This post is a bit more political than I normally get in my blog, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with citizens, and private lobby groups, legislating through ballot initiatives. We have elected legislators who are charged with making the laws, and to allow special interest groups to make an end-run around the legislature thwarts the effectiveness of our government. It really makes no difference whether the proposed law is a good idea or not, the proper procedure for effectuating change is through lobbying our elected officials. If we don't get the results we want, we have the power to elect new members to Congress.
The issue I'm addressing today is specific to Ohio, but the heart of the problem could have a much broader reach. The group Ohioans for Healthy Families has been trying to get a law passed that would require all employers with 25 or more employees to provide seven sick days to all full-time employees, and a prorated number of sick days to part-time employees. When the lobbying efforts failed, they obtained twice the number of signatures required to get the issue on the November ballot. Now, it may be up to the voters to determine how many sick days their employers will offer - how do you think that vote will go?
The Ohioans for Healthy Families claims that 2.2 million Ohioans have no sick leave and that it is morally wrong to force them to choose between taking care of a sick family member or getting a paycheck.
Coalition Communications Director Dale Butland said:
“When over 275,000 Ohio voters signed their names to the paid sick day petition last December, we hoped the General Assembly would honor the wishes of the people who elected them and pass the law themselves. But the House and Senate leadership turned their backs on the people and climbed into bed with the CEOs and corporate lobbyists who always oppose measures designed to treat middle class workers and families fairly.”
“Now that more than another 240,000 Ohio voters have signed petitions, well over half a million Ohioans have made their voices heard. They don’t want to lose a job or a paycheck simply because they or their children get sick. They don’t understand why they should be denied what workers in every other industrialized country in the world already have. And they’re not buying the scare tactics or the hypocrisy of executives and politicians who all have paid sick days themselves, but say they’re too expensive for regular people. Ohioans believe in family values. And this November, they’ll be able to prove it by voting for a law that values families.”
The group is running this ad:
Many business groups oppose the measures, saying they hurt businesses through lost worker revenue and high administrative costs. The National Federation of Independent Business/Ohio released a study last week concluding that the state’s proposed measure would cost businesses $1.17 billion in additional costs and $9.4 billion in lost sales. It estimates 75,000 jobs would be lost over five years due to the mandate. (see the Wall Street Journal)
Bill Harris, the Ohio Senate President, opposes the measure. He has been working with other State officials to keep it off the ballot because he does not want Ohio to be seen as a state that is unfriendly to business. Ohio has been particularly hit by the erosion of blue collar jobs. Many towns across the state that once had stable manufacturing jobs have been suffering. Many businesses that once provided decent paying jobs with good benefits have left or closed down. Some have been replaced by smaller companies that don't provide the same level of employment opportunities - these would be the most effected by the new law. But, the new law would also make it more difficult to attract new businesses to Ohio as the cost of doing business here would be higher than other regions without similar regulations.
Public opinion polls conducted by The Columbus Dispatch, Quinnipiac University and others have consistently found over 70% support for the measure across party lines. But what does this really say? In my opinion, it's like asking a group of fifth graders if they want chocolate cake for dinner. Of course people want more sick days.... it's all in how you phrase the question. The results would have been vastly different if they asked "would you support a measure that would cause the loss of 75,000 jobs statewide?"
Personally, my opposition to such legislation has very little to do with my position on sick days and much more to do with my distaste for the coalition's methods of obtaining them. I believe that every employer has a responsibility to provide the best benefits they can, within reason, to their employees. My employees are like family to me. I am not normally affected by these types of laws because I have too few employees to fall within their reach. I'm not subject to FMLA, for instance. However, I still do far more than I am required by law to do for my employees. On multiple occassions, I have paid my employees at half of their normal rate for maternaty leave. I wish I could have afforded to pay them their full pay, but I'm not required to offer paid leave at all. On another occassion, after an employee had complications from routine surgery, I paid her for six weeks off at her full rate. Again, not because I had to, but because I felt an obligation to help her through a rough time. Her rent payments weren't going to be suspended and her other bills were still arriving in her mailbox - what else was she to do?
To me, this is an issue of corporate responsibility. As a matter of law, I do not believe that Ohio should be forcing these kinds of mandates on employers; however, as a matter of policy, Ohio should be encouraging employers to do the right thing by fostering an economic environment that helps employers provide better jobs and benefits. Small businesses should be responsible members of their communities and there should be more support for them when they do step up and provide for their employees. We need stronger ties between our local governments and the employers in small towns across the state. This kind of legislation creates a one-way street that only burdens employers and it could force some businesses to close down or relocate.
As a more fundamental issue, legislating from the ballot box is simply wrong. Perhaps it is a pure form of democracy, but that isn't how our government was formed. The founding fathers of our country took great pains to plan a republic form of government - many were terrified of democracy.
Take a look at the Pledge of Allegiance, for example:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Have you ever wondered why it doesn't say "to the democracy for which it stands?" Today, the terms "republic" and "democracy" are pretty much used interchangeably, but that wasn't always the case. I think legislating through ballot initiatives provides an excellent example of why our founding fathers were careful to create a republic - not a democracy. They were fearful that if important decisions were left to simple majority rule, the rights of the minority would be trampled.
In the case of the sick day initiative, the employers are clearly in the minority - employees certainly out number them at the polls. Regardless of whether the effects of such a law are in the best interest of society at large, or our state's economy, it would certainly pass in a general election.
Our founding fathers believed that while we need to spread out the power of leadership in our country, such responsibility should be placed in the hands of the most virtuous of citizens. As repugnant as it may sound today, they believed an elite class should rule - mainly, it was to be land owners. It was believed at the time that those who worked the land were the most virtuous. And, only the virtuous members of our society could be trusted to act in the best interest of the nation - forsaking their own selfish interests. If left to a pure democracy, where simple majority rule governed, the masses would surely vote whatever they felt was in their best interest - regardless of what was in the best long-term interest of our country.
What we have today can be termed a "representative democracy." We elect our legislators and they have a duty to represent us when they make new laws. Sometimes, that requires making unpopular decisions for the betterment of our society. Much like a parent would say "No, you can't have chocolate cake for dinner," our legislators must conisder more than just our individual short-term desires when they pass laws that will have a broader long-term impact on our society.
If we do not like the decisions our legislators make, we have redress at the polls by electing them out of office. We have the power to support different candidates who share our ideals, but, no matter who is elected, they have the same responsibilty to look out for the best interest of our communities as a whole. Taking the legislature out of the law-making process eliminates a level of necessary protection from our own selfishness.
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE