Among the issues cast into the spotlight by the prospect of pandemic flu is paid sick leave, substantially unavailable in the United States.
Opponents to new legislation that would require some specified number of days of paid sick leave per worker per year -- 7 seems a popular choice, for no particularly sound reason -- argue that such legislation is anti-business. After all, businesses will be paying for work that isn't being done by workers at home with sick kids, or recuperating themselves. But that thinking seems rather superficial to me. Here’s why:
- Employers are people, too -- and on some occasion, it might be they or their kids who get sick.
- It would not be good for a small employer to have a sick worker come in for fear of missing out on pay, infecting everyone else, and perhaps all but shutting operations down.
- The costs in question are on the books already and should be accounted for in the annual budget of any business.
- Businesses that reward productivity while responding compassionately to essential time away from work are apt to be rewarded by employee loyalty.
- If this were addressed nationally, as proposed in today's NY Times, no business would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to any other.
- Since this relates to the willingness and ability of people to follow the advice of national authorities in the advent of an outbreak such as flu, it really is a matter of national security.
uncivilized. A balanced approach to paid sick leave in the U.S. is warranted.
What do you think? Should the government make businesses pay for your sick days?
More Ways to Stay Healthy and Flu-Free: