American (lack of) days off for sickness

[heartlikealion]

When I worked full-time and contemplated taking a sick day or a day off in general, I always second-guessed it because dh and ds were home and I knew realistically I would not get the rest and relaxation I wanted. Ds was very young.

 

I have never worked at a job where I could not take off when I was really sick.  Of course when I was in part-time unskilled jobs, I might not be paid for the time off, but that is why people aspire to something more stable than part-time unskilled jobs as they grow into more life responsibilities.

 

Having an official sick leave policy is one thing; being able to use it in practical terms is another.  It depends on work culture really.  How will you be viewed as an employee, a manager, a team player if you take off for relatively minor things?  If you don't take your laptop home and at least check and respond to some emails?  This will vary depending on the person's age and position.

 

Personally I had to be practically unable to climb out of bed before I would take time off work for illness.  I might decline to work overtime that day, I might work at home, but rarely would I just check out.  Even when I was on maternity leave I was advised that I'd better at least work part time (unofficially of course).

 

Now as to whether this is a good or bad policy, I think it's neutral.  The only reason we have sick policies is because some people are irresponsible in the other direction.  That said, there are still lots of jobs where everyone gets paid sick leave and uses it.  These might not be the kinds of jobs I want, but there is always a trade-off.

 

Ouch. I worked a part-time gig after having a job in my field and quitting to move. It was all I could get at the time. This was as a wife and mother so yeah, I would say I had life responsibilities. I didn't have benefits. I went to work with pleurisy and bronchitis and tried my best to not spread germs. I really needed the money and I also felt like the company needed the staff. I was actually a bit nervous about telling everyone I was going to back out of the Relay for Life walk because of the pleurisy. Some coworkers said they didn't think it would be that bad. Luckily a manager agreed that it was a bad idea for me to come so I backed out guilt-free.
 

[eternalsummer]

Aside from working for an individual in their home like babysitting, I've never had a job without some form of paid leave. I've only worked for small employers. My largest employer was still under 50 employees. I've thought about growing my contract work into a business where I would hire others and I probably will at some point when I have fewer family responsibilities. I will factor in the whole cost of the employee before deciding if I could hire some one. When I have helped my clients figure out if they could afford a new FT position, the chart has always included the cost of wages, paid time off and benefits. No one expects to be able to hire someone without a full compensation plan.

 

We found it very easy to hire employees without a "full compensation plan" (that is to say, we pay very well by the hour or as piece work, but no benefits).  

 

Again, we could easily purchase health insurance and work in paid time off - but then we couldn't pay as much as we do per hour (which, for unskilled labor, is, to be honest, an insane amount).  

 

I didn't do the calculations before hiring someone because I figure my employees can A. decide if they'd prefer a job with sick leave and health insurance for $12.50 an hour vs ours for more like $30/hr and B. if they do decide on us, they can manage their own money.  We buy our own health insurance and save $ so that we can cover if we have to shut the business down for a few days if we are both ill or have some other emergency.  I give my employees the benefit of their own agency.  I am not their mother.

[LucyStoner]

We found it very easy to hire employees without a "full compensation plan" (that is to say, we pay very well by the hour or as piece work, but no benefits).

 

Again, we could easily purchase health insurance and work in paid time off - but then we couldn't pay as much as we do per hour (which, for unskilled labor, is, to be honest, an insane amount).

 

I didn't do the calculations before hiring someone because I figure my employees can A. decide if they'd prefer a job with sick leave and health insurance for $12.50 an hour vs ours for more like $30/hr and B. if they do decide on us, they can manage their own money. We buy our own health insurance and save $ so that we can cover if we have to shut the business down for a few days if we are both ill or have some other emergency. I give my employees the benefit of their own agency. I am not their mother.

Many jobs without any benefits are not accompanied by wages that cover splitting cheap rent here, much less room to save more than a few bucks a month.

 

Nor are jobs with the best paid time off generally especially low wage jobs. Somehow my husband's employer manages to pay well (better than average because they want better than average qualifications from their applicants) and still offer time off. The cost of PTO hours doesn't lower wages by more than half ($30 to 12.50? Please.)

 

Running the math, it's a very modest amount. Accumulating paid time off as part of his compensation doesn't make my husband his employer's child. FFS.

 

I'm self employed (very PT) and I do factor in that I am covering my own payroll taxes into my rate and any "benefits" into my rate. I also factor in that they don't have training costs (I am bringing my expertise to them and often training them up so they can do the work themselves after I am gone.) It's only affordable because the orgs that contact me have such a small amount of hours they need the services I offer or they don't even know how to set up the systems they need to hand the job off to a regular employee.

 

ETA- I do wish we got the health insurance off of the employer's list of expenses. It's a huge problem.

Edited September 16, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ottakee]

Most of you must not have spouses in manufacturing or other skilled trades/working class jobs. Many, many in our area have a 6 month new hire NO ABSENCES policy.....you miss one day, for any reason, you don't come back as you won't have a job.

 

My dh once went to work with double pneumonia because if he didn't, he wouldn't have a job to go back to.

 

This so sadly very common in our area and many families are really struggling if anyone gets sick or there is an emergency.

[Closeacademy]

I know that working in food that you really need to not be there when you are sick (in fact the health department has rules for when you can't be there).

 

But people who work in food service only get paid for the time that they are actually there.  There is no paid vacation, no sick leave, no maternity leave, etc.  There is high turnover so if you do leave for a while, you can get your job back but there is no paid leave.

 

I also realize that most family owned places would go under if there was paid sick leave.  The budgets are very tight in food and if you are not there, someone else needs to be paid to take your place.  And they can't really afford to pay both of you.

