EDIT: Massachusetts Ballot Question 4

The old adage that no work results in no pay may no longer be relevant in Massachusetts after Tuesday’s elections.

Massachusetts ballot Question 4 proposes an alteration to the sick time rules for Massachusetts workers. Currently, if a worker takes a day off, he or she will not be compensated. Question 4 provides that a worker may accrue a maximum of 40 hours of paid sick time per year after just 90 days of employment. An employee can earn an hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, whether they are part-time, full-time or working on a “temporary basis.” A “Yes” vote results in the passage of these new rules, while a “No” vote would leave the current system as is.

It’s one thing for a low-income worker to require a day off to take his or her child to the doctor without missing a paycheck, but these regulations would allow anybody to take a paid day off at leisure, making it difficult for businesses to function smoothly. For this reason, The Daily Free Press endorses a “No” vote on Question 4.

One of the fundamental issues with this sick time system is how easy it is to abuse. Although the question specifies that days off may be taken for the worker’s or worker’s family doctor appointments, illnesses or psychological issues, it doesn’t take a genius to bend the truth a bit. A worker can simply declare him or herself sick and miss work with the knowledge that he or she will still be paid.

Another problem with Question 4 is that whoever covers for the person using sick hours also needs a paycheck for the extra hours worked. Thus, the employer would have to pay two paychecks.

“Passage of Question 4 will increase the cost for employers and directly lead to fewer benefits and/or lower wages for workers,” according to the No on Question 4 website. “Taxpayers will pay for sick leave for public employees and for taxpayer subsidized workers. Employers in the service industry, such as retail, restaurants and hotels, would find this mandate twice as costly, as they must pay for a replacement employee to cover the shift of a worker taking sick leave. That doesn’t sound fair, because it’s not.”

It would be wrong to say there are not valid arguments for voting “Yes.” When a worker is the only household member earning money and can’t afford to miss a paycheck, it’s a difficult situation.

“Thousands of hardworking people in Massachusetts are forced to choose between going to work sick or losing a day’s pay — or worse, their jobs,” wrote Debra Ann Fastino, co-chair
 of Raise Up Massachusetts, in a letter posted on the Secretary of State William Galvin’s website. “Some are even forced to send a sick child to school to save their income or job… Businesses providing sick time find that it reduces employee turnover, increases productivity and helps their bottom line.”

While this argument is certainly thought provoking, passing Question 4 would cast an umbrella over all of Massachusetts workers, rendering all employees identical in the eyes of the government. Yes, the primary caretaker and breadwinner of a family should be granted a day off to take care of a sick child. But why should the 16 year old making supplemental spending money at McDonald’s be paid for missing work? Furthermore, allowing the system to start after 90 days of working is far too early. A month and a half of employment is a very short amount of time to start extending paid time off.

We think a couple of changes in the proposed system could make for a better ballot question in a future election. For one, only primary breadwinners and full-time employees should be allowed to accrue paid sick hours. Workers who are dependent on someone else’s salary for survival, such as teenagers working part-time jobs, should not be allowed paid days off if they aren’t living off of their paychecks.

Second, the paid hours should be earned at a slower pace and after a longer period of time. Thirty hours of work is about a week of part-time working, not nearly enough to result in a free hour to be paid for nothing, especially after working only 90 days. This could be a great job benefit for people who have worked at the same place for a number of years, not days.

It’s true that happier employees are more productive, and paid sick time could be a great system in the future. Although The Daily Free Press would vote “No” on Question 4 this year due to its overly generous nature, we think a few alterations to the proposition could result in a “Yes” a few years down the line.