Category Archives: Department of Labor

The Democratic Party Platform: A Cheat Sheet

ThinkstockPhotos-476244660Turnabout is fair play — at least when it comes to politics in 2016. Last week I gave you a rundown on HR-related provisions in the Republican Party platform. Now it’s time for the Democrats.

Reflecting the unusual character of this year’s race, the document — formally approved on Monday — contains many direct attacks on GOP candidate Donald J. Trump. In some cases the narrative has to stretch a bit to do so. In declaring the party’s support for small business, for example, the platform says:

“The Democratic Party will make it easier to start and grow a small business in America, unlike Donald Trump, who has often stiffed small businesses—nearly bankrupting some—with his deceptive and reckless corporate practices.”

Anyway. Back to HR. Following are the main provisions of interest.

Minimum Wage: Language in the platform on the federal minimum wage reflects some tension between the party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Clinton favors a raise from $7.25 an hour today to $12, leaving states and cities to set higher minimums. Her now-vanquished rival, Bernie Sanders, pushed for $15. What emerged in final platform language was a compromise: $15 … “over time.” The party also calls for eliminating minimum-wage exemptions for tipped workers and those with disabilities.

“No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. … We should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over time and index it [to inflation].”

Employer incentives: The party also favors federal support for employers who “provide their workers with a living wage, good benefits, and the opportunity to form a union without reprisal.” The language doesn’t specify the form of this support, but suggests such employers would get preference in existing programs.

“The one trillion dollars spent annually by the government on contracts, loans, and grants should be used to support good jobs that rebuild the middle class.”

‘Card Check’: The platform reiterates a long-held argument in favor of allowing unions to organize workplaces where a majority of workers have signed cards indicating approval — with no election. The idea, called “card check,” has been proposed in Congress for more than a decade, so far without success.

The provision is part of a larger argument the party makes in favor of stronger legislative and regulatory support for labor unions.

“A major factor in the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits have been under attack at all levels. … We oppose legislation and lawsuits that would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers and other public employees. We will defend President Obama’s overtime rule, which protects of millions of workers by paying them fairly for their hard work.”

Mandatory Arbitration: Federal regulators have been going after companies that require workers to sign arbitration agreements that waive their rights to sue or join class-action suits. The topic got a big boost this month with news that former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes is citing such a clause in the contract of former Fox commentator Gretchen Carlson to keep her sexual-harassment lawsuit out of court.

The 2016 platform adds the cause to a list of labor measures.

“We will support efforts to limit the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment and service contracts, which unfairly strip consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors of their right to their day in court.”

Paid leave: After a passing reference to the party’s support for gender-based pay equity, the Democratic Party platform gets more specific about laws that would mandate family and medical leave.

“Democrats will make sure that the United States finally enacts national paid family and medical leave by passing a family and medical leave act that would provide all workers at least 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child or address a personal or family member’s serious health issue. We will fight to allow workers the right to earn at least seven days of paid sick leave. We will also encourage employers to provide paid vacation.”

Profit-sharing: Suggesting a program that may appeal to some employers, the party also backs an unspecified government incentive to some that provide profit-sharing bonuses to employees.

“Corporate profits are at near-record highs, but workers have not shared through rising wages. … we will incentivize companies to share profits with their employees on top of wages and pay increases, while targeting the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most.”

International trade: Trade policy is a sore subject for both parties, with Trump and Sanders railing against NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Democratic Party platform walks a narrow line, calling for tougher bargaining — without shutting the door on the TPP.

“Trade agreements should crack down on the unfair and illegal subsidies other countries grant their businesses at the expense of ours. … These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Immigration: The 2016 party platform reaffirms longstanding calls for comprehensive immigration policy reform — but makes no mention of increasing employment-based visa allowances to help companies recruit talent abroad.

“Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country.”

A Real Account of Long-Term Unemployment

It’s been awhile since we’ve reported on efforts to solve the nation’s long-term-unemployment problem. (Here are our HRE Daily posts 505475762 -- unemployment2and here are our HREOnline.com news analyses examining the problem and what can and should be done about it.)

Just recently, though, I came across an interesting write-up on the U.S. Department of Labor site about a panel discussion that was held in New Brunswick, N.J., on the topic.