 

It's really a double-edged sword and the workers are the ones who lose out when they don't work.  But then they still want the place they work at to still be there when they get back so is it really?

[SKL]

Ouch. I worked a part-time gig after having a job in my field and quitting to move. It was all I could get at the time. This was as a wife and mother so yeah, I would say I had life responsibilities. I didn't have benefits. I went to work with pleurisy and bronchitis and tried my best to not spread germs. I really needed the money and I also felt like the company needed the staff. I was actually a bit nervous about telling everyone I was going to back out of the Relay for Life walk because of the pleurisy. Some coworkers said they didn't think it would be that bad. Luckily a manager agreed that it was a bad idea for me to come so I backed out guilt-free.

 

 

We do have a dilemma in the US about parents who have been out of the workforce caring for kids, or left for other family related reasons, and then need to re-enter.  Especially when they don't have a spouse carrying the benefits and long-term stable earnings.  I don't think a lot of thought has been put into this at a macro level.  I don't believe that changing sick / benefit policies for everyone is the right answer.

 

I'm not saying the system we have is perfect - there will always be situations that don't fit what the rules were designed for.  There is no one size fits all, even in a government-mandated system.

Edited September 16, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

Many jobs without any benefits are not accompanied by wages that cover splitting cheap rent here, much less room to save more than a few bucks a month.

 

Nor are jobs with the best paid time off generally especially low wage jobs. Somehow my husband's employer manages to pay well (better than average because they want better than average qualifications from their applicants) and still offer time off. The cost of PTO hours doesn't lower wages by more than half ($30 to 12.50? Please.) Running the math for a few job sutatuitions I am aware of

 

Running the math, it's a very modest amount. Accumulating paid time off as part of his compensation doesn't make my husband his employer's child. FFS.

 

I'm self employed (very PT) and I do factor in that I am covering my own payroll taxes into my rate and any "benefits" into my rate. I also factor in that they don't have training costs (I am bringing my expertise to them and often training them up so they can do the work themselves after I am gone.) It's only affordable because the orgs that contact me have such a small amount of hours they need the services I offer or they don't even know how to set up the systems they need to hand the job off to a relay employee.

 

The cash benefits themselves don't make the difference between $30 and $12.50, but for a small business, it may be worth the extra cash to avoid the administrative hassle and the risk of making a mistake.  As in, not realizing that you broke one of the gazillion laws about wages, hours, testing, documentation, posting, bla bla bla.

 

There are many people in the USA who do not need "benefits" because they are covered by someone else, or they are only trying to supplement a family income that provides sufficient stability.  Given a choice, many people would rather have the extra pocket money.  Why take that choice away?

[FaithManor]

You also have to deal with a cultural attitude where using sick leave is frowned upon. There are places where workers are shamed/penalized into not using it. In essence making it as if sick leave is not offered.

 

Dh's employer is terrible about this. Doubly so when he took FMLA leave after our youngest was born. He faced a lot of pressure at work for having done so.

This.

 

Dh's company actually has no sick days at all. There is paid vacation and you can use it for sickness, but they have no respect and tey to make you work because you did not apply for vacation in advance. When C and I were in the horrific car crash, dh's manager told him straight up that if we did not die immediately, he expected him to get back to work ASAP. He applied for his vacation so he could care for us doe a week after we came home from the hospital and was denied. They then forced unpaid overtime on him which is supposed to be given back as comp time here in Michigam except his company never gives it and I know of no other that does because Michigan courts AlWAYS side with business and against employees. It is a very bad state doe workers. He worked 85 hour weeks in the aftermath of the accident and despite being in precarious health due to my injuries, I took care of C who was even worse. As a result, two of my injuries that should have healed are permanent disabilities now.

 

Dh ended up in the CEO's office telling his story as he found out she has an open door policy. His manager was fired for it. But he said that by in large the company pressure on employees has not let up. His colleague had an emergency appendectomy and was taking conference calls 10 hours later due to pressure from her boss.

 

I.T. the indentured servants of America. Get sick? They off shore your job. Someone dies? Better skip the funeral or your job will be on the chopping block. Family nearly killed. Come on! It isn't that bad! They are still breathing. GET BACK TO WORK!

 

I have no idea what actual compassion extended to employees would do to the economy, I am fairly certain it would reduce the number of cases of communicable diseases and the duration of serious illnesses because people could actually rest and not be worried about being fired. National morale booster.

 

But in a political system in which votes are bought by big business lobbyists giving us an oligarchy not a republic or social democracy my best guess is it is not going to happen unless the people get angry enough to fire congress and all its entrenched incumbents.

[Laura Corin]

Do you think that customer expectations have some part to play in the situation?  I used to work in a Scottish three-person office: salesman/manager, technician, administrator.  We couldn't really cover for each other very thoroughly, as we just didn't have the skills.  If one of us was ill or on holiday, we just explained that, with apologies, to the customers. 

 

In general it didn't seem to affect long-term relationships.  If new customers went elsewhere because we couldn't move fast enough for them, well, the next time it might be another firm that had lost capacity and we would get that deal.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Laura Corin

[SKL]

Do you think that customer expectations have some part to play in the situation?  I used to work in a Scottish three-person office: salesman/manager, technician, administrator.  We couldn't really cover for each other very thoroughly, as we just didn't have the skills.  If one of us was ill or on holiday, we just explained that, with apologies, to the customers. 

 

In general it didn't seem to affect long-term relationships.  If new customers went elsewhere because we couldn't move fast enough for them, well, the next time it might be another firm that had lost capacity and we would get that deal.

 

I think the hurry up mentality is well established at all levels of the supply chain.  We have jokes about people who couldn't control their upset when their drive-thru order took longer than they expected.

