Arkansas Blog

"compassionate conservatism"

How do you spell oxymoron?

_

You can either consider yourself lucky or congratulate yourself for working hard and educating yourself so you could have a job like that.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that a place of employment is there for one reason and thats to supply you with an income.

Thats not what the business is there for. Its there to make money.

Lesson - Get an education, work hard, understand that life choices have consequences.

Here's Spirit again, advocating a happy medium.

I've employed a small (3 to 4) staff for 25 years and always given 5 days paid sick leave that in recent years has changed to 4 weeks leave..call it what you will, sick leave or vacation. As a result most of my staff have been with me for ten years or more.

Any employer who values his employees, has a good deal of training invested in them, and wants to keep them will give benefits like sick leave.

At the other extreme is Europe, which has gone overboard on vacation and sick leave. Now they're paying the price. Did you see the Airbus news today. Due to the expense of all the employee benefits in Europe, the Euro is sky-high vs. the Dollar. As a result, Boeing planes are dirt cheap compared to Airbus planes and Airbus is "restructuring", laying off thousands, about to go under.

Happy medium. Moderation in all things (including moderation). That's my motto.

Public Health Issue!
(Give them some paid sick days, for crying out loud).

Cripes, I don't know about you but I don't want someone sick with the flu or whatever, back in the kitchen preparing the food. That's how epidemics start.

That's what I like about you JC. You're so cold-blooded. To-hell-with-the-worker's-needs. Make's me proud to be an American, knowing that you're there to remind us that the bottom line is money and only money.
Americans don't need this Christian compassion and charity toward workers. Just ignore looking after those God has given you to be an example for and make examples of them to the other workers that getting sick is dangerous to the business, not withstanding any harm it might cause to those suffering, their families, or those they're forced to come in contact with at work.
Ebeneezer Scrooge and Simon Legree would be proud of you, boy!!
Man, I can't wait to hear the worst case scenario you've got and hear that non-existant data you have to support your fears that this will bankrupt businesses acroos the land.
Pshaw!! No mercy and goodness from your end, for sure. Just the "die with your boots on" attitude that those 19th century American monopolies loved.
I bet you miss those whips and chains. Really does make you appreciate minimum wage, minimum respect, minimum concern, minimum compassion, and minimum care about the worker who is the heartbeat of the work place.

Man, that was a little harsh wasnt it Jake?

Employers provide benefits like that as a way to keep skilled employees, its not an entitlement.

What don't you understand about that?

It's also a job that is typically a low paid, low skilled position, it's not intended to be a career.

How much can we possibly demand of business before it can't sustain itself anymore?

You can't pay people not to work for you, it's that simple.

I'm just poking you with a stick, CJ. You don't offer any data to support your cause; it's as simple as that.

If you click on my name below, you should come to a site about small business law. It's very comprehensive and fair. It tells it like it is and doesn't get overdramatic like I did in my first post. It shows how some other states handle the application of sick leave in small businesses.

The site you'll go to is specifically about the sick leave issue, but you'll find a welath of information about small business and the law all throughout the site.

If you come up with any research-based site, please list it. I'd like to learn more about the topic. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh but your absolutism about the matter got under my skin.

I liked California's plan and just wonder what others have been tried and what the data shows about their success or failure. Keep me posted.

Two more resources that are pro sick leave and offer some damned convincing arguments:

(1) especially about lost time due to sick workers, the costs of replacing workers who lose their jobs because of illness, etc.

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/IWPR_Summer_NL_2005.pdf

and,

(2) from the management perspective based on Minnesota employer surveys, about 85% had no problems with sick leave policy and felt it was beneficial.

http://www.cdf-mn.org/PDF/Publications/ParentalLeave.pdf

A sensible sick leave plan is proven effective, does not harm profits, and is family friendly. The numbers I looked at were based on well-documented research and quite sound statistical analysis procedures; and, they were very positive.

I searched through 4 Google pages and didn't find any data for your position. Not that it's not there, but maybe you've got some at your fingertips. Otherwise, my sources look rather strong and solid.

Ever heard of Cost beneift Analysis ?

Ever heard of data? Research? You throwing out words....put the data up or shut up. You're getting annoying.

You usually do better than this and unless you can run some qualified research and analysis by me on this topic, you're playing with a losing hand and I'm calling your bluff.

Employees should accumulate sick leave from the time they begin employment, but it should not be available until after a certain minimum length of time. At a 7-day-per-year rate, an employee who has worked steadily for, say, 3 months should be entitled to 1.75 days sick leave AFTER completing 3 months.

If the employee is earning the current restaurant minimum wage (in Arkansas) of $2.63/hr, that's a whopping $36.82 per Wendy's employee after 3 months of loyalty and training (a benefit like sick leave should only be available after at least 3 months, in my opinion). And he/she may or may not even need any of it yet. For an entire year (if all of it is eventually used) it's a grand total of $147.28.

A business that can't afford that is operating too close to the margin to have employees.

Jake, You keep that stick sharp and handy. Make no apologies for we have way to much to do and these holier than thou employment tactics have got to stop. Look at what Spirit a small business person is able to call moderate and look at what that other person wants to prepare our food... If only the southern middle and lower income folks could embrace the idea of organized labor our entire country would be a better place in the sense of working together for a larger cause. But we are divided by our blindness and false sense of pride that we don't need anyones help from time to time.... except perhaps spiritual.
How about those economics? They trickling down on anyone yet?

Employment is not entitlement to treat people like a dixie cup.....

Those numbers are all reflecting skilled positions, like I said earlier, unskilled fast food jobs are usually not the kind of jobs people make a career of.And for a good reason.

