14 ms·

Associations Among School Absenteeism, G.I. and Respiratory Illness, and Income

174 points by surfallday 8y ago

awad 8y ago
"Although the likelihood of missing any school days during the past year decreased with reduced income, among children missing school, those from low-income households missed more days of school than did children from higher income households. Although the reason for absenteeism cannot be ascertained from this analysis, these data underscore the importance of preventive measures, such as hand hygiene promotion and education, and the opportunity for both homes and schools to serve as an important point for implementation of public health preventive measures, including hand hygiene practice and education."
- docbrown 8y ago
  That’s another issue itself buried inside of this report. Here’s the meat of what the report is bringing awareness to. >Among children who had gastrointestinal illness, 84.6% (family income <$35,000), 86.1% ($35,000–$49,999), 90.3% ($50,000–$74,999), 89.6% ($75,000–$99,999), and 87.4% (≥$100,000) missed school in the past year. Similarly, 83.7% of children living below the poverty level with gastrointestinal illness missed school, compared with 88.3% of those living at or above the poverty level.
raincom 8y ago
This is well known to anyone who has worked in a public school system. My friend used to work as a sub. One day, she found a sick student and sent him home. Later, she was admonished by a teacher there: this kid lives in a garage, where they don't have a heater. At least, this kid can feel better in a warm class room. This happened in Milpitas, CA, last year.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Damn
markdown 8y ago
Fiji just introduced 5 days/yr of "Family Care Leave" on the 1st of Jan, 2019. The Act doesn't require there to be sickness involved, so while you can take leave to care for your sick family member, theoretically you can also do so to support them at a school rugby match: https://i.imgur.com/Ct0wv5D.png https://i.imgur.com/Ct0wv5D.png Fiji is just barely above "third world" status. What's your excuse, USA?
- jopsen 8y ago
  In my experience all Americans want to help people in need, but when it comes to footing the bill, half of the population becomes very silent. I don't mind paying 50/50 in taxes or around there.. I don't have to feel bad about not helping people in need in Denmark. (Yes, yes, taxes does alleviate my personal responsibility for being a nice person who helps other people -- but small acts of kindness doesn't scale)
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    They don’t want to help, they just want to say they do.
    - jopsen 8y ago
      I believe they are sincere..
- dummyload 8y ago
  US is optimized for individual gain, not societies gain as a whole. This is the thing which attracts immigrants from all over the socialist/communist republics of the world and they are the ones who make it big. No one wants to change that, there is double speak here when people do sympathize but when it comes to foot the bill, no tax payer is ready for that.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > No one wants to change that There is a continuous stream of polls showing things like “More Americans now want to raise taxes on corporations and high incomes, than lower them”. Obviously most Americans don’t have high incomes so it’s still someone else’s bill - but sentiments are shifting somewhat.
eecc 8y ago
What sort of failed state does not mobilize to support and ease the pain of fellow humans living through such hardship. By the way, “poor life choices” is not a valid argument. Edit: ok, in view of the objections regarding the technical definiton of “failed state” let me reword it to “failed society”. It is closer to my own objection anyway
- posix_me_less 8y ago
  It isn't surprising to hear "failed state" in case of U.S., but in this case a lot of people do not want to spend money to ease the pain of other people living nearby, because living nearby does not mean being close anymore. This isn't due to failed state, this is due to people not feeling very close to each other.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Calling the US a failed state is pretty hyperbolic. There are many, many countries in the world where a much larger fraction of the population is living in much poorer material conditions than in the US, and not just places like Syria or Somalia. Actually, taking this study at face value, I'd guess that the fact that the poorest students only miss on average of 1 extra day of school per year due to illness is evidence that the US is not a failed state by any sort of global standard. I'd wager that that number is a lot higher in a lot of places.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Thanks but I do not need any support from any state. I can manage my and my children's life just fine without them.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    How were your children born? Fed? Clothed? Educated? Transported? Protected from crime?
umanwizard 8y ago
The headline here is incredibly misleading. The CDC is not making the factual claim that "low-income parents send sick kids to school due to lack paid sick leave". The actual truth: a paper from the CDC finding an apparently quite weak link between poverty and rate of school absence due to sickness stuck that in as one of many somewhat plausible explanations, in a very speculative discussion section. To emphasize: the headline of this story is not one of the factual scientific claims of the paper.
