|Go to http://yeson4ma.org/ to learn more!|
I see voting Yes on 4 as the right thing for a Unitarian Universalist to do. It fits in with our Seven Principles; particularly the first principle, "the inherent worth and dignity of every person"; the second principle, "justice, equity and compassion in human relations"; and the fifth principle, "the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large".
I signed on the the MCAN "Faith Statement on Question 4 on Earned Sick Time". Here is the interfaith/ecumenical statement:
"Our faith traditions teach that work is more than a way to make a living; it is a way of being co-creators with God in bringing the world to its fulfillment. It is a way of growing, sharing and enhancing one's own life and that of one's family and community.
"But for many in our Commonwealth, work has been stripped of its dignity. Poverty wages, sparse benefits, and uncertain work hours are just a few of the daily indignities that many face. For them, work not only fails to enhance their lives and their families and communities -- it diminishes them.
"That's why faith communities across Massachusetts are supporting Question 4 on Earned Sick Time as an important moral and family issue. In today's economy, so many are struggling to balance work, family, and life's challenges. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that all families be able to deal with the inevitable reality of a personal health issue, a sick child, or family illness without fear of losing their job or facing other repercussions.
"Yet in Massachusetts, one of the wealthiest states in the country, nearly one out of four workers reporting being fired, punished or harassed for taking a sick day to care for themselves or their ill loved ones. When employers fail to give sick time, they act as if the workers only matter when they are productive. They fail to see that workers are people, created in the image of God, deserving of dignity.
"No person should have to choose between their family or their job. No person should have to go to work sick because they cannot afford to miss a day's pay.
"This fall, we commit to speak to the people in our congregations and communities in support of Question 4. Our faith calls us especially to reach out to those who are unlikely to vote this year because they have lost hope, because they have not found a reason to expect the leaders they elect to make things better for their community. We will pledge to stand with them, to see their problems as our problems, and to help them find the power and hope to get to the polls to vote directly for Earned Sick Time.
"Leadership is not just about whom we elect. Leadership is about us as a people and how we stand in faith together for the good of us all. It's how we demonstrate our love for each other.
"We as faith communities across Massachusetts pledge to assume our mantle of leadership in this moment and demonstrate love for all of God's people."
For some secular encouragement, The Boston Globe also encourages readers to vote Yes on 4. Read their piece here. To quote from the Globe's October 25 editorial: "QUESTION 4 on the November ballot is a sweeping measure that would provide all Massachusetts workers the chance to earn sick leave — in many cases, with pay. If passed, the referendum would put Massachusetts in line with a handful of forward-thinking cities and just two other states, California and Connecticut. The measure is a welcome opportunity for the Commonwealth to lead, and voters should approve it.
"The ballot measure, promoted by labor unions and endorsed by some business groups, hospitals, and economists, would allow workers to earn up to 40 hours per year of sick leave — an hour of leave for every 30 hours they work. This leave could also be used to care for a sick child, spouse, or parent. Workers for companies with 10 or fewer employees would earn unpaid leave; workers for companies with 11 or more employees would be paid for their time off. The measure would apply to part-time workers as well, and would affect nearly one-third of Massachusetts workers — about 900,000 people, many of them in low-wage jobs. It would allow home health care workers to receive the benefit, as well, by classifying them as state employees for the purposes of the law."