Are you tired of worrying if someone who should be home in bed is instead preparing|serving your food? In Philly, you won't have to.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports
Mayor [Michael] Nutter signed mandatory paid sick leave into law [February 12.]
[...]In 90 days, businesses with 10 or more employees will be required to give workers at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. [Councilman William K. Greenlee, who had introduced the bill as well as similar bills in 2011 and 2013,] says the bill will benefit up to 200,000 Philadelphians.
Workers will be able to use accrued sick time for their own illnesses or those of family members, or to seek support in dealing with domestic violence or sexual assault. Employees not covered include independent contractors, seasonal workers or those hired for fewer than six months, adjunct professors, interns, government employees, and workers covered by collective-bargaining agreements.
Councilmen David Oh and Brian J. O'Neill, two of Council's three Republicans, were the only members to vote against the measure.
The business community--the hospitality industry in particular--had lobbied against the bill, saying it could dissuade companies from moving to Philadelphia or current ones from expanding.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:28AM
for a FT employee. Actually it's a fraction more than that.
I'll take the conservative side on this one. Competition is now global, like it or not, and a lot of folks overseas are getting paid 10 to 20 cents on the dollar compared with American workers. Let's not invent more reasons for corporations to lay off our workers in favor of overseas help.
Personally, I think I've taken one sick day in the last 15 years. Maybe I'm unusually lucky, or perhaps no, but six per year mandated by law seems way too much. If a rich company like Google or Goldman Sachs wants to do that for their pampered employees (and I doubt that they do), that's their choice, not the government's.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:42AM
Don't complain then when the minimum wage cook sneezes his typhoid fever all over your food.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:12AM
If a restaraunt is in the habit of letting sick workers handle the food, then that place will only be in business slightly longer than it takes for word to spread that "patient zero" was cleared to be the cook on duty.
Life involves risk, and increasing the cost of labor in misguided attempts to avoid risk increases the costs of compliance as well, and as we starve and shiver in the dark most of us will realize pretty quick that "those who trade liberty for safety deserve - and will have - neither".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:21AM
What liberties are we giving away here? You think that the ability of some employers who can't be opposed by most people to work their employees to death is some sort of fundamental liberty? I disagree.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:49AM
Among others, the freedom to negotiate contracts.
Some people, including myself, prefer more cash in hand than other benefits ala "401k"s and paid sick leave. My negotiations been repeatedly thwarted in the past by government meddling, in that I'm "forced" to accept compensation in some forms that I want nothing to do with. Absent such meddling, the participants would be free to negotiate their own terms to come to a mutually-agreed upon arrangement that benefits each party as best reflects the combination of their value to each other.
Some people recognize that creature comforts such as insurance (of which paid sick leave is one type) are not always such a great deal, and that by taking more responsibility upon one's own self, one's resources can be more effectively managed to pursue one's own goals while still being able to manage for eventualities such as getting sick... or for the roof leaking, or the car breaking down, or getting laid off, or for any of a thousand things that can and often do happen to individuals throught this zany adventure we call life.
You may choose to scoff at the comparitive feebleness of this liberty compared to others... but it is nonetheless a liberty, and that is a commodity in rather short supply nowadays.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by EmeraldBot on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:31PM
Among others, the freedom to negotiate contracts.
Some people, including myself, prefer more cash in hand than other benefits ala "401k"s and paid sick leave. My negotiations been repeatedly thwarted in the past by government meddling, in that I'm "forced" to accept compensation in some forms that I want nothing to do with. Absent such meddling, the participants would be free to negotiate their own terms to come to a mutually-agreed upon arrangement that benefits each party as best reflects the combination of their value to each other.
Some people recognize that creature comforts such as insurance (of which paid sick leave is one type) are not always such a great deal, and that by taking more responsibility upon one's own self, one's resources can be more effectively managed to pursue one's own goals while still being able to manage for eventualities such as getting sick... or for the roof leaking, or the car breaking down, or getting laid off, or for any of a thousand things that can and often do happen to individuals throught this zany adventure we call life.
You may choose to scoff at the comparitive feebleness of this liberty compared to others... but it is nonetheless a liberty, and that is a commodity in rather short supply nowadays.
I see what you mean, and in a way, I agree. Perhaps a way to allow cutting back benefits in exchange for more cash or compensation in some other way should exist. But while you as a high skill employee have the bargaining power to make such a trade, a janitor doesn't. He won't get sick days, and he won't be compensated in money in exchange. He'd get nothing. The whole point of the government is to support the people, and in this case, the truth is that the majority are the poor workers. Not being able to be compensated might hurt you a little bit, but it would mean a lot for those struggling to get by, and in the end, I think having a little less flexibility on your end in exchange for someone's life is an agreeable trade. After all, the extremely rich CEOs of large companies pay far more into the government's taxes than either of us do, eh?
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:11AM
I scoff at this specific use of it. I see no reason to allow the rich and/or powerful (employers have the advantage here) to oppress poor people any more than they already do.
Contracts are ultimately enforced by the government. You're not even entitled to have a specific contract enforced by the government, especially ones that are ultimately harmful.
in that I'm "forced" to accept compensation in some forms that I want nothing to do with.
In that case, you should be able to give that "compensation" away if you ask to do so. It should be available to people who desire it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:58PM
If a restaurant is in the habit of letting sick workers handle the food, then that place will only be in business slightly longer than it takes for word to spread that "patient zero" was cleared to be the cook on duty.
Life involves risk, and increasing the cost of labor in misguided attempts to avoid risk increases the costs of compliance as well, and as we starve and shiver in the dark most of us will realize pretty quick that "those who trade liberty for safety deserve - and will have - neither".
The sick worker likely cannot afford to take the day off without pay. Even if they can, they may risk losing their job if they do. Having a system that primarily benefits those very few who have negotiating strength leads to very much less liberty for society in general. Society needs those "low level" workers a lot more than it needs a high paid engineer working on, say, Google Glass. And please don't haul out that tired old "they should work harder to educate themselves and improve their negotiating strength or whatever". If everyone did that no one would have negotiating strength. No one really begrudges the success of those who have worked hard. What is begrudged is the expansion of the rewards for success at the expense of those who have little enough already.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Monday February 16 2015, @05:08AM
I once was a sick worker who was living hand-to-mouth and could ill afford to stay home without pay, and I consider it a miracle that I was able to later find myself in a much-improved economic situation years later. This said to show that I've been there, and I weep for those who see nothing left for their life but hard labor at menial jobs with no escape in sight. I remember that terrifying fear, myself.
That said, I will NOT rob you at gunpoint, Joe, nor anyone else, to obtain resources to use to try to be of help to people seemingly stuck in such situations. Considering that the overwhelming vast majority of people who have managed to become able to live slightly below their means and thus begin saving have 50% or more of their production taken from them under the excuses of War on Poverty, Government Education, and many other high-minded but objective failures, perhaps it's time to consider options that do not rob people of half their production. (L. Neil Smith has repeatedly made the case that, upon including costs of compliance imposed by governments, the typical worker lives on ONE EIGHTH of their production.) Even in the midst of economic recession, people of the USA are still considered among the most generous on the planet. How much more efficient could individuals be with using their surplus production for charity if they had a free choice in the matter, with no gun stuck up their nose? Is suspicion to the contrary still any justification to rob them at gunpoint?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:38PM
Someone with typhoid is likely to be sick for more than six business days a year. So the new law will be of zero help for the particular case you mention, in fact it might have unintended consequences of enabling very sick people to retain customer facing jobs.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by juggs on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:29AM
I do not grok this concept of earning "sick leave" - what is this, if you work 5 years you can be ill for 5 days or something. What an utterly ridiculous and self defeating construct.
No-one chooses to become ill, be it systemic, hereditary or contagion related illness - no-one chooses ~when~ to get ill.
If a business places workers in the position of choosing:
a. stay home, don't get paid
b. come into work even though there is green mucus running out your ears, infect another 10 workers, get nothing done as you feel like death on a plate, get paid
Workers choose option b.
Which leads to a much larger bunch of workers going out sick.
Well I suppose that works for the business in that they got the sick person to sit at a desk for a day or two, while they also gain another 10 workers doing likewise - so instead of 2 or 3 man days lost on the one worker staying home the business ends up with 20 - 30 man days lost as all the colleagues go down with the bug. All in the name of being seen to be present. This is Industrial age thinking and it comes from dinosaur management practices that have not evolved.
