundaries; even among the group that is least likely to favor earned sick days – registered Republicans – 73 percent support it.
You may be wondering, then, whose opposition to earned sick days is making this so difficult.
It is, not surprisingly, entrenched business lobbying interests that have indicated they will fight this policy tooth and nail. Groups that claim to speak for a monolithic business community often register their opposition to mandatory earned leave policies – as they have done with mandatory wage policies, overtime policies and hosts of other common-sense pro-worker policies – arguing that the workers will be harmed, jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer.
But none of that is the case. Earned sick leave policies provide benefits not only for employees, but also for their employers and surrounding communities, while having no adverse consequence on the economy. Allowing sick workers to take time off without losing pay decreases the risk of illness spreading through a workplace, through schools (more sick children are kept out of school when their parents can afford to stay home to care for them) and through the community (food service workers are a great threat to public health when ill, but only one in four food service workers in New Jersey has access to earned sick time).
In addition, when workers are able to take time off for illness, businesses are more productive – to the benefit of the entire state economy. When employees go to work sick, it actually costs their employers far more in lost productivity than when employees stay home to get better. And when workers know that one nasty winter cold won’t jeopardize their earnings, they are better able to plan their finances and more likely to spend money at businesses in their communities.
Sadly, the New Jerseyans who are without access to earned sick days are the ones who need this workplace standard the most.
The economic and demographic groups most likely to lack this benefit are the very groups that often lack the financial resources to be able to compensate for this lost time: those earning less than $50,000 a year, those without a high school degree, young adults and Latinos.
Women are also less likely than men to have access to earned leave. This is particularly disconcerting, since women are society’s main caregivers; they are far more likely than men to miss work to care for their children and – without earned sick days – to be let go from their jobs because they are caring for ill family members.
The benefits of earned sick days are clear. Providing this benefit to all New Jersey workers would be a healthy step for the state. It is time to take that step. –Nj
When a New Jersey worker gets sick or needs to care for a family member, should she have to lose wages and risk losing her job? To us, and the thousands of advocates working to bring earned sick days to the 1.2 million Garden State workers who lack this basic benefit, the answer is clearly no.
And, as it turns out, an overwhelming majority of our neighbors agree.
New Jersey does not currently require its private employers to extend earned sick days to their employee’s -- a policy choice that has negative consequences not only for the workers who need this time the most, but for all of us. On the heels of Jersey City’s decision to sign a paid sick time bill into law, and in light of Newark’s movement toward a similar ordinance, there is real momentum in the Statehouse to enact a statewide policy that would cover all of the state’s workers.
Guaranteed access to earned sick days is commonplace in most developed nations and has been passed in other American cities and states, including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Washington, D.C., New York City and Connecticut. While this policy makes common sense and is widely supported, there’s still an uphill climb to get strong policies enacted. This must be because earned sick leave is a particularly controversial and divisive issue, right?
Wrong.
In fact, despite increasing political polarization and what appears to be a lack of consensus on just about everything, New Jerseyans strongly support earned sick days, according to recent findings by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, which were detailed in a research brief by the Rutgers Center for Women and Work.
More than four in five – 83 percent – have favorable opinions toward the policy and about just as many – 81 percent ¬– support the legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt that would extend earned sick days to all New Jersey workers. The strong support cuts across political, economic and demographic boundaries; even among the group that is least likely to favor earned sick days – registered Republicans – 73 percent support it.
You may be wondering, then, whose opposition to earned sick days is making this so difficult.
It is, not surprisingly, entrenched business lobbying interests that have indicated they will fight this policy tooth and nail. Groups that claim to speak for a monolithic business community often register their opposition to mandatory earned leave policies – as they have done with mandatory wage policies, overtime policies and hosts of other common-sense pro-worker policies – arguing that the workers will be harmed, jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer.
But none of that is the case. Earned sick leave policies provide benefits not only for employees, but also for their employers and surrounding communities, while having no adverse consequence on the economy. Allowing sick workers to take time off without losing pay decreases the risk of illness spreading through a workplace, through schools (more sick children are kept out of school when their parents can afford to stay home to care for them) and through the community (food service workers are a great threat to public health when ill, but only one in four food service workers in New Jersey has access to earned sick time).
In addition, when workers are able to take time off for illness, businesses are more productive – to the benefit of the entire state economy. When employees go to work sick, it actually costs their employers far more in lost productivity than when employees stay home to get better. And when workers know that one nasty winter cold won’t jeopardize their earnings, they are better able to plan their finances and more likely to spend money at businesses in their communities.
