wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

The greater danger to public health and safety is the medical profession's practice of forcing people to gather in toxic, disease transmitting groups, in small indoor spaces as a precondition for obtaining medical services. Not only are sickly children and the elderly ill forced to spend time in these infectious, so called "waiting rooms" unnecessarily, they are also forced to endure public mass transportation which puts the general public at risk.
I suggest that the city council of embezzlers and looters remedy this situation by prohibiting this inhumane practice, which only serves the selfish interests of medical professionals who often have incomes of over $250,000.00.
The city council of embezzlers and looters should, in addition, require all medical service providers to provide appointments at home for all patients who request it. The requirement for "home" provided services can be met by using large, electrically propelled vehicles to transport needed personnel or equipment to a location not more than 150 feet from the entrance of a patient's building of residence.
(Frankly, I don't know how this vital and necessary service was overlooked in the President's health insurance company bailout reform.)

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really
know about what they imagine they can design" (F.A. Hayeck)

I'm surprised no one mentioned "consultants," who are actually perma-temps. Full-time workers with all of the requirements of staff who aren't entitled to the same benefits. (usually hired by large companies to avoid paying these benefits)

I worked for two years @ citigroup (technically for adecco - a huge employment agency) in this limbo with no benefits, performed the same job as staffers sitting next to me and had to go to work sick, or lose the pay. I was then laid-off as a "cost saving" measure with no warning. Fast forward... I'm still unemployed, and Citigroup got a $45 billion bailout. The gov't socialized their risk and loss, but they now balk at the "socialization" of risk for workers.

I'm a small business owner, and would support this. Assuming 250 working days per worker per year, 5 days amounts to 2%. So it equals a 2% raise. If you can't afford this, you shouldn't be hiring. Each worker SHOULD be adding to a businesses profitability, so it would only be decreasing an owner's profits by some small percentage.

I have paid sick time and I still come in when I'm ill. I prefer to save my paid days off for costa rica, europe or just a day trip to jones beach

Second Post:

My son worked for 6 months for a Starbucks in Westchester. The baristas -- mostly kids -- were not paid for sick days. Hence, they came into work sick. Moreover, because the fast food schedules are terrible -- 5 a.m. to noon one day, 4 p.m. to midnight another -- the kids got sick often. My own son (the 2 1/2 year old mentioned in my last post, who was by this time a college student) went to work with a sore throat and sinus infections, over our protests, because the "culture" (no pun intended) at work required that he show up; absences, even for illness, were frowned upon.

This means, folks, that your cappuccinos and soy lattes are being prepared by people with lots of really bad germs. I saw the kids wiping their noses and knew that that, come what may, I did not want to drink that coffee.

This problem undoubtedly exists in all kitchens, even in the best restaurants. People who aren't paid for workdays work sick, and people who work sick, spread germs.

Why does Brian routinely let the right-wingers dominate the discussions?

Bookman made preposterous assertions-- unprecedented that a government initiative that costs businesses money! it's never happened before in history! It's the federal government's job to determine sick day policy (except when right-wingers like Bookman think it's states rights)!

But Brian apparently doesn't care. As long as they don't shut up, they can say what they want on the program, and no fact check and no correction.

Sounds like great radio....

Your guests are having it out over what it might cost employers to provide paid sick leave. Has anyone asked or studied what it costs employers to NOT provide paid sick leave?...In terms of lost efficiency when workers have to come to work sick, lost jobs and the cost of replacing and retraining workers, and sick workers infecting their coworkers, who comprise even MORE lost productivity and lost time?

I worked as a barista for three years, and several times had to come to work severely ill because I couldn't afford the time off, and also because Starbucks in particular makes it extremely burdensome for employees to call in sick (you must get a doctor's note and find someone to cover your shift, or risk getting fired), I'd've been risking my job to call out sick. I couldn't believe that they WANTED me there sick! But they did...infecting both my coworkers and customers and causing more and more lost time due to illness not just for themselves but for other businesses. Only one manager that I've ever had in the food service industry sanely and thoughtfully agreed that she did not want sick workers in the restaurant, and tried to get people to stay home.

The restaurant industry is the last vestige of indentured servitude in the US. You get really ill and miss more than two days, you lose your job -- pure and simple.

The lobbyist should take a position on a cable news channel. Beligerently opressing the alternative opinion by miss direction and never ceasing to talk. This shows the fundamental issue in capitalism, the supposed conflict between "business" and "employee". I find the distiction that much more absurd when talking about "small business" and its employees. Aren't the employees people just as much as the business owners, and don't they deserve a basic level of dignity and security in their jobs and livelyhood. Until we stop arguing the diference between employers and employees like one or the other was less than human or deserves to benefit at the expense of the other, nothing truly meaningfull will be achieved.

the loud lobbyist knows restaurant employees are often off the books so they would not be protected by this law anyway

It's pretty gross hearing someone from the restaurant association insist that workers go to work sick. If ANYONE should be staying home when their sick, it's restaurant workers. Who wants to have the flu going around the kitchen of their local eatery?

It's definitely a public health issue.

