From Gongwer's News Service:
A coalition pushing a ballot initiative that would have provided seven days of paid sick leave for certain Ohio workers said Thursday it will remove the issue from the fall ballot.
Service Employees International Union District 1199 President Becky Williams said the Coalition for Healthy Families will ask to have the proposal taken off the ballot.
Ms. Williams said the decision "was not easy nor made lightly," but was reached after "it became clear that a shrill and vitriolic ballot campaign marred by misinformation and disinformation would be impossible to avoid."
SEIU has been a primary force in pushing the issue that would provide the annual benefit for Ohioans who work for companies with more than 25 employees.
Ms. Williams was to appear at a morning event with Gov. Ted Strickland and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown to discuss the matter.
Earlier in the summer, Mr. Strickland looked to broker a deal between backers and key opponents in the business community, but couldn't forge a compromise that would have required legislative action. He and Lt. Governor Lee Fisher subsequently said they would oppose the proposal that has been designated as Issue 4.
*********
This is good news, indeed!!!!
Showing posts with label sick days Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sick days Ohio. Show all posts
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
UPDATED - Governor says no to so-called Healthy Families Act
Gongwer News Service is reporting that Governor Ted Strickland and Lt. Governor Lee Fisher declared their opposition to the labor-led Issue 4 that will appear on the November 4 Ohio Ballot. They described the proposed statute as "unworkable, unwieldy," and detrimental to the state's economy.
This is terrific news. Kudos to them!
UPDATE: Here is the text of their press release:
Columbus, Ohio – Governor Ted Strickland and Lt. Governor Lee Fisher today issued the following statement regarding their opposition to Issue 4, the proposed paid sick-day initiative, on the ballot this November:
“While important members of the business community and SEIU participated in good faith discussions, it was, unfortunately, not possible to achieve a compromise acceptable to a sufficient portion of the business community and the proponents to cause its removal from the ballot. We regret that a reasonable compromise was not possible. This reality means that there will be a hard fought campaign centering on this initiative in the coming months. During that campaign, we call upon both sides to avoid portraying Ohio as unfriendly to business and economic development.
“We also recognize it is important to make clear our thoughts on important public policy issues and today are announcing that we cannot support the paid sick-day ballot initiative. While we would hope that all Ohio businesses would make paid sick days available to their employees whenever possible, we believe that this initiative is unworkable, unwieldy and would be detrimental to Ohio's economy, and we will be opposing it and asking Ohioans to oppose it as a result.”
This is terrific news. Kudos to them!
UPDATE: Here is the text of their press release:
Columbus, Ohio – Governor Ted Strickland and Lt. Governor Lee Fisher today issued the following statement regarding their opposition to Issue 4, the proposed paid sick-day initiative, on the ballot this November:
“While important members of the business community and SEIU participated in good faith discussions, it was, unfortunately, not possible to achieve a compromise acceptable to a sufficient portion of the business community and the proponents to cause its removal from the ballot. We regret that a reasonable compromise was not possible. This reality means that there will be a hard fought campaign centering on this initiative in the coming months. During that campaign, we call upon both sides to avoid portraying Ohio as unfriendly to business and economic development.
“We also recognize it is important to make clear our thoughts on important public policy issues and today are announcing that we cannot support the paid sick-day ballot initiative. While we would hope that all Ohio businesses would make paid sick days available to their employees whenever possible, we believe that this initiative is unworkable, unwieldy and would be detrimental to Ohio's economy, and we will be opposing it and asking Ohioans to oppose it as a result.”
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Sick days mandate would make Ohio sicker
The National Federation of Independent Business/Ohio (NFIB) has conducted a study to evaluate the impact of the so-called Healthy Families Act, otherwise known as 'sick days Ohio,' and the results are not good.
According to the evaluation, this mandate on employers to provide seven paid sick days could result in the loss of 75,000 jobs. It would also place a $1.17 billion burden on the state's employers in costs of providing those days and the administration of the proposed law.
Surprisingly, roughly 20% of the job losses would be in companies with fewer than 20 employees - firms that are exempt under the proposal. Not surprisingly, many of the job losses are from labor-intensive sectors like food services, eating and drinking places and general retail trade.
The study extrapolated lost sales as result of the impact implementation of this law would have: $9.4 billion from 2008-2012.
(My Eye On Toledo interview with Ty Pine of NFIB on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD begins half-way through the show.)
STUDY ANALYSIS
Of course, proponents for the mandate say this study is not reliable because it was done by NFIB. From today's paper:
First, I continue to be amazed at the description of one group being biased while another group is not. NFIB's study is not independent, but the one done by Policy Matters of Ohio is???? The board of Policy Matters of Ohio is comprised of liberals and labor unions - no bias toward the mandate there, I'm sure.
Additionally, the Policy Matters report uses data provided by Institute for Women's Policy Research, so is it really two 'independent' reports?
Then there are the authors. For Policy Matters study:
Amy Hanauer is founding Executive Director of Policy Matters Ohio. In addition to running the organization, she studies work, tax policy, energy policy, gender and racial disparities and other issues for Policy Matters. Hanauer has a Master’s of Public Administration from the LaFollette Institute at University of Wisconsin, Madison and a B.A. from Cornell University. She is on the board of trustees and executive committee of the national think tank Dēmos and on the national advisory committee to the Economic Analysis and Research Network.
