Earned Sick Time - Ballot Initiative

[Canadian Visitor]

I often look w/interest to see what ballot initiatives are percolating in the United States. They often reveal where the public may be in the years ahead.

I noticed that Michigan has a move on to put 'earned sick days' on the ballot.

I'm not clear on whether this will actually make it to the ballot, let alone pass.

This is one of those issues where the U.S. has been moving faster than Canada w/paid-sick-leave of some form now mandated in 5? States [[California, Oregon, Vermont, Mass, and Conn. that I'm aware of)

Thoughts?

This is the local campaign page, I gather.

http://mitimetocare.org/

While this appears to be the national one.

http://www.paidsickdays.org/

[Wesley Mouch]

Thoughts?

In spite of generally libertarian philosophy, I do think that there is room for government regulation of labor. Yet we have to be careful about just how much we regulate every aspect of employment.

I think we do best when we allow innovation and experimentation. Regulation of everything harms that. We need disruptive companies. We need small companies to thrive, and we discourage that when we over-regulate.

I'm in favor of good pay. And I'm in favor of sick pay. I'm in favor of parental leave. But I'd rather we get that by good disclosure, and setting of standards -- voluntary standards on what's best. I'm not in favor of achieving everything by regulation.

The problem is that its hard to argue for liberty. What? You're against an increase in the minimum wage? Against paid sick leave?

You can be against over-regulation without being against the basic principles.

[Jimaz]

[[Sshh. I just sneezed on Wesley's pizza.)

[Wesley Mouch]

[[Sshh. I just sneezed on Wesley's pizza.)

Just because you sneezed doesn't mean you're sick. No sick pay for you from Mouch.

[Chicago48]

I often look w/interest to see what ballot initiatives are percolating in the United States. They often reveal where the public may be in the years ahead.

I noticed that Michigan has a move on to put 'earned sick days' on the ballot.

I'm not clear on whether this will actually make it to the ballot, let alone pass.

This is one of those issues where the U.S. has been moving faster than Canada w/paid-sick-leave of some form now mandated in 5? States [[California, Oregon, Vermont, Mass, and Conn. that I'm aware of)

Thoughts?

This is the local campaign page, I gather.

http://mitimetocare.org/

While this appears to be the national one.

http://www.paidsickdays.org/

Chicago is voting on a 5-day paid leave. The retailers are not happy.

[ddaydetroit]

Hell no the retailers are not happy many are already in bad shape because of amazon and online shopping

[401don]

The shortness and lack of pay for maternity leave is far harder to comprehend.

[ndavies]

Be careful what you vote for. ATMs and automated self serve registers don't need sick days or $15 an hour. In the near future, Automated taxis and trucks won't need sick days. Look at how many bank jobs have been lost to automation in the last 10 years.

All of these government actions to increase compensation just make it more cost effective to automate.

[samsonov]

Be careful what you vote for. ATMs and automated self serve registers don't need sick days or $15 an hour. In the near future, Automated taxis and trucks won't need sick days. Look at how many bank jobs have been lost to automation in the last 10 years.

All of these government actions to increase compensation just make it more cost effective to automate.

The thing is companies will automate as soon as they can regardless of sick pay legislation or a minimum wage increase. So it really doesn't matter.

[michmina]

Let me tell you what happens with this.

My company employs people nationwide. Because California and possibly a couple of other states have enacted this, my company has enacted it with the rest of us. Great, huh?

We used to have 1 bank of time off. Now we have 2, one for vacation and one for sick time.

All they did was cut the amount of time in the vacation bank and deposit it in the sick bank. No difference in time off, but now we cannot roll ANY time into next year [[used to be able to roll over 40 hours), though twice a year we can cash some of the time out. I prefer to use my time off for vacation, I haven't taken a sick day in years. No additional time off, of course, but it also punishes those of us who AREN'T sick because we are actually getting less time to use for vacation days.

Super.

[EastsideAl]

Be careful what you vote for. ATMs and automated self serve registers don't need sick days or $15 an hour. In the near future, Automated taxis and trucks won't need sick days. Look at how many bank jobs have been lost to automation in the last 10 years.

All of these government actions to increase compensation just make it more cost effective to automate.

Which the companies are going to do anyway. Which leads to more unemployment, marginal employment, lower wage employment, etc. Giving us more of the dearth of demand that we've been [[not so) "mysteriously" suffering from over the past several years.

What companies forget, of course, to their peril in their big race to the bottom is that, while people inconveniently get sick and machines don't, people also buy things and machines don't.

[ndavies]

The thing is companies will automate as soon as they can regardless of sick pay legislation or a minimum wage increase. So it really doesn't matter.

Yes, But adding to costs of employees will make it happen much faster.

[Wesley Mouch]

The thing is companies will automate as soon as they can regardless of sick pay legislation or a minimum wage increase. So it really doesn't matter.

I don't think that's true. The major reason new companies fail is under capitalization. That means not enough cash. Automation increases capitalization. Its an investment.

A company that is new [[or plugging along) seldom wants to do the investment, if current operations are profitable for their owners. Sure, they'll do it. And over time, yes, a good move to automation that saves money will probably happen. But what's gonna happen when you distort the labor market like this is that you encourage the shift.
y
A big factor here might be whether the technology exists. So today, technology for automating fast food is being developed. But what's the rush. Tomorrow, with a $15 minimum wage, and companies who make this technology go to the bank. And the bank says 'hell yes' when yesterday they said 'show us customers first'.

Might be a good time to invest in customer-facing automation. In a gold rush best way to get rich is to be selling shovels.

[Canadian Visitor]

I don't think that's true. The major reason new companies fail is under capitalization. That means not enough cash. Automation increases capitalization. Its an investment.

A company that is new [[or plugging along) seldom wants to do the investment, if current operations are profitable for their owners. Sure, they'll do it. And over time, yes, a good move to automation that saves money will probably happen. But what's gonna happen when you distort the labor market like this is that you encourage the shift.
y
A big factor here might be whether the technology exists. So today, technology for automating fast food is being developed. But what's the rush. Tomorrow, with a $15 minimum wage, and companies who make this technology go to the bank. And the bank says 'hell yes' when yesterday they said 'show us customers first'.

Might be a good time to invest in customer-facing automation. In a gold rush best way to get rich is to be selling shovels.

I think the essential problem w/this argument is that when one examine other countries which have significantly higher minimum labour standards, [[The entire E.U., Australia, Canada for a start, on balance we don't see higher levels of unemployment, we don't see higher rates of bankruptcy. One can point to countries in this mix that are struggling [[Spain and Greece come to mind) but you can also examine others whose overall economic performance is line with or better than the United States.

To be clear, raising the cost of labour WILL accelerate moves to enhance productivity [[unit of work per person-hour) through automation and other means.

However, raising take-home pay of lower-income workers [[in this case by replacing un-paid time off w/paid time off) actually increases the number of customers for many businesses.

Its economically stimulative, because someone low on cash, probably not meeting all of their basic needs, when getting some extra $ almost always spends most or all immediately, catching up on those basic needs.

Clearly there is a limit to that.

But the United States is some distance from that point.

Further, there may be some reduction in low-skill employment, over time, however, this can be offset in any number of ways, from raising skill levels, to reducing the work week [[and re-distributing the hours). The latter is clearly pre-mature in the U.S. context. But its worth noting that Germany, widely considered to an economic powerhouse and very productive, mandates a 35-hour work week and 4 weeks paid vacation.

[Jimaz]

... people also buy things and machines don't.

Now I want to see some bizarre science fiction story where, in a future world where machines have grown accustomed to buying things, an untreated virus causes them to suddenly decide to organize a massive boycott against their Oppressive Meatbag Overlords. That would make a cool movie.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 30116

characters

[Wesley Mouch]

I think the essential problem w/this argument is that when one examine other countries which have significantly higher minimum labour standards, [[The entire E.U., Australia, Canada for a start, on balance we don't see higher levels of unemployment, we don't see higher rates of bankruptcy. One can point to countries in this mix that are struggling [[Spain and Greece come to mind) but you can also examine others whose overall economic performance is line with or better than the United States.

