One More Dem Musing on Paid Sick Days
Submitted by Pelikan on Sat, 08/16/2008 - 7:32pm.
Wrong Battle, Wrong Time, Wrong Place
In places like Ohio where many battles great and small have been fought by organized labor on behalf of underpaid, overworked, and exploited workers we understand the great advancements this movement has brought to the ordinary American's standard of living. What labor – and its front-group – Ohioans for Healthy Families doesn't seem to grasp is that those battles were waged in an American economy that was transcendent.
Competition these days, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan, are eating the U.S. and former industrial states like Ohio alive. Just a month ago my wife and I traveled over to the Zanesville area to check out the once-thriving pottery industry in Ohio. Walking up the pathway to the entrance of the Ohio Ceramic Center you traverse a graveyard of signs which list the names of dozens of former ceramic businesses that have gone under. Looking at the dates of operation on the signs most of them went under in the last 35 years.
Center staff then informed me that Friendship Pottery – which had been afloat by producing Longaberger items – is also gone. Longaberger now has their all-American goods made in China.
Many of these workshops and small factories were the sorts of businesses that employed 25 people or less. Twenty-five is the number of employees that would trigger seven mandatory paid sick days in Ohio's small businesses if the proposal by the Ohioans for Healthy Families stays on the ballot and passes.
I may be willing to say that Labor had picked a good issue to champion if it weren't for where and how they are waging their campaign.
Yesterday, new unemployment numbers came out which shows Ohio unemployment rate is at its highest in 15 years. We have yet to experience the full impact of DHL's double cross in Clinton County or the fruits of GM's lack of foresight or strategy in Moraine. Ohio is not just competing with the world to attract and retain business; we are competing with other states as well. One report has the 100 jobs being cut by Diebold in the Newark area has their work shifting to a plant in another state.
From a practical standpoint and a public relations view, this is just not the time to for government to be piling on. How would you like to be Lt. Governor Lee Fisher on a development mission and explain to a well-capitalized but small start-up that the five days of sick leave they offer employees isn't good enough – Ohio's government demands seven – and we'll tell you how to manage your policy. It's ludicrous.
Whatever happened to the notion of the small business that treats its employees fairly and increases benefits as the company grows? We might not know because those small businesses may choose to flourish in elsewhere.
Even without Ohio's economic woes, this sort of public policy is better served by a national debate. We are competing with China, Malaysia, and the Philippines as well as North Carolina, Mississippi, and Indiana. What if the state to state competition was taken off the table? Perhaps the right field for Labor to join battle on this issue is in Washington.
Sen. Barack Obama has come out in favor of the notion of paid sick leave for American workers. His territory – Congress – and hopefully the White House -- is the right place for this debate. Ohioans for Healthy Families will try to say that Obama has "endorsed paid sick days" as if Senator Obama is standing with Dale Butland on the Statehouse steps. That's not true. Here's what Obama had to say on July 10 in New York City:
As the son, grandson and husband of hard-working mothers, I don't accept an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers. It's unacceptable that women are denied jobs or promotions because they've got kids at home. It's unacceptable that 22 million working women don't have a single paid sick day. It's unacceptable that millions of working mothers could actually be fired for taking maternity leave and that 78 percent of workers who have family leave can't afford to take it because it's not paid.
No matter what you do for living I think we can all agree that raising our children and caring for our loved ones is the most important job we have. And it's time we started making that job a little bit easier, especially for working women.
That means giving working parents tax credits to help with childcare and providing afterschool and summer learning programs and early childhood education to keep our kids safe and ensure they start school ready to learn.
It means dramatically expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to reach millions of people who aren't covered today and ensuring people can take leave not just to stay home with a new baby, but also to care for elderly parents and participate in school activities like parent-teacher conferences and assemblies.
It means standing up for paid leave, and paid sick leave, because no one should be punished for getting sick or dealing with a family crisis.
Obama has it right. This issue and others is important for working women and men. This dustup in Ohio we have going is taking our eye off the real prize this year and that's electing Barack Obama. Let's table this whole sick day debate and work together – Democrats and Labor – to start the change at the top. Then, let's add paid sick leave to a list of many issues to fight for on behalf of American workers with a president who is not bought and paid for by big business.
With the decline in American economic strength and the slow erosion of the middle class, sick leave is the least of our worries.
National implementation is the only way to do this.
