<< Adoption Class 9 | Adoption Class 10 & Adoption Update >>

Sick Pay Equals 75,000 fewer jobs

August 28, 2008 06:00 by ckincincy

Ok, so I've railed on the stupid sick pay legislation a few times. Lets do another.

Recent study says that enforcing seven paid sick days would cost the state of Ohio 75,000 jobs.

Interesting find is that 20% of those job losses would come from companies not directly affected by the legislation. But due to the larger companies they feed off of, going out of business or moving out of state... they wouldn't have a reason to be in business either.

Just love the democrats, but hey lets be fair even democrat govenor Ted Strickland opposes the legislation.

Categories: In the news | Political
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (4) | Comment RSS RSS comment feed

Comments

August 28. 2008 09:56

"A new study commissioned by a small business group..."

Well, of COURSE they're going to say that, aren't they?

My thoughts on this are:

1: It's not going to have any significant affect on any businesses whatsoever - we have five weeks vacation in England and nobody's gone bust yet. They're just talking about an optional seven days.
2: The whole concept of a set number of 'sick days' is ridiculous anyway. Who knows if you're going to get sick? And for how long? And it's not like you can schedule your illness.

I don't know a single person who's taken a 'sick day' because they're sick. They've either added to their vacation or used it to run personal errands.

Why don't they just do everybody a favour and give them seven days paid vacation instead.

As for the cost thing... It'll cost the average business $840 dollars more a year per worker. If their worker's productivity isn't good enough to cover that cost, maybe they SHOULD lose their job.

Roland Hulme

August 28. 2008 10:04

Rholand,
As discussed earlier with you is that the England comparison doesn't work.

When a company has 50 states to choose from, they are going to skip the one that cost them $840 more a year per employee.

Its not about whether or not a company can absorb the cost, its about 'why spend it when you don't have to'.

ckincincy

August 29. 2008 17:40

I don't know - I'm still not convinced. One state might have that $840 in extra cost, but I don't think it would cause a business to shift states. I mean, what about transportation? Ohio is a BIG place. If they moved just one state over - it'd add hundreds of miles to their shipping. Plus other states have different taxation rules - you might 'save' $840 per employee by moving states, but end up paying $1000 more on property and business tax.

MAYBE it would contribute - but I think for any reasonable business, seven days paid sick leave is a drop in the ocean and just basic decency. If a business can't afford to cover an employee if they're sick, you've got to wonder if that business has any place employing people in the first place. If you expect somebody to spend eight hours a day working for you, they need to be compensated - and in more than just dollars.

roland hulme

August 29. 2008 17:55

Rholand, welcome to America.

But its not about the $840 causing factories to leave, it will cause them to not come. Think about it. You're Dell and you need a shipping location. Are you going to pick Northern Kentucky, no sick days, or go 40 miles north and use Ohio with sick days? Then you add into the natural closing of jobs, means that you lose jobs.

Even if they had sick days, would you rather be in a state where YOU control how it works or one that told you how it works?

ckincincy