APP - Proposed law would require pay for sick workers

T

tinfoil

Banned
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!
 
tinfoil said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tinfoil said:
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!
Click to expand...
"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!
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
tinfoil said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
tinfoil said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Good Luck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jngreznex said:
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.
Click to expand...

dy6b6v.png
 
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?
 
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.
 
Jngreznex said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the UK most companies give their employees 25 days holiday per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top