Work Related Vent

[StephanieZ]

I expect you were trying to be helpful and you probably were.

 

But I always find this kind of view a little naïve.  The US is really somewhat unusual in being a developed economy that has so few protections for workers.  Many other countries, of different kids with different economies, sizes, different types of industry, protect workers jobs when they are ill.  And they manage to make it work, even for small businesses.

 

Part of the reason such laws exist is to protect workers, but it is also understood to be to protect local businesses and the economy.  People in unstable situations don't make for much of an economic engine.

 

Our employment situation is not unstable. FT'ers are guaranteed 40 hr/wk every week they want it. They have up to 5 (or more if paternity or maternity benefits are used) weeks paid off each year on any day/time/way they want to use it. They can take unpaid time off with little limitation. Each month, they can request days/part days off with or without using their paid leave time, and management schedules around their requests . . . Obviously, our team is not unstable. We have three team members who've been on our team for 8+ years -- one took two (paid) maternity leaves before quitting before her 3rd pregnancy (to stay home) and recently, after a 2 year break, rejoined our team working just 2 short shifts a week -- shifts than she knew were unpopular (Sat morning and a late midweek evening) but that also happened to work great for a mom . . . As I said above, our lead receptionist has been encouraged to write her own job schedule and description post-maternity leave after having a 100% supportive maternity experience (us readily accepting changes in return to work date and shift from FT to PT). 

 

I can't tell you the number of lay staff we've had who have tearfully thanked us both during and years after their employment for being so supportive and respectful. That lead receptionist and her husband have both nearly broken my heart with their gratitude for our flexibility and respect. I have team members who moved out of state 7-8 years ago and work for excellent practices but who still lament no longer working for us and with our team. 

 

The *reason* we can be such a stable employer is that we have such a great team. If the team wasn't stable, reliable, and responsible, we couldn't offer what we do to our staff. They each know this, and when those same team members are interviewing applicants for positions, they are the most fanatical about making sure they don't add any weak links to our strong chain.

FWIW, I am *all for* paid family leave. In places where vets are guaranteed lengthy paid leave (Canada, etc), there develops a healthy pool of "relief" vets to cover maternity leaves for employers. Similarly, I would guess that if very generous paid leave were available, there would evolve better temp services for practices like ours .. .  But, as it is, our (small WV) region does NOT have that sort of depth of skilled temp staff. Indeed, just to schedule dh's vacations or CE, we put a lot of time into booking a good relief vet, and we frequently have to schedule our vacations around the available vet time . . . 

[StephanieZ]

But no one here was talking about frequent, every other week call offs. Just the normal human condition of sometimes getting sick, probably a few times a year at least. That's not a family situation or medical condition, that's just being human. Coming in to the office when sick means everyone else gets sick, which is a bigger problem. Even when I worked at a clinic with less than 10 employees we let sick people stay home. Heck, we insisted on it. Because as hard as it was to deal with one person out, dealing with multiple people out would be devestating. 

 

Maybe you could re-read my earlier posts if you are unclear as to what I was talking about. I advised OP on how to approach her boss about her 2 sick days. Her boss was new to her position, if you might recall, so was likely unfamiliar with OP's personal reliability. 

 

At this point, I think I've done my best to advise folks on how to approach their employers about their sick days and/or how to understand the perspective of the employer. I'll retire from this attempt and move on. 

 

Have a great day, all, and may we all be healthy! :)

[ktgrok]

Maybe you could re-read my earlier posts if you are unclear as to what I was talking about. I advised OP on how to approach her boss about her 2 sick days. Her boss was new to her position, if you might recall, so was likely unfamiliar with OP's personal reliability. 

 

At this point, I think I've done my best to advise folks on how to approach their employers about their sick days and/or how to understand the perspective of the employer. I'll retire from this attempt and move on. 

 

Have a great day, all, and may we all be healthy! :)

 

I think the part that was confusing me was you kept referring to frequent call outs in response to people talking about normal sick days. 

 

[StephanieZ]

I think the part that was confusing me was you kept referring to frequent call outs in response to people talking about normal sick days. 

 

It's just something I've learned as an employer that there is a wide range of normal. A family where my employee has a few kids and is the sole person available to stay home and/or take the kid to the DR is "normal" to need 5-10 days or more per year off unexpectedly. The same employee with a spouse or grandparents or a friend who can take care of the kids (at least much of the time) when sick would take much fewer day off. An employee with chronic uncontrolled migraines or a comparably disabling ailment would similarly need a lot of sick days. That same employee who has successfully found a medical management plan for her ailment will take many fewer days off. 

 

If you want to be employed in a critical role, you have to be able to have reliable sick child care and/or a healthy family. The lack of sick child care is a national problem, for sure. It sucks.

 

I personally know plenty of physicians, veterinarians, and other professionals in critical roles. I've never known any of them to take more than 1-2 days max per year unexpectedly. Our employed vet has never taken a sick day, despite being a mom of 3 young kids. Dh has *never* taken an unplanned sick day in his 16 years in practice. He's gotten sick here and there, but he's always worked through it, and we work hard to keep him healthy. (We went so far as to pay for flu shots for any/all staff who'd get them back in the days when folks paid OOP for preventive medical care.) 

 

One of our interview questions is "How often do you expect to take off days unpredictably for sick days or other emergencies?" It is an enlightening question, and screens out a lot of potential hires who say things like, "Oh, maybe once a month or so. Not often!" vs "Pretty much never. I've got plans for my kids when they are sick, and I have only taken off sick for three days once in the last 5 years for a bad flu." You'd be amazed at how many generally healthy people think that calling off one a month for a day or two for a headache is normal. We have plenty of staff who have chronic health issues (migraines, etc.) and they've all managed to find good ways to manage their aliments sufficiently to be reliable employees. In the final interview, with my husband, they are generally asked a variation of this question again, and before hiring, we make it very clear that our hospital can't manage frequent (more than a couple per year) call offs while explaining our scheduling and paid time off policies.

 

Our staff is a cohesive team, and they work together to cover needs for each other. What goes around comes around, and they understand that. They also understand the stress it puts on everyone when there are "too many" call offs, and they are the first to want to avoid or get rid of team members whose unreliability unreasonably put pressure on the rest of the team. They've also all witnessed owner/management commitment to our staff and willingness to go above and beyond for critical needs, so they understand that they are valued and respected. 

 

We *all* step up and make do when someone is really sick or has another emergency. No one is upset or not understanding when someone has an emergency. 

 

But, we've had enough bad hires over the years (management failures; we improved) who thought even 2-3 days a month or more of call offs was acceptable . . . that we ultimately instituted a very firm "first 6 months" probationary period where any call off in the first 6 months is carefully reviewed by management. This evolved because *every* hire (at least 6-10 over our first few years of ownership) who called off a day or two in the first month inevitably continued that pattern until they were finally fired or quit. Some of these people were technically skilled, but their unreliability made them a bad fit for our business. The fist half dozen times this happened to us, we would automatically treat these new-hire-call-offs as we do the rest of the team, unquestioning support and "get well soon" . . . but we eventually realized that, no, it wasn't a coincidence that the new hire just happened to have a virus, a migraine, and a family emergency all in the first 2 months of employment. It *always* continued and worsened. So, now, we treat any call off in the first 2 months as a reason for a sit down discussion with the employee, and repeated call offs in the first 6 months are generally reason for termination due to "bad fit" and "frequent call offs". Typically, we document written warnings including requiring DR note for subsequent call offs within a set time period. Most often, these employees fire themselves due to an unwillingness to limit their call offs to truly critical situations (i.e, they aren't sick enough to go to a DR or may not be sick at all). In our state, as in most US states, being sick isn't a legal excuse to miss work. We can and do fire for repeated 

"missed shifts" and so long as we have documented written warnings, etc, and there is no documented legal disability (which we have never had, but which would complicate but not prohibit our firing) these are considered justified firings and the employee is not eligible for unemployment coverage. BTDT, never lost an unemployment claim, because we treat people fairly and follow the law.

 

Staff turnover is both expensive for us and very hard on morale, so we've learned to be cautious in hiring as well as quick to fire, as firing a new hire is much less painful for all than waiting 6 months or longer (which was what happened when we didn't pay extra attention to new hire call offs, as it'd take months to realize the pattern when we weren't being vigilant). Thus, the evolution of our cautious hiring and our aggressive "probationary period" policies on absenteeism. 

 

Our pay structure -- which allows staff to take paid time off for any reason (ahead of time for anything but emergency or sick leave) and to rollover time off for up to 2x their annual leave structure (so accumulating up to 6 - 10 paid weeks off depending on seniority), rewards them for reliability because they never lose paid time. Traditional sick leave that they use or lose rewards people for calling off sick. We also have flexible scheduling, which allows them to request preferred shifts and various days off so as to avoid the "sick" days for things that are not truly urgent, but could be planned ahead. Also, since our staff is well compensated and gets good benefits and a guaranteed ability to work 40 hr/wk, as well as OT if they are asked to cover an extra shift, etc, they have more financial flexibility than staff of a company that offers less compensation or has less ability to control their schedule. Since our staff is empowered to swap shifts and rearrange their scheduling as needed, they can also easily cover a sudden DR appointment for something non-that-day-critical (i.e., an injury or mild ailment that needs seen but can wait a day or two). 

