• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Just Guaranteed Sick Days For More Than A Million Workers

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
President Barack Obama has often said he’ll use the power of the pen to thwart a gridlocked Congress. On Thursday, he used it to advance one of his favorite agendas: paid sick days.
Making good on an earlier executive order, the Labor Department published a final rule Thursday that will guarantee at least some paid sick leave for workers employed under federal contracts. The rule is the latest in a string of new regulations aimed at improving working standards for those on the bottom rungs of the economy.

Under the rule, companies that have contracts with the federal government starting in 2017 must allow workers on those contracts to accrue up to seven sick days per year. Workers get one hour of paid leave for every 30 they work, capped at 56 hours annually. The workers must be notified each pay period of how much paid leave they have banked, and they must be allowed to roll their time over into a new year.


Read more @: Obama Just Guaranteed Sick Days For More Than A Million Workers

Great news! Glad to see that if you are under a federal contract our government believes that the workers who work under that federal contract should have benefits that are held in a high standard.
 
Paying people for not working. I just don't get it.
 
Paying people for not working. I just don't get it.
Of course you don't, you would rather folks who are sick have to work (since they often cannot afford to take time off), often making themselves worse.....and spreading their communicable illnesses to other workers.....causing less productivity.

Got it?
 
Of course you don't, you would rather folks who are sick have to work (since they often cannot afford to take time off), often making themselves worse.....and spreading their communicable illnesses to other workers.....causing less productivity.

Got it?

For me, it's not even for the practical issues. It's about doing what's right.

Subjective story...my aunt lived in coal country Kentucky in a tiny flyover town with nothing but mom and pop stores. They were the rich people that the townsfolk had to do business with because normal shopping was an hour away...with the iffy hoopties they all owned. Dirt poor.

She worked for the town's dime store for 20 years. Made minimum wage. No paid vacations. No paid holidays. No sick days. No insurance. No nothing. When she got cancer, she had to quit her job to treat it. She was a widow. Fortunately, she had family who she'd seen to got an education, had good jobs, and they helped her pay her bills. She died never knowing what a DECENT job was.

It would be nice if the least of us could sell our time, our lives, for something more.
 
Care to explain why its "stupid"?

Oh yes. It increases the costs of economic activity. While I have always been extremely careful to send people home that have contagious illness or risk making mistakes, making it to general law will disadvantage the country. If you look up the number of days taken in sick leave and do the maths, you might understand better. The German numbers were easiest to pull:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Indikatoren/QualitaetArbeit/Dimension2/2_3_Krankenstand.html

It is always the same. When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce pay, total wage sum or number of jobs in the economy. It is really very basic economics.
 
I (union rep) had a problem with a facility commander that had a problem with people using their sick leave. One day he asked me if I thought sick leave was an entitlement. My answer was yes, it was exactly that since it was shown on our pay statements as "Slick Leave Earned". He stated his opinion about how it shouldn't be and went on a rant. I patiently waited for him to take a breath and then gave him an official warning about harassing people based on his opinion. The subject never came up again.
 
Since most companies already offer sick leave this is pretty much moot.
 
I (union rep) had a problem with a facility commander that had a problem with people using their sick leave. One day he asked me if I thought sick leave was an entitlement. My answer was yes, it was exactly that since it was shown on our pay statements as "Slick Leave Earned". He stated his opinion about how it shouldn't be and went on a rant. I patiently waited for him to take a breath and then gave him an official warning about harassing people based on his opinion. The subject never came up again.

Sick leave just like vacation is a benefit it is not owed to you.
 
Read more @: Obama Just Guaranteed Sick Days For More Than A Million Workers

Great news! Glad to see that if you are under a federal contract our government believes that the workers who work under that federal contract should have benefits that are held in a high standard. [/FONT]

This is great. Something else to prove that investing in AI and automated systems is the way to go. When the machines have risen, we now know even more about what motivated their creation.
 
Wow, they roll over indefinitely too.
 
Oh yes. It increases the costs of economic activity. While I have always been extremely careful to send people home that have contagious illness or risk making mistakes, making it to general law will disadvantage the country.
Its going to disadvantage the country how?
If you look up the number of days taken in sick leave and do the maths, you might understand better. The German numbers were easiest to pull:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Indikatoren/QualitaetArbeit/Dimension2/2_3_Krankenstand.html
What this tells me is that each worker is entitled to a maximum of 6 weeks of paid sick days and the average per employee using sick days is 10 days. What exactly is this supposed to show me? That people arent saying they are sick left and right to just chill at home?

