Why mandatory paid sick leave is a bad idea
May 18, 2007| By Nathaniel Ward
Many businesses provide their employees with paid sick leave. This is a perk they can use to attract potential workers, just as they can offer higher wages or a more lavish pension.
But liberals have somehow come to see payment for not working as a “right”—and they want to compel employers to provide it. The left-wing Center for American Progress is urging its members to support legislation backed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that would “guarantee that workers receive at least seven paid sick days each year.”
This sort of regulation is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.
Heritage labor economist James Sherk explains that this type of rule could end up hurting workers as employers scramble to pay for the new mandate. “A paid sick leave mandate would lead to wage cuts, forcing workers to take their pay in the form of sick leave whether they want to or not.”
“If Congress requires employers to provide paid sick leave, employers would not increase workers’ total compensation,” Sherk explains. “Rather, they would increase the amount of compensation they provide as sick leave and decrease other benefits or wages, leaving workers’ total compensation unchanged.”
Instead of a counterproductive benefit mandate, he proposes that Congress grant workers more flexibility to deal with illness. For example, Congress could lower the tax burden on families and let them keep more of what they earn. A small reduction in marginal tax rates, he calculates, would save $1,000 for a family of four with an annual income of $50,000—“enough money to pay for seven or more sick days.”
“Unlike a mandatory sick leave benefit, these policies would give workers more choices and greater flexibility to balance work and family life,” Sherk concludes.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
