Passionate supporters, opponents of St. Paul sick leave have say

People of all ages packed in shoulder to shoulder, filling every bench in the St. Paul City Council chambers. They spilled into the hall and a backroom where Somali and Spanish interpreters translated each plea for — and against — paid sick leave.

Wednesday night's public hearing on the proposed sick leave ordinance, which would require all employers in the city to allow their workers to earn paid time off, drew a passionate crowd.

Most attendees supported the ordinance. Many wore stickers with big red letters saying, "Paid sick days for all." They shared stories of workers who have to choose between going to work sick or staying home and getting well.

Caitlin Reid, a teacher at Maxfield Elementary School, said parents send sick children to school because they have to work and are not able to stay at home with them.

"Kids come to school sick because there isn't another option," Reid said.

Employers, both for and against paid sick leave, turned out at the hearing.

Nick Closmore, general manager of the Wild Onion, said the regulations will present an "administrative nightmare" for small businesses that do not have a human resources department.

Many business owners said they already accommodate workers who need time off, and that if the requirement is truly needed, it should be mandated by the state.

Matt Kramer, with the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, supported a state approach but said if the city passes the ordinance, it should make certain exemptions, including highly paid employees and student workers at private colleges.

Kramer was one of many community members who served on a task force that helped shape the sick leave rules. The proposed ordinance was based on the task force's recommendations. But council members have made numerous tweaks to the regulations, several of which would align the ordinance more closely with Minneapolis' sick leave rules.

One of the most controversial changes removed employees' ability to sue their employer for violating sick leave requirements. Instead, the city's Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity would deal with violations.

However, Council Member Dai Thao proposed another change Wednesday that would allow workers to take legal action against their employer if the worker had been retaliated against for reporting a violation. "It's an important provision to provide some real teeth in the ordinance," said Council Member Jane Prince, who was among the majority of council members that supported the change.

Wednesday's additional changes forced City Council members to continue the public hearing to next Wednesday's 3:30 p.m. meeting. The council is set to take the final vote on sick leave at that meeting.