Proposed law would require pay for sick workers

[tinfoil]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59J58H20091103

FTA:...but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1....

Say what? How will it save employers money when they now have to pay the sick worker AND pay the replacement needed to do the work?

Liberal math, I guess!

[meme]

Ain't Socialism grand.

[WinterBorn]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59J58H20091103

FTA:...but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1....

Say what? How will it save employers money when they now have to pay the sick worker AND pay the replacement needed to do the work?

Liberal math, I guess!

If you look at what it costs the employer when a dozen workers come down with something, because a sick worker didn't stay home, it makes more sense.

Some places do not hire replacements, they limp along shorthanded for a week or so. And that sure beats having half the staff sick.


Its not the best law, but its not the horror some make it out to be.

[tinfoil]

If you look at what it costs the employer when a dozen workers come down with something, because a sick worker didn't stay home, it makes more sense.

what? Right now the employer can tell them to stay home if they're sick to prevent the spread. now, if the employer has to pay for the employee if he sends him home, there is NOW AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE THEM WORK AND SPREAD THE ILLNESS

[tinfoil]

The effect of this law would be more low wage earners being exposed to illness on the job.

Low wage earners are least able to afford to miss work.
Employers of low wage earners will face this decision most often because low wage earners are forced to work through illness.

[WinterBorn]

The effect of this law would be more low wage earners being exposed to illness on the job.

Low wage earners are least able to afford to miss work.
Employers of low wage earners will face this decision most often because low wage earners are forced to work through illness.

And most employers of low wage workers can see the hazards of having the flu or something like it ravage their workforce.

Also, most employers offer sick days. But they push their employees not to use them.


I am not saying this is a great law, just showing its not the major mistake people say it is.

[Damocles]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59J58H20091103

FTA:...but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1....

Say what? How will it save employers money when they now have to pay the sick worker AND pay the replacement needed to do the work?

Liberal math, I guess!
"swamped"... Jeebus.

They are really ramping up the scare tactics. Using anecdotes and other things they try to get people scared into taking this vaccine.

What's worse? They actually stopped making the regular flu vaccine for this less deadly disease then sucked so bad at it, it won't be available until after the wave has passed. They deliberately overstate the instances by simply never checking. If they have flu-like symptoms, well that's the Hinie virus!

[tinfoil]

And most employers of low wage workers can see the hazards of having the flu or something like it ravage their workforce.

Also, most employers offer sick days. But they push their employees not to use them.


I am not saying this is a great law, just showing its not the major mistake people say it is.

And most employers of low wage workers can see the hazards of having the flu or something like it ravage their workforce.

exactly why the employer should have the right to take steps to prevent the spread. This law gives the employer less incentive to keep an employee off the job. Some business margins are so slim, they will have no choice but to have the sick worker work since they may not be able to operate while paying for a replacement worker and the wages of sick worker.

Who comes up with this crap?

[SmarterthanYou]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59J58H20091103

FTA:...but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1....

Say what? How will it save employers money when they now have to pay the sick worker AND pay the replacement needed to do the work?

Liberal math, I guess!

actually, the 'saved' money is probably coming from not losing any productivity from the spread of the virus among coworkers. it kinda makes sense but it looks like nothing more than making a company provide mandatory sick time.

[SmarterthanYou]

If you look at what it costs the employer when a dozen workers come down with something, because a sick worker didn't stay home, it makes more sense.

what? Right now the employer can tell them to stay home if they're sick to prevent the spread. now, if the employer has to pay for the employee if he sends him home, there is NOW AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE THEM WORK AND SPREAD THE ILLNESS

no it doesn't. I'll use myself as an example. I'm the sole breadwinner in my household. Because my contract has no sick pay benefits, if I get sick, im still going to work so my family doesn't go homeless or starve. I then risk spreading the virus around to others. If I can be assured of getting some sick pay benefits, i'd rather stay home so I can get healthier faster.

[Good Luck]

no it doesn't. I'll use myself as an example. I'm the sole breadwinner in my household. Because my contract has no sick pay benefits, if I get sick, im still going to work so my family doesn't go homeless or starve. I then risk spreading the virus around to others. If I can be assured of getting some sick pay benefits, i'd rather stay home so I can get healthier faster.
There is no reference to the actual bill, so I haven't seen its actual text. However, from the description, the law covers "U.S. employers who tell workers to stay home when they are sick..." If that is the case, then employers without sicck benefits will simply stop advising their workers to stay home.

I would be interested in seeing the text of this bill. Also from the description, the paid time off is limited to 5 days. But is that 5 days per year, per illness, or what? One significant problem with paid sick leave is it is rather easy to abuse. In those companies that do have paid leave, I would bet the number of "sick days" paid for partyitis is a significant percentage.

[tinfoil]

no it doesn't. I'll use myself as an example. I'm the sole breadwinner in my household. Because my contract has no sick pay benefits, if I get sick, im still going to work so my family doesn't go homeless or starve. I then risk spreading the virus around to others. If I can be assured of getting some sick pay benefits, i'd rather stay home so I can get healthier faster.

Dude, it's only if the employer sends you home.

Now the employer has an incentive to make you work--since he'll have to pay your wage anyway.

No duhh, that you would want to get paid to stay home.

[tinfoil]

If I can be assured of getting some sick pay benefits, i'd rather stay home so I can get healthier faster.

No duhh! Who wouldn't? But do you want to have a job when you're healthy too? Because this kind of law will help make sure it won't be there later. Paying people to stay home tends to have that effect on a business

[SmarterthanYou]

Dude, it's only if the employer sends you home.

Now the employer has an incentive to make you work--since he'll have to pay your wage anyway.

No duhh, that you would want to get paid to stay home.

tf, it's understandable that anyone can see this MIGHT be an incentive to force the employee to work, however, reality dictates otherwise. NO employer is going to want to FORCE sick employees to work for several reasons.

1) Spreading any communicable disease around your workplace is going to affect productivity. therefore, it will end up being cheaper to pay 5 days of sick pay than to lose 20-40 people because the flu spread around too far.

2) If the flu affects a person for MORE than 5 days, I'm assuming that the law doesn't require the employer to pay for more than 5 days and can still not allow the employee back in. that limits responsibility for the employer and doesn't unduly hamper the employee. a win/win.

3) having ONLY 5 days of sick pay is incentive to the sick employee to do everything to get well fast. this limits those people that take days off for sinus headaches while allowing for those that are truly sick to utilize their sick time efficiently.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's a good law. I wholly support it, even if the economic effects aren't good.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is no reference to the actual bill, so I haven't seen its actual text. However, from the description, the law covers "U.S. employers who tell workers to stay home when they are sick..." If that is the case, then employers without sicck benefits will simply stop advising their workers to stay home.

I would be interested in seeing the text of this bill. Also from the description, the paid time off is limited to 5 days. But is that 5 days per year, per illness, or what? One significant problem with paid sick leave is it is rather easy to abuse. In those companies that do have paid leave, I would bet the number of "sick days" paid for partyitis is a significant percentage.

I would rather see about a twenty days or so of paid leave per a year for any reason. It won't be bad for any individual businesses, at least considering internal US sales, because all businesses will be forced to do it and no one will be able to "compete" by forcing their employers to work more time. Although such a proposal would reduce total economic productivity, I think it would be worth it for the quality of life improvements it would make for the average American.

[tinfoil]

I would rather see about a twenty days or so of paid leave per a year for any reason. It won't be bad for any individual businesses, at least considering internal US sales, because all businesses will be forced to do it and no one will be able to "compete" by forcing their employers to work more time. Although such a proposal would reduce total economic productivity, I think it would be worth it for the quality of life improvements it would make for the average American.

http://i38.tinypic.com/dy6b6v.png

[tinfoil]

watermark logic:

Doesn't matter if it puts business into the red because it will put ALL business in the red.

Can a kid be any more ignorant than watermark?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If one single company started doing something extremely liberal like 20 days of work off a year, then that company would have a competitive edge shaved off. But if they all do it, it's not such a problem. It's not going to put "all business in the red", it's just going to reduce their profitability slightly.

The main point here is that if we don't require them ALL to do it, NONE of them are going to do it (except maybe as a benefits package to higher ups).

I have fully admitted that it will slightly reduce the total economic output of the US, but I don't think that's really a problem compared to the gains.

[cancel2 2022]

If one single company started doing something extremely liberal like 20 days of work off a year, then that company would have a competitive edge shaved off. But if they all do it, it's not such a problem. It's not going to put "all business in the red", it's just going to reduce their profitability slightly.

The main point here is that if we don't require them ALL to do it, NONE of them are going to do it (except maybe as a benefits package to higher ups).

I have fully admitted that it will slightly reduce the total economic output of the US, but I don't think that's really a problem compared to the gains.

In the UK most companies give their employees 25 days holiday per year.

[Good Luck]

There are many companies that give as much as 30 paid days or more per year, though usually one has to work for them for 15-20 year to get to that level.

The most common form of paid leave starts with 9 or 10 (depending if the state observes Columbus Day or not) days of holiday pay. If the company stays open for national holidays, it is not uncommon for them to offer double pay for those who work that day, and paid day off for those who do not.

On top of that, many companies offer 5-12 days sick leave per year, accumulated at some fraction of an hour per hour or day worked. (ie: work 168 hours - the average full time month - get 3 hours or so sick leave credit.)

Paid vacation most often starts at one week per year, sometimes after working for the company 5 years, sometimes as soon as the probationary period is over. Like sick leave, vacation leave usually accumulates at a set fraction of an hour per hour worked. The amount of vacation one can accumulate in a year often goes up as an employee gains experience - one week at five years, 10 days at ten years, two weeks at 15 years, etc. In some companies one can work themselves up to 4 weeks paid vacation per year. Add that to 10 holidays and 5 sick days, that's 35 paid days off per year.

In short, the idea of sick leave plus vacation, plus paid holidays is not all that revolutionary, nor all that "liberal". Benefits such as these are one of the primary ways, besides salaries and health insurance, that companies compete with each other for good employees. The problem with making such offering mandatory is, (as is typical of many liberal socialist ideas) it diminishes motivation to maximize one's efforts as a worker. When all is handed out free, regardless of effort, production will go down by FAR more than the 20 days off can account for.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In the UK most companies give their employees 25 days holiday per year.

They're required by law to give them 20 days a year though; 25 doesn't seem too far off from that number.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There are many companies that give as much as 30 paid days or more per year, though usually one has to work for them for 15-20 year to get to that level.

The most common form of paid leave starts with 9 or 10 (depending if the state observes Columbus Day or not) days of holiday pay. If the company stays open for national holidays, it is not uncommon for them to offer double pay for those who work that day, and paid day off for those who do not.

On top of that, many companies offer 5-12 days sick leave per year, accumulated at some fraction of an hour per hour or day worked. (ie: work 168 hours - the average full time month - get 3 hours or so sick leave credit.)

Paid vacation most often starts at one week per year, sometimes after working for the company 5 years, sometimes as soon as the probationary period is over. Like sick leave, vacation leave usually accumulates at a set fraction of an hour per hour worked. The amount of vacation one can accumulate in a year often goes up as an employee gains experience - one week at five years, 10 days at ten years, two weeks at 15 years, etc. In some companies one can work themselves up to 4 weeks paid vacation per year. Add that to 10 holidays and 5 sick days, that's 35 paid days off per year.

