Opinion
EDITORIAL: Paid leave law right for Mass.
Top Headlines This stand-off is no surprise. Worker-rights groups say mandatory paid leave should be part of a compassionate workplace and is a way to decrease costs by keeping sick workers home. Businesses say it would raise costs, intrude on the autonomy to develop company-suitable compensation packages and is onerous at a time when the economy is sour. "When you're heading into a recession, you don't increase the costs of businesses," said state Rep. John Lepper, R-Attleboro. That's a good point. However, the issue of paid sick days was smoldering before the downturn. Many states had already been assessing this matter that appears to have emerged out of discussion of an increase in the minimum wage. We weigh in, in favor of paid sick leave. The worker who attends to a medical problem may be a worker who catches a minor illness before it becomes a costly crisis. More parents could stay home to care for ill children rather than shuffling them off, sneezing and sniffling, to childcare, with a ripple effect on other families. Statistics do not support the idea that workers, as a whole, will abuse time off. The average American company offers employees 8.1 paid sick days a year, according to a study by Mercer Human Resources Consulting and reported last year by CNN. The average worker, however, takes less than that - about 5.2 sick days per year, the 2006 study said. "It will be more just," said Tim Sullivan, for AFLC-CIO Massachusetts, which supports the legislation. "This is a family value. You can't make workers choose between a paycheck and taking care of their family or themselves." The bill filed by state Sen. Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville, and by state Rep. Kay Khan, D-Newton, in January 2007 would require Massachusetts' public and private employers to provide seven paid sick days a year. The days could be used in case of illness, routine medical appointment and absences for domestic violence victims. They can also be taken to take care of a sick family member. "There are certain basic human rights that everyone should have, like being able to get sick or care for your family," said Rep. Steven D'Amico, D-Seekonk. We agree.
Post Your Comments kevin h. wrote on May 12, 2008 4:25 PM: " As a matter of fact, the only way our private property can be taken from us is BY THE GOVERNMENT thru eminent domain, not by capitalism or private companies. " kevin h. wrote on May 12, 2008 4:21 PM: " Hey, I'm not a true libertarian that wants open borders and NO government. I need the FDA and FAA. But like a fire that is used for our benefit, left unchecked, government will grow and burn the house to the ground. It is paramount to keep this from happening, as that would be communism. But, what you describe is the job of the unions. As for your fear of losing private property to illegal confiscation, it is ILLEGAL and the rights of the property owner are protected by the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Remember we are talking about PAID sick leave, which is a competitive benefit offered by the employer. Don't blow this out of proportion. " socal1 wrote on May 12, 2008 10:41 AM: " k.h.-It is my opinion that of all the existing economic systems available to us, capitalism is the best option. Capitalism is based on a free market system which you endorse. But a truly free market system free of government intrusion would allow for "child" labor abuse, unsafe labor/health abuses, no equal opportunity laws, forced wal-mart type over-time work with no over-time pay increase, etc. Without some government over-sight our private property laws, which protect both individual and business rights, would cease to exist exposing our property to illegal confiscation. Do you really want a free-market system without some type of limited government over-signt? " kevin h. wrote on May 12, 2008 8:38 AM: " Government intrusion into business and the free market is a last resort because they usually scr*w things up, waste time, and add cost. There is no problem here, stay out of it. " or
|