It is always the same. When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce pay, total wage sum or number of jobs in the economy. It is really very basic economics.
"Employers have little to lose and much to gain from granting paid sick days. A study of Connecticut’s policy mandating five days of sick leave found that full use of this leave would cost an employer only 0.4 percent of their sales revenue on average. Without paid sick days, employees come to work unhealthy, costing employers $160 billion per year due to lower productivity levels."
"Some states and municipalities are seeing the benefits of paid sick days. Across the country, campaigns are underway to make paid sick leave a reality for all Americans. San Francisco, the first locality to guarantee paid sick days, experienced few problems with its policy and its economy grew faster than those of surrounding cities once paid sick days were in place."
"Workers who have paid sick days don’t abuse them. On average, workers who are covered take 3.9 days per year for illness and 1.3 days to care for sick family members, while workers without sick days take an average of 3 days per year."
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/08/16/12031/fact-sheet-paid-sick-days/

"Multiple studies have found providing paid sick leave results in higher morale and productivity, less absenteeism, and lower rates of turnover.50 Providing paid sick leave that is available for the care of sick family members has also been shown to result in better employee retention and increased firm profits.51"
http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/paid-sick-days/WA-PSD-May13.pdf
 
A million huh?

Ya, I have a problem with government staffed with contractors as a general rule, this number is too high for me.

As for the government driving up the costs of contracts, costs somebody is going to have to pay by way of taxes eventually, I am fine with that, depending upon the cause.

THis one is rather silly, this is heavy handed micro management of the nation by the DC ELITE, this one reminds a lot of people of why The Rebellion is rabble rousing I think.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes. It increases the costs of economic activity. While I have always been extremely careful to send people home that have contagious illness or risk making mistakes, making it to general law will disadvantage the country. If you look up the number of days taken in sick leave and do the maths, you might understand better. The German numbers were easiest to pull:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Indikatoren/QualitaetArbeit/Dimension2/2_3_Krankenstand.html

It is always the same. When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce pay, total wage sum or number of jobs in the economy. It is really very basic economics.
you could not be more wrong. let's see why:

When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce pay
these are federal contract workers. the contracting officer will not allow the contractor to reduce the wage rate of the contract workers to offset the additional cost of sick leave acrual. (s)he will modify the contract to increase the compensation due the contractor, dollar for dollar for additonal costs incurred by the XO's sick leave requirement

When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce ... total wage sum
and this will not happen. the total wage sum will be no different beyond the added cost of employee sick leave incurred by the contract as a result of this XO. thus, the net payment to the contractor will be MORE than it was without the sick leave requirement


When you increase costs, you will at the same time tend to reduce ... number of jobs in the economy
if anything, it will result in more jobs. the government's work must be performed. that work which is not being done by the employee on sick leave must either be done by an added employee or an existing employee - very likely then earning overtime rate of pay for the additional hours worked
thus, at a minimum the same number of jobs will exist - albeit with higher potential incomes due to overtime pay not available previously in the absence of sick leave. or the contractor will have to hire more employees to cover the hours now available to be spent away from the job on sick leave by the present employees

It is really very basic economics.
this statement is correct
 
you could not be more wrong. let's see why:


these are federal contract workers. the contracting officer will not allow the contractor to reduce the wage rate of the contract workers to offset the additional cost of sick leave acrual. (s)he will modify the contract to increase the compensation due the contractor, dollar for dollar for additonal costs incurred by the XO's sick leave requirement


and this will not happen. the total wage sum will be no different beyond the added cost of employee sick leave incurred by the contract as a result of this XO. thus, the net payment to the contractor will be MORE than it was without the sick leave requirement



if anything, it will result in more jobs. the government's work must be performed. that work which is not being done by the employee on sick leave must either be done by an added employee or an existing employee - very likely then earning overtime rate of pay for the additional hours worked
thus, at a minimum the same number of jobs will exist - albeit with higher potential incomes due to overtime pay not available previously in the absence of sick leave. or the contractor will have to hire more employees to cover the hours now available to be spent away from the job on sick leave by the present employees


this statement is correct

One has to assume workers are already being paid market rates, which means that at the stroke of a pen $30 of labor now costs $31, and it will be us taxpayers who pay the increase. And yes, more people will need to be hired.
 
Last edited:
Its going to disadvantage the country how?

What this tells me is that each worker is entitled to a maximum of 6 weeks of paid sick days and the average per employee using sick days is 10 days. What exactly is this supposed to show me? That people arent saying they are sick left and right to just chill at home?


"Employers have little to lose and much to gain from granting paid sick days. A study of Connecticut’s policy mandating five days of sick leave found that full use of this leave would cost an employer only 0.4 percent of their sales revenue on average. Without paid sick days, employees come to work unhealthy, costing employers $160 billion per year due to lower productivity levels."
"Some states and municipalities are seeing the benefits of paid sick days. Across the country, campaigns are underway to make paid sick leave a reality for all Americans. San Francisco, the first locality to guarantee paid sick days, experienced few problems with its policy and its economy grew faster than those of surrounding cities once paid sick days were in place."
"Workers who have paid sick days don’t abuse them. On average, workers who are covered take 3.9 days per year for illness and 1.3 days to care for sick family members, while workers without sick days take an average of 3 days per year."
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/08/16/12031/fact-sheet-paid-sick-days/

"Multiple studies have found providing paid sick leave results in higher morale and productivity, less absenteeism, and lower rates of turnover.50 Providing paid sick leave that is available for the care of sick family members has also been shown to result in better employee retention and increased firm profits.51"
http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/paid-sick-days/WA-PSD-May13.pdf

I know the arguments and they resemble those made for minimum wages and other social give aways of other people's money to garner votes. If you want private goods for people convince the beneficiary to pay or the voter.

But the costs might not be crippling, only non negligible
https://de.statista.com/themen/33/krankheit-und-beruf/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/537403/sweden-expenditure-on-sickness-benefits/
and cause marginal increases in the costs translate into marginal shifts to fewer jobs.

But you are quite wrong that there is no misuse as the numbers I posted you indicate. When unemployment goes up labor is ill less. There has been quite a bit of research done, but here a little of the flavor How to Address Sick Leave Abuse in the Workplace
Personally I never worked anywhere I needed to justify taking sick leave nor did I take much. Over the years we did let some people go that were recurrently sick. There was no way to find out whether they were cheating, because that would have jeapordised the process of making them redundant and made it much more expensive.

There is no free lunch for the individual nor is there for the economy.
 
A million huh?

Ya, I have a problem with government staffed with contractors as a general rule, this number is too high for me.

As for the government driving up the costs of contracts, costs somebody is going to have to pay by way of taxes eventually, I am fine with that, depending upon the cause.

THis one is rather silly, this is heavy handed micro management of the nation by the DC ELITE, this one reminds a lot of people of why The Rebellion is rabble rousing I think.

Greetings, Hawkeye10. :2wave:

:agree: People working in the business world get sick, too, but unless it's a heart attack or something equally serious, most companies do not usually hire additional workers - the people already there split up the work and handle it along with their own. I highly doubt any government employee is overworked, either. Being a Government Contract Worker must be a very lucrative way to earn money - too bad private businesses can't use taxpayer money, too, so it just seems like another way to hide from the taxpayer how his hard-earned money is really being spent! :thumbdown:
 
Greetings, Hawkeye10. :2wave:

:agree: People working in the business world get sick, too, but unless it's a heart attack or something equally serious, most companies do not usually hire additional workers - the people already there split up the work and handle it along with their own. I highly doubt any government employee is overworked, either. Being a Government Contract Worker must be a very lucrative way to earn money - too bad private businesses can't use taxpayer money, too, so it just seems like another way to hide from the taxpayer how his hard-earned money is really being spent! :thumbdown:

I think that more people will need to be hired, because contractors tend to run very lean staffs unless they are working on cost plus contracts, but even those working on cost plus contracts will now hire more people. So we dont agree on that, but I do think we agree that the DC ELITE are not being honest here with the folks who pay the bills (in theory), the American people. The problem of the lack of Elite honesty is both rampant and catastrophic.
 
Paying people for not working. I just don't get it.

Besides it being the right thing to do for your employees, it's also potentially at least more productive for the company if your employees with the flu feel like they can stay home while they're sick and not miss next month's rent versus coming to work and get all the rest of the office or crew, or your customers, sick.
 
Back
Top Bottom