Submitted by TAmber1 on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 10:56am.
If Ohio adopts paid sick leave mandates and no one else does, that is an economic disincentive for a company to locate here. The only way to push the issue is at the national level.
Who's Wrong
Submitted by LaborGuy on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 11:50am.
As a supporter of organized labor, I'm proud of the work that is going into this issue here in Ohio.
I appreciate what Barack Obama says in your quote above. But at the same time he is a cosponsor of Senator Kennedy's bill on this issue that provides 7 days of paid sick leave for businesses of FIFTEEN employees or less, even more restrictive than the Ohio version.
And if you say winning the presidency is the most important thing, than Obama would be smart to stand on the steps of the statehouse with Dale Butland, because 69% of Ohioans support this bill (including 49% of Republicans) and a majority also say they would be more inclined to vote for a candidate of either party that supports this issue.
Lastly, talking to businesses looking to locate in Ohio your concern is that this minimum labor standard would drive them away. Yet a paid sick day standard is the law in every other nation the U.S. competes with, including China. Also you're using right-wing thinking when it comes to economic development. It isn't minimum standards like the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, or paid sick days, nor the business tax rates that keep businesses away. It is the lack of investment in our infrastructure, education, and fixing our mess of a health care system that is preventing business from coming to Ohio.
We've tried it the Republican way in Ohio for the last 20 year, cutting taxes and eliminating regulation and the jobs left anyway.. perhaps even faster. Why don't we try another way. I say it is time for a change. With paid sick days we start to invest in our workforce and keep them healthier and more productive. I think smart businesses will appreciate that.
paid sick day initiative
Submitted by ytownboy3 on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 11:13am.
ytownboy3 I am a life long, pro labor Dem. That said, this initiative, as I understand it, is being primarily advanced by SEIU, another organization whose issues I have supported. I don't view this as a Labor v. Management issue as, to my knowledge, whatever the degree of naivete, most of labor has sat this out. Perhaps I am wrong. But anyone who believes that the advancement of this issue at this time and place is good for the longterm benefit of Ohio Dems is smoking crack. This is not the time to impose such a requirement of business. Business is hurting right now as much as the rest of us. mark my words, there will be a number of employers with 23 or 24 employees to skirt the requirements. Anyone who believes this helps the Dem prospects or even Strickland's prospects in 2010 is sorely mistaken. I realize it is not SEIU's duty to advance all Dems but this issue is exactly why business groups don't trust Dem control. Strickland should lay it on the line and strenuously oppose. He does not owe labor anything. Food for thought. Let's not shoot oursleves in the foot just because we have gained control for the first time in two decades. GO BUCKS!!
Makes me sad
Submitted by LaborGuy on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 1:23pm.
Wow. If the topic and comments on this issue is representative of the progressive/liberal movement in Ohio I'm really worried and saddened for our future.
Despite what you may read in the editorial sections of Ohio's papers (Many of the same editorial boards by the way that endorsed Ken Blackwell in 2006 and George W. Bush in 2004) the idea of a minimum standard for paid sick days is wildly popular in Ohio. (69% support)
And polling also shows any candidate running for public office in Ohio in 2008 would benefit from being supportive of this issue. And since the Republican party is taking their orders from the Chamber of Commerce and NFIB to oppose the Ohio Healthy Families Act I think it helps Democrats chances of winning back the statehouse.
Also Governor Strickland supports paid sick days. He has always been a champion of working families issues. His efforts to reach a compromise wisely reflect his concerns that NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce are prepared to run a misleading campaign based on the incorrect belief that Ohio will be worse off having a minimum standard for paid sick days.
Ultimately I think that campaign will show the true colors of who's looking out for the people of the State of Ohio and who's is willing to continue to trade in the politics of fear to keep people in line.
Bottom line: providing paid sick days to workers saves businesses money, protects the public health, and makes Ohio a better place to live, raise a family, and do business.
For more than a generation we have been fed a line that "Standards" and "Oversight" are really "Mandates" and "Red Tape." And that if we just cut regulation and taxes for businesses that jobs would appear. We have tried that for 20 years, and yet the jobs still disappear. It is time for something different. And I hope we are prepared to stand up and reject the fear and say enough is enough.
Reply to Labor Guy
Submitted by ytownboy3 on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 4:45pm.
