E-mail
Print
You’ve gotta be kidding
Sick day vote soon to be ridiculous reality in Milwaukee
By Kyle Duerstein
“Liberals are hoping everyone in Milwaukee is just stupid enough to pass this anti-business job killing nonsense.”
Last week in this paper, a letter was penned to the editor about how important paid sick days are. The letter’s author, Albulena Shabani’s arguments illustrate how important knowledge of the real world and basic economics are. Shabani obviously has neither.
The special interest groups are out in full force on this issue, but I can’t figure out what they’re collectively smoking. Perhaps they don’t have a clue either.
I got a call from someone after they read Shabani’s letter last week. This person works for a large company with many locations in the city. She’ll actually be losing benefits at her job, because in order to demonstrate compliance with this law if it passes, they’ll transition from a paid time off (PTO) arrangement to this new nine paid sick day crap.
Under the old arrangement, unused PTO days get rolled over and accumulate so that employees can take their time off when they really need it. If this law passes, they’ll get 9 paid sick days a year, and whatever’s not used at the end of the year, they’ll lose. Some great result for that new law, huh?
Shabani’s claim that we have it harder than any other generation is foolish. More students today have student loans and help from family to pay their tuition and even their cell phone bills. Sure, more students may be working, but they often have employers who are willing to be more flexible now then they ever were in the past.
In the real world, employers go the extra mile to keep employees who are good at what they do and show a dedication to their job. I don’t know of a business that has fired a single quality employee just because they were legitimately sick a few days a year. I have, however, heard of employers letting go those who perform marginally decent but are sick once a month. It’s about economics for businesses. Replacing a marginal employee who is always out sick is more cost effective. Replacing a high quality employee that misses a day or two often times isn’t worth it.
Additionally, Shabani’s contention that working to earn a living is somehow unethical treatment is absurd. People get sick, they have to miss work, and sometimes, depending on your employer, it means you won’t get paid for the time that you’re not working. Imagine that! Not getting paid for not producing, what a concept! The tragedy.
There’s a reason why companies don’t want to locate in Milwaukee. They can’t afford the anti-business atmosphere and crazy notions, like NINE paid sick days. Who’s actually legitimately sick for nine days in a year? Very, very few people.
The sense of entitlement Shabani displays in her letter is telling and demonstrates this fundamental lack of understanding I began this column outlining. You’re not entitled to anything. If you’re working for a company whose time off or sick day policy you don’t like, get a different job or talk to your employer to see if something can be arranged that works for you. If employers begin losing quality employees, it will be in their best interest to increase their benefits arrangement, including time off and sick days. If you can’t afford to get a job elsewhere, be glad you at least have one. Many people don’t, and if this stupid referendum passes, many more will lose theirs.
Small businesses owners with 14 employees may just eliminate four or five positions so that this new law doesn’t apply to them. For small business, the burden of this new law may just be too much, causing them to contemplate whether they should even bother staying in business, or at least whether or not to stay in the city of Milwaukee.
As if our job market isn’t in rough enough shape. As if unemployment in the city of Milwaukee isn’t bad enough. Now add on businesses downsizing or relocating outside of the city because of this stupid law. You may not find another job once you leave your current one.
Liberals think the populous is stupid. That’s why they believe that the government needs to run EVERYTHING. That’s why this is on the ballot. Liberals are hoping everyone in Milwaukee is just stupid enough to pass this anti-business job killing nonsense.
By the looks of things, if everyone in Milwaukee voting for the socialism that will accompany Barack Obama, they’ll likely vote for this referendum as well. And they’ll all blame the businesses when they get laid off and demand some other regulation or mandate, which will inevitably make things even worse. A vote for paid sick days is a vote to run more businesses out of Milwaukee and repel away those thinking about starting or moving here.
For those of you looking for a job, this law will make your search much longer and much less fruitful. I really do wish I was kidding, but I’m not.
Kyle Duerstein is a Student Association Senator
> Comments
A Literate Member of Society on Nov 03, 2008 at 08:23 PM:
Kyle Duerstein is simply wrong in this letter. Some people should not write letters about legislation they haven't read. Section 3 (h) states: Paid sick leave shall be carried over to the following calendar year; however, an employee's use of sick leave provided under this Act in each calendar year shall not exceed 40 hours for employees of small businesses and 72 hours for employees of all other businesses.
Therefore, the woman who called Kyle (assuming she exists) will not lose her excess paid sick days. Also, her employer does not need to transition from Paid Time Off (PTO) if it meets the required days. The legislation in Section 3 (i) continues: Any employer with a paid leave policy, such as a paid time off policy, who makes available an amount of paid leave sufficient to meet the accrual requirements of this Chapter that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as paid sick leave under this Chapter is not required to provide additional paid sick leave.
So Kyle, maybe your female friend should take your advice and look for a better job since this one is trying to take away or make her PTO less flexible. I'll remind you of your advice that you should (and hopefully already have) give her: "You’re not entitled to anything. If you’re working for a company whose time off or sick day policy you don’t like, get a different job or talk to your employer to see if something can be arranged that works for you
Kyle J. Duerstein on Nov 03, 2008 at 09:18 PM:
So, as that reads, up to three days would be allowed to accumulate. What about the other one day per month in banked PTO time she'll be losing out on? Again, great law ya' wackjobs. The employer is abolishing the PTO system they have because the new law places a greater burden on top of what they've already offered, essentially taking the flexibility of the business to allocate and enforce the spending of days under their existing policy. Instead of being backed into a corner, they'll just abolish it.
My friend wouldn't have to look for a new job to replace the one she's been at for years if you wackjobs wouldn't be screwing around with businesses. That's my whole point. Maybe you're not so literate after all. She's not entitled to anything, but how is she going to find a job with more flexible benefits and sick day plans if the City of Milwaukee and you crazy liberals are outlawing it through this ridiculous referendum.
All Power to the People. on Nov 03, 2008 at 11:28 PM:
"Liberals think the populous is stupid."
It's a referendum. We like the people. We think the businesses and politicians are stupid.
Still Literate on Nov 03, 2008 at 11:53 PM:
Apparently you really cannot read. All unused paid sick time is carried over to the next year, but only a certain amount of days can be used per year depending on the size of the business.
Matt Capristo on Nov 04, 2008 at 08:08 AM:
The point is most business were already offering PTO. The difference between having a business offer PTO and the city mandating it is it's a one size fits all policy to fit a very diverse range of businesses. It takes away the flexibility of a business to offer a policy that is right for the individual business for its very survival. Government has no business in business because frankly government stinks at business.
Common Sense on Nov 04, 2008 at 08:21 AM:
Kyle - most "white collar" workers and professionals are given paid sick days. Executives of the companies that can't afford to come to Milwaukee definitely get paid sick days. Are you suggesting that these workers have poorer health that "blue collar" workers, are more deserving of paid sick days, or that no one should get time off when ill? San Francisco and Washington D.C. have this “stupid law” and they haven’t been forced into bankruptcy. Sick workers are not responsible for the poor state of our economy and they should not be forced to choose between two bad options: 1)go to work sick (and put their co-workers and customers’ health at risk) 2)call in sick to work and receive a smaller paycheck and the possibility of being penalized through reduced hours, less desirable shifts, and even termination.
re: Matt on Nov 04, 2008 at 08:28 AM:
It is not a "one size fits all policy." There are allowances made for small businesses. It’s also not a complicated issue, so it doesn’t make sense that each company needs to come up with a custom- designed policy for sick leave. If a business' survival depends on not allowing workers a few days off a year for an illness, that company is in pretty bad shape and might not be an asset to the community.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Nov 04, 2008 at 08:55 AM:
Until you morons start using your real names, anything you say is meaningless and irrelevant.
I hope you do use your real names so businesses in the City of Milwaukee know not to hire your undereducated, misinformed, economically stupid sorry excuses for "workers." That is if you actually work, I suppose, and aren't, "sick" all the time.
Never has the word moron been more appropriate then to describe you people.
Brigham Young on Nov 04, 2008 at 10:53 AM:
You are all mormons.
Anonymous on Nov 04, 2008 at 11:24 AM:
My thoughts are invalidated by by anonymity. By that logic votes should be invalidated as well. Thanks for that gem Kyle. Learn to read.
Greg on Nov 04, 2008 at 12:40 PM:
I've failed to hear a good rebuttal to the anti-business side of the argument. There are many valid points suggesting how this could hurt business and the local economy and so far no one has made any attempt to address those. Please, if this is such a good idea, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about the unintended consequences of this law.
I've heard all about how this is good for single mothers, college students or anyone else without paid sick leave. But when addressing concerns all I hear is how business need to be part of the community, pull their weight around here, or go ahead and relocate if you don't like it.
Please, someone make a rational assesment of the oppositions view points.
Greg on Nov 04, 2008 at 12:49 PM:
Even the very liberal Journal Sentinal Editorial Board thinks this is a bad idea.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/33664274.html
Re: Greg on Nov 04, 2008 at 12:57 PM:
"I've heard all about how this is good for single mothers, college students or ANYONE else without paid sick leave."
So you've already heard how it is good for almost everyone?
Brigham Young on Nov 04, 2008 at 01:00 PM:
I hate being sick.
I would like fewer sick people handling my food, groceries, toys, clothes, money, etc.
Out of pure self-interest (I hate single mothers, college students, and anyone else), I wish these sick jerks would stay home instead of coughing their phlegm all over my stuff.
Nathan Johnson on Nov 04, 2008 at 01:22 PM:
The UWM Post should not accept publishing further writings by Kyle Duerstein until he cleans up his language ["Never has the word moron been more appropriate then to describe you people."] and treats people with at least a minimum amount of respect ["Albulena Shabani’s arguments illustrate how important knowledge of the real world and basic economics are. Shabani obviously has neither", "you wackjobs", etc]. It is clear that Kyle Duerstein has violated the "User Content Policy" for posting online comments, particularly part 2.
Sam Koller on Nov 04, 2008 at 03:10 PM:
Since Mr Duerstien has asked for a combatant worthy of their name, done.
First, Ali is the one familiar with the real world Mr Duerstein. In the ten years and half a dozen jobs I have worked since high school, I have never once encountered an employer who gave nine days of PTO annually for full time employment, much less for part time. Second, I have repeatedly encountered auto fire procedures for missed days, sick or not. That is, if you missed three days in a year, regardless of the reason, you would be fired no matter how good you were.
The American labor market is not a free market. Employees are not free to exit the market freely (without repercussions, IE bankruptcy and starvation). Thus, the free market premise you base your argument upon is invalid.
In the Real World, employers view employees as expendable resources to be replaced easily and quickly. This is especially true in low to minimum wage jobs. Try working at Burger King for a few years full time, Mr Duerstein, and then start talking about the real world. I have been management at two of the places I have worked, been fired only once (arguing with a manager over that fact that the orders he game me where illegal), and have in general been left in autonomous charge of whatever task I have been assigned. At every job I have worked, the general sentiment from some level of management was that the employees could be replaced inside of a week, and where thus totally irrelevant to anything beyond getting the most out of them before they where let go. At several places I have worked, I was told that if corporate disliked the result of an inspection, the entire crew would be fired, regardless of who had actually made a mistake.
Finally, your attitude toward natural rights is UnAmerican. We are entitled to things, like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, petitioning for the redress of grievances and trial by peers. However, there is one right that is so often overlooked by those advocates of the free market. Allow me to show it to you; Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I thus exercise my 9th amendment rights and retain the right to nine paid sick days a year.
Michelle R. English on Nov 04, 2008 at 03:13 PM:
While all the bickering is interesting, why don't we consider the overall impact of this legislation.