[TechWife]

...

 

I personally know plenty of physicians, veterinarians, and other professionals in critical roles. I've never known any of them to take more than 1-2 days max per year unexpectedly. Our employed vet has never taken a sick day, despite being a mom of 3 young kids. Dh has *never* taken an unplanned sick day in his 16 years in practice. He's gotten sick here and there, but he's always worked through it, and we work hard to keep him healthy. (We went so far as to pay for flu shots for any/all staff who'd get them back in the days when folks paid OOP for preventive medical care.) 

 

 

I'm really sorry your husband has to "work through" when he's sick. To me that's a work/life imbalance. I say this as someone who is inclined to push through as well due to my upbringing in a family owned business. Watching my parents do that and being required to so it myself was not in any way healthy, and not just in regards to the immediate illness. There are long term health and relational consequences. Some were not realized until many years down the road. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by TechWife

[TechWife]

It takes about 6 mos full time experience in OUR hospital for a lay person to be trained up to snuff to be a "veterinary nurse" or "tech" in our practice. It takes a similar length of training for a receptionist to be able to handle the front desk alone. 

 

...

 

I was not complaining about our staff situation or seeking advice on changing it. I was explaining why in certain sorts of businesses, like ours, cannot tolerate frequent call offs. It's totally fine to seek a job where you can regularly call off. If you have a medical condition or a family situation that means you'll need unpredictable and frequent days off, then certainly, you should seek that sort of employer. 

 

Honestly, employers create the work environment and staff accordingly. It sounds like you've done a great job creating a team that suits your management style. 

 

Part of your management style includes not having a supplemental pool. It is a choice you are making.  Six months will pass whether or not you spend that six months training someone. Yes, you would have to pay people during the training period, but in the end, you would get capable employees who can work on an as-needed basis. It's a case of getting what you pay for - but it is a choice to do or not to do this. Another part of your management style is the requirement for such a long training period. I can easily conceive of clinical personnel needing a six month, or even longer, training period. However, six months to a trained receptionist is a choice. Sometimes the choice is made through the selection of computer programs, job requirements, telephone systems, office organization, choice of trainer as well as the new employee. But, it is a choice. 

 

I don't know any business that can tolerate frequent call offs. It is expensive all the way around. However,  the point of this thread is that sick days are often unavoidable and it's terrible that taking care of one's health or that of a family member can put a job in jeopardy. If the law required that employees allow a certain number of sick days, employers would adapt. I find it sad that employers won't adapt because it's the right thing to do. I do think it will eventually be forced on employers, but it will take another two or three decades of work on the part of advocates. Who knows, between the need for sick leave, health insurance and a living wage, we may yet see a resurgence of unions. I'm not a fan of labor unions myself, but it may be the only way to affect change. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by TechWife

[Eliz]

It's sad and frustrating when an employee who is NOT abusing sick leave is asked to prioritize company profits above his or her own health.  It's especially difficult when the employee does not receive any benefits such as sick time nor is that employee paid a living wage.  People are not robots.  We can't control when we become sick.  By the way, even robots require maintenance and will no doubt be out of commission time to time; some of those times will not be scheduled.

[purplejackmama]

Sure doesn't sound like a great employer at all. Certainly not someone I'd sign on with...that's not how to treat people, and definitely not a way to get good, hardworking, long-term employees.

 

Nevertheless, I hope you feel better and are able to find a better work situation very soon. I've worked for a few unreasonable bosses over the years and know how terribly stressful it can be.

I agree. When she recommended to the OP that she go into work (while puking!?!) to prove she was really too sick to work, well that's just crazy talk. Why in the world would you want to infect your office?

 

I'm sorry Eliz you're sick. I hope you feel better soon and great job comes your way even sooner!!

[ktgrok]

I'm really sorry your husband has to "work through" when he's sick. To me that's a work/life imbalance. I say this as someone who is inclined to push through as well due to my upbringing in a family owned business. Watching my parents do that and being required to so it myself was not in any way healthy, and not just in regards to the immediate illness. There are long term health and relational consequences. Some were not realized until many years down the road. 

 

It's also bad for public health. It means your employees are now likely to get sick, not to mention clients. Maybe because I come from an area with a lot of elderly that is just unacceptable to me. Like I said, even in a tiny office with less than 10 employees sick people got sent home. Period. 

[Eliz]

It's not just getting others sick either. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get dizzy when I've been throwing up.  This time, my 18 yo could have driven me to work to "demonstrate" that I was really ill.  What about all the times when I drive myself.  I know most of the posters suggesting I go in and throw up in her office were being sarcastic, but for the few that were serious.  What happens if I have an accident on the way to work because I'm dizzy or can't control the vomiting.  A woman was killed 2 years ago driving on icy roads.  Her family told the media she only went to work because her boss said he would fire her if she didn't.  Something is wrong when this kind of pressure is put on employees who can't afford to lose a paycheck.  

 

By the way, I'm feeling much better today!! 

[StephanieZ]

I'm really sorry your husband has to "work through" when he's sick. To me that's a work/life imbalance. I say this as someone who is inclined to push through as well due to my upbringing in a family owned business. Watching my parents do that and being required to so it myself was not in any way healthy, and not just in regards to the immediate illness. There are long term health and relational consequences. Some were not realized until many years down the road. 

 

My husband could choose to take a sick day any time he wanted . . .as he's the boss . .  but as replacement vets are not available on demand . . . besides frustrating and annoying clients that would have to be redirected to a neighboring practice, that would directly cost us about $3000 per day he took off, since all our expenses would continue (even if we unfairly demanded that our staff use their vacation/sick leave to get paid that day, their wages are only 20% of our expenses . . . the facilities costs are there whether or not they are used that day) . . . and since the vet is the only person who generates the income that supports the dozen staff members. . .  If he *plans* a day off, it "only" costs us $400 or so, (essentially the after tax cost of hiring a relief vet at more like $500+/day) since he can usually hire a replacement vet if given enough notice . . . He took about 5 weeks off in the last year, and he works a 40 hr/5 day or so workweek, so it's not unhealthy or untenable. To him (and me), we'd rather use that money towards a week or more of real down time than nursing a head cold for a day in bed . . . He can work 40 hrs in a week and still recover from an illness after hours. Surely every one of us mothers here worked more than 40 hours in a week taking care of young children when we were sick, or even very seriously ill. Babies and toddlers don't give us sick days . . . and IME taking care of a brood of young kids was much more taxing and much longer hours than any paid job I've done. No sick days or any paid time off whatsoever, either, lol. 

 

No physicians, attorneys, or veterinarians I have known routinely take sick days. It's just not the way these sorts of professions work. Patients or clients need to be seen, and not showing up to see them is just not done. You only don't show up if you are in the hospital or dead, for the most part. One or two days every 5 years or so is typical IME -- an generally those days are when the person or a child or spouse is in the hospital with a life threatening emergency, or possibly a day off when someone in the immediate family dies. Colds, routine injuries, infections, etc are dealt with outside of working hours, IME. If you had a large enough business to have fill-in professionals, that could work in medicine, but still would not work for attorneys at all. Frankly, no executive level professionals I know routinely take sick days. It's just not done IME. If you are in a field where you can miss a day without it hurting anything, then that is AWESOME, and by all means utilize some sick days when appropriate. But, if your profession is one where you being out unexpectedly harms your clients, patients, co-workers, or business goals, then that's just not done, IME. In fact, in the legal field, I am confident that someone would be disciplined, fired and/or disbarred for calling off sick harming the interests of a client. Judges and courts don't give a rat's ass about your personal issues, and it would be a *very* rare emergency situation for an attorney to seek a delay in hearing or filing due dates due to an illness/etc. So rare that I've never heard of it growing up in an attorney's home.

[Bluegoat]

Funnily all the doctors and nurses I know take sick days.  I cannot imagine an ill doctor going in to work with people whose health is vulnerable.  It would be an irresponsible way to practice, and hospitals wouldn't like it either.

 

I do have a lawyer friend who doesn't take sick leave often. About every second year though he takes off a week or so because his cold turns into pneumonia.  I wouldn't say  that was a healthy work culture.

[creekland]

No physicians, attorneys, or veterinarians I have known routinely take sick days. 

 

This could, of course, be why many end up sicker after a visit to the doctor.  I'd always blamed waiting rooms, but now I see another source.

 

I absolutely hate going somewhere and having a sick employee waiting on me (restaurants, stores, etc).  Puking sick would make me livid.

 

I go to school and there are always some level of sick students.  They pass around their germs. Some get sent home from school (running a fever, etc).  Fortunately, I have a very good immune system, but not everyone does.  One can argue that school is required.  Working while sick (& contagious) sure shouldn't be - for anyone.

[TechWife]

My husband could choose to take a sick day any time he wanted . . .as he's the boss . . but as replacement vets are not available on demand . . . besides frustrating and annoying clients that would have to be redirected to a neighboring practice, that would directly cost us about $3000 per day he took off, since all our expenses would continue (even if we unfairly demanded that our staff use their vacation/sick leave to get paid that day, their wages are only 20% of our expenses . . . the facilities costs are there whether or not they are used that day) . . . and since the vet is the only person who generates the income that supports the dozen staff members. . . If he *plans* a day off, it "only" costs us $400 or so, (essentially the after tax cost of hiring a relief vet at more like $500+/day) since he can usually hire a replacement vet if given enough notice . . . He took about 5 weeks off in the last year, and he works a 40 hr/5 day or so workweek, so it's not unhealthy or untenable. To him (and me), we'd rather use that money towards a week or more of real down time than nursing a head cold for a day in bed . . . He can work 40 hrs in a week and still recover from an illness after hours. Surely every one of us mothers here worked more than 40 hours in a week taking care of young children when we were sick, or even very seriously ill. Babies and toddlers don't give us sick days . . . and IME taking care of a brood of young kids was much more taxing and much longer hours than any paid job I've done. No sick days or any paid time off whatsoever, either, lol.

 

No physicians, attorneys, or veterinarians I have known routinely take sick days. It's just not the way these sorts of professions work. Patients or clients need to be seen, and not showing up to see them is just not done. You only don't show up if you are in the hospital or dead, for the most part. One or two days every 5 years or so is typical IME -- an generally those days are when the person or a child or spouse is in the hospital with a life threatening emergency, or possibly a day off when someone in the immediate family dies. Colds, routine injuries, infections, etc are dealt with outside of working hours, IME. If you had a large enough business to have fill-in professionals, that could work in medicine, but still would not work for attorneys at all. Frankly, no executive level professionals I know routinely take sick days. It's just not done IME. If you are in a field where you can miss a day without it hurting anything, then that is AWESOME, and by all means utilize some sick days when appropriate. But, if your profession is one where you being out unexpectedly harms your clients, patients, co-workers, or business goals, then that's just not done, IME. In fact, in the legal field, I am confident that someone would be disciplined, fired and/or disbarred for calling off sick harming the interests of a client. Judges and courts don't give a rat's ass about your personal issues, and it would be a *very* rare emergency situation for an attorney to seek a delay in hearing or filing due dates due to an illness/etc. So rare that I've never heard of it growing up in an attorney's home.

So, really what you are saying is that it's about money. Did you know it's about money when the average employee calls in sick, too? After all, sick benefits for hourly employees are hard to come by.

 

Most people don't routinely take sick days off. Most people aren't routinely sick. I have had doctors appointments canceled and rescheduled due to the physicians illness - both for myself and my son. The physicians choose to organize their practices so that patients who need to be seen are seen by other doctors in the practice. They are making choices that don't undermine their health.

 

I also find it hard to believe that a lawyer could be disbarred for being sick. The sight of someone vomiting or fainting in a courtroom would likely cause a judge to give a "rats ass" for his own health, if not the attorney's.

[TechWife]

Funnily all the doctors and nurses I know take sick days. I cannot imagine an ill doctor going in to work with people whose health is vulnerable. It would be an irresponsible way to practice, and hospitals wouldn't like it either.

.

Exactly. What might be a straightforward case of the flu for most people can cause havoc for patients who are already sick and vulnerable to picking up germs. This isn't even taking into consideration the patients who have suppressed immune systems, either as part of their illness or made necessary by their treatment.

 

If all you want to consider is the financial aspect, hospitals actually receive lower payments from Medicare if their rate of avoidable hospital-acquired infections is too high. Catching something from an employee or doctor is avoidable. It is much less expensive to have a supplemental pool and for doctors to have other physicians cover their patients.

Edited May 2, 2016 by TechWife

[EmseB]

OP aside -- People really think calling in sick to work 1-2 times per month is ok? Or up to 17 weeks out of a year? Wow.

 

If a workplace can handle an employee being randomly absent that much, why would they even hire that person? I've had many jobs, and staffing was never based on the idea that someone on shift that night might be gone. Forget the employer's bottom line (which is the only reason the employees have a job to go to), it was always crappy on the people who did show up if someone said they'd be there and they weren't.

 

If someone is puking or feverish, then yeah, but if that is happening once or twice month? A) that sounds like a chronic health problem that needs to be checked out and B) it should be disclosed ahead of time in case the employer can't absorb the cost of someone being gone unexpectedly that much. I mean, at that point it's not even unexpectedly, and maybe you could work it out with the boss. But that people think it's normal to miss work that much is shocking to me. There's no way an employer should have to staff around that.

 

And admittedly, most people I knew in my younger years of working who called in that much just really didn't want to go to work. So there's that.

Edited May 2, 2016 by JodiSue

[creekland]

OP aside -- People really think calling in sick to work 1-2 times per month is ok? Or up to 17 weeks out of a year? Wow.

 

We've had this happen when teachers/staff at school are ill themselves (chemo can take a bit out of a person) or similar with their kids.  They often want to be at the doctor appt with their youngster when it's a major problem.

 

No one faults them and they certainly don't lose their job.  Those aren't even contagious absences.  

 

I suppose our school should fire them and fill their slots with more dependable people?  I suspect I'd quit working there if that were ever the attitude they took.  It wouldn't affect me at all, but it just wouldn't be a place I'd want to work.

[ktgrok]

OP aside -- People really think calling in sick to work 1-2 times per month is ok? Or up to 17 weeks out of a year? Wow.

 

 

 

 I agree that 1-2 times a month is excessive, but I also think 1-2 times in 5 years is also extreme, in the other direction. I think there is a middle ground...5 sick days a year I think is the average in larger companies....you earn 1/2 day a month of work. I think maybe twice a year needing to be home for two days in a row for a fever is pretty normal in the human experience. And I don't think feverish people should be out in public, at their job. 

[TechWife]

Sure, of course, a human hospital with 1000s of employees have floaters. 

 

A veterinary hospital (or tiny medical office) with 10-12 employees does not. 

 

I'm not actually talking about floaters, I am talking about a supplemental pool. Many employees in a supplemental pool can float to different areas, but not all. 

 

If you wanted a supplemental pool, you could develop one. You choose not to. It's a legitimate choice with it's own set of consequences. 

[TechWife]

OP aside -- People really think calling in sick to work 1-2 times per month is ok? Or up to 17 weeks out of a year? Wow.

 

 

 

What did I miss? I don't remember anyone saying that. Can you direct me to the post? We are discussing normal absences due to illness. 

 

It's conceivable that one employee would call out more than once in any given month, especially if they have children, but not typically many months over the year unless there is something unusual going on. Unusual is another category entirely. People who need to work are doing it for the money, not to call in sick. 

[StephanieZ]

So, really what you are saying is that it's about money. Did you know it's about money when the average employee calls in sick, too? After all, sick benefits for hourly employees are hard to come by.

 

Most people don't routinely take sick days off. Most people aren't routinely sick. I have had doctors appointments canceled and rescheduled due to the physicians illness - both for myself and my son. The physicians choose to organize their practices so that patients who need to be seen are seen by other doctors in the practice. They are making choices that don't undermine their health.

 

I also find it hard to believe that a lawyer could be disbarred for being sick. The sight of someone vomiting or fainting in a courtroom would likely cause a judge to give a "rats ass" for his own health, if not the attorney's.

 

Of course it is all about money. It is a job, which we do for money. If it weren't for the money, we (dh and I) wouldn't be working, for sure. That's why we look forward to retirement, and that's why we take vacations and schedule a reasonable work week in general, to allow for the fun stuff in life. I'm guessing that not many folks (just) work for fun. Most of us do it (mostly) for money. Certainly, I judge most of our work/life balance decisions in the light of money, since that is our motivator to work. We *also* honor what we feel is a moral imperative to treat others (especially our staff who depend on us for their incomes) fairly and with respect. Our thriving business allows us the honor of providing a good work environment and doing various other charitable things with clients, patients, etc. If our business doesn't thrive, not only does our personal income fall, but our ability to go the extra mile for staff, clients, patients, and charities also goes away. 

 

I *especially* agree with your statement that most people don't routinely take sick days off. This is true. This is why we are able to fully staff our business with people who don't routinely take sick days off. I wonder if you have ever managed a significant number of entry-level staff. If you have, then you have surely experienced that there are a small minority of people who will gleefully take advantage of their co-workers by calling off on the "good days" -- Mondays, the days around holidays, any day they feel like doing something else -- with no consideration of their co-workers. These are the "bad apples" that, as an employer, I have learned to protect my staff and my business from. 

 

Just like most employees won't steal from their employer, but a few will. Thus, we have to have safeguards to prevent employee theft. The cameras and inventory counts and computer tracked everything are inconvenient to everyone, but without them, for sure, we will be stolen from. We have had probably 50-100 employees in our 12 years of ownership, and I only know for sure of 2 who stole from us. That's pretty good odds. Nonetheless, the camera system went in after the Bad Apple #2 walked off with 1-2k in medications and the daily deposit security plan went in after Bad Apple #1 stole about 10k before we caught on. You have to have systems in place to prevent bad actors; otherwise you encourage and facilitate them. This all to say that, yep, most employees don't abuse sick leave, but a few will, and they can cause a lot of problems. 