In response to the well reasoned and thoughtful remarks of Labor Guy re impact on paid sick days, I am sorry to have contributed to his sadness on the subject. Granted, the ways of the past twenty years have not resulted in the promised prosperity, tax cuts for the rich be damned. But query: how the heck is Strickland or Fisher going to recruit new business to Ohio when they know they will start in the hole if they drop anchor here in the Buckeye State. Now is not the time; Ohio is not the place. If it made so much sense, why has no other state adopted it? FYI, Strickland has not endorsed this proposal, nor does he favor it. Whatever support Dems have assumed from labor since January 2007 will be lost for another generation if this passes. If pro business proposals cannot attract new business, this pro SEIU proposal certainly will not aid the business climate either. PS: Ask Youngstown/Warren if the steel barons re-invested in the Valley when labor started playing a stronger hand? GO BUCKS!!
Thinking differently
Submitted by LaborGuy on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 10:14am.
Independent research shows that paid sick days save companies money. My contention is that businesses will not be "in the hole" but will be better off, and Strickland and Fisher should be confident to talk about it that way.
The reason it doesn't exist already is that NFIB and the Chamber opposes any new standard based on their ideology rather than what makes sense. They felt the same way about FMLA, the 40 hour work week, and child labor laws over the years, yet society survives and I believe both employees and employer are the better for it.
If Ohio leads on this, it won't be alone for long. A dozen other states have legislation similar to this in the works. California came very close to passing their version. Wouldn't it be nice for Ohio to lead on something for a change.
Every other nation we compete with has some paid sick day standard. If they can do it, why can't we do it.
What is pro-business does not equal pro-jobs. Business wants to make money for business owners. If they can do that with fewer jobs, they will cut jobs. We need a pro-jobs strategy. That involves making business pay their fair share of taxes so the resources are there to create the workforce those new jobs will need.
Labor needs to act differently too. Simply fighting to keep the same jobs that existed 50 years ago isn't working. Labor has to be flexible and help create the new jobs that will exist in the 21st century and make sure they are organized in a union so they pay well and have good benefits!
IF NOT NOW WHEN? IF NOT US WHO? As a certain presidential candidate has recently said, "we are the change we've been waiting for."
You make an excellent case...
Submitted by tudorman on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 5:25pm.
...for the defeat of this issue.
Pelikan, you say:
"From a practical standpoint and a public relations view, this is just not the time to for government to be piling on. How would you like to be Lt. Governor Lee Fisher on a development mission and explain to a well-capitalized but small start-up that the five days of sick leave they offer employees isn't good enough – Ohio's government demands seven – and we'll tell you how to manage your policy. It's ludicrous."
I'd like to have a civil conversation regarding this issue, so let me ask you a few questions:
1. When is the appropriate time for the government to be "piling on"?
2. If it's ludicrous for the state government to tell a business how to manage its policies, is it not likewise for the federal government also?
3. Why seven days? And why twenty-five employees? Why not, say, fourteen days and one employee?
4. How big is "Big Business"? What's the cutoff?
5. Define "overworked, underpaid, and exploited" as you see it. I'm not being flippant, I simply think these are emotional terms that need defining to make them relevant to the discussion.
FYI - I'm not a business owner. Like you, I'm a government employee. I'm at a local level and I'm not in any position to show favoritism to business as part of my job. I grew up in a Democratic household, but I'm a conservative. I think the Democratic Party is wrong on many issues, but I also think most Republicans are hypocritical. I'm disclosing this because I think it's important to know my biases.
I look forward to your reply.
Reply
Submitted by ytownboy3 on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 11:15am.
ytownboy3 Bravo/right on! SEIU, by selfishly pushing this issue at this time, is potentially issuing a future deathknell to Dem control. GO BUCKS!!
for Tudorman
Submitted by Pelikan on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 7:13pm.
Tudorman - to answer your questions ...
1. The use of "piling on" was to illustrate the feeling by many that things are dire for the national economy and more dire for our economy here in Ohio. Having worked for huge companies and small start-ups, I know what it's like to have great benefits, but I also know what it's like to want to grow a firm with 25-35 employees but struggle to meet a payroll at certain times of the year. In this environment, I don't believe mandating paid sick leave is the wise move for government. As a practical matter and a direct answer to your question, I don't believe there's ever a time for "piling on."
