Paid Sick Days and Family Values

After raising the minimum wage, economic justice priority number two for the Democratic congress should be mandating paid sick days for all workers. Aside from a simple issue of fairness (just because someone has a low-wage job doesn't mean they should have to work sick or not get a chance to care for sick kids), there's pretty good data suggesting that sick workers hurt more than they help. They drag down productivity and spread illness among their co-workers. The New York Times gives a good run-down of the issue today, with the predictable opposition from the US Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbyists. The business owners argue that there's "no such thing as a free lunch" and that the legislation would amount to a regulatory tax and an "unfunded mandate."

It's true mandating sick days will cost employers something, but it shouldn't have any kind of differential effect. That is, since the law will be universal, any business' competitors will be paying roughly the same (proportional) amount. And the sector where the legislation is likely to have the largest impact is in the service industry, which unlike manufacturing isn't subject to the same competitive pressures from globalization to reduce labor costs or outsource. Also, as noted, there's a significant cost to the existing regime in which sick workers come into work. a cost that could conceiveably be higher (or not much less) than the cost of paying sick workers to stay home.

From the political perspective, sick days are exactly the kind of broadly popular, progressive measure for economic justice that the Democrats should be prioritizing. Will it pass? The spokesperson for the Chamber of Commerce seems confident it will face a filibuster from Republicans in the Senate. Which is why it would seem the perfect kind of issue for evangelicals to flex their political muscle on. There's been a lot of noise recently about evangelicals broadening their political focus to include issues other than abortion and the gays. They could use sick days to show that it's not just talk. Caring for your sick kid is a family issue. Mandating sick days is a policy that is parent and family friendly in every sense of the word. The US Conference of Catholic bishops is supporting the legislation. Will the National Association of Evangelicals step up to the plate?

Comments (32)

1. "It's true mandating sick days will cost employers something, but it shouldn't have any kind of differential effect."

   Not it "won't"...but it "shouldn't". Yep, heard that one before.

   And how long into it before we start getting the cases of guys who've had "a bad cold" for seven weeks and are spotted working across town at their OTHER job?

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 10:01am

2. I find it amazingly ironic that the ideas that those "greedy capitalist bastards" concocted in the past in the way of perks (sick days, health-care, etc.) have been co-opted by the elitists as one of their own ideas in the way of a federal mandate. Reason #581 why pro-choice no longer applies.

   Posted by Sliver at 12/05/2006 @ 10:29am

3. What ya smokin today SLIVER? Same junk that causes BARRY to say the left opposed desegregation? Good Afghani opium? Did you bring enough for the whole class? I miss the days when the CIA supplied us college students with fine black tar, back when Usama was our buddy, along with Saddam and Pinochet.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 10:36am

4. BTW, of course Mr Hayes says...

   "That is, since the law will be universal, any business' competitors will be paying roughly the same (proportional) amount."

   True, also means that since there's not competition, that EVERYBODY can RAISE THEIR PRICES, to cover the new costs of endless sick pay, without fear of losing business.

   So it's not going to "cost the employers something", Mr. Hayes....but the consumers with higher prices.

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 10:43am

5. FREI, singles and childless couples are left out of most discussions of policy here in the US. It is all about "Family" values. Sad, but true.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 10:46am

6. Hayes is all about trying to get out of work.

   Posted by woodyee at 12/05/2006 @ 11:05am

7. Its all about politicians giving away some one else's money for votes...it cost politician nothing, but evil corporations lose money, productivity, control, and freedom. And the "worker" has been convince he/she was somehow screwed out of a "right" or entitlement.

   Itis simple ...money for nothing votes for free...(sounds like a song...

   Posted by john maasch at 12/05/2006 @ 11:15am

8. The vehemence of comments against sick leave for all employees is discouraging, including the presumption that it is somehow unfair to singles or those without children. Sick leave, obviously, can be taken for one's own illnesses, and, typically, has a limit based on tenure in the job. Universal sick leave seems like an obvious aspect of any sane flu epidemic preparedness policy, as it would make it financially possible for infected persons to follow official advice and stay home.

