Six on City Council Oppose Sick-Leave Idea

Nearly half of Denver’s City Council released a letter Monday urging voters to reject a proposed paid-sick leave ordinance that would affect all businesses in the city.

In the letter, put out by Keep Denver Competitive, the opposition campaign to Initiative 300, six of the council’s 13 members cite analyses that the measure will cost the city $700,000 a year to implement for its own workforce. They note that Mayor Michael Hancock already has called for $99.4 million in budget cuts this year, including a mandatory five furlough days for each city worker.

“The city has no existing system in place to implement this ordinance and a number of the city’s existing paid sick leave policies are in conflict with those set forth in the Initiative 300,” said the open letter to the citizens of Denver.

The signers of the letter are:

• Charlie Brown, District 6.

• Albus Brooks, District 8.

• Chris Herndon, District 11.

• Peggy Lehmann, District 4.

• Jeanne Robb, District 10.

• Mary Beth Susman, District 5.

The letter comes 2-1/2 months after Hancock said that he could not support the measure because it targets only Denver businesses and will not help them to add jobs in this stagnant economy.

Initiative 300 would require Denver businesses to grant one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours that an employee works, capped at nine days of leave for businesses of 10 or more workers and five days of paid leave for smaller businesses. It also requires that any employee from a business outside of Denver who works at least 40 hours a year within city limits accrue such benefits for the time they work in Denver.

Proponents, led by a coalition of community, public health and faith groups, say that the initiative will keep employees and the general public healthier because low-paid workers will not be forced to choose between coming in sick or losing pay.

Linda Meric, spokeswoman for the Campaign for a Healthy Denver, said that she was disappointed in the opposition by some council members but recognized that support from voters is more important. She also questioned the fiscal analyses that influenced the letter, saying that they overestimate the direct cost of the initiative to the city and don’t account for the illness-related costs of not providing sick days.

“We recognize that there will be a modest cost to the city to implement paid sick days,” Meric said. “We also think that the specific fiscal analysis done by the city grossly inflates the costs of implementing the ordinance.”

Opponents, led by a coalition of local business groups, argue that the proposal will cost businesses money at an inopportune time and will take away their flexibility in granting sick leave to workers.

See attached for the letter.