Say "no" to the Healthy Families Act

The Democrats are proposing a new government regulation, because Democrats think every problem in society needs to be solved with a regulation. Thus the Healthy Families Act, which has only a tenuous connection to healthy families. It should properly be called the Paid Sick Days Act, but Democratic Congressmen think it's funny to make Republicans vote against "healthy families." There really ought to be a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting dumb names for proposed legislation.

The Democrats want to force employers to offer all employees at least seven paid sick days a year. Now I have previously opined in favor of mandating more time off from work, but this proposed legislation is the wrong way to move towards this goal. This law isn't about offering all workers more time off. It only benefits workers who qualify under the very complicated rules of the legislation. This is the typical leftist communist approach to apportioning resources; only people who the government determines to have greater need get the extra time off from work.

The law would allow parents to use their sick days if their children are sick. There they go again, throwing more benefits at people with kids and discrimating against those without them. People already get enough government benefits on account of having kids.

I strongly believe that people respond to incentives. If you create a law which gives people an incentive to lie or cheat, then you encourage more lying and cheating, and we already have enough lying and cheating going on in society. Obviously, workers will abuse the paid sick day privilege by calling in sick when they just want a day off to have fun. And it's hard to blame them. Lots of low paid workers have pretty crappy jobs. If I worked in a chicken processing plant, I too would probably lie and cheat in order to maximize my time off from such an awful job. This law ties the hands of employers who suspect a worker of cheating, because the worker could sue the employer for firing him for calling in sick, and the employer would have to prove in court that the worker called in sick when he wasn't sick.

What happens if an employer says "we offer no vacation here, but you can use your paid sick days even when you aren't sick." Is this employer violating the law because it is improperly calling vacation days "sick days"? A law which creates so many opportunities for law suits is a bad law. A law which states that all employees must get 15 paid days off per year would be a lot easier to enforce because it would simply be a matter of counting the days off. But the communist Democrats don't like that because it awards the time off to everybody and not just those with the greater need.

In the discussion about this legislation, statistics are brought up which show that lower paid workers are more likely to not have any paid sick days. This is probably a rational free market response to the fact that lower paid workers are more likely to abuse the privilege. I've already discussed how low wage jobs tend to be lousy and thus inherently offer more incentive to cheat in order to avoid a day of drudgery. In addition, low wage workers tend to have lower IQs, and I've previously blogged about how honesty is positively correlated with IQ.

Proponents of the law correctly point out that there is an economic loss when people who are sick go to work, or when people let their sick kids go to school, because this spreads illnesses around. But the benefits of forcing employers to give out paid sick days have to be balanced out against all the negatives documented above. And it seems that the free market has already sorted that out. In high wage jobs, where people are more likely to be honest, paid sick days are common. But in low wage jobs, where people are more likely to be dishonest, sick days are less common. I see no evidence that there needs to be a new law when the free market has already created what seems like an efficient resolution.

Comments

[superdestroyer]

Possible Unexpected outcomes:

1. I wonder if more companies would just lump holidays, vacation and sick time together as planned time off (thus you have your seven days but everyday with a sick kids is one less paid holiday or vacation day.

2. Another reason to make everyone a contract or party time employee. I have talk to several people who took contract positions who failed to realize that everyday they do not work is a day they are not paid.

3. Another cost that family run business do not have to pay. Along with minimum wage increases and medical insurance demands, the last dry cleaners, convience store, small restaurant that is not run by either a greek or asian family and actual pay a payroll will not be able to compete.

[Peter]

My employer discontinued separate sick days and vacation days a few years ago. Each employee now gets a certain number of paid time off (PTO) days, the specific number varying by years of service, to allocate between sick time and vacation time as he or she sees fit. It seems to work fine.

The only problem with lumping sick and vacation days together is that it encourages people to come in when sick (my fiancee sees this a lot at her workplace, where they have that sort of PTO policy). I'm not sure there is an optimal solution that doesn't rely on the honesty of the employees.

[JewishAtheist]

Democratic Congressmen think it's funny to make Republicans vote against "healthy families."

Clear Skies Act, No Child Left Behind, USA PATRIOT Act, etc. It's not primarily a Democratic problem.

