It would be wonderful if every employer in Oregon granted its employees paid sick leave. They don’t, however, and that they don’t may be more a reflection of their finances than anything else.

A workgroup of state lawmakers and others should keep that in mind as it considers going to the 2014 Legislature with a bill that would require most employers in the state to give workers time off with pay if they or family members are ill. The 2013 Legislature failed to make headway on a similar bill.

We know — and agree with, generally — many of the arguments made for paid sick leave. The Bulletin’s parent company grants 10 sick leave days a year to full-time employees. Granting workers the right to time off with pay when they’re ill can actually save a business money because those who are ill don’t come to work if they’re paid to stay home, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy and Research.

Too, it’s good for employee morale if a worker knows he or she can take time off with pay to care for a family member who is ill. Then there’s this: It’s workers at the low end of the pay scale who are the least likely among us to be able to take time off with pay.

Oregon lawmakers considered all that when they took up House Bill 3390 in February. Small businesses, in particular, opposed the bill, understandably. The fewer the number of employees — and HB 3390 applied to all businesses with six or more employees — the greater the burden if one or two are unexpectedly absent. Also opposed were agricultural groups, whose members worried the bill would make it more difficult for them to get crops harvested.

In the end, however, the decision to grant paid sick leave should not lie with legislators but with employers. Lawmakers may grasp the broad policy benefits of such a law, but they cannot possibly understand the implications of it on individual businessmen.