The panelists, themselves, caught my eye: DOL Secretary Thomas E. Perez was leading the long-term-unemployment discussion, joined by former N.J. Gov. Jim Florio and U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-New Jersey’s 6th District. Those who attended shared story after story of “devastation as they continue to look for employment to support their families,” the write-up says.

Which gets me to what was most interesting about the DOL release: the write-up and writer, themselves. Kevin Meyer, a public-affairs specialist at the DOL, wrote mostly about himself in response to what attendees were sharing. In his words,

“Those stories felt too familiar. In January 2014, I was one of the nation’s then nearly 3.6 million long-term unemployed. I was 52 and had spent two of the previous three years jobless. The great recession hit everyone hard, but older workers like me had a particularly tough time bouncing back.

“Even now as the overall unemployment rate [falls] below 5 percent for the first time since 2008, more than 2 million people have been out of work for more than six months. Today, the typical duration of unemployment for workers between 45 and 64 is still about a month longer than it is for younger workers.

“Ask someone — a relative, friend or neighbor — who is unemployed at this age, you hear the same things. Endless applications, unreturned calls, useless job searches, financial losses, anger, guilt and fear.”

Although he goes on, and in great detail, to tell his own harrowing story of being in the long-term-unemployed ranks for years before coming to the DOL’s Office of Public Affairs, he does also mention his agency’s Ready to Work grants — where and how well they’re working — and the fact that Perez had come to hear about New Jersey’s success with them.

But most of what he shared was impressive and moving, and I commend him for taking this tack. Full disclosure: Perez did ask Meyer to share his story at the roundtable. But he didn’t have to write it all down — which he did and did well. Case in point:

“Like those I met [in a previous roundtable on long-term unemployment, held in Washington, with Perez presiding there as well], I was desperate. I was fearful for my family; knowing that I would soon lose my home without more than another temporary job.

“I introduced myself and shared my work history of two decades as a writer and communications professional. My words then turned blunt, in typical New Jersey fashion. ‘Mr. Secretary, I must tell you that I battled an aggressive form of cancer into remission in 2006. As difficult as my cancer was, long-term unemployment has been worse,’ I shared, in a hushed conference room, trying to bury my emotion. ‘If I failed to beat cancer, my family had my company insurance and would have been cared for. If I fail to beat unemployment, I will leave them with nothing.’ “

We sometimes forget — as we write and read about joblessness, and unemployment rates, and layoffs, and older workers out of work — that for every number, there is a person there, struggling through pieces of a life event we will never know unless we go through it ourselves.

Thanks to a very different kind of press release, a tiny window was opened here, at least for me. For any employer hesitant to hire someone from these ranks, I’d say this is a must-read.

DOL Gives a Holiday Gift to Parents

I’m not usually one for repeating content here one week to the next, but I simply had to share news of this pretty sizable gift while we’re all in the midst 510042321-- parents & newbornof the gift-giving season.

In an announcement last Thursday, the U.S. Department of Labor put significant money — up to $25 million in grants — where President Obama’s mouth has been in his support of working families struggling with today’s workforce realities.

Essentially, the grants will support public-private partnerships that bridge gaps between local workforce-development and child-care systems. Funded programs will enable parents to access training and customized support services needed for jobs primarily in information technology, healthcare and advanced manufacturing, though not necessarily confined to just those three.

The money, according to the DOL, will become available to these partnerships beginning in the spring and will be aimed at helping parents obtain affordable, quality child care so they can “pursue education and training opportunities leading to good jobs in growing industries.”

As U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez puts it in his announcement of the initiative:

“For too many working parents, access to quality, affordable child care remains a persistent barrier to getting the training and education they need to move forward on a stronger, more sustainable career path. Our economy works best when we field a full team. That means doing everything we can to provide flexible training options and streamlined services that can help everyone in America realize their dreams.”

This move by the government certainly underscores the attention employers and work/life experts have been paying to the needs of working parents lately. A search of this HRE Daily site, starting with my post last week lamenting the slow motion paternity leave seems to be in, along with this search of our parental-leave news analyses on our magazine’s HREOnline site, shows this push — some might even call it competition — by organizations to prove they’re family-friendly will be a hot agenda item heading into 2016.

