Good Stuff from the Decembrist

This other old post was perhaps a little more technical and less bitter.

So much of Hacker’s argument (which is superb; everyone should read it) for understanding recent economic trends as “a massive transfer of financial risk from corporations and the government onto families and individuals,” and for seeking an “Economic Security Act” that would re-align our welfare priorities, puts one in mind of other recent arguments along these same lines. Cass Sunstein’s call for a second Bill of Rights to give working people more security admist all the “choices” the new economy has given them, Phillip Longman’s reminder about the costs of raising kids in insecurity, etc., etc. There’s a potential progressive consesnsus here, if anyone can put it all together.

I worked as a professional for years at a job which offered no sick days! And I’m a Republican can you believe it?

Of course I had seven ‘personal’ days in addition to my vacation days. The distinction between the two was that vacation days had to be authorized in advance while the ‘personal’ days did not. Which means they functioned much like sick days, except you were allowed to take them when you weren’t sick.

I wonder if things like that could have an impact on the statistics.

Well, yes I had more vacation days.

I’m all for security and paid sick leave. I’m just not sure why the employer should have to pay it.

If I own a McDonald’s that has 4 people working a shift, and one person gets sick, I have to pay someone else. Why should I pay for 5 workers when I’m only using four?

I feel like too often people jump from “This is a good thing” to “Therefore Person X should do it.”

Employers can determine on their own whether it’s in their own interest to give sick days. They don’t need me to say, “Do it. It’s in your own interest.” Best to make sick pay for the rest a government program, rather than a burden solely on employers.

Like I said, I have no problem recognizing that the working fellow is getting worse off — depending on how narrowly we’re defining “working fellow.” There are certainly a fair number of working fellows in India and China who are much better off. They should count for something to.

But I have no problem saying that American working fellows are worse off.
I have no problem saying that American working fellows should be made better off.
My problem is in imposing the burden of making them better off on a class of people of which I am not a member.

My employer (about 1200 people worldwide) eliminated accrued sick leave a decade ago. We still get paid when we take a sick day, they’re just not on the books so they’re not a liability. A doctor’s note is required for more than 5 consecutive ones because short term disability insurance kicks in at that point. This policy is valid for the few hourly employees as well.

So does my employer count as having no paid sick leave? This policy is certainly fair to the employees.

Rising wages/benefits would represent an increase in the cost of doing business, which, for the most part, would be passed onto consumers of whom you are a member (most likely).

Or, an incentive to move the job off-shore, where wage/benefit costs are lower.

The choices appear to be (1) tell employers do pay more if they want to hire Americans, and then whine when they choose to not hire Americans; or (2) pay the employees more ourselves (through, for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit) and keep the jobs here.

I know the “small business owner” is usually used as a frontman to get goodies for big business owners, but the fact is that lots and lots of employers only employ a small number of people.

Why should a guy with two employees who give each other the flu have to pay for four employees for the week that they are out? I am not saying that the employees shouldn’t get sick pay, but why the desire to make the employer pay for it?

But more simply, if the cost is really passed on to the consumer, so we are all paying for it indirectly, why the objection to us all paying for it directly?

The choice is simple, Richard: either you are, as a master of your own destiny, defending your own interests one way or another, getting good wages, good benefits, good working conditions, good pension plan, good education and good medical care.

Or you are a poor sap worrying about well-being of a small class of rich people (of which you are not a member), who are using your body pretty much like a rented car, saving a few bucks on oil change, because – who cares? when this one bites the dust they’ll rent another one.

All there is to it.

I blame the minimum wage. Benefits first became a major part of labor compensation during WWII when there was a ceiling on wage increases. There was no other way to increase compensation and attract employees. It stands to reason that a wage floor would cause employers to eliminate benefits because it’s the only way employers can reduce compensation.

I don’t really see the problem with not offering sick days. Some employers may see sick days as a way to prevent employees from coming in sick and infecting others, and some may see sick days as a tool for lazy employees to skip out on work. Either is reasonable. We should allow employers and employees to work that out for themselves.

That also assumes that opporunity is actually being maximized. As opposed to increased risk and inequality being explained away by alleging increased opportunity.