Kyle, it's nice that you never get sick. Bully for you. I have children, and when my kids are sick, my daycare refuses to take them. This by extension, means that I must use a sick day. Am I being unproductive on that day? Hell no. I'm caring for children who have a potentially communicable disease that if they spread it to other children, mean that more people will miss work, and more money will be lost by more businesses because there will be fewer employees available to produce goods. And I am also using that time to monitor my own health, and do what I may to prevent my children from passing whatever they've caught to me, and/or discern if I HAVE caught what they have. As the incubation period of various infectious contagions tends to overlap (most are communicable while they are incubating, therefore if you're going to catch it, odd are you did so before the symptoms ever manifested in your child), by the time my kids have recovered from their illnesses, I can be fairly certain I either have or will not likely catch the illness myself. This in turn protects my co-workers from catching the illness from me, as I made a responsible choice and kept myself away from them. Is this in any way an unproductive or 'anti-business' behavior? I've been a manager in food service, and have had to send people home, knowing that I'd be shorting myself crew members. My logic in that case is I'd rather be short one person today than three people tomorrow. Is that Anti-Business? If you are fool enough to say it is then I truly pray that nobody is stupid enough to put you in charge of anything more taxing that looking after a pet rock.
And for the record, it is ILLEGAL for persons with communicable infections to work in health and food service. Would you prefer that people go to work sick because they cannot make their rent if they lose pay, and risk infecting an enormous amount of other people by coughing, sneezing, or even just breathing on your food? If so, let me know, and I'll come be your cook the next time I have influenza, bronchitis, or gastroenteritis, and then you can enjoy my germs in your food. Or would you rather businesses be made responsible for maintaining the health of their workforce by compensating those who must miss work due to illness of injury? I'd rather see one person get paid sickleave then a dozen people take unpaid sickleave and watch the productivity of a business fall far beyond the economic hit taken by that one person taking time off to protect the health of their co-workers and customers.
In addition, there is a difference between most PTO programs, which require prescheduling time off (nice for vacations and major operations that you can arrange in advance) and sick days. nobody can predict when they are going to be ill, or have another reason why they have to miss work. I could have used paid leave last winter, when my son's daycare was closing on an average of once a week due to inclement weather, which meant I had to miss work or school because there was nobody to care for my one year old. Or perhaps you think parents should simply ignore their children's needs.
Another example, hopefully one you may understand, but then again, you've asserted that nobody gets sick often enough to use nine sick days a year, so perhaps not... College students (this applies to you, right?) have a verifiable record of increased rates of illness during two particular months of the year. December, and May. The reason for this is simple. Stress suppressed the immune system. Suppressing the immune system means lowered resistance to infectious pathogens. Which means, in layman's terms, stress makes it easier to get sick. Tell me, do you find the run up to finals at all stressful? Most students would say yes. Those who don't are either ignorant of the significance of finals, or indifferent to the grades they will receive. Granted, good preparation and self-confidence do ameliorate this state somewhat, but ultimately, the two weeks before finals, and finals week are the most stressful periods in a college student's life. If these students have jobs, and they get sick, not having the knowledge of financial protection in some form, such as paid sick leave adds to this stress, extending the time it takes to recover from illness, and placing an unnecessary burden on those students.
The net effect of this legislation, ultimately, will be to force employers to be more responsible for their employees, and perhaps it will remind employers that their workforce is made up of PEOPLE, not disposable automatons.
Quite frankly, Mr. Duerstein, I think you would be better served to realize that the 'white collar' jobs are an extremem minority of the employment available in Milwaukee, and America as a whole, and consider that you might not be able to find the kind of job you're expecting. A college degree is often useless once you're through with college, and in today's economic climate, the idea of employee benefits is going the way of the dodo. Mandating that employers make provisions for the most basic requirements to keep their employee base healthy and productive is unfortunately the only way to ensure that the citizens of this country are given fair and equitable treatment for their efforts for the businesses by whom they are employed.