Frankly there is something intellectually retarded in managerial terms to demand that a sick employee present themselves for work. This sick pay law is not the answer - but the actual answer would not be politically palatable because it would be socialist to achieve it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:23AM
It's all about money, in both cases. If the worker stays at home and gets paid, someone else has to come up with money. In USSR a worker could stay at home for a long time... as long as the doctor provides him with an official paper for his boss. Those papers were accounted for like money, that they in fact were. Doctors could give you a three day vacation with little concern; however three more days would have a higher threshold, and so on.
As USSR paid workers very little, this was used primarily to keep peasants in line - the workers should be working, after all. In the USA salary of workers is the largest expense. One day of a lowly engineer can easily cost the company $1.5-2K. Paying this much for no work is becoming problematic. Lacking the Soviet system of healthcare, with accountability for every release from work, the US business cannot be sure if the worker is sick or he just needs a day off. If you set up a maximum limit on those sick days, they will be all taken out - and if the guy gets sick after that he will come to work, just as he does today. Those sick days will be interpreted as paid vacations, no doubt about that. Work ethic in the USA varies, but primarily it is seen as a business relationship with no love between the parties. The business tells the guy to stay late and code, and the guy will do what he can to return the favor.
Do I see a solution here? Only if there is a way for a worker to officially demonstrate that he is sick and has to stay at home. In USSR one could summon a doctor to his house, and the doctor would come. In the USA house visits are unheard of nowadays, and obviously a sick person shouldn't go anywhere. Trust goes only so far - it may work in a startup that is ran by friends, but it won't work in a large business where everyone is a stranger. But without proof that someone is sick this law amounts to taking money from a business and giving it to the employee.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dyingtolive on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:42AM
I solved the problem by getting them all my coworkers sick. We have paid sick time, but management always finds little ways to take it out on people after they get back. Oh well, maybe that will help them reconsider arrangements in the future.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:47AM
You MUST be trolling. No salaried engineer makes 1.5K per DAY. Consultants might do so, but they're an exempt category. Of course CEOs make far more per day and aren't even expected to make the pretense of being sick if they want a day off. Next up, you don't seem to mind paying someone to get nothing done at work (other than making several more people sick), so why do you mind so much paying them to not make more people sick by staying home? That's pretty foolish actually.
I strongly recommend that anyone who has to go to work sick sneeze on the boss and everything in his/her office.
Perhaps treating employees with respect and loyalty (like used to happen) will cause them to reciprocate (like also used to happen).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:06AM
You MUST be trolling. No salaried engineer makes 1.5K per DAY
Please read carefully what I wrote. Note the "cost the company" part. A business pays not just the pure salary that goes to the worker. A business also pays payroll taxes, and property taxes, part of which property is used for the worker's cubicle. It's called "keeping the lights on." These invisible taxes often double the cost of the worker [wikipedia.org].
I agree with the rest, though. But business is a competitive affair, and you (as the owner) often cannot be as nice to your workers as you'd like to be. Sometimes you either have to ask them to work overtime, for free, or to lay them off on the spot. Sometimes you can pay for that with shares of your company - but they are worthless at that point, and the worker cannot buy food with them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:24PM
The last two companies I worked at break the costs out.
The *MOST* I have ever seen for a 'sr guy' is about 160 (and that includes all benefits ss, 401k, matching, health, rent, etc). For someone who makes about 90-100k. That comes out to about 600 a day that is worked. Less if you included the entire year. As someone who is currently looking most 'sr guys' are getting between 60-80k offers... To hit your 1500 a day it would cost 540k a year for someone if you include the whole year or 360k if you only include workdays. But you are 'keeping the lights on' so its the whole year number... Just to use the lower number if you are spending nearly 130k (benefits direct to the employee are about 30) a year for about 100sq ft for 1 engineer per year you are way overpaying... Most building managers I have worked with try to hit in the 3k-5k per employee per year range.
If your business is so marginal that forcing your workers to work overtime for free is normal I would say you have a more fundamental problem. Looking at your numbers I can see why. You have also just given me a good question to ask during an interview. I can get a good idea how businesses are valuing their employees.
It usually takes me about 3 years to break the overworked maniac of those poor life habits that come from companies like yours. Poor managers such as yourself give me all the ammo I need to do it too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:20PM
Sounds like you're living in the business bardo, a sort of nightmare you can't bring yourself to wake up from.
