OPINION & EDITORIAL
Sick leave wrong for Madison
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Brad Vogel:
- New government can succeed (April 3, 2006)
- More transparency needed for ASM (January 23, 2006)
- Bloated (April 5, 2006)
- U.S. must formulate policy regarding China (January 30, 2006)
- Wisconsin State: are you kidding? (April 10, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Paid leave helps everyone (September 9, 2005)
- Sick daze (December 4, 2006)
- Ill conceived (November 26, 2007)
- Liz agrees with Joelle (May 4, 2006)
- Long-term solution (October 5, 2006)
by Brad Vogel
Monday, February 27, 2006
Having festered for more than five months, a proposal to grant Madison workers paid sick leave is once again rearing its ugly head as it makes its way through the Madison Common Council.
The proposed ordinance, which would force local entrepreneurs to give employees a paid hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, is yet another symptom of the Common Council's chronic lack of common sense.
Introduced by Ald. Austin King, District 8, and pushed by the euphemistic "Healthy Families, Healthy City Coalition," the mandatory sick-leave proposal embodies the mindset all too prevalent here in Planet Madison. The measure, especially given some of its backers, raises a few eyebrows — as any ordinance backed by SLAC and the Progressive Dane machine should.
Unfortunately, Madisonians have not been able to take a clear look at the thrust of the sick-leave mandate and see it for the ploy it is.
Sadly, an admittedly flawed study more than a month ago by NorthStar Economics has muddied the water surrounding the sick leave issue. The faulty analysis, which ultimately took issue with the proposal provided mandate backers with plenty of fodder. King and others attacked the study's credibility, impugning the motives of the Madison Chamber of Commerce. The attacks successfully distracted attention from the merits of the proposal and instead focused on the character of the opposition.
Regrettably, Mr. King and others have successfully wagged the dog, shifting the debate. Now, to combat the proposed proposal, opponents must first hurdle the NorthStar wreckage to defend against the Common Council's latest campaign in the war on business. As much as Austin King and Co. would have you think otherwise, one shoddy study does not mean the proposed ordinance is suddenly acceptable.
While the alders are undoubtedly motivated by good intentions, good intentions alone cannot justify the city sticking its nose where it does not belong. Businesses in the city proper are still reeling from the implementation of repressive policies like the smoking ban and inclusionary zoning.
For someone who whines when the state government doesn't respect home rule, Austin King is certainly an interesting figure to advocate micromanagement and the denial of local control at an even more fundamental level — that of the private-business owner. Capitalism, it seems, is a quaint notion in the enlightened minds of the alders. The arc of their recent actions shows a predilection for creeping socialism that reeks of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Instead of recognizing the difficulties small-business owners face in addressing mounting health-care costs, a group of alders has decided to pile additional restrictions on businesses. Such regulations impose rigidity on businesses precisely when they need more flexibility.
The scope of the legislation is particularly questionable. Even employees who work only 12 hours per week are eligible for the special benefit. While some individuals might work several small jobs, making business owners provide sick leave for such minimal output seems impractical. The ordinance's provisions, to be sure, would affect some breadwinners who work 25 hours or fewer per week. But the low threshold seems more likely to cover high school kids carrying out groceries.
Another important point, as Madison economist Tom Bozzo pointed out on his blog, is that many Madison businesses already provide leave, in the form of vacation and the like, sufficient to meet the requirements the law would demand. Some might see this as an argument for enacting the law.
It is not, however. Instead, it's an indication that the market can and does work by its own devices. By shoving rules down the throats of businesses, the alders dilute the very goals they seek to achieve, intruding where they should not.
Furthermore, while many were quick to bring out the guillotine following NorthStar's botched study, the ordinance's proponents have yet to produce a respectable study in defense of their proposal. Such a study is desperately needed, as a mandatory sick-leave policy is unprecedented in the state of Wisconsin.
At introduction, the mandate legislation had nine alders behind it. The support of 11 alders is necessary for the bill to become law. Even if two more alders emerge from the woodwork, Mayor Dave retains the right to veto.
While the future of the sick-leave mandate is still up in the air, it is encouraging to note that the legislation did not get railroaded through immediately following its introduction. Thankfully, some people on the council rightly recognize King's proposal as a political tool designed primarily to play on "progressive" notions and bolster his chances of attaining higher office.
The proposed ordinance is not about sick people. It's a panacea, a cure-all elixir. Austin King is just peddling snake oil. Don't buy it.
Brad Vogel (bvogel@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 1:18am):
Do you really think King is doing this just to pad his resume? Or is this a ploy on your part to keep Madison from becoming too "liberal"?
I think the more important question is, when you're going to state street for lunch, do you want the guy serving you food to be sick?
If your kid is sick at home, do you just leave them at home and hope they can get better, so you can go to work? Yes, sadly, this does happen, and workers have lost their jobs because the health of their loved ones was more important than their minimum wage job.
If you knew anything about the legislation, instead of blindly attacking it like a pinata, you would know that King and other alders specifically looked at ways for this to not significantly impact small business owners, or anyone who could be put out of business by this law. Sadly, this means that Walmart might actually have to provide some benefits for their workers, instead of leaving state taxpayers to provide healthcare.
It's really not just King working on this--he is just the channel through which this idea is being pushed. Much of the significant work is being done by health workers (who recognize the health risk if people are going in to work sick) and the Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice (a group of religious leaders who think we should love our neighbor, not exploit them for economic gain).
