The rapidly escalating coronavirus pandemic, and the urgent need for the populace to practice “social distancing” in order to prevent the overburdening of our health care infrastructure, has quickly expanded public awareness about a glaring societal need: paid sick leave. On a routine basis, millions of low-wage workers—particularly in the service industry—must go to work even when they are feeling sick. If they do not, they risk compromising their ability to support their families, because their employers have made no provision for them to take paid time off for illness. The spread of Covid-19 has revealed this to be a clear public health danger, one that requires out-of-the-box thinking and fresh ideas from lawmakers.

On Monday morning, Mitt Romney came out in favor of every “American adult” receiving an immediate “$1,000 to help ensure families and workers can meet their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy.” Romney’s proposal offered something concrete to lay alongside the blue-skying of his fellow Republican senator, Tom Cotton, who called for lawmakers to provide some manner of direct-pay support to taxpayers, characterizing the bill that passed the House on Friday as a measure that “doesn’t go far enough and … doesn’t go fast enough.” These calls mirror what Harvard economist Jason Furman, former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, has been advocating—sending such $1,000 checks through three months of crisis.

While mandatory paid sick leave and family medical leave were a critical focus of the Coronavirus Response Act passed by the House, the two senators are correct: It is an insufficient response. But what Romney is proposing doesn’t go far enough either. Right now, many thousands of workers are being sent home, often without pay, as their industries are being crippled by the public health emergency. As concerts and sporting events are canceled, airport traffic and commercial freight dwindles, conventions are postponed, day-care centers suspend services, and restaurants empty out, the low-wage workers who perform much of the core labor in these workplaces are being furloughed and laid off. For them, the issue is not being able to call out sick from work. Their issue is not having any work at all.



The solution is emergency stay-at-home pay. Elected officials must insist that no business be bailed out unless there are guarantees in place to maintain the income of the people who are being temporarily thrown out of work. Think of this as a “social-distancing wage.” Acknowledging the severity of the crisis, these measures should go well beyond what is provided by either traditional unemployment insurance or temporary direct payment proposals and provide full replacement wages for those whose livelihoods are undermined by the pandemic—especially those who are the most vulnerable.



The current Coronavirus Response Act, HR 6201, includes $1 billion for grants to states that expand access to their unemployment insurance programs—and it eases typical waiting periods and “eligibility requirements,” such as the mandate that the unemployed demonstrate that they are out looking for a new job. But this only begins to come to grips with the larger problem. Because each state is responsible for administering its own system of unemployment insurance, benefits and eligibility requirements can vary a great deal based on where you live—and in many places, the state’s attitude to applicants seeking benefits is downright punitive. According to Andrew Stettner, a social insurance expert and a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, because the states finance their unemployment insurance programs through taxes on employers “they’ve been obsessed with cutting the cost of benefits and restricting access.”