Massachusetts Question 4, Paid Sick Days Initiative (2014)

Question 4 Type State statute Origin Citizens Topic Labor and unions Status Approved a

2014 measures November 4 Question 1 a Question 2 d Question 3 d Question 4 a Polls

The Massachusetts Paid Sick Days Initiative, Question 4 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Massachusetts as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. The measure was designed to enable employees who work for employers with eleven or more employees to earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year.

Raise Up Massachusetts announced, via social media, that they submitted over 80,750 signatures for the Paid Sick Days Initiative and the Minimum Wage Increase Initiative on June 18, 2014. The measure was certified for the 2014 ballot on July 2, 2014.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

Massachusetts Question 4
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,256,841	59.38%
No		859,621	40.62%

Election results via: Massachusetts Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was:

“

QUESTION 4: Earned Sick Time for Employees

”

Ballot summary

The initiative appeared on the ballot as follows:

“

This proposed law would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. Employees who work for employers having eleven or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per calendar year, while employees working for smaller employers could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar year. An employee could use earned sick time if required to miss work in order (1) to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition affecting the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; (2) to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; or (3) to address the effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employee’s dependent child. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and would begin accruing those hours on the date of hire or on July 1, 2015, whichever is later. Employees could begin to use earned sick time on the 90th day after hire. The proposed law would cover both private and public employers, except that employees of a particular city or town would be covered only if, as required by the state constitution, the proposed law were made applicable by local or state legislative vote or by appropriation of sufficient funds to pay for the benefit. Earned paid sick time would be compensated at the same hourly rate paid to the employee when the sick time is used. Employees could carry over up to 40 hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year, but could not use more than 40 hours in a calendar year. Employers would not have to pay employees for unused sick time at the end of their employment. If an employee missed work for a reason eligible for earned sick time, but agreed with the employer to work the same number of hours or shifts in the same or next pay period, the employee would not have to use earned sick time for the missed time, and the employer would not have to pay for that missed time. Employers would be prohibited from requiring such an employee to work additional hours to make up for missed time, or to find a replacement employee. Employers could require certification of the need for sick time if an employee used sick time for more than 24 consecutively scheduled work hours. Employers could not delay the taking of or payment for earned sick time because they have not received the certification. Employees would have to make a good faith effort to notify the employer in advance if the need for earned sick time is foreseeable. Employers would be prohibited from interfering with or retaliating based on an employee’s exercise of earned sick time rights, and from retaliating based on an employee’s support of another employee’s exercise of such rights. The proposed law would not override employers’ obligations under any contract or benefit plan with more generous provisions than those in the proposed law. Employers that have their own policies providing as much paid time off, usable for the same purposes and under the same conditions, as the proposed law would not be required to provide additional paid sick time. The Attorney General would enforce the proposed law, using the same enforcement procedures applicable to other state wage laws, and employees could file suits in court to enforce their earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would have to prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to earned sick time, and employers would be required to post the notice in a conspicuous location and to provide a copy to employees. The state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, would develop a multilingual outreach program to inform the public of the availability of earned sick time. The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2015, and states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.

”

Full text

The full text can be read below:

Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority:

SECTION 1. Chapter 149 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 148B the following two sections:-

Section 148C. (a) As used in this section and section 148D, the following words, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, shall have the following meanings:-

“Child”, a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person who has assumed the responsibilities of parenthood.

“Earned paid sick time”, the time off from work that is provided by an employer to an employee as computed under subsection (d) that can be used for the purposes described in subsection (c) and is compensated at the same hourly rate as the employee earns from the employee’s employment at the time the employee uses the paid sick time; provided, however, that this hourly rate shall not be less than the effective minimum wage under section 1 of chapter 151.

“Earned sick time”, the time off from work that is provided by an employer to an employee, whether paid or unpaid, as computed under subsection (d) that can be used for the purposes described in subsection (c).