For NFIB:
Bruce D. Phillips was appointed senior fellow in Regulatory Studies at the NFIB Research Foundation in October 2000. He analyzes the impacts of regulations on small firms using a new proprietary model that measures both direct and indirect regulatory costs. In addition, Phillips works in various applied policy areas, using both NFIB surveys and other government data to study policy areas such as labor regulations, health-care costs and tax policies as they affect small firms.
From 1979 to 2000, Phillips served in a variety of capacities with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, directing contract research and building both private and census-based databases to study the structure of small firms. ... Phillips was also a senior professorial lecturer in the School of Business Administration at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., from 1985 to 1994.
Phillips received a bachelor's degree in economics (magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) from Queens College of the City University of New York. He completed his M.A. in economics, as well as his doctoral studies, at the University of Maryland.
Based upon their backgrounds, which author do you think has the more scholarly research on the issue?
Finally, there are the studies themselves.
Butland says his studies looked at 'lost productivity, illness spread in the workplace and retention of employees.' Those are subjective aspects of a mandate and rather difficult to measure. Contrast those evaluations with this background on the study from NFIB:
Policy Matters report methodology is documented and lists surveys, interviews and estimates. Both reports are linked, so you can review the methodologies and make your own determination.
THE ORGANIZATIONS
Both Policy Matters and NFIB are non-profit, non-partisan organizations.
NFIB is an organization of businesses and they must, in order to maintain credibility, be realistic and honest in critiquing the impact of potential laws. Their mission "is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses."
Policy Matters sees inequality in the economy and works to correct it by providing a 'more fair' economy in Ohio. Their mission "is to conduct high-quality research promoting decisions which benefit our whole community. Given the challenges of a rapidly-changing economic system, rising wage inequality, new issues in education and changes in the way work is organized, it is imperative that high quality research focuses on creating an economy that works for everyone.
When comparing the information coming from the groups, it's important to remember that their lack of partisanship (Republican/Democrat) cannot be confused with a lack of philosophy or a lack of bias. Just because you claim to be non-partisan, it does not mean that you do not have an agenda and produce research that supports a pre-conceived conclusion. Evaluating the methodologies wil tell you whether or not the information being presented is objective.
CONCLUSION
Having evaluated the so-called Healthy Families Act, I'd already concluded that the mandate was anti-business, costly and would do more to harm Ohio's struggling economy than it would to help it. The NFIB study provides documentation that the expected negative impact is real. With headlines like "Jobless rate worst since early 1990s," we certainly don't need to compound the problem.
Even Gov. Ted Strickland recognizes that passage of this mandate would be bad for Ohio so he was trying to work out a compromise. That effort appears to be failing as businesses stand their ground and tell him any mandated paid sick time will be opposed.
The other day I had a phone call from a fellow blogger in Kentucky. He'd been to a local chamber of commerce meeting and was questioning a statement made there: that businesses were beginning to look more favorably at locating in Ohio since we reformed our business tax structure. This is good news for Ohio.
But any gains we may see as a result of those tax reforms will be for naught if we replace previously onerous taxation with onerous benefit mandates in the form of the so-called Healthy Families Act.
Even California rejected mandated paid sick days - and Ohio must do the same.
According to the evaluation, this mandate on employers to provide seven paid sick days could result in the loss of 75,000 jobs. It would also place a $1.17 billion burden on the state's employers in costs of providing those days and the administration of the proposed law.
Surprisingly, roughly 20% of the job losses would be in companies with fewer than 20 employees - firms that are exempt under the proposal. Not surprisingly, many of the job losses are from labor-intensive sectors like food services, eating and drinking places and general retail trade.
The study extrapolated lost sales as result of the impact implementation of this law would have: $9.4 billion from 2008-2012.
(My Eye On Toledo interview with Ty Pine of NFIB on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD begins half-way through the show.)
STUDY ANALYSIS
Of course, proponents for the mandate say this study is not reliable because it was done by NFIB. From today's paper:
Dale Butland, spokesman for the Ohioans for Healthy Families coalition, questioned the NFIB's internal study, noting it assumed a worst-case scenario that every eligible employee would use all seven days every year. He noted the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has shown that 54 percent of those with paid sick leave now don't use a single day in an average year.
"The conclusion flatly contradicts two independent studies that have been done, one by Policy Matters of Ohio [in Cleveland] and the Institute for Women's Policy Research [in Washington]," he said. "Both studies found that employers would save money.
"They looked at things this study did not," he said. "They looked at less lost productivity because sick workers tend to be less productive than healthy workers, and because there would be less spread illness in the workplace, faster recuperation times, and improved retention of skilled employees."
First, I continue to be amazed at the description of one group being biased while another group is not. NFIB's study is not independent, but the one done by Policy Matters of Ohio is???? The board of Policy Matters of Ohio is comprised of liberals and labor unions - no bias toward the mandate there, I'm sure.
