Suppose Congress enacted a "Spare Car Law." Let's say that under this law, even very small businesses had to keep an extra car on hand so that if an employee's car broke down, he could use the spare to get to work.
That might seem like a "nice thing to do," but most people probably wouldn't think it's reasonable. After all, it would impose a big expense on small businesses, and that could force them to lay off workers.
Fortunately, no one is proposing a "Spare Car Law."
But Congress thinks it can impose other workplace rules without harming businesses or their workers.
Democrats in the House and Senate have proposed a bill saying employers with as few as 15 workers should have to provide each full-time worker seven days of paid sick leave per year. Of course, many companies commendably provide sick leave already, out of concern for their employees, and it is a desirable benefit.
But neither that nor any other benefit is "free." Money used for sick leave cannot be used for pay raises or for investments that might let a company expand and hire new workers.
Companies might not provide sick leave for the very reason that offering that benefit would force them to cut positions. What good is government-imposed, paid sick leave for a person who has no job at all? That concern is even greater in the midst of a serious recession, with unemployment already near 10 percent.
Questions such as wages, vacation time, sick leave and health benefits ought to be worked out by mutual agreement between employers and employees, not be dictated by government as unfunded mandates.