To be clear, raising the cost of labour WILL accelerate moves to enhance productivity [[unit of work per person-hour) through automation and other means.

However, raising take-home pay of lower-income workers [[in this case by replacing un-paid time off w/paid time off) actually increases the number of customers for many businesses.

Its economically stimulative, because someone low on cash, probably not meeting all of their basic needs, when getting some extra $ almost always spends most or all immediately, catching up on those basic needs.

Clearly there is a limit to that.

But the United States is some distance from that point.

Further, there may be some reduction in low-skill employment, over time, however, this can be offset in any number of ways, from raising skill levels, to reducing the work week [[and re-distributing the hours). The latter is clearly pre-mature in the U.S. context. But its worth noting that Germany, widely considered to an economic powerhouse and very productive, mandates a 35-hour work week and 4 weeks paid vacation.

I don't disagree with you that the American economy can handle this. We also could handle a 35-hour workweek and mandated paid vacation, sick pay, and parental leave. [[Stimulative? Maybe/Maybe not. After all those wages are being taking from business owners pockets, many of who are themselves struggling.) Where we part ways is whether it is wise, and whether is accomplishes the goal of helping more vulnerable citizens.

This is uncharted territory. Germany only just passed any minimum wage law in January 2015. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have no minimum wage. No proof that minimum wages help economies here.

44% [[NYT 2014, chart bottom added up) live in households making over $40,000. 28% in households making over $60k. Its a badly targeted way to help. We're helping a lot of rich kids and second-income households.

My biggest concern is removing the bottom rung of the employment ladder from the poor and often less qualified workers.

[Canadian Visitor]

Germany only just passed any minimum wage law in January 2015. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have no minimum wage. No proof that minimum wages help economies here.

I think that's somewhat misleading. Germany has an extremely high rate of private-sector unionization. This includes retail, where there has long been a 'sectoral' negotiated minimum wage and benefits. What has changed is only that Germany has sought to cover the small number of people and businesses that weren't captured by previous structures.

Sweden operates in a like fashion:

"Nearly all Swedish citizens belong to one of about 60 trade unions and 50 employers' organizations that negotiate wage rates for regular hourly work, salaries and overtime. The minimum wage tends to hover near 60-70% of the average wage in Sweden."

Norway the same.

So you could replace a government mandated minimum wage with mandatory unionization of every sector and worker..........

****

The Australian minimum wage has been roughly 70% above US levels for at least the last decade. So I think we could look at any number of examples that show it isn't overly harmful.

My biggest concern is removing the bottom rung of the employment ladder from the poor and often less qualified workers.

Again, I think, over time, this addressed by adding skills.

There is no reason to have a high school drop out rate of over 30%.

Based on what occurs elsewhere, its entirely possible to get that number down to or below 15%, leaving even folks from lower income backgrounds able to find good jobs.

In the short-term, in main mean un-employment supports.

[Wesley Mouch]

I think that's somewhat misleading. Germany has an extremely high rate of private-sector unionization. This includes retail, where there has long been a 'sectoral' negotiated minimum wage and benefits. What has changed is only that Germany has sought to cover the small number of people and businesses that weren't captured by previous structures.

I think we're drifting a bit off-topic here.tio I agree with you that minimum wages aren't a cause of economic collapse.

The question I think should be 'how do we best protect our most vulnerable citizens economically'. How do we protect those below the bottom run when we remove the bottom rung?

Again, I think, over time, this addressed by adding skills.

Of course... over time. But in the meantime, you're going to make it harder for disadvantaged youth to get a job at all. Is that a fair trade-off? Especially when 40% of the benefits will be going to people whose families are already making more than $20/hr. already?

I applaud the effort to help the disadvantaged, but this very blunt tool is dangerous. Well, I'm glad California is doing a large-scale test, and that I'm not poor in living in Fresno.