• plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Parent, forced to choose between poverty and caring for child with cancer, gets a helping hand from coworkers when their employer would just let them starve.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m sure the top military generals have unlimited sick days though (the soldiers can go fuck themselves they should be dying for the empire anyways). Same for senators and congress people who get multi-week paid holidays every year while the country’s stack of pending bills and legislation get higher and higher. So it all balances out in the end!

  • lugal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The concept of limited sick days is still so wild for me … if you’re sick, you’re sick.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      There has to be some limit for the company. Let’s forget a minute about big evil corporation and take a little local company that hire a new person that is needed to run the shop. If this person is absent unlimited and you don’t have the funds to hire a replacement, should you just close the shop? It doesn’t mean we can put an arbitrary limit on sickness but rather than at some point the company have the liberty to let you go if you can’t fulfil your part of the contract anymore in the forsable future. It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a system to help the sick person recover, but maybe that’s not the company’s job past a certain time, and rather the role of social/health insurance.

      • b0gl@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Here in Sweden your workplace will pay 80% of your salary for the first 7 days, and then if you are still sick, you need to get a doctor’s note and then the state will pay you instead.

        Also if your kid is sick you can be home with 80% salary paid by the state.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Employers don’t understand (or want to understand) the concept of “Lawful evil”, where just because someone is out of sick days doesn’t mean you aren’t a monster for keeping them from their cancer-stricken daughter.

  • Pringles@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Simply being able to swap sick days is such a foreign concept to me. How does that even work or make sense? I understand being allowed to take a day or several off because you are sick without having to hand in a doctor’s note. So those are your sick days. YOUR sick days. The fact that you can transfer these or use them as currency is just baffling to me. I guess this is some MUH-FREEDOM joke that I’m to European for to understand because I don’t get it.

  • pascal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s what I don’t understand. Europe is capitalist like the US, never the less, such cruelty and greed from the employer are simply unheard of.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unions are much stronger in Europe. In the US they’re a lot more limited in what they can do, if a strike would be too disruptive, which is, you know, the whole fucking point of a strike, the government can just forbid it.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That conversation gave me such a headache around the rail strike.

        “They need sick days and proper pay”

        “I recognize that”

        “that’s why they’re on strike”

        “well if they’re allowed to strike the economy shuts down”

        “if they’re so important they should probably get fair pay and benefits shouldn’t they?”

        “Well yeah”

        “that’s why they’re on strike”

        “well if they’re allowed to strike the economy shuts down”

        🙄

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Fuck the economy. The fact that capitalist society runs on nothing but greed and the desire for infinite growth is an issue, not the economy being “bad”

    • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Europe didn’t buy the crap sold by ‘economist’ witch doctors like Milton Friedman and Alan Greedspan. At least, they didn’t buy it as much.

      The US treats capitalism as a religious absolute. The rest of the world regards the US as a fairly extreme example of laissez-faire capitalism.

      Lots of True Believers really thought that if you didn’t regulate anything and just let companies become more and more powerful, somehow the world would be a better place for it.

      Check out the Chicago School of Economics if you want to know what really has brought us to this point. Hugely influential and hugely misguided, but it made a lot of men very rich and powerful so it was seen as a good thing 🤦

      EDIT: Apologies to Witch Doctors everywhere.

    • robotopera@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well you can’t do that cuz if you give one employee sick days for their dying child every employee with a dying child is going to want sick days and that might impact the shareholders.

    • Fosheze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You don’t get paid for that. For most people if it’s unpaid then you just can’t afford to take off work.

      • Zess@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I guess I