In mid-July, a few weeks after she announced that she would table the controversial paid sick leave bill for several months while the business community further studied its impact, Council Speaker Christine Quinn arrived for an early morning speech before the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce.

The room was packed with small business owners, the very people who have lobbied intensely against bringing the bill to the Council floor. Officials from the Partnership for New York City, which is studying the long-term effects of the legislation, sat in the front row.

During a half-hour speech on the state of small business in New York City, Quinn did not once mention the high-profile legislation that has become a flashpoint in the Council.

Even among friendly audiences, Quinn is treading lightly and offering only scant details about her thinking on what has emerged as among the contentious issues of her speakership. One business leader involved in the discussions with the speaker said they believe Quinn is trying to show the business community that they are being heard, while offering no firm commitments about what kind of a bill would ultimately be allowed to the floor.

It was Quinn who had requested more data from the business community about the impact of the bill, the source said, rather than the business community initially suggesting the study be conducted.

“She’s using this as a delaying tactic,” the source said. “She’s calculating her prospects for the mayoralty against keeping the folks back home [in the City Council] happy.”

A spokesperson for the speaker defended her decision to table the bill.

“The speaker is still listening to both sides of this issue and is giving both the opportunity to present their positions,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Following her announcement that she would table the bill, Quinn also placed a round of calls to union leaders who are supporting paid sick leave, promising them that the bill would eventually be taken up once the study is completed, according to a person briefed on the conversations. Once the survey is completed, another hearing is expected for the bill in the Civil Service and Labor Committee sometime in November.

This has mostly placated union leaders who support the bill, such as 32BJ, RWDSU and UFCW Local 1500, who fear upsetting their relatively good relationship with Quinn and their other legislative efforts in the Council by openly challenging her.

Members of the Council’s Progressive Caucus, who depend on Quinn for member items and for the passage of other legislation, also have refrained from challenging the speaker so far, though they do question the delay.

“I think the study is a distraction,” said Council Member Tish James, a sponsor of the legislation and a member of the Progressive Caucus. “It’s analysis to the point of paralysis, and workers are suffering as a result.”

Proponents of the bill have made no secret of questioning the neutrality of the business-backed study. But they also acknowledge that the extra data could give the business community leverage as they seek to scale back a bill that already has 36 cosponsors, a veto-proof majority. The Partnership study, which is actually being carried out by Ernst & Young, will seek information from different industry groups about the impact that paid sick day legislation will have on their members, with the hope of carving out industries from the bill that they believe would be adversely affected.

According to Kathy Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership, previous studies on paid sick leave were flawed because they took into account only data reported by workers, rather than also surveying business owners.

“Employer voices are all in opposition to this bill,” Wylde said. “I don’t think things could get any worse by examining whether certain employees should be exempted.”

The data from the study could fuel arguments that the definition of a small business in the current paid sick leave bill—defined as 19 people or fewer—is arbitrary and should be raised, according to business leaders opposed to the bill. The definition of a small business is key: under the current bill, businesses with 19 employees or fewer only have to offer five sick days a year, while larger businesses must offer nine.

The study may also add fuel to the argument that sectors such as nonprofits, those with part-time employees, or those with tipped workers should be exempted. In particular, Wylde said the claim by proponents of the bill that paid sick leave for restaurant workers costs 8 cents an hour needs further examination.

But the staunchest proponents of the bill say they would not accept any final deal that leaves certain classes of employees without paid sick days.

“That’s impossible. We won’t agree to carve out any industry,” said Sherry Leiwant, executive director of a Better Balance, at a mid-July protest in front of the Central Park horse carriages, where advocates pointed out that the Council voted to give the horses five weeks of paid time off yearly in April even though that bill had only 10 cosponsors.

Leiwant said Better Balance, which is leading the charge for passage of the bill, is currently in the process of organizing women’s groups—a key constituency for Quinn—around the city.

Pat Purcell, of the UFCW Local 100, said unions would also likely oppose any final bill exempting broad sectors of workers—though he did leave the door open to exempting very narrow groups from the bill such as seasonal workers. He said the number of days off certain classes of employees could get also could be open for discussion.

Purcell said that he expects the unions will ultimately be a moderating force in the debate, which has the WFP, Better Balance and Make the Road New York arguing against amending the current bill at all and business interests still dead set against any government interference.

“One side is the ceiling and one side is the floor,” he said, “and my experience tells me at the end of the day that pragmatism will win out.”