Workplace Fairness

Menu

Skip to main content

  • print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
    text

The Coronavirus Outbreak Shows the Disgrace of Not Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave

Share this post

The United States is unprepared for the COVID-19 pandemic given that many workers throughout the economy will have financial difficulty in following the CDC’s recommendations to stay home and seek medical care if they think they’ve become infected. Millions of U.S. workers and their families don’t have access to health insurance, and only 30% of the lowest paid workers have the ability to earn paid sick days—workers who typically have lots of contact with the public and aren’t able to work from home.

There are deficiencies in paid sick days coverage per sector, particularly among those workers with a lot of public exposure. The figure below displays access to paid sick leave by sector. Information and financial activities have the highest rates of coverage at 95% and 91%, respectively. Education and health services, manufacturing, and professional and business services have lower rates of coverage, but still maintain at least three-quarters of workers with access. Trade, transportation, and utilities comes in at 72%, but there are significant differences within that sector ranging from utilities at 95% down to retail trade at 64% (not shown). Over half of private-sector workers in leisure and hospitality do not have access to paid sick days. Within that sector, 55% of workers in accommodation and food services do not have access to paid sick days (not shown).

Of the public health concerns in the workforce related to COVID-19, two loom large: those who work with the elderly because of how dangerous the virus is for that population and those who work with food because of the transmission of illness. Research shows that more paid sick days is related to reduced flu rates. There is no reason to believe contagion of COVID-19 will be any different. When over half of workers in food services and related occupations do not have access to paid sick days, the illness may spread more quickly.

What exacerbates the lack of paid sick days among these workers is that their jobs are already not easily transferable to working from home. On average, about 29% of all workers can work from home. And, not surprisingly, workers in sectors where they are more likely to have paid sick days are also more likely to be able to work from home. Over 50% of workers in information, financial activities, and professional and business services can work from home. However, only about 9% of workers in leisure and hospitality are able to work from home.

Many of the 73% of workers with access to paid sick days will not have enough days banked to be able to take off for the course of the illness to take care of themselves or a family member. COVID-19’s incubation period could be as long as 14 days, and little is known about how long it could take to recover once symptoms take hold. The figure below displays the amount of paid sick days workers have access to at different lengths of service. Paid sick days increase by years of service, but even after twenty years, only 25% of private-sector workers are offered at least 10 days of paid sick days a year.

The small sliver of green shows that a very small share (only about 4%) of workers—regardless of their length of service—have access to more than 14 paid sick days. That’s just under three weeks for a five-day-a-week worker, assuming they have that many days at their disposal at the time when illness strikes. The vast majority of workers, over three-quarters of all workers, have nine days or less of paid sick time. This clearly shows that even among workers with access to some amount of paid sick days, the amounts are likely to be insufficient.

A version of this post originally appeared at the Economic Policy Institute

This article was originally published at InTheseTimes on March 9, 2020. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Elise Gould joined EPI in 2003. Her research areas include wages, poverty, inequality, economic mobility and health care. She is a co-author of The State of Working America, 12th Edition.


Share this post

America’s workers face an outbreak of uncertainty

Share this post

Timothy NoahAmericans are going home — and creating an economic train wreck.

The coronavirus outbreak has U.S. companies starting to shutter offices and send workers home through layoffs, furloughs or directives to telecommute until health risks from the spreading virus recede.

The evidence is expected to show up through lost consumer spending, derailed business plans and swift damage to lower-wage workers across the nation. The extent of the damage will rest largely on how long it takes for businesses and consumers to gain confidence that the threat is under control.

“If workers can’t work … production and income go down,” Georgetown University economist Harry Holzer said. “That becomes a demand problem if workers lose income and stop spending.”

When that happens, “odds of recession can go way up,” Holzer said.

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft all advised Seattle employees to work at home after workers at Facebook and Amazon were diagnosed with the virus. In Everett, Wash., ten workers were sent home from a Boeing plant even before it could be confirmed that a sniffling coworker had coronavirus.

Businesses are halting non-essential travel at a rapid pace and major conferences are suddenly canceling across the U.S. As airline bookings tumble, United Airlines announced it will next month cut international flights by 20 percent and domestic flights by 10 percent. It invited staff to take unpaid leaves of absence. Other airlines around the world are already furloughing workers and slashing schedules as they face the prospect of flying empty planes.

In some cases, employees are asked to vacate the very workplaces where the virus is treated. At the University of California, Davis Medical Center, 36 registered nurses and 88 other health care workers were sent home, according to the labor union National Nurses United, after a single coronavirus patient was admitted to that hospital. Hospital workers reportedly numbering in the dozens were sent home under similar circumstances by Kaiser Permanente’s Westside Medical Center in Hillsboro, Ore. — long before the Oregon governor declared a state of emergency on Sunday.

For workers, the consequences of being sent home depend greatly on the circumstances. Many white-collar professions can adapt with relative ease to telecommuting from home for a temporary period, but workers in the brick-and-mortar retail, restaurant and hotel sectors cannot. Hourly workers are likelier than salaried workers to be laid off.

