Anti- Sick Days Lobbyists Whip Up Some Homemade Factoids

Submitted by QuicheMe on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 4:59pm. Statewide Ballot Issues

"Study: Ohio sick-day mandate would cost 75,000 jobs
8/19/2008, 12:27 p.m. EDT The Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A new study commissioned by a small business group says Ohio would lose 75,000 jobs in the next five years if voters approve a ballot issue that would give most full-time workers seven paid sick days a year.
The research conducted on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business in Ohio says 20 percent of those job losses would occur in businesses that employ one to 20 employees, even though those businesses would not be required to offer the sick days under the ballot proposal.
Bruce Phillips, an expert hired to conduct the research, said Tuesday the sick day mandate would force larger businesses to cut jobs or production, and that would hurt small business suppliers."

So the anti-worker, anti-family lobbyists running the opposition to the Ohio Healthy Families Act have finally taken a (weak) shot at joining those of us who believe public policy should be based on facts, not myths.

While the Ohioans for Healthy Families Coalition has long cited several studies showing that the benefits of the Act will outweigh the costs, the opposition has - up until now - engaged in nothing but “jobs killer” bogeyman scare tactics, devoid of any citations of facts (or even “facts”) whatsoever.

So congratulations to them for recognizing that maybe it would behoove them to throw a “studies show” into their talking points once in a while.

But when the source is a study conducted entirely by the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), and the quoted “expert” is a senior fellow at NFIB… well, it’s kind of like when one of RJ Reynolds' “experts” does an in-house study concluding that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

The NFIB is a lobbyist organization that opposes the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, efforts to raise the minimum wage, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Their website is peppered with language like “Big Labor” (yes, capitalized) and “The Radical Labor Agenda” (OK, I capitalized that one just for fun)

Quite unlike the non-partisan research institutions cited by the Ohioans for Healthy Families Coalition, the NFIB engages in unmistakably partisan political activities - like endorsing candidates for elected office.

Wouldn’t it be fascinating to see if that list of endorsed candidates includes House Speaker Jon Husted? He’s one of the politicians who, despite having paid sick days himself, has fought the measure every step of the way - from the time it came to the legislature as an initiated statute, up to and beyond Governor Strickland’s efforts to find a compromise.

But unfortunately for voters, NFIB displays a marked lack of transparency on this front. Only dues-paying members of NFIB have access to the part of their website that lists their political endorsements. I sure would love to see that list but I just can’t bring myself to buy access by giving $300+ to a group that wants to make sure that when I eat out I have to worry that a sick worker has sneezed into my food.

I think I can speak for my fellow Ohioans when I say we’re a “show me the numbers” bunch. The anti-family, anti-worker forces in our state took a baby step toward recognizing that facts (or at least the illusion of them) are important to Ohioans. For that effort maybe they deserve a cookie (or better yet, a noro virus -laced burrito).

But they’re going to have to do better than in-house studies by their own lobbyists, because the Ohio Healthy Families campaign has set the research bar pretty high. When Ohioans vote YES on Issue 4 this November, we’ll have plenty to back us up:

Policy Matters Ohio:
http://policymattersohio.org/AHealthyStandard2007_1002.htm
http://policymattersohio.org/OutbreakInOhio2008.htm
http://policymattersohio.org/PaidSickDays2008_0602.htm