Tracy Press

A small-business owner writes against a bill now in the Assembly.

As a small-business owner who provides sick leave for 10 employees, I still strongly oppose Assembly Bill 2716, which mandates paid sick leave. Mandated expenses — like those contemplated by AB 2716 — end up hurting consumers, businesses and employees alike. This bill is the quintessential lose-lose proposition.

In the face of sudden, drastic cost increases, businesses are forced to cut costs, raise prices or shut their doors. No matter which course is taken, all Californians suffer the consequences.

To generate additional revenue to offset the cost increases imposed by AB 2716, many small businesses will be forced to raise prices. These higher prices will hit our wallets at exactly the wrong time. With rising gas prices and rampant home foreclosures, lawmakers should be finding ways to lighten the financial burdens on California families, not piling them on. Even the employees this bill purports to help will be unpleasantly surprised when they try to spend their sick leave pay, only to find that higher prices mean their money doesn’t go as far.

Some businesses will try to cut costs instead of or in addition to raising prices. Usually, these cost-cutting measures take the form of layoffs. This is especially true when — as in the case of mandated paid sick leave — the costs are higher the more employees you have. For many businesses, the passage of AB 2716 will present a difficult but obvious choice: Cut some jobs, or close the doors and cut them all.

Unfortunately, if paid sick leave becomes government-mandated, employees are more likely to get a different type of leave — the unpaid, unemployed type.

• Mike Cunneen is the owner of Signet Products Inc., a parts manufacturing service in Belmont.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by baritvc , July 19, 2008

Gov't should not have to make laws which businesses should institue on their own. Businesses should treat their employees the way they would want to be treated (?). Would you want to work for an employer who does not provide paid sick leave? If you provide better benefits, you will attract better employees, who in turn will produce a better product.

Yes, the effect to the economny is that prices increase. Everyone pays more for goods and services. If all businesses provide paid sick leave, all costs will go up. Consumers will pay wherever they turn. As a consumer, I'm willing to pay more for such benefits. If I don't pay as a consumer of this product, I will pay as a consumer of health benefits, etc; and I will pay as a taxpayer.

People must face the fact that all goods and services are going up.

...
written by kchapman , July 20, 2008

People are not slaves
They deserve decent benefits for there work.

...
written by solar_biscuit , July 20, 2008

Benefits is one thing, but why should you get paid if you are not there? Benefits for nothing sounds like union rhetoric!

...
written by shurban , July 20, 2008

I know freedom is no longer much of a consideration. however, in a free society employers can hire people for whatever they want and employees, who own their labor, can chose to work for a person or not. When both agree to the terms, they form a contract of employment. When someone no longer likes the terms, the employer can fire the employee, or the employee can quit. There is no force or compulsion. When governments interfere with contracts, they interfere with freedom in an unfair way by helping one to the detriment of the other. This is contrary to the rule of law where the government should just stay out of it and treat both parties the same.

...
written by MarkDavis , July 24, 2008

Scott is wrong about the rule of law. The rule of law simply means that there is due process and that arbitrary decision-making by those in power is not done. What Scott wants is simply less regulation of business. Fair enough, but let's not tie it to concepts incorrectly.

...
written by Bar Fann , July 24, 2008

"however, in a free society employers can hire people for whatever they want and employees, who own their labor, can chose to work for a person or not."

Scott is absolutely correct. Why would government get involved in employment decisions? Look at all the bad things that have happened in this country since government started regulating working conditions. If people want to work in a clock painting radium dials, why should the government stop it? If children want to work for puny wages seven days a week, tying knots in rugs or mining diamonds or yellowcake, who is the nanny government to say that is bad? There is a totally insane law in this state that says that EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY WORKERS THE WAGES THAT THEY EARN, and we actually use the criminal laws (not contract laws) to enforce this odious requirement. Can you believe how outrageous that is? In a truly free market, employers should choose whether or not to pay their employees, and if the employees don't like the employers decision, they could always leave.

I am sure Scott could come up with thousands of other similar government regulations that really interfere with freedom of employment contracts in this country, laws against sexual harassment (in a truly free market, an employer SHOULD be able to force female employees to have sex with the boss in order to keep their jobs), I could go on.

...
written by Bar Fann , July 24, 2008

Our nation will never rise above the detritus unless it abolishes laws governing employer behavior. None of the great nations regulate this stuff. Look at places like, um, like Chad, or the Congo, or Sri Lanka. Even China, which has laws, but doesn't bother toenforce them.

These countries rank among the greatest countries in the world, the freest countries in the world, because their people are free to make their own choices, without unfair interference by the government. How will we ever catch up to the Congo unless we too adopt complete and total freedom of contract for employees and employers? We will forever be relegated to the backwaters of the world, stuck in the doldroms with other crappy places like Canada, until we abolish burdensome regulations that are holding us back.

...
written by MarkDavis , July 24, 2008

Bar Fann: Now that's funny, although I have to admit they shouldn't be because your sarcastic points are obvious to anyone with a heart and a mind :-)

...
written by badattitude , July 25, 2008

BRAVO Bar Fann!!!!!!! My hackles raised with the first sentences. Glad I read on!

...
written by kchapman , July 25, 2008

Without Unions there would be no middle class
or middle upper class, blue collar whatever you want to call it.

People are not slaves, did I mention that!

How are we to consume with slave wages?

You what us to eat only bread and water and bow to the master and say thank you while you reap all the wealth on our backs?

And you employers from other Countries, stop and think about why you came to America in the first place and it's not because we have slaves here.

Think about it,

That's all