 

My original advice to OP was intended to coach her in how she can teach her (new) boss (who may well have come from or be in the midst of managing a team with some bad apples) that she isn't a bad apple, but rather a great employee who happened to have a couple bad days within a couple months. I.e., the advice to show up puking (if demanded/expected) was a way to avoid being fired and to prove to her boss that her word was true. My expectation was that her supervisor, being a reasonable human being, would see this and that after that one unpleasant and stressful drive to work with a puke-bucket in hand, she'd never again face distrust regarding a call off. Similarly, the advice to get a DR note was to engender trust with the new supervisor. That is what *I* would advise my friend or kid to do in a situation like that. And, following that interaction, if the boss wanted her to keep working in between puking episodes and/or the OP faced recriminations or bad attitude . . . that, to me, would be a clear indication of a bad fit at that job, and I'd advise seeking a better fit ASAP. The only times we've required DR notes was when an employee was already on the verge of being fired for absenteeism. It isn't routine in our workplace, but, to me, it is a fair demand if an employee wants an "excused" absence from a scheduled shift. If the employee doesn't have an excused absence, then, in the vast majority of places in the US, the employer is within their rights to terminate the employee. If that's not what you want to happen, then you should do what you need to do to keep your job. And, if your job sucks, you will hopefully move on. 

 

I am well aware not many hourly employees get paid leave. We provide paid leave to our FT staff -- all of whom are compensated hourly except dh and I. Providing paid leave is part of being a good employer in my book, but it does cost money, as do other important benefits. One of the ways we afford to provide good benefits and good wages is by having a lean, top notch, high performing team. 

 

Businesses are about money. You can only charge clients so much, which means that there is a limited fund of money to spend on wages and benefits. You can spread it out further by paying less, offering fewer benefits, and/or mostly staffing with PT staff who are hungry for hours and money, so highly likely to accept last minute shift request to fill in for others. Or, you can hire a professional team, treat them well, and allow them to work FT for good compensation, and let them cover the needed hours. 

 

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding the reality of a very small business by comparing it to a multi-doctor large practice or if you are confused about the size and scope of a very small business. A very small business that provides critical services does not have the same ability to absorb absenteeism as a business with more flexible output required (say, being an author of novels) nor the same ability as a very large business that could and would likely have a pool of "floaters" as well as more potential people to call in. Providing a critical service means you cannot, ethically, simply close up shop leaving patients or clients adrift. You have to do what needs to be done. Period. 

FWIW, dh worked in 7-8 vet practice for a year or two, and vets didn't call off there, either, and certainly not without arranging coverage (calling a colleague to cover for you and calling the boss ASAP). Even if you are a 10 doctor medical practice, the practice is generally fully scheduled at least several days out, and generally not all 10 are working each day. I've got friends who work in all sorts of medical fields, and I've never known any of them to routinely take days off. I've known doctors to work with a face mask if they might be contagious, in fact.

 

Maybe this is cultural/social and varies by where you reside. For whatever reasons, obviously my experiences and expectations are very different from yours.

[StephanieZ]

I'm not actually talking about floaters, I am talking about a supplemental pool. Many employees in a supplemental pool can float to different areas, but not all. 

 

If you wanted a supplemental pool, you could develop one. You choose not to. It's a legitimate choice with it's own set of consequences. 

 

I have read thousands of hours of material on vet hospital management and have done it successfully for over a decade. I assure you that this concept is not feasible for a very small hospital. But, if you are experienced in managing a very small vet hospital, and you can direct me to resources on this idea, I'd be delighted to read up on it.

 

Yes, I choose not to do this, and I have explained my rationale ad infinitum. 

[EmseB]

What did I miss? I don't remember anyone saying that. Can you direct me to the post? We are discussing normal absences due to illness.

 

It's conceivable that one employee would call out more than once in any given month, especially if they have children, but not typically many months over the year unless there is something unusual going on. Unusual is another category entirely. People who need to work are doing it for the money, not to call in sick.

It was Stephanie's post from 11:59. I'm on mobile, so I can't link it.

[TechWife]

 

I wonder if you have ever managed a significant number of entry-level staff. If you have, then you have surely experienced that there are a small minority of people who will gleefully take advantage of their co-workers by calling off on the "good days" -- Mondays, the days around holidays, any day they feel like doing something else -- with no consideration of their co-workers. These are the "bad apples" that, as an employer, I have learned to protect my staff and my business from. 

 

..

 

 

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding the reality of a very small business by comparing it to a multi-doctor large practice or if you are confused about the size and scope of a very small business. A very small business that provides critical services does not have the same ability to absorb absenteeism as a business with more flexible output required (say, being an author of novels) nor the same ability as a very large business that could and would likely have a pool of "floaters" as well as more potential people to call in. Providing a critical service means you cannot, ethically, simply close up shop leaving patients or clients adrift. You have to do what needs to be done. Period. 

...

I've got friends who work in all sorts of medical fields, and I've never known any of them to routinely take days off. I've known doctors to work with a face mask if they might be contagious, in fact.

 

Maybe this is cultural/social and varies by where you reside. For whatever reasons, obviously my experiences and expectations are very different from yours.

 

Yes, I have. 

 

No, I am not intentionally misunderstanding you. I am trying to make the point that you can scale ideas. A large hospital has a large supplemental pool, a small medical practice can have a small pool for non-physician positions. Likewise, a small business of any kind can have a small pool of supplemental workers. For example, some of the good employees that you have had leave for non-work related reasons that still live in the area could form an ideal supplemental pool. Having a supplemental pool decreases the likelihood that services will have to be limited due to employee illness. 

 

Like I said, most people don't routinely take sick days off, so it doesn't surprise me that you know people who don't routinely take sick days off, even in medical fields. I can say the same. However, I question the ethics of a doctor who would intentionally expose his patient to a contagious illness. A mask isn't enough to protect against many illnesses. Germs can live on clothing and other surfaces (like stethoscopes). I do some volunteer work in a hospital. In order to enter the room of someone who has the flu, employees and volunteers are required to gown, glove and mask. That helps protect the patient from picking germs up from us and it also helps protect us from the patient's germs. A mask is not enough. Limiting contact is important. Hospitals do not allow sick employees to work, period. Can you imagine the disease a sick employee from environmental services or food services could spread throughout the hospital? An RT, OT, ST, PT, RN, PA, MD going from room to room would likewise spread disease through the patient population and other employees. A doctor who sees 100 patients a day in private practice can pass illness along to their patients, anyone who accompanies their patients and to all of the families and co-workers of those people as well. One day of patient encounters has the potential to spread illness to hundreds of people. Over the course of the week, well, I couldn't imagine. 

 

The importance of health and well being may be cultural or regional, I don't know. But, IMO, it should be worldwide. The importance of health and well being should trump financial concerns. Unfortunately for us in the US, this isn't part of the workplace culture. It's evident in workplace policies and the availability of affordable health insurance. That doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable. Honestly, I think you have some great policies in place for your employees. But workplace policies that respect and honor the individual needs of the employee should be the norm, not the exception. People should not be at risk of loosing their jobs because they, their children, spouse or elderly parent is ill. Of course, that is my opinion, one many people don't share, and I realize that. 

 

My husband is an executive for an international company. When he is in the office, he works in a building along with over 1,000 other people, about 200 of them are on his floor. Clients from around the world visit many different people in his office. My husband travels around the world to see clients in their workplaces. He does so on airplanes.  Airplanes hold hundreds of people who are going to dozens of different places in dozens of different countries. He stays in hotels with dozens of employees and hundreds of other guests, who then leave and travel to various places. It's not hard to imagine how the flu and other illnesses are spread. If my husband sees a sick doctor, the potential exists for thousands of people around the world to become ill. This isn't an exaggeration, nor is it a unique situation for people in his industry. 

 

My husband was exposed to the measles at a hotel restaurant while attending a conference where he was a speaker. Before he found out, he had already spoken to several groups of people at the conference (groups number in the hundreds), met individually with clients, gone to other restaurants, taken three cross-country flights, stayed in hotels and met with several clients in their workplaces, eaten at restaurants and eaten at restaurants in two other cities. He had been here at home with myself and our son, our son was in dual enrollment at a college. He had been in his office with his coworkers. He had gone to church and worshipped in a room with 750 other people. All of the people he came in contact with had their own sphere of influence. When he found out about the exposure, he and I both made appointments with our doctors. I turned out to be immune to measles and every other childhood illness. My husband didn't have the measles (they checked), but he was not immune and needed a booster shot. He very well could have picked up measles and had a hand in spreading it around the country.

 

One of my sister's has taken off time to help care for my elderly, infirm parents. IIRC, she has five remaining sick/vacation days for the calendar year. She has a chronic illness herself. What should she do? Is the solution for her to not hold down a job because she's sick? Thankfully, she can't be fired due to her own illness because she happens to be protected by ADA, but she could be fired for taking time off to help my parents. If she were to have small children, she could get fired for taking off to care for them as well (her children are all adults, so that isn't something she has to presently worry about).

 

The issue of sick leave is critical to many people in our country and around the world. I realize that you are approaching the issue as a business owner, please realize that I am approaching it as a volunteer worker, someone who has significant experience in  a small business that was owned by my parents as well as management experience in other companies and as a person who has elderly parents who need care.  

 

ETA: I said above that health concerns should trump financial concerns. I want to add on that I do realize this would be a shift in priorities in our country and would have an impact on various aspects of our nation's economic system. I don't want anyone to think that I don't realize such a change would mean a significant change. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by TechWife

[TechWife]

It was Stephanie's post from 11:59. I'm on mobile, so I can't link it.

 

I understand. She was relating some of her experience as an employer. I misunderstood that you were thinking that there were people participating in this thread who thought that was acceptable. Thanks for the clarification! 

[EmseB]

I understand. She was relating some of her experience as an employer. I misunderstood that you were thinking that there were people participating in this thread who thought that was acceptable. Thanks for the clarification!

 

 

I thought that there were people in this thread who did think that was acceptable. Or at least that Stephanie was wrong for not hiring people who said that was their M.O. Bluegoat said something like up to 17 weeks of sick leave was the max before disability would be considered. That's what I found to be shocking. That's four months! There's no point in hiring someone full time if you can easily do without them for four months out of the year (and still have to pay them for that time for not working?).

 

I have four kids, I can't imagine an employer in their right mind hiring me if they knew that I would have to call out every time I or one of my kids got sick or had an appointment. I'd be beyond unreliable. There would be no way for anyone I worked with to count on me. That's just reality. I'm sure it is terrifying and stressful for single parents, but I know they do it somehow without missing tons of work. I used to work with people who did it. I never asked how because I was ignorant of the coordination it took.

 

I just think it's funny that Stephanie offers what seems to be an amazing work environment, but because she requires reliability (i.e. not calling out of work the day of on a frequent basis) of her employees she's some kind of sweatshop slave driver.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not addressing the OP here, but the other tangents that came up in the thread.

Edited May 2, 2016 by JodiSue

[ktgrok]

Not sure if the comment about an author who writes novels not being able to understand how a small vet clinic works was aimed at me, but before I wrote books I worked for twenty years in veterinary hospitals. One, for most of that time, was a small one doctor practice. Two full time receptionists, two -three full time techs, and three to five kennel staff, some of whom were trained to be "tech assistants" to help the techs. Later I did work for a bigger, three doctor practice, with more employees, but it was still family run (two of the doctors were a married couple). So I'm pretty familiar with how a small vet clinic runs. We still never had anyone work who had a fever, or was vomiting or had diarrhea. They got sent home, or called in. We did not expect people to go years at a time without taking a sick day. Yes, it meant working REALLY hard when they were out, but we did it. Sometimes appointments got rescheduled, sometimes you worked really late, whatever. 

[StephanieZ]

I thought that there were people in this thread who did think that was acceptable. Or at least that Stephanie was wrong for not hiring people who said that was their M.O. Bluegoat said something like up to 17 weeks of sick leave was the max before disability would be considered. That's what I found to be shocking. That's four months! There's no point in hiring someone full time if you can easily do without them for four months out of the year (and still have to pay them for that time for not working?).

 

I have four kids, I can't imagine an employer in their right mind hiring me if they knew that I would have to call out every time I or one of my kids got sick or had an appointment. I'd be beyond unreliable. There would be no way for anyone I worked with to count on me. That's just reality. I'm sure it is terrifying and stressful for single parents, but I know they do it somehow without missing tons of work. I used to work with people who did it. I never asked how because I was ignorant of the coordination it took.

 

I just think it's funny that Stephanie offers what seems to be an amazing work environment, but because she requires reliability (i.e. not calling out of work the day of on a frequent basis) of her employees she's some kind of sweatshop slave driver.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not addressing the OP here, but the other tangents that came up in the thread.

 

Thank you, Jodi Sue, for your kind words and understanding. 

 

I have been so disheartened by this thread's seemingly endless misinterpretation or mislabeling of my workplace (that we take pride in and obviously have invested a great deal of our lives in -- especially taking pride in creating a workplace that our current and former employees find rewarding, secure, and supportive), and you have given me hope that my communication skills are not as atrocious as I had feared, lol. 

 

Thank you, really, you've made my day. :) 

[StephanieZ]

Not sure if the comment about an author who writes novels not being able to understand how a small vet clinic works was aimed at me, but before I wrote books I worked for twenty years in veterinary hospitals. One, for most of that time, was a small one doctor practice. Two full time receptionists, two -three full time techs, and three to five kennel staff, some of whom were trained to be "tech assistants" to help the techs. Later I did work for a bigger, three doctor practice, with more employees, but it was still family run (two of the doctors were a married couple). So I'm pretty familiar with how a small vet clinic runs. We still never had anyone work who had a fever, or was vomiting or had diarrhea. They got sent home, or called in. We did not expect people to go years at a time without taking a sick day. Yes, it meant working REALLY hard when they were out, but we did it. Sometimes appointments got rescheduled, sometimes you worked really late, whatever. 

 

OMG, I had no idea you were an author. Sorry!! I am not terribly attentive to the work details of posters. I have read many posts, and I recognize your name/avatar as a smart, thoughtful homeschooling mom who is a kind poster and who is hoping for one more baby and who has had bariatric surgery not too long ago and is losing weight accordingly. Honestly, that's all your avatar/name meant to me. I certainly didn't mean to insult you in any way, shape, or form.

 

I was merely trying to make a random obvious example of a position in which it would be, in my mind, relatively easy to push work aside for a day or two (compared to a medical field or even a non critical retail field). If that isn't the case with being the author of novels, I abjectly apologize. I personally don't know anyone with a job they can easily take off days at a time from, and authoring novels just popped into my head as something one might be able to do on their own schedule. Maybe a custom cabinet maker would have been a better example, but then there's likely a cabinet maker on the board whom I'd be verbally assaulting. . .

 

Honestly, this thread is insane to me. I was trying to help. Obviously I failed horribly. I did not, and do not, intend insult to any individual here. I will willy-nilly insult a theoretical person who thinks it is groovy and fun to call off from work willy nilly for no good reason, but I don't know of any individuals like that here or anywhere (other than the several who once worked for us, who are obviously not in my continued acquaintance).

 

I will keep my employer-perspective to myself to the best of my ability. Carry on, and be well.

 

ps. Your experiences working at vet hospitals mirror my own. We don't keep people working who are miserable or sick. We don't want them there. They generally swap shifts as needed, or occasionally we work short and everyone hops to. Then, we generally buy the workers lunch if they work through lunch, or give other "Kudos" to those who worked double time to take care of everyone. . . When someone is sick, our staff works as scheduled if feasible, or they swap shifts, or we make do. Since our staff doesn't include anyone who makes up being sick or takes advantage by calling off when they are hung over or feel like scheduling a minor DR appointment during a schedule shift rather than on a day/time they can make it happen without calling off, we can do this no problem. When, in the past, we've had a troublesome employee who took advantage, we got rid of them, thereby saving the rest of the team of the irritation of having an unpredictable co-worker.

Edited May 3, 2016 by StephanieZ

[ktgrok]

OMG, I had no idea you were an author. Sorry!! I am not terribly attentive to the work details of posters. I have read many posts, and I recognize your name/avatar as a smart, thoughtful homeschooling mom who is a kind poster and who is hoping for one more baby and who has had bariatric surgery not too long ago and is losing weight accordingly. Honestly, that's all your avatar/name meant to me. I certainly didn't mean to insult you in any way, shape, or form.

 

 

ps. Your experiences working at vet hospitals mirror my own. We don't keep people working who are miserable or sick. We don't want them there. They generally swap shifts as needed, or occasionally we work short and everyone hops to. Then, we generally buy the workers lunch if they work through lunch, or give other "Kudos" to those who worked double time to take care of everyone. . . When someone is sick, our staff works as scheduled if feasible, or they swap shifts, or we make do. Since our staff doesn't include anyone who makes up being sick or takes advantage by calling off when they are hung over or feel like scheduling a minor DR appointment during a schedule shift rather than on a day/time they can make it happen without calling off, we can do this no problem. When, in the past, we've had a troublesome employee who took advantage, we got rid of them, thereby saving the rest of the team of the irritation of having an unpredictable co-worker.

 

We're all good then! LOL, sorry for jumping to conclusions, sounds like it was just a coincidence. My first series with Harlequin is  called The Paradise Animal Clinic series, I was was wondering if you knew and thought I was making up my vet experience, lol. 

 

But more than that, I think I misunderstood what you were saying about sending people home who are sick. It honestly sounded like you expected people to work sick, and that people who weren't willing to work while sick were just irresponsible. And as I HATE to be sick, I was annoyed. I think that is why everyone was seeming to jump on you, it really did sound like you expected people to just show up and work their shift while puking/coughing/feverish. I'm glad that isn't the case. And yes, my boss did the same, buying lunch to make up for working through lunch, etc. 

