Seattle’s paid sick leave ordinance requires

a written evaluation of the impacts this ordinance has had on employees and employers. This evaluation will include an assessment of patterns and practices relating to shift swapping, the potential abuse of leave by employees who take time for other than the intended purposes, use of explicit waivers of the requirements of this ordinance in collective bargaining agreements, and of complaints and enforcement actions.

Earlier this month, the Seattle city auditor released the first report in a series on these impacts. (The auditor has contracted with the University of Washington to conduct the study.)

This first report is a survey sent to employers before the ordinance went into effect (Sept. 1, 2012). Surveys were sent to 2,319 businesses who are affected by the ordinance, and the response rate was 63 percent. Among the findings:

• There are 49,758 city business license holders, but only 11,163 are affected by the ordinance (because they have more than four employees).
• 63.4 percent of accommodation and food services sector employers are subject to the ordinance — the most of any sector.
• Prior to the ordinance going into effect, 59.1 percent of businesses offered paid sick leave to full-time employees and 26.7 percent offered it to part-time employees.
• 91.4 percent of employers said employees stay home when they’re sick.
• “Of employers that offer paid sick leave, 44 percent report that employees come to work while sick, whereas only 31.3 percent of employers who do not offer paid sick leave report working while sick. This seemingly contradicts the intent of the ordinance.”
• Of employers who did not offer paid sick leave at the time of the survey, 53.7 percent were aware of the ordinance.
• Of those who did not offer paid sick leave, 24.5 percent said they didn’t plan to change their policies when the ordinance went into effect.

Appendix 2 shows the responses by item. The last question asked employers for any comments on the ordinance. According to the report, 195 employers left “substantive comments about the ordinance and its relation to their business or organization’s practices and policies. . . . These ran 8:1 in opposition.”

Appendix 2 includes a selection of these comments. A few examples:

• “Implementing this policy has been a huge expense: getting our payroll system to calculate the hours; informing staff about the new policy; writing the policy; sending HR and managers to trainings.”
• “As a small young business, we already do our best to create a fair and living wage employment. However, there is high turnover in our field, and we generally start benefits after 1 year of employment. We cannot afford to pay new employee’s sick leave, though we can offer unpaid at first.”

For more on the paid sick leave law, see this brief.