Additionally, the Policy Matters report uses data provided by Institute for Women's Policy Research, so is it really two 'independent' reports?
Then there are the authors. For Policy Matters study:
Amy Hanauer is founding Executive Director of Policy Matters Ohio. In addition to running the organization, she studies work, tax policy, energy policy, gender and racial disparities and other issues for Policy Matters. Hanauer has a Master’s of Public Administration from the LaFollette Institute at University of Wisconsin, Madison and a B.A. from Cornell University. She is on the board of trustees and executive committee of the national think tank Dēmos and on the national advisory committee to the Economic Analysis and Research Network.
For NFIB:
Bruce D. Phillips was appointed senior fellow in Regulatory Studies at the NFIB Research Foundation in October 2000. He analyzes the impacts of regulations on small firms using a new proprietary model that measures both direct and indirect regulatory costs. In addition, Phillips works in various applied policy areas, using both NFIB surveys and other government data to study policy areas such as labor regulations, health-care costs and tax policies as they affect small firms.
From 1979 to 2000, Phillips served in a variety of capacities with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, directing contract research and building both private and census-based databases to study the structure of small firms. ... Phillips was also a senior professorial lecturer in the School of Business Administration at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., from 1985 to 1994.
Phillips received a bachelor's degree in economics (magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) from Queens College of the City University of New York. He completed his M.A. in economics, as well as his doctoral studies, at the University of Maryland.
Based upon their backgrounds, which author do you think has the more scholarly research on the issue?
Finally, there are the studies themselves.
Butland says his studies looked at 'lost productivity, illness spread in the workplace and retention of employees.' Those are subjective aspects of a mandate and rather difficult to measure. Contrast those evaluations with this background on the study from NFIB:
"The study was conducted using the Business Size Input Model program of the Regional Economic Models, Inc. input-output system. The system produces short- and long-term forecasts for detailed industry sectors when external shocks are applied. Specifically, the model estimates future changes in jobs, output (sales) income and productivity for Ohio by business size and industry by comparing forecasts without change to forecasts with change (the mandate). The shock in this research is the additional sick leave costs, which are calculated to represent one percent of employee compensation (based on federal Bureau of Labor Statistics compensation data), as well as record-keeping and bookkeeping expenses. Note that overtime and replacement worker costs are not included in the cost analysis and would substantially increase the costs of the mandate if applied. Moreover, the research does not account for the additional costs placed on employers who currently provide paid sick leave but must comply with the additional administrative mandates." (emphasis added)
Policy Matters report methodology is documented and lists surveys, interviews and estimates. Both reports are linked, so you can review the methodologies and make your own determination.
THE ORGANIZATIONS
Both Policy Matters and NFIB are non-profit, non-partisan organizations.
NFIB is an organization of businesses and they must, in order to maintain credibility, be realistic and honest in critiquing the impact of potential laws. Their mission "is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses."
Policy Matters sees inequality in the economy and works to correct it by providing a 'more fair' economy in Ohio. Their mission "is to conduct high-quality research promoting decisions which benefit our whole community. Given the challenges of a rapidly-changing economic system, rising wage inequality, new issues in education and changes in the way work is organized, it is imperative that high quality research focuses on creating an economy that works for everyone.
When comparing the information coming from the groups, it's important to remember that their lack of partisanship (Republican/Democrat) cannot be confused with a lack of philosophy or a lack of bias. Just because you claim to be non-partisan, it does not mean that you do not have an agenda and produce research that supports a pre-conceived conclusion. Evaluating the methodologies wil tell you whether or not the information being presented is objective.
CONCLUSION
Having evaluated the so-called Healthy Families Act, I'd already concluded that the mandate was anti-business, costly and would do more to harm Ohio's struggling economy than it would to help it. The NFIB study provides documentation that the expected negative impact is real. With headlines like "Jobless rate worst since early 1990s," we certainly don't need to compound the problem.
Even Gov. Ted Strickland recognizes that passage of this mandate would be bad for Ohio so he was trying to work out a compromise. That effort appears to be failing as businesses stand their ground and tell him any mandated paid sick time will be opposed.
The other day I had a phone call from a fellow blogger in Kentucky. He'd been to a local chamber of commerce meeting and was questioning a statement made there: that businesses were beginning to look more favorably at locating in Ohio since we reformed our business tax structure. This is good news for Ohio.
But any gains we may see as a result of those tax reforms will be for naught if we replace previously onerous taxation with onerous benefit mandates in the form of the so-called Healthy Families Act.
Even California rejected mandated paid sick days - and Ohio must do the same.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Two initiatives submit signatures for November ballot
According to Ballotpedia, the so-called Healthy Families Act (better known as Sick Days Ohio) and the Casino Act ('myOhionow' from the commercials) both submitted enough signatures by the filing deadline of August 6.
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has until September 25 to certify the ballot signatures. If supporters have fallen short, they have 10 more days to gather additional signatures. It is expected that the initiatives will have enough valid signatures to put them on the fall ballot.
If certified, they will join three other state-wide issues: Water Compact which creates a constitutional amendment protecting property rights along the with passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact; Clean Ohio Fund, which authorizes the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes; and the Initiatives Deadline Act which changes the deadline for submitting signatures on initiatives from 90 days pre-election to 125 days pre-election.