2. I think the pre-Sinclair Lewis and pre-American Labor movement times prove that there is a place for government regulation, state or federal. If we are going to consider whether or not today's marketplace is treating workers unfairly when it comes to paid sick leave, I think it would be much better for it to be a national debate. If there is such a policy, if it were across the board it wouldn't put Ohio at a competitive disadvantage with other states.
3. You tell me. I believe that for small business, which I believe is technically defined as those firms with less than 300 employees. I'm not advocating for 7 days. I'm advocating for this debate to be held elsewhere. My opinion is that for a firm with 25 employees, if government were to mandate a paid sick leave policy, it should be in the neighborhood of 3-5 days. Also, it should be up to the business whether those days carry over from year to year.
4. I think the technical definition is businesses with less than 300 employees are considered "small business." Another problem with the Ohio Healthy Families Act is that they seem to be fixated on the lower end of the spectrum by creating a mandate for businesses at the smallest end of the scale. These are just the types of businesses that would get Ohio through times like these.
5. "Overworked, Underpaid, and exploited" are perhaps emotional terms. As a Democrat who grew up in a union household this issue is conflicting for me. I think that Labor is missing the real fight and that is an economic system here in the U.S. and the world that where we are getting undercut on labor in part because of our high standards. I would rather Labor be holding politicians' feet to the fire on fair trade, intellectual property issues, etc. than pursue issues like paid sick days when we are bleeding jobs. If you don't have a job, everyday is a sick day.
Pelikan
Pelikan, I'll say it - the sick time issue is bad for Ohio & USA
Submitted by tudorman on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 11:32pm.
Pelikan,
Thanks for the reply. I've lurked and even ventured a post or two on other websites, both liberal and conservative, but it's difficult to avoid the shrill voices from both sides of the political spectrum.
Your stance that paid sick day legislation would be more palatable under better economic conditions strikes me as ill taken. I'm not referring to the difficulty or ease the issue may have in passing during differing economic situations, or whether it should be a state or national issue. I'm asking, do you want it or not? Maybe yes, just not now? Remember,if passed, it's unlikely the law will be suspended during future economic down cycles. Are you willing to accept that?
As far as making it a national debate, it should a non-starter. The federal government has no business legislating this sort of thing as it is, at the least, in direct conflict with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Of course, the 10th has been so badly trampled that it might as well be removed from the document. But consider this - the framers envisioned a union of states, each with autonomy over their own affairs. One of the benefits of this would be to literally pit the various states against each other on the economic playing field, much like businesses (and nations) compete for your consumer dollars. The result would be vigorous competition, in which the best ideas, the most efficient production, and the most enlightened leadership would set the standard for the others to follow. A nationally mandated sick day policy would take this competitive advantage off the table for those states (meaning their citizens) willing to not implement. Bumping it up to the feds begs an analogous question - Would you rather get run over by a truck or a bus?
"Big Labor" and its supporters would argue that this is "mean", "unjust", "unfair", and a host of other emotional but indefinite adjectives. There would be untold stories of pain and misery regarding people who were thrown into dire straits because of illness or injury. I don't intend to lessen the grief and ruin that such circumstances can bring upon a family, but, to be frank, it is not the job of government to reduce individual risk and protect people from change. These are circumstances which must be managed by each of us as individuals in how we conduct our lives, including our employment decisions and career choices.
Any attempt to determine the "best" threshold for the size of company and an appropriate number of sick days to bestow is completely arbitrary and a foolish endeavor. What is acceptable in each of the countless and varying circumstances cannot be foretold by anybody, and can only be decided by the parties entering the employment "contract" - the employer and the employee.
Perhaps you are really undecided on the issue. I'm not. It's a bad idea in any business environment and is beyond the scope granted to the federal government by the Constitution. I say no compromise. Either dump the issue entirely or leave it on the ballot as it stands. Hopefully it will be defeated. If it passes, I hope the people of Ohio will eventually realize their mistake and see what folly they have brought upon themselves.
Tudorman
Walmart is the No. 1 offender
Submitted by wuwm on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 1:02pm.
Did you all see the comment about how Walmart only gives sick leave to employee who work 34+ hours per week? The unbelievable part about this is that hardly any of their employees get this many hours per week. Most of their employees -- er, "associates" -- only work part-time. It keeps Walmart from having to pay them for sick days or for any kind of decent benefits. WakeUpWalmart.com
Yeah, lets shut down Wal-Mart
Submitted by Schmennis on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 11:27am.