One major problem I had with Robert Bookman's comments is that he kept referring to the "mom and pop" businesses in New York. Well, most of those have already been driven OUT of business because of lack of commercial rent control. Mom and Pop are certainly not the owners of most small businesses in this city.

Robert Bookman comes off as so obnoxious that it leaves me unable to take anything he says as truthful and forthright. He wasn’t able to engage in an actual debate and rudely spoke over the other guest.

most work places have a set number of paid sick days, 3 or so. that's hardly going to break the bank. nobody is talking about unlimited sick days are they? these opposers are nuts and evil, obviously it's better for everyone for truly sick people to stay home.

The industry representative is not making the case for his side well. He's way too emotional so he must know it's a losing issue. There is no rational argument against paid sick leave. I do not want to go into a restaurant where the staff is sick. This is not about the tax payers supporting the private sector. Let let the wealthy businesses pitch into a fund to support the little guy.

I have worked jobs with no sick leave (waitressing) and with limited sick leave. In most case, pp I know go to work because they feel they are stressed and would fall be hind if they didn't go in. They don't abuse it. Also, pp frequently go to work when they are sick and everyone in the office gets sick!

I think many workers would prefer to get the extra costs of sick days in the form of a raise rather than in sick days if they were given a choice.

Summer 1991. We paid our nanny for sick days. She showed up one day anyway, sick with a stomach virus that she said she'd picked up from a cousin visiting from the Caribbean -- she said that she'd come in for my sake, so that I would not have to miss work. She was doubled over in pain, so I told her to please go home.

Three days later, we were in Annapolis for a family wedding, when our 2 1/2 year old developed a fever of 103 and diarrhea. We called our pediatrician in NY, who told us to get him back to the City a.s.a.p. Unfortunately, our train reservation was for two days later and that was the weekend of the Democratic National Convention (this story is true) -- all trains back to the City on the DC-Boston line were booked.

We contemplated the emergency room, but our doctor told us that our baby would be better off in Lenox Hill, should he need hospitalization, so we sat for 3 hours in a train station with a sick baby (and lots of diapers) until we could bully our way onto a train. Fortunately, our son did not require hospitalization (for dehydration), but he was in pain and miserable for two days.

NANNIES: STAY HOME IF YOU ARE SICK.

Thanks.

I don't believe these Drum Major numbers.
They are just made up.

This is a joke. Most restaurants in NYC are staffed at least partially with illegal immigrants.

I have never come to work sick but I have taken off when I was not.

Restaurants and Food Service establishments are really amazing in this area. I have waited tables for many years and I have been less concerned about being paid for sick days but being obligated to come in when I was really sick. There have been a few occasions when I have had high fever, sore throat, etc, and unless I can find someone to cover my shift, I must work or deal with disciplinary actions. Imagine the consequences of my handling other people's food with a 103 fever and strep throat. And I have been forced to do it on more than one occasion.

Come to work sick

The man who said that it's a government mandate so the government should pay for it is wrong
Overtime laws, weekend work laws, minimum wage and other laws all mandate minimums for workers without government funding. This is no different.

All grouped into this is maternity leave. At my last company of 20 employees (a professional environmental company) I was not given maternity leave and told to take vacation only. I had two weeks off to decide if I should work until my due date so I had two weeks with my baby or not kill myself and have a week off before. unfortunetly I had a c-section and spent 4 days in the hospital...and four days in labor before.

What do we do?

sorry commenters but most restaurant workers are 'off the books' and therefore have nothing to do with this legislation. so the health angle regarding food businesses and restaurants is moot.

Last year I got a salaried job with no sick leave, paid or unpaid, allowed for the first 3 months and then discovered I was pregnant later that same week. Going through the first 3 months of pregnancy with no sick leave was one of the hardest things I ever had to do.

It's not a right or a benefit, it's a Public Health issue. Sick people make other people sick, so they need to be paid to stay home. Other people getting sick raises our taxes and premiums. The businesses must do their job once, so that the public doesn't have to pay twice.

In answer to: "Have you ever gone to work because you don't get sick days?"

I'm a career waiter.

I (and everyone I work with) comes to work when we are sick all the time - only the worst flu keeps us at home.

And we can't be alone.

Maybe this would be a good idea if there was full employment, not during 10% unemployment.

I find it mildly disquieting that as employers demand that we "do more with less", workers' overall health and well-being continues to decline. Surely a healthy employee is more productive than an infirm one.

But what I find most disturbing is that a lobbyist for the restaurant association would be against paid sick leave. In light of the era of the disposable employee*, and taken to its logical conclusion, Mr. Brookman's position would encourage infirm employees to work while sick. Please tell me I'm wrong, because the thought that chef might have a cold is somewhat unappetizing.

(* I define "disposable employee" as anyone who runs the risk of being fired if they can't come to work because of illness, injury, and the like. After all, with at least 7 people begging for any one job, there's nothing to keep someone from swapping a non-performing machine for another.)

"argues the law would be too onerous for small business owners and would result in lost jobs..."

Without benefits or a living wage, exactly what is this man, this representative of NYC's commercial clout, referring to as a "job", in the first place?