“Employee”, any person who performs services for an employer for wage, remuneration, or other compensation, except that employees employed by cities and towns shall only be considered Employees for purposes of this law if this law is accepted by vote or by appropriation as provided in Article CXV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

“Employer”, any individual, corporation, partnership or other private or public entity, including any agent thereof, who engages the services of an employee for wages, remuneration or other compensation, except the United States government shall not be considered an Employer and cities and towns shall only be considered Employers for the purposes of this law if this law is accepted by vote or by appropriation as provided in Article CXV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

“Health care provider”, the meaning given this term by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. sections 2601 to 2654, inclusive, as it may be amended and regulations promulgated thereunder.

“Parent”, a biological, adoptive, foster or step-parent of an employee or of an employee’s spouse; or other person who assumed the responsibilities of parenthood when the employee or employee’s spouse was a child.

“Spouse”, the meaning given this term by the marriage laws of the commonwealth.

(b) All employees who work in the commonwealth who must be absent from work for the reason set forth in subsection (c) shall be entitled to earn and use not less than the hours of earned sick time provided in subsection (d).

(c) Earned sick time shall be provided by an employer for an employee to:

(1) care for the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse, who is suffering from a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition that requires home care, professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventative medical care; or

(2) care for the employee’s own physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition that requires home care, professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventative medical care; or

(3) attend the employee’s routine medical appointment or a routine medical appointment for the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of spouse; or

(4) address the psychological, physical or legal effects of domestic violence as defined in subsection (g 1/2) of section 1 of chapter 151A, except that the definition of employee in subsection (a) will govern for purposes of this section.

(d) (1) An employer shall provide a minimum of one hour of earned sick time for every thirty hours worked by an employee. Employees shall begin accruing earned sick time commencing with the date of hire of the employee or the date this law becomes effective, whichever is later, but employees shall not be entitled to use accrued earned sick time until the 90th calendar day following commencement of their employment. On and after this 90 day period, employees may use earned sick time as it accrues.

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to discourage or prohibit an employer from allowing the accrual of earned sick time at a faster rate, or the use of earned sick time at an earlier date, than this section requires.

(3) Employees who are exempt from overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C. section 213(a)(1) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act shall be assumed to work 40 hours in each work week for purposes of earned sick time accrual unless their normal work week is less than 40 hours, in which case earned sick time shall accrue based on that normal work week.

(4) All employees employed by an employer of eleven or more employees shall be entitled to earn and use up to 40 hours of earned paid sick time from that employer as provided in subsection (d) in a calendar year. In determining the number of employees who are employed by an employer for compensation, all employees performing work for compensation on a full-time, part-time or temporary basis shall be counted.

(5) Notwithstanding section 17 of chapter 15D, sections 70-75 of chapter 118E, or any other special or general law to the contrary, the PCA Quality Home Care Workforce Council shall be deemed the Employer of all Personal Care Attendants, as defined in section 70 of chapter 118E, for purposes of subsection (d)(4) of this section, the Department of Medical Assistance shall be deemed the Employer of said Personal Care Attendants for all other purposes under this section, and the Department of Early Education and Care shall be deemed the Employer of all Family Child Care Providers, as defined in section 17(a) of chapter 15D, for purposes of this section.

(6) All employees not entitled to earned paid sick time from an employer pursuant to subsection (d)(4)-(5) shall be entitled to earn and use up to 40 hours of earned unpaid sick time from that employer as provided in subsection (d) in a calendar year.

(7) Earned sick time shall be used in the smaller of hourly increments or the smallest increment that the employer’s payroll system uses to account for absences or use of other time. Employees may carry over up to 40 hours of unused earned sick time to the next calendar year, but are not entitled to use more than 40 hours in one calendar year. Employers shall not be required to pay out unused earned sick time upon the separation of the employee from the employer.