- renholder 8y ago
  Upboat for rationalisation. Also, from the European perspective (and specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with), taking sick leave to take care of a child at home isn't a thing, whatsoever. You would just send an email to your team saying that you're sorry but you're working from home because your kid is sick and that would be the end of it. No compulsion to take vacation. No compulsion to take sick leave. No punitive punishments for being human and for your family members being human. It really is a different world, over here. However, given the American exceptionalism showing up in the thread, I'm going to wager that this probably going to see some vitriolic response.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > (specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with) In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers. > It really is a different world, over here. The antithesis to the apathetical, if I may be so bold... Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well. Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers. Just because I'm "out of touch" with ordinary, less privileged workers doesn't equate to my experience and observations in the sector as being invalidated, yeah? Isn't the site "Hacker News" and not "ordinary, less privileged workers'" news? >Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well. That might be true for you but is it true for developers in the overall society? Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it. >Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes. What does that have to do with anything related to kids and the propensity to send them to school because you haven't the time to take off to take care of them or the funds to have a minder? Surely, those less taxes (and more pay) should equate to more days from school, yeah, if it really is as exceptional as you're trying to make it sound. Personally, I like paying taxes for a better society (e.g.: education, health, infrastructure, etc.) but that's just me. However, that has nothing to do the topic.
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Children are expensive. And it’s not about money. It’s about time and energy and effort and incessant tending and bonding. I honestly think people need counseling and planning before they start to think about starting a family. They need back up plans and contingency strategies. It used to be that we lived in small communal groups and non nuclear families. Usually matriarchal wherein the post menopausal grandmother plays a crucial role in the post reproductive years to give the attention children need. Clearly this system worked. We will be hitting 10 billion by 2050 due to exponential population growth. But the world has changed. Coping with the new resource strapped crowded new world is not by handing over the responsibility of child rearing to the state or the tax payers. There is NO village that will raise YOUR child. It’s time for responsible procreation and talk about such things without fear or shame of being chastised. We can now store our genetic material. People should be given a lot of advice and caution before they want bring children into our future. Responsible parenting must be incentivized and not just procreation in the form of tax breaks and taking over of child rearing by the state. This issue really stresses me and I only see it getting worse. I don’t know why there isn’t enough funding or initiatives to address this.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  Where I come from the thinking is that people both responsible and irresponsible will have children, and being born to irresponsible parents is never the child’s fault. So the responsible thing to do for the state is to ensure the well being of all children by having generous grants, generous parental leave, universal healthcare including dental for children and so on. Basically, if a child’s well being ever depends on the economic status of the parents, society has failed - not the parents. Does this lead to moral hazards such as irresponsible parents getting children they can’t provide for? Who knows. Perhaps. I much prefer it to the alternatives.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    We seem to have a collective child fetish. (I hear the words of St.George Carlin.)
black-tea 8y ago
Of course they do. When I was a kid I stayed off and my mum looked after me. I really don't understand how people can think they can have a normal career and have children. Let's just stop. We're not better off with all this extra working.
charliebrownau 8y ago
Today in zero accountability for parents Parents refuse to move to cheaper areas and refuse to have ONE parent at home all the time to take care of the kids
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lqet 8y ago
I am European, and the comments in here talking about how this would never be a problem in Europe are a bit elitist. It may be true that you may work from home if you a software developer, but if you do shift work, for example, it may be very difficult (or impossible) to find a replacement for you if you realize that your 6-year has a cold 60 minutes before your shift starts. It may be very possible that your co-workers or your boss wouldn't even understand why you have to be at home if your kid has a common cold. My mother was working shifts in a supermarket when I was a kid, and I found it completely normal to be alone in bed for 6-8 hours during my mothers shift when I had a slight cold. You can't compare upper-level office jobs in Europe with lower-level shift work in the US.
- Escolte 8y ago
  Because here in Western Europe, our healthcare doesn't depend on your job/income. Plus, I've found that on average Americans are more health anxious (for example, if I search in Google Spain in Spanish "I just accidently hit my head with a wall" the treatment results I'll get will be "if you feel fine afterwards, and you didn't black out or anything like that, it's okay" while if I do the same search on google.com/ncr in English the second result tells me to go to the hospital now and demand a CT scan of my brain to check for an internal hemorrhage) than Europeans are.
  - lqet 8y ago
    > Because here in Western Europe, our healthcare doesn't depend on your job/income. It doesn't? At least where I am from, the cost of healthcare very much depends in your income, as the insurance rates are calculated like taxes (with an upper limit, of course). And this only covers basic medical care. Anything that is viewed as "luxury" or "cosmetic" is either only covered partly, or not at all, for example artificial dentition, and you need additional insurance for that, which not everyone can afford. I am almost amazed when Americans think that healthcare in Europe is basically free. Nearly 1/10 of my monthly income is spent on medical insurances. The only difference is that it is quite hard to "opt-out" of the insurance.
    - 8y ago
dfilppi 8y ago
So high income parents with no sick leave don't send their kids?
- cimmanom 8y ago
  High income parents without sick leave may be able to hire a babysitter. And are far more likely have a job that can be done from home (most "knowledge work") than requiring physical presence (food service, retail, labor). And are more likely to simply have more leverage with their employers / more rainy day resources to be able to insist on taking a day off anyway and swallow whatever the consequences are.
michaco33 8y ago
People who work hourly are in the same boat and come to work sick.
mises 8y ago
I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. Can't do janitorial work from home. And such labor is highly fungible: very high turnover, easy replacement, little training, lots of firing/hiring. If you don't show up, you get replaced, mostly because your company now has to hire someone else to do the job and has no reason to keep paying you. Let's not forget that every time we pass stronger "labor laws" (e.g. higher minimum wage), we do see job loss, decreased hours, second jobs. A paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that the costs to low-income workers outweighed the benefits by about three to one. Telling McDonalds it must pay people to stay home will almost certainly just accelerate the pace of automation.
- davidgay 8y ago
  > I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. The concept you're looking for is "insurance". It solves the problem here (for the employer, for the employee, for the other employees, for society as a whole).
  - mises 8y ago
    Insurance in this case is silly. The premise of insurance is to protect against financial catastrophe, which is why it is carried for things like a possible half-million dollar medical bill, house burning down, etc. Another core tenet of insurance is that the event against which it protects is not certain (or even likely, typically) to occur. Though this has been somewhat perverted with medical these days ("I want coverage for my $200/mo prescription"), it's still the basic idea. American workers take about 5 sick days per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-among-adults-us-by-age/); https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-a... that's not an uncertainty. And because sick days are limited, insurance doesn't make sense: businesses offer as many sick days as they are able and willing to fund; any more they just don't cover. In summary, there's no "catastrophic situation" here, it's just a serious expense many can't or wont cover.
sabujp 8y ago
the disconnect in this thread is a mild shock
Gpetrium 8y ago
It seems that a lot of people fail to realize some key aspects that lead to the pressure and outcomes you see on this paper: * As customers, (1) when the washroom of a diner is dirty, the first reaction is not "Hey, maybe the cleaner was sick", it is an instant negative view. (2) when your favorite coffee shop is closed, most people don't think "I hope everything is alright, I'll come back tomorrow." * As employees, (1) When someone doesn't show up for a meeting, most people will go for the lowest denominator "Person A is disrespecting my time", etc. * As employer, (1) When someone doesn't show up to complete a project/deadline/task, the company can go bankrupt, be less profitable or lead to disruptions. * As fellow humans, we mostly assume that the experience we have had or seen (e.g. having a child and nurturing them or working in tech vs laborer) follow the same mold as everyone else until we read and understand more about that. Therefore, society creates an environment where unexpected absenteeism is frowned upon. Whether that is the correct modus operandi is for each and everyone of us to dig in and ask ourselves.

