Paid Sick Days Legislation has Overwhelming Support, Polling Shows

86% of the public favors legislation that would mandate seven paid sick days per year for all employers, according to study sponsored by the Public Welfare Fund in collaboration with the National Partnership of Women and Families (full results here).  Even when the public is asked about mandating nine paid sick days per year, 71% still support the proposed legislation.  The study found that paid sick days legislation enjoys deep public support across all demographics and political leanings, including large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats.

In response to the statement, “Paid sick days is a basic worker right, just like being paid a decent wage,” not only did 75% of public agree, but on a scale of 1 to 10 signifying agreement, 43% rated the statement a 10 and 64% agreed strongly (rating it an 8 or higher). 

The issue strongly colors how voters view elected officials, with 47% saying they would favor a candidate who supports paid sick days, while only 14% said they would not support that candidate. 

Job Losses Suffered Due to Need for Sick Days Drives Opinion:  Driving the poll numbers is the reality that too many workers have lost a job or been threatened with losing a job because they needed to take a sick day for themselves or to care for a family member.  One out of every six people (16%) has lost their job for missing work due to illness, and one in four (25%) has been told they would either lose their job or be suspended or punished.  And while 64% of workers are “eligible” for paid sick leave, the real picture is much more dire:

• Less than half of the workforce (47%) can take a paid sick day to care for a sick child or family member, meaning most parents either have to risk their job to care for their children or send them to school sick.
• Most workers (58%) whose employers offer only generic “paid time off” get a total of 10 days or less per year to cover vacation, personal, and sick leave.
• 55% of people without paid sick days have had to go to work sick, compared to 37% of workers who can take a paid sick day.
• 24% of those without paid sick days have had to send a sick child to school because they couldn't get the day off, while only 14% of those with paid sick days had to do so.

Public Does Not Believe Paid Sick Days Hurts Business Bottom Line: While paid sick days legislation has faced vigorous opposition from some in the business community, in most of the 23 states where it has been introduced, the public overwhelmingly rejects the typical arguments that paid sick days will harm jobs or individual businesses. The research indicates that their messages are not persuasive to voters:

• 54% of those polled find "very convincing" the argument that "Requiring paid sick days doesn't hurt employers' bottom line" because paid sick days increases worker productivity.
• By contrast, only 26% of those polled found the opposition argument "very convincing" that "Given the economic downturn we are now in, businesses can't afford to add new benefits like paid sick leave."

In fact, while almost all of the arguments in favor of paid sick days were viewed by majorities as "very convincing," no arguments by opponents were considered "very convincing" and only four of seven opposing arguments were seen as even "somewhat convincing" by more than half of those surveyed.

Reinforcing the polling numbers is the reality that where paid sick days have actually been implemented, such as the City of San Francisco, even original opponents of the policy, are now applauding its success.  In a recent Business Week article, the such as the Golden Gate Restaurant Association stated that paid sick days has been “the best public policy for the least cost" since the policy was enacted.

On June 15, voters in Trenton, New Jersey, soundly rejected a proposal to sell a majority of Trenton Water Works' infrastructure, including pipes, water towers, and tanks, to a private company.  For several years, Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer argued that water privatization would generate immediate revenue for the cash-strapped city and end its obligation to maintain aging infrastructure in surrounding townships.  Community activists, unions, and the Stop the Sale campaign, successfully challenged the Mayor's plan.  In the weeks leading up to the vote, polling indicated that 95 percent of city residents disapproved of the initiative.

Opponents of the sale found that selling the city's "most valuable asset" to a private corporation would have resulted in an approximate loss of $25 million annually, a cumulative decline of $400 million in revenue over the next 20 years, an inevitable increase in local taxes, and higher water rates.  

History of Consumer Losses in Other Cities: Though water privatization is not as common as other contracted services, there are several problems associated with the effort.  For example, following a $38 million fine for pollution resulting from inadequate maintenance of the city's sewer and water systems, the Atlanta City Council signed a 20-year, $428 million contract with the private firm, United Water. The deal led to massive layoffs, a 12 percent rise in sewer bill rates, incidence of slow repairs, and substantial revenue loss due to poor water metering.  The City Council voted to rescind the contract in 2002, a move that saved Atlanta millions of dollars per year.

NJ Gov. Christie Pushing Privatization: Even in light of overwhelming public opposition to privatization and the significant pitfalls of these actions, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie established a privatization panel by executive order in early April, seeking to identify $50 million in savings.  As part of this initiative, the Governor has proposed privatizing functions of the New Jersey Network (NJN), the only non-partisan public television and radio news source that exclusively covers the state. Not only would privatization threaten news coverage in the state, but it would also risk the loss of state assets, such as broadcast licenses, towers, studios, and media equipment.