 

My job involves a lot of deadlines, including hard government deadlines where if you miss them, you just get left out of all opportunities for a year or two.  Or you get fined and other bad stuff happens.  And don't assume the government gives plenty of time to get it done either.  We have an application process where they give 2 months; the application is about 100 pages of text and analysis (not fill-in-the-blanks), and it's extremely competitive.  You don't get sick the week that thing is due.  Heck, you probably better not even sleep.  :p

 

Right now I'm working on a huge project in answer to an unexpected request from a government entity.  The government sent my client a letter and gave a due date of about 2 weeks past the letter date.  (Better than last time when we only had 1.5 weeks.)  They did offer to extend it 1 week if we couldn't get it done.  I can't overstate how massive this project is, and it requires expertise and a history with the project that frankly only I have.  You'd better believe I worked through my sinus infection and hemorrhaging and my kid's broken finger and everything else.  I guess if I actually die, my client will forgive me.

Edited September 16, 2016 by SKL

[G5052]

DH and I have both had full-time federal and state government jobs, and in each case, we received both sick leave and vacation leave.

 

When I was in university research, it was extremely generous -- five weeks of vacation and two weeks of sick leave for everyone, regardless of seniority and position. One year when I was having to take a lot of my vacation days in order to work on my dissertation, I ran out of vacation and needed more time. I put in for leave without pay, and somehow my boss negotiated so that I ended up being paid then. It made sense of course because they were paying for my school, but technically I was supposed to be doing my schoolwork on my own time.

 

They have since changed the parameters there. My uncle retired on the old system. Then he decided to go back, and they said he'd start over with two weeks of vacation a year! He worked for two years and then retired for good when they were getting ready for a layoff. 

 

Now as an adjunct professor, I'm on semester-by-semester contracts. For live classes, I could miss two classes a semester for any reason. That was tough with DH's many medical problems and all of the eldercare issues we've had. Initially I had a very supportive dean and department head, and my department head actually filled in for me multiple times, once teaching my classes for an entire month. I wasn't paid for that month, but at least I stayed on contract. That changed though. They dissolved my department and brought in a new dean. So I began going in unless I was completely incapacitated.  I even taught an evening class the day that my father died many states away in a remote area. I knew that I'd probably need to miss two classes after that because my mother had dementia couldn't handle all that had to be done. A lot of what I had to do couldn't be hired out because of where she lived. Certainly I understand that a professor shouldn't shortchange their students, but they removed the possibility of having a colleague fill even for even full-time faculty members. So professors are increasingly teaching sick to save their days, especially those who have family members with health problems.

 

Now I work for a different, online college, so no worries as long as I can keep up with my grading and emails. My other work is also relatively flexible. They pay for substitutes to a point, and you can petition for more if you need it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by G5052

[meena]

This is a good point. The make-up work policy at schools is draconian, even for little kids. If they miss Tuesday and they're back at school Wednesday, they have Weds & Thurs evening to do ALL of Tuesday's seatwork + 3 days of homework + whatever else they do in the evening. Usually they are still a little sick and would benefit from an earlier bedtime, but forget that.

 

They should have at least through the weekend to catch up, but nobody asked me. :P

 

So either the kid powers through school sick, or is bombarded while still recovering. It stinks. Yes, sometimes I feel like I'm creating a workaholic when I send my kids to school on Tylenol.

 

At least with work, I can pace myself if I'm sick, only do the most urgent stuff, make the rest up later.

In my DH's case it wasn't tough school policies that kept him from missing school but instead it was his mom. In his culture education is of utmost importance and part of that entails that you don't miss school, ever. In his family you'd literally have to be bleeding to death, otherwise off to school for you. Coupled with working many years at a company that had a terrible sick policy (as I discussed earlier in this thread), DH never wants to take sick days. He also wants to take our kids to church or events when they're sick. I always tell him, nobody wants our germs!

[Jane in NC]

My parents were part of a culture that viewed illness as moral weakness.  Instead of sympathy for suffering, it often seemed that their attitude was one of disdain. I realized later it was fear as both had grown up in times when certain illnesses (now preventable) often spelled death or permanent disability. Things like polio...  And people would lose their jobs if they failed to report for work.

 

I have friends who are now in a challenging situation.  One is undergoing chemo/radiation treatment; the other must work--no family leave and she has the insurance policy.  Lack of sick days is certainly one thing; lack of family leave is another.

 

My husband's employer is generous although the message can be mixed.  There are intense work periods when all hands are needed.  They now seem to acknowledge that having a sneezy, feverish person in a closed air system is not going to move the project forward any faster.  But I do think that individual managers set the tone in the organization.  My husband's current boss has no trouble taking time off to take his wife to medical appointments or to go off to assist his parents.  I think this sets the tone for everyone else--and no one seems to be exploiting it.

[G5052]

He also wants to take our kids to church or events when they're sick. I always tell him, nobody wants our germs!

 

I know what you mean. In our church, certain members consider it "faithfulness" to come to church sick. You love the Lord so much that you don't want to miss -- that sort of thing.

 

DH is permanently immune-compromised and has heart issues. A "little" cold easily goes into bronchitis and pneumonia, which is of course very scary for us.

 

So if he's well enough to go in the winter, he often goes to one service and leaves. It's just too dangerous for him.

 

He has surgery coming up later this month, and he's not even going now because there are colds going around.

 

We still worry about family members picking up a bug there and bring it home, but at least the rest of us are healthy. 

 

I've long since gotten over being frustrated with that situation though. You can't change people.

