Here's what the comrade says:
The United States must end the international embarrassment of being the only major country on earth which does not guarantee workers paid medical and family leave, paid sick time, and paid vacation time. Last place is no place for America.
Sanders must imagine that he is bringing a great boon to the masses. All this time, you see, there was cash just lying there on the table, with no one perceiving that everyone could be made much better off if only the government snapped its fingers and mandated "paid leaves," etc. Until Sanders the Great, the Wise, the Prophet, that is.
But consider that for any worker Smith, Smith indeed benefits from his own paid "leaves"; but he loses from the fact that everyone else enjoys their own paid leaves.
Smith would like to earn much for doing little himself, but when everyone earns much for doing little, overall production suffers, and everyone, including Smith, is to that extent poorer.
Thus, Smith is chilling at home on his paid leave and then decides to go to the mall and do some shopping. When he arrives, he finds that half the stores that before the enactment of Sanders' policy were open and bustling with activity are now closed, because half of all the workers who used to be doing their jobs are also on their own paid leaves!
As people refuse to produce, the goods Smith wanted to buy become unavailable, so Smith goes home empty-handed, unable to spend the money he did not earn. The goods still on the market become more expensive, as (1) overall supply drops and (2) companies recoup the losses from paying people for doing no work. Smith's paid rest is hardly free.
This is step 1 in the argument -- to point out that there are distinct costs to each worker of a coercive "paid leaves" government policy.
Step 2 is to say that this exchange of benefits for costs thus identified is made by the government in a one-size-fits-all manner (unlike what would be negotiated during job interviews based upon the unique needs of each company and each employee), which is deeply inefficient.
Another approach is to argue that the government forces Smith to be compensated by his employer in paid leaves. The company cannot be losing money by employing Smith, so if Smith produces less, his overall wages must also be lower.
Before, Smith wanted higher wages but no paid leaves, and Jones wanted lower wages but some paid leaves, and both were accommodated. Now, in an obvious contempt for individual preferences, both Smith and Jones are compelled to behave identically which is again inefficient.
A similar reasoning works when we look at it from the business's point of view. A business may have jobs that require intense commitment on the part of the workers. It can't afford to let a worker just take a leave at his pleasure. To encourage such devotion and hard work, the company is prepared to pay the worker extremely well. But after Sanders is through with the economy, this job can no longer be filled. Business efficiency is shot, and inefficient businesses mean unhappy consumers including Smith.
Thus, when choosing between everyone's -- both Smith and all other workers -- having extorted by the state freebies and no one's -- neither Smith nor any other worker -- having freebies, Smith would be well-advised to choose the latter.