New York Now Grants Employees More Paid Time Off to Vote – EFFECTIVE NOW
New York state has made it easier for employees to take paid time off to vote. New York had a law in place that was meant to allow time off only for workers whose work shift prevented them from voting. Now, the state has essentially made paid time off to vote available to any worker.
Under the new law, employees can take up to three hours of paid time off at the beginning or end of their shift in order to vote, as long as they give at least two days’ advance notice. Employers have to pay for this time without applying the employee’s vacation/PTO to the absence. Any employee can take this paid time, even if they have plenty of time to vote outside working hours.
How this affects you as a manager
Managers should be aware of this law change and remember to plan accordingly around election days. In another move to make it easier for employees to utilize this time off, the state is requiring employers to post an Election Law Notice in your office at least 10 working days before every election and keep it posted until the polls close. This will help inform your staff that they have the right to take this paid time off.
Make sure you put up the new poster.
Make sure your HR support service updates your voting policies to comply with the specifics of the statewide law.
Make sure your timekeeping system has a “Paid Voting Category in it.”
Make sure all your managers understand the new rules.
I see it as over reach by the representatives in New York but as the HR Support system for a couple hundred NY businesses, what I think has never mattered!
The prior law gave employees the right to take time off during work hours, unpaid, in order to vote. With the advent of mail in voting as well as hours at the voting booths that run from 6am to 10pm, I’ve not ever had a problem getting to the voting booth or getting my vote counted.
I honestly don’t see why employers need to pay for this very personal right. I DO ABSOLUTELY want everyone to vote and for it to be easier. I’m pretty liberal overall but I also have employers backs. I do not love the idea that employers also have to pay unemployment tax and social security against these wages.
I think it will be interesting to see if voting participation increases as a result of this new law. I am not sure how anyone would measure and attribute the increase to the rule. We provide a dynamic timekeeping system and will be looking at how many offices have employees classify time as voting time, but since this is the first year we have no basis for measuring the increase.
So no, I don’t think giving people protected unpaid time off to vote was subversive.
I am honestly asking if I am ‘trippin’ or if the thought that occured to me is as real as I felt it was.
[I am going to use Nick and Paul as placeholder names in this story]
“Yea, Nick, this is Paul from accounting. So, we looked over what the passage of this means and averaged out our proposed increase in costs. Unfortunately, we are going to need to thin out your team a little bit… Yea… I know… So sorry.”
I just feel like the government forcing expenses like this, at the end of the day, could cost people jobs at large enough employers where such expenses become big.
Am I over thinking this though? Again, honestly, that popped in to my head but I am not sure if this case applies to that thought.
For a company that has 1,000 employees and is dependent on production this is like a direct tax to them [every two years]. I agree that the correct answer was the previous of unpaid time off being requested… This just feels bizarre to me. I don’t see what it accomplishes. This seems like a ‘buy the vote’ an election is coming kind of nonsense dealio.
This also seems like a great excuse to get a few hours off of work happy and paid [as Paul said] in this day-and-age when you can vote by mail, a wide range of hours, days, etc. So employees that previously voted by mail might take advantage. Why vote for free when I can get paid to do it and ditch out on work a bit? I would predict not an increase in overall voting [not by any actual substantial amount not related to something else or just happenstance]. I will predict suddenly longer lines at the booths than previous years. The law makers responsible will claim that increase in booth voting reflects success and any uptick from the previous year will also be claimed [along with that change in voting method] to be all that is needed to declare success. By jamming those booths further voter fraud is easier to manage or increase I would imagine.
I agree that it all adds up. I have 36 employees and anytime we add a benefit it gets multiplied against the bottom line. I remember when lunch for the team was 100 bucks. Now it’s $400 or more which translates to fewer lunches per year.
I think where this law comes into play, and carries some justification, is within a workforce of low income employees who are also parents and particularly single parents. Where taking time off unpaid or having to hire or further tax their family and friend support systems in order to be able to take time off and go vote, has a real impact on their ability to make ends meet. If you are making $10 to $12 bucks per/hour and you lose three of hours of pay, it hurts. Nonetheless, the law has the net effect you described.
As employers, It all adds up AND we want to make it easier for people to vote.
There are countries where voter participation is in the 80% range and the electorate have to risk their lives, literally, in order to go to the polls and be heard. No one is getting paid.
I like the idea of it, but in the end it’s one more imposed expense on employers.
