Absence of conflict of interest
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of sick leave mandates on employment and wages. This profile focuses on the analysis conducted at the city level. The authors investigated similar research questions for another contrast, the profile of which can be found here.
- The study used a difference-in-differences design to compare the outcomes of individuals in nine cities that adopted sick leave mandates with the outcomes of individuals in areas that did not adopt sick leave mandates. Using federal data, the authors conducted statistical models to compare the outcomes between the groups before and after the sick leave mandate went into effect.
- The study found no significant effects of the sick pay mandates on employment or wages.
- The study receives a moderate causal evidence rating for the outcomes in seven of the cities. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects would be attributable to the sick leave mandates, but other factors might also have contributed. The study receives a low evidence rating for two cities. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the sick leave mandates; other factors are likely to have contributed. However, the study did not find any statistically significant effects.
Features of the Study
The United States does not provide universal access to paid sick leave; however, some U.S. cities have sick leave mandates. The authors studied sick leave mandates in nine cities (San Francisco, CA; Washington, DC; Seattle, WA; New York, NY; Portland, OR; Jersey City, NJ; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; and Oakland, CA). The dates the laws went into effect ranged from 2007 to 2015, and the details of each law vary. All sick leave pay mandates were employer mandates, with criteria for sick pay dependent on the overall number of employees, number of full-time employees, number of days worked to accrue leave, and type of job sector. Each mandate provided sick time for personal use or for a sick family member. Typically, employees earn one hour of paid sick leave per work week and up to seven days per year. Most mandates require a 90-day working period to accrue the sick pay benefit.
The authors used a difference-in-differences design to examine how employment and wages changed in areas with and without sick pay mandates. The treatment groups consisted of counties or regions within nine cities with sick pay mandates. The authors created comparison groups for each treatment group comprised of other counties with identical pre-sick pay mandate outcomes, similar labor markets, and similar population structures. The authors obtained private sector employment and wage data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The data included all jobs covered by Unemployment Insurance and included the number of jobs filled each month and average weekly wages by quarter. The authors used statistical models to compare the outcomes between the groups 48 months before and 36 months after the law went into effect.
Findings
Employment
- The study did not find any significant differences in employment between the treatment and comparison groups.
Earnings and wages
- The study did not find significant differences in wages between the treatment and comparison groups.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
In San Francisco, two laws went into effect in January 2008 that could potentially confound an assessment of the sick pay mandate. First, the minimum wage was increased in predetermined steps annually from $8.50 in 2004 to $9.79 in 2009. Second, the Health Care Security Ordinance set minimum rates for employee health care spending by employers (those vary by firm size and for-profit status). In Washington, DC the first mandate became effective shortly after the Great Recession hit in October 2008. This makes it challenging to disentangle labor market effects due to the mandate from the confounding effects of the Great Recession. Therefore, the studies of the San Francisco and Washington, DC sites are not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate for the outcomes found in Seattle, WA; New York, NY; Portland, OR; Jersey City, NJ; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; and Oakland, CA, because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we would be somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to sick leave mandates, but other factors might also have contributed. The quality of causal evidence is low for the outcomes found in San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC because of the presence of confounds. This means we would not be not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the sick leave mandates; other factors are likely to have contributed. However, the study did not find any statistically significant effects.