Several organizations are working diligently to protect the state's assets and resist privatization, including the Communication Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO, and Free Press.  Progressive lawmakers are intent on restoring funding to the network and pushing back against the effort to privatize. Asm. John Wisniewskihas introduced A 2949, which establishes the New Jersey Public Media Corporation, allowing NJN to operate as a state agency with more autonomy in the areas of hiring, procurement of equipment, leasing of assets, and labor relations.  As Progressive States Network has previously detailed, legislative action to limit privatization is necessary to safeguard against the loss of accountability and public revenue that these misguided schemes often produce.

Illinois has enacted a law that will take away a necessary protection for landline phone consumers. SB 107 strips away the authority of the Illinois Commerce Commission to ensure that landline phone users — residing in 78 percent of households in the state - receive reliable and affordable phone service.

Under the law, Internet-based phone services would be completely unregulated.  The ICC has been instrumental in promoting universal access to telecommunications services in the state, as mandated by the state’s Telecommunications Act that was last updated in 2001. It required a service provider to offer high-speed Internet access to at least 90 percent of homes outside of the Chicago Metropolitan area. This newly enacted law eliminates such requirement and the ability of Illinoisans to access affordable High-Speed Internet services. Consequently, the law threatens to reduce investment in broadband that could make the state more competitive in the global market.

Supporters of the law say that it will create competition and profits that will in turn translate into the creation of new jobs and services. However, a review of the bill reveals that employment generation is nowhere in its contents. Labor representatives in other states have confirmed that deregulation of telephony has driven down employment in the industry.

Moreover, a decrease in oversight is likely to result in higher costs for phone usage.  Even supporters have acknowledged that prices for services could increase. Quality will also be affected by the law. Instead of requiring repair of landline service within 24 hours, the waiting window will be extended to 30 hours. Further, consumers will be unable to lawfully demand service quality standards from telecommunications companies.

Other Deregulation Attempts Blocked in Colorado and Wisconsin:  A similar bill in Colorado, which was thankfully vetoed by the Governor, threatened to deregulate basic telephone service and negatively affect pricing and service quality. HB 1281 would have removed all authority from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to regulate phone services. The bill would have also stripped away price and service-quality guarantees overseen by the Colorado PUC. In Wisconsin, SB 469 was introduced to also deregulate landline telephone business and leave residents, especially from rural areas, without adequate service.  Consumer groups in Wisconsin have also voiced their concern that less regulation could lead to less investments in broadband infrastructure.

Massive Rate Hikes in California Following Deregulation: After abandoning oversight of the telecommunications, California consumers experienced hikes ranging from 50 to 276 percent in the following features: select custom calling services, local directory assistance, fees for returned checks, local toll rates, fees for having an unlisted numbers, and fees for late payments.  And the promise to a competitive playing field that would create jobs and increase customer choices has not occurred.

Marking the 90 day anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama used the occasion to announce the implementation of a Patient’s Bill of Rights. After meeting privately with health insurance CEOs and state insurance commissioners, the White House sent a signal to insurers and to the public that the President intends to monitor how the insurance industry responds to the law’s implementation. In warning industry executives to refrain from using the law as an opportunity to boost unjustifiable rate increases, the Administration unveiled new regulations that will govern how new consumer protection provisions are implemented.

The Patient’s Bill of Rights rules are designed to clamp down on some of the most notorious practices of the insurance industry. After September 23rd,

• Insurers are prohibited from denying coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions.
• Certain annual and all lifetime limits on benefits would be prohibited.
• Insurers would no longer be allowed to drop coverage when policy holders get sick.

The rules also ensure the ability choose a primary care doctor or pediatrician, lift the requirement of needing a referral to see an OB-GYN and dismiss the need for prior approval if out of network emergency care is needed.

While the new law does not grant the federal government authority to regulate premiums, Obama pointed to states such as Maine, Pennsylvania and New York that are investigating sudden spikes in health insurance rates. Pennsylvania is investigating the state's nine largest health insurers over rate increases that Governor Ed Rendellcalls exorbitant. California officials have investigated WellPoint's proposed 39% increases that the insurer later called a mistake.

The 196 pages of new regulations were simultaneously released by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services and come on the heels of findings from a Kaiser Foundation survey that premiums for the policies most recently bought by individuals have increased by an average of 20 percent.