Swine flu spurs paid sick-leave bill and debate

Mr. Miller is an idiot that buys into the media scare of the swine flu. Don't be dumb Miller, don't be dumb.

This proposal is ridiculous. As an employer this gives me further impetus to shut down. The nanny state has gone way too far already. The idea of being paid for being sick further damages the free market. The actual facts about how many people have the swine flu is more propoganda than anything else designed to further Obama's agenda.

Pat in Tustin

I'm sure that there are evil employers out there, but if every employee ran a business successfully for a few years, conversations like this would be very different.

To the larger point, this debate reflects one of our fundamental problems in this country. We don't care about health. Everyone knows and no one disagrees that many people have to go to work sick. It's just wrong. Our whole system needs adjusting.

Even when people exceed their sick days, many employers offer a choice of going on disability and technically, then, staying employed and eligible for whatever employer-based medical plan they may have. Sick employees should be proactive in asking employers or union reps about this.

This sounds like bad policy and bad science. It essentially mandates employers to give a 2 percent raise to employees most likely to abuse the system. It doesn't address the issue of slowing the spread of this virus in grade schools, universities, hospitals, etc where there is a much higher concentration of people than in the small business workplace. I think that the Federal government should stay out of this and let common sense and the free-market work the sick-day issue out, and focus its attention on getting enough of the H1N1 vaccine out to the people that need it.

I just recently retired from a major telecommunications firm after 32 years. About 25 years ago, this company implemented a policy that put employees on progressive steps of discipline for "abuse" of sick days. Although the company was contractually obligated to give every employee 18 paid sick days per year, the steps of discipline began after two "occasions" within in a six month period. Rather than face this process, which could have lead to our termination, employees just started coming to work sick. Over the years, as we gained seniority and accumulated vacation time and personal holidays, we would use that time for illnesses, and the company ended up paying us while losing our productivity anyway. Worker health and safety, while given a lot of lip service, were not given the priority that they deserve in a large work force. This company did not even provide weekly janitorial service, nor are any of their offices equipped with hot water. It should be noted that this company is rapidly shedding union employees and moving to an all-contracted work force.

We ain't all WalMart you know. When an employee is sick and fails to come to work, that can be a big problem for a small company that is counting on him to show up for work.

I have 3 employees and my company is running in the red.
Should I pay for George's deal or just give up?

Also, who is responsible for the medical diagnosis? Me? The worker? George Miller? The feds? Who will pay for the diagnosis? A simple cold and the Marian death flu both start out with the same symptoms.

What is our pal George going to do for people / companies in my situation?
Or for companies that go broke if they follow George's guidelines?
Can we ask to get a bail-out like the Wall Street big boys got from the feds?
Perhaps George just cares about the big boys. Please, George, think about the rest of us, too.

Sammy

what happen to the comments from the EEOC lady?