174 points by surfallday 8y ago

awad 8y ago

"Although the likelihood of missing any school days during the past year decreased with reduced income, among children missing school, those from low-income households missed more days of school than did children from higher income households. Although the reason for absenteeism cannot be ascertained from this analysis, these data underscore the importance of preventive measures, such as hand hygiene promotion and education, and the opportunity for both homes and schools to serve as an important point for implementation of public health preventive measures, including hand hygiene practice and education."

docbrown 8y ago
That’s another issue itself buried inside of this report. Here’s the meat of what the report is bringing awareness to. >Among children who had gastrointestinal illness, 84.6% (family income <$35,000), 86.1% ($35,000–$49,999), 90.3% ($50,000–$74,999), 89.6% ($75,000–$99,999), and 87.4% (≥$100,000) missed school in the past year. Similarly, 83.7% of children living below the poverty level with gastrointestinal illness missed school, compared with 88.3% of those living at or above the poverty level.

raincom 8y ago

This is well known to anyone who has worked in a public school system. My friend used to work as a sub. One day, she found a sick student and sent him home. Later, she was admonished by a teacher there: this kid lives in a garage, where they don't have a heater. At least, this kid can feel better in a warm class room. This happened in Milpitas, CA, last year.

ddingus 8y ago
Damn

markdown 8y ago

Fiji just introduced 5 days/yr of "Family Care Leave" on the 1st of Jan, 2019. The Act doesn't require there to be sickness involved, so while you can take leave to care for your sick family member, theoretically you can also do so to support them at a school rugby match: https://i.imgur.com/Ct0wv5D.png https://i.imgur.com/Ct0wv5D.png Fiji is just barely above "third world" status. What's your excuse, USA?

jopsen 8y ago
In my experience all Americans want to help people in need, but when it comes to footing the bill, half of the population becomes very silent. I don't mind paying 50/50 in taxes or around there.. I don't have to feel bad about not helping people in need in Denmark. (Yes, yes, taxes does alleviate my personal responsibility for being a nice person who helps other people -- but small acts of kindness doesn't scale)
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  They don’t want to help, they just want to say they do.
  - jopsen 8y ago
    I believe they are sincere..
dummyload 8y ago
US is optimized for individual gain, not societies gain as a whole. This is the thing which attracts immigrants from all over the socialist/communist republics of the world and they are the ones who make it big. No one wants to change that, there is double speak here when people do sympathize but when it comes to foot the bill, no tax payer is ready for that.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > No one wants to change that There is a continuous stream of polls showing things like “More Americans now want to raise taxes on corporations and high incomes, than lower them”. Obviously most Americans don’t have high incomes so it’s still someone else’s bill - but sentiments are shifting somewhat.

eecc 8y ago

What sort of failed state does not mobilize to support and ease the pain of fellow humans living through such hardship. By the way, “poor life choices” is not a valid argument. Edit: ok, in view of the objections regarding the technical definiton of “failed state” let me reword it to “failed society”. It is closer to my own objection anyway

posix_me_less 8y ago
It isn't surprising to hear "failed state" in case of U.S., but in this case a lot of people do not want to spend money to ease the pain of other people living nearby, because living nearby does not mean being close anymore. This isn't due to failed state, this is due to people not feeling very close to each other.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
umanwizard 8y ago
Calling the US a failed state is pretty hyperbolic. There are many, many countries in the world where a much larger fraction of the population is living in much poorer material conditions than in the US, and not just places like Syria or Somalia. Actually, taking this study at face value, I'd guess that the fact that the poorest students only miss on average of 1 extra day of school per year due to illness is evidence that the US is not a failed state by any sort of global standard. I'd wager that that number is a lot higher in a lot of places.
StreamBright 8y ago
Thanks but I do not need any support from any state. I can manage my and my children's life just fine without them.
- DanBC 8y ago
  How were your children born? Fed? Clothed? Educated? Transported? Protected from crime?