The only reason for benefits is to keep employees in a competitive market place. Why would a landscaping company or a McDonalds offer benefits ?

I never said that benefits were bad I just said that you can't expect a job like that to provide them especially at the end of a gun barrel.

Thanks widj for offering a plan.
CJ mentioned a cost benefit analysis. Well, I found one (click on name) and it indicates that presenteeism (coming to work sick) accounts for 70% of lost productivity. You don't work as well when you're sick and you are contagious and so forth.
Where's CJ's cost-benefit analysis or any analysis whatsoever with supporting data? Nada, man, nada!!

Ooops! Mama says I gotta turn out the lights and come to bed. Cost benefit analysis tells me I'd better follow her directions.

Come on, CJ, we need some research from your end, otherwise....

CJ, a "career" is the aspiration only of those at the top of the heap. The "career" of a vast majority of workers lasts from paycheck to paycheck, if that, yet no economy can exist without them.

You don't have to go to work sick, you just won't get paid for not coming in.

let me know how many of those jobs are unskilled labor positions.

Ever heard of Cost beneift Analysis ?<

When I used to run cb ratios never was anything taken into consideration for the human side of the equation.
Fast food operations are premised on an abundant supply of low-cost labor.
Turnover is rampant since it's often only temporary employment and often part time. But now that they need to buidl up a reliable older mgr base treating adults like they are responsible pays off.
There are many employers who refuse any extra consideration for workers, they are stupid. I worked for one once. Had a 50% turnover which required him to work 70 hrs per week. He was a devout Republican. Lots of stock "shrinkage" too.

MOST jobs are "unskilled labor positions", CJ. MOST, not just a few. Look around you, for God's sake.

CJ, si numeris quaeritis, circumspice ...

Sorry, Ecce, I meant "numera".

As I referred to in an earlier post, some of these "unskilled" positions are so integral to our way of life that we might not be so comfortable if they were gone. We rely on the people of Wendy's because we've forgotten how to cook and fend for ourselves when it comes to food.

How can anyone call landscape work unskilled? Just because a job requires manual labor does not mean there is no skill involved.

And @ every one of these supposed "unskilled" jobs the employees have to learn specific....um, what do they call them..... skills? Like how to run equipment, handle food properly, correctly install a shrub, or properly disinfect a restroom. These are, by definition, skills. They just don't come with a $40,000 degree, and yet there are many people out there with those same $40,000 degrees who wouldn't know the first thing about food safety.

Hence, we are beholden to these "unskilled" laborers.

Look, first it's morally and functionally wrong to not look out for our "unskilled" workforce, since they work they do lays the foundation for our "skilled" workers. What would a landscape architect be without a crew of laborers? An overpaid gardener, that's what.

Second, the cost of these added benefits, as widj pointed out, at current rates would be minimal. If one is operating that close to margin, they don't need employees to begin with.

Here's a cost-benefit analysis for you, CJ: what's the benefit of you being able to pull up to a Wendy's drive-thru and get lunch versus having to go in there and make it yourself? For us "professionals," that kind of cost-benefit tends to be a lot.

Look, I'm not saying give away the farm. We're not talking about giving vacation time or bonuses, this is about sick leave and *god forbid* health coverage. Healthy workers, no matter their skill level, are better workers. Paying someone while they're sick can help them afford treatment to get well faster (so can a good health plan).

I continue to fail to see how anyone can argue that moderate sick leave and health coverage are a poor investment. But this is really about ignorning the crack in the foundation: if all of our "unskilled" workers suddenly dried up, this country would grind to a halt.

Anyone who says there will always be a supply of "unskilled" workers because some people will never rise above that level is effectively endorsing class warfare. Shouldn't moving all people to a higher level of socio-economic existence be a tenant of our democratic society?

Damn, Arkansas Student! Your argument is well written and all the research I indicated earlier supports you. You've given us a look at the flesh and blood side of this issue not just a barren soul accounting of the owner's callous heart.

What stood out in the last article (Center for Law and Social Policy) was the conclusion that a vast majority of those who used sick leave supported it and found it a positive influence; it was those who hadn't tried it who were the ones against it.

CJ apparently has not looked at any of the material I cited or he would know that the article from the Women's Research group specifically addressed his concerns about low-paid, "unskilled" workers.

I have seen CJ make far better arguments and bring out a cavalcade of data/research to support his side of the debate. Unfortunately, this time he lacks that proof and thus his arguments are quite feeble and failing.
As cited in the research and backed by CJ's own statements, the number one concern about sick leave was the cost to the employer. The damning point, again, was this view was from people who had no experience with it or the initiative to care about their employees.

CJ should reflect on the fact that Christians faced similar problems in their history. They were mostly damned by people who hadn't darkened a church door or talked with a Christian, Best to continue worshipping idols, gods and goddesses, or the usual: power and money.

Doesn't the Bible have a telling question that reflects on this issue: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

As someone that has DONE the jobs that CJ calls unskilled I have a few comments.

First of all, they are NOT unskilled, they are just jobs that you don't learn from a book. You have to DO most of them to learn them.

Second, most of them are paid so poorly that taking time off for being sick without pay can REALLY cut into your budget.

Third, in those jobs the people tend to come in contact with a lot of other people's food and other places where people can pick up diseases such as restrooms. Do we REALLY want people forced to work when sick because they can't afford not to?????

People are NOT robots. We can catch all kinds of diseases from them, and do if they are forced to work. For instance, influenza can survive for 48 hours on hard surfaces. That is door knobs, tables, chairs, etc.

Considering how much productivity is lost with others getting sick, paid sick leave is actually more logical when you do the cost/benefit analysis. You don't even have to be compassionate to realize that.