[FaithManor]

I know what you mean. In our church, certain members consider it "faithfulness" to come to church sick. You love the Lord so much that you don't want to miss -- that sort of thing.

Yup. We left the church whose pastor and eldership critcized ds because his leg pain was so bad he couldn't sit in the pews and sometimes paced the hall or had to leave because he needed to take his muscle relaxant, and it was according to them a spiritual weakness that he just didn't suck it up, that we didn't force him to do so.

 

We left fairly quickly but not soon enough. Ds left the faith entirely. He finds that non christians have more compassion than church goers. This church is local and from what people report now, the congregants are sick non stop. Makes sense. With 200 people all compelled to attend when sick, the bugs may mutate form by the time it makes the circuit leaving the first sickies without immunity the new strain and so it goes like a merry go round that never stops.

 

I think that this is common in many facets of our society. A lot of the local schools do not allow sick absences without a doctor's note produced by the end of the next school day. Well, when the flu, pneumonia,bronchitis, strep is going around the offices are full and parents can't get an appointment that quickly so they send thrir kids to school - especially in high school - so their child does not earn an E for the day in every subject and detention for truancy. It is draconian, and it is heavily enforced so the schools are miserable dens of sick students and staff all winter long.

 

Michigan in terms of employment is exceptionally bad because we have lost so many jobs here. Everyone is afraid. It feels very serf/lord, medieval here.

[Shellydon]

My jobs always allowed for 8-15 sick days per year.  That, IMO, is more than enough.  I only took 2-3 each year.  DH's job offers 10 sick days.  He uses maybe 1 a year. 

[heartlikealion]

We do have a dilemma in the US about parents who have been out of the workforce caring for kids, or left for other family related reasons, and then need to re-enter.  Especially when they don't have a spouse carrying the benefits and long-term stable earnings.  I don't think a lot of thought has been put into this at a macro level.  I don't believe that changing sick / benefit policies for everyone is the right answer.

 

I'm not saying the system we have is perfect - there will always be situations that don't fit what the rules were designed for.  There is no one size fits all, even in a government-mandated system.

 

Some part time jobs offer benefits. I would like to see more do that. Yeah, at that time my spouse was doing an unpaid practicum so we didn't have benefits at all.

[maize]

My jobs always allowed for 8-15 sick days per year. That, IMO, is more than enough. I only took 2-3 each year. DH's job offers 10 sick days. He uses maybe 1 a year.

8 sick days isn't going to go very far if you have a few kids and the flu goes through the family in January followed by strep in March.

[Liz CA]

Yup. We left the church whose pastor and eldership critcized ds because his leg pain was so bad he couldn't sit in the pews and sometimes paced the hall or had to leave because he needed to take his muscle relaxant, and it was according to them a spiritual weakness that he just didn't suck it up, that we didn't force him to do so.

 

We left fairly quickly but not soon enough. Ds left the faith entirely. He finds that non christians have more compassion than church goers. This church is local and from what people report now, the congregants are sick non stop. Makes sense. With 200 people all compelled to attend when sick, the bugs may mutate form by the time it makes the circuit leaving the first sickies without immunity the new strain and so it goes like a merry go round that never stops.

 

I think that this is common in many facets of our society. A lot of the local schools do not allow sick absences without a doctor's note produced by the end of the next school day. Well, when the flu, pneumonia,bronchitis, strep is going around the offices are full and parents can't get an appointment that quickly so they send thrir kids to school - especially in high school - so their child does not earn an E for the day in every subject and detention for truancy. It is draconian, and it is heavily enforced so the schools are miserable dens of sick students and staff all winter long.

 

Michigan in terms of employment is exceptionally bad because we have lost so many jobs here. Everyone is afraid. It feels very serf/lord, medieval here.

 

Arrgghh to the bolded. I hate this self-righteousness still prevalent in some churches. I hope you found a better place. Maybe your ds will give another place a try. I don't blame him for leaving behind such rigid mindset. I cannot write anything else, it makes me too upset.

[FaithManor]

Arrgghh to the bolded. I hate this self-righteousness still prevalent in some churches. I hope you found a better place. Maybe your ds will give another place a try. I don't blame him for leaving behind such rigid mindset. I cannot write anything else, it makes me too upset.

Thank you but no we have not found a church home. So many many churches in this area are legalistic or unfriendly. This is not an easy local culture to engage.

 

So we attend aporadically here and there biding our time until dh retires 6-10 years, and we can move. We will go close in to urban, more choices, train station and international airport handy.

[SKL]

The other thing is that sick policies that are generous for the "average family" are still going to be tough for a large family or one with unusual health problems.

 

And it's not like employers are going to up the sick days the more kids you have.  :P

 

When my kids were little, I looked into finding backup care in case they got sick and couldn't attend preschool.  Ultimately I dropped that ball because our situation didn't really require it.  I am lucky because I'm usually home anyway, and my kids have always been good about letting me work when they are here.  But back to backup care - they do have some options out there, and some employers even help with that.  (My old employer had a service that would supposedly help find backup care, but I quit before I would have needed it.)  I don't think it's wide-spread though.  It probably should be.  It would be expensive, but worth it for some people.

[Murphy101]

Good grief. Yes. It's well past time America got its head out its butt and at least offered some of the basic healthcare, leave/PTO paid time off that even many second or third world countries recognize as just part of having a healthier society.

 

And no, it's utter hogwash that doing this will cause people to become lazy moochers and for our society to dissolve into idleness. It's also blarney that crappy work conditions spur peopke to better themselves. More often than not, it creates a cycle that keeps them stuck in perpetual crappy work situations.

 

I'm pro paid maternity and paternity leave too. I think giving at least 4-6 months per parent, but not at the same time after the first month would be ideal.