   Posted by socprof at 12/05/2006 @ 11:37am

9. "Universal sick leave seems like an obvious aspect of any sane flu epidemic preparedness policy, as it would make it financially possible for infected persons to follow official advice and stay home."-----Posted by SOCPROF 12/05/2006 @ 11:37am

   Ahhhh...see now, it's not about "economic justice". If we don't get universal paid sick leave....YOU COULD DIE OF THE FLU!

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 11:58am

10. Sliver, paid sick leave and other employee benefits like paid health care and pensions were generally not ideas that the "greedy capitalist bastards" came up with. Instead, it was socialists and the unions you right-wingers and centrists like to argue are so outdated that fought and died for them.

    For the rest of you, how about you try to understand the economic concept that it might actually benefit society, and even many companies, more to pay sick folks to stay home than to come into work and make other people sick, cause accidents, lower productivity, etc., etc?

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/05/2006 @ 12:04pm

11. For those wizards of economic theory, who accuse me of illiteracy, Dean Baker runs the numbers [tinyurl.com]. As I note, obviously the mandate will cost employers (and consumers) something. The question is: how much, and do the benefits outweight the costs?

    Posted by Nation Intern at 12/05/2006 @ 12:35pm

12. Plain & Freheit,

    Despite your dismissal of Nation Intern.....I think it's pretty obvious that person DOES "get it" and you guys DONT "get it".

    Each employer's independent calculation would almost certainly come to one conclusion versus the calculation for each employer when the action / benefit was NOT an independent move.

    He gets it. You don't. Stop patronizing!

    Posted by freedomplease at 12/05/2006 @ 2:16pm

13. Is is correct to assume that all of you stoics blasting the proposal of paid sick days go to work when you have the flu, debilitating back pain or other minor trifle? Or that your salaries are ample enough that you can afford to miss getting paid for a day or two?

    Posted by habiba at 12/05/2006 @ 5:48pm

14. Its amusing really,that a suggestion by a good american,suggesting we take care of our fellow americans when ill,is ridiculled as being unreallistic,a handout, a burden to business. Issent it true that america helps a large part of the world with aid consistantly,issent it true most americans are raised to help and respect others, irregardless of their station in life. To all you elite negitive bloggers,Its past time for you Americans to get American.

    Posted by marie gerag at 12/05/2006 @ 8:10pm

15. Habiba:

    Is it correct to assume that you have never had to pay something for nothing?

    Posted by usc1 at 12/05/2006 @ 8:17pm

16. Feel good vs. do good. Let's DO GOOD!

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/05/2006 @ 9:37pm | ignore this person

    By discouraging businesses from paying sick leave?!?! That's how we "DO GOOD" in your book?!?!?!

    That's not exactly one of your more 'brilliant' posts, Frei.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/06/2006 @ 01:26am

17. "family values" is a cheap, fake SLOGAN made up by Republicans' publicists to win elections. The slogan "family values" has NO MEANING and is simply intended "to sound good".

    The same for "compassionate conservative". What DOES IT MEAN? Nothing! It's a silly slogan meant "to sound cozy".

    When will Americans tell truth from lies? Never. Because these misleading slogans are still being cranked out and they are effective. They win elections.

    And now, it's time to IMPEACH BUSH. IMPEACH BUSH, NOW. Save America and Americans from death and debt.

    Posted by darker at 12/06/2006 @ 03:08am

18. The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

    And ya'll want to keep the least among us from having a couple of paid days off for sick leave?

    Sick.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 08:52am

19. Crab...nice strawman. I seriously doubt that ANY of our employers are even close to those 2%.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/06/2006 @ 09:05am

20. At the risk of feeding the trolls, I think progressives should have some bold responses to the ridiculous rantings above (which powerful politicians and lobbyists will also deploy):

    (1) Yes. It will result in higher prices. In other words, it will result in you, the consumer, paying your fair share of the costs of products and services. We need to hammer this home again and again: It is unethical to pay less than the cost of production for a service or product, and the cost of production includes enough pay to live on, and decent working conditions, for all the workers in the supply chain. Barbara Ehrenreich said it best when she said that the working poor are the unsung philanthropists of our society, going hungry so that others may have inexpensive restaurant meals, leaving their kids home alone so that others may have nannies, etc. We need to change this so that customers pay what it costs to provide services. Yes, it's a harder "moral value" to abide by than a congregation of (allegedly) heterosexual churchgoers making a pledge to (allegedly) abstain from gay sex, but then again, maybe that's why they focus on issues like that, huh?

