Yes, I know a lot of people really bridle at the thought of analyzing Sanders’ actual bills. Instead, we’re told, either (a) we should talk about the “vision,” not the bill, because it’s the “vision” that counts; or (b) if we’re supporting Clinton, we can’t criticize Sanders, and we must instead discuss Clinton’s own plans. Well, tough. Even if I support the other candidate, it’s perfectly okay here in the reality-based community to look at Sanders’ actual bills. And so we’re going to look at a third one today, the Paid Vacation Act. (You can see a run-down on the College for All Act and the American Health Security Act in earlier diaries.)
Let me start by noting that this was introduced on June 11 of 2015, so this isn’t old news — I’d venture to say it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss a bill introduced during the campaign as a reasonable subject for discussion about what he might propose if he wins the White House.
The Title of the Bill is the “Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act,” and it is Senate Bill 1564.
The short description is:
A BILL
To require that employers provide not less than 10 days of paid vacation time to eligible employees, and for other purposes.
That sounds pretty good. I love paid vacations.
Let’s go to the definitions. They are where the rubber usually meets the road.
(1) Eligible employee
The term eligible employee means an employee who—
(A) has been employed for not less than 1 year by the employer providing the paid vacation time under section 3; and
(B) through such employment, has provided not less than 1,250 hours of service to such employer during the previous year.
Okay, to get your vacation you need to have worked at least a year. But you don’t have to be a full-time worker. 1250 hours in a year is just 25 hours per week for 50 weeks. Interesting.
Employee
The term employee means an individual who is—
(A)(i) an employee, as defined in section 3(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)), who is not covered under subparagraph (E), including such an employee of the Library of Congress, except that a reference in such section to an employer shall be considered to be a reference to an employer who employs not less than 15 employees at any time during a calendar year and is described in clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A); or
(ii) an employee of the Government Accountability Office;
(B) a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16c(a));
(C) a covered employee, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301), other than an applicant for employment;
(D) a covered employee, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or
(E) a Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code.
Ugh. I hate reading statutes written like this. What the heck does this mean — “except that a reference in such section to an employer shall be considered to be a reference to an employer who employs not less than 15 employees at any time during a calendar year and is described in clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A)” — ?!
I really can’t tell if this applies to an employer who never has more than 10 employees, but has a total of 15 during the year due to attrition, or if it only applies to an employer who had 15 employees at a time at some point during the year.
Let’s assume, in fairness to Senator Sanders, that it’s the latter, and the goal is to define away the truly tiny small business. Okay? So it only applies to a business that has at least 15 employees at once at some point during the year.
Employer
(A) In general
The term employer means a person who employs not less than 15 employees at any time during a calender year and is—
(i)(I) a covered employer, as defined in subparagraph (B), who is not covered under subclause (V);
(II) an entity employing a State employee described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991;
(III) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995;
(IV) an employing office, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or
(V) an employing agency covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code; and
(ii) is engaged in commerce (including government), or an industry or activity affecting commerce (including government), as defined in subparagraph (B)(iii).
Well, that didn’t help much. We’ll just stick with the definition we assumed above, okay?
Paid vacation time
The term paid vacation time means an increment of compensated leave to which an eligible employee is entitled under section 3 to use during an absence from employment, in accordance with the provisions of such section. For purposes of this paragraph and section 3, any sick leave, family leave, or leave otherwise required by law (other than this Act) shall not be treated as or counted towards leave to which an eligible employee is entitled under section 3.
I don’t see anything controversial here. I think we all pretty much agree that’s the right definition for “paid vacation time.”
Okay, we know what the words mean. Let’s get to the heart of the matter.
Sec. 3. Guaranteed paid vacation time
Time for some details
In general
Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, an eligible employee of an employer shall be entitled to not less than 10 days of paid vacation time during each 12-month period to be used on consecutive or nonconsecutive days.
An employee who worked an average of 25 hours per week gets two weeks paid vacation at the employers expense.
Limitation on carryover
Any paid vacation time that is not used during the applicable 12-month period shall not carry over to a subsequent 12-month period.
Use it or lose it.
Written notice
Not later than 15 days prior to the date on which an eligible employee is to begin to use any paid vacation time, the eligible employee shall provide the employer with written notice of the intention to use such paid vacation time, including an indication of the dates on which such paid vacation time are to begin and end.
Okay, I looked. There’s nothing here about the employer’s right to refuse the requested time, or to stagger vacations, or to refuse based upon a very high demand time (e.g. accounting firm in the first week of April, or retail in early December). That might not be a problem if you employ 1,000 people, but if you hire numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 for a month during the busy season, and then numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all give 15 days notice, well, you’re screwed.
I’m a bit ambivalent about this one. I know this would be very hard on some very small businesses, the ones where the owner only occasionally takes a paycheck, and where many of the employees are part-timers. On the other hand, vacation is really important, and we don’t get enough of it.
A serious plan would have a higher threshold for employees, perhaps 50, like the ACA, and would require employees to come a lot closer to full-time work before getting the benefit. Fifteen employees at any time during the year includes too many businesses that often have half that but bring on seasonal help, and combining that with less than full-time work may be aspirational, but not functional.
The bottom line?
This might be a good plan for large businesses, but it would be an utter disaster for actual small businesses, the ones with an owner and a handful of employees, plus additional seasonal employees.
This is the bottom line in many of Sanders’ plans — on a bumper sticker they sound wonderful. But when you drill down into the details, they’re pie-in-the-sky fantasy.