I have had A LOT of bad experiences at Wal-Mart. When I actually have a good experience I am surprised.
I spoke to a manager at Wal-Mart a few months ago ago. I didn't tell him my personal political beliefs.
I asked him about the rumors that Wal-Mart was "bad" to employees.
This is what he told me.....that made PERFECT SENSE. He said he would LOVE to give his employees FULL benefits however he said, most of them want benefits the first day and DON'T WANT TO EARN THEM.
He said, out of 10 employees he usually finds 1-2 hard working, responsible workers. MOST of the people that work there he classified as average or below.
As a business manager I sympathize with him. My business pays most employees about $14-$16 per hour. Over the last 4 years I have had over 120 employees. Over the last 4 years I HAVE HAD 1 employee that lasted more that 1 year. College kids that apply with the ink still fresh on their diplomas ask, "Where is my office?" I worked for YEARS to get a corner office with a view of the skyline.
He told me that he hires employees and many don't make it past the first week. Fewer make it past 1 month and even fewer past 1 year.
SO WHY SHOULD WAL-MART offer FULL BENEFITS JUST FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION?
The whole point of Wal-Mart is low prices. If you don't like their business practices, I BETTER NOT CATCH YOU IN THERE! And if you say you don't shop there, you are a liar.
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!
Quick question for Schmennis
Submitted by kJk on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 12:42pm.
"The whole point of Wal-Mart is low prices. If you don't like their business practices, I BETTER NOT CATCH YOU IN THERE! And if you say you don't shop there, you are a liar."
Is the above meant for the person to whom you have replied, or is this a blanket accusation?
kjk - For the above
Submitted by Schmennis on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 1:20pm.
kjk, It was mostly for the above.
We all have to shop somewhere....and if we completely cut out shopping where we;
1. Didn't agree with business practices
2. How they spend their profits
3. Products country of origin
I suppose we would all be naked riding rusty home made bicycles. LOL!
I don't think the lady at the Speedway NEEDS ANOTHER face piercing or tattoo, but I'm not going to stop buying gas there because she spends her paycheck in ways that I wouldn't.
That might be O.K. for mvirenicus but I'd prefer to not have people with objections on how they spend their money, object for me.
JK mv!
You're mostly correct
Submitted by kJk on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 2:09pm.
It's not feasible for me to avoid all stores with whom I have some problem. However, I choose to avoid Wal-Mart at all cost for a variety of reasons. Here's a couple:
1) The way the company blackmailed its American suppliers into shipping jobs to China to cut costs. When some refused--notably Wooster-based Rubbermaid--Wal-Mart dropped most of their products and replaced them with all made-in-China products.
2) The way the company was exposed in states like Arizona for deliberately scheduling many good employees one hour short of what Wal-Mart considers full-time, so that the company could dump its healthcare costs on taxpayers, because many of those employees then had to take Medicare. The issue in Arizona, if my memory is correct, was not that Wal-Mart was refusing healthcare in general. The issue was that some employees were actually supposed to be full-time after a certain period of work and were denied full-time status solely for the healthcare reason.
The big one for me is China. Wal-Mart would rather make $2 billion in profits an in turn send $500 million to China than make $1.49 billion in profits and send nothing to China, and as an American that sickens me (numbers are arbitrary and fabricated for a general point). However, the healthcare issue I cite--which is separate from and more specific than that of providing healthcare in general--also sickens me, because it means Wal-Mart has taxpayers directly subsidizing their healthcare over what is done for their competitors. Large corporations should not be getting such a free pass when small business owners are struggling mightily to survive. If these corporations want us to subsidize their healthcare, they ought to start pushing universal healthcare!
Tort Reform - Universal Healthcare IS the answer
Submitted by Schmennis on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 2:23pm.
As a business owner I just don't know how we will pay for it without some reforms.
I have a friend that is a physician in Arizona. He treats people under the "bareback" system. Patients come to see him for a FLAT $35.00 but they have to sign a waiver that states they understand that he has NO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE and that they cannot sue him. In nearly 10 years of practice HE HAS NOT HAD 1 complaint.
Capitalism is compatible with nearly every business endeavor BUT IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH HEALTH CARE OR LAW.
