For millions of Americans the rule is simple: If you don't come to work, you don't get paid.
That idea drives an untold numbers of carpenters, day care workers, servers, shopkeepers and small-business owners to their jobs each day. Sniffles or not.
(snip)
Quote:
About a third of the nation's workers don't have paid sick leave, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. But even some workers who do don't take it because they fear retribution from their bosses if they don't show up.
Not only that, but many of the same people are in lower-paying areas with already tight finances, so they can easily see that if they lose working time and get docked, they won't have enough to pay all the bills on time at the end of the month. One of those bills might be a credit card that (at least until the legislation takes effect) could reset rates at 29% and start an avalanche of fees for a late payment. Other bills could have their own implicit threats (ruined credit, etc.)
Perfect situation for having people come in anyway and spread the problem.
Also a good example of something that won't get better without a government mandate. As long as it's left up to businesses to develop policies some will do like they do now, and that causes competitive pressure for others to emulate the "worst" practices, even if they'd rather not. Only government can level the playing field.
Even if they take a big hit from H1N1 spreading, many employers still won't change their policies.
Seems inevitable that we'll get some kind of mandated sick time in the U.S. (possibly within a decade), but equally inevitable that it'll come only AFTER some particularly bad experience, probably with something worse.
Of course it is a two way street. The lack of adequate vacation encouraged abuse of sick leave, so employers combined them, or eliminated sick leave. Genius!
Programs: NW silver, Spirit Somebody; DL, CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Shhhhh.
Of course it is a two way street. The lack of adequate vacation encouraged abuse of sick leave, so employers combined them, or eliminated sick leave. Genius!
Managers at an old workplace of mine had vacation (based on years of service) + 4 floating holidays +4 personal days but no acknowledged sick leave. If you were sick you could stay out without it counting as one of the other types of days, at least in theory, but your supervisor had tons of discretion in how to code it and could dock your pay or charge it as a personal day.
So basically those who thought they were in a shaky situation (as there was always downsizing, it seemed) still came in. Usually personal days or pay wasn't charged against someone who infrequently got sick himself, but moms-of-sick-kids or people thought to have too many absences would get charged the personal day or vacation day. Consistency was woefully lacking, but the company also had unionized non-managers with the traditional sick-day approach and no room for discretion. Obviously they didn't want the same approach for management.
As the swine flu spreads across the nation — and public health officials plead with the ill to, please, stay home in bed for several days until the fever goes away — a large segment of the American work force will face a tough choice about whether to call in sick or simply muddle through. That's because when skipping work means skipping food on the table or missing a rent payment, staying in bed isn't as simple as it sounds.
Another unfunded mandate - if you get sick, we in the US government ask that you stay home. You won't make money, and the government certainly won't pay you your salary. ("But just remember, we're from the government, and we're here to help! " )
Um, no. I don't think so.
I actually saw a poll today asking people if they thought people who went to work sick should face charges.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
San Francisco has had a paid sick leave policy for employers of more than twelve employees for a couple of years ago. It costs the city nearly nothing, and though many businesses kicked and screamed, it appears to be working.
The problem with a local approach of course is that it may drive business out, I accept that. That is where a federal mandate for minimum sick time should come in, if everyone is obligated to provide it, the burden is spread fairly equally.
There is no excuse IMO to cause working poor or those with tight budgets to feel the need to work and transmit disease when genuinely sick. Just doesn't seem to fit into the idea of a developed democracy.
__________________ "An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in bacon"....mmmmm, bacon!
As a counter argument, relative mildness of symptoms will spread the disease even in those places that have full sick pay....
Trust me; I've had h1n1.... Symptoms started on the Wednesday, I took Thursday and Friday off work as a precaution (was feeling weak) and would probably have risked going into work the following Monday had the rash not turned me into Frankenstein's Monster over the weekend. I probably caught it because a colleague who had it (and far worse then me) came back to work a few days too early!
