When you hear a conservative argument as to why we can't pass a policy that helps working families, you are pretty safe in assuming that it won't stand up to closer examination. In today's example, the topic is paid sick days. Extremist pro-business groups that oppose requiring that paid sick days be offered to employees often make the cynical argument that if paid sick days are offered, workers will exploit and abuse them and that will hurt businesses. The real-world evidence, not surprisingly, says otherwise.
The largest real-world sample of data we have on paid sick days is the state of Connecticut, which required businesses to provide paid sick days in 2011. A recent examination of what has happened in the state since then shatters numerous right-wing myths about paid sick leave, particularly the claim that the policy will be abused by workers. The new policy in Connecticut made the number of available paid sick days for the average worker rise from 6.9 days to 7.7 days. Of those workers who have taken paid sick leave, the average worker has used only four of those days. And about one-third of workers used no paid sick days at all.
As Alan Barber of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) concludes:
[The evidence] stands in direct opposition to the idea that workers would abuse the policy and take as many days off as possible, even when not sick. This suggests that employees view paid sick days as a form of insurance, to be used only as needed. Even when additional days are available to them, employees, in reality, only take the time off from work that they require when they are ill or need to care for a family member.
Once again, real-world evidence rejects a conservative claim used to oppose a policy to help working families. This has happened so many times now, it'd be safe for us to assume these extremist arguments are faulty, at best, and just go ahead and help workers instead.