Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sonerohi]

If you work for state government then you usually get compensation for x sick days a year, where x is a number between negative thirty and three hundred sixty five, depending on the rank of the person you blow.

[Phmcw]

I don't think so, unless you have some sweet benefits. I don't necessarily agree with pay on sick days though. If I haven't really done any work, why should I get payed?

Why wouldn't you? You're sick! You can't work.
It will happen eventually it's normal, and going to work sick is a great way to make things worse. You rest, get better, and go to work once you're healthy. If things get serious the state take over and pay you indemnity while providing free (or rather almost free) health-care.
No, our economy haven't collapsed, no everybody doesn't stay at home, yes Belgian are very productive workers.
We have a lot of problem but productivity isn't one.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Secondly, he is asserting that women make less because women take more sick days,

Hu? Aren't sick days paid in America? In Belgium they are, if slightly less than regular days.

It depends. Legally, the government does not require that employees be provided any sick days for short-term illnesses, and only unpaid sick days for long-term illnesses. In San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Milwaukee local laws require that everyone be given paid sick days for all illnesses, but they are the only places in the country that mandate this.

On the private side, businesses can offer paid or unpaid sick days as a benefit or incentive to their employees, but a lot of them do not. 79% of the workforce in the US have no paid sick days at all, but most of them have at least some unpaid sick days. This shows that 77% of people in the US think having paid sick days is very important for workers, though.

[Truean]

No. Women should be payed less if their medical condition causes them to do less work. The problem is that such may not be true.

Even and aside from this not being a medical condition the overwhelming majority of the time, which I suggest we avoid....

I have never understood why Americans love to penalize people for being sick:
Forget the medical bankruptcies and all that, which is huge in and of itself, we just hate sick people.

I broke my foot in college, badly. I couldn't really walk for about 2 years and the best I could manage was a limp. People were total assholes about it and didn't care at all that I broke 3 bones in my foot due to the fact that I jogged 4 miles a day and there was a pothole covered by leaves! The leaves kept me from seeing the pothole, which shouldn't have been there in the first place (if people weren't cheap bastards who let roads rot....), and I broke my foot when I set it down there in stride....

It was hell getting ACCOUNTING jobs, that don't require you to do much of anything physical.... We just have this crazy perception that because someone is sick they are somehow worth less as a human being and that their productivity is less somehow. People also looked at me like I was utterly insane.... WTF? No one cut me any damn slack in any way and I had to threaten to take action against my professors for bitching at me for being late to class. Figure this out, I can't walk quickly while limping and your class is on the other side of campus, I do damn good work and never miss a day, but always come in late on account of that *sigh*

There's this bullshit delusion we are totally in control of everything:

Until and unless you are God, fuck off, you're wrong. We love to think, "O well, if they were more careful, then they wouldn't have gotten injured/sick...." This is why they call it an accident..... Statistically (*gasp* there I go asking people to think again, anything but that....) we know for a certainty that if you have enough people, some percentage of them will get hurt/sick. It's the laws of probability, not everyone being stupid who happens to get sick/hurt. It's also why we have institutions like hospitals set up with full time doctors.... It's entirely foreseeable that this will occur to someone, and it is impossible to tell who it will occur to in advance....

Yet, we love to persist in this myth because it allows us to do our three favorite things:
1.) Blame someone else
2.) Implicitly compliment ourselves (cause I"m not sick I must but special/smart Herp Derp)
3.) Avoid thinking.

Recovery:

Even from a purely economic standpoint, we should want sick people to recover and provide better work at better health, which was the original reason employers gave into the demand to provide health insurance, that and keeping everyone in the office from catching what one person had. Helping sick people get better is better for everyone, same thing with injured people. But we just love to think short term "What have you done for me lately?" Not what have you done in the past, not what will you do in the future, how are you making me money, right this second....

Then when stuff (the economy, society, companies etc) falls apart, because nobody even tried to plan for the future, we wonder why. It's a mystery and no one is responsible....

[Leafsnail]

I put that together in 5 minutes, simply to demonstrate that there are reasons other than sexism for the pay gap. Later I could go use the Canadian census from 2001 (2005 isn't fully analyzed yet) if you wish.

The fundamental problem is that you've taken data from 2 different countries - and there is a strong possibility that in one of the countries women work less than in the other.

Let's imagine 2 fictional countries X and Y.  In both countries, women and men earn the same amount of money for the same amount of hours - let's say $1 an hour for simplicity.  But in country X women work 40 hours a week while men work 20, while in country Y it's the reverse.

If I were to use the pay figures for country X but the hours figure from country Y, I would find that women earn 4x as much per hour as men (apparent results: women earn $40 a week for 20 hours of work while men earn $20 for 40 hours of work), even though in these 2 countries pay is perfectly equal.

