It's amazing how something that is supposed to be so "healthy" makes me so incredibly sick.
No, I'm not referring to Brussels sprouts or rice cakes (though they make me a bit queasy, too), I'm referring to the Ohio Healthy Families Act.
This could very well be the mother of all oxymorons.
With all the jobs leaving this state and with a fragile economy, why in the world would Ohio do something to make it seem even less business friendly by being the only state in the U.S. to have a sick leave mandate?
Right now, our area's biggest employer is trying to leave, and the state's looking to perhaps sue DHL in an attempt to get it to stay. That doesn't seem business friendly to me (but for the record, threatening to put more than 7,000 people out of work is far from friendly, either).
And if the Ohio Healthy Families Act gets onto the November ballot and is voted into law, it would give employers one more reason not to keep doing business in Ohio - or come here at all.
Now, that doesn't seem very healthy.
If passed, the act will give seven paid sick days annually for full-time employees and a pro-rated amount for part-time employees. It applies to all employers with 25 or more employees. The days will accrue immediately upon hire and employees can start using accrued time after 90 days.
Sounds pretty good, huh?
Proponents think so.
"This is an idea whose time has come," Dale Butland, spokesman for the Healthy Families campaign, told The Associated Press. "Across party lines, over 70 percent of the people support this. This is just wildly popular because everyone gets sick."
This fall, you may be able to vote for some extra time off (just like not long ago, people making around minimum wage in Ohio were voting themselves a raise).
But if you vote for sticking it to the man, you may be sticking it to yourself.
"Mandated paid leave would come at a significant cost to employers, and these costs would have to be made up elsewhere - perhaps through reduced wages, or reductions in other paid benefits," Andrew E. Doehrel, president and CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, said in opposition to the mandated sick leave proposal. "The Ohio Chamber opposes any state initiative that removes or restricts an employer's flexibility in designing and implementing employee benefit plans."
Doehrel said the proposal is yet another case of government knows best.
"It always amazes me how proponents say they know this is good for business - well, our business members have reviewed this proposal and spoken with a loud voice that this is bad for job creation in a state that can ill afford more challenges," he said. "We are business people and we speak for businesses - this proposal is not good for us or Ohio employees."
Ohio Chamber Director of Labor and Human Resource Policy Tony Fiore has said that the mandate would put a huge strain on Ohio's economic development.
"Currently, San Francisco, Calif., is the only political jurisdiction in our nation to pass a law requiring paid sick leave," Fiore said. "Can you imagine the negative impact from companies looking to relocate or expand in Ohio?
"This type of mandate is a jobs killer at a time when Ohio needs all of the jobs it can get."
Fiore lists several other reasons Ohioans should oppose a sick leave mandate:
Ohio is already challenged to retain jobs - the state's unemployment rate is hovering around 6 percent;
The proposal would hurt the morale of high-attendance employees - those employees who don't abuse existing leave policies will most likely pick up the loss in productivity;
Most employers already provide generous leave benefits, but with restrictions that curb employee abuse;
Employers must be flexible with today's workforce and tailor voluntary leave benefits to fit employee lifestyles. Mandates tie an employer's hands and make the work environment less flexible;
The burden of this mandate will be disproportionately felt by smaller companies; and...
It's an administrative tracking nightmare - employers will spend additional money on staff time monitoring new mandatory requirements along with voluntary leave.
So if the Ohio Healthy Families Act gets on the November ballot, as expected, there's a possibility some of us will be getting more sick time soon.
But at what cost?
We need to ask ourselves a few questions before we go out and blindly vote for more sick leave.
When fuel costs rose, what happened?
Not only are we paying much more for gas, we're paying much more for food and pretty much everything else. It's a simple fact of life - businesses need to make money, and costs are often passed on to consumers. Likewise, when expenses go up and revenue goes down, businesses have to find areas to cut costs to help the bottom line.
What if a company has 26 employees? Will it very soon have 24?
And thinking closer to home, if DHL heads south and our area loses 7,000-plus jobs, how will that affect Highland and Clinton counties in particular? How will it affect the unemployment rates, housing markets and tax bases? How will it affect the local businesses? How will it affect your business? We could very soon be in a situation where we desperately need to attract, not dissuade, potential employers.
Look around, Ohio's economy is struggling. Do we really want to make it less business friendly just so we can call in sick more often?
Having extra time off may sound fine and dandy, but if we're not careful, some employers could end up giving their employees all the days off they want.
Unpaid, of course.
That would make anyone ill.
Steve Roush is managing editor of The Times-Gazette.
