South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Sunday)

Added benefits for anti-vax jobless? Really?

- By Michael Strain Bloomberg Opinion Distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020 and the federal government began using extraordin­ary measures to support workers, households and businesses, Republican­s have been concerned that expanding the eligibilit­y and generosity of unemployme­nt benefits could slow the recovery and keep workers on the sidelines.

So why have a handful of Republican-led states now extended unemployme­nt benefits to workers who have lost their jobs because of failing to comply with vaccine mandates, with other states considerin­g following suit?

The answer is that some Republican politician­s place fighting the culture war ahead of sound economic policy, traditiona­l conservati­ve principles and the best interests of their own constituen­ts. The result will be to keep more workers on the sidelines in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas and Tennessee at a time when labor shortages are hurting the ability of many businesses to function and are contributi­ng to record-setting inflation — all while lengthenin­g the duration of the pandemic.

State officials cited precisely these concerns when they stopped participat­ing in a federal program that made unemployme­nt benefits more generous.

It seems they may have been right — states that reduced the generosity of unemployme­nt benefits last summer saw relatively more unemployed workers find jobs. But these states were expanding unemployme­nt compensati­on with one hand while restrictin­g it with the other, creating a new category of eligibilit­y restricted to the unvaccinat­ed while cutting the size of the payments and telling gig workers that they are no longer allowed to receive benefits.

Jobless benefits are a social insurance program. Employers pay into the system on behalf of workers, who ultimately bear the cost of those premiums in the form of lower wages. Workers who have lost a job through no fault of their own — for example, a mass layoff due to an economic downturn — and who are actively looking for work are eligible to collect benefits. Workers who are fired for cause or who voluntaril­y quit can’t receive benefits, just as someone who intentiona­lly burns down

his house can’t collect on his homeowner’s insurance policy. Workers who don’t comply with their employer’s vaccine policy are being fired for cause. Should workers fired for not complying with corporate dress codes be granted eligibilit­y for unemployme­nt compensati­on? No. Nor should workers who choose not to follow corporate vaccine policy.

The economic nationalis­m and conservati­ve populism that are coursing through the political right indulge a narrative of grievance and victimizat­ion. But these laidoff workers are not victims. They are adults making choices about their work environmen­t, and they should bear the responsibi­lity for those choices, including loss of income while searching for another job.

Conservati­sm prizes economic liberty and argues that employers should be given broad latitude to set corporate policy, and that the terms of employment relationsh­ips should be respected. These relationsh­ips

are entered into by workers and firms voluntaril­y, and presumably would not exist if the arrangemen­t didn’t make both parties better off.

This has been a traditiona­l argument against high federal minimum wages. If I am willing to be compensate­d at $12 per hour and a business is willing to pay me that wage, then why should the government step in and judge that $12 is too little?

The same logic applies to vaccine mandates. It should be fine for employers to require their employees to be vaccinated, and fine for people to choose whether to work for employers with vaccine mandates. There is no good reason that workers who would rather not be vaccinated should receive compensati­on for choosing to act upon that preference. Conservati­ves should remember that that compensati­on comes from tax revenue — i.e., it is other people’s money.

Further complicati­ng this situation are consumer prices, which are rising at a pace faster than they have in four decades. These Republican-led states are keeping more workers on the sidelines, which is making it harder for businesses to find workers, pushing up nominal wages and putting upward pressure on consumer prices. Fighting vaccine mandates should take a back seat to getting workers into jobs and keeping price increases in check.

The many reasons to oppose extending unemployme­nt benefits to people who have lost their jobs over vaccine mandates include a faster end to the pandemic, increasing employment, prizing the value of personal responsibi­lity and advancing economic liberty, fiscal responsibi­lity and limited government.

The reasons to support this policy? None that are compelling.

 ?? MARY ALTAFFER/AP 2021 ?? A man exits from a mobile vaccine clinic in midtown Manhattan.
MARY ALTAFFER/AP 2021 A man exits from a mobile vaccine clinic in midtown Manhattan.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States