 

She was also known to schedule a staff meeting, then take us out to lunch instead, and once she  took us to the mall and gave us each $50 with orders to spend it in 30 minutes, had to be on ourselves, not husband/kids, and meet back to eat lunch and show off what we got. Stuff like that is stuff you can only do in a small office :) She actually took us on vacation a few times too...as I'm sure you know, in a clinic that small you become friends, not just coworkers. My first book is dedicated to her. 

[StephanieZ]

We're all good then! LOL, sorry for jumping to conclusions, sounds like it was just a coincidence. My first series with Harlequin is  called The Paradise Animal Clinic series, I was was wondering if you knew and thought I was making up my vet experience, lol. 

 

But more than that, I think I misunderstood what you were saying about sending people home who are sick. It honestly sounded like you expected people to work sick, and that people who weren't willing to work while sick were just irresponsible. And as I HATE to be sick, I was annoyed. I think that is why everyone was seeming to jump on you, it really did sound like you expected people to just show up and work their shift while puking/coughing/feverish. I'm glad that isn't the case. And yes, my boss did the same, buying lunch to make up for working through lunch, etc. 

 

She was also known to schedule a staff meeting, then take us out to lunch instead, and once she  took us to the mall and gave us each $50 with orders to spend it in 30 minutes, had to be on ourselves, not husband/kids, and meet back to eat lunch and show off what we got. Stuff like that is stuff you can only do in a small office :) She actually took us on vacation a few times too...as I'm sure you know, in a clinic that small you become friends, not just coworkers. My first book is dedicated to her. 

 

 

OMG, I bet your boss is/was a member of VIN. :) I have read that management idea!! I remember thinking about doing it when I first read about it maybe a decade ago, but I don't remember if we ever did it. I remember it being $100 and given in purses! :) Maybe your boss read it on VIN and tried it, too. Such a fun idea.

[ktgrok]

OMG, I bet your boss is/was a member of VIN. :) I have read that management idea!! I remember thinking about doing it when I first read about it maybe a decade ago, but I don't remember if we ever did it. I remember it being $100 and given in purses! :) Maybe your boss read it on VIN and tried it, too. Such a fun idea.

 

Yes, I think she is/was a member of VIN. 

 

She wasn't a natural manager, at all, lol but she tried really hard to overcome that and mostly succeeded. I will say, once she brought in happy face and sad face stamps and was going to stamp your hand if you were caught doing well or making a mistake. I very VERY clearly explained that I was not a child and would not be getting my hand stamped. She dropped that idea, thankfully. She's a good person, and recently drove 3 hours to be at my 40th birthday brunch :)  I'm also best friends with another former coworker, we met there and are now closer than sisters, despite me moving 3 hours away and neither of us working there anymore. And I'm still Facebook friends with another former tech. 

 

[StephanieZ]

Yes, I think she is/was a member of VIN. 

 

She wasn't a natural manager, at all, lol but she tried really hard to overcome that and mostly succeeded. I will say, once she brought in happy face and sad face stamps and was going to stamp your hand if you were caught doing well or making a mistake. I very VERY clearly explained that I was not a child and would not be getting my hand stamped. She dropped that idea, thankfully. She's a good person, and recently drove 3 hours to be at my 40th birthday brunch :)  I'm also best friends with another former coworker, we met there and are now closer than sisters, despite me moving 3 hours away and neither of us working there anymore. And I'm still Facebook friends with another former tech. 

 

 

LOL on the happy/sad face stamps. I've never read that one . . . I'm guessing it wasn't very popular, lol.

 

Very few vets are natural people managers. :) I know that dh and I SUCKED at first. I mean TERRIBLE. We got much better, but it took us a few years. It's REALLY HARD to manage people, and vets get 0 training, and most were/are science nerds, not people managers . . . We read a LOT of books and a LOT of VIN. Most critical lesson was hiring the right people. Once we got that down, we have been golden, lol.

[ktgrok]

LOL on the happy/sad face stamps. I've never read that one . . . I'm guessing it wasn't very popular, lol.

 

Very few vets are natural people managers. :) I know that dh and I SUCKED at first. I mean TERRIBLE. We got much better, but it took us a few years. It's REALLY HARD to manage people, and vets get 0 training, and most were/are science nerds, not people managers . . . We read a LOT of books and a LOT of VIN. Most critical lesson was hiring the right people. Once we got that down, we have been golden, lol.

 

 

Yeah, I always tell people that if Vets were naturally good with people they'd be MDs, not DVMs. We all kind of got into this business because we like animals better than people. None of us figured out until it was too late that those animals need a human to drive them to the vet and pay. 

 

We also sometimes fantasized about a little drop box thing on the door, so that people could just slide their animal into the slot and the person would stay outside :)

[Bluegoat]

OP aside -- People really think calling in sick to work 1-2 times per month is ok? Or up to 17 weeks out of a year? Wow.

 

If a workplace can handle an employee being randomly absent that much, why would they even hire that person? I've had many jobs, and staffing was never based on the idea that someone on shift that night might be gone. Forget the employer's bottom line (which is the only reason the employees have a job to go to), it was always crappy on the people who did show up if someone said they'd be there and they weren't.

 

If someone is puking or feverish, then yeah, but if that is happening once or twice month? A) that sounds like a chronic health problem that needs to be checked out and B) it should be disclosed ahead of time in case the employer can't absorb the cost of someone being gone unexpectedly that much. I mean, at that point it's not even unexpectedly, and maybe you could work it out with the boss. But that people think it's normal to miss work that much is shocking to me. There's no way an employer should have to staff around that.

 

And admittedly, most people I knew in my younger years of working who called in that much just really didn't want to go to work. So there's that.

 

I think you are framing this quite inappropriately.  No one is saying people should call in sick for 17 weeks a year.

 

Is it wrong to call in sick for 17 weeks at some point in your working life?  Well, honestly plenty of people will have a period of time where they will be unlucky enough to have a serious injury or to contract a serious illness.  A car accident could easily have that result for example.  If someone is in a position where they are having to take 17 weeks they are not doing it for giggles, if they are in a wage position they are likely going to have to go that long without pay or take benefits during that time which will be a pay cut.  Salaried positions generally have arrangements for this kind of thing so they may be less impacted but people are still not going to see it as an ideal thing to do.

 

It's not that different for single days off here and there.  People aren't generally all that keen to take them if they don't have to.  My dh works for the civil service.  He does end up taking fewer family days than many others because I'm at home.  The difficulty is there are no options for most if their kids are sick.  It's a problem of life in a modern western workforce, one that individuals have almost no control over.  It requires collective action to solve. 

 

As for people not wanting to come into work - that is more common with low wage workers.  One of the best ways to improve it is actually to pay them more.  Not only because it is a bigger motivator but because having extra money makes life easier things like better transportation or childcare options makes for better attendance.  And people care more about jobs where they think the employer has their back.

[EmseB]

I think you are framing this quite inappropriately. No one is saying people should call in sick for 17 weeks a year.

 

Is it wrong to call in sick for 17 weeks at some point in your working life? Well, honestly plenty of people will have a period of time where they will be unlucky enough to have a serious injury or to contract a serious illness. A car accident could easily have that result for example. If someone is in a position where they are having to take 17 weeks they are not doing it for giggles, if they are in a wage position they are likely going to have to go that long without pay or take benefits during that time which will be a pay cut. Salaried positions generally have arrangements for this kind of thing so they may be less impacted but people are still not going to see it as an ideal thing to do.

 

It's not that different for single days off here and there. People aren't generally all that keen to take them if they don't have to. My dh works for the civil service. He does end up taking fewer family days than many others because I'm at home. The difficulty is there are no options for most if their kids are sick. It's a problem of life in a modern western workforce, one that individuals have almost no control over. It requires collective action to solve.

 

As for people not wanting to come into work - that is more common with low wage workers. One of the best ways to improve it is actually to pay them more. Not only because it is a bigger motivator but because having extra money makes life easier things like better transportation or childcare options makes for better attendance. And people care more about jobs where they think the employer has their back.

It is different for single days off taken the day of. Unscheduled absences are much more difficult on everyone in the work place than even a prolonged period of convalescent leave.

 

As for simplistic, it seems simplistic to me to say, "just pay them more". I mean, that money has to come from somewhere.

 

And for an employer having an employee's back, I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly one can be understanding and lenient to a point. But usually the employment contract comes down to the idea that one comes to work as scheduled and then gets paid. If someone can be off work unexpectedly and the boss can just let it go with no ill effects, then one has to wonder if the position is needed at the number of hours currently given, or if it can be absorbed in to other positions with the company.

 

So this discussion is always framed as an employee being at odds with the employer, and the employer needs to just be more lenient, or pay more, or whatever. Except the employee is really in competition with other people who want their job (and increasingly, automation). So, if an employer has the option to hire someone who calls in frequently and someone who doesn't (which they often do have that choice), then the choice seems obvious. Of course we can have compassion amd extend grace, but there also must be discernment, but that has to come with reliability and diligence. Just because one party is the employer doesn't mean they have to just accept what their employees want or even need to do. In order to pay their employees, they have to actually make money. That includes getting value from the employees they hire.

