Comments on: Sick-leave bill introduced in U.S. House

By: home based jobs

home based jobs — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:38:20 +0000

Business, you know, may bring money, but friendship hardly ever does.

By: education lessons

education lessons — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:34:45 +0000

I searched on google and I had a hard time located the right info….until I found your blog.

By: leo

leo — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:13:11 +0000

Beside a couple tacky remarks, cori is right on target, this bill is nothing more than a union sponsored bill to keep the one’s that abuse the absence policy and they are not sick and can lie and take off work, When you have this policy every employee will be sick for at least 7 days, better way to put it will get the day off sick or not

By: Sharon D

Sharon D — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:15:52 +0000

Great analogy CK

By: CLS

CLS — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:49:19 +0000

Addressing Josh’s last comment…your ire seems to be at your personal situation. Reason would dictate if the employer did not have to subsidize all the government “give aways”, quite possibly the employer would have more to spend in terms of salaries and additional manpower. When are American’s going to stop expecting everyone else to make their life grand? Responsibility with accountability and consequences worked for many years. What happened?

By: CK

CK — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:20:40 +0000

I’ve read the statement that “anybody who doesn’t want to give employees benefits should not have employees” several times but have not read anyone stating “anybody who cannot afford to care for children shouldn’t have children.” Just because an employer cannot afford to give benefits or great benefits does not mean the employer does not want to. If all employers waited to be financially set to be employers then the US would not have much of anything… just like if parents waited to be financially set the population would be greatly reduced.

This is a matter of government interference with free will. There are enough rules and regulations. If this passes we will have to modify our sick policy -40 paid hrs per year that can all be carried over and cashed out at 1/2 price when leaving, used in 1/2 hr increments for appointments or saved for a short term disability self insurance- not too shabby for a company of 32 employees. When does this decision get made?

By: CLS

CLS — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:48:22 +0000

No matter how the bill is administered, if it indeed passes, it presents an unecessary financial and administrative burden to private sector employers. I’m sure there is some exclusion in this bill, as with most others, that does not apply the benefits of this bill to any branch of the government. As with every other democratic effort to make things better, the people who can pay for those who WILL NOT. We do not have people standing in lines saying, “where can I sign up to give my paycheck away?” We do, however, have lines miles long signing up for dibs on my paycheck. Govenment belongs in govenment…not in school, not in private sector employment. If they were so great at running things we would not be in the shape we are to begin with.

By: Naomi

Naomi — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:25:30 +0000

We have a small, family-owned company with about 25 employees, some have been with the company 40+ years and others are new hires. All earn good wages. Some have raised families with 3-4 children (including single parent families), own nice houses and reliable cars and very seldom use any sick time. Others are month to month on rent, drive wrecks and have used up all their sick/vacation time and take more time without pay. I marvel at the difference in financial management styles of the different people. All with the same amount of money on their paycheck! It comes down to being responsible with what you have been given, both for employees and employers. If only all lived by the Golden Rule……….Do unto others as you would have them do unto you……..the government wouldn’t have to worry about who was being treated fairly. Maybe Washington could start leading by example?

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:08:48 +0000

Tom, yes you make great points. But again, it comes down to responsibility and following policy. If they are doing a great job and just happen to use all the sick time, who cares. If you have a poor employee who doesn’t perform well at all is always out sick you don’t need to count days away from work address poor performance.

I think the reasonable effort is a no brainer and just worded as such to give some room for situational interpretation. But come on… if I have some doctors appointments in two weeks I need to be letting someone know. But if I wake up spewing, obviously calling in before my scheduled work time (or whatever your policy states) would be reasonable.

Job security… no doubt!! I like that but I don’t like employers who don’t pay enough to HR or don’t hire enough people to handle the overload of paperwork etc.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:58:39 +0000

I see a couple of problems with the bill’s provisions as stated.

1. If an employee is only allowed to accrue a maximum of 56 hours, wouldn’t it encourage an employee to “use it or lose it” whether the employee is sick or not?

2. How does an employee make a “reasonable effort to schedule a period of paid sick time”? Who determines what is “reasonable”?

More bureaucratic rules to follow = job security for HR staff.