umanwizard 8y ago

The headline here is incredibly misleading. The CDC is not making the factual claim that "low-income parents send sick kids to school due to lack paid sick leave". The actual truth: a paper from the CDC finding an apparently quite weak link between poverty and rate of school absence due to sickness stuck that in as one of many somewhat plausible explanations, in a very speculative discussion section. To emphasize: the headline of this story is not one of the factual scientific claims of the paper.

renholder 8y ago
Upboat for rationalisation. Also, from the European perspective (and specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with), taking sick leave to take care of a child at home isn't a thing, whatsoever. You would just send an email to your team saying that you're sorry but you're working from home because your kid is sick and that would be the end of it. No compulsion to take vacation. No compulsion to take sick leave. No punitive punishments for being human and for your family members being human. It really is a different world, over here. However, given the American exceptionalism showing up in the thread, I'm going to wager that this probably going to see some vitriolic response.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > (specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with) In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers. > It really is a different world, over here. The antithesis to the apathetical, if I may be so bold... Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well. Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes.
  - renholder 8y ago
    >In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers. Just because I'm "out of touch" with ordinary, less privileged workers doesn't equate to my experience and observations in the sector as being invalidated, yeah? Isn't the site "Hacker News" and not "ordinary, less privileged workers'" news? >Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well. That might be true for you but is it true for developers in the overall society? Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it. >Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes. What does that have to do with anything related to kids and the propensity to send them to school because you haven't the time to take off to take care of them or the funds to have a minder? Surely, those less taxes (and more pay) should equate to more days from school, yeah, if it really is as exceptional as you're trying to make it sound. Personally, I like paying taxes for a better society (e.g.: education, health, infrastructure, etc.) but that's just me. However, that has nothing to do the topic.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Children are expensive. And it’s not about money. It’s about time and energy and effort and incessant tending and bonding. I honestly think people need counseling and planning before they start to think about starting a family. They need back up plans and contingency strategies. It used to be that we lived in small communal groups and non nuclear families. Usually matriarchal wherein the post menopausal grandmother plays a crucial role in the post reproductive years to give the attention children need. Clearly this system worked. We will be hitting 10 billion by 2050 due to exponential population growth. But the world has changed. Coping with the new resource strapped crowded new world is not by handing over the responsibility of child rearing to the state or the tax payers. There is NO village that will raise YOUR child. It’s time for responsible procreation and talk about such things without fear or shame of being chastised. We can now store our genetic material. People should be given a lot of advice and caution before they want bring children into our future. Responsible parenting must be incentivized and not just procreation in the form of tax breaks and taking over of child rearing by the state. This issue really stresses me and I only see it getting worse. I don’t know why there isn’t enough funding or initiatives to address this.

alkonaut 8y ago
Where I come from the thinking is that people both responsible and irresponsible will have children, and being born to irresponsible parents is never the child’s fault. So the responsible thing to do for the state is to ensure the well being of all children by having generous grants, generous parental leave, universal healthcare including dental for children and so on. Basically, if a child’s well being ever depends on the economic status of the parents, society has failed - not the parents. Does this lead to moral hazards such as irresponsible parents getting children they can’t provide for? Who knows. Perhaps. I much prefer it to the alternatives.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  We seem to have a collective child fetish. (I hear the words of St.George Carlin.)

black-tea 8y ago

Of course they do. When I was a kid I stayed off and my mum looked after me. I really don't understand how people can think they can have a normal career and have children. Let's just stop. We're not better off with all this extra working.

charliebrownau 8y ago

Today in zero accountability for parents Parents refuse to move to cheaper areas and refuse to have ONE parent at home all the time to take care of the kids

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lqet 8y ago

I am European, and the comments in here talking about how this would never be a problem in Europe are a bit elitist. It may be true that you may work from home if you a software developer, but if you do shift work, for example, it may be very difficult (or impossible) to find a replacement for you if you realize that your 6-year has a cold 60 minutes before your shift starts. It may be very possible that your co-workers or your boss wouldn't even understand why you have to be at home if your kid has a common cold. My mother was working shifts in a supermarket when I was a kid, and I found it completely normal to be alone in bed for 6-8 hours during my mothers shift when I had a slight cold. You can't compare upper-level office jobs in Europe with lower-level shift work in the US.