The Payday Loan veto referendum, to stop the legislation that put a cap on Payday Loan interest rates, is still awaiting ballot language approval.
For more information on the initiatives, I highly recommend Ballotpedia's balanced descriptions:
Healthy Families Act
Casino Act - My Ohio Now
Ohio Water Compact Amendment
Clean Ohio Fund Act
Initiatives Deadline Act
Ohio Payday Loan Referendum
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has until September 25 to certify the ballot signatures. If supporters have fallen short, they have 10 more days to gather additional signatures. It is expected that the initiatives will have enough valid signatures to put them on the fall ballot.
If certified, they will join three other state-wide issues: Water Compact which creates a constitutional amendment protecting property rights along the with passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact; Clean Ohio Fund, which authorizes the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes; and the Initiatives Deadline Act which changes the deadline for submitting signatures on initiatives from 90 days pre-election to 125 days pre-election.
The Payday Loan veto referendum, to stop the legislation that put a cap on Payday Loan interest rates, is still awaiting ballot language approval.
For more information on the initiatives, I highly recommend Ballotpedia's balanced descriptions:
Healthy Families Act
Casino Act - My Ohio Now
Ohio Water Compact Amendment
Clean Ohio Fund Act
Initiatives Deadline Act
Ohio Payday Loan Referendum
Friday, July 11, 2008
Ohio's mandated sick days are all about 2008
As I've said in numerous posts, the so-called Healthy Families Act, better known as mandated 'sick days Ohio,' is all about driving voters to the polls for the presidential campaign, more than it is about actually providing a 'benefit' (that is anything BUT a benefit) to Ohioans.
I guess they still don't get it: imposing more mandates on the job providers only means that they'll cut out something else in order to afford the new mandate - often jobs or other benefits. That's not 'healthy' for job growth in Ohio and this certainly doesn't lead to a business-friendly environment in Ohio.
A message to Obama and the 'Sick Days Ohio' supporters: please - we're begging you - stop trying to 'help'!
Note to Sen. Obama: America doesn't force women to choose between their jobs and their children, the women do that on their own when they decide to either have children and/or have a job. If you want to devote full attention to your children, you cannot distract yourself from that task by having a job. If you need to work in order to afford to support your children, perhaps that's a consideration you should have made prior to actually having children. If you're in a situation where you are now a single mom supporting your family, I feel for you, but that doesn't mean that the state must create a law that says you must be paid for any time off work that you must take. You had the child(ren) and must now take responsibility for that decision, incurring all the joys and consequences of it as well.
On a similar note, I find it "unacceptable" that Sen. Obama believes people should be paid for time not worked, regardless of the reason. Why is acceptable to expect a company to pay someone when they are not at work earning the compensation? Why doesn't he find it 'unacceptable' that people want something for nothing? Or, in keeping with his socialist tendencies, does he think people are 'entitled'??
In the end, if Sick Days Ohio passes in Ohio, we can expect companies to respond - and not in a favorable way. They will either increase the price of their goods sold, eliminate some other benefit or reduce the numbers of workers in order to pay for this mandate for the ones left. None of these outcomes will "help woman and families thrive" in Ohio or in the nation.
Other Commentary:
Obama demonstrates lack of business sense
I guess they still don't get it: imposing more mandates on the job providers only means that they'll cut out something else in order to afford the new mandate - often jobs or other benefits. That's not 'healthy' for job growth in Ohio and this certainly doesn't lead to a business-friendly environment in Ohio.
A message to Obama and the 'Sick Days Ohio' supporters: please - we're begging you - stop trying to 'help'!
For Immediate Release
Contact: Dale Butland, 614-783-5833 or Brian Dunn, 614-286-7763
Obama Endorses Paid Sick Days
Presidential Candidate Says They're Vital to Women's Economic Security
Ohioans for Healthy Families, the state-wide coalition behind the paid sick day ballot initiative in the Buckeye state, expressed delight today that Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has decided to make seven paid sick days a key part of his campaign for the White House.
At campaign events yesterday and today in New York, Virginia, Michigan and Missouri, Sen. Obama and his wife, Michelle, are highlighting paid sick days as part of a plan to bring economic security to America's working women. According to the Obama campaign, the plan is designed to help women and families deal with a range of work-related challenges.
In a statement accompanying the plan's release, Sen. Obama said:
"I don't accept ... an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers. It's unacceptable that women are denied jobs or promotions because they've got kids at home. It's unacceptable that 22 million working women don't have a single paid sick day. When I'm President, we'll take these critical issues head-on and help women and families thrive in a changing economy."
Coalition spokesman Dale Butland offered this reaction:
"We're delighted that Sen. Obama recognizes the importance of paid sick days and is making it a key part of his Presidential campaign. With Ohio polls consistently showing over 70% support for the Healthy Families Act, we hope Sen. McCain will do likewise. In any event, it's now clear that the Presidential campaign dialogue will include paid sick days. As a result, voters will be learning a lot more about this family values issue in the weeks ahead."
