4 ms·

I’m not sure higher pay would fix the problem. Money rarely fixes any social problem. I hear about workers not showing up for work from a cousin who manages a

by cj 3y ago

I’m not sure higher pay would fix the problem. Money rarely fixes any social problem. I hear about workers not showing up for work from a cousin who manages a restaurant. They’ll hire someone, tell them they start Monday, and then Monday comes and the person doesn’t show up. Or a chef who has a drug/drinking problem (extremely common in the industry) calling in “sick” last minute. Obviously there are exceptions but I’m not convinced that lower pay = less reliable employee. Very possible it’s a correlation rather than causation.

djbusby 3y ago
Don't even need higher pay. Just don't be an asshole boss when folk need to be sick. Else, the burden is transferred to the clients! Would all be easier with better health-care options and assurances of an improved social-saftey-net.
- cj 3y ago
  I’m not convinced social safety nets would fix worker reliability (people skipping work when they’re not sick) Work ethic, reliability, trustworthiness, etc are character traits that aren’t easily changed by a better HR policy or safety nets. Unreliable workers will still be unreliable regardless of how much they’re paid.
  - throw_m239339 3y ago
    > Work ethic, reliability, trustworthiness, Aren't character traits that are encouraged by slave wages either. You care about these values? Employees care about money, "values" don't fill stomachs or pay the rent. this is about getting paid. If I need money I'll show up to work even if I'm sick otherwise I don't get any money, I don't care about the rest, just like the employer doesn't care about me when I'm sick. You really think that these food processing companies/restaurants pay employees enough to get some some of allegiance from them or something? that's absurd.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    I thought the issue being discussed overall was presenteeism in food industry jobs causing customers to get sick. Work ethic isn’t created by not allowing humans to isolate when they’re ill either. It’s a public health issue. Will people take off sick when they’re not? Of course. I don’t think that has a social stratum. I take off when I’m not sick using my sick leave as a “mental health day,” and I’m in the upper end of the upper end of the labor force.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Non-monopoly businesses can't survive the free market by being nicer than legally required, unless customers are willing to pay for it and able to detect it.
danaris 3y ago
I mean, to some extent, there's absolutely causation. Lower pay means you may not be able to afford a car. If the public transport in your area is lousy, you'll be late more often. Lower pay means if you can afford a car, it's more likely to be an old beater, and if it breaks down, and you're not 110% prepared to switch to public transport on a moment's notice, you'll be late or miss work. Lower pay means a worse living situation. You're more likely to be in an old building, with a crappy landlord, who may not care about the asbestos in the ceiling, or the black mold in the walls, or the bedbugs, and then you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you can't afford good food, which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you can't afford regular doctor visits (especially since you're also much less likely to have any sick time—paid or not—in which to go to those visits), which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay makes it much more likely that you're in a high-stress job—one where you're expected to jump for superiors and customers at a moment's notice, and be punished for trying to act like a human being—which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you're more likely to be working multiple jobs, and thus getting too little sleep. That makes it more likely that you'll oversleep sometimes and miss your alarm, and be late or miss work. I daresay I could go on...
- cj 3y ago
  I won’t disagree with that. There’s definitely some degree of causation even if it’s not 100%. The thing that concerns me the most is that when you go to a restaurant in the US, the majority of people there do not have any kind of health insurance, and therefore do not have access to affordable healthcare.
  - danaris 3y ago
    One of the strongest arguments for single-payer healthcare/Medicare for All.
throw_m239339 3y ago
> Money rarely fixes any social problem. Paid sick leave fixes that problem specifically. Otherwise employees will show up even when they have the flu or any other disease in order to get paid and contaminate food. Clearly you don't want these people to get a better compensation thus incentive not to show up to work when they are sick. This isn't a "social problem", whatever that weasel expression means, this is a compensation problem.
cafard 3y ago
I have worked for an employer that offered x hours of sick leave per pay period. A number of the employees--apparently at all levels--thought that they were robbing themselves if they didn't burn all the sick leave. On the other hand, I have been the schmuck who went to work feeling awful and possibly contagious, because sick leave had been lumped in with vacation, and I might need to take some if my child (as happens a lot on introduction to day care) got sick. Money does fix the social problem of having no money. Penicillin isn't in it as a wonder drug.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Having a bucket of paid time off that covers anything is much better than having a separate sick/vacation bucket. You don’t have to worry about doctor’s notes
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    I have separate sick and vacation pools, no note needed. It's definitely preferable, with the only better thing being unlimited sick days. It just requires having trust in your employees not to rip you off, which you already have to have when hiring somebody who has skills you don't.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Just like I asked above. How is having a bucket of PTO that you can use any way you want worse than having a split bucket?
      - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
        Because it encourages people to show up to work sick if they have a vacation coming up, or at the very least do a cost-benefit analysis with regards to taking a sick day versus showing up sick. If you have a sick pool, which most people will never come close to using up, then beings sick just becomes "oh, I'm sick, better take a sick day".
  - 3y ago

by cj 3y ago

djbusby 3y ago

Don't even need higher pay. Just don't be an asshole boss when folk need to be sick. Else, the burden is transferred to the clients! Would all be easier with better health-care options and assurances of an improved social-saftey-net.