 

I also think if the govt is paying for childcare, it shouldn't matter whether the parents use those funds so one of them can more easily stay home or to hire out. No, I do not think it will cause all low income mothers do decide they don't have to work bc they can mooch. It's not like low income subsidy daycare is making any day care workers wealthy either. And many parents won't want to be SAH.

[G5052]

Thank you but no we have not found a church home. So many many churches in this area are legalistic or unfriendly. This is not an easy local culture to engage.

 

So we attend aporadically here and there biding our time until dh retires 6-10 years, and we can move. We will go close in to urban, more choices, train station and international airport handy.

 

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:

 

Yes, as I've related here before, I'm biding my time as well.

 

On top of the odd "sick policy" and their lack of support for me as a working woman, they have not been very supportive of us over the last few years. DH continues to be in and out of the hospital on an ongoing basis with surgeries and procedures. The majority of them don't "get" progressive, chronic illness that cannot be resolved. DH has surgery later this month with three more surgeries in the queue, and I'm expecting very little help and support.

 

I was so very happy at the urban church we attended 20 years ago and go back there several times a year. The last time DH had major surgery, THEY sent a check and gift certificates for meals. Our local church did zip.

 

Anyway, a bit off topic, but I wanted you to know that you're not alone!

Edited September 16, 2016 by G5052

[Guest]

Most of you must not have spouses in manufacturing or other skilled trades/working class jobs. Many, many in our area have a 6 month new hire NO ABSENCES policy.....you miss one day, for any reason, you don't come back as you won't have a job.

 

My dh once went to work with double pneumonia because if he didn't, he wouldn't have a job to go back to.

 

This so sadly very common in our area and many families are really struggling if anyone gets sick or there is an emergency.

I'm pretty sure that's actually an illegal policy in my state. Even the guys working per diem in construction and slope work and the canneries cannot be fired for needing short term medical leave, even if it is unpaid. Edited September 16, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[HRAAB]

We found it very easy to hire employees without a "full compensation plan" (that is to say, we pay very well by the hour or as piece work, but no benefits).  

 

Again, we could easily purchase health insurance and work in paid time off - but then we couldn't pay as much as we do per hour (which, for unskilled labor, is, to be honest, an insane amount).  

 

I didn't do the calculations before hiring someone because I figure my employees can A. decide if they'd prefer a job with sick leave and health insurance for $12.50 an hour vs ours for more like $30/hr and B. if they do decide on us, they can manage their own money.  We buy our own health insurance and save $ so that we can cover if we have to shut the business down for a few days if we are both ill or have some other emergency.  I give my employees the benefit of their own agency.  I am not their mother.

If someone would pay me $30 an hour with no benefits for unskilled labor, I would jump at it.  Where I'm at (currently looking for work), it's much more likely to find jobs from $9.50 to $12.00 an hour with no benefits.  And then you have the companies that pay between $9.50 to $12.00 an hour that offer health insurance (so can't qualify for ACA) but it is NOT affordable.  It's a damn mess.

[FaithManor]

Most jobs available right now within a 30 minute drive are minimum wage, no benefits, 15-20 hrs a week maximum, no absence for any reason for six months probationary period, and one unpaid absence in a 60 day period after that. Local employers practically brag about how badly their employees are treated whike also complaining about not attracting quality workers with high degrees of internal motivation andd high turn over rates. Well NO DUH ye lords of serfdom!

[FaithManor]

And I am of the opinion that if your business plan is predicated on treating employees like that for years and years, then really it is not disheartening if said business folds. Really. Come with a business plan that involves humane treatment of humans or please don't open a business. A healthy nation cannot be built on a plethora of such businesses.

[SKL]

And I am of the opinion that if your business plan is predicated on treating employees like that for years and years, then really it is not disheartening if said business folds. Really. Come with a business plan that involves humane treatment of humans or please don't open a business. A healthy nation cannot be built on a plethora of such businesses.

 

Often it's a few partners doing all the work themselves, working long hours, taking all the risks, and then once they have some momentum, some college kids want to get in on the action, or a guy you knew from a previous life says his wife is looking for part time work now that her kids are older.

 

Eventually you do need to bring in benefits, but the right time to do that will vary.

 

I definitely don't agree that people shouldn't start businesses until they are prepared to deal with all the same things a big corporation deals with.  That would be a disincentive to innovate.  It's like, some of you homeschool because the clunky machinery that is the public school does not allow the flexibility your kids need to thrive.  If you had to provide a school nurse, gym, handicap entrances, etc. etc. before you could start your homeschool, wouldn't that be a problem?

 

[Murphy101]

Often it's a few partners doing all the work themselves, working long hours, taking all the risks, and then once they have some momentum, some college kids want to get in on the action, or a guy you knew from a previous life says his wife is looking for part time work now that her kids are older.

 

Eventually you do need to bring in benefits, but the right time to do that will vary.

 

I definitely don't agree that people shouldn't start businesses until they are prepared to deal with all the same things a big corporation deals with. That would be a disincentive to innovate. It's like, some of you homeschool because the clunky machinery that is the public school does not allow the flexibility your kids need to thrive. If you had to provide a school nurse, gym, handicap entrances, etc. etc. before you could start your homeschool, wouldn't that be a problem?

 

She did not at all say they shouldn't start a business until they can offer all that.

 

She said they shouldn't start a business with the business plan designed to purposely choose not to for years and years or forever.

 

Big difference there.

[LucyStoner]

I'm pretty sure that's actually an illegal policy in my state. Even the guys working per diem in construction and slope work and the canneries cannot be fired for needing short term medical leave, even if it is unpaid.