You and Darryn both love to call Madison "planet Madison" or say it's "surrounded by reality", but the truth of the matter is, the real world is right here. The real world is mothers having to choose between taking care of a sick infant or working to pay for that child's medicine. The real world is hard-working people who struggle to pay the rent. The real world is people whose needs are ignored in favor of corporate welfare. THIS is the real world, Brad, not the gated community you're bound to move to.
I know it's convenient for you to call everything that hurts corporate profits "socialism," but it's really not. It's a matter of respect, and treating the workers, the producers, with dignity.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 2:12am):
Um.... The Tennessee Valley Authority is/was awesome. And so is paid sick leave. You are a far-right anti-gummint loon, and that's respectable... in "Planet Alabama". What an awkward column.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 7:00am):
"The faulty analysis, which ultimately took issue with the proposal provided mandate backers with plenty of fodder. King and others attacked the study's credibility, impugning the motives of the Madison Chamber of Commerce. The attacks successfully distracted attention from the merits of the proposal and instead focused on the character of the opposition."
So when the bill's supporters attack a analysis which you ADMIT was inappropriately done, that's "wagging the dog"? If one shoddy study is not a problem, where's the other evidence? Where's the evidence that the smoking bans have sent businesses "reeling"? You attack "creeping socialism," but your ideological libertarian fervor--sans evidence--would have done Marx proud.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 8:39am):
This article is 1/3 substance about the reasons against the sick leave and 2/3 fluff. There is no substance and a lot of sarcastic remarks. This article makes a very weak argument against the sick leave, and the article's inflammatory tone only helps voters choose for the sick leave.
If Brad continutes to write like this once he graduates from UW, then he will have difficulty finding a job in journalism.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 10:22am):
Are you kidding me Vogel?? There are certain issues that I just assume everyone is for because it is such a good idea. I guess I haven't learned just how evil and spiteful neocons are, especially madison neo cons who carry an even bigger victim complex on their shoulder.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 1:22pm):
I would agree with you, Brad, but they're right, it was a badly done article. When you're writing to people left-of-center, it's generally best not to just start insulting everything left-of center. For some reason, people don't respond well to that. I know...a lot of liberals don't listen to rational arguments, but you might want to try giving it a shot next time, Brad.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 2:47pm):
"a lot of liberals don't listen to rational arguments, but you might want to try giving it a shot next time, Brad."
Agreed... a lot of liberals don't listen to conservative arguments, but that's usually because the arguments aren't rational, factual, or in the case of this article, lack any resemblance of substance.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 5:06pm):
Brad, way to bring forth a subject that has been somewhat hiding in the woodwork. It was a well written article with plenty of good points. Keep up the good work.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 5:16pm):
Why is it the business's responsibility to pay for someone to care for their sick children? That's not a public health issue at all (in terms of putting other coworkers or customers at risk.)
Some say it's a moral issue, that may be so, but there is no moral reason to have businesses pay for it instead of taxpayers, or even student seg fees.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 8:31pm):
Why should anyone not working full time even get time off? And if you do work full time, you do generally gain time off as you work, unless you consider full time working at Wal Mart of serving food. Earning time off is just that, earning it, why should we start rewarding people for doing nothing?
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 11:11pm):
Brad, this was a very poorly written article. Where is the support for your argument? Does your position have any rational base, or are you just on your poorly-supported soapbox again?
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 9:00am):
"A number of anonymous commenters have taken issue with my piece, but they aren't really offering up any solid support of their own." via your blog.
Do we have to? We weren't the ones writing an opinion piece to be published. This isn't a debate, this is us commenting on how your one sided tirade is poorly argued.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 9:29am):
>>And if you do work full time, you do generally gain time off as you work, unless you consider full time working at Wal Mart of serving food.<<
Working full time is working full time, no matter where it is. Get off your high horse. People work hard in all sorts of jobs that don't earn them benefits because the employer isn't able or chooses not to provide those benefits.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 9:37am):
Essentially the argument is this: If you are poor I'm against anything to help you.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 12:56pm):
If you work part time just work when you're not sick. Simple.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 2:21pm):
No, working full time is NOT working full time. Working 40 hours of Wal Mart is nothing more than a glorified part time job. Working as a server is nothing more than a glorified part time job. Get some skills, get a job, do a real service to the community that a 15 year old can't do.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 6:08pm):
"Get some skills, get a job, do a real service to the community that a 15 year old can't do."
This is a joke right? Isn't it the conservatives that are always yelling about getting a job no matter what? If these people said that they were above working at Wal Mart you would be all over them for being irresponsible and not committing to helping their situation. How can any conservative honestly claim to be for the lower and middle class when they spout off unintelligent fluff like this? Maybe if you left your country club home for more than a few days you would see what it was like in the real world.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 8:05pm):
Your arrogance is astounding. Someone who spends 40 hours a week stocking shelves or serving customers is just as deserving of benefits as someone who works 40 hours a week in an office. Which of those two types of jobs is more physically demanding? Someone has to do the jobs jerks like you think are beneath you, and there's no reason they shouldn't get sick time and insurance, especially since they're making less money than the office worker and less able to afford taking unpaid time off.
Anonymous (February 28, 2006 @ 9:34pm):
It's hard to pay someone money that isn't coming in because their job doesn't produce anything viable. Nothing wrong with starting low, but to expect the benefits of an educated or experienced person is not logical.