[Bauglir]

Once again, I think we have people approaching the issue from fundamentally different directions. I think some people figure, "Well, they're getting paid to do a job, so if they're not doing the job on a particular day, they ought to be docked pay for that day." Now, if jobs were a voluntary thing that you didn't need in order to, y'know, live and become not sick again, then sure. I could see that being a justified argument. And it probably applies to certain (repeat: certain) hourly jobs, particularly of the stereotypical "I am a teenager working to earn some spending money" variety. But once a job is your livelihood, your paycheck isn't just your due reward for showing up to do your job.

At that point, you're owed a paycheck for being a productive member of the society that requires you to have a job in order to survive effectively. At the point where you effectively have no choice (and make no mistake; the vast majority of Americans, at least, can choose only between crime and a steady job, and I think we've already had the argument about treating criminals as subhuman), the system has an obligation to support you while you support the system. From your perspective, who signs the check is essentially irrelevant; what matters is that you contribute, and that you be allowed to survive for it. Being sick for a couple of days, even weeks, is going to be meaningless in the long term, and penalizing you for something beyond your control (particularly in a way that makes it harder for you to get back into the system) is not the right way to do things.

Further, since so many jobs really are of this type, even the menial service jobs people stereotypically associate with the standard, aforementioned teenager (in fact, you could argue that these are the most important jobs of this type, where getting penalized even a miniscule fraction of your paycheck can be crippling to financial survival), it's not fair to simply declare "Okay, fine, salaried jobs all get paid sick leave." Because that ends up hurting the people who need it the most.

I dunno, maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but it seems like a paycheck gets to a point where it isn't just about trading your services for money.

[Truean]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

nce again, I think we have people approaching the issue from fundamentally different directions. I think some people figure, "Well, they're getting paid to do a job, so if they're not doing the job on a particular day, they ought to be docked pay for that day." Now, if jobs were a voluntary thing that you didn't need in order to, y'know, live and become not sick again, then sure. I could see that being a justified argument. And it probably applies to certain (repeat: certain) hourly jobs, particularly of the stereotypical "I am a teenager working to earn some spending money" variety. But once a job is your livelihood, your paycheck isn't just your due reward for showing up to do your job.

At that point, you're owed a paycheck for being a productive member of the society that requires you to have a job in order to survive effectively. At the point where you effectively have no choice (and make no mistake; the vast majority of Americans, at least, can choose only between crime and a steady job, and I think we've already had the argument about treating criminals as subhuman), the system has an obligation to support you while you support the system. From your perspective, who signs the check is essentially irrelevant; what matters is that you contribute, and that you be allowed to survive for it. Being sick for a couple of days, even weeks, is going to be meaningless in the long term, and penalizing you for something beyond your control (particularly in a way that makes it harder for you to get back into the system) is not the right way to do things.

Further, since so many jobs really are of this type, even the menial service jobs people stereotypically associate with the standard, aforementioned teenager (in fact, you could argue that these are the most important jobs of this type, where getting penalized even a miniscule fraction of your paycheck can be crippling to financial survival), it's not fair to simply declare "Okay, fine, salaried jobs all get paid sick leave." Because that ends up hurting the people who need it the most.

I dunno, maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but it seems like a paycheck gets to a point where it isn't just about trading your services for money.

Unfortunately, to the extent it is about "trading your services for pay," don't worry, we can find someone in a 3rd world country who will do your job for pennies on the dollar and we can beat them with a rubber hose if we feel they aren't moving "fast enough." They don't get sick, or rather if they do, screw them, we'll find some other poor 3rd world bastard to do it and who cares if they drop dead.

This, and the fact that there is such a thing as institutional knowledge, is the problem with the "we're all fungible" argument.  It's pretty easy to see how this applies to getting sick.... This is why no one at the company can help you....

We can't seem to figure out why society built by the lowest bidder sucks....

[Zrk2]

I put that together in 5 minutes, simply to demonstrate that there are reasons other than sexism for the pay gap. Later I could go use the Canadian census from 2001 (2005 isn't fully analyzed yet) if you wish.

The fundamental problem is that you've taken data from 2 different countries - and there is a strong possibility that in one of the countries women work less than in the other.

Let's imagine 2 fictional countries X and Y.  In both countries, women and men earn the same amount of money for the same amount of hours - let's say $1 an hour for simplicity.  But in country X women work 40 hours a week while men work 20, while in country Y it's the reverse.

If I were to use the pay figures for country X but the hours figure from country Y, I would find that women earn 4x as much per hour as men(apparent results: women earn $40 a week for 20 hours of work while men earn $20 for 40 hours of work), even though in these 2 countries pay is perfectly equal.

Duly noted, therefore I present these findings (brought to you by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada):

Average Income Per Week
-Men in 2009: $924
-Women in 2009: $687

Average Hours Worked Per Week:
-Men in 2009: 39.0
-Women in 2009: 33.2

Average Income Per Hour:
-Men in 2009: 23.69
-Women in 2009: 20.69

Only $3 an hour in difference, which is not very significant, considering all factors, such as the fact that the employment rate for men is 6.9% higher for men than it is for women (65.2% to 58.3%)

Average Income/Employment Rate:
-Men in 2009: 0.3633
-Women in 2009: 0.3549

So when one accounts for unemployment the ratios are almost identical. Which brings up the question of why is the employment rate of women lower than men?