My buddy is not rich, he lives comfortably, but he states that Dr.'s make more mistakes when they have demanding schedules and they stack cases to make money, and live like they do in their first year of residency and then fall into fatigue and are prone to terrible mistakes, THEN BAM! Some terrible thing happens and people wonder, how could such a great guy LEAVE A SCALPEL in a patient? Or remove the wrong kidney? Answer my friend says,"fatigue from greed."
The problem with Universal Health care AND cost is MALPRACTICE INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND ASTRONOMICAL JUDGMENTS against Dr.'s that are MOSTLY trying to help people. Up to 60% of a judgment can go to attorney fees.
Attorneys are NOT going to allow politicians (which are mostly attorneys) to reform the legal system to lower costs of insurance premiums AND judgment awards so "universal health care" will bankrupt us. (Just like Social Security)
Everything re: health care teeters on tort reform and that WILL NEVER HAPPEN. As long as attorneys get rich of of physicians mistakes healthcare will cost an arm and a leg.
Universal Health care works in other countries because of laws and limits re: malpractice awards. Keeping costs down. There is a subject you will not find Mike Moore's Sicko movie.
Missing something
Submitted by kJk on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 2:38pm.
You're missing something above.
Even states that passed punitive damages caps saw their doctors' malpractice premiums rise just like every other state's doctors' premiums. The reason is that insurance companies put 3/4 of their money in the stock market, and they really don't care one way or another whether there are legal limits. No matter what the limit is--non existent, $350k, whatever--insurance strategy is always to fight everything out in court. Jury awards can only emanate from jury trials. If insurance companies settled more often, we wouldn't see these huge awards. But the insurance companies don't want to settle. They're willing to gamble that they'll win in court, and in turn, they help to create massive awards.
Also, don't forget that no punitive damages award that exceeds a 10:1 ratio of punitive:compensatory will be maintained under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. That is one ruling that I cannot imagine ever being fundamentally altered.
Finally, it's difficult for me to imagine a universal single-payer system being adopted in this country anytime soon. If we get "universal healthcare," it will be our own Americanized version. I find it more likely that we cut pieces and parts from various nations' plans to make our own model, and that our model would maintain much of the existing structure, with insurance companies still doing just as much business. I don't foresee a top-down model being adopted. But we'll have to see.
Fixing Ohio's disadvantage
Submitted by LaborGuy on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 12:35am.
Wow tutorman, using your logic I've discovered the perfect way to fix Ohio's job problem.
First we must eliminate that pesky child labor restriction. If we made all eight year-olds available to work I'm sure we'd attract more business.
Plus we can get rid of the minimum wage and 40-hour overtime requirements. That would make us the hardest-working, cheapest labor force in the nation.
And why not lift those darn environmental protections, all they do is slow down production anyway. I'm sure business can always be trusted to do right by its workers and the environment.
And since everybody in the state would likely all be living in poverty, no need to worry about any inequities in access to higher education or employment, so bye bye affirmative action programs and anti-discrimination laws. I guess everybody will just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Ta Da! Now Ohio is the most business friendly state, right?
Sheesh. Thank God I don't live in your vision of America, sounds awful.
Wake up to economics
Submitted by rnagel on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 11:03am.
The employer has only so much that he can pay to his employees. If a mandate is applied to him that cost him money he will simply adjust his expenditures to compensate. In this case higher benefits in the form of paid sick time will be offset by lower benefits in the form of vacation and pay. The question for the voters is whether or not they wish to have this happen. If you are a diligent, truthful and healthy worker who won't lie, you will very likely forego these additional benefits. If you don't mind lying about your health, you can get full advantage. As with most union situations it is a transfer from the productive to the unproductive. If you are the best lathe operator at a union machine shop do you get paid more than the worst? Of course not, only seniority applies. That said I have to admit that passage of this law will probably help me. Not because the additional sick time will help my workers. We're too small. However, I expect quite a few workers to be let go from other companies who compete for the same workers I do. I can then hire them at lower wages than they have been making. This will save me money. Not quite the consequence that people consider. In addition I will benefit from the forced reduction in labor force caused by companies cutting back to less than 25 employees if they are close to the limit. If an employer gets busier and needs to hire more than the 24 employees they will probably just drop the least profitable business. This may hurt them long term, but we don't live in the long term. Will stunting the growth of Ohio small businesses actually help? For those of you who think that business will think long term and accept the additional costs associated with additional workers, don't delude yourself. Any company that has that type of growth assured to them will promptly move out-of-state. A big new contract will dictate growth that can be just as easily handled with a move as without. The devil is in the details.