Escolte 8y ago
Because here in Western Europe, our healthcare doesn't depend on your job/income. Plus, I've found that on average Americans are more health anxious (for example, if I search in Google Spain in Spanish "I just accidently hit my head with a wall" the treatment results I'll get will be "if you feel fine afterwards, and you didn't black out or anything like that, it's okay" while if I do the same search on google.com/ncr in English the second result tells me to go to the hospital now and demand a CT scan of my brain to check for an internal hemorrhage) than Europeans are.
- lqet 8y ago
  > Because here in Western Europe, our healthcare doesn't depend on your job/income. It doesn't? At least where I am from, the cost of healthcare very much depends in your income, as the insurance rates are calculated like taxes (with an upper limit, of course). And this only covers basic medical care. Anything that is viewed as "luxury" or "cosmetic" is either only covered partly, or not at all, for example artificial dentition, and you need additional insurance for that, which not everyone can afford. I am almost amazed when Americans think that healthcare in Europe is basically free. Nearly 1/10 of my monthly income is spent on medical insurances. The only difference is that it is quite hard to "opt-out" of the insurance.
  - 8y ago

dfilppi 8y ago

So high income parents with no sick leave don't send their kids?

cimmanom 8y ago
High income parents without sick leave may be able to hire a babysitter. And are far more likely have a job that can be done from home (most "knowledge work") than requiring physical presence (food service, retail, labor). And are more likely to simply have more leverage with their employers / more rainy day resources to be able to insist on taking a day off anyway and swallow whatever the consequences are.

michaco33 8y ago

People who work hourly are in the same boat and come to work sick.

mises 8y ago

I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. Can't do janitorial work from home. And such labor is highly fungible: very high turnover, easy replacement, little training, lots of firing/hiring. If you don't show up, you get replaced, mostly because your company now has to hire someone else to do the job and has no reason to keep paying you. Let's not forget that every time we pass stronger "labor laws" (e.g. higher minimum wage), we do see job loss, decreased hours, second jobs. A paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that the costs to low-income workers outweighed the benefits by about three to one. Telling McDonalds it must pay people to stay home will almost certainly just accelerate the pace of automation.

davidgay 8y ago
> I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. The concept you're looking for is "insurance". It solves the problem here (for the employer, for the employee, for the other employees, for society as a whole).
- mises 8y ago
  Insurance in this case is silly. The premise of insurance is to protect against financial catastrophe, which is why it is carried for things like a possible half-million dollar medical bill, house burning down, etc. Another core tenet of insurance is that the event against which it protects is not certain (or even likely, typically) to occur. Though this has been somewhat perverted with medical these days ("I want coverage for my $200/mo prescription"), it's still the basic idea. American workers take about 5 sick days per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-among-adults-us-by-age/); https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-a... that's not an uncertainty. And because sick days are limited, insurance doesn't make sense: businesses offer as many sick days as they are able and willing to fund; any more they just don't cover. In summary, there's no "catastrophic situation" here, it's just a serious expense many can't or wont cover.

sabujp 8y ago

the disconnect in this thread is a mild shock

Gpetrium 8y ago

It seems that a lot of people fail to realize some key aspects that lead to the pressure and outcomes you see on this paper: * As customers, (1) when the washroom of a diner is dirty, the first reaction is not "Hey, maybe the cleaner was sick", it is an instant negative view. (2) when your favorite coffee shop is closed, most people don't think "I hope everything is alright, I'll come back tomorrow." * As employees, (1) When someone doesn't show up for a meeting, most people will go for the lowest denominator "Person A is disrespecting my time", etc. * As employer, (1) When someone doesn't show up to complete a project/deadline/task, the company can go bankrupt, be less profitable or lead to disruptions. * As fellow humans, we mostly assume that the experience we have had or seen (e.g. having a child and nurturing them or working in tech vs laborer) follow the same mold as everyone else until we read and understand more about that. Therefore, society creates an environment where unexpected absenteeism is frowned upon. Whether that is the correct modus operandi is for each and everyone of us to dig in and ask ourselves.