A Stitch in Haste

Of course, that's not what they're calling it:

[T]he State Senate narrowly approved legislation Monday that would make New Jersey the third state in the nation to give employees the right to take paid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative.

The measure would be financed by employee payroll deductions that would cost every worker in New Jersey a maximum of 64 cents a week, or $33 a year. Those taking the leave would be eligible for two-thirds of their salary, up to a maximum of $524 a week, for six weeks.

Those not taking the leave, of course, get the "benefit" of having their wages reduced, against their will, for absolutely nothing in return. Because New Jersey is a "progressive" state. Somehow.

The idea of forcing employees to buy something they neither want nor need is the reductio ad absurdum of Social Security and socialized medicine (where the argument is they may not "want" compulsory participation, but they do "need" it -- or so the "enlightened, progressive" politicians and bureaucrats have decided). This aberration is far worse: The entire scheme is premised on the sotto voce recognition that many, perhaps most, workers in fact will not need this coverage, and will therefore be involuntarily subsidizing those few who do. Again, this is somehow considered "progressive" labor policy. Go figure.

(Incidentally, with every worker in New Jersey being forced to buy this coverage, is it not highly likely that more of them will in fact choose to take advantage of it? How many employees will suddenly discover some sick relative somewhere and demand their extra paid vacation family leave time? Will excused absenteeism increase? If so, by how much? And what will be the impact on business conditions in New Jersey as a result? Also, might any businesses choose to locate elsewhere as a result of this new tax? How exactly would that "help" New Jersey workers?)

Unpaid family care leave laws, which violate freedom of contract, are controversial enough. Taxing some people to enrich others is controversial enough when the criterion is inequality of income (the only criterion even entitled to a hearing).

When the criterion switches to "warm fuzzy feelings," such a discriminatory tax is utterly indefensible. Let those who want to enjoy the luxury (and it is a luxury) of parental leave save up for it in advance. Let those who anticipate needing time off for elder care or other family leave needs (and yes that includes the gay partners of AIDS sufferers) do likewise. Leave your coworkers -- and their wallets -- out of it.