Buckeye State Business Blog
Submitted by LaborGuy on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 1:02pm.
Man, I usually expect buckeye state blog to reflect the more progressive side of issues in Ohio, but on this topic I feel like everybody empathizes with the poor business owner (who I suspect has paid sick leave already for themselves) and accepts the belief that average Ohioans are shifty liars who don't work hard.
Doesn't look like I'm going to change any minds here on this topic. So thanks for all the fish. I'll see you on the campaign trail, I'll be the one standing opposite the NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce and on the side with the majority of hard-working Ohio families.
Business Owner with PAID LEAVE HA HA HA HA HA!
Submitted by Schmennis on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 1:55pm.
I am a business owner....AND if I miss an important meting with a client.
MY CLIENT DOESN'T PAY ME for missing a meeting. HA HA HA HA HA HA
MANY of my employees over the years make MORE than I do, BECAUSE THEY DO MORE OF THE "work." I have paid HUGE benefits and bonuses to people that have worked for me, but NOT EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR ME GETS THAT, many of them don't even get past the first week.
If I miss a meeting where future business (payment) is expected..I don't get paid...(but I STILL have to pay everyone on payroll) If my client has deadlines, like say an advertisement layout, and I take a day off sick and the project doesn't get completed on time...is the client going to forgive me and pay me, even though I missed the date because I was sick?
NO!
This issue needs BALANCE! it cannot be all for the worker and it cannot be all for the owner. It has to be balanced.
The worker needs benefits and the owner needs to manage costs.
One of my old bosses just agreed to PAID maternity leave for one of his VERY GOOD workers. She is a KEY person in his organization.
He NOW has to pay her salary AND a new employee to cover her responsibilities. Now is the NEW employee going to get benefits
Probably NOT! He can't afford it....what if SHE got pregnant? and then her replacement got pregnant? and her replacement and so on and so on.
AND THAT is the problem....NOT EVERYONE IS AN EXEMPLARY EMPLOYEE.
Some, some, some! "hardworking Ohio families" frankly, just want to show up for the check, go home in a new car, sit in their new house and watch their new big screen TV. ALL THINGS as a business owner I don't have!
Here is my proof from Bejing. Why doesn't every competitor win a gold medal? Because they all don't work as hard or have equal talent.
Just because someone shows up on the doorstep of a business doesn't mean they deserve everything a business owner can give them. THAT IS CALLED WELFARE. If they need a hand out to go to the government NOT ME!
If they need to exercise a talent and contribute to their own personal success, I HIRE THEM and KEEP THEM (even if they don't work all that hard) Every business owner, needs people that contribute SOMETHING besides standing on the handle of a shovel watching, while 3 other people do the work. (I am watching city guys work outside on a busted water main and this is what I am seeing)
If peole come to apply for a job like that from me, I guess I will refer them to the city fom now on. OH, but the city is on a hiring freeze right now....guess they can't manage their business either.
What's Sicker?
I relate to this topic on a very personal level. A co-worker of mine has breast cancer. It has moved to her ovaries and she has undergone two cycles of radiation and four of chemotherapy. Though she may qualify for disability, she is still working. She has good benefits and sick leave available to her but her husband doesn't.
A few months ago her husband , after giving some thirty years of loyal service to his employer, faced a choice between death or open heart surgery. Though he chose the surgery, without sick leave, it wasn't an easy choice.
He did have a retirement fund. A 401(k) which allowed him to invest in the company that would not invest in him. So when he had his surgery, to make ends meet, he sacrificed much of his retirement, with significant tax penalties. He awaited his doctor's okay to go back to work because he could no longer afford to retire or take a disability. His company contacted him and gave him a date to return to work or he would be fired. So without his doctor's approval he went back to work.
His wife also continues to work. She cannot afford the reduction in pay that comes with a disability either because she is concerned about the future with a sick husband who may lose his job to sickness while she houses, supports and nurses her sick mother who has only medicaid and a small social security check after a lifetime of work for her and her deceased husband.
Barack Obama has it right when he says, "[N]o one should be punished for getting sick or dealing with a family crisis."
This is the story of three sick people who are all at the mercy of a global economy that is eating them up and spitting them out. That's the real sickness and, as Barack notes, we must take a stand.