(e) If an employee is absent from work for any reason listed in subsection (c) and, by mutual consent of the employer and the employee, the employee works an equivalent number of additional hours or shifts during the same or the next pay period as the hours or shifts not worked due to reasons listed in subsection (c), an employee shall not be required to use accrued earned sick time for the employee’s absence during that time period and the employer shall not be required to pay for the time the employee was so absent. An employer shall not require such employee to work additional hours to make up for the hours during which the employee was so absent or require that the employee search for or find a replacement employee to cover the hours during which the employee is utilizing earned sick time.

(f) Subject to the provisions of subsection (n), an employer may require certification when an earned sick time period covers more than 24 consecutively scheduled work hours. Any reasonable documentation signed by a health care provider indicating the need for earned sick time taken shall be deemed acceptable certification for absences under subsection (c)(1), (2) and (3). Documentation deemed acceptable under subsection (g 1/2) of section 1 of chapter 151A shall be deemed acceptable documentation for absences under subsection (c)(4). An employer may not require that the documentation explain the nature of the illness or the details of the domestic violence. The employer shall not delay the taking of earned sick time or delay pay for the period in which earned sick time was taken for employees entitled to pay under subsection (d), on the basis that the employer has not yet received the certification. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an employee to provide as certification any information from a health care provider that would be in violation of section 1177 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-6, or the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note.

(g) When the use of earned sick time is foreseeable, the employee shall make a good faith effort to provide notice of this need to the employer in advance of the use of the earned sick time.

(h) It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under or in connection with this section, including, but not limited to, by using the taking of earned sick time under this section as a negative factor in any employment action such as evaluation, promotion, disciplinary action or termination, or otherwise subjecting an employee to discipline for the use of earned sick time under this section.

(i) It shall be unlawful for any employer to take any adverse action against an employee because the employee opposes practices which the employee believes to be in violation of this section, or because the employee supports the exercise of rights of another employee under this section. Exercising rights under this section shall include but not be limited to filing an action, or instituting or causing to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this section; providing or intending to provide any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this section; or testifying or intending to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this section.

(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to discourage employers from adopting or retaining earned sick time policies more generous than policies that comply with the requirements of this section and nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish or impair the obligation of an employer to comply with any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or any employment benefit program or plan in effect on the effective date of this section that provides to employees greater earned sick time rights than the rights established under this section.

(k) Employers required to provide earned paid sick time who provide their employees paid time off under a paid time off, vacation or other paid leave policy who make available an amount of paid time off sufficient to meet the accrual requirements of this section that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as earned paid sick time under this section are not required by this section to provide additional earned paid sick time.

(l) The attorney general shall enforce this section, and may obtain injunctive or declaratory relief for this purpose. Violation of this section shall be subject to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (6) and (7) of subsection (b) of section 27C and to section 150.

(m) The attorney general shall prescribe by regulation the employer’s obligation to make, keep, and preserve records pertaining to this section consistent with the requirements of section 15 of chapter 151.

(n) The attorney general may adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section, including the manner in which an employee who does not have a health care provider shall provide certification, and the manner in which employer size shall be determined for purposes of subsection (d)(4).

(o) Notice of this section shall be prepared by the attorney general, in English and in other languages required under clause (iii) of subsection (d) of section 62A of chapter 151A. Employers shall post this notice in a conspicuous location accessible to employees in every establishment where employees with rights under this section work, and shall provide a copy to their employees. This notice shall include the following information:

(1) information describing the rights to earned sick time under this section;

(2) information about notices, documentation and any other requirements placed on employees in order to exercise their rights to earned sick time;

(3) information that describes the protections that an employee has in exercising rights under this section;

(4) the name, address, phone number, and website of the attorney general’s office where questions about the rights and responsibilities under this section can be answered; and

(5) information about filing an action under this section.

Section 148D. The executive office of health and human services, in consultation with the attorney general, shall develop and implement a multilingual outreach program to inform employees, parents, and persons who are under the care of a health care provider about the availability of earned sick time under this section. This program shall include the distribution of notices and other written materials in English and in other languages to all child care and elder care providers, domestic violence shelters, schools, hospitals, community health centers, and other health care providers.

