Flu and work

[mmcirvin]

I've seen a lot of advisories about the possibility of a flu pandemic that give a lot of common-sense advice about how to prevent transmission of the disease: wash your hands frequently and thoroughly, avoid touching your face (this is hard for me to manage), cover your coughs and sneezes, and, especially, an admonition to stay home from work if you're sick.

The last grates on me. Not because it's bad advice—it's very good advice—but because it's always phrased in terms of individual behavior, as if this were an entirely free choice. It's the "Tips for Living Green" approach to public health, as stacebass might have put it.


People who don't live in the US may not know this, but most American employers don't give their employees any time off for illness, per se. You probably know that Americans don't get a lot of vacation time; what you may not know is that for most of them, their vacation time is actually "PTO", Personal Time Off, a combined pool for sick time and vacation time and whatever else you need to miss work to do. Employees who take days off because they're sick have to take it out of their already paltry vacation time.

If you rarely get sick, this may seem like a fair deal, because you're not being asked to cover for your sicker co-workers without compensation. (We wouldn't want those lucky duckie sick people to benefit from being irresponsible enough to get sick—that's not the American way!) But if you are sick, this is a serious incentive to tough it out, with all the dangers that implies.

The recommendations I've seen say you should stay out of the office for the entire length of your symptoms, plus two days. I know from experience with the flu that the more minor, cold-like symptoms can drag on for weeks; that could easily be enough time to wipe out all of your vacation for the whole year! Nobody is going to do that, unless they can make arrangements to work from home, which not everybody can do.


As it happens, I do get sick time that is separate from my vacation. But I am lucky; this is a highly unusual situation in my country. And I still have to live in a country where most adults are structurally encouraged to be disease vectors. (And, I suspect, most kids as well, since their working parents would have to take PTO to look after them too.)

Now, I suspect that if this thing really does become a big scary pandemic with mounting numbers of seriously ill and dead people, employers will feel compelled to make special arrangements. But lots of people die of the ordinary seasonal flu every year.


Americans are currently trying to figure out how to reform the completely dysfunctional US health-care system. I propose that doing something about the cultural norms for sick time could do a lot of good.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

By the way, are you working for the Great Satan now or have you moved on?

[aderack.livejournal.com]

Hard to cover your coughs and sneezes without covering your face.

Thus the resurgence of the handkerchief!

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

I should also point out that, in my personal experience, even if you get FMLA leave and cannot legally be fired, your employer will find ways around it so they can harass and/or fire you legally without violating FMLA.

Ages ago I worked at a job with separate sick leave and vacation. Over the last 15-odd years vacation time has dwindled and sick leave has been completely eradicated. And yes, I am quite sure many in other countries have no idea how the U.S. works in this regard, and now that they do know they'll simply add it as another item to their "Why The U.S. Sucks And My Country Rules" lists.

[tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm open minded. I only have a "Why The U.S. Sucks" list, not being presumptious enough to think my country is much better.

Thank you

[notr.livejournal.com]

for reminding me of one of the few ways that My Big Imployer is still a tiny bit better than the pack. We still have no hard limit on sick days, and a pretty decent long-term medical leave policy.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Once upon a time my company used to offer 5 days of paid sick leave (plus another 5 days of unpaid) to employees; imagine their surprise when the average (mean and mode) days per annum of absenteeism per employee shot up to 5 days. Alas, without some sort of external control paid sick leave gets abused pretty badly and routinely.

After three years (IIRC) of increased absenteeism, they changed to 10 days of unpaid sick leave plus an attendance-based "earned time off" system that gives up to 5 days of paid leave useable for whatever. It's not as good as paid sick time and, since it can be "cashed in" at the end of the year if unused, some folks still come in sick... but it doesn't get abused as routinely.

-- Steve wasn't too happy with the change, but the company also ramped up how quickly employees got additional weeks of paid vacation to try to cushion things a bit. Dunno if it's a good balance, but it's something.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

They only give 5 days, and when people use it all they automatically assume that's all abuse? Are most people really sick enough that they ought to stay home for less than 5 days a year?

I don't want to pick on you specifically here, but it's amazing that we're so far down the rabbit hole that this reasoning is considered valid.

Of course there's going to be some abuse. I'm not sure it's worse than the losses from having epidemics rip through the office. I think that as a society we've gotten so preoccupied with the danger of somebody maybe taking something they don't deserve that we're actively hurting honest people.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

Don't you know that 40% of supposed "sick" days are on Mondays and Fridays?! Clearly there's abuse.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

I don't believe the existence of abuse is reason to get rid of the benefit-- people abuse anything, because a percentage of any group are entitled assholes who feel the world, the government, the company, or life owes them something for nothing. Abusers should be caught and punished, or else tolerated for everyone else's good--- some happy medium between those things, after a suitable cost/benefit analysis.

This is mainly an extension of my belief that the existence of law-breakers is an indication that the existing laws are not being followed, not that more laws are required to limit the behavior of non-law-breakers.

[mezdeathhead.livejournal.com]

Where I work, we're all self employed and can take a day off whenever we need to. Unfortunately, we only obtain income through commission, so if we're not there, no paycheck. Try taking a week off work when you're already a starving artist.

I would nationalize sick days based off of previous years income. Not that I know how that would actually work, but I think everyone should be entitle to receive a paycheck (even if it was only up to a week's worth of pay) by attempting to slow down the spread of sick.

