9 ms·
Here's what they're asking for: https://www.coworker.org/petitions/global-retail-worker-sick-out https://www.coworker.org/petitions/global-retail-worker-sick...
by elicash 7y ago
Here's what they're asking for:
https://www.coworker.org/petitions/global-retail-worker-sick-out https://www.coworker.org/petitions/global-retail-worker-sick...
-Guaranteed paid leave for all workers who isolate or self-quarantine instead of coming to work.
-Reinstatement of health care coverage for part-time and seasonal workers.
-Increased FSA funds to cover coronavirus testing and treatment for all team members, including part-time and seasonal.
-Guaranteed hazard pay in the form of double pay during our scheduled hours.
-Implementation of new policies that can facilitate social distancing between workers and customers.
-Commitment to ensuring that all locations have adequate sanitation equipment and procedures in place.
-Immediate shutdown of any location where a worker tests positive for COVID-19. In such an event, all workers should continue to receive full pay until the store can safely reopen.
- wear_a_mask 7y agoI do not believe this to be unreasonable at all.
- orblivion 7y agoI generally have mixed feelings on unions, but overall these seem like pretty reasonable demands and it seems like a good thing for Whole Foods to do from a PR standpoint anyway. They would make me more confident if I were a Whole Foods shopper if nothing else. The one thing that I can't help but question, just thinking in terms of microeconomics (which I'm fairly basic on), is this concept of hazard pay. I've heard that some places are increasing wages already. Doesn't this sort of account for the increased risk? Or to put it another way: If you got a 2x raise but they didn't call it "hazard pay", would you still demand hazard pay?
- leetcrew 7y agoI don't think "hazard pay" has any legally defined meaning in the US. it might imply that they are only demanding the 2x pay for the duration of the crisis.
- amluto 7y ago> -Guaranteed paid leave for all workers who isolate or self-quarantine instead of coming to work. This should be required by law of all employers. > -Immediate shutdown of any location where a worker tests positive for COVID-19. This seems like overkill. How about having all employees wear masks (not N95) and cleaning the store thoroughly if someone tests positive? Or do they mean a few-hour or one-day shutdown?
- meheleventyone 7y agoStaff should be wearing gloves and masks already! After someone has been infected and all their contacts should be isolated is a bit late!
- knodi123 7y ago>> -Guaranteed paid leave for all workers who isolate or self-quarantine instead of coming to work. > This should be required by law of all employers. All businesses should be required to tell every employee "You don't have to come in to work for the duration of the crisis, unless you feel like it. But you'll get paid regardless."?
- amluto 7y agoNo. All employers should be required to tell employees “if you believe you have a communicable disease that could infect your coworkers or customers, then you MUST NOT come to work, and we or the government will find a way to take care if you.” This should be the case regardless of any pandemic. Allowing an employee with a mild flu to come to work is irresponsible.
- alexpetralia 7y agoWhat prevents a worker from stating they believe they have coronavirus? Surely you'd agree there is an incentive to do so (stay home and get paid).
- amluto 7y ago
- nn35 7y ago-Immediate shutdown of any location where a worker tests positive for COVID-19. This seems likely to shut down the majority of Whole Foods stores in short order. An unreasonable request, IMO. Grocery stores are genuinely essential to society and the death rate for < 40yo is very small. Put some masks on them and keep working. I do think high-risk employees should basically be allowed to stay home, though.
- rocha 7y agoHospitalization rate is hovering between 10% and 20% Edit: source https://covidtracking.com/data/ https://covidtracking.com/data/
- p1mrx 7y agoWhat's the hospitalization rate for starvation?
- rocha 7y agoI didn't imply they should shut down. I just wanted to point out that the risk that the workers are taking is significantly higher if you take into account how likely they are to get seriously ill. Their protection should be prioritized.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- travisporter 7y agoDisrespectful snide aside, probably 8-10 weeks with water supply, dependent of course on your excess body fat.
- nn35 7y agoWe don't know the hospitalization rate. That site counts confirmed cases; epidemiologists seem to think total cases are greater by a factor of at least 10x. It also doesn't break out by age group. Taken together, these considerations imply hospitalization rate for < 40yo should be far below the 10-20% figure. (On the flip side, many of the currently infected who have not yet been hospitalized will be hospitalized in the future.) I don't know the hospitalization rate for < 40yo, but the death rate is thought to be around 0.1%. It would be very surprising if the hospitalization rate were more than a couple percent.
- gameswithgo 7y agolots of room for reasonable compromise in there
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago>Guaranteed paid leave for all workers who isolate or self-quarantine instead of coming to work. Does anyone have any idea how they're supposed to operate their business if they have to pay workers who don't work? I mean, they would have to hire replacement workers - who also don't need to come to work? Or are the replacement workers supposed to be second-class vs. the original workers?
- sickleave 7y agoCertainly Jeff Bezos could spare a billion or two.
- Nevermark 7y agoWhile I am sure he can, I personally like to see reasons that are more general than picking on particular people. Amazon can spare a billion or two. What would be even better is a country-wide system for essential workers, but I imagine that negotiating that at the political level won't be timely. EDIT: Even a recommended essential worker policy from the top would be helpful guidance for both companies and workers trying to quickly resolve these critical nation-wide issues.
- matz1 7y agoIts not going to work, if you pay people to not work, who is going to work then ? Money will become useless.
- pjc50 7y agoPaying people to not (come into) work is pretty much critical to not getting a huge number of people (not necessarily the same people!) killed in a pandemic.
- NovemberWhiskey 7y agoSurely you agree there are some workers to whom that does not apply? I'm fairly sure we can't send all the utility workers home, can we?
- Uhhrrr 7y ago> Guaranteed hazard pay in the form of double pay With unemployment skyrocketing, it seems to me very unlikely that this would be granted. What is the purpose of putting it on the list?
- airstrike 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
- downerending 7y ago> -Guaranteed hazard pay in the form of double pay during our scheduled hours. I too would like to double my pay. :-) I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but I've worked far more dangerous jobs for a lot less money. Beyond that, what's up with the writing? "Guaranteed" hazard pay? As opposed to "un-guaranteed"? What does that even mean? Guaranteed by whom? And "during our scheduled hours"? ??
- alistairSH 7y agoMaybe they mean paid each pay cycle. Vs a promise for a lump sum at the end of the pandemic.
- MivLives 7y agoDid Whole Foods finally remove health insurance for people on part time 20? Or are they asking it to be applied to non part time 20 workers.