It is legal in most states. And in the states where it is technically illegal, employers get away with it all the time.

[Murphy101]

It is legal in most states. And in the states where it is technically illegal, employers get away with it all the time.

This. It's very much legal here and very common. Some places even have the policy for the first entire YEAR of employment. And no, they are not all blue collar jobs either. Many are office jobs too.

 

After one year it gets dicey bc after one year of employment is when people start to qualify for things like FMLA and such. But the first entire year many employees do not qualify for anything legally unless the company sees fit to be so "generous" earlier.

[FaithManor]

Arcticmamma, in at will firing states all they have to do is call you in and fire you and say it is "without cause". Every person there can know full well taht you are being let go for daring to have a family emergency, but so long as they do not cop to it and maintain "let go without cause" there is no recourse. It happens all.the.time. in these states.

[Guest]

Arcticmamma, in at will firing states all they have to do is call you in and fire you and say it is "without cause". Every person there can know full well taht you are being let go for daring to have a family emergency, but so long as they do not cop to it and maintain "let go without cause" there is no recourse. It happens all.the.time. in these states.

I don't doubt it. My comment had to do with the fact that there are protections in place in some areas to prevent that, and even in the most menial jobs around here that are factory or hard labor based this isn't common. Ironically I would expect that more in under the table or back end service jobs in my particular area, than anything that has a union as the factories and labored jobs often do. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm grateful it isn't common around here. I can't think of a single story from someone I know involving that sort of wrongful or abrupt termination. Even at some of my lowest wage jobs in California the employees, from green card holders to high schoolers, were treated well.

 

Whistle blowing and lobbying for better employment laws is probably the only thing that can be done in these cases and it wouldn't prevent all of them. Separating out what is cultural or legal and what is essentially criminal behavior by an employer is a good first step, but there definitely needs to be some mechanism in place for reporting workplace abuses or improving employment protections to begin with.

 

We have the opposite issue at the last few employers my husband has been with. They are so over the top the other direction that someone cannot be fired even for criminal behavior, provided it wasn't at work. A supervisor spent three years trying to get rid of a completely unproductive employee and essentially had to wait until he could *restructure* the position out of existence to terminate him, and then not offer anything similar to replace it for six months because that person (who was pretty much Wally from Dilbert, with a little less cleverness) would be first in line for consideration again.

 

There has to be an answer between those two extremes. I appreciate the job security for all the guys who work their butts off but the entire company is hurt by a corporate culture that has no consequences for poor, inefficient work. Not only do hey have adequate leave and ridiculously accommodating hiring practices for pretty much anyone who meets the various check boxes, but if they're failing at even the basics of their job they're pretty much secure for months and even years on end due to legal's fear of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Oy vey.

 

That's not the norm in lower wage jobs, but it's surprisingly common across this band of corporate America and in this state.

[Guest]

I do wonder if blue collar and economically depressed states and areas have this as more common because of the lack of diverse employment and glut of bodies to fill them? It seems more likely, since employees would have a lot less options to go to if they were working for one of these shysters. I've only lived in wealthier areas, even during recessions and economic upheaval, but I've heard more of these horror stories from Michigan and Indiana than I have from a Washington state.

[FaithManor]

I do wonder if blue collar and economically depressed states and areas have this as more common because of the lack of diverse employment and glut of bodies to fill them? It seems more likely, since employees would have a lot less options to go to if they were working for one of these shysters. I've only lived in wealthier areas, even during recessions and economic upheaval, but I've heard more of these horror stories from Michigan and Indiana than I have from a Washington state.

Absolutely economic depression is likely a big factor. The Midwest snd Great Lakes was hit hard and haven't fully recovered so there are far more potential employees to abuse than job openings, especially so for full time employment, which allows abuse to proliferate.

 

When the job market is competitive and the, employer has to woo employees to the company and then try to keep them, there is far less abuse but then of course employees have more leeway to take advantage. Still, in at will states, there is generally far more employers taking advantage of workers than vice versa.

[Guest]

That makes sense.

[Lady Florida.]

I do wonder if blue collar and economically depressed states and areas have this as more common because of the lack of diverse employment and glut of bodies to fill them? It seems more likely, since employees would have a lot less options to go to if they were working for one of these shysters. I've only lived in wealthier areas, even during recessions and economic upheaval, but I've heard more of these horror stories from Michigan and Indiana than I have from a Washington state.

 

Unions also make a big difference. Alaska is in the Top Ten states with strong unions. It ranks #2 among states with the highest union membership. States where unions have little to no power (right-to-work states like Florida) also tend to offer the least protection to employees, especially blue collar workers.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, but I don't think it's wrong to wait to buy a house until you're somewhat established in a career.  I don't think we want transient part-time unskilled workers to think they need to buy a house.  Seems that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

As you can see in this thread, the norm for a person in a stable full-time job is that s/he has sick pay.

 

Even so, I would rather people get a little more established than just being on a regular payroll before they make a huge financial commitment.

 

There are a lot of people who are never in a job where they will have paid sick days.   Even if they are renters and use public transport, a sense of stability makes a huge difference to decision making for a family.

[StephanieZ]

FWIW, the principle of rejecting sickness as a valid reason to miss things is now built in to the school system.

 

At our local high schools, if the student misses school for nearly ANY reason, more than 4 times per year, they are required to take final exams for their courses -- whereas all students with acceptable low absenteeism get to skip them. (Don't get me started on the bad idea of not teaching excellent high school students how to study for annual exams!) Anyway, I was shocked to learn that sickness, even with a doctor's note, is not a valid excuse (for this purpose). They will excuse absences only for immediate family death, student hospitalization (in patient), or an approved school activity. 