[Bluegoat]

It is different for single days off taken the day of. Unscheduled absences are much more difficult on everyone in the work place than even a prolonged period of convalescent leave.

 

As for simplistic, it seems simplistic to me to say, "just pay them more". I mean, that money has to come from somewhere.

 

And for an employer having an employee's back, I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly one can be understanding and lenient to a point. But usually the employment contract comes down to the idea that one comes to work as scheduled and then gets paid. If someone can be off work unexpectedly and the boss can just let it go with no ill effects, then one has to wonder if the position is needed at the number of hours currently given, or if it can be absorbed in to other positions with the company.

 

So this discussion is always framed as an employee being at odds with the employer, and the employer needs to just be more lenient, or pay more, or whatever. Except the employee is really in competition with other people who want their job (and increasingly, automation). So, if an employer has the option to hire someone who calls in frequently and someone who doesn't (which they often do have that choice), then the choice seems obvious. Of course we can have compassion amd extend grace, but there also must be discernment, but that has to come with reliability and diligence. Just because one party is the employer doesn't mean they have to just accept what their employees want or even need to do. In order to pay their employees, they have to actually make money. That includes getting value from the employees they hire.

 

There is some evidence that paying people more (and not necessarily a lot more) not only leads to better retention and attendance, but more economic success on the part of the business.  And by having your back - if employees think an employer sees them as essentially bits of useful machinery who are owned no loyalty, then they are much less likely to view the boss as someone they need to give their loyalty to.  They idea of extending grace is fairly condescending, really, when we are talking about people who are not actually being negligent.

 

The idea of the workplace as some sort of Darwininan biological system is hard to stomach.  Maybe the employees can take down the owner and take over the business if that is the case.  That of course would be illegal - we protect property and life by law.  As we should protect employees.

 

Again though - how do you think countries with laws that protect employees manage if this is such an economic impossibility?  Many of the most competitive economies give these kinds of protections to workers.  In fact by legislating such things and co-ordinating them with things like public benefits, it levels the playing field for employers and makes for stability for workers and consumers.

[TechWife]

 

ps. Your experiences working at vet hospitals mirror my own. We don't keep people working who are miserable or sick. We don't want them there. They generally swap shifts as needed, or occasionally we work short and everyone hops to. Then, we generally buy the workers lunch if they work through lunch, or give other "Kudos" to those who worked double time to take care of everyone. . . When someone is sick, our staff works as scheduled if feasible, or they swap shifts, or we make do. Since our staff doesn't include anyone who makes up being sick or takes advantage by calling off when they are hung over or feel like scheduling a minor DR appointment during a schedule shift rather than on a day/time they can make it happen without calling off, we can do this no problem. When, in the past, we've had a troublesome employee who took advantage, we got rid of them, thereby saving the rest of the team of the irritation of having an unpredictable co-worker.

 

 

 

But more than that, I think I misunderstood what you were saying about sending people home who are sick. It honestly sounded like you expected people to work sick, and that people who weren't willing to work while sick were just irresponsible. And as I HATE to be sick, I was annoyed. I think that is why everyone was seeming to jump on you, it really did sound like you expected people to just show up and work their shift while puking/coughing/feverish. I'm glad that isn't the case. And yes, my boss did the same, buying lunch to make up for working through lunch, etc. 

 

 

Yes, this. Your posts sounded pretty militant about working through illness and that to do otherwise is irresponsible. It didn't sound like a healthy work environment at all. Thanks for clarifying it, Stephanie. 

[TechWife]

As for simplistic, it seems simplistic to me to say, "just pay them more". I mean, that money has to come from somewhere.

...

And for an employer having an employee's back, I'm not even sure what that means. 

...

So this discussion is always framed as an employee being at odds with the employer, and the employer needs to just be more lenient, or pay more, or whatever. 

 

Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, and people realize that. I fully expect that if there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of goods and services will rise accordingly. Since I don't see "cheap goods" as a right, I can stomach that. It would mean a change in priorities for our culture and I think we would see a decrease in consumerism, which would further impact the bottom line of companies. All of this actually raises the possibility that the quality of goods and services would rise as companies work to attract customers.

 

Higher wages = higher costs = higher prices = increased expectations = hard workers 

 

An employer has an employee's back when they: 

Train them adequately for the task at hand

Respect them as being human beings, just like they are

Provide opportunities for growth

Recognize that "Everybody's working for the weekend"

Pay fairly 

Provide a safe workplace 

 

The lowest wage jobs I ever had were the ones where I had the worst managers. They were unprofessional, gossipy, pitted employees against each other and were condescending. Good managers and business owners recognize the value of a good employee and yes, they realize that when a good employee calls in sick there is no need to belittle them or talk poorly about them in front of the other staff. Such actions do cause the employee and employer to be at odds with each other. When managers talk about their employees, it is evident to the people listening that, should they do the same thing (call in sick, for example), they will also be talked about in a negative manner. 

 

Many more unhealthy workplaces exist than can be imagined. I think managers of lower wage workers are much more likely to abuse their power than those who manage white collar workers. It's a power trip, honestly. I've seen it in places where I've worked and have heard of the tales from friends and family. 

[Bluegoat]

It's interesting to me really that the companies who can supposedly manage things like sick leave more easily because they have more employees, are often the ones who seem to require the letter of the law in order to keep them from being abusive employers.

 

One of the more common long-term jobs around here for people with no training is call center work.  Most of them are pretty big organizations.  They can have real management challenges - there are people who really are employable doing the training for those jobs, though they usually don't get through the training weeks.  But the companies themselves are not really encouraging a respectful work environment - they are about the worst for getting rid of employees, treating them like numbers and such.  I fellow I went to school was got let go from training - not allowed to attend the next session - because he had to take time off when his wife went into premature labour. 

 

At least with small business it just seems like bad bosses reflect the level of not nice people in the population - most people want to treat people they work with as well as they can.  Often the difficulty comes when they have to compete with big organizations and the natural jerks.

[EmseB]

Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, and people realize that. I fully expect that if there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of goods and services will rise accordingly. Since I don't see "cheap goods" as a right, I can stomach that.

This makes no sense. If we're raising minimum wage to make it so people can afford to live, but the cost of goods and services rises accordingly, then wouldn't the same people struggling at $7/hour still be struggling at $15?

 

It's a matter if of simple economics, which you seem to acknowledge, but then fail to make the connection that the people you're supposedly helping with a higher wage are back to square one when their prices also rise. If minimum wage worked the way it's proponents say it does, economically speaking, then we should advocate for a $20 or $30 minimum. But everyone almost universally acknowledges that it wouldn't work for a myriad of reasons. Those reasons still apply, even at $15.

 

It's not about having a "right" to cheap goods, it's a simple reality that when businesses have less overhead and more competition they price accordingly. Lower prices do more for helping people afford basic expenses. You state that simple reality in what I quoted above. Raising the price of labor doesn't occur in a vacuum.

 

As for getting quality employees, sadly, raising wages makes the less skilled workers have to compete with the more highly skilled. If a lower skilled worker costs $15 to hire, and someone with more skills or motivation or education costs the exact same per hour, who gets hired? Who gets laid of first? Who gets cut when the employer can only afford 4 employees instead of 5 now? Who gets disadvantaged ultimately? Those without skills are competing with their higher skilled peers for jobs, especially in times of low job growth and scarcity. You're not helping low skilled workers by mandating that employers part as much for them as their higher skilled peers.

 

People don't like to acknowledge that labor follows the same economic rules as every other commodity, but the interesting thing is that you *did* recognize it above when you stated that prices rise if wages are increased. But no one wants to see that rising prices that they can absorb (as you state you can) are the same rising prices that the people working at minimum wage can't absorb, and that people actually get priced out of the labor market by their competition (other workers). But I guess we can all feel better because we are paying people more?

[EmseB]

As for good managers and bad managers, I think, from what Stephanie posted she cultivates an excellent work environment, despite insisting in general reliability. I think we've agreed that expecting people to not call in "sick" frequently is not unreasonable. She stated at least one how she accommodates people with health issues, and it didn't seem unkind or unjust. How peoplw got from her posts to a litany of bad management practices is unclear to me. Maybe applicable quotes from her posts would have been helpful.

[StephanieZ]

I expect you were trying to be helpful and you probably were.

 

But I always find this kind of view a little naïve.  The US is really somewhat unusual in being a developed economy that has so few protections for workers.  Many other countries, of different kids with different economies, sizes, different types of industry, protect workers jobs when they are ill.  And they manage to make it work, even for small businesses.

 

Part of the reason such laws exist is to protect workers, but it is also understood to be to protect local businesses and the economy.  People in unstable situations don't make for much of an economic engine.