Hopefully, employers and government agencies can come together and really start engaging in a national dialogue as opposed to each entity trying to outdo the other.

This move by the DOL seems to be a step toward that coming-together idea. It stipulates that grants up to $4 million will be awarded to partnerships that include the public workforce system, education and training providers, business entities and local child-care or human-service providers; more importantly, the release states, “all partnerships must include at least three employers.”

Personally, if this truly does lead to my kids, and my kids’ kids, having more at their fingertips than I did to survive the chaos of young parenthood coupled with work and the constant struggle to get ahead, then the gift is for me too.

DOL Mandates Pay Transparency

moneyOn the heels of President Obama’s recent executive order requiring federal contractors to provide at least seven days of paid sick leave, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today issued a final rule banning federal contractors from having policies that discourage their employees from discussing, disclosing or inquiring about their own pay or that of their co-workers.

The final rule implements Executive Order 13665, signed by the president last year, which stems from the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

“It is a basic tenet of workplace justice that people be able to exchange information, share concerns and stand up together for their rights,” said DOL Secretary Thomas Perez in a statement. “But too many women across the country are in the same situation: They don’t know how much they make compared to their male counterparts, and they are afraid to ask.”

A “culture of secrecy” around pay keeps women from knowing they are underpaid and makes it difficult to enforce equal pay laws, according to the DOL. Women still earn only 23 cents for every dollar earned by male employees, the agency says.

The rule allows job applicants and employees of federal contractors and subcontractors to file a discrimination complaint with the OFCCP if they believe that their employer fired or otherwise discriminated against them for discussing, inquiring about or disclosing their own compensation or that of others.

Pay transparency benefits companies as well as employees, said OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu.

“Indeed, forward-thinking companies that have embraced greater transparency find that it benefits them and their workforce by helping them attract and retain talented workers,” she said.

The rule will go into effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

The Feds’ War on Employee Misclassification

Seeking to clarify the issue of just what it is that distinguishes an independent contractor from an employee, the Department of Labor yesterday  issued its first Administrator’s Interpretation (AI) of the issue as it pertains to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The issue has only grown more heated in recent months with the rise of “gig economy” companies such as Uber and Lyft, along with long-running disputes between companies and workers such as FedEx Ground’s dispute with its drivers, who claim they were misclassified as independent contractors.

Written by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division Administrator, David Weil, the 15-page memo states that the misclassification of employees as independent contractors “is among the most damaging to workers and our economy.” It emphasizes the WHD’s six-factor economic realities test that’s used to determine a worker’s status along with what a just-released briefing from law firm Seyfarth Shaw describes as “an extremely expansive reading of the FLSA’s ‘suffer or permit to work’ definition of ’employ.'”

“Combined,” the Seyfarth Shaw briefing says, “WHD’s efforts indicate a significant hostility towards the use of independent contractors.”

An agreement between an employer and a worker stating that the worker is an independent contractor “is not indicative of the economic realities of the working relationship and is not relevant to the analysis of the worker’s status,” Weil’s memo states. The true measure of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Weil writes, is the extent to which the worker is economically dependent on the employer. A worker who is really in business for him-or-herself is an independent contractor, he notes; a worker who is economically dependent on the company is an employee.

Weil’s AI serves as a reminder to employers to regularly question their independent-contractor classifications as a part of their global risk audits, writes Michael Droke, a partner in the labor and employment division of Dorsey and Whitney. They should also be keeping records on the process used to determine whether one is an independent contractor or employee, and ensure that those classified as independent contractors aren’t given rights or access that may call their status into question, he writes: “For example, contractors should not have internal email accounts, should not be given server access, and should not be invited to employee functions.”

Weil’s AI is yet one more piece of evidence that the federal government is aggressively seeking out employers that misclassify (either deliberately or by mistake) employees as independent contractors and that businesses must proceed very carefully in this area, according to the Seyfarth Shaw memo.

“The guidance now makes it likely that DOL investigations and enforcement actions and private litigation contesting the classification of such workers will intensify,” the Seyfarth Shaw attorneys write. “Businesses should, therefore, carefully evaluate the DOL’s guidance and its potential impact on their operations.”