I agree with you that sick days should be merged with vacation days. Perhaps a minimum number of vacation days should be mandatory, with more allowed with a doctor's note or something.

[Half Sigma]

"The only problem with lumping sick and vacation days together is that it encourages people to come in when sick"

Indeed, people don't want to "waste" a scarce day off from work when they are sick and aren't going to enjoy it anyway.

But government mandated sick days won't solve the problem because people won't want to waste the sick day which they could easily use as a party day at some later time by lying/cheating.

[Peter]

I didn't notice any increase in workers coming in despite being sick, following my company's switch to a PTO-based system. What I have noticed over the years is a big individual variation in people's attitudes toward coming into work while sick. Some people will drag themselves in despite having one foot in the coffin while others stay home at the merest hint of a sniffle. As best I can tell these differences do not seem much affected by the type of sick leave policy in effect.

[bbartlog]

The company I work at and also the previous two companies I worked at allow as many paid sick days as you need and trust their employees not to abuse the privilege. Though I imagine if you were actually sick for a long time you'd be expected to file a short-term disability claim or something. My previous employer also offered six weeks' *paid* paternity leave which is pretty unheard of in the US.
Of course, this is partly because these employers were all tech startups who pride themselves on bending over backward to attract talent. Also the companies were small enough (and the Pittsburgh tech community is small enough) that if you really abused these policies you'd not only be out the door, but you'd seriously affect your odds of being hired elsewhere in the city...

[michael v]

Making benefits dependent on need is not just a Democratic vice. Liberals AND Conservatives are strongly averse to basic incomes and more generally to a society where benefits come without strings attached.

[probligo]

Why is this so difficult?

In NZ every employee has by right 5 days paid sick leave per annum. Unused sick leave can be accumulated to a maximum of 20 days. That leave can also be used to take care of a sick spouse or child. It can only be used once.

I addition to that, every employee has the right to paid time off to attend the funeral of a family member, extending to 3 days for the death of a spouse, parent or child.

Is that OTT? No one in NZ seems to think so. Is that difficult to do? No one here seems to think so.

Yes, there are some employees who make sure that they take every one of those five paid days every year. It is also interesting that since the accumulation right was brought in three years back the number of employees (where I work) who are now banking that leave is increasing.

[spungen]

What happens if an employer says "we offer no vacation here, but you can use your paid sick days even when you aren't sick." Is this employer violating the law because it is improperly calling vacation days "sick days"?

No. Section 5(g)(1), "EQUIVALENCY REQUIREMENT," states that an employer with a leave policy providing paid leave options won't be required to modify the policy if it offers the employee the option to take sick leave at least equivalent to that requred by the act.

[SFG]

"Why is this so difficult?"

Because here in the USA they still believe in the Protestant work ethic. It really sucks to be American, believe me.

[madbomber]

How about this...

How about the government just stays out of it. based on everything that's been addressed previously, there are some clear disadvantages. I suspect this is nothing more than another attempt by some politician to expand his political capital at the expense of the firm. So much more BS if you ask me.

[Peter]

I'm searching for Bloggers around the world interested in helping spread the word for a rather simple idea:

http://just-one-day-of-peace.blogspot.com/

v/r

[SFG]

"What If...on December 30th, 2006, starting at 8 p.m., people around the world spent two minutes reflecting upon the idea of Peace and ones own humble place in time?"

The guy not observing peace gets a free shot.

[Spungen]

Hey, that wasn't our regular Peter, was it?

Maybe one of his kids made him do it.

[Dan Morgan]

Where I work we get one big lump of days off. You can take them if you are sick or if you just want some vacation. That is your business. Now that we have gone to this system, vs. the old system of sick days vs. vacation days, things now work much better. The new system is vastly superior to the old system. It takes the cheating out of the system. And it ends the awkwardness of having to call your boss and them him you are sick that day.

New employees get a "Timebank" of about 3 weeks that they can take off per year. Longer term employees, like me, get 6 weeks a year. And it's great, BTW, especially if you rarely get sick.

It seems to me this is the way of the future and the Democrats are stuck making proposals suited to the 1930s.

[loki on the run]

Wait until they start proposing that you need to be licenced to have children ...