 

FWIW, I am fully in support of protections for workers. I applaud every time the minimum wage goes up. I will be voting for Sanders in the primary next week, and I have already donated to him 4 times. Elizabeth Warren is my personal hero. You'll find few better advocates for working people and a just economy than those two. I am voting in favor of ALL the property tax levies on our ballot next week, in spite of the fact that as the owner of a lot of real estate, I'll be paying a disproportionate amount for all the areas funded. Only two of the levies can I say I'd directly benefit from -- and they are less than 10% of the levy amounts -- one for parks and trails and a second for volunteer fire departments. The vast majority of the levies are for public buses, libraries (which suck already and I never use), and various other issues that we don't use. I am voting for all of them (and it'll cost us personally several hundred dollars a year extra if they all pass) because they mostly benefit the poor, the elderly, the young, and the weak. I'm all for it. Bring it on, and tell me where to sign up . . . 

 

However, until the great day comes when our great nation embraces worker protections and a just economic structure (Warren 2024 anyone?), we are stuck playing by the rules that are the laws of the land. 

 

I have been working on explaining how *our business*, which competes in our current local economy, works. This is *reality*, not my imaginary ideal world. 

 

For instance, when the ACA rolled out, I was super excited because it made affordable reliable health care available to all (unless you are unlucky enough to live in one of the states that whose GOP leaders refused the Medicaid expansion). The various subsidies and rules in the ACA essentially made it so that OUR vet hospital was now competing on a more equal footing with our competitors . . . . For a decade, we'd been paying the equivalent of $2/hr per employee for their health insurance benefits, while NONE of our competitors provided health insurance at all. We felt morally obligated to provide it, and we did, but it made it a bit harder to compete both on client pricing and on staff wages when we spent $2/hr on health insurance and another $1-2/hr on paid time off and more on various other benefits . . . because, TBH, most entry level staff have no appreciation of those benefits' value or cost. They don't get that making $10/hr working for me (who pays your top rated health insurance and gives you 2-5 or more weeks paid leave a year and mat/paternity benefits, etc, etc. ) . . . compares to earning $15+/hr at one of our competitors . . . And, no, none of our competitors paid that significantly more than us . . .  Same with minimum wage increases . . . We rarely have more than 1-2 just-hired staff at minimum wage, but I know that many competitors who staff with nearly all college kids do . . . So, raise minimum wage and I may have to nudge up a couple people, but my competitors have to do it much more, and all that allows me to keep being "competitive" price-wise to clients while being able to continue to treat our staff well. 

 

Anyway, all that is to say that as national policy evolves, it could make it easier to provide better leave and benefits. As it is, a small business must survive in the competitive environment in which is located. Since our small business is in a town in WV where many folks earn minimum wage, a raise in the minimum wage will positively impact our business by 1) increasing the wages of our potential client base, some of whom could then better afford our services 2) raising the costs of our competitors, thus raising their charges to clients . . . and it would negatively impact us to a much lesser degree by 1) slightly increasing our staffing costs -- since a very small portion of our staff is at minimum wage. Net positive! 

 

Any similar benefit/wage issue could be looked at similarly . . . I.e., providing 12 wk paid maternity leave (or better yet paying into a short term disability pool for all disabilities) . . . This would be great. I am all for it. If EVERYONE had to do it, our business would benefit by a stronger and more stable client base and all our competitors would be paying similar costs, so we would not be competitively disadvantaged. IMHO, it would be a win win. But, if just WE decide to pay 12 weeks maternity/paternity benefits, we get much more of the negatives and much less positives. (This is why we have a shorter paid leave policy . . .  it is enough to take some sting out of taking time off and to make me feel better about things . . .but not as generous as I would love to be . . . )

 

Essentially, what I am trying to communicate is that national POLICY issues require national action to implement. Otherwise, if you leave all these issues to individual employers, you essentially make it very hard for the employer to do the right thing. The employer has to take a substantial competitive disadvantage via increasing expenses . . . for much smaller and unpredictable returns. What I, as a small business owner, would like is national (or state) standards. That makes it MUCH easier to implement worker protections/benefits because not only does it greatly ameliorate the costs (read competitive disadvantage) to the business, but also improves the economy on a larger scale, thereby benefiting the business, IMHO.

[Anne in CA]

This whole thread was very interesting to me. Getting everyone's views, even the ones I didn't agree with was enlightening. The OP is in a bad spot with a difficult boss, for sure. We kind of hijacked her thread.

 

To OP, you have every right to recover from sickness in your own home in peace.

 

My MIL had HORRIBLE period pain until she was almost 50. She spent two days of every month in bed no matter what pain meds she used. For many years she was a checker at a grocery store because she could always trade shifts with other women who were sympathetic. Later on when the chain no longer allowed workers to trade and expected all absences to go through a manager she realized she would have to do commission sales to support herself so that she could schedule herself. She sold advertising and later real estate so that she could schedule her own office time. She didn't like not having a regular paycheck for many years, but eventually appreciated that her income was up to her, not limited by manager evaluations.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

FWIW, I am fully in support of protections for workers. I applaud every time the minimum wage goes up. I will be voting for Sanders in the primary next week, and I have already donated to him 4 times. Elizabeth Warren is my personal hero. You'll find few better advocates for working people and a just economy than those two. I am voting in favor of ALL the property tax levies on our ballot next week, in spite of the fact that as the owner of a lot of real estate, I'll be paying a disproportionate amount for all the areas funded. Only two of the levies can I say I'd directly benefit from -- and they are less than 10% of the levy amounts -- one for parks and trails and a second for volunteer fire departments. The vast majority of the levies are for public buses, libraries (which suck already and I never use), and various other issues that we don't use. I am voting for all of them (and it'll cost us personally several hundred dollars a year extra if they all pass) because they mostly benefit the poor, the elderly, the young, and the weak. I'm all for it. Bring it on, and tell me where to sign up . . . 

 

However, until the great day comes when our great nation embraces worker protections and a just economic structure (Warren 2024 anyone?), we are stuck playing by the rules that are the laws of the land. 

 

I have been working on explaining how *our business*, which competes in our current local economy, works. This is *reality*, not my imaginary ideal world. 

 

For instance, when the ACA rolled out, I was super excited because it made affordable reliable health care available to all (unless you are unlucky enough to live in one of the states that whose GOP leaders refused the Medicaid expansion). The various subsidies and rules in the ACA essentially made it so that OUR vet hospital was now competing on a more equal footing with our competitors . . . . For a decade, we'd been paying the equivalent of $2/hr per employee for their health insurance benefits, while NONE of our competitors provided health insurance at all. We felt morally obligated to provide it, and we did, but it made it a bit harder to compete both on client pricing and on staff wages when we spent $2/hr on health insurance and another $1-2/hr on paid time off and more on various other benefits . . . because, TBH, most entry level staff have no appreciation of those benefits' value or cost. They don't get that making $10/hr working for me (who pays your top rated health insurance and gives you 2-5 or more weeks paid leave a year and mat/paternity benefits, etc, etc. ) . . . compares to earning $15+/hr at one of our competitors . . . And, no, none of our competitors paid that significantly more than us . . .  Same with minimum wage increases . . . We rarely have more than 1-2 just-hired staff at minimum wage, but I know that many competitors who staff with nearly all college kids do . . . So, raise minimum wage and I may have to nudge up a couple people, but my competitors have to do it much more, and all that allows me to keep being "competitive" price-wise to clients while being able to continue to treat our staff well. 

 

Anyway, all that is to say that as national policy evolves, it could make it easier to provide better leave and benefits. As it is, a small business must survive in the competitive environment in which is located. Since our small business is in a town in WV where many folks earn minimum wage, a raise in the minimum wage will positively impact our business by 1) increasing the wages of our potential client base, some of whom could then better afford our services 2) raising the costs of our competitors, thus raising their charges to clients . . . and it would negatively impact us to a much lesser degree by 1) slightly increasing our staffing costs -- since a very small portion of our staff is at minimum wage. Net positive! 

 

Any similar benefit/wage issue could be looked at similarly . . . I.e., providing 12 wk paid maternity leave (or better yet paying into a short term disability pool for all disabilities) . . . This would be great. I am all for it. If EVERYONE had to do it, our business would benefit by a stronger and more stable client base and all our competitors would be paying similar costs, so we would not be competitively disadvantaged. IMHO, it would be a win win. But, if just WE decide to pay 12 weeks maternity/paternity benefits, we get much more of the negatives and much less positives. (This is why we have a shorter paid leave policy . . .  it is enough to take some sting out of taking time off and to make me feel better about things . . .but not as generous as I would love to be . . . )

 

Essentially, what I am trying to communicate is that national POLICY issues require national action to implement. Otherwise, if you leave all these issues to individual employers, you essentially make it very hard for the employer to do the right thing. The employer has to take a substantial competitive disadvantage via increasing expenses . . . for much smaller and unpredictable returns. What I, as a small business owner, would like is national (or state) standards. That makes it MUCH easier to implement worker protections/benefits because not only does it greatly ameliorate the costs (read competitive disadvantage) to the business, but also improves the economy on a larger scale, thereby benefiting the business, IMHO.

 

Yes, it is almost a requirement that this becomes something that has a collective aspect for it to work.  Otherwise people who are jerks simply get an advantage when others do the right thing.

 

However - I think that saying that is a little different than saying that businesses can't survive if they treat workers fairly.  At least - given the widespread belief that the only purpose of business is to make profit, it is different, because people take it as a universal rather than a circumstance in a particular economic setting.