Requiring Paid Sick Days in Milwaukee

Here’s a great idea to make Milwaukee even LESS competitive in attracting and retaining businesses.

Petitions signed by an estimated 40,000 people will be delivered to Milwaukee City Hall today in a bid to get the Common Council to require that all employers in the city provide paid sick days to employees.

1. I’m posting this as part of McCain’s artificial blog commenting campaign. For details see… http://tinyurl.com/6ormqf

   Or, when the McCain campaign removes this embarrassing page you can see the cached page from google here ... Preview of http://tinyurl.com/57xtq9

   McCain told me to do it…

   Posted by on June 22, 2008 at 2329 hrs




2. Nothing like another liberal idea that will kill jobs in Milwaukee.  When will liberals learn that their ideas kill business, not help it.  But maybe their skulls are so thick with their elitism, that they just don’t know any better.

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 0307 hrs




3. There was a group advocating this at school, unfortunately I had to get to my class or I would have asked them a few pointed questions.

   Specifically, how they propose the people who lose their jobs because of these increased benefit mandates pay their bills...since their demands led to unemployment.

   Posted by Amy P. on June 23, 2008 at 0745 hrs




4. There was a group advocating this at school

   Which makes me wonder who the 40,000 petitioners are?  How many are sheltered from economic realities (.i.e., public sector employes, non-management, etc)?.

   How many signed the petition without knowing that there would be one little “catch”, specifically that to get this benefit you need to have a job and actually show up on a consistent basis?

   I love this little tidbit from the article:

   The proposed ordinance would not cover public employees

   The article talks about mandating 1 hour leave for every 30 hours worked, and a full time worker would accrue up to 72 hours per annum = 9 days.

   How about Citizens for Responsible Government doing a petition for direct legislation in support of this, with the proviso that this standard (9 days) would be set as the maximum for public sector employes?

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 0822 hrs




5. To follow up to my previous comment, I hope they don’t issue “sick day vouchers”

   http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date;=6/23/2008&id; =42042

   Crowd for food vouchers becomes unruly

   A large crowd responding to a report of emergency food vouchers for flood victims became unruly this morning at the Marcia P. Coggs Human Services building at 1220 W. Vliet St.

   “It’s bad over there apparently,” said Milwaukee Police Lt. Anthony Boylan. “They’ve got a lot of squads over there. Fights have been breaking out. Some woman had chest pain for stress.”

   Information was given out that the office was giving out free food vouchers, but they were only taking applications through FEMA for food vouchers, Boylan said.

   Boylan said 34 police squads were sent to the scene, where people had been lining up since 5 a.m.

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 0918 hrs




6. Who’s betting the common council will vote for it anyway?

   Is this backwater burg so devoid of common sense that they can’t see the problem here?

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 0924 hrs




7. Well i haven’t represented a far lefty idea on here for a few days, this looks like a good one to get in on.

   Which jobs are going to leave Milwaukee or not come to Milwaukee because of this requirement?  Maybe there is a seciton of industry that I’m forgetting, but it seems to me that it is the service industry that denies people paid sick days.  Are all those restraunts, bars, maid services, dry cleaners, etc all going to pack up and move because they have to offer paid sick days?  Or will their prices adjust to deal with the increased cost?

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 0959 hrs




8. Paid sick days are nothing more than additional paid vacation days.  If you’re sick stay home.  If your employer doesn’t want to pay you while you’re home sick find one that does.

   Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1012 hrs




9. Mostly it is hourly workers who do not get paid sick days.  While you are correct that the service industry has a lot of hourly workers, so do other industries.  Many technology, healthcare, and manufacturing companies also use hourly workers. 

   What many companies do when faced with mandated benefits is to change their workers to contractors.  That way they can pay them the same and are not required to provide benefits.  Companies are also doing this to battle against rising health insurance prices.  It’s also handy for risk avoidance.  Contractors can lose their contract in a heartbeat for no reason at all and there’s not much a contractor can do about it. 

   Thus the real world effect of this mandate may be more people with fewer benefits than they have now and less job security.

   Posted by Owen on June 23, 2008 at 1013 hrs




10. What many companies do when faced with mandated benefits is to change their workers to contractors.  That way they can pay them the same and are not required to provide benefits.  Companies are also doing this to battle against rising health insurance prices.  It’s also handy for risk avoidance.  Contractors can lose their contract in a heartbeat for no reason at all and there’s not much a contractor can do about it.