@Truean: So the company is liable to support someone even if they don't come in? Employment is a two way street, you work for the company and the company pays you, you cannot demand pay without earning it. But that's a whole other debate.

[Reelyanoob]

A quick google of the topic shows there's been some studies on the specific issue. e.g:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8534796/Women-take-more-sick-days-than-men.html
Men take and average of 140 sick days over their lifetime, 189 for women, but men are much more likely to get in trouble for taking sick days. Also sick men, are not really that sick, according to the article. If that was said about women, we'd be hearing how sexist it is. Since they're self-reporting on how sick they felt, it could just be "macho" men not wanting to admit they were "really" sick. "'Tis only a flesh wound". Men might also have more fear of being sacked if they admit frailty and chronic illness. No one is buying "men's issues" as the reason you didn't go in to work.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1
Women are 46% more likely to call in for short 1-3 days of sick leave, but long-term illness rates are the same for male/female.

[Leafsnail]

Only $3 an hour in difference, which is not very significant, considering all factors, such as the fact that the employment rate for men is 6.9% higher for men than it is for women (65.2% to 58.3%)

Woah, wait a second.  You've made a mistake.

This is only a valid addition to your calculation if the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada are inconsistent with their statistics for some reason, and they've quoted the value for average income per week for everyone (employed and unemployed alike) but quoted the average hours worked per week only for the employed.  I guess there's a small chance this could be the case, but I'd like to see the source to check.  If they've quoted the value for everyone or the value for just the unemployed both times, then you should be able to see that this bit of your calculation is wrong.

So, anyway, stopping at the last correct line of calculation:

Average Income Per Hour:
-Men in 2009: 23.69
-Women in 2009: 20.69

This isn't a significant difference?  This is 13%, a pretty major chunk knocked off your salary for being a woman.  And remember that we're assuming it's just as easy for women to find full time work (ie the fact that women work less hours than men isn't because they can't find full time work).

[Bauglir]

On sick leave: An employer shouldn't have to pay employees for work they haven't done (whether or not the person was sick or not is immaterial to whether or not the work got done on a given day). An employee shouldn't be penalized for work they weren't able to do, especially not when the missed work is miniscule on a large scale and the penalty may contribute to making them unable to do more work.

Both of these seem to be true. Which is the lesser evil, do you think?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Both of these seem to be true. Which is the lesser evil, do you think?

People are always more important than entities, and businesses are an entity.

[Vector]

I used to have period pain so bad that, once a month, I'd literally be on the ground screaming and whimpering for four hours.  This is not soft-core pain, this is basically unbearable.  Point of interest: my mom blamed me for it.

Oh, and due to my "unique" brain chemistry, painkillers basically don't work on me.  Especially the stronger ones.  My monthly issues were far worse than having my wisdom teeth out without any functional medicine, even though I lost about as much blood for each.

On the other hand, I still went to class, took tests, went to office hours, and so on--pain intact.  I mostly kept quiet and productive through sitting very, very still, and a lot of willpower.

Fortunately, it turned out that I could take care of it by slightly modifying my diet.

So lets have some fair treatment and make them bring in a medical certificate, like they would for a male employee.

Fine by me.  In return, men are allowed to freak out about it as much as they do the common cold, and women are allowed to speak about it as openly as they feel like.  Oh, and if women have trouble with it chronically, they can register it as a chronic impairment medically.  And our visits to the doctor to get a medical certificate get to cost the same as a man's visit.

I, of course, could never tell my professors that I was going to be out for a day or so because the entire area from belly button to toes was aching and I could barely walk.  That would've been calling the fact that I was a woman to their attention, which I was trying quite hard not to do.

This isn't a significant difference?  This is 13%, a pretty major chunk knocked off your salary for being a woman.  And remember that we're assuming it's just as easy for women to find full time work (ie the fact that women work less hours than men isn't because they can't find full time work).

It's also about $150 per week, or $600 per month, or $7200 per year.

Yeah, that's not a lot of money at all.

[Reelyanoob]

Fine by me.  In return, men are allowed to freak out about it as much as they do the common cold, and women are allowed to speak about it as openly as they feel like.  Oh, and if women have trouble with it chronically, they can register it as a chronic impairment medically.  And our visits to the doctor to get a medical certificate get to cost the same as a man's visit.

wtf? it cost's more to go to the doctor as a female in the USA? how backwards is that! that would be illegal here in Australia under Medicare everyone pays the same, usually $0 because everything except prescriptions is automatically covered.

I got more the issue that men are not allowed to mention womens health problems not matter the relevance. The female reporter spat back the explicit details in the guys face. Remember, that's in New Zealand which also have universal health coverage and is a very progressive nation.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Doctors really like to wring as much money out of their patients as possible, so I'm not suprised at learning that.