My parent company in Japan has a strict policy - if an employee, or anyone in the employee's home residence displays any flu symptoms, they are not allowed to come to work, but are paid for the time off.
The local operation here allows for sick days, but it is clear that they are discouraged....
__________________
When authorities warn you about evils of sex, there's an important lesson to be learned. Don't have sex with the authorities.
Programs: NW silver, Spirit Somebody; DL, CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
I actually saw a poll today asking people if they thought people who went to work sick should face charges.
Am sure in a place like Singapore they'd do it that way...they can be very heavy-handed if individuals in an urban setting don't follow quarantine and pose a danger to others. OTOH, you can't have a policy like that and have it at cross-purposes with economics.
I actually saw a poll today asking people if they thought people who went to work sick should face charges.
Charged with what? How do you prove anyone was harmed? How do you prove someone is "sick"? what is the standard for "sick"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfOffice
San Francisco has had a paid sick leave policy for employers of more than twelve employees for a couple of years ago. It costs the city nearly nothing, and though many businesses kicked and screamed, it appears to be working.
The problem with a local approach of course is that it may drive business out, I accept that. That is where a federal mandate for minimum sick time should come in, if everyone is obligated to provide it, the burden is spread fairly equally.
There is no excuse IMO to cause working poor or those with tight budgets to feel the need to work and transmit disease when genuinely sick. Just doesn't seem to fit into the idea of a developed democracy.
You really think there are free lunches? Someone is paying for all this goodness. Just because you don't see a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean you aren't paying for this time off. The burden isn't spread at all. You pay for all your benefits. Not the employer, not the government. You. One way or the other.
And you think using the force of government to give people "benefits" not a part of their employment agreement in the first place is your idea of a "developed democracy"?
And you think using the force of government to give people "benefits" not a part of their employment agreement in the first place is your idea of a "developed democracy"?
Yes.
If you disagree, please cede your right to social security, SSI, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, welfare and all the other federal and state mandates paid for via payroll taxes.
Define democracy any way you want, but look to China if you want to see capitalism unfettered by humanity.
__________________ "An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in bacon"....mmmmm, bacon!
Charged with what? How do you prove anyone was harmed? How do you prove someone is "sick"? what is the standard for "sick"?
I know. All kinds of thorny little things that are left unanswered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyC
Am sure in a place like Singapore they'd do it that way...they can be very heavy-handed if individuals in an urban setting don't follow quarantine and pose a danger to others. OTOH, you can't have a policy like that and have it at cross-purposes with economics.
And many people argue that Singapore is not a civil society. Meanwhile, quarantines are ineffective in civil societies without civilian cooperation. If you aren't going to pay people to stay home, then you can't expect them to cooperate with a government that pours trillions of dollars into the coffers of those who helped bring about this recession, if they weren't inclined to follow that advice to begin with.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyinbob
And you think using the force of government to give people "benefits" not a part of their employment agreement in the first place is your idea of a "developed democracy"?
Perhaps not.
But please tell me what kind of grand system it is where employers insist that people with bacterial meningitis or hepatitis come into work. I have been lovingly exposed to both of those thanks to employers who believe that the only time you should call in sick is if you are in the hospital or in a coma. They threatened very sick employees with termination if they didn't show up to work even when one was running a 102F temperature and another was so jaundiced she was all but glowing.
Contrary to popular belief, democracy and capitalism are not antibiotics for disease.
__________________
"And if love is all you're missing... look into your heart. Is anybody home?" - Thomas Dolby
You really think there are free lunches? Someone is paying for all this goodness. Just because you don't see a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean you aren't paying for this time off. The burden isn't spread at all. You pay for all your benefits. Not the employer, not the government. You. One way or the other.
Indeed.
I'd rather pay for sick leave than the effects of sick workers coming to work. That seems a more logical policy
" 
Someone is paying for all this goodness. Just because you don't see a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean you aren't paying for this time off. The burden isn't spread at all. You pay for all your benefits. Not the employer, not the government. You. One way or the other.