Explaining the Unpaid Internship Enigma

judgeIf an intern is for all intents and purposes a regular employee, then should he or she still be considered an intern?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently attempted to answer this existential question, or at least help clear up the confusion over whether interns should be treated as employees—and paid as such.

On July 2, the aforementioned appeals court—which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont—ruled in the case of Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc., in which plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman claimed that Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment Group violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to pay them as employees during their internships, as required by FLSA and NYLL minimum wage and overtime provisions.

In June 2013, Glatt and Footman—who interned on the set of the 2010 Fox Searchlight film Black Swan—were granted partial summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found that Glatt and Footman were indeed employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

In reaching its decision, the court relied on a version of the Labor Department’s six-factor test to conclude the interns had been improperly classified as unpaid interns as opposed to employees. At the time, the DOL filed an amicus brief imploring the appeals court to adhere to the department’s test requirement that each of these factors—the internship is similar to training that would be received in an educational environment and the intern does not displace regular employees, for instance—is met before considering an internship unpaid.

The Second Circuit Appeals Court, however, recently opted to “decline [the] DOL’s invitation,” according to court documents, in which the appeals court described the test as “too rigid for our precedent to withstand.”

Rather, the court agreed with the defendants’ assertion that “the proper question is whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship.” To conduct the “primary beneficiary” test, the court focused on two issues—what the intern receives in exchange for his or her work and “the economic reality as it exists between the intern and the employer.”

In sending the case back to district court for further proceedings, the appeals court decision “delineates when and under what circumstances an intern must be treated—and more importantly, paid—like a regular employee,” says Mark Goldstein, a New York-based attorney and member of Reed Smith’s labor and employment group.

By making this distinction, the Second Circuit addressed an issue that “had been a thorn in employers’ sides for the past several years,” says Goldstein.

The test used by the Second Circuit Appeals Court differs from the DOL’s “all-or-nothing” approach, which essentially required that an intern be treated as an employee “every time the employer derived a benefit from the intern’s work,” Goldstein told HRE.

Under this new standard, an intern is not categorized as an employee “simply because he or she performs work for the company, or because the company derives a benefit from the intern’s work, as the DOL had attempted to argue,” he says.

Moreover, the Second Circuit “appears to have made it much more difficult for the plaintiff’s bar to obtain class and collective action certification in lawsuits brought by former interns,” in ruling that the question of an intern’s employment status is a “highly individualized inquiry,” says Goldstein.

“This alone may spell the end of the recent barrage of unpaid intern lawsuits.”

Even in light of the court’s employer-friendly decision, though, now would be a good time to assess internship programs “to ensure that such programs satisfy all applicable judicial and regulatory guidance,” says Goldstein.

“Unpaid internship programs still pose risks—including not only potential liability for wage and hour violations, but also potential tax- and benefits-related penalties—that must be weighed before an internship program is implemented.”

Are We On the Path to Paid Sick Leave?

sick employeePaid sick leave seems to be on everyone’s mind lately, from Hillary Clinton and Thomas Perez to the leadership at Chipotle and McDonald’s.

For example, you may remember Secretary of Labor Perez recently embarking on the Lead on Leave—Empowering Working Families Across America tour, during which he sought to “promote best practices and discuss how paid leave and other flexible workplace policies can help support working families and business,” according to a Department of Labor statement.

One of Perez’s stops on that roughly month-long jaunt was Oregon, where lawmakers recently passed a measure that would require employers with at least 10 workers to offer up to 40 hours of paid sick time annually. If Oregon Governor Kate Brown signs the bill—which she is expected to do—the Beaver State would join California, Connecticut and Massachusetts as the only states to have enacted paid sick leave requirements.

President Obama has urged Congress to pass federal legislation giving U.S. workers seven days of paid sick leave. But the consensus remains that such a bill would be unlikely to gain the necessary Congressional support in the near future.

Some companies, of course, aren’t waiting for a federal paid sick leave law to become reality. Microsoft, for example, made headlines in March by requiring many of its 2,000 contractors and vendors to offer 15 paid days off for sick days and vacation to their employees who perform work for Microsoft.

At the time, many scoffed at the notion of other large companies doing the same, but two of the biggest names in the fast-food universe were quick to follow the Redmond, Wash.-based tech giant’s lead.