SECTION 2. Section 150 of chapter 149 is hereby amended by inserting after the word “148B”, the following word:- , 148C.

SECTION 3. If any provision of this act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is judged invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared severable.

SECTION 4. This act shall take effect on July 1, 2015.

Support

The measure was sponsored by the group Raise Up Massachusetts.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Deval Patrick (D)
• U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D)
• U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)
• Attorney General Martha Coakley (D)

Organizations

• Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition
• Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts
• Boston Children's Hospital
• Partners HealthCare
• Boston Medical Center
• Steward Health Care
• Alliance for Business Leadership

Individuals

• Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley
• Worcester Bishop Robert McManus
• Springfied Bishop Mitchell Rozanski
• Fall River Bishop Edgar da Cunha

Economists

Approximately 75 economists signed a letter in support of Question 4.

• Frank Ackerman, MIT
• Randy Albelda, UMass Boston
• Nurul Aman, UMass Boston
• Jack Amariglio, Merrimack College
• Michael Ash, UMass Amherst
• M. V. Lee Badgett, UMass Amherst
• Deepankar Basu, UMass Amherst
• Carole Biewener, Simmons College
• Barry Bluestone, Northeastern University
• James K. Boyce, UMass Amherst
• Bob Buchele, Smith College
• Jim Campen, UMass Boston
• Michael Carter, UMass Lowell
• Alan Clayton-Matthews, Northeastern University
• Douglass Cliggott, UMass Amherst
• J. Kevin Crocker, Umass Amherst
• Omar S. Dahi, Hampshire College
• David Danning, UMass Boston
• William Dickens, Northeastern University
• Arindrajit Dube, UMass Amherst
• Alison Earle, Brandeis University
• Gerald Epstein, UMass Amherst
• Bilge Erten, Northeastern University
• Kade Finnoff, UMass Boston
• Diane Flaherty, UMass Amherst
• Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst
• Dania V. Francis, UMass Amherst
• Gerald Friedman, UMass Amherst
• Monica Galizzi, UMass Lowell
• Heidi Garrett-Peltier, UMass Amherst
• Mwangi wa Githinji, UMass Amherst
• Carol E. Heim, UMass Amherst
• James Heintz, UMass Amherst
• Keren Horn, UMass Boston
• Arjun Jayadev, UMass Boston
• Maximilian Kasy, Harvard University
• Marlene Kim, UMass Boston
• Thomas A. Kochan, MIT
• Harry Konstantinidis, UMass Boston
• David M. Kotz, UMass Amherst
• Arthur MacEwan, UMass Boston
• John Miller, Wheaton College
• Jon Millman, UMass Boston
• Alicia Sasser Modestino, Northeastern University
• Fred Moseley, Mt. Holyoke College
• Philip Moss, UMass Lowell
• Marta Murray-Close, UMass Amherst
• Léonce Ndikumana, UMass Amherst
• Julie Nelson, UMass Boston
• Paul Osterman, MIT
• Karen Pfeifer, Smith College
• Steve Pizer, Northeastern University
• Robert Pollin, UMass Amherst
• Gautam Rao, Harvard University
• James Rebitzer, Boston University
• Nola Reinhardt, Smith College
• Tom Riddell, Smith College
• Lisa Saunders, UMass Amherst
• Helen Scharber, Hampshire College
• Juliet B. Schor, Boston College
• Zoe Sherman, Merrimack College
• Peter Skott, UMass Amherst
• Bryan Snyder, Bentley University
• Robert Solow, MIT (Nobel Laureate)
• Ceren Soylu, UMass Amherst
• Peter Spiegler, UMass Amherst
• Mary Stevenson, UMass Boston
• John Stifler, UMass Amherst
• David Terkla, UMass Boston
• Charles Tontar, Merrimack College
• Vamsi Vakulabharanam, UMass Amherst
• Valerie Voorheis, UMass Amherst
• Jeannette Wicks-Lim, UMass Amherst
• Emily Wiemers, UMass Boston
• Richard D. Wolff, UMass Amherst
• Brenda Wyss, Wheaton College
• Robert Zevin, Zevin Asset Management

Arguments

A Raise Up Massachusetts ad, titled "Impossible Choices," that addressed minimum wage and earned sick days.

