Posted on 08/23/2005 12:57:22 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
First they foisted an increased minimum wage on the Madison businesses. Then they banned smoking, putting bars, taverns and restaurants in jeopardy. Now they want to force Madison employers to pay people with "beer flu" or have a sick kid when they don't show up for work.
Unreal.
Who pays the self-employed when they get sick?
They'll eventually drive out all the businesses-- fine, that's what needs to happen.
The U of W Madison was just selected as the nation's #1 party school-- so the town AND the university is full of deadbeats.
Actually, as a public policy measure, this makes sense. Mildly ill workers who take days off are less likely to get sicker (and miss many more days of work, which costs businesses money), moreover, they're less likely to spread illnesses to other employees. In an ideal world, however, this is something that employers do for themselves, not a legislative fiat.
In other news, crowd over whelmingly supports six weeks paid vacation, company paid lunch, and the right to tell the boss to STFU.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Yup.
One vote for liberty.
Excuse me, please, but it doesn't matter what the employees want - it only matters what the employer is willing to offer to get the employees he wants.
I was sick yesterday (still am today).
I could bill my clients anyway, but I doubt if they would like it.
I'll take a quick poll...
Don't get me started on the free/reduced lunch crowd in our public schools.
A newspaper investigation found that a high percentage of the applications were false. The school system knows this but does nothing. The reason? Federal Money.
What does this teach our children? That it's OK to lie if it gets you what you want.
Evidently the poor accountant doesn't realize that all companies have piles of unused money laying around and the only reason they don't give it to their employees is because they are too mean and stinghy.
DING DING DING DING~! WE HAVE A WINNER FOR MOST POIGNANT REPLY
Apparently he's not sorry enough to just call in sick. Stick your apology Mike!
Remember the issue here is not whether or not people can call in sick, but whether they still get paid after calling in sick. Mike, as a TA, was working a salaried position with benefits and perks. Mike, as a bartender, was probably working on a per-hour basis with tips thrown in. Hey Mike, do you also want your customers to send you tips for the work you didn't do when you had your runny nose?
What an asinine headline (by the paper).
Was there a single solitary employer in the room?
NO.
If you poll 101 bank robbers, you'll likely get 100 votes for outlawing jail, too.
Doesn't mean we ought to do it.
Self-employed people will probably be taxed. Just like as a self-employed person in Massachusetts I have to pay unemployment for myself. (I guess in case I lay myself off.)
We have x42 to thank, in part.
Au contraire, business leaders give their right arms for talent. They will do anything to attract it, compensate it, and entice it to stay.
If they aren't doing any of that for these individuals, there must be a reason... ;)
The "job" is dead, but these dodos don't realize it, yet.
Perhaps, but the reverse is also true. Employees don't give a damn about their employers and seek to screw them every chance they get.
Free! FREE paid sick days! FREE health care! FREE Lambourghini Countachs for ALL!
Hey, where'd all the taxpaying businesses go? *chirp chirp*
Agreed. From a financial standpoint paid sickleave makes sense. Not offering this benefit often means that sick workers will come to work ill simply because they can't afford to take a day off without pay. They spread their illness to other workers, which reduces company productivity as they, in turn, take days off or work at a slower pace while fighting illness. Sick workers are also far more likely to be injured on the job, potentially exposing the employer to additional comp claims or personal injury suits resulting in increased insurance premiums.
Numerous studies by both business and labor groups have shown that NOT offering sick leave costs companies more in the long run than offering it.
Still, I don't like the idea of this being mandated. If companies are dumb enough to ignore the studies and operate with sick employees, then they should have that right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.