In addition to the analysis provided by the AC, consider. It wasn't that long ago when retailers sere EXPECTED to close every sunday and every major holiday (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, 4th of July, Memorial day). They did so and prospered. Now they cry that they'll all go under if they don't open for a few hours on Thanksgiving. Except Chick-Fil-A and a handful of others that still manage to close on Sunday and seem to be doing fine somehow.
Of course, most of the people the law is meant to benefit don't get 401k or health insurance or even an assigned workspace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:03AM
retailers[...]Now[...]cry that they'll all go under if they don't open for a few hours on Thanksgiving
You will be reassured to know
Opening On Thanksgiving Backfires For Retail Stores [thinkprogress.org]
...plus they took a big PR hit in Progressive media.
There are still retailers who don't screw their workers out of a proper family gathering [thinkprogress.org]
American Girl, Burlington, Dillard’s, Costco, DSW, GameStop, Nordstrom, Patagonia, REI, and the TJX brands T.J. Maxx and Marshall’s are mentioned specifically.
Costco treats their people like people and consistently beats the crap out of WalMart's numbers.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 16 2015, @12:25AM
I'm hoping it sinks in this year. Same thing happened last year so they decided to double down on it and open even earlier.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 16 2015, @10:13AM
> If you set up a maximum limit on those sick days, they will be all taken out -
Instead of hypothesising about how people might behave under such a system, why not look at real world cases?
In Europe, we have paid sick leave. I could quite easily call in sick a dozen days a year and my boss wouldn't raise an eyebrow. In actual fact I've probably taken six sick days in the last 5 years, and only then when I was actually ill. Taking a day in bed to get over a minor illness gets me back up to full productivity quicker than coming in anyway and sneezing all over my colleagues. I personally don't know anyone who routinely abuses the system, certainly nobody that would call themselves a professional.
Funny thing, if you show people a little respect and trust, most of them will return it in kind. Hey America, employment doesn't have to resemble a Victorian workhouse, you know.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:32AM
I believe the first option, before (a) is
0. stay home, get fired
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:58AM
I notice that the media is using the term PAID leave. Is the big issue getting any leave time at all, or getting paid leave?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:48PM
Do you really have to use that grotesque slur against intellectually disabled persons? Does the hurtful slam against persons born into different circumstances totally unrelated to this issue in anyway actually advance your position? No. It is a distraction. Leave them out of your rant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:35AM
Sick leave is a good thing. But, one of the problems you run into is when someone who should stay home doesn't and brings in a lovely bug for everyone else to catch.
At some jobs, people are pretty driven types who come in when they shouldn't. We get a lot of that at the university I work at among the researchers.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:51PM
The reality is that the sick will still come to work sick and treat their "sick leave" as paid vacation. Duh. Couldn't see THAT coming.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:26PM
So send them home again and dock them a days pay. Even just announcing such a policy would bring most people into compliance. Hell, even if you've used up your paid sick leave - if the choice is between staying home and not getting paid, or going to work and losing a second days pay, which are you going to do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:23AM
A Company Where Employees Are Required To Take Vacation [soylentnews.org]
I think it goes without saying that this kind of stuff results in happier, healthier workers who are more productive.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 16 2015, @10:19AM
No, they won't and don't. See my post upthread. TL;DR - all of Europe has paid sick leave and we function just fine thanks, without massive systemic sick-leave abuse crippling the economy.
...unless you believe that American workers are somehow morally inferior to us Euro types, and so they would behave differently...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Hartree on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:38AM
"dissuade companies from moving to Philadelphia"
I hate to bust their bubble, but the biggest thing keeping companies from moving to Philadelphia is: It's Philadelphia.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:53AM
You are not wrong on that. Philadelphia and Chicago - the only two cities in the whole country that still use the ward system.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:26AM
What's a ward? Seriously.
Weren't we hearing about wards in N.O. during Katrina?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:44AM
Yes sorta.
In short, the ward system is how the local power brokers ensure their continued participation.
http://younginvolvedphila.org/politics/in-case-you-missed-it-politics-101/ [younginvolvedphila.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:29AM
Oh, it could be A LOT worse.
In Anaheim, CA, they have a ward system, BUT **everyone** in the city gets to cast a vote for the council member for **each** ward (not just the ward in which the voter lives).