Sadly, the New Jerseyans who are without access to earned sick days are the ones who need this workplace standard the most.
The economic and demographic groups most likely to lack this benefit are the very groups that often lack the financial resources to be able to compensate for this lost time: those earning less than $50,000 a year, those without a high school degree, young adults and Latinos.
Women are also less likely than men to have access to earned leave. This is particularly disconcerting, since women are society’s main caregivers; they are far more likely than men to miss work to care for their children and – without earned sick days – to be let go from their jobs because they are caring for ill family members.
The benefits of earned sick days are clear. Providing this benefit to all New Jersey workers would be a healthy step for the state. It is time to take that step. –Nj
>>>>*<<<<
N.J. Senate Approves Bill To Allow Transgender People To Obtain New Birth Certificate
A state Senate panel approved a bill that would require the state Health Department to issue a new birth certificate for people who have gone through the clinical process of altering their gender.
State law since 1984 has required the state Health Department to issue a new birth certificate to people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery.
Not every transgender person undergoes surgery because of the expense and the health risks involved with a major surgery, said Joseph Vitale, chairman of the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, (D-Middlesex), who sponsored the bill.
Some opt for hormone replacement therapy, supporters of the bill said.
This bill would require a new birth record for people who have undergone "clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition." The person's licensed health care provider would have to sign a form vouching the treatment had taken place, according to the bill.
People who identify themselves as intersex are born with anatomy that is not medically identified as standard male or female, according to the Intersex Society of North America.
Vitale said he sponsored the bill (S2786) on behalf of a constituent because "the world is changing."
"Birth certificates always have been a means of how we traditionally identify a person. In the transgender community, it doesn't reflect who they are mentally spiritually and in every other way but physically," Vitale said. "They don't argue what they were then, but I am not that person now."
Jeanne LoCicero, deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, said a young transgender man inquired about changing his birth certificate.
"I had to advise him he could not, because, although he had undergone clinically appropriate treatment, he had not undergone surgery. As a 20-something looking for a job, he could not afford to do that," LoCicero said.
"He had concerns about being outed for having to present inconsistent documents," said LoCicero, who noted transgender people often face "severe and latent discrimination" and "the risk of violence." He obtained a passport instead because the U.S. State Department does not require transgender people to show proof of the surgery, she said
Sen. Sam Thompson (R-Middlesex) said he would not support the bill, although he stressed he supports transgender people and their right to live how they want.
"My concern is a birth certificate is an historical document," Thompson said. "If you want a document saying you are a lady today, I am 100 percent for it."
The Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee approved the bill by a 6-2 vote with one abstention.
The Assembly passed the bill by a 43-27 vote in June. –Nj
A state Senate panel approved a bill that would require the state Health Department to issue a new birth certificate for people who have gone through the clinical process of altering their gender.
State law since 1984 has required the state Health Department to issue a new birth certificate to people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery.
Not every transgender person undergoes surgery because of the expense and the health risks involved with a major surgery, said Joseph Vitale, chairman of the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, (D-Middlesex), who sponsored the bill.
Some opt for hormone replacement therapy, supporters of the bill said.
This bill would require a new birth record for people who have undergone "clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition." The person's licensed health care provider would have to sign a form vouching the treatment had taken place, according to the bill.
People who identify themselves as intersex are born with anatomy that is not medically identified as standard male or female, according to the Intersex Society of North America.
Vitale said he sponsored the bill (S2786) on behalf of a constituent because "the world is changing."
"Birth certificates always have been a means of how we traditionally identify a person. In the transgender community, it doesn't reflect who they are mentally spiritually and in every other way but physically," Vitale said. "They don't argue what they were then, but I am not that person now."
Jeanne LoCicero, deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, said a young transgender man inquired about changing his birth certificate.
"I had to advise him he could not, because, although he had undergone clinically appropriate treatment, he had not undergone surgery. As a 20-something looking for a job, he could not afford to do that," LoCicero said.
"He had concerns about being outed for having to present inconsistent documents," said LoCicero, who noted transgender people often face "severe and latent discrimination" and "the risk of violence." He obtained a passport instead because the U.S. State Department does not require transgender people to show proof of the surgery, she said
Sen. Sam Thompson (R-Middlesex) said he would not support the bill, although he stressed he supports transgender people and their right to live how they want.
"My concern is a birth certificate is an historical document," Thompson said. "If you want a document saying you are a lady today, I am 100 percent for it."
The Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee approved the bill by a 6-2 vote with one abstention.
The Assembly passed the bill by a 43-27 vote in June. –Nj
No comments:
Post a Comment