A group of 77 economists signed a letter in support of Question 4. The group's statement was as follows:

“	One important role of economic policy is to improve the well-being of individuals, families, and our communities. Balancing work with family responsibilities, such as caring for a sick child, creates difficult challenges for many parents, and everyone is sometimes too sick to work. Yet, in Massachusetts, as in most of the country, many workers miss a day’s pay and can be fired for staying home when too sick to work or for taking time off to care for a sick child. That’s why we, as economists that live and work in Massachusetts, say yes to ballot Question 4, which would create a law to entitle employees of firms with 11 or more employees to earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per calendar year while prohibiting employers from punishing workers who exercise that right. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked that could be used, 90 days after hire, to compensate for time off due to own illness or that of a child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse. Currently, paid sick days are left to the discretion of individual employers. While most do provide workers with this benefit, 31 percent of Massachusetts workers do not have access to paid sick time. Low-wage workers, those least likely to be able to absorb the loss of a day’s pay when they or a family member is sick, are also the least likely to have access to paid sick days. Research points to several economic benefits associated with paid sick time. Workers covered by such policies are much more likely not to go to work when sick, limiting the spread of disease and preventing unnecessary health care costs. Workers with paid sick days are less likely to have non-fatal accidents at work and are less likely to lose or quit their jobs, reducing turnover and increasing productivity. Providing all workers the ability to earn sick time over the course of a year also will improve the overall well-being of lower-income workers and their families and thus reduce the growing disparities between high- and low-income workers. The U.S. is the only developed country with no national programs that provide workers with paid sick days to recover from illness. In the absence of federal policies, states and cities have been enacting legislation to provide workers with this essential provision, including Connecticut; California; Washington, DC; Milwaukee, WI; Newark, NJ; New York City, NY; San Diego, CA; Portland, OR, Seattle, WA and San Francisco, CA. No evidence suggests that any of the states or cities that have passed paid sick day ordinances have suffered employment losses or reduced economic activity. Nor is there any evidence that workers with paid sick days abuse this right. A minimum floor of earned paid sick days will level the playing field for employers who already provide this valuable benefit. Overall, it is a policy that serves to help protect and promote the economic security of both workers and businesses in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.	”
—Frank Ackerman et al.

A Raise Up Massachusetts ad, titled "Elizabeth Grow is voting Yes on 4," addressing earned sick days.

The Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts, representing the state's four Catholic Dioceses, urged "citizens to vote “Yes” on Ballot Question 4 on November 4th." The following is an excerpt from the bishops' statement:

“	In 2013, Pope Francis stated in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium that “it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.” The social teaching of the Catholic Church has long been clear on the essential nature of work for the maintenance of the dignity of the human person. It is this teaching that informs our opinion and endorsement of Question 4 today. In March of this year we endorsed the right of the worker to a fair wage, and we wish to continue to reaffirm Catholic teaching regarding the importance of work, family, and the fundamental dignity of all persons. Today, those without sick time are oftentimes forced to choose between going to work sick or losing a day’s pay, in many cases threatening the loss of their job. Tragically, many are forced to send a sick child to school to save their income or their job. These are the same individuals who earn the least amount and struggle to provide the basic needs for themselves and their families. By endorsing a “yes” vote on Question 4, workers in Massachusetts would be able to earn up to 40 hours of earned sick time per year to take care of their own health or the health of a family member. Employers with 11 or more employees would be required to provide paid sick leave to their employees. Employers with less than 11 employees would be required to provide unpaid sick leave...Low-wage workers, those that are most vulnerable, deserve the security of knowing that their work will result in providing for their means and the means of their families without the fear of job loss. This proposal is reasonable and fair. It will allow workers to stay home when they or their family members are ill, keeping our workers, families, and workplaces healthy.	”
—Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts

A Raise Up Massachusetts ad, titled "Mary Ellen is voting Yes on 4," addressing earned sick days.