    To those who despair of paying an extra 50 cents or whatever when they eat out or an extra week of paid sick time if they hire a maid: do you have sick time at work? If you're self-employed, do you work when you're sick? Oh, and is your job really harder than working outside in the winter, or 10-hour all-standing shifts at a restaurant or store? If you had a job like that when you were younger you know better. What makes you think the people who do these jobs now deserve such a totally different life from you, where they have to worry about getting fired if they stay home for being sick or having a sick kid? And where, in this life you propose for them, is the notion of "freedom" that your kind always goes on about?

    (2) I'm single, and I do believe that single people sometimes are seen as second-class citizens, but this is not one of those times. If we want to be treated as adults and respected by the married-with-children types, denying sick days to parents is not the way to act. If this is someone's real attitude, get a clue: Low-income people often lose jobs (and then sometimes end up in shelters or on public assistance) because they have to stay home with sick kids because daycare won't take sick kids (and of course stay-at-home parenting is not an option at the wage rates these jobs pay). So you may end up paying more, through public assistance (or, if you favor Ending Welfare As We Know It, panhandlers and people sleeping in doorways in your town), in order to have the smug feeling of not having paid anyone sick-time. You will pay more in health-care costs too, of course, since poor workers will wait until they're REALLY sick, not even have the chicken-soup-and-rest remedy to prevent sickness, and YOUR health premiums and taxes will end up having to cover for care of the uninsured who you were too cheap to compensate fairly for the services and products YOU received from them.

    Of course, granting sick time, like employees at any other level automatically get without a second thought, would go a long way towards fixing this. Can you honestly say that you would want to be treated the way it is so often proposed that we treat low-income workers? Could you hack it, Mr. or Ms. Conservative-- if you worked for a place where you could get fired for being 10 mintutes late or needing a sick day, would you still have your job? I very much doubt it, and would like you to think of it next time you are running late in the morning.

    (3) Next time somebody deploys the "liberal elitist" stereotype, we should bring up people like the one who commented that somebody would end up working a second job for seven weeks while calling in sick the whole time. Nobody is suggesting seven weeks of sick time-- this is a total straw-man argument, and if any actual politician uses this, we should call them on insulting the public's intelligence. This sort of BS only distracts from the reality nobody likes to discuss, which is that vast numbers of low-income workers have NO SICK TIME AT ALL. Not one single day, and wages so low that even if their bosses let them take unpaid sick time they can't afford it.

    (4) Oh, by the way, those sick workers who have to come into work anyhow, who mostly are low-income service workers, who the hell do you think they're serving? YOU! Do you want what they've got, when they're doing (ahem) food service, or cleaning your desk after-hours and sniffling all over the place, or handing you some product at a store with germs all over their hands? We need to make a point that these people are your neighbors not only in the sense of deserving the basic working conditions you take for granted, but also in the sense that if you make them work sick, you will get sick. DUH!

    (5) As another counter-argument to the notion that the poor workers somehow Aren't Working Hard Enough If They Get Sick, consider WHO THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE DISEASE FROM. We're talking mostly colds, flu, etc. These workers often work in direct customer contact. THEY GOT SICK FROM YOU! And now, because you're too cheap to pay an extra 50 cents or a buck for whatever it is you bought, you want THEM to be forced to work sick, or get fired for "absenteeism," or whatever, while you sip your coffee and muse about the American Love of Freedom. Hmmmm.

    I conclude that the attitude of these conservatives, and possibly of the Chamber of Commerce folks, is a downright THROWBACK TO THE DAYS OF SLAVERY. It is the same basic argument, that some people don't deserve even the most basic courtesies, they are Different From You And Me, and, even if you see them every day and they provide you with some essential product or service, treating them with dignity is beneath you. We aren't even talking mandatory minimum paid vacation, which ought to also be considered part of the costs of production and IS part of it in every other industrial country. We're talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK SICK. As brought to you by the apostles of "FREEDOM." You know, I'm sure somebody argued that ending slavery would raise prices too-- and I'm sure it DID raise prices for a while, until the cretins who oppose things like sick time figured out a way to oursource our cotton-clothing production to new de-facto slaves in the Third World.