 

What are they teaching these kids!?

[Bluegoat]

Most of you must not have spouses in manufacturing or other skilled trades/working class jobs. Many, many in our area have a 6 month new hire NO ABSENCES policy.....you miss one day, for any reason, you don't come back as you won't have a job.

 

My dh once went to work with double pneumonia because if he didn't, he wouldn't have a job to go back to.

 

This so sadly very common in our area and many families are really struggling if anyone gets sick or there is an emergency.

 

This has become a big thing with so called "temporary" workers as well.  People understand why temp agencies might work that way, but what is happening is that companies are contracting out permanent positions to temp agencies.  So the people in those jobs are treated like temp workers which saves the contracting company a bundle on sick days, benefits, and so on, and it also allows them to treat workers in ways many people would consider totally inappropriate.  It isn't just for six months, either.

 

Warehouse work has become pretty notorious for it.

[Murphy101]

This has become a big thing with so called "temporary" workers as well. People understand why temp agencies might work that way, but what is happening is that companies are contracting out permanent positions to temp agencies. So the people in those jobs are treated like temp workers which saves the contracting company a bundle on sick days, benefits, and so on, and it also allows them to treat workers in ways many people would consider totally inappropriate. It isn't just for six months, either.

 

Warehouse work has become pretty notorious for it.

Most jobs here are contracting out only. Only upper management isn't contracted, and often they are too.

 

These "temp" or "contract" jobs often have many workers who have been "temp/contract" for a year or more.

 

No benefits and the pay isn't one bit better than if they were on a company payroll.

 

And you can't really choose to not work through those agencies bc of the huge number of employers who don't accept hires any other way. It becomes work "temp" or don't work at all.

 

ETA: these are not transient or physical day labor jobs either. These are everything from machining to office to lower management.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Murphy101

[Bluegoat]

Good grief. Yes. It's well past time America got its head out its butt and at least offered some of the basic healthcare, leave/PTO paid time off that even many second or third world countries recognize as just part of having a healthier society.

 

And no, it's utter hogwash that doing this will cause people to become lazy moochers and for our society to dissolve into idleness. It's also blarney that crappy work conditions spur peopke to better themselves. More often than not, it creates a cycle that keeps them stuck in perpetual crappy work situations.

 

I'm pro paid maternity and paternity leave too. I think giving at least 4-6 months per parent, but not at the same time after the first month would be ideal.

 

I also think if the govt is paying for childcare, it shouldn't matter whether the parents use those funds so one of them can more easily stay home or to hire out. No, I do not think it will cause all low income mothers do decide they don't have to work bc they can mooch. It's not like low income subsidy daycare is making any day care workers wealthy either. And many parents won't want to be SAH.

 

With regard to the bolded - yes, it does.  But even beyond that, do people really think they will eliminate those jobs from the system if somehow everyone becomes "motivated"?  For the most part those jobs are there because that work needs to be done. 

 

So people are either thinking somehow we can ideally eliminate all lower paid labour or service jobs, or they are ok with the fact that those people will always be treated like crap in their work because they think somehow they deserve it.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Guest]

Unions also make a big difference. Alaska is in the Top Ten states with strong unions. It ranks #2 among states with the highest union membership. States where unions have little to no power (right-to-work states like Florida) also tend to offer the least protection to employees, especially blue collar workers.

A fair bit of the union thing is skewed by our population statistics overall, just for some context. We have enormous bureaucracy in state government, as well as the fed and local presence. That skews it big time, because there aren't actually a ton of private unions beyond the normal laborers unions that you'd find anywhere, like construction and electricians, etc. But with so few people those numbers do add up. We do have a ridiculously huge teachers union but that's an aside :)

 

One of the jobs with unfireable positions we personally dealt with was indeed unionized. The current one isn't and is as bad or worse. All my local service industry jobs weren't unionized either and didn't treat employees that way.

 

I think you have a good point in general though - the codified wage and worker protections do seem better across the board in states with a history of strong unions. Alaska also had the benefit of being a young state without the 'history' of employment issues that some of the eastern and southern states do. The state has an enormous amount of power and a ton of things locked up in statute that other states do not, so we are in an odd spot in that regard. Plenty of employment in Fairbanks, south central generally, and location based and seasonal work for those who want it has kept our unemployment low except in more remote villages. That surely helps too.

 

It's disappointing to me that so many jobs do treat their employees poorly without much pushback for various reasons. I think I've personally been very lucky that I've only had one job I'd say was poorly managed with regard to employee handling, but I quit and went to an excellent job after that with a big restaurant chain and great location management. That was the employer who rescheduled more flexible employees to help out the immigrant mothers who also worked there. Wages were decent but not great, but the work environment made up for it I think.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[HRAAB]

I miss the days when I lived in my little bubble and life was all hunky dory.  Dh was employed with a large hi tech company, had a decent salary, vacation pay up to 5 weeks, sick leave, fantastic health insurance (thankfully had that for all my pregnancies), a retirement plan. It was a good job. I really never worried.  Then they started chipping away until finally his job was off shored.  Boy, was that a painful way to be humbled and quickly.  Since then he's continued doing the same work as a contract employee.  Not only does he not have any sick leave, vacation time, holiday pay, plus health insurance that has skyrocketed in price, his pay has decreased.  Exact same work.  And living expenses increase.  Yes, he's gone to work sick as does his co-workers that are contract.  Oh, and never knowing if your contract is going to be renewed.  He's been unemployed since June this time.  The company that had his contract off shored his particular job.  And telling him he needs to change career paths is not helpful.  He is in his late 50s.  And you know what?  Compared to so many others, we have it good.  For every complaint I have, I feel guilty. 