    That seems contradictory to me.  Maybe I’m not reading your comment right, but it seems you are saying that this would be a boon for contractors, but then you say it would cost them contracts.

    I guess I shouldn’t really be the guy representing the pro side of this debate, because I do think it is more nuanced than it’s supporters would allow.  But to the argument you pose Owen I would think if everyone is required to offer sick days to their employees, even contractors, then everyone would be in a similar boat.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1110 hrs




11. That seems contradictory to me.  Maybe I’m not reading your comment right, but it seems you are saying that this would be a boon for contractors, but then you say it would cost them contracts.

    Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. 

    Let’s say that you are running a company and you have 20 hourly workers.  You don’t give them paid time off.  Then Milwaukee comes to you and forces you to pay them for 6 sick days per year.  At an hourly rate of $10, that means that you will have to pay $9,600 more for the same amount of work.  Actually, you’d probably pay $9,600 for less work because people are more likely to take sick time if it is paid even if they are not sick. 

    In order to avoid the cost, you can change those employees to contractors.  They are the same people doing the same job, but because you have changed them from employees to contractors, you no longer have to spend the extra $9,600.  While you’re at it, you might drop some other benefits too and pay them more.  So now the workers may be paid $15 per hour, but will have to find their own health insurance, etc. 

    Same people.  Same jobs.  Different cost structure. 

    The point about losing contracts has to do with the fact that contractors are much easier to get rid of then direct employees. 

    But to the argument you pose Owen I would think if everyone is required to offer sick days to their employees, even contractors, then everyone would be in a similar boat.

    Indeed, but the proposal does not include contractors.  It says “employees.” Contractors are not employees.  I don’t think that it’s possible for Milwaukee to change the definition of that relationship.  If it is going to be the law that employee benefits must be extended to contractors, then it would logically have to apply to other benefits too.  At that point, we’ve destroyed the entire concept of a contractor.

    Posted by Owen on June 23, 2008 at 1136 hrs




12. Which jobs are going to leave Milwaukee or not come to Milwaukee because of this requirement?  Maybe there is a seciton of industry that I’m forgetting, but it seems to me that it is the service industry that denies people paid sick days.  Are all those restraunts, bars, maid services, dry cleaners, etc all going to pack up and move because they have to offer paid sick days?  Or will their prices adjust to deal with the increased cost?

    Perhaps Lefty you would like to tell us what jobs WOULD come to Milwaukee with this sort of requirement?

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1231 hrs




13. I rest my case. Thanks Owen and TD. And extra special thanks to Lefty for showing us that there are still some people (who may be intelligent in other areas) but - who don’t understand how how a business runs.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1250 hrs




14. Indeed, but the proposal does not include contractors.  It says “employees.” Contractors are not employees.  I don’t think that it’s possible for Milwaukee to change the definition of that relationship.  If it is going to be the law that employee benefits must be extended to contractors, then it would logically have to apply to other benefits too.  At that point, we’ve destroyed the entire concept of a contractor.

    Those contractors have employees Owen, or their subs do.  Somewhere along the line, unless you are talking about a contract with someone who is the owner of the business and performs the work him/herself, an employer/employee relationship gets involved.  In your example the contractor would have to provide sick time for the employees they have performing the work in the city of Milwaukee (or at least I hope whomever drafted the language would be smart enough to include that).

    I rest my case. Thanks Owen and TD. And extra special thanks to Lefty for showing us that there are still some people (who may be intelligent in other areas) but - who don’t understand how how a business runs.

    Thanks for trying to soften the insult Bill, that was thoughtful.  As you might’ve noticed earlier though, I said I think this is much more nuanced than the true supporters of measures like this believe.  I know that from my experiences with my wife’s small business, and how difficult this would be to apply to her employees (not necessarily from a dollars and cents stand point, but from a logistics stand point).

    I’m trying to get at the broader question however.  I know I told our nanny she had a weeks worth of paid sick leave (based on her only working two days a week) when we hired her.  Luckily she’s never used it, as it could’ve been very inconvienient for my wife or I, but I felt it was fair.  Now the bottom lines for a business are different, that I understand.  But people get sick, or their kids do, and when they need that pay check to make ends meet they can be forced into some tough choices.  One of those choices, coming to work while ill, could have a more harmful effect on the bottom line for the employer than granting paid sick leave.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1437 hrs




15. Bill posed this:

    Who’s betting the common council will vote for it anyway?

