Sick-leave plan needs honest debate

Ordinance would in fact abolish many company’s existing policies, despite claim to the contrary

In response to Matthew Henderson’s attempt to “set the record straight” (Everyone Should Have Sick Days, May 19), Henderson seeks to counter what he perceives as incorrect and improper arguments of the “Journal and opponents” to the sick-leave ordinance by placing his own incorrect and improper arguments before the potential voters.

First, he states correctly that the ordinance does not specifically outlaw the current sick-leave offerings by local businesses. However, the ordinance does outlaw those which do not “meet or exceed the limits in the ordinance.”

I would submit that a very significant percentage of current paid time off offerings by employers do not “meet or exceed” the extremely generous ones proposed by the ordinance.

Therefore, though the ordinance does not specifically strike down any current PTO offerings, as the bulk of private PTO offerings won’t come close to the generous ones established by the ordinance, they will effectively be scrapped.

In short, “if you like your current PTO you won’t be able to keep your current PTO.”

Second, Henderson attempts to couch the requirement that the entire ordinance be placed on the ballot as an attempt by the “Journal and opponents” to thwart voters from voting on the ordinance. Henderson feels the mere act of requiring a voter to actually have to read something before voting on it is somehow voter disenfranchisement.

Not only is this claim specious and without merit — as all voters should know exactly what they are voting on when they vote on it, it’s call being an informed voter — but Henderson forgets to mention that it’s not only the “Journal and opponents” of the ordinance who are requiring the full text of the ordinance be placed on the ballot, but three levels of our judiciary are in agreement.

If the “Journal and opponents” are seeking to disenfranchise voters by making them actually read something before they vote on it, are also a state district court judge, the judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court — through declining to overrule the Court of Appeals — all in cahoots to disenfranchise voters?

All three levels determined the law requires the full text to be published.

Henderson as executive director for his organization should have familiarized himself with laws governing municipal elections before beginning this endeavor.

The merits of the ordinance should be debated, and there is merit to both arguments. However, to simply attack and marginalize the debate of his “opponents” by using simplistic and specious arguments does not add to the quality of the debate that this issue deserves.