Just days after Microsoft went public with its bold move, for instance, McDonald’s announced it would add paid time off to its roster of benefits, even for part-time workers, at the 10 percent of McDonald’s franchises that are company-owned.

And, effective July 1, Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. will provide paid sick leave to hourly workers—a benefit previously enjoyed exclusively by the restaurant chain’s salaried workers.

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination would no doubt like to see more employers go a similar route.

Hillary Clinton has made paid sick leave a centerpiece of her platform, commending cities such as Philadelphia for signing paid sick leave bills into law, and expressing her support for such legislation in public forums.

This week, the New York Times made mention of Clinton’s assertion that no one should “have to choose between keeping a paycheck and caring for a new baby or a sick relative,” in a piece noting the momentum gathering behind paid sick leave in the business sector as well as the political sphere.

“With pay for most workers still growing sluggishly—as it has been for most of the last 15 years—political leaders are searching for policies that can lift middle-class living standards,” according to the Times. “Companies, for their part, are becoming more aggressive in trying to retain workers as the unemployment rate has fallen below 6 percent.”

Still, the fact remains that federal legislation seems unlikely to materialize any time soon, as the Times acknowledges.

“With most Republicans in Congress opposed to new leave laws, the biggest changes will probably occur at the state and local level, including in some Republican-led states.”

True enough. But with no federal movement on the horizon, it will be interesting to see if states or individual companies make significant changes in the coming months, or if Microsoft, Chipotle, McDonald’s and the like will remain outliers on paid sick leave.

H-1B: Disney Retreats; DOL Investigates

The Walt Disney Co.’s Disney ABC Television Group appears to be backing off from a layoff announcement two weeks ago, in which it had told a group of approximately 35 of its IT workers that their jobs were being outsourced to Cognizant Technology Solutions, a New Jersey-based company with large overseas operations. But now, reports Computerworld, those IT workers have been told that the layoff has been canceled.

Some of the IT workers who were to be laid off were told by Disney/ABC managers they would have to train their replacements before leaving, Computerworld reports. This is, of course, reminiscent of the move by Disney’s Parks and Resorts division to outsource 250 IT jobs to workers allegedly brought in under the H-1B visa program and have many of those employees train their replacements in order to receive severance. The furor this created when it was reported recently by mainstream publications such as the New York Times may have led Disney to cancel the latest layoffs, a source told Computerworld.

“They [Disney officials] want this to go away — right now,” said the source, a Disney/ABC IT employee who asked not to be named.

A source at Disney confirmed to Computerworld that the layoff had been rescinded. Although Cognizant is a major user of H-1B visas, it is unclear whether any of the workers in the Disney/ABC project had been brought in under the program.

Other companies besides Disney have come under fire for replacing their IT workers with H-1B visa holders, including Southern California Edison. The Department of Labor has announced it will investigate two outsourcing companies, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, for possible violations of rules for H-1B visa holders in conjunction with work they did for Southern California Edison. Those two companies, along with several others, are the biggest recipients of H-1B visa allotments each year. Sen. Bill Nelson, D.-Fla., has also called for an investigation of the H-1B program.

The fracas continues to focus more negative attention on the H-1B program. In a post on his blog, longtime tech observer and consultant Robert X. Cringely labels the  H-1B program “a scam” and says the argument that it’s necessary due to a shortage of technical talent here in the United States is false. He quotes an anonymous source, identified as a former chief technology officer at several companies, who said that — throughout his career — H-1B visa holders were routinely brought in by companies as a cheaper alternative to hiring more-expensive American tech workers: “The reason of course was $$$.  The H1B’s cost approx. 1/3rd or 1/4th the cost of the comparable American in the same job.”

More in the Coffer to Help Prisoners Find Jobs

It wasn’t that long ago (little more than a month) that I was blogging about an announcement by the U.S. Department of Labor that it was 126268666 -- prisoner workingcreating a $5 million funding opportunity to link inmates to jobs before they’re even released.

The idea there was to place American Job Centers inside local jails where soon-to-be-released prisoners would be able to access job-placement services and counseling to increase their chances of getting work without going through that uneasy “limbo” between living behind bars and earning a living.