 

Now I'm looking for work.  That has been an eye opening experience.  Even though I went to college and worked for 15 years, I realize I've been out of the workforce for 20 years.  I'm looking for clerical/office work since I feel comfortable with that after such a long time.  I'm seeing office jobs starting at $9.50 an hour - jobs that require some skills.  No time off.  At will employment. How in the world does a person afford to take a sick day with those wages?  I would love to get the pay (and benefits) I was making in 1995.  Funny how back then I thought I was underpaid.  

 

eta:  to be fair, dh could work from home.  He broke his ankle earlier this year and worked from home for a couple of weeks.  But, you never know how that's going to reflect on you.  The manager over his contract was really big on all employees being on site, and with being an at will employee, it could be an easy goodbye.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ishki

[HRAAB]

Most jobs here are contracting out only. Only upper management isn't contracted, and often they are too.

 

These "temp" or "contract" jobs often have many workers who have been "temp/contract" for a year or more.

 

No benefits and the pay isn't one bit better than if they were on a company payroll.

 

And you can't really choose to not work through those agencies bc of the huge number of employers who don't accept hires any other way. It becomes work "temp" or don't work at all.

 

ETA: these are not transient or physical day labor jobs either. These are everything from machining to office to lower management.

 

This exactly.

[FaithManor]

FWIW, the principle of rejecting sickness as a valid reason to miss things is now built in to the school system.

 

At our local high schools, if the student misses school for nearly ANY reason, more than 4 times per year, they are required to take final exams for their courses -- whereas all students with acceptable low absenteeism get to skip them. (Don't get me started on the bad idea of not teaching excellent high school students how to study for annual exams!) Anyway, I was shocked to learn that sickness, even with a doctor's note, is not a valid excuse (for this purpose). They will excuse absences only for immediate family death, student hospitalization (in patient), or an approved school activity.

 

What are they teaching these kids!?

They are teaching them to be good drones for the oligarchy.

[jewellsmommy]

 

 

As an aside, I've known many teachers who complained about kids staying home sick when they weren't sick enough (according to the teacher).  For all I know, that's where the attitude (of carrying on no matter what) starts.

 

 

 

This is definitely part of the problem. The push for perfect attendance is ridiculous. In my 8th grade year I had a lot of stuff happen. I had a very bad case of chicken pox. I had girl problems (that would later be diagnosed as endometriosis). We had a couple of family emergencies as well. DUe to all of this in the same year, I missed a lot of days. But, I made up all of the work, had all As and was getting 2 high school credits from algebra and french and this was done in the TAG program (gifted/accelerated) which means that this was not slacker level stuff. The month before the end of the school year, the principal told my mom that they couldn't "graduate" me because I had missed one day over the allowable limit. My mom and doctor fought it, and I did go on to 9th grade. But what If I had been a kid who didn't have that level of support from home?

 

How do you justify holding back a straight A student (void of other factors like social problems). What would they gain by repeating? It was strictly about punishment, not about benefiting the student.

 

Policy should not be held paramount over common sense.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know some workers can take advantage of leave policies. But, if those workers are slacking off and not productive, then deal with them as individuals. 

[Guest]

They are teaching them to be good drones for the oligarchy.

I'd give you a piece of tinfoil except that I'd be wearing one too.

[LucyStoner]

I miss the days when I lived in my little bubble and life was all hunky dory. Dh was employed with a large hi tech company, had a decent salary, vacation pay up to 5 weeks, sick leave, fantastic health insurance (thankfully had that for all my pregnancies), a retirement plan. It was a good job. I really never worried. Then they started chipping away until finally his job was off shored. Boy, was that a painful way to be humbled and quickly. Since then he's continued doing the same work as a contract employee. Not only does he not have any sick leave, vacation time, holiday pay, plus health insurance that has skyrocketed in price, his pay has decreased. Exact same work. And living expenses increase. Yes, he's gone to work sick as does his co-workers that are contract. Oh, and never knowing if your contract is going to be renewed. He's been unemployed since June this time. The company that had his contract off shored his particular job. And telling him he needs to change career paths is not helpful. He is in his late 50s. And you know what? Compared to so many others, we have it good. For every complaint I have, I feel guilty.

 

Now I'm looking for work. That has been an eye opening experience. Even though I went to college and worked for 15 years, I realize I've been out of the workforce for 20 years. I'm looking for clerical/office work since I feel comfortable with that after such a long time. I'm seeing office jobs starting at $9.50 an hour - jobs that require some skills. No time off. At will employment. How in the world does a person afford to take a sick day with those wages? I would love to get the pay (and benefits) I was making in 1995. Funny how back then I thought I was underpaid.

 

eta: to be fair, dh could work from home. He broke his ankle earlier this year and worked from home for a couple of weeks. But, you never know how that's going to reflect on you. The manager over his contract was really big on all employees being on site, and with being an at will employee, it could be an easy goodbye.

My "like" is one of sympathy and also appreciation that you speak the truth. Obviously, I don't like what you guys have had to face.

 

It's a big fat race to the bottom to treat employees like that.

[SamanthaCarter]

I really like how my husband's employer does sick days (small specialized manufacturer). There are no set amount of sick days for a salaried employee and they are not rolled into total PTO. There is no accumulation or payout for sick days not taken. So, no one is motivated to come in sick in order to maximize their number of vacation days for their summer vacation and no one is motivated to come in sick in order to cash out their unused vacation days. Management for the most part treats the employees like adults and grants the sick days as needed. 

 

Now the amount of vacation dh gets is a whole different story......:/

Edited September 16, 2016 by SamanthaCarter