EDITORIAL
Our view: Sick day proposal for Ohio doesn't have to be poison
Chart with business objections, compromise proposals
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Both sides think they have each other by the neck.
The unions that want Ohioans to vote this fall on whether employers have to pay for some sick days think they can't possibly lose because polls show that people believe the benefit is a reasonable thing to require.
On the other hand, business groups that oppose the measure think Gov. Ted Strickland will have to force the unions to back down from putting the issue to a vote because he can't afford to have companies spending millions of dollars on TV ads saying that Ohio is on the verge of adopting a job-killing idea.
As the proposal currently stands, voters would be asked if they want to require companies with 25 or more employees to offer seven days of paid sick time. But there are all sorts of questions about how that seemingly simple proposition would be carried out.
As is often the case in high-stakes fights, there are factions on both sides that are capable of being suicidal.
Some businesses, for instance, want absolutely no mandates, just on principle. It's the old camel's-nose-under-the-tent canard.
Union advocates, on the other hand, see this as an opportunity to drum up interest in union membership and as an opportunity to show their relevance, even knowing some businesses really can't afford to provide seven days off.
Sept. 5 is the last date when the idea could be pulled off the ballot. If the two sides can't come to an accommodation before then, the Service Employees International Union, the primary supporter, can decide to go for broke — even if Gov. Strickland, who's seen as being in their corner, comes out against the idea.
Businesses, which like to say that unions can be impossible to deal with, can't be too hard on the governor if he has the same experience they have.
On Friday, Aug. 1, the governor put out a three-page document showing critics' complaints and where opponents and proponents were in reaching a compromise.
Two points about that move:
• It's a remarkably transparent way to deal with a controversy, which is not the custom in politics. The paper gives the public a window into the vulnerabilities of both sides' positions and insight into how reasonable each is being.
• The list of complaints, in its totality, is a good reminder of why it's dangerous to make laws outside of the traditional legislative process. There are reasons that legislatures have hearings with witnesses making suggestions and pointing out unintended consequences with proposed laws.
Besides bringing business critics and unions around to a compromise, the governor also has to get the Legislature to see the importance of cutting a deal. Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, of Kettering, is standing fast with chambers of commerce and other business organizations that simply won't agree to any guaranteed sick leave.
Here are several of the 26 items that businesses say are unclear about the proposed Health Families Act:
• What's a "day"? If a law specified hours, that would clear up that issue. But that still leaves the issue of how many hours is reasonable, and how the time off would accrue for part-timers.
• What happens if a company already provides paid time off? Would it also have to provide sick days on top of that leave? The point of a new law is to ensure that there's some leave — not to mandate more hours off.
• What if employees want to take off time in small increments? Workers could be required to take off a minimum of four hours at a pop. This would prevent abuse, such as employees taking one hour of sick leave every Friday afternoon.
• Can an employer discipline employees for providing little or no notice that they're sick? Does that question really have to be debated?
On Tuesday, Aug. 5, some business groups came out fighting. They said there can be no common ground; they'll oppose any new requirement and try to bring voters to their side.
That's too dogmatic.
There has to be some minimum standard that businesses and unions both can say they'd live with — even if it's more than companies would like to guarantee and less than the unions ideally would like to have.