Now, again from the DOL, comes significantly more, as this release announces: a whopping $27 million to fund its Training to Work-Adult Re-entry grant program to help, as its release says, “thousands of soon-to-be-released inmates become productive citizens.”

I wish I could tell you specifically how the two programs differ. Numerous calls and emails to the DOL went unanswered. But that doesn’t really matter. What does is the added help — significant help — ex-cons will be getting to rejoin the workforce and the world.

According to the announcement, the department expects to award about 20 grants with a maximum value of $1,360,000 each to provide training and employment services for men and women, ages 18 and older (including veterans), who participate in state or local work-release programs.

The approach is designed to link and coordinate education and training services for these people to get industry-recognized credentials. Those credentials will, in turn, help them find meaningful work (translated: not just assembly line and blue-collar) and give employers what they need to fill their gaps in growing sectors and industries.

Having personal experience with this — a relative who is now trying to re-enter society after paying his dues for some very bad life choices — I confess, what U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez has to say about this latest move resonates with me:

“A good job gives a person a sense of dignity and purpose. It enables [him or her] to find a decent place to live and enjoy a hot meal at home. Good jobs are a pathway to the middle class. Those who have paid their debt to society deserve the opportunity to find and hold useful employment. It puts money in their pocket, most of which is pumped back into the economy. In the best America, everyone shares our prosperity. That’s what these grants can make possible.”

Of course, all the money in the world can’t buy a guarantee that all hiring managers will leave all bias at the door when they enter the interview room. Or follow all the steps of the interview process laid out by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its background-check guidelines, including when it’s appropriate to discuss an applicant’s past incarceration.

But it’s safe to say most employers would have to look favorably on an ex-prisoner’s initiative to get the education and credentialing he or she needs to succeed in that particular job in that particular organization in that particular industry.

If there are closed minds out there, this can only help to open them.

Hitting the Road to Promote Paid Leave

X-7Last week, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez told the Washington Post that “so much of what becomes law in Washington starts out as an experiment in different states.”

For the next month or so, Perez will be conducting his own state-to-state experiment of sorts; one that he hopes will result in workers nationwide being afforded greater flexibility in their jobs, including the right to paid leave.

As part of the Lead on Leave—Empowering Working Families Across America tour, Perez will meet with workers, state officials and employers in a handful of cities in an effort to “promote best practices and discuss how paid leave and other flexible workplace policies can help support working families and businesses,” according to a Department of Labor statement.

Perez will have company on the coast-to-coast jaunt, which kicks off today with a stop in Seattle. Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the White House, and Tina Tchsen, assistant to President Barack Obama, will join him on the tour, which also includes scheduled visits to Minnesota, California, Oregon, Georgia, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Currently, just three states—California, New Jersey and Rhode Island—offer paid family and medical leave, while only California and Massachusetts require private employers to provide paid sick leave. Meanwhile, Illinois, Ohio and Virginia provide paid parental leave to state employees, while cities such as Chicago, Austin, Texas and San Francisco do the same for municipal workers.

We may be a ways off, however, from federal legislation that obliges employers to provide paid sick leave. As a recent New York Times article points out, President Obama has urged Congress to pass a bill giving U.S. workers seven days of paid sick leave. But, garnering the necessary support in that same Congress to approve such a bill would be “a tough obstacle” to surmount, the Times article notes.

Some organizations, however, aren’t waiting on government action.

The aforementioned Times piece details Microsoft’s “unusual” method of overcoming the absence of a federal policy, noting the company’s March 26 announcement that it would require many of its 2,000 contractors and vendors to offer their employees who perform work for Microsoft 15 paid days off for sick days and vacation time.

“In some ways, it’s a uniquely American solution,” the article continues. “ … The biggest and wealthiest companies are performing the role of setting workplace policy for other businesses.”

While applauding Microsoft’s approach to providing paid leave, Ruth Milkman told the Times she doesn’t foresee other corporate heavyweights following its lead.

“It’s a moral model, but I don’t think there’s a high probability it’s going to become universal through business initiatives,” said Milkman, a professor and sociologist of labor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “The public wants this. The resistance is all from employers. The only way is through public policy.”

We’ll see if the Lead on Leave tour takes us any closer to such policy becoming reality.