[mezdeathhead.livejournal.com]

Also, one of the girls I work with just got written up for having the flu at her other job. And she works at a plasma center. I guess she should have just given her flu to the hundreds of folks with already-compromised immune systems.

It all makes me sick.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this! I worked for two years at a job like that -- no sick days, and almost no vacation days, and it was not nice. Add to that the indignity of having to account for every scrap of time spent on work, in detailed 15-minute chunks, and you have one terrible job.

That's the norm for most Americans. Every time I meet another surprised European, I just shake my head.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

It's true that people with dependents often have to burn up their sick- and vacation-days caring for others-- in fact, when you're shopping for a job (and yeah, that's not always a big choice if any), flexibility is something to negotiate for; when circumstances at home change, so does one's job priorities. Compelling a culture change is okay by me, but requiring all companies to give benefits needed mainly by a small subset of people, as might be preferred by welfare-focused orgs like the one mentioned above.

Also, I'm not thrilled with the claim that Americans don't get enough vacation, a claim that in my experience is generally based on the fact that other nations offer their workers much more vacation time. You don't make this claim, but I think you invite it. :^)
Lots of Americans don't use their vacation time, indicating that they'd rather be working, or they acknowledge that it's cheaper to work than it is to take a vacation. What's missing is a calculation of how much is enough for A) most people and B) everyone (in a given country or work-culture, at least.)

[chezmax]

Perhaps it's often because they are often encouraged to work rather than take vacation. (ie., consider a crunch time)

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

I agree that people are encouraged to take their vacations during predicted slow times, assuming the vacation's long enough for someone to be doing their job in their place, and people encourage themselves to take brief breaks in moderation when they know they'll just have to catch up upon their return. But I can't see why these things don't apply to foreign nations except where governments are worker-friendly to the point of being business-hostile, and people feel entitled to their jobs, pay, exorbitant vacation and other leave benefits.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Who's the system for, if not people?

I could accept the argument that a more worker-hostile environment relative to, say, Canada or Sweden is a price we pay for everyone being better off, if I saw any evidence that we actually are better off.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

The difference is the 30% or more of your income over which you have control, rather than ceding to government control. It's hard enough to get government to spend on the stuff I want and limit or eliminate spending on the stuff I don't want, didn't ask for, or where the government has no business spending in the first place. Why go to a Canadian system and and reduce, by a third, my remaining income to have a bigger government with the same problems, when I and most people can solve or at least engage those problems more efficiently by using my own money. Why sacrifice basic economic and property freedoms so the government can give everyone benefits a person can bargain for on their own. And even if you don't mind sacrificing your own freedoms, what gives you the right to sacrifice mine?

Canada's only as well-off as we are, being massively dependent on our consumption of their products and services. Sweden's in a state of collectivist depression over its failure to generate a socialist utopia. I believe we are better off. And I believe that, to a degree, Canada more than Sweden, they can exist as they do only because the US exists as it does.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

...Another thing about business-friendliness in particular: my impression is that one of the biggest problems facing businesses in America, especially small ones, is that some of the things provided as general social services in other developed countries are employer benefits here--particularly health insurance. This kills small businesses: they would all prefer that their employees be covered, both because it's better for them to have healthy employees and because nobody wants to work for a company with no health plan. But the rising cost of private health insurance makes it more and more difficult for them to do this. This simply isn't a problem elsewhere.

Now, the situation benefits big companies that are actually rich enough to cover everyone generously, because they can use this as leverage for retention and as a bargaining chip with employees. But even they can get bitten badly years down the line (see General Motors).

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

Small businesses have to find their own way in the marketplace just like anyone else-- either there's a margin in their business, in which case the business will exist, or there isn't, and it doesn't.

Small-enough businesses can, however, be free-riders, by offering jobs that appeal to dependent teenagers, covered spouses/partners of insured workers at other, wealthier companies, and not offering anything but a job in a labor market with relatively high unemployment. They could hire some of the 20 million adult Americans who can afford to be insured but choose not to, apparently because they value such a basic freedom as choosing how to spend their money when a major health calamity is a low-risk proposition.

Likewise, making healthcare universal would benefit small and big business-- it's not like GM's going to start offering workers a happy ending after every GP visit when Uncle Sam is going to take on the cost. All this gives us is that big business is more adaptable to changing environment. If you want to help small business, how about taking a little government pressure off its collective prostate-- less regulatory burdens-- less unfunded mandatory protect testing, and less taxation. Let small businesses grown into big businesses, if they so desire.

[kerri9494.livejournal.com]

I am floored by what you're saying here. Honestly, I had no idea this was happening. I guess I'm completely spoiled, but I can't understand a business that doesn't give employees respite when they're ill.

Everywhere I've worked for the past 15 years or so, there's been separate sick and vacation allotments, and whatever sick time you don't use gets banked so that if you have a serious illness or injury, you can take more than your annual number of days (for example, at my last job, I had banked 24 sick days, so I took them as paid sick leave after having a baby). It seems only sensible that if you give people five sick days a year and you make them USE them that year without allowing carryover, they're going to use them that year. If you let them bank those sick days, at least the smart ones won't abuse them.

Also, I guess I thought there were a lot more union workers than there are. The major employers around here are government and education -- and they tend to have relatively good PTO policies, or union support to get them.

Gosh, is the business world really that cutthroat dog-eat-dog? I'm so out of touch.