Other arguments in favor of the initiative included:

• Kate Walsh, President and CEO of Boston Medical Center, said, "Massachusetts is the home of some of the most comprehensive, advanced medical care in the world. Unfortunately, many people in our state cannot access this care for themselves or a family member because they cannot afford to take time off from work. Question 4 will eliminate this barrier and give the people of Massachusetts the ability to get the medical care they need, when they need it."
• Phil Edmundson, chairperson of the Alliance for Business Leadership, stated, "As businesspeople, we know that earned sick time reduces employee turnover, increases productivity, and helps businesses' bottom line."
• Timothy Chouinard, a factory worker in Fall River, Massachusetts, said to canvassers, "I'm the typical person that you guys are working for right here." He described losing $80 to $100 when he was sick for one day. His wife, who works at the same factory, lost two days' pay when their children were sick. He stated, "I support [the measure] then. Hell, yeah."

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash as of November 20, 2014
Support:	$2,023,658
Opposition:	$56,542

As of November 20, 2014, supporters had received more than $2 million in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Raise Up Massachusetts	$2,203,658	$892,454
Total	$2,023,658	$892,454

The following are contributors, including in-kind contributors, who donated $25,000 or more to Raise Up Massachusetts.

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
Mass Uniting	$1,150,706
1199 SEIU MA PAC	$175,000
SEIU Massachusetts Council	$166,096
1199 SEIU - NYS Political Action Fund	$150,000
Coalition for Social Justice/CSJ Education Fund	$115,497
SEIU International	$103,856
Massachusetts Teachers Association	$100,000
Local 32BJ SEIU	$75,000
Local 509 SEIU	$75,000
1199SEIU Healthcare Workers East, Mass Division	$74,504
Massachusetts AFL-CIO	$74,303
SEIU General Fund	$50,000
Organizing and Leadership Training Center	$29,161

Opposition

The campaign against the measure was led by Vote NO on 4.

Opponents

Organizations

• Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts
• Affiliated Chambers of Commerce of Greater Springfield
• Assabet Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Associated Industries of Massachusetts
• Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Cape Ann Chamber of Commerce
• Cape Cod Canal Region Chamber of Commerce
• Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce
• Corridor Nine Area Chamber of Commerce
• Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry
• Greater Beverly Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Haverhill Chamber of Commerce
• Lynn Area Chamber of Commerce
• Massachusetts Food Association
• Massachusetts Package Store Association
• Massachusetts Restaurant Association
• Nashoba Valley Chamber of Commerce
• National Federation of Independent Business/Massachusetts
• New Bedford Area Chamber of Commerce
• New England Convenience Store Association
• Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce
• North Central Chamber of Commerce
• North Quabbin Chamber of Commerce
• North Shore Chamber of Commerce
• North Suburban Chamber of Commerce
• Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce
• Quincy Chamber of Commerce
• Salem Chamber of Commerce
• South Shore Chamber of Commerce

• Winthrop Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

Vote NO on 4, the organization leading the campaign against Question 4, argued the following on the group's website:

“	Higher Costs. Lower Wages. Passage of Question 4 will increase the cost for employers and directly lead to fewer benefits and/or lower wages for workers. All part-time, seasonal and teenage employees will be included in this mandate. Taxpayers will pay for sick leave for public employees and for taxpayer subsidized workers. Employers in the service industry such as retail, restaurants and hotels would find this mandate twice as costly, as they must pay for a replacement employee to cover the shift of a worker taking sick leave. That doesn’t sound fair, because it’s not. A paid sick leave mandate would increase payroll and administrative costs, and be a managerial nightmare to keep track of paid time off that has been accumulated, used and banked. Small businesses in many cases lack the resources to employ HR professionals, creating opportunities for plaintiff attorneys to file damaging lawsuits. Job Killing Mandates A recent study has shown that Question 4 would seriously harm the Massachusetts economy, resulting in the loss of 16,000 jobs and $8.4 billion in lost economic activity. Question 4 will kill jobs and suppress any new potential job growth as employers scramble to cover the additional costs of complying with the law. The same study found that the paid sick leave mandate would disproportionately impact small businesses, which would carry two-thirds of the job losses and more than half of lost sales. Since the new law would equally apply to part-time, seasonal and temporary workers, it will be harder for Massachusetts businesses to even offer these jobs. Business owners and their families will take more of the burden on themselves. The Question 4 proposition is unnecessary. Part-time employees have resolved scheduling issues amongst themselves or through communication with their supervisor for decades. Shift swapping is the norm, and it works for both sides, allowing employees to prioritize their absences and also to meet the non-traditional labor demands of a restaurants, hotels and retail establishments... Takes Away Flexibility This special-interest paid sick leave mandate eliminates any flexibility for employers and employees to negotiate pay and benefit packages. Many workers, particularly hourly employees, prefer to negotiate a higher wage and forego any other benefits. Question 4 would eliminate that flexibility.	”
—Vote NO on 4

Other arguments against the ballot measure included:

• Jon Hurst, President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, said, "If someone calls in sick, you have to replace that person and bring in someone else for that very same shift, which means that you have double the payroll [assuming the company has 11 or more workers]... [The proposal is] on the heels of a 38 percent minimum wage increase, the highest health insurance premiums in the country, highest energy costs, highest unemployment insurance, all these things. The feedback that we’re getting is, ‘Where is it going to end?’"

Campaign contributions

As of November 20, 2014, opponents had accumulated $56,542 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
No on 4 Committee	$56,542	$46,900
Total	$56,542	$46,900

The following are contributors, including in-kind contributors, who donated $1,000 or more to the No on 4 Committee.

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
National Restaurant Association - Save American Free Enterprise	$35,000
Massachusetts Restaurant Association	$8,723
National Federation of Independent Business	$8,164
Retailers Association of Massachusetts	$4,655

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Massachusetts ballot measures, 2014

Support

• Boston Globe said, "QUESTION 4 on the November ballot is a sweeping measure that would provide all Massachusetts workers the chance to earn sick leave — in many cases, with pay. If passed, the referendum would put Massachusetts in line with a handful of forward-thinking cities and just two other states, California and Connecticut. The measure is a welcome opportunity for the Commonwealth to lead, and voters should approve it."
• GazetteNet said, "There are many reasons it is better workplace policy to give people the option to stay home when they are sick. Common sense says it keeps other workers healthier. It reduces turnover, increases productivity and builds morale. It is also humane, plain and simple."

Opposition

• The Recorder said, "If passed, Question 4 will help create a less healthy climate for the small businesses of Massachusetts and for that reason we ask voters to say “No.”
• The Republican said, "This new layer of regulation would give out-of-state business another reason to stay away. It would force current Massachusetts employers to either absorb the added cost, raise prices on their products or cut their labor force, none of which will help either the consumer or the labor force in the long run."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

Massachusetts Question 4 (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Suffolk University/Boston Herald 10/27/2014-10/29/2014	47.6%	43.4%	9.0%	+/-4.4	500
UMass Amherst/WBZ Poll 9/18/2014-9/23/2014	60.0%	23.0%	17.0%	+/-4.4	708
The MassINC Polling Group 9/16/2014-9/21/2014	56.0%	25.0%	19.0%	+/-4.4	502
AVERAGES	54.53%	30.47%	15%	+/-4.4	570
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Reports and analyses

MA Budget and Policy Center

The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MBPC) issued a brief on earned paid sick time on September 15, 2014.

According to the MBPC, the demographics of the national labor force and home have changed since the late 1960s. Women have entered the labor force, and families often rely on both parents as wage earners. In 1967, 64 percent of children lived in households where one parent wasn't employed. In 2009, the percentage was 34. Also, the number of workers with elder care responsibilities has increased and will continue to increase as baby boomers enter retirement. Due to these demographic shifts, earned paid sick time would benefit children and the elderly.