Note: In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of S.910, a federal bill that would mandate allowing workers to earn 7 paid sick days per year. Sen. McCain is not a co-sponsor, and his position on paid sick days is unknown.
-30-
Note to Sen. Obama: America doesn't force women to choose between their jobs and their children, the women do that on their own when they decide to either have children and/or have a job. If you want to devote full attention to your children, you cannot distract yourself from that task by having a job. If you need to work in order to afford to support your children, perhaps that's a consideration you should have made prior to actually having children. If you're in a situation where you are now a single mom supporting your family, I feel for you, but that doesn't mean that the state must create a law that says you must be paid for any time off work that you must take. You had the child(ren) and must now take responsibility for that decision, incurring all the joys and consequences of it as well.
On a similar note, I find it "unacceptable" that Sen. Obama believes people should be paid for time not worked, regardless of the reason. Why is acceptable to expect a company to pay someone when they are not at work earning the compensation? Why doesn't he find it 'unacceptable' that people want something for nothing? Or, in keeping with his socialist tendencies, does he think people are 'entitled'??
In the end, if Sick Days Ohio passes in Ohio, we can expect companies to respond - and not in a favorable way. They will either increase the price of their goods sold, eliminate some other benefit or reduce the numbers of workers in order to pay for this mandate for the ones left. None of these outcomes will "help woman and families thrive" in Ohio or in the nation.
Other Commentary:
Obama demonstrates lack of business sense
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
UPDATED - Businesses begin to speak out against Healthy Families Act
UPDATE: The Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce has a bullet point sheet explaining some of the provisions of the proposed Healthy Families Act and a few of the reasons why it's bad for Ohio.
Original Post:
The other day I got an email from our insurance company. No - it wasn't an appeal to purchase more insurance...
The subject line was "The so-called 'Healthy Families Act'" and I immediately opened it as that's what I call this misguided, 'not business friendly' ballot initiative.
It's starts with this:
If you haven't heard about this one, learn the facts. Here's a synopsis from the Ohio Professional Insurance Agents Association:
it says:
Interestingly, today I was sent a copy of a letter to Gov. Ted Strickland from Alan Brass, Chief Executive Officer of Promedica Health Systems, one of Northwest Ohio's largest employers. He, too, opposes this initiative and called on the governor to oppose it as well. He writes:
A copy was sent to 18 representatives and senators who cover the area in which Promedica has facilities.
Additionally, Dennis Lehman, Executive Vice President of Business for the Cleveland Indians, has also weighed in. In a letter to State Rep. Barbara Sears, he writes:
He also says the bill would be costly and his organization could be forced to reduce wages, increase ticket prices, increase other employee contributions or decrease benefits to make up the difference. He also says they would have to hire an additional staff member just to handle the administrative duties the new law would require for their 2,000 full- and part-time employees.
One problem with the initiative is that it 'sounds' so good - who could be against 'healthy families'?
Another problem is that it is being pushed by many unions and left-leaning groups as an initiative that will help drive Democrats to the polls in November.
But the bigger problem is that many voters will base their decision about the issue on how it sounds or makes them feel - rather than evaluating the policy itself with the corresponding fiscal and economic impact, both of which are very negative.
I'm glad Ohio businesses are beginning to speak out against a bad policy that will negatively impact the business climate in Ohio. Considering our economic condition, we really don't need any more anti-business policies and laws.
Original Post:
The other day I got an email from our insurance company. No - it wasn't an appeal to purchase more insurance...
The subject line was "The so-called 'Healthy Families Act'" and I immediately opened it as that's what I call this misguided, 'not business friendly' ballot initiative.
It's starts with this:
If you haven't heard about this one, learn the facts. Here's a synopsis from the Ohio Professional Insurance Agents Association:
it says:
A coalition of business groups, Ohioans to Protect Jobs, is leading the effort to oppose the measure. The coalition includes PIA, the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Ohio Restaurant Association and Ohio Farm Bureau, among others.
PIA’s board of directors voted to formally oppose this proposal, which if enacted, would be detrimental to Ohio’s business community – negatively impacting Ohio’s already struggling economy and discouraging new employers from locating businesses within the state.
It is important to educate your family and peers about the ramifications of this proposal if passed, as well as to discourage them from signing the petition to help place this issue on the ballot. No other state in the country requires employers to offer paid sick leave. While the proposal sounds appealing, it will ultimately result in employers being forced to make difficult decisions to meet the requirements of the proposal, such as modifying other benefits already offered (such as health insurance) or making staff cuts. Additionally, if the issue passes, it will open the door for more government mandates and interference.
A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 71 percent of people surveyed support mandated paid sick leave. Ironically, many of the same people (58 percent) said state requirements have made it too costly for business, resulting in Ohio's economy suffering. Thirty-three percent of respondents also indicated it is very likely or somewhat likely they or a family member will eventually leave the state for better opportunities. With numbers like these, now is not the time to saddle our economy with a surefire job killer.
Let me know if you'd like more information about this proposal. Many proposals sound good on their face, but when you read the document language, it's very different. The Toledo Chamber of Commerce reports that under this proposal, employees could take the time off in hour-increments. So, an employee could come in an hour late and leave an hour early, and the employer would have no recourse. This not only puts a wrench in getting the work done, but it puts an unfair burden on those workers who have to fill in without notice.
Interestingly, today I was sent a copy of a letter to Gov. Ted Strickland from Alan Brass, Chief Executive Officer of Promedica Health Systems, one of Northwest Ohio's largest employers. He, too, opposes this initiative and called on the governor to oppose it as well. He writes:
"As you know, this effort would be extremely detrimental for businesses in our state, prohibiting them from functioning effectively and productively. Several production-based corporations have publicly stated that passage of this act would, in effect, signal a death knell for their company to continue to do business in Ohio.
...
I urge you to take a strong stand in opposition of this initiative and work toward the defeat of any semblance of this proposal. I also stand ready to assist in that effort, and will encourage my colleagues throughout the state to do the same."
A copy was sent to 18 representatives and senators who cover the area in which Promedica has facilities.
Additionally, Dennis Lehman, Executive Vice President of Business for the Cleveland Indians, has also weighed in. In a letter to State Rep. Barbara Sears, he writes:
"The State of Ohio, if this law passes, would be the lone state with type of law. This law will work contrary to all the efforts that have been made to create economic development throughout Ohio. We would have a difficult time attracting new business, creating another obstacle for growth."
He also says the bill would be costly and his organization could be forced to reduce wages, increase ticket prices, increase other employee contributions or decrease benefits to make up the difference. He also says they would have to hire an additional staff member just to handle the administrative duties the new law would require for their 2,000 full- and part-time employees.
One problem with the initiative is that it 'sounds' so good - who could be against 'healthy families'?
Another problem is that it is being pushed by many unions and left-leaning groups as an initiative that will help drive Democrats to the polls in November.
But the bigger problem is that many voters will base their decision about the issue on how it sounds or makes them feel - rather than evaluating the policy itself with the corresponding fiscal and economic impact, both of which are very negative.
I'm glad Ohio businesses are beginning to speak out against a bad policy that will negatively impact the business climate in Ohio. Considering our economic condition, we really don't need any more anti-business policies and laws.
Dumb laws and more on Ohio's so-called Healthy Families Act
Actually, these are two separate topics, but the headline might easily be construed to be about the so-called Healthy Families Act.
On that note, fellow blogger Tim Higgins has a rather sarcastic and irreverent take on this proposal. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
As for Dumb Laws, the Club For Growth has a new blog focusing on dumb laws/proposals we find all across this nation. They have a nice blurb about our two state senators, Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich, sponsoring a resolution to honor soil.
Many of the laws are so ridiculous you wonder just how anyone actually thought of them. Then again, many are so ridiculous you might wonder just what our country is coming to.
And yes, I've sent them a couple from right here in Toledo. Unfortunately, some of our Toledo laws aren't just dumb, they're scary, so they might not make the cut.
If you have examples, feel free to offer them up. Sometimes I think the only way to get politicians to stop doing dumb things is to so thoroughly embarrass them that they stop.
(I know, I know - that's not likely - but I can hope!)
On that note, fellow blogger Tim Higgins has a rather sarcastic and irreverent take on this proposal. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
As for Dumb Laws, the Club For Growth has a new blog focusing on dumb laws/proposals we find all across this nation. They have a nice blurb about our two state senators, Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich, sponsoring a resolution to honor soil.
Many of the laws are so ridiculous you wonder just how anyone actually thought of them. Then again, many are so ridiculous you might wonder just what our country is coming to.
And yes, I've sent them a couple from right here in Toledo. Unfortunately, some of our Toledo laws aren't just dumb, they're scary, so they might not make the cut.
If you have examples, feel free to offer them up. Sometimes I think the only way to get politicians to stop doing dumb things is to so thoroughly embarrass them that they stop.
(I know, I know - that's not likely - but I can hope!)
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sick Days Ohio, aka: The Healthy Families Act
Local firms voice fear on sick-leave act
Duh!
There is nothing 'family-friendly' about a proposition that drives employers and jobs out of the state! How friendly will such legislation be if the family no longer has a job because of the costs of this act?
Duh!
There is nothing 'family-friendly' about a proposition that drives employers and jobs out of the state! How friendly will such legislation be if the family no longer has a job because of the costs of this act?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ulterior motives in ballot issues
According to today's Blade article on the 2008 ballot issues, it's not the issue itself - there's an ulterior motive involved.
In reference to the 'Sick Days Ohio' initiative, Catherine Turcer, of Ohio Citizen Action, says:
Dale Butland, spokesman for the proposed Healthy Families Act, the official name of the proposal that would require employers with 25 or more workers to provide the employees with seven days of sick leave a year to care for themselves and their families, downplays the overall impact such an initiative would have on the presidential elections.
But the impact is clear. If the Republican-led state legislature doesn't adopt this proposal, they're risking the presidential election because the Healthy Families Act will bring out those left of center. And in my conversation with Mr. Butland and others who were in Toledo earlier this year, they made it clear that they want what is in the proposal - not a compromise. They're willing to 'look' at what a Republican-led legislature might propose, but they want what they've put down in writing already.
For the Republicans, this is a lose-lose situation. They can either pass a law that is detrimental to the business climate (which isn't that great in Ohio as it is) and increases the costs of doing business here (big loss to everyone), or they can risk an almost-guaranteed large turn-out of liberal-leaning voters and risk the state's electoral votes for president (another loss).
For the Democrats, it's a win-win. They either get their guaranteed paid sick days for all Ohioans (big win which gives unions a higher baseline when bargaining for paid days off), or they get an almost-guaranteed large turn-out of liberal-leaning voters which would help them win the state's electoral votes for president (another win).
And that's what these groups are counting on ... because the issue is just the by-product - the tool, if you will - to accomplish the ulterior motive: turn Ohio to the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election.
And who can blame them for going this route? They saw what a marriage amendment did for conservative turn-out in 2004, even though there are some who think this was just one of many issues pushing conservative voters to the polls.
Proponents of "Sick Days Ohio" hope the idea of paid sick days will be a similar type of motivator, gaining support of employees, regardless of political affiliation. I suppose it's true when they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Either way and regardless of whether it's a conservative or liberal issue, as a voter, I don't like being used, or manipulated, in this way.
(Note - I was not blogging 2004 and, as a sitting County Commissioner, I did not take a position on the marriage amendment - or any ballot issue - that year.)
In reference to the 'Sick Days Ohio' initiative, Catherine Turcer, of Ohio Citizen Action, says:
“When you can’t get the legislature to take up an important policy issue, you take it to a vote of the people. But we all know these ballot issues affect who goes to the polls and who gets elected.
“Sick leave pulls at the heart strings, and it is so much more likely to bring out Democrats and maybe independents who are left of center,” she said.
Dale Butland, spokesman for the proposed Healthy Families Act, the official name of the proposal that would require employers with 25 or more workers to provide the employees with seven days of sick leave a year to care for themselves and their families, downplays the overall impact such an initiative would have on the presidential elections.
“I know this is the story that all political reporters want to write, that this is our wedge issue like the gay-marriage issue was for Republicans, but we hope the legislature passes this,” he said. “They’ll get this in January, and to that end we are reaching out to Republicans.
“We are prepared to go to the ballot if we have to, but that would be very expensive, and there are a lot of other things to spend money on next year,” he said.
But the impact is clear. If the Republican-led state legislature doesn't adopt this proposal, they're risking the presidential election because the Healthy Families Act will bring out those left of center. And in my conversation with Mr. Butland and others who were in Toledo earlier this year, they made it clear that they want what is in the proposal - not a compromise. They're willing to 'look' at what a Republican-led legislature might propose, but they want what they've put down in writing already.
For the Republicans, this is a lose-lose situation. They can either pass a law that is detrimental to the business climate (which isn't that great in Ohio as it is) and increases the costs of doing business here (big loss to everyone), or they can risk an almost-guaranteed large turn-out of liberal-leaning voters and risk the state's electoral votes for president (another loss).
For the Democrats, it's a win-win. They either get their guaranteed paid sick days for all Ohioans (big win which gives unions a higher baseline when bargaining for paid days off), or they get an almost-guaranteed large turn-out of liberal-leaning voters which would help them win the state's electoral votes for president (another win).
And that's what these groups are counting on ... because the issue is just the by-product - the tool, if you will - to accomplish the ulterior motive: turn Ohio to the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election.
And who can blame them for going this route? They saw what a marriage amendment did for conservative turn-out in 2004, even though there are some who think this was just one of many issues pushing conservative voters to the polls.
Opponents of the measures acknowledged that the proposed amendments might have increased Republican turnout. But they said most of those voters would have gone to the polls anyway, galvanized by a host of social issues, including abortion, stem cell research and gun control.
"From Day 1 of the Bush administration, they have done everything possible to cater to their conservative, evangelical base," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They were energized to vote for him, and same-sex marriage was just one of those issues that energized them." ~ (source: New York Times article)
Proponents of "Sick Days Ohio" hope the idea of paid sick days will be a similar type of motivator, gaining support of employees, regardless of political affiliation. I suppose it's true when they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Either way and regardless of whether it's a conservative or liberal issue, as a voter, I don't like being used, or manipulated, in this way.
(Note - I was not blogging 2004 and, as a sitting County Commissioner, I did not take a position on the marriage amendment - or any ballot issue - that year.)
Monday, October 22, 2007
Another "this is NOT business friendly" post
In an earlier post, I mentioned how the 2008 State Business Tax Climate Index ranked Ohio in the bottom five of "business friendly" states. Curtis Dubay, a co-author of the study said, "States need to constantly be on the lookout for ways to improve their business tax climates."
Unfortunately, it seems that such advice is falling on deaf ears in Ohio as the "Sick Days Ohio" group would rather focus on creating a 'family-friendly' state.
Sick Days Ohio is the website for Ohioans for Healthy Families who identifies themselves as:
They have proposed and are supporting a new law, the Ohio Healthy Families Act, that would require employers with 25 or more employees to provide up to 7 paid sick days each year. They state that the Act, "would ensure middle-class workers — the backbone of Ohio's economy — have the opportunity to earn paid sick days." Of course, the sick days would actually apply to ALL employees, not just middle-class workers, and the definition of 'full-time' in order to qualify for the 7 paid days is 30 hours/week. Oh - and having the state mandate, though law, those days does NOT equate to "earning" them.
The group has gathered around 140,000 signatures but plans to continue to gather more before submitting the proposal to the legislature in January, according to campaign manager Brian Dunn. The issue needs at least 120,683 valid signatures. After submission of the petitions, the legislature has four months to enact the bill. If it fails to do so, the Ohioans for Healthy Families coalition has 90 days to collect the same amount of additional valid signatures to place the measure on the fall 2008 ballot for a vote by Ohioans.
Some interesting components of the proposed Act:
* people who work part-time would get pro-rated days
* the sick leave would accumulate monthly and accrual would start immediately, even if a new employee might not be able to access said days until after being employed 90 days (probationary period)
* you could carry over days, but employers wouldn't be required to permit the accumulation of more than 7 per year (meaning employers could allow them to accumulate to whatever level they choose above the 7 days)
* you can accumulate and use the sick time in hourly increments
* an employer may only require an employee to provide certification from a health professional if the absence covers more than three consecutive work days, and the employee would then have to provide the employer with such certification within thirty days
* employers could be fined for not properly posting the notice of this law
* employers may not eliminate or reduce existing leave policies to comply with the provisions of the proposed law and should not be discouraged from providing a more generous leave policy
* unions could still bargain for more leave
* employers cannot use paid sick leave taken pursuant to this Act as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action; or count the use of paid sick leave under a no-fault attendance policy
Wow - and those are just the highlights that do not include the record-keeping and auditing requirements. I wonder if anyone's bothered to calculate the cost such a mandate would impose upon companies.
This is NOT a business-friendly act - though it certainly sounds good on the surface. But while it may appear to be family-friendly in the short term, it has significant potential for long-term negative consequences.
I've got news for you, Ohioans for Healthy Families: If you want a family-friendly state, you need a state that first has JOBS for those families - not laws that drive businesses - and eventually families - away.
Unfortunately, it seems that such advice is falling on deaf ears in Ohio as the "Sick Days Ohio" group would rather focus on creating a 'family-friendly' state.
Sick Days Ohio is the website for Ohioans for Healthy Families who identifies themselves as:
"Ohioans for Healthy Families is a growing statewide coalition of citizens and organizations who are leading the effort to make Ohio the most family-friendly state in America.
Working together, religious, community, labor, health care, professional and family groups are advocating for Ohio employees to earn paid sick days so they can take care of themselves or their family members when illness hits.
The partner groups and leaders who make up Ohioans for Healthy Families come from diverse backgrounds and different parts of the state, but they share one thing in common: They value Ohio families and believe our citizens shouldn't have to choose between taking care of a sick child or spouse and their paycheck."
They have proposed and are supporting a new law, the Ohio Healthy Families Act, that would require employers with 25 or more employees to provide up to 7 paid sick days each year. They state that the Act, "would ensure middle-class workers — the backbone of Ohio's economy — have the opportunity to earn paid sick days." Of course, the sick days would actually apply to ALL employees, not just middle-class workers, and the definition of 'full-time' in order to qualify for the 7 paid days is 30 hours/week. Oh - and having the state mandate, though law, those days does NOT equate to "earning" them.
The group has gathered around 140,000 signatures but plans to continue to gather more before submitting the proposal to the legislature in January, according to campaign manager Brian Dunn. The issue needs at least 120,683 valid signatures. After submission of the petitions, the legislature has four months to enact the bill. If it fails to do so, the Ohioans for Healthy Families coalition has 90 days to collect the same amount of additional valid signatures to place the measure on the fall 2008 ballot for a vote by Ohioans.
Some interesting components of the proposed Act:
* people who work part-time would get pro-rated days
* the sick leave would accumulate monthly and accrual would start immediately, even if a new employee might not be able to access said days until after being employed 90 days (probationary period)
* you could carry over days, but employers wouldn't be required to permit the accumulation of more than 7 per year (meaning employers could allow them to accumulate to whatever level they choose above the 7 days)
* you can accumulate and use the sick time in hourly increments
* an employer may only require an employee to provide certification from a health professional if the absence covers more than three consecutive work days, and the employee would then have to provide the employer with such certification within thirty days
* employers could be fined for not properly posting the notice of this law
* employers may not eliminate or reduce existing leave policies to comply with the provisions of the proposed law and should not be discouraged from providing a more generous leave policy
* unions could still bargain for more leave
* employers cannot use paid sick leave taken pursuant to this Act as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action; or count the use of paid sick leave under a no-fault attendance policy
Wow - and those are just the highlights that do not include the record-keeping and auditing requirements. I wonder if anyone's bothered to calculate the cost such a mandate would impose upon companies.
This is NOT a business-friendly act - though it certainly sounds good on the surface. But while it may appear to be family-friendly in the short term, it has significant potential for long-term negative consequences.
I've got news for you, Ohioans for Healthy Families: If you want a family-friendly state, you need a state that first has JOBS for those families - not laws that drive businesses - and eventually families - away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