    The absence of mandatory minimum paid sick time isn't just a serious pragmatic issue for the working poor. It is an EMBARRASSMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I am pleased that a bill is in front of the Congress; call now, call often, get this thing passed.

    Posted by davelwhite at 12/06/2006 @ 09:20am

21. My previous post is too long. Here's a bumper-sticker version:

    ALWAYS LOW PRICES: A synonym for letting your life be subsidized by poor workers going hungry.

    Posted by davelwhite at 12/06/2006 @ 09:26am

22. (1) Yes. It will result in higher prices. In other words, it will result in you, the consumer, paying your fair share of the costs of products and services.

    Posted by DAVELWHITE 12/06/2006 @ 09:20am

    Hammer away....because doesn't that ALSO mean that those "poor workers"....will pay MORE of their "fair share of the costs of products and services"?!!???!

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 09:40am

23. Ah yes, the attempt to force your opponent into a circular argument: We Must Have Low Wages & Benefits Because Otherwise How Would The Poor Be Able To Afford To Buy Anything? Actually, high wage countries (such as Western Europe) tend to have both higher prices AND less poverty, and low wage countries (such as in the third world) have the most poverty of all-- so much for the theory that forcing workers to subsidize the costs of production will end poverty. How does this work-- how can higher prices actually be associated with less hunger, less homelessness? Well, when prices are low in an affluent country, most of the savings goes to people who could have afforded to pay the full cost of production, e.g. middle-and-upper-class people, who are the majority in an affluent country after all. When prices are higher, enabling businesses to pay the full cost of production, most customers don't notice the difference that much. (Say there are no savings from preventing disease spread, and EVERY worker uses all 7 of their sick days. There's 260 workdays in a year if you don't get paid vacation, and so SERVICE LABOR costs would go up 2.6%; but service labor costs are a small part of the total cost of a product. Let's generously say 50% of the cost of a 99 cent Taco Bell burrito. Now that burrito's $1.05.)

    Even the poor wouldn't notice a price increase like that; some prices might go up more, but since poor workers are the primary beneficiaries of laws like sick time and minimum wages and the like, they come out WAY AHEAD in the end.

    In any case, no businessperson would get higher than Store Manager at a 7-11 if they suggested the same mentality with regards to equipment ("Hey, let's save money by never repairing our vehicle fleet, just drive 'em till they die and leave 'em by the side of the road!") Why the difference between people & equipment? Well, it's because business people can depend on the charity of the wider community (in other words, indirect public subsidy to their business) to bail out their employees if they get sick, but nobody is going to donate to the "Help Wal-Mart Repair Their Trucks" fund. Businesses who do not provide sick time are a PRIME EXAMPLE of Not Taking Individual Responsibility. They are on the dole, the dole of public charity for their underpaid employees. Which means their middle-class customers are on the dole too-- I Don't Want To Pay A Lot For This Shirt, so Please Subsidize it For Me By Making It Cheaper, Poor People! Do you like having this pointed out? No. Is it still true? Yes.

    In trying to spread the word about this issue, I have learned that many people don't push this issue because THEY THINK IT PASSED! In other words, if they knew that 75% of the low-wage workers who serve them in restaurants, bars, stores, etc., are coerced by their employers into working when they're contagious, and that it wasn't illegal to do that, this would be one of those no-brainer referenda where the opposition (let's call them the "Pro-Spreading-Disease" Camp) didn't have a chance.