    No one is betting on the council voting on it, as they won’t have to.  If you read the article, it is a petition for direct legislation meaning that it would be up to the electorate via referendum.  If the electorate votes “yes”, it is binding on the council.  The council’s duty at this point is to pass the petition on to the City Clerk to determine if the minimum threshold of valid signatures has been met (at least 26,500 out of 40,000 signatures must be certified).  If 26,500 signatures are valid, the City Clerk will be conducting a referendum.

    The article mentions that City of San Francisco accomplished this as a ballot initiative, Wash. DC did it by action of the council.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1507 hrs




16. I stand slightly corrected - this just posted by MJS:

    if 26,500 of the signatures are validated, the Common Council then has 30 days to either pass the measure or put it on a ballot.

    So, I’m not sure if they have to vote “yes” or “no”, or if they delay it for 30 days and then it automatically goes to referendum.  To me, it looks like the only way the council could bypass the referendum process would be by approving this.

    I think the people pushing this are really clueless about the posititive and negative consequences of this.  It is applicable to employers of 10 or more - sounds like Milwaukee would then be a good place to start a small business, then at the point where the business is successful and ready to expand and cross that 10 employe threshold, look at the feasibility of jumping over the city limits or even over the county line.  Maybe by then we will have a viable “ often wished-for” regional transit authority to help the employes get to their jobs at the new location.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1544 hrs




17. Lefty - you are confusing the term contractor and independent contractor. I often work as an independent contractor for firms I used to work for. I don’t get any benefits - I’m not considered an employee.

    If I’m sick and can’t work - I stay home and don’t get paid. How many people are going to want to have a business in Milwaukee when they have to pay their employees more for less work? How do you sell that someone?

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 1735 hrs




18. Lefty - you are confusing the term contractor and independent contractor. I often work as an independent contractor for firms I used to work for. I don’t get any benefits - I’m not considered an employee.

    If I’m sick and can’t work - I stay home and don’t get paid. How many people are going to want to have a business in Milwaukee when they have to pay their employees more for less work? How do you sell that someone?

    I don’t believe I am confusing the two, but I am open to be corrected if you think I am.  I was refering to Owen’s example of a company going with a contractor to replace their 20 hourly employees.  I made an allowance for independent contractor (although I didn’t use the term), and aknowledged that it would be sticky.  My wife farms out some data work for her business, and I understand in that instance it would be difficult to ascertain who would provide the paid sick days.

    As I said, I probably shouldn’t be the one defending this, because while I like the idea in spirit, I don’t think the supporters understand all of the logistical problems.

    However, my original post dealt with the issue of this being a jobs killer for Milwaukee.  I don’t think the types of jobs that would be affected would be necessarily chased away.  TD also asked which jobs it would attract, which I don’t think would be any.  But just as I don’t think you would see jobs leaving Milwaukee over it, I don’t think you would see companies scared away either, unless the sick day requirement was extremely large and burdensome, which I don’t think we’re talking about here.

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 2008 hrs




19. Ok- here’s where you are not reading Owen’s comments correctly. Owen didn’t say they were being replaced by a contractor (as in another company) he said that to get around the sick day - they would “fire” their employees and hire only independent contractors. So therefore - whatever benefits they had - would be gone.

    My wife owns a business with alot of part timers due to the nature of the work and she would definitely move her business over this. The payback from the move would be less than a year.

    She gets paid whatever money is “profit” to the business. By paying more money for less work - her salary gets reduced. Strnog incentive to move the business!

    Posted by on June 23, 2008 at 2338 hrs




20. Bill, you’re right, I did read (and apparently reread) Owen’s example incorrectly.  I see now he was arguing that the employer would tell them that in order to continue to work there they would have to become contract employees.

    I don’t know if I beleive that would happen with the ease that argument assumes to have it occur on a sweeping scale, although I do concede that it would occur to a measurable degree.

    Again, I can only really debate this in theory, as I recognize in a practical sense there are many obstacles.  So in theory, if there were a fair way to implement such a policy, that would take into account the hundreds of what ifs and special circumstances, I don’t think this would be a jobs killer, I think it would be a wash.

    But as you, and Owen and others have pointed out, and as I have agreed with, the whole question over how you would possibly go about it is left largely unaddressed in this high concept idea.  So in short I agree with that part of the argument that you offer in opposition, but on the “what would happen if it could be done” side I differ.

    Posted by on June 24, 2008 at 0006 hrs