12 states in the US are currently pushing for legislation that will mandate all companies offer sick leave with pay to their workers. As it stands now, an estimated 46million people do not have access to sick pay. Proponents of the sick pay initiatives say it will help reduce illnesses in the workplace, since workers wouldn't have to lose pay if they were sick. Opponents say it's another burden on small businesses already hurting by the slowing economy.

Read more about it here

I understand the arguement, but I'm mixed here. I get sick pay, but that's a benefit of working for a large, privatized company. It's meant as a fringe benefit. If people get vacation hours or PTO (Personal Time Off), they should keep a buffer of a day or 2 available in case they get sick. God knows I keep at least 3 vacation days on the books in case of a family emergency or something.

Although I feel for the people who do not receive sick leave with pay, this is the wrong answer.

What's the right answer? Not offering it at all? Cuz you know that's the only alternative.

FAIL!

just one more incentive to not work. can we please stop rewarding laziness with money? maybe we could reward people who work hard and strive for excellence.

that would never work though. we're to busy encouraging the Fat-@ssification of the country.

Excuse me but WHAT THE MOTHER F*CKING HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Are you just lazy f*cks who assume that everyone else is, too?

"GET BACK TO WORK AND STOP COMPLAINING, I DON'T CARE WHAT'S COMING OUT OF YOUR LUNGS!"

Jesus Christ, try working a shotty job once in a while and you might change your mind.

FSA is an alternative (Flexible Spending Account). Like a rainy day fund. They can pay $5/wk (or whatever) into the fund and if they are sick they can dip into it. Of course, that would require some to lay off the smokes. Come to think of it, if they stopped smoking they could afford to be sick a day AND be healthier.

See? There are alternative! :

The assumption that real sickness doesn't exist and that it's all laziness =

yeah I know about FSAs, they're not really designed to pay for sick leave though

This article's "human interest story" is a school bus driver. So you drive a bus for two hours and THEN go to the doctor.

I've been coughing and hacking and wheezing all day. I'm pretty sure I was doing that during the time that children are taken to and from school on buses (and I'm sure parents wouldn't appreciate a bus driver "sucking it up" and spreading the flu to their little bundles of joy).

Sorry, but if you have kids in school and you're worried about your kids catching germs, catching them from their bus driver needs to be at the bottom of your worry list.

(Other kids, bathroom doors, water fountains, the table where they eat their breakfast/lunch, etc.)

My main concern is not that bus drivers should suck it up if they're deathly ill, its that employers shouldn't be forced to pay for sick leave if they don't wanna.

Which is another way of evading the issue. "Hey as long as they're gonna be around a bunch of germ-carrying kids, what's one more person?" Fail fail fail. The bus driver could have something a lot worse than a sniffle, and that's even granting the premise that people who work shitty jobs and get paid dick should have to just suck it up and get their asses to work or lose pay. What the hell is this, China or something?


Unless it's your employer, right?

1) I wasn't evading the issue, I was replying to Bewbs. In any event, during the 9 years I rode a bus to school, the closest I ever came in contact to my bus driver was sitting in the seat behind his once. If you're that concerned about airborne pathogens, send your kid to school with a mask on or something.

2) No, honestly if my employer decided to take sick pay away tomorrow (I do receive 40 hours sick pay, non-transferable, per year), I'd be upset about it, but I still wouldn't think they should be forced to gimme, gimme, gimme. I could always go look for an employer that DOES offer sick pay if I decided it was important to me.

LOL to the "What is this, China?" comment from the person apparently advocating that government should dictate what employee benefits companies must offer.[/snark]

I don't have sick pay or leave of any kind - if I need to take a day off, it's my problem.

My wife has a better education and, thusly, a better job with these kinds of benefits because she is a more valuable member of the work force.

I don't want the government to force any sick pay legislation onto my employer on my behalf.

I could have attended a four year college and gotten a better job if I were worried about - and the truth is I could, at anytime I choose, do the work to get a four year college and a better job.

If a person doesn't like their situation, it's on them to do what it takes to fix it. Not the government.

What if you didn't have that option? Think outside of your own situation for a while.


This is the kind of mentality you see in people who don't take ownership in their government. You act like "government" is some kind of foreign entity.

I'd do what Hobbes said, and I'd either be content with my situation or I'd put myself in a better position.

Just like that?

For the record, I never mentioned laziness, that was another poster. Now, there are unscrupulous bastards out there that WILL take sick leave just because they have it and that is definitely because it ruins the "trust" system that sick leave is based on.

FWIW, I was suggesting FSA merely as an example. You adopt that type of system into a sick leave based system successfully.

I wasn't directly addressing you, but there was still this cynical sentiment in your post about them "having to lay off the smokes." Jesus, we can be holier-than-thou when it suits our political purposes.

You again attack the debater instead of the points raised in the debate.

I'm sorry, but if you have a shitty job, then life is harder. That's how it works. You want life to be better, work on making yourself more valuable to the people who have the resources so that they will be willing to share more of the collective resources with you. Don't expect the government to force them to play nice with you. The government - my government which I accept ownership of - has better things to do with its time.

This piece of legislation, while a nice comforting benefit, seems like another straw in the haystack. I don't think this will provide any significant improvement to the problems that need to be addressed in our economy. I don't think it'll break the camel's back either, but that's usually more an issue of the haystack than the straw being thrown on.

Without getting into debates of whether this is "rewarding laziness" or not, the real issue remains that laborers need to perform labor in order to get paid. Paid sick leave time is a benefit that needs to be decided at a higher scale, but I think there are other higher priority necessities when it comes to the world of employment than this. I mean our economies have survived all this time without mandated sick pay. What has fundamentally changed that it is suddenly required? Or what long-standing problem can we finally afford to tackle by legislating this? This is being characterized as a solution of the latter type, but I'm not seeing it.

Might I also remind that not supporting this sort of legislation does not mean we are mandating no sick pay whatsoever. As such, the opponents should not be regarded as they are against paid sick leave itself.

Ahhh... well, see, I'm full of cynicism. Hard to break habits you know. Sorry my snide remark caught you wrong. I shouldn't attempt humor at the workplace... might make me sick

I'm really not trying to do that, seriously. But I am attacking the mindset that says "you're on your own and you should be on your own." I have a serious problem with that; it's unacceptable to me. I'm not attacking you -- I'm just not debating on your terms because I don't accept your premise. Anyway if I were attacking you I'd say you smelled funny or something.

I think this is really an imbalanced POV. I'm not advocating government control of everyone and everything, but for God's sake they should take a part in working to improve the quality of life for people who are willing to work.

Well, in fairness, that's not my position. You always equate "not the government's place" with "no one's place" and I don't know why.

I don't have sick days, but I have a support group of friends and family around me to get me through the things I need to get through. A two-income home with a responsible budget in place means that when I have to take a sick day - or multiple sick days - I'm not going to fall behind on my bills baring some weird simultaneous his and hers cancer.

I have people at work that pick up my slack when I have to be away, and I often work overtime to make up for others who have to be away. See, I work with a bunch of actors who go to auditions all the time and stuff. We don't have sick days to take, so we take a reasonable look at our situation and we work to open our schedules so that everyone gets to go take care of their stuff and our productivity as a business doesn't fall off.

I don't need Glue's tax money (he's in California, right?) to be spent on giving me sick days. We worked it out like reasonable people without the government. Most people do. Like Glue said, "...our economies have survived all this time without mandated sick pay. What has fundamentally changed that it is suddenly required? Or what long-standing problem can we finally afford to tackle by legislating this?"


I guess I would just argue that your quality of life is more satisfying and stable when you have to earn it, as opposed having it handed to you.

seriously though... yes, yes i would

Why the two extremes? Why not somewhere in the middle? Are you against Social Security? (You probably are.) Again, this goes right to my (admittedly core) belief that we as a society should be interdependent. Not codependent, but interdependent. Otherwise, what's the point of even having a society?

really? wow I guess since you know that I never had to work a shotty job or work my way into another job you could tell me how I think like I do because everything was handed to me. dude, I love you dearly as an innernets bud but you don't know shyt about my life or what jobs I've had.

I had a whole diatribe on what I've worked at but its not worth it. so I deleted it.


I never once wanted anyone to MAKE my employer pay for anything other than my time. if the employer chooses otherwise THATS THEIR OPTION.

let's just let the government take over everything and get it over with so all the progressive communists can have what they want.

its not this one thing, its the whole spectrum. one at a time govt is removing freedoms and responsibilities from you, me and our employers.

I think we should also be interdependent. And I just gave you a huge example of interdependence existing without the government - meaning it cost no resources outside of the ones of those involved. That sort of behavior is also required in a society.

I believe government is big picture. Securing our borders, upholding our laws, educating our children, etc. The things we would not have the ability to do on our own in the tiny little groups we humans tend to cluster in.

Every time the government takes any action, they are reaching into the pockets of your fellow citizens and taking their money in your name. Which I am fine with. I understand it needs to happen for some things, and I am happy to contribute my part for those things. But every time the government acts, ask yourself if you feel good about me having less money so that you can have what the government is offering.

I don't need to spend your money to work out my sick day situation. You don't need to spend my money to determine which light bulbs you want to buy.

It doesn't mean I hate other people. Quite the contrary. I understand that other people need different things than me, so I am willing to work a little harder in my own life to give them the freedom to do what they need to do to get through their days.

And they'll work a little harder to give me that same freedom.

And the government will make sure that we're educated, we're not stabbing people, and that no one is trying to invade us. And everyone will be happy.

America is so fucked up sometimes I don't know where to begin.

I think I probably am a socialist. So we should probably get that over with.

Both extremes and everything in between consist of interdependence. In a basic sense, an optimal solution is optimal, but people maintain the freedom not to partake in it, or to disprove it (because it's still rather subjective as to whether "this way" or "that way" is really "the best way"). I'm not sure how mandating this or government intercession, in this area, helps us to achieve any of these aims.

And as Hobbes also points out, this may not even be applicable/useful to various industries.

It also sounds like the discussion is turning into philosophy vs philosophy again rather than over the actual legislation (whatever it even is right now).

Really, sometimes I just wish that everyone could go live in one of the other developed Western nations for a couple of years and see how utterly selfish and bitchy this kind of debate is.

Socialists are codependent. Make up your mind.

As much as I think I would enjoy living in other modern industrialized nations like Canada/Europe/Australia (and there's a lot I find attractive about the notion), I think this reasoning is flawed. Sure, we've a tendency to come off as self-absorbed here in the States, but people could equally come and live in the US for a while before rendering opinion on it. And then again, the US itself has such widely differing characteristics depending on region that living in one doesn't tell you that much about what others are like. That hardly builds a measured opinion that applies to the whole.

you know man, your points are always overshadowed by the fact that you bash us every chance you get. even when its not all of us but just me or somebody else, you're right there "Americas fucked up, Americas fucked up, Americas fucked up, look at how Austarlia does it"
well let me tell you we all know Australia is the greatest country ever. that's why everyone talks about The Australian Dream or wanting an australian way of life. your home country is so great that noone gives a crap about it, maybe that's why you hate us. I'm not bashing it I'm just sayin I think some of your hatred for us is just based in the relative obscurity of where you come from.

now I'm making fun: the most interesting fact about australia: Men at Work.

The very fact that you're having a debate about whether or not it's a good thing for employees to have sick pay is astounding to me.

whoa trigger, we didn't say its bad, we said its bad for the govt to mandate.

Urm. We're debating about whether it should be mandated. Not whether "blank is a good thing". Many things in life are "good", insofar as they can be undeniably judged so. That doesn't mean they should be mandated.

Roota... voota...ZOOT!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Back on topic, this thread is about the government mandating that ALL business offer their employees sick pay. People get sick, most times beyond their control. That's also beyond the employer's control. This mandating leads the question... who is responsible for the employee's health? The employee or the employer? I could eventually see this cannonballing, where businesses want physicals or a illness history as a term of employment IMO.

if they have to pay sick leave, I would have no problem with that request.

That's your perception. Anyway, I was just commenting on the fact that I seem to agree with Haggisjin 99% of the time when it comes to issues like this, on which I think the US does have its head up its ass.

Anyway, it's not like we're all farming our own food or teaching our children ourselves etc. So I don't see what the point of all this blah is. We all depend upon others for what we need, and increasingly so. Go live in a cave if that's what you want, but the rest of the world will be moving in a different direction.

The rest of the world only moves in this direction if it can afford to, or really if it thinks it can afford to. But really, the principle is the same as mandating that everyone pay for a land phone line, or vice versa. What if they don't receive calls? What if a cell phone works perfectly for them? This is far from something that is domain of government regulation like say racial discrimination in hiring practices.

Not that that's relevant.


You've never, ever seen me suggesting otherwise.

I am constantly arguing for the nut right-wingers to wake up and smell the global economy in election threads.

When I argue the existence of morality without God I am consistently bringing up our interdependence as the reason why we must to treat each other with dignity, empathy, and respect irregardless of rewards in the afterlife.

But, of course, since I now argue that sick days don't need to be mandated I am suddenly the crazy backwoods redneck who wants to live in a cave. I guess your highly advanced sick day technology has left Neanderthals like me too confused to be a part of your society.

You really are the master of rebutting without actually discussing the topic at hand as of late.

Okay, I'm here late, but wouldn't the solution be, you know, NOT having legislation? Are we of the mind that every positive benefit of advancing in society must be legislated up the ass in order to provide said benefit to people who haven't climbed some sort of social ladder as far as someone else has for one reason or another?


I think The Dark Knight left him rattled, never to return.

Generally they legislate it because otherwise it would never happen?

That seems to be the general trend in workplace advancements....

Here's the actual entry on the proposed legislation from thomas.loc.gov and its summary.

Healthy Families Act - Requires certain employers, who employ 15 or more employees for each working day during 20 or more workweeks a year, to provide a minimum paid sick leave and employment benefits of: (1) seven days annually for those who work at least 30 hours per week; and (2) a prorated annual amount for those who work less than 30 but at least 20 hours a week, or less than 1,500 but at least 1,000 hours per year.

Two things:

1) Tons and tons of people already have paid sick days in America. It isn't a new concept, and you don't need the best job in the world to have them.

2) I don't accept the premise that all things that get legislated should happen in the first place, so if those particular things would otherwise never happen, it's not that big a deal.

Well I would hope that you would understand that I was using hyperbole to make my point. Which is -- and see how I bring in my irrelevant rebuttal -- that what we're describing here is a more primitive version of what already exists in many other areas of our lives. It's just that this are hasn't caught up yet. When I mentioned food, it was as a reminder that we are far, far from being "interdependent" when it comes to feeding ourselves. If all the supermarkets and McDonald's in the country suddenly vaporized, we would be f*cked. Because that's where we've come to as a society. Is that a bad thing? It depends on whether or not it's more likely for all the supermarkets to go belly up, or your subsistence farm. Society is more stable when things aren't left to individuals. And that might totally chap your ass, but I think it's true.

See, relevance.

In this case, Haggis, paid sick leave is already offered by more than half of employers out there (according to one of the lobbyist groups cited in the article). It's not something that will suddenly fall out of the sky like some divine gift from a higher power. The benefit is not offered by some employers. There are quite possibly good reasons for that. For some industries, it may not even be necessary (according to either party). For others, perhaps it should be but the employers are run by idiots who need to be replaced or the employer should be put out of business so a better one can try to offer better. Or perhaps it can't be afforded in light of other demands.

Hey, while we're at it, why not have the government mandate that all business pay for gas money to and from work? Some companies already do it for their employees, and its definitely a positive benefit to the health and welfare of the individual and his family, so why not go ahead and pass legislation to make every employer do it? Certainly it can be argued that its just as much a necessity as paid sick leave...

Why not?