3 ms·

In practice it's not a common occurrence, and companies have options in place like company doctors to manage things like burnout and avoid those scenarios from

by _djo_ 5y ago

In practice it's not a common occurrence, and companies have options in place like company doctors to manage things like burnout and avoid those scenarios from happening in the first place. It's not a blocker for startups.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I literally gave an example of a business that would have a problem. The point is that such discussions often operate with imaginary businesses with infinite resources. Also if a job makes you sick, you should switch.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  No, you provided an unusual, very specific example, and strongly implied that you would fire any of the nannies you employ if they became pregnant. That says a lot about your mindset. Fact is, there are certain fundamental costs and risks you quite rightly have to bear when employing others. In most countries that includes a reasonable amount of maternity leave, sick leave, paid vacation, and so on. If your business can't sustain those costs then it's not healthy enough to be employing people. Long term paid illness at 70% of a person's salary is something fewer countries have but there, again, there's reasonably-priced insurance that you can take out that's specifically targeted at and priced for small businesses. Large businesses don't need it. Nobody is assuming that businesses have infinite resources, and this is no different to any other regulation that affects the cost of doing business. We accept them because the overall societal benefits are worth it even if it means some small percentage of small companies makes less profit or may not exist in the first place. > Also if a job makes you sick, you should switch. That's a terrible argument. Not only is switching not always an option, especially for low-wage jobs, but if we allow widespread abuse of employees then there usually aren't better options to switch to.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "No, you provided an unusual, very specific example, and strongly implied that you would fire any of the nannies you employ if they became pregnant. That says a lot about your mindset." I never said anything about firing pregnant employees, it says a lot about YOUR mindset that you think I did. And it is not a unusal example, there are a lot of kindergardens in the world. In my country (public) health insurance takes over paying sick people (or pregnant) people after a certain amount of time. You keep claiming there is cheap insurance, which I rather doubt. In any case, it shouldn't have to be the responsibility of the employer. All that does is make employers reluctant to hire sickly people or people who are at risk of becoming pregnant. "That's a terrible argument. Not only is switching not always an option, especially for low-wage jobs, but if we allow widespread abuse of employees then there usually aren't better options to switch to." That is the usual leftist claim, which is just bullshit. Employers have to compete for workers, too, also they don't have absolute power giving out goodies to slave like employees, as leftists claim. People can take responsibility for themselves. There are many, many leftists - are you saying they all would treat their employees badly, if they were to start companies? Or are leftists somehow incapable of starting companies?

by _djo_ 5y ago

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

I literally gave an example of a business that would have a problem. The point is that such discussions often operate with imaginary businesses with infinite resources. Also if a job makes you sick, you should switch.

_djo_ 5y ago
No, you provided an unusual, very specific example, and strongly implied that you would fire any of the nannies you employ if they became pregnant. That says a lot about your mindset. Fact is, there are certain fundamental costs and risks you quite rightly have to bear when employing others. In most countries that includes a reasonable amount of maternity leave, sick leave, paid vacation, and so on. If your business can't sustain those costs then it's not healthy enough to be employing people. Long term paid illness at 70% of a person's salary is something fewer countries have but there, again, there's reasonably-priced insurance that you can take out that's specifically targeted at and priced for small businesses. Large businesses don't need it. Nobody is assuming that businesses have infinite resources, and this is no different to any other regulation that affects the cost of doing business. We accept them because the overall societal benefits are worth it even if it means some small percentage of small companies makes less profit or may not exist in the first place. > Also if a job makes you sick, you should switch. That's a terrible argument. Not only is switching not always an option, especially for low-wage jobs, but if we allow widespread abuse of employees then there usually aren't better options to switch to.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "No, you provided an unusual, very specific example, and strongly implied that you would fire any of the nannies you employ if they became pregnant. That says a lot about your mindset." I never said anything about firing pregnant employees, it says a lot about YOUR mindset that you think I did. And it is not a unusal example, there are a lot of kindergardens in the world. In my country (public) health insurance takes over paying sick people (or pregnant) people after a certain amount of time. You keep claiming there is cheap insurance, which I rather doubt. In any case, it shouldn't have to be the responsibility of the employer. All that does is make employers reluctant to hire sickly people or people who are at risk of becoming pregnant. "That's a terrible argument. Not only is switching not always an option, especially for low-wage jobs, but if we allow widespread abuse of employees then there usually aren't better options to switch to." That is the usual leftist claim, which is just bullshit. Employers have to compete for workers, too, also they don't have absolute power giving out goodies to slave like employees, as leftists claim. People can take responsibility for themselves. There are many, many leftists - are you saying they all would treat their employees badly, if they were to start companies? Or are leftists somehow incapable of starting companies?