There are majority Latino wards who have NEVER had a Latino councilman representing them.
The same system is used in Santa Ana.
It's extremely undemoctatic.
Do correct me if I made unwarranted assumptions about the particulars of those rust belt cities and one of them does suck to an equal degree.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:51AM
Sick leave should be a basic benefit that any business gives out... except that many businesses are run by short-sighted idiots. I had an old roommate who had, in total, 5 days each year he could take off including vacation days (this was an auto dealership). So, when people got sick, they still came into work terribly ill because they had no vacation or sick days. What happened? They did as little as possible and spread their sickness to their co-workers and customers. The co-workers who subsequently got sick also came into work, coughing, sneezing, touching everything with their sick-ey hands and also not accomplishing much because they were terribly sick.
I am going to go out on a limb and say this short-sighted no sick leave policy might have affected employee morale and productivity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:09AM
I've never had a job without sick leave, ample sick leave. Some union shops, some government offices, many private industry. Every one had sick leave.
Seriously, this problem was settled in the 50s, late 60s in the most backward of places.
Why would Philly need a law to encourage this?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:17AM
Anecdotal data is anecdotal but there are many jobs without paid sick leave. You may not have experienced it but, I can say with some authority, there are entire industries (auto dealerships I am looking at you) where paid sick leave is not usually given. Or, even if its given, it is some low number like 1 or 2 days (yes, seriously).
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:42PM
There are whole industries of 29 hour work weeks. No benefits, no sick time, no vacation, nothing.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:00AM
I don't have a problem being exempt myself because I don't work through third-party agencies.
But if one is a W-2 employee of a staffing firm, is one covered by this? I mean firms like Oxford Global Resources, Kelly IT Services, CyberCoders or Manpower Professional.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ryuugami on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:10AM
I mean firms like Oxford Global Resources, Kelly IT Services, CyberCoders or Manpower Professional.
So there is actually a company named Manpower [wikia.com]? Huh.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:22PM
I found that amusing when I started reading that series. I used to walk past one of Manpower's offices on my way to work.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:10AM
Obviously, it would be better for people to have sick leave. By the same token, this is essentially a tax on many businesses with 10+ employees. That great local mom+pop hoagie shop? They're still spreading typhoid because they are exempt from this tax. So, if the purpose really is public health, this is a piss poor way to go about it.
The better way for this to work would be to apply it to all businesses regardless of size, but instead of the business being individually hit by the expense, manage it through the state Unemployment Insurance system. Any company that doesn't have a qualified sick leave policy would then have a slightly higher UI premium and if their worker got sick, that worker would get paid for that day through UI. This would serve to spread the cost over all participating employers so that if a business is particularly unlucky in hiring slackers who take advantage of sick leave, it isn't hit too hard (although one presumes this would raise it's experience rating and increase its rates). Basically, it's risk spreading, the whole idea behind any type of insurance.
Of course, Philly isn't the state so it can't do this with UI, but the small business owner in me looks at this and thinks "It's bullshit." You can't believe the number of hidden taxes states/cites/counties impose by going after small businesses. The most egregious example that affects me personally, is that every year I have to pay "property tax" to the city on everything in my office -- desks, chairs, computers, pens, reams of paper, staples -- literally everything (though admittedly, we are allowed to estimate the value of our office supplies -- we don't have to count every rubber band except in a guestimate manner). I already paid 10% sales tax on this crap too. It's kind of sick and sneaky the way the government tries to hide taxes from the general populace and this is yet another example.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SacredSalt on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:48AM
If you think that is a difficult tax on small businesses, it is nothing.
I suffer with a much worse version of tax. First year I paid for my business license it was $400 ... Midway through the year the city I'm in wants to build a new city hall, and their project has gone over budget so they need to get money. They quietly pass a law stating the cost for renewing your business license will be 2% of gross sales. (Its an interesting way around the law to create a retroactive tax, and this particular version was ruled legal -- even though I consider it to violate our state law). That 2% is on of the 1% and inspection fees I already pay.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:59AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:56PM
I was going to write something like that. Thanks for sparing me the work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:18PM
This is real simple. Give ample paid sick leave. If employee comes to work sick their fired! If they need more sick leave then only with a Doctors Note. Then only 1/2 pay or no pay. This is a problem of the Employee abusing the good will of the employer and putting you and me in danger.