In the nursing and assisted living facilities I visit in the course of my work and in other businesses, public restrooms often have a sign prominently posted over the sink urging employees to stay home when sick. This makes obvious sense; sick workers pose a health risk to the populations they serve. This is particularly true in health care facilities, where the people served may be especially vulnerable to disease.

But elsewhere, the same logic applies. In restaurants, I’d prefer my food to be prepared or served by someone without a communicable illness. So, I suspect, would you.

But if you’re making $11 or $12 an hour working in one of these facilities, the loss of a day’s wages is a huge financial hit. Rational economics virtually guarantees that colds and flus will circulate freely among the paying public and the workers who serve them. If you cannot afford to take time off from your job, then you probably won’t.

But why should all the risk be borne by the workers and the populations that both workers and employers purport to serve?

If an employer’s business model requires already-underpaid workers to show up sick – and it certainly does, regardless of whether one is for or against the idea of paid sick days – then the business model is fatally flawed and perhaps the business ought to die a natural death.

If an employer’s business model forces underpaid Portland residents to weigh protecting their health versus paying their rent in order for the business to turn a profit, then the city of Portland ought to prioritize public health rather than private profit. Is there a single ethical argument to be made against this?

Mark Barnette

Portland