Massachusetts Paid Sick Leave Act

[Pulsar]

Why does the amount matter?

Paid time off (including sick days) are a part of compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I don't like the idea of government mandating compensation for employees.

(That said, there is nothing technically wrong with them wanting to do this, as it's being done at the state level. If it were done at the federal level, I would scream bloody-fucking-murder. As it is, though, I will simply not live or do business in MA because I do not agree with this, among others, law.)

I would like to know what profession you are in that currently has so few applicants that employers are forced to negotiate with the employees regarding things like that.

Indeed, in many companies they absolutely do NOT negotiate in any way. There are strict guidelines that are followed as far as compensation goes, and it is non-negotiable.

Every job I've every interviewed for has had a non-negotiable benefits package as well.

Perhaps not everyone is in the same situation, or working for the same people that you do, eh?

 

[DaveJ]

When is a good time to discuss a proposal? After it is passed, like the health care bill??

I'm not saying there shouldn't be discussion, just that a bill requiring basic minimums generates so much debate, when you would think the majority would support such a decision.

I also am tired of people complaining that everyone just loves their businesses and hates employees. As an employee who works for a great boss in a small company, I know we would be way better off as a business, employer and employee, without so much interference and red tape from the government. Unfortunately, I also know it is necessary because of the less-than-scrupulous businessmen out there. Really the only solution is for people to be honest and trustworthy so that the laws aren't required. But, you can't legislate morals and scruples. You can teach them, fortunately (though it isn't allowed in public schools but that's another discussion...)

I hear you. I thank my lucky stars every single day that I have a great job with good benefits. You can't teach morals and scruples, but you can teach ethics, and I think that might go a ways in changing some peoples' attitudes toward life in general.

 

[Patranus]

Can you tell us who employs you so we can ask them to take away your sick, vacation, and personal days since you obviously do not need them?

There is a difference between an employer offering them at their desecration and mandating that they are offered through law.

What part of choice do you progressives no understand?

 

[CycloWizard]

It's no wonder why this country is so fucked up, considering that a proposed bill requiring a basic minimum of benefits gets so much debate. The number of people here who have been brainwashed into thinking that only laws and regulations that benefit business are worth considering is just insane.

I don't think a law requiring you to work without sick leave should be passed either, so I'm not sure how your statement has anything to do with me. I think if an employee and employer agree to terms of employment then everyone else should stay out of it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Have you ever had a sickness that prevented you from working for anything other than a hangover?


if you have ever dealt with extended sickness in your family you would applaud this move. One of my kids was sick and required 4 surgeries in the course of 60 days. I took leave under FMLA to take care of him. While I made it trough I can easily see a family really come under additional distress in an event like this. How many people are currently two paychecks away from being on the street?


Put yourselves in someone elses shoes for a bit before you start spouting Frank Lunz talking points.

And your employer would be free to give you leave under such circumstances if it were within the bounds of your contract. I can easily see how you expecting two weeks' pay while not working would be hugely detrimental to the business which is forced to pay you while receiving nothing in return. Why don't you see it from his side? I simply see that the coin has two sides while you only see the one facing you. Why is it that you should hold all the cards and the company you work for is forced to comply with your demands? Why isn't a mutual agreement good enough anymore? You negotiate at the point of a gun because the company you work for can't vote.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I sincerely don't get this, in the US, is the government actually supporting people while they are sick as opposed to the companies?

That's fucked up...

I've always been for the universal view of mutual benefit but in the US, the companies are not responsible for the welfare of those who work there?

Naturally the company should pay you for your sick leave, the government isn't there to supply workers in good health for corporations.

That is just fucked up.

 

[bobsmith1492]

I sincerely don't get this, in the US, is the government actually supporting people while they are sick as opposed to the companies?

That's fucked up...

I've always been for the universal view of mutual benefit but in the US, the companies are not responsible for the welfare of those who work there?

Naturally the company should pay you for your sick leave, the government isn't there to supply workers in good health for corporations.

That is just fucked up.

No, you don't get this.

 

[CycloWizard]

IMO, they are basically saying you are allowed to get sick, regardless of what your employer thinks. I can see both sides from the employer and employee (especially since I am both).

There are multiple upsides to this-
-Manager thinks employee needs to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME UNTIL I CANT GET IT (Im touchy), but owner doesnt. Manager has employee go home and cites law.
-Gives the employee less worry about if they are going to lose their job and comes in sick, either making everyone else sick or performing poorly/unsafe or making themselves sicker by sticking it out.
-Very small companies just won't care since it's much more informal.
-Corporate won't care because people like me have no accrued sick time and just take it as I need it.

This is basically a way for that douche boss (a decent boss would be like "go home!") to not be able to ride someone or write them up or fire them for not slaving for them.

You can think it's up to the employee to find new employment, but it's not always that easy especially ATM. The only time this would be useful is in a hostile work environment, and Im all for a person having a bit of protection in that situation.

I don't like the idea of the state/fed mandating benefits because today it's sick days, tomorrow it's PTO, the next it's how much they have to be paid based on some stupid chart. But in this particular case, I see it more along the lines of a consumer protection law.

As you say, any reasonable case would be covered by common sense such that only the most expendable employee would have to sweat it at all in the first place. If you are that expendable or unreliable that you would be fired for missing a few days a year being sick, then you probably deserve to be fired anyway. Even a job at McDonald's would be unlikely to fire a decent employee for missing a couple days for any quasi-legitimate reason simply because it would likely take longer to find a decent replacement than to just wait it out.

 

[DaveJ]

I don't think a law requiring you to work without sick leave should be passed either, so I'm not sure how your statement has anything to do with me. I think if an employee and employer agree to terms of employment then everyone else should stay out of it.

My apologies, my statement was not directed at you specifically, just at the debate in general.

Employment terms should be set however is amenable to both business and employee, but I believe there need to be some basic minimum expectations on both sides. Why should a business be allowed to treat employees as expendable resources? Besides, a fairly treated employee is likely a more productive employee, so it's a win for both sides.

 

[CycloWizard]

My apologies, my statement was not directed at you specifically, just at the debate in general.

Employment terms should be set however is amenable to both business and employee, but I believe there need to be some basic minimum expectations on both sides. Why should a business be allowed to treat employees as expendable resources? Besides, a fairly treated employee is likely a more productive employee, so it's a win for both sides.

If employees are expendable resources, why shouldn't an employer treat them as such? An employee is free to bail on the company at the first sign of trouble, so why not the other way around? If the owner of the company has a death in the family and has to miss a week of work, can he use his sick leave to not pay his employees if he has to shut his small plant down during his absence? It's a one-way street for no reason other than an overly pro-employer attitude. I used to support the system the way it is but now I see that it's contributing to the problem more than the perceived abuses.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, you don't get this.

So, the companies provide pay when they are sick or the government does?

Or nobody does?

You're right, i don't know how this works in the US and i said as much.