How far should government go to contribute toward its citizens’ standard of living?
Or, to put it another way, is it the role of legislators to create an even playing field for Oregon residents by essentially taking from those who have the initiative to build businesses – and the state’s economy – to provide a boost for those who don’t?
Those age-old questions essentially underlie some Oregon Legislature’s activities as it winds down its 2015 session with with one law in the bag and two more in the works to raise pay, provide paid sick leave and provide a state-operated retirement savings plan for workers whose employers don’t offer one.
Any of us who have tried to figure out where the money is going to come from to put food on the table, or to get the car fixed, or to pay the rent, can sympathize with the challenges faced by low-paid workers. Those of us who have looked at our Social Security print-out realize that just trusting Uncle Sam isn’t going to cut it and maybe we’d better invest more now in our post-retirement circumstances. Anybody who’s had to miss work with an employer who doesn’t cover sick days should feel some appreciation for that concept.
n On Friday, June 12, Oregon’s House passed a bill, already approved by the Senate, which would require employers with at least 10 workers to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave each year, which can be used to take care of employees’ own illnesses or a family member’s. Businesses smaller than that would have to offer unpaid leave. If the governor signs it into law as advocates believe she will, it will be the fourth state in the country with such a requirement.
Supporters of the law say an estimated 47 percent of workers in the state do not have access to paid sick days, including more than 70 percent of low-wage workers. Eugene and Portland already have passed such requirements.
n Three bills are working their way through the legislative chambers to raise Oregon’s minimum wage, in graduated steps – one to $15 per hour by 2018.
n Another bill passed by the House last week is one that would create a state-sponsored retirement plan for Oregon workers whose employers don’t already provide such. The program would be modeled after the Oregon College Savings Plan, a public-private partnership in which investors pay into stock portfolios managed by TIAA-CREF. The program is self-sustaining, with a small portion of each person’s earnings returning to the state to fund administrative costs.
n Though not a bill that would necessarily cost an employer money, senators last week backed a proposal making it illegal for potential employers to ask about criminal records on job applications. The so-called “ban the box” bill would prohibit that question on job applications, but an employer could still ask about convictions during an interview.
Supporters said it’s very difficult for people with a criminal record to find employment because of a previous conviction. They argued it gives job-seekers a chance to explain their conviction, their more recent conduct and their qualifications. Critics have expressed concerns that it would increase lawsuit risk for businesses.
So, other than being curmudgeonly, why do we have reservations about efforts to help people improve their circumstances? Because somebody has to pay the bill and piling more costs and requirements on Oregon’s small businesses is not the path to better service for state residents and an improved economy. It’s also not the way to encourage business in our state.
Yeah, it’s great to get paid while you’re sick. Democrats who backed the bill made a good point, arguing that workers shouldn’t have to choose between recovering from an illness and preserving their paycheck.
But what if an employer isn’t a skinflint? What if the reason employees don’t get sick leave already is simply because their company can’t afford the risk of that expense? As any employer who deals with the state knows, the bill will almost certainly result in higher costs for businesses and paperwork challenges.
Regarding the minimum wage, we’ve previously stated why we don’t see mandatory wage requirements as wise or even economically viable policy.
Given that the phase-in for Seattle’s $15 minimum began on April 1, it’s really far too early to draw many defendable conclusions from the effect that law will have on businessand employment. Forbes contributor Tim Worstall reported earlier this year that restaurants in Seattle, which already average less workers than the national median, are closing at higher than normal rates. About a quarter of the city’s minimum wage earners work in restaurants. Apply that to Sweet Home and the picture isn’t necessarily a pretty one.
The retirement program and the “ban the box” bill may not hit employers as hard financially, but the first will require additional record-keeping and the second could be a financial risk on the legal side.
In solving problems, ostensibly, how difficult do legislators want to make it to do business in Oregon?
The fact is, all businesses are ultimately the product of human effort – people who get out of bed in the morning and go to work to produce goods and services, from the coffee you drank for breakfast to the newspaper you’ve got in your hand and the vehicle that delivered it. That’s the case whether one is the owner or the floor-sweeper.
While legislators in Salem – and Los Angeles and Seattle – attempt to improve the lives (and curry votes from) the underprivileged by bettering their paychecks at the expense of employers, business owners have to figure out how to keep their ships on top of the water. Not to be morose, but Seattle isn’t unique. Running a business is hard work, with plenty of stress, and when it gets too difficult, well…
The fact that these bills have full-throated support from Democratic legislators and very little from Republicans prompted us to do a little research. We decided to find out how many of our legislators currently, or in the past, have owned businesses themselves.
Following are the results of our count – and it doesn’t include those who weren’t clearly running their own enterprise, who might be an attorney working for someone else, for instance. In the House, of 25 Republicans, 16 own businesses. Of our Democratic representatives, six of 35 own businesses. In the Senate, all 12 Republicans are business owners. Of the 16 Democrats, zero.
Very interesting.
The end result is someone will have to pay for these initiatives. If the minimum wage were to increase by 50 percent over the next three years, the owner of the local fast-food restaurant or convenience mart is going to have to pay that cost. Prices will rise. All of us will pay.
Yes, there certainly is an element here of concern for others, for solving social problems, which we greatly appreciate. Anyone who has worked for a greedy employer understands that this is not a perfect world and that the problems of the underprivileged certainly are not always simply economic.
But the question is whether it is the purview of our legislature, full of people who have little knowledge of what it takes to run a business, to impose these requirements which, on the surface, would seem to solve problems for lower-income residents.
The figures don’t add up for us and we don’t think it is.