    Having read the 9 to 5 Working Women's Association's excellent materials on this subject, with case studies of employers firing people for getting sick, I have MORE reasons to push SICK TIME as a TOP PROGRESSIVE ISSUE: who wants to be a middle-manager in an organization that expects you to fire people over taking care of their sick kid! The behavior of the managers in the case is abysmal-- but in some cases they probably didn't have a choice, they'd be labeled "soft" if they actually read and acted on the numerous Human Resources studies that show that employee turnover, training, and poor morale/productivity cost WAY more than sick time does. So they are basically being stupid towards their own businesses' bottom lines (ignoring the "soft costs" of turnover), spreading disease among their customers, and, when they rise higher in the organization, coercing more reasonable managers below them to enforce these ridiculous policies. The fact that most Americans think everybody already HAS sick time may be the reason these employers aren't shunned in the marketplace (now that you know better, wanna buy a Taco Bell burrito from a sick single mom?) but for whatever reason, market forces haven't worked to force these shady employers to change. Time for a law.

    Posted by davelwhite at 12/06/2006 @ 1:42pm

24. P.S. Actually the burrito would only be $1.00 or maybe $1.01, an increase of 1 or 2 cents, with all the inputs to the formula set up to calculate the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE price increase, to pay for sick time for the Taco Bell employees. I rounded it up to $1.05 because nobody ever sets the price of anything to a dollar. Oops. (And if The Bell rounds it up to $1.09, just remember, 9 cents of that is going to Taco Bell Corporate Headquarters, and only 1 cent to pay for sick time. If you wanna be upset about that, hold a NO PRICE ROUNDING rally. I'm sure consumers pay WAY more so that businesses can round everything up to the next "9" than they would for a whole list of basic employee rights.

    Let's take a typical $100 grocery order. So, that would be $101 even if EVERY worker took ALL their sick time AND ALL the costs were passed on to the customer AND NONE of the employers in the supply chain already had sick time (which many do) AND HALF of the cost of your groceries went to the checkout clerks and meatpackers and what have you, which seems a little high considering that some of it has to go to the actual product. So more likely, you're paying 25 or 50 cents on a $100 order so that the employees don't have to get fired for getting sick or having a sick kid, and so that they don't get all the other customers sick.

    Back to the original question: How Cheap Are You, Exactly?

    Posted by davelwhite at 12/06/2006 @ 1:56pm

25. Final P.S.: If you just HATE the idea of ANY government regulation of business, why not take a Law and Order approach to this? Don't increase costs for employers who spread disease among workers and the public-- just call it a crime and arrest them! Senator Kennedy's website talks about a hotel in Reno where 600 customers got sick because an employee was expected to work. They all got a stomach virus. And 300 employees caught it too! Surely that's a crime comparable to Disorderly Conduct, or even Larceny (think 900 x one doctor's visit $15 copay = $13 grand!). If you're already the decent sort of employer who provides sick time, no need to worry about the 60-90 day Jail Time!

    So that's my Conservative Law & Order Version of sick time, if you refuse to go for the sensible approach taken by all other civilized nations (including those run by conservatives). Any takers?

    Posted by davelwhite at 12/06/2006 @ 2:08pm

26. Habiba:

    Is it correct to assume that you have never had to pay something for nothing?

    Huh?

    Posted by habiba at 12/06/2006 @ 2:12pm

27. I just asked whether all of you pro-business fans do your part to support the American economy by coming to work sick. Or do you just think that "other" people should come to work sick?

    >

    Posted by habiba at 12/06/2006 @ 2:20pm

28. Paid sick days is the stuff of real "family values." You know, values that actually help families be a family.

    I'm all for it - for the productivity reasons and for reasons of family.

    Posted by empty at 12/06/2006 @ 2:41pm

29. Pssht! Cricket chirps from the capitalist camp.

    So much for walking the talk. . .

    Posted by habiba at 12/06/2006 @ 4:54pm

30. Habiba:

    Ha! Some of us work and can't respond immediately. To answer your question, yes, I come to work even if I'm sick. As a matter of fact, I'm getting over some kind of "bug" right now.

    Posted by usc1 at 12/06/2006 @ 5:03pm

31. Posted by USC1 12/06/2006 @ 5:03pm

    Correct me if I am wrong...but are you not military? Can military personnel, who perhaps live off base, simply call in sick? Or do they expect you to at least visit a clinic or hospital (free of charge, of course. And with no loss in pay, if you get a doctors excuse).

    Or are you just talking out your ass again?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/06/2006 @ 8:05pm

32. (Or have I confused USC with CPT?)

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/06/2006 @ 8:06pm