Skip to main content

A blog post from Stephen Herzenberg, originally published on Third and State.

As a kid living near Manchester in the north of England, my first love was cricket. The sport (it is a sport) comes up nowadays when I use the phrase “it’s not cricket” — as in, it’s not acceptable, it’s not done.

In a report circulated to Philadelphia City Council and the media (but not online that I can find), Dr. William Dunkelberg estimated the cost to employers of enacting paid sick days legislation in Philadelphia. Even if you oppose paid sick days, you shouldn’t use the Dunkelberg estimates because, well,  “It’s not cricket.”  The estimates are so transparently inflated that folks who live in a fact-based world shouldn’t use them.

Dr. Dunkelberg, the Chief Economist of the National Federation of Independent Business, conducted an analysis of implementing paid sick days, concluding that it would cost $350 million to $752 million to implement, and would reduce employment by 4,000 jobs.

So what’s wrong with this estimate? (This post draws from a more extended critique of Dunkelberg online.)

The most basic mistake is that Dr. Dunkelberg double counts the maximum cost of paid sick days. He assumes that workers will take all their legally permitted paid sick days each year, costing $350 million. He then says that some of the absent workers will be temporarily replaced. The maximum cost of this, if every worker is replaced, would be another $350 million. So that gets you to $700 million. Add $52 million in compliance costs at businesses that already have paid sick days and you get Dunkelberg’s $752 million figure.

But wait a minute. If workers aren’t sick, they get their job done at a cost to the employer of $350 million. If those workers are out sick and temporary replacements are hired, the work still gets done but somehow it costs the employer an additional $700 million? Wrong. The additional cost is $350 million — $700 million minus $350 million equals $350 million. I keep asking myself, am I missing something here? He can’t possibly have made this kind of mistake, can he? He can and he did.

Beyond this, consider two assumptions that drive Dr. Dunkelberg’s high-cost estimate.

First, he assumes that all workers take all of their sick leave. Evidence from national surveys and San Francisco indicates that people actually take a third to 40% of their permitted leave.  Many workers view paid sick days as insurance — to be saved up in case they are needed, not used as personal days or extra vacation. Using the 40% figure, $350 million becomes $140 million.

Second, let’s consider how much employers actually hire replacements. Data from San Francisco indicate that employers do so less than 10% of the time. That means the additional, out-of-pocket, labor costs (for employers currently without paid sick days) fall to less than $14 million, a far cry from $700 million.

To be fair, there will be some lost productivity when workers are not replaced. It’s hard to say how large this will be. Many workers who are occasionally out sick “get their work done” anyway. (I don’t notice my work disappearing when I’m out.) Where that is not possible (e.g., nursing home care, customer service jobs, hotel housekeeping), other workers may pick up the slack. Based on this, the $14 million might climb to somewhere between $50 million and $100 million.

But wait, we haven’t even considered yet a series of positive benefits from paid sick days:

  • Reduced turnover and recruitment and training costs
  • Improved worker-supervisor relations and higher levels of work effort and commitment as workers’ reciprocate for paid sick days
  • Reduced health problems due to contagion of other workers and of customers or clients

When you take all of these factors into account, there is a solid analytical and empirical reason for believing that implementing paid sick days would pay for itself — or better.

Bottom line, when carefully scrutinized, William Dunkelberg’s analysis of the costs of the proposed Philadelphia paid sick days ordinance is simply not credible. Regardless of whether you think paid sick leave is a good idea or not, if you agree with me about the Dunkelberg study, I hope you won’t use it. Because using something you know is wrong, “that’s not cricket.”

Come back next week for another take on why advanced labor standards such as paid sick leave can be good for the economy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Here is the policy I like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I know that some people don't have any paid vacation or paid sick days which is very unfortunate. However, for organizations who provide both there is a trend to combine them to Personal Time Off or PTOs. Each year you have a certain number of PTOs and you can take them as vacation, or sick days, or both. At the end of the year your balance goes to zero so you are encouraged to take the time off during the year. If you are in December, and have extra PTOs, it's a great time to use them to take time off during the holidays. It also prevents an organization of having large numbers of accrued vacation days as a liability on its financial statements, and limits the amounts paid when people change jobs.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

  •  That is indeed far from pukka (0+ / 0-)

    You're very generous in describing it as a "mistake", without mentioning the possibility that it might in fact be a "deception".

  •  Working 'dog sick', because you can't afford (0+ / 0-)

    to lose the pay, truly sucks. Been there, done that.

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Fri May 27, 2011 at 09:22:41 AM PDT

  •  Last thing we need is somebody coughing and (0+ / 0-)

    sneezing all the way through a closed door meeting. Or coughing and sneezing cafeteria employees. Who needs that?

    Republican stupidity is just incurable.

  •  Dunkelberg also assumes (0+ / 0-)

    that a sick employee who comes to work (a "presentee") is going to be as fully productive as he would be if he were well. This doesn't sound realistic to me. You've probably got a significant productivity loss just from the employee being sick, whether or not he takes a day off. The costs associated with that loss can't be attributed to the sick-leave policy because they're going to be incurred whether or not there's paid sick-leave.

    My understanding is that a majority of small businesses would actually like to implement paid sick leave but they find (or maybe just believe) that the costs of administering the system would be too high. If that's the case, there's an opportunity for entrepreneurship here: provide (possibly through a Web-based service) administrative managment of sick-leave for small businesses that don't really have HR departments.

    The opposition to paid sick leave seems to come mostly from large businesses, which have on various issues expressed a willingness to sacrifice profitability for increased control over their employees. Managers in such organizations are putting their personal alpha-male needs (which even female bosses tend to have) ahead of the organization's real needs.

    If you Google "headache brain tumor", you will come away convinced that your headache is actually cancer—Seth Mnookin

    by ebohlman on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:49:39 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site