The MBPC estimated that one in three workers do not have access to earned paid sick time in Massachusetts. This lack of access may lead to job loss or delayed career advancement, especially since people tend to start families early in their careers. A number of cities have implemented required paid sick days. MBPC said these cities' policies have aided families by:

• Allowing families to meet basic needs. "Many families living paycheck to paycheck rely on a tight family budget to make ends meet. When a worker, particularly a low-wage worker, or their child, becomes ill and has to take time off, lost wages can become a critical shortfall in that budget. For example, 3.5 days of lost pay is equivalent to an average low-income family’s monthly grocery budget."
• Increasing long-term employment and earnings prospects. "Workers who do not earn sick time are at risk of losing their jobs when they need to care for themselves or their family members, which imposes costs to their long-term economic stability. The added economic security provided by earned paid sick time is especially important in an economy where long-term unemployment rates are still stubbornly high."
• Preventing unnecessary health care expenses. "Without access to earned paid sick time, families are more likely to send their child to school sick and/or seek medical treatment at an emergency room because they could not get the time off during normal business hours, when most doctors’ offices are open. Providing earned paid sick time can reduce emergency room visits and other medical expenses because it makes it easier for families to get primary and preventive care. Also, it can prevent the costs of delaying health services, such as from untreated illnesses, and future costs associated with long-term illnesses."

The MBPC also looked at laws requiring paid sick days and concluded that they don't have any negative effects on wages, employment or business growth. Specifically, the center looked at two cities, San Francisco and Washington, DC, because the two have the longest standing mandatory paid sick days laws in the country.

• Effects on wages. Wage growth was stronger in both cities compared to the total United States between 2008 and 2012.
• Effects on employment. San Francisco and Washington, DC experienced faster job growth than the United States between 2008 and 2012.
• Effects on the establishment of new businesses. Similarly, MBPC found no evidence that earned paid sick days laws discouraged the establishment of new businesses. Both cities had higher rates than the total United States.

MBPC analyzed the potential costs and savings to businesses associated with earned paid sick time laws. In 2013, the average cost of paid sick days for all New England businesses averaged 0.9 percent of total employee compensation. This number was even lower for restaurants and other service companies, with the average cost being 0.5 percent. In the United States, the average costs of replacing an employee earning $30,000 or less is equivalent to 16 percent of their salary. The center concluded, "Earned paid sick time can lead to healthier workplaces, reduced turnover, and more satisfied and productive workers, all of which translate to better bottom lines." Therefore, businesses may save money by implementing paid sick days policies. Lastly, "employees without earned paid sick time are more likely to come to work ill, which increases the risk of accidents, spreading illness to co-workers, driving up health care insurance costs, and decreasing productivity overall, all of which cost employers money. In fact, the cost of people coming into work sick in the U.S. is estimated at $160 billion each year."

The full brief is available on the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center's website.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

An advertisement put out by Raise Up Massachusetts supporting the minimum wage and paid sick days initiatives.

Supporters first had to submit the initiative, signed by ten voters, to the Massachusetts Attorney General by August 7, 2013. The attorney general then had to determine whether the measure met the legal requirements for circulation, which it did.

In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 68,911 valid signatures by November 20, 2013, and submit them to local registrars for certification. Then, these certified petitions were successfully filed with the secretary of state on the December 4, 2013, deadline, after which the secretary of state determined enough valid signatures had been collected.

The Massachusetts General Court had until May 7, 2014, to either accept or reject the measure or take no action. No action was taken, therefore, the original supporters of the measure had to collect an additional 11,485 signatures and submit them to local registrars for certification by June 18, 2014. These signatures then had to be filed with the secretary of state no later than July 2, 2014. The measure was certified for the 2014 ballot on July 2, 2014.

See also

Suggest a link

• Massachusetts 2014 ballot measures
• 2014 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

External links

• Text of the Paid Sick Days Initiative