In short, the idea of sick leave plus vacation, plus paid holidays is not all that revolutionary, nor all that "liberal". Benefits such as these are one of the primary ways, besides salaries and health insurance, that companies compete with each other for good employees. The problem with making such offering mandatory is, (as is typical of many liberal socialist ideas) it diminishes motivation to maximize one's efforts as a worker. When all is handed out free, regardless of effort, production will go down by FAR more than the 20 days off can account for.

Yeah. That's why France has some of the most productive workers per hour in the entire western world. Face it; you've entirely made this entire line of reasoning up and have no evidence to back it up (as is typical of ALL far right conservative ideas).

People deserve mandatory leave before half their working life is over. 20 years is absurd; you could commit murder and get parole before then. As I said, it only exists as a benefits package for the higher up top 10% of society. You like a society where everyone plays a rat race to the detriment of everyone, a like a happy society. That's the difference between the ignorant far right like you and liberal socialists.

[tinfoil]

start a business and see if you can afford to pay people to stay home and pay people to do the job they would be doing.

You ignorant clowns are clueless

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah. That's why France has some of the most productive workers per hour in the entire western world. Face it; you've entirely made this entire line of reasoning up and have no evidence to back it up (as is typical of ALL far right conservative ideas).can you back THAT up with evidence?

[TuTu Monroe]

can you back THAT up with evidence?

He can't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828

[christiefan915]

In the UK most companies give their employees 25 days holiday per year.

Here's what government workers get.

"Annual leave is earned on the basis of years of federal service, including creditable military service. Full-time employees with 15 years or more service earn 26 days of annual leave a year; those with three but less than 15 years earn 20 days; and those with less than three years earn 13 days. Normally, part-time employees with 15 years or more service earn one hour of annual leave for each ten hours in a pay status, those with three but less than 15 years earn one hour for each 13 hours in pay status, and those with less than three years earn one hour for each 20 hours in pay status."

Government workers are entitled to the following ten regular holidays each year:

* New Year’s Day, January 1
* Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, 3rd Monday in January
* Washington's Birthday, 3rd Monday in February
* Memorial Day, last Monday in May
* Independence Day, July 4
* Labor Day, 1st Monday in September
* Columbus Day, 2nd Monday in October
* Veterans Day, November 11
* Thanksgiving Day, 4th Thursday in November
* Christmas Day, December 25

Most private industry workers get way less vacation time, and holidays are cut to 5 or 6 out of the ten above.

[TuTu Monroe]

Here's what government workers get.

"Annual leave is earned on the basis of years of federal service, including creditable military service. Full-time employees with 15 years or more service earn 26 days of annual leave a year; those with three but less than 15 years earn 20 days; and those with less than three years earn 13 days. Normally, part-time employees with 15 years or more service earn one hour of annual leave for each ten hours in a pay status, those with three but less than 15 years earn one hour for each 13 hours in pay status, and those with less than three years earn one hour for each 20 hours in pay status."


Government workers are entitled to the following ten regular holidays each year:

* New Year’s Day, January 1
* Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, 3rd Monday in January
* Washington's Birthday, 3rd Monday in February
* Memorial Day, last Monday in May
* Independence Day, July 4
* Labor Day, 1st Monday in September
* Columbus Day, 2nd Monday in October
* Veterans Day, November 11
* Thanksgiving Day, 4th Thursday in November
* Christmas Day, December 25

Most private industry workers get way less vacation time, and holidays are cut to 5 or 6 out of the ten above.

Yeah and it's next to impossible to fire a government employee. Private companies can't compete.

[tinfoil]

I'm not sure what you folks are trying to prove when you cite a government paying for time off.

No DUHH! They don't have to be profitable.

[Topspin]

thanks, this piece of shit didn't need anything else to bring it down but someone some turbo-lib asswhole added some.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

He can't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828

From article:

Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country’s billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The United States is second at $35.63, about a half dollar ahead of third-place France.