Posted on 03/12/2020 6:11:20 AM PDT by karpov
...
San Francisco was the first locality to require paid sick leave, starting in 2007. The law brought modest benefits and significant costs. A 2011 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found nearly 30% of the lowest-wage earners reported layoffs or reduced hours, with employers unable to offset the cost through price hikes alone. Connecticut’s sick-leave policy was the focus of a 2016 study (of which Mr. Yelowitz was a co-author), which found a “sizeable decrease in labor demand” as a consequence of the mandate.
Today 12 states, the District of Columbia and several dozen other localities require some form of paid sick leave. In Washington state, employees earn one hour of leave for every 40 worked. In California, they earn one hour for every 30, or employers can provide 24 hours up front. Both states also have localities that require more-generous benefits.
The coronavirus’s domestic arrival in these two states complicates Ms. Murray’s promise that a paid-leave mandate could “prevent” its spread. A nursing home in Kirkland, Wash., northeast of Seattle, is described as the “epicenter” of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak. Employees, residents and relatives have all tested positive for the disease. California has the third-highest concentration of cases.
Why didn’t paid-leave regimes in California and Washington prevent the spread of the disease, as Ms. Murray imagines? According to Johns Hopkins researchers, it takes five days on average for coronavirus symptoms to present. That means paid sick leave is of limited use. No employee would come to work or a public gathering knowing he had the coronavirus, and no employer would want him to. But he might show up contagious before he has ever showed symptoms.
Ms. Murray’s plan is also uniquely ill-suited to the tenuous economic environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Mandatory paid sick leave, and mandatory paid maternity/paternity leave, will become a legal reality in this country once this virus event is over.
Trump actually supports them, so I don’t see what there is that will stop this.
I’m in favor of the payroll tax cut because I can always use some extra cash in my pocket, briefly, then spending it to stimulate the economy.
Sounds like nobody in Congress is onboard with the payroll tax cut. Not even Republicans (Goober Graham was poo-pooing it yesterday).
It will give Trump an issue to run on though.
“I tried. Pelosi and the Democrats would not let me.”
Paid sick leave is a good thing. What is unhelpful is being penalized for using the paid sick leave. If you are threatened with the loss of the job that you need to pay your bills, you will drag yourself in and infect all of your coworkers.
The City of Pittsburgh has a paid sick leave law.
There was a five-year court battle because affected businesses claimed that the state’s home rule charter did not give them the power to do this.
The State Supreme Court gave them the power, ruing that municipalities must have very broad powers on any issue that involves “public health”.
Which the Lefty Mayor is now using to support his argument for...…..wait for it...…...Gun Control!
Slippery slope.
My business model is predicated on the understanding that paying people for time they don’t work is one of the dumbest business practices ever imagined.
Paid sick leave is not gun control. Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, not justifications for holding a view that has nothing to do with the actual merits.
Pittsburg will sadly pay the price for electing an opportunistic leftist.
Will the payroll tax cut be a real tax cut or just a juggling act that gives me more until tax season comes around next year when they will want it all back?
Most decent places to work already had this and more. Think “Cadillac health plan”.
Example, we had 2 weeks vacation, 2 weeks sick/family, these were front loaded and could be used right away. After this policy mandate, we lost our vacation, our total ‘benefit’ was 2 weeks sick/vacation/family leave. This had to be earned before use and any unpaid days taken were met with a three strike policy.
If an employee is sick they should not be penalized for staying home. I don’t want someone with so much as the sniffles preparing my food, let alone the coronavirus.
Of course business interests will fight paid sick leave tooth and nail. Can’t afford not to wring every bit of labor out of the working man. I’m sick of corporations threatening economic collapse every time someone suggests the slightest regulation. If the coronavirus is not contained ER beds will fill up with coronavirus patients, leaving people with other serious conditions in the lurch, and the economy will take a hit anyway. The US economy is crashing anyway, might as well save some lives.
Of course paid sick leave is no cure. There is no cure! But, what paid sick leave will do is take the infected person out of the population until they are no longer contagious.
Yes...... then play her sound bite.
She opposes beneficial change in tax policy
We are now in the era of political fruit basket turn over.
Any thing goes
It’s academic that this is coming. Most people consider it common sense. Trump supports it and so do most Republicans. 70% of workplaces already give it to employees. So the economic impact of this is minimal.
payroll tax cut...The big question is are they talking about
not taking out Fed withholding for a while? Let’s say they
do and we all get some extra money...I have heard nothing
about actually lowering the tax rate for the year.
If your tax rate (i.e. tax due next April 16th) stays the
same but they took less out - everyone will be in for a large surprise bill next 4/15....
details are needed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.