The sudden darkening of the outlook comes against a long stretch of resilience for the economy — in an expansion now in its 11th year, the longest on record.

For now, official statistics show a robust labor market, with 273,000 jobs created in February, the Labor Department reported Friday, and an unemployment rate at a very low 3.5 percent. But economists are bracing for a weaker jobs report in March.

The first hints of trouble are expected to come in weekly jobless claims and gauges of the factory sector, which has been under strain from President Donald Trump’s trade wars.

The manufacturing industry, which employs about 9 percent of the U.S. workforce, was underperforming even before news of China’s coronavirus outbreak first surfaced in January. The international nature of supply chains in the global economy — domestic factories’ reliance on parts produced in other countries — spell a near-certain decline in U.S. factory hiring even if the coronavirus outbreak is contained within the U.S. In a potential early sign of trouble, the Institute for Supply Management’s index of national factory activity fell to 50.1 in February, down from 50.9 in January, bringing it back to the brink of a sub-50 reading indicating recession in the sector.

“The supply shocks from quarantined factories in Asia are weeks away from idling U.S., Canadian and European factories,” said economist Michael Hicks of Ball State University, “and the demand-side impact on tourism, travel, eating and drinking establishments is already being felt across the world.”

Economists are already urging policymakers to consider a stimulus program to cushion Americans from impending damage. Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, proposes a one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult American citizen or taxpaying adult.

“If the economic shock is small and stimulus proves to be unnecessary,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Friday, “its negative effects are likely to be small. But if the shock is bigger and policy makers fail to act now, it will be harder to reverse the economic damage.”

Eleven states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, require employers to offer workers paid leave, as does the District of Columbia. But none of these jurisdictions explicitly guarantee the benefit to healthy workers on leave because a virus outbreak sent everybody home.

Fourteen Democratic senators last week wrote to leaders of the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to urge their member companies not to penalize workers for going home during the outbreak.

Paid sick days are particularly rare for low-income workers. Ninety-three percent of workers in the top tenth of the income distribution get paid sick leave, compared with only 30 percent of those in the bottom tenth, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

“People are already losing pay,” said Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, citing flight attendants’ loss of overtime hours and per diems.

While Trump has been trumpeting his actions in fighting the coronavirus, Nelson blames him for increasing its economic cost — through widespread cancellations of business meetings and travel — due to his initial response. “Shutting down these public meetings, she said, “is the only way to stop the spread if you don’t have a way of identifying where the threat is.”

“It makes me very angry,” she said, “because it’s my members’ lives and their jobs.”

With all the uncertainties surrounding the U.S. outbreak, experts are reluctant to predict with any specificity the coming impact on workers. But comparable episodes from the past provide some guide.

After the 9/11 attacks, which suspended air travel and required much of lower Manhattan to be evacuated, about 115,000 workers were laid off by the end of that year, according to the DOL. Forty-two percent were in the airline industry, and 28 percent were employed by hotels and motels.

The U.S. economy was already in recession by that point — it started in March 2001 and ended in November. Still, economists say the widespread uncertainty after 9/11, the start of the war in Afghanistan and the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 all restrained hiring by employers worried about the outlook.

A global outbreak similar to the Spanish flu of 1918-19 — the most commonly cited historical comparison — would produce “a short-run impact on the worldwide economy similar in depth and duration to that of an average postwar recession in the United States,” a 2005 Congressional Budget Office report estimated. The significant caveat is that the Spanish flu was deadliest to the young and healthy, whereas the coronavirus, like most epidemics, exacts its worst toll on the elderly and the infirm.

A 2007 report by the St. Louis Federal Reserve raised the gruesome possibility that a shortage of workers from a major outbreak ultimately would increase wages, as it seems to have done in 1918, though it noted that was less likely now, “given the greater mobility of workers that exists today.” (The coronavirus is also much less deadly to the working-age population.)

“Given our highly mobile and connected society,” the report concluded, any comparable pandemic in the future “is likely to be more severe in its reach.”

Rebecca Rainey contributed to this report.

This article was originally published at Politico on March 9, 2020. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Timothy Noah is the Employment & Immigration editor at POLITICO. Previously he was a contributing writer for MSNBC.com and a senior editor at the New Republic, where he wrote the “TRB From Washington” column. For a dozen years before that he was a senior writer at Slate magazine, where he wrote the “Chatterbox” and “Prescriptions” columns. Noah has also been a Washington-based reporter at The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek; an assistant managing editor at U.S. News & World Report; and an editor at the Washington Monthly. He is the author of “The Great Divergence: America’s Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It” (Bloomsbury, 2012).




Share this post

Follow this Blog

Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via RSS

Or, enter your address to follow via email:

Recent Posts

Forbes Best of the Web, Summer 2004
A Forbes "Best of the Web" Blog

Archives

  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness

 
 

Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.