cj 3y ago
I’m not convinced social safety nets would fix worker reliability (people skipping work when they’re not sick) Work ethic, reliability, trustworthiness, etc are character traits that aren’t easily changed by a better HR policy or safety nets. Unreliable workers will still be unreliable regardless of how much they’re paid.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > Work ethic, reliability, trustworthiness, Aren't character traits that are encouraged by slave wages either. You care about these values? Employees care about money, "values" don't fill stomachs or pay the rent. this is about getting paid. If I need money I'll show up to work even if I'm sick otherwise I don't get any money, I don't care about the rest, just like the employer doesn't care about me when I'm sick. You really think that these food processing companies/restaurants pay employees enough to get some some of allegiance from them or something? that's absurd.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I thought the issue being discussed overall was presenteeism in food industry jobs causing customers to get sick. Work ethic isn’t created by not allowing humans to isolate when they’re ill either. It’s a public health issue. Will people take off sick when they’re not? Of course. I don’t think that has a social stratum. I take off when I’m not sick using my sick leave as a “mental health day,” and I’m in the upper end of the upper end of the labor force.
hgsgm 3y ago
Non-monopoly businesses can't survive the free market by being nicer than legally required, unless customers are willing to pay for it and able to detect it.

danaris 3y ago

I mean, to some extent, there's absolutely causation. Lower pay means you may not be able to afford a car. If the public transport in your area is lousy, you'll be late more often. Lower pay means if you can afford a car, it's more likely to be an old beater, and if it breaks down, and you're not 110% prepared to switch to public transport on a moment's notice, you'll be late or miss work. Lower pay means a worse living situation. You're more likely to be in an old building, with a crappy landlord, who may not care about the asbestos in the ceiling, or the black mold in the walls, or the bedbugs, and then you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you can't afford good food, which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you can't afford regular doctor visits (especially since you're also much less likely to have any sick time—paid or not—in which to go to those visits), which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay makes it much more likely that you're in a high-stress job—one where you're expected to jump for superiors and customers at a moment's notice, and be punished for trying to act like a human being—which means you're more likely to get sick. Lower pay means you're more likely to be working multiple jobs, and thus getting too little sleep. That makes it more likely that you'll oversleep sometimes and miss your alarm, and be late or miss work. I daresay I could go on...

cj 3y ago
I won’t disagree with that. There’s definitely some degree of causation even if it’s not 100%. The thing that concerns me the most is that when you go to a restaurant in the US, the majority of people there do not have any kind of health insurance, and therefore do not have access to affordable healthcare.
- danaris 3y ago
  One of the strongest arguments for single-payer healthcare/Medicare for All.

throw_m239339 3y ago

> Money rarely fixes any social problem. Paid sick leave fixes that problem specifically. Otherwise employees will show up even when they have the flu or any other disease in order to get paid and contaminate food. Clearly you don't want these people to get a better compensation thus incentive not to show up to work when they are sick. This isn't a "social problem", whatever that weasel expression means, this is a compensation problem.

cafard 3y ago

I have worked for an employer that offered x hours of sick leave per pay period. A number of the employees--apparently at all levels--thought that they were robbing themselves if they didn't burn all the sick leave. On the other hand, I have been the schmuck who went to work feeling awful and possibly contagious, because sick leave had been lumped in with vacation, and I might need to take some if my child (as happens a lot on introduction to day care) got sick. Money does fix the social problem of having no money. Penicillin isn't in it as a wonder drug.

scarface_74 3y ago
Having a bucket of paid time off that covers anything is much better than having a separate sick/vacation bucket. You don’t have to worry about doctor’s notes
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  I have separate sick and vacation pools, no note needed. It's definitely preferable, with the only better thing being unlimited sick days. It just requires having trust in your employees not to rip you off, which you already have to have when hiring somebody who has skills you don't.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Just like I asked above. How is having a bucket of PTO that you can use any way you want worse than having a split bucket?
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      Because it encourages people to show up to work sick if they have a vacation coming up, or at the very least do a cost-benefit analysis with regards to taking a sick day versus showing up sick. If you have a sick pool, which most people will never come close to using up, then beings sick just becomes "oh, I'm sick, better take a sick day".
- 3y ago