Elizabeth M. Halvorson HN/E3 USN (FMR) on Nov 04, 2008 at 03:14 PM:
Kyle,
As a former medic in the United States Navy I have seen first hand what happens when people go into work sick. You would be surprised how something as simple as the common cold can quickly spread though the work place even with proper hand washing. I have watched work environments both in and out of the service literately come to a halt due to some one's pride or fear of being disciplined / fired for taking a sick day. These are normally individuals you find that arrive to work early or on time, work without complaint, and are also the last to leave. If they are late or feel that they are going to be late they are the first ones on the phone to the boss letting his/her employer know where they are at and what their estimated time of arrival is. These are not people who go out on a nightly basis who drink themselves stupid or suffer from “sunshine sickness” and call in sick on a weekly if not daily basis.
I find it sad that we as individuals can no longer put our health or the health of others before the all mighty dollar. It is also sad that families are also asked to do the same and send their sick children to school when they should be home resting. More children have missed school than previous generations because core family values have been thrown out in place of corporate family values. When I was in the military I never had a problem with taking a day off if my oldest daughter or my twins were sick. Yes the Navy did not issue me a family and did say my now ex-husband who was in the Marines did need to take care of the children too, but they knew I could not bring my children to a daycare sick and get other service members children sick. Now I know many of you will compare the military to the ‘real world’ as apples and oranges, but it’s not. I go into work sick I get my coworkers and boss sick; I send my kids to school and daycare sick I get the other children sick, their teachers sick, and possibly your professor, TA, etc, sick. I also find it hypocritical that a boss of a company (be that boss a single parent or not) can take time off if he/she or their child is sick but if their employee does the same, especially if that employee is a single parent, disciplinary action is taken or that parent is fired for choosing their family first.
Greg on Nov 04, 2008 at 03:47 PM:
9th Ammendment, HA. I'm sure Scalia would be right with you on that one.
Couple points here...
First, still no one has address the concerns of business. It is not an issue of less revenue due to less units being produced. It is an actual cost, an increase in compensation. A direct increase to expenses.
Second, I believe the dissenting opinion does not aruge that working while sick is a bad idea or how hard it is to take care of a sick child...all tough things. I'd say the dissent here is the intrusion of government into the free market. Should government be allowed to mandate compensation and benefit packages for employees? We have a minimum wage, essentially we are laying the group work for a minimum benefit package. This is a slippery slope. Are we really comfortable with this?
Lastly, the argument that the labor market is not a free market is bunk. Tell me why doctors, lawyers, business people get paid better than unskilled laborers...it has everything to do with supply and demand. Employers must offer high priced comp and benefit packages to attract top talent, to spell this out for you...the supply of top talent is small while the demand for it is high which will raise the price. Conversly, the availablilty of unskilled laborors is large while the demand is relativily small, thus employers can pay less comp and benefits.
The period between jobs that Sam uses to discredit the entire theory of a free market work force is nothing but a transitional period. But please remember that there is another option and that option is nothing at all. It is just an unattractive option.
Not every problem can be fixed with laws, actually laws make more problems then they solve.
The world is a cold dark place that is not set up to work for your best interest, get used to it and get past it.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Nov 04, 2008 at 04:18 PM:
Nathan - If me calling you a name causes you injury, then you deserve to be called a moron AND a baffoon. You sir, are both. Even me calling you a stupid piece of crap, which you are, is less invasive than the anonymous commenters who attack me with vulgar, swearing language for my message without addressing the content of the message itself.
Sam - If you think that you can argue for a second that the free market doesn't apply because people supposedly aren't free to leave their jobs without repercussions, you're much more stupid than I may or may not have originally thought. You obviously haven't seen the legions of people leeching off the welfare system, set up to help the poor, but not actually rewarding laziness and unproductivity. Sam, maybe you've encountered an auto-fire procedure because it was developed to help get rid of YOU! Yes Sam, Burger King employees CAN be replaced by someone equally or more competent and/or dependable inside of a week. I'm talking a real job, not a fast food joint. You try getting a real job doing real stuff, and then let me know. Shit happens, deal with it. That is not unAmerican Sam. I suppose you think my disdain for massive government and the taxes and spending that support massive government is unAmerican as well? You would be from the camp that thinks paying taxes is patriotic, which is surprising, cause I'm not convinced you have a job that takes a fair amount of taxes out. Oh Jesus Sam. Well in that case, I retain my 9th Amendment right to think you're an idiot.
