Do Businesses Court Chicken Little?

I noticed on NPR's Morning Edition a story about a mandate in San Francisco to have companies provide paid sick days to employees. One thing that struck me is that one employer after another mentioned how people took far less sick time than they had imagined, and how the cost was far less than what they feared it might be. Some admitted that they had overreacted.

This sounded like the type of behavior the business community accuses environmentalists, shareholder activists, and others of demonstrating. The truth is that hysteria, bolstered by a willingness to stretch facts to support an argument, is all too human a trait. When people give in to it, they actually only support their cause, at best, by inflaming their existing supporters. But through continued exposure to the technique, the people and entities only create fatigue. At worst, they lose the true believers and antagonize their opponents.

Perhaps businesspeople would be better off by not assuming that every civic requirement was going to bury them in rubble, and instead work to admit any real need and then negotiate to find a way to implement changes. For example, when faced with a public that wants to mandate paid sick time - and, I think, with some justifiable desire - then why not work on a trial period. Six months should show beginnings of trends and allow the community and industry to assess the impact of a program and then make decisions based on fact, not fear.