Nobody really wants to see Ohio workers, already struggling with rising prices in a tough economy, having to worry about keeping their jobs and income when they or their children get sick. But a union-backed ballot initiative that would require Ohio businesses with as few as 25 employees to provide seven days' paid sick leave to each worker, no questions asked, is certainly not the answer.

Aptly called a "job-killer" by Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted and Senate President Bill Harris, the proposal would hurt the people it's aimed to help by imposing a costly burden on businesses, particularly smaller to mid-size ones that could be forced to cut jobs or leave Ohio. It would brand Ohio as a state hostile to business.

Sponsored by a group called Ohioans for Healthy Families (who's against healthy families?), it's certified statewide as Issue 4, but could be removed from the ballot as late as Sept. 5.

Gov. Ted Strickland, who's been working for weeks with little result on a "reasonable compromise," should use his influence with labor to make sure this poorly written, potentially economy-crippling measure is stricken from the Nov. 4 ballot. If it remains there, Ohio faces a nasty, divisive campaign. And if it wins, it will help cripple the economic recovery that Strickland has made a prime goal as governor.

Deal in the works

In a Friday conference call, Strickland told Ohio editorial writers he believes Issue 4 is "not in the best interests of Ohio, and we're trying to find a way we can keep it off the ballot and in the legislative arena." He said that a deal with business and labor leaders could be reached next week, then turned over to a special legislative session to be tweaked and enacted.

It needs more than tweaks. As written, the state-mandated entitlement would guarantee an extra seven days off a year for each full-time worker - in most cases with no proof of illness, advance notice or explanation needed. It amounts to an extra paid seven days off, because it prohibits employers from changing their existing time off/vacation policies. It can be taken in increments of an hour or less, which could wreak logistical havoc in businesses that have assembly lines or are unable to adjust personnel quickly. It allows workers to carry over sick days from year to year.

Most Ohio businesses are operating on thin profit margins, and just like households, they are hit with rising costs, particularly for energy. This is the worst possible time to impose such a burden on them.

Strickland knows it's an awful proposal. He admits he's identified about 50 "concerns" about the ballot issue as written. and he wants a compromise that would persuade backers to withdraw it from the ballot. Any compromise, Strickland and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher said, would include some amount of mandated sick leave.

It's hard to see how this is a "compromise." Business would be conceding the principle of mandated sick days, yet many firms may find this preferable to the Issue 4 mandates, especially if they already offer such benefits.

But it's also hard to see how Strickland can claim to be an "honest broker" on this issue while painting the status quo - no state-mandated sick days - as an "extreme ideological position."

Talk about extreme: No other state in the union has such a requirement - not even California, with its penchant for pushing the envelope on "progressive" ideas. In fact, the California legislature on Thursday killed a very similar proposal to guarantee paid sick days for workers, despite support from three-fourths of the state's voters. Businesses and lawmakers agreed it would have killed 370,000 jobs and cost businesses $4.6 billion in five years.

That ought to tell you something. If it's too wacky for California, it certainly doesn't belong in Ohio.

More creative solutions

The issue of how workers deal with taking time off for illnesses is better left to the legislature, which can carefully study data, hear testimony from all sides and craft solutions that could be more creative than an old-school, top-down government mandate - perhaps tax and other incentives for businesses, partnering with agencies to cover for workers or care for sick kids, flexible job cross-training and more. Such solutions might help ensure that more Ohio workers have sick leave when they really need it.

Strickland's political dilemma is that he needs to spur, not hamper, job creation in a business sector that's struggling with the rest of the economy, while somehow keeping faith with the labor movement that fueled his gubernatorial candidacy.

But as they say, that's what he gets paid the big bucks for. His attempt Wednesday to say he can't be blamed if the ballot issue passes just won't wash. He's acknowledged the "consequences would be quite serious" if Issue 4 passes, yet he indicated Friday he'd veto a legislative attempt to overturn it afterward. That's incoherent.

Strickland should roll up his sleeves, talk tough and deal tougher. If there's an alternative that would help workers while preserving businesses' rights, he should explore it. But at the very least, he must keep this stinker of an initiative off the November ballot.

More info on Ohio issue 4: The Ohio Healthy Families Act.