Michelle - See my message to Sam. It likely equally applies. Michelle, when you're home taking care of your sick child, what exactly are you getting accomplished for your place of employment? Nothing. You're not contributing a damn bit to their overall productivity for the day. That's why they ought not be legislated to pay you for it. Funny how everyone seems to be talking about food service. I suppose if you look at this from the perspective of, "I work at Burger King, therefore everyone must have things the way I do at Burger King," then yeah, paid sick days sounds great!
Quite honestly, I've stopped reading all the comments at that point. halfway through Michelle's comment. I've got more important things to do, especially today, then try to enlighten the unenlightenable.
Yes, I just made that word up. Deal with it.
Aaron Rodgers on Nov 04, 2008 at 04:43 PM:
"does not aruge that working..."
Aruge?
It's "A-Rodge."
Michelle R. English on Nov 04, 2008 at 05:15 PM:
One point. I'll keep it short so your small mind can handle it. America is very much a service economy. As I said in my rebuttal, the so called 'real' white collar jobs to which you allude are very few and far between. I will be highly amused to see you working in a dead end job with no benefits, asking plaintively "What happened? I'm an educated person, a college graduate! This wasn't supposed to be what happened to ME!" and watching the very service economy you scoff at tell you "Shut up and do your job, college man." Talent and education are NOT rewarded in todays world. Soemthing you would be aware of if you would pull your head out of your ass and look around.
piterasd on Nov 04, 2008 at 05:16 PM:
Our service gives you access to several fully <a href=https://labs.mozilla.com/forum/account.php?u=8226>order cialis</a> licensed pharmacies world wide that provide discount prescription drugs to American's and customers all over the world. <a href=http://tiny.cc/buycialisonline295>order cheap cialis</a> Order all your Prescription Drugs today!
Michelle R. English on Nov 04, 2008 at 10:33 PM:
Well, Kyle, apparently 68% of Milwaukee is made up of those 'morons' who decided that they need the paid sick days. Congratulations, you are in the major minority. And I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion that everyone who voted on this was a stupid person who had no idea what it really means. Good luck in your political future, dumbass.
Greg on Nov 05, 2008 at 08:36 AM:
Nothing like rubbing it in, huh Michelle?
Amanda Mitchell on Nov 05, 2008 at 03:21 PM:
"You're not contributing a damn bit to their overall productivity for the day."
And since when does anybody focus on just one lousy day in 365, huh Kyle? That's incredibly short-sighted. You see, the big picture is that by being paid for a sick day, they have still made their daily salary, can pay for goods and services, and have NOT INFECTED a good number of other people, therefore increasing the LONG-TERM productivity of said business.
You think just because you've got a college degree, the way is paved for you. Well, Kyle, it isn't. Try again, space cadet.
Amanda Mitchell on Nov 05, 2008 at 03:21 PM:
"You're not contributing a damn bit to their overall productivity for the day."
And since when does anybody focus on just one lousy day in 365, huh Kyle? That's incredibly short-sighted. You see, the big picture is that by being paid for a sick day, they have still made their daily salary, can pay for goods and services, and have NOT INFECTED a good number of other people, therefore increasing the LONG-TERM productivity of said business.
You think just because you've got a college degree, the way is paved for you. Well, Kyle, it isn't. Try again, space cadet.
Amanda Mitchell on Nov 05, 2008 at 03:31 PM:
And I apologize for posting twice, my computer decided to screw up at a wonderful moment.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51 PM:
Hey Michelle-
Maybe you didn't read my column, but I did predict that the paid sick days initiative would pass. So, I was right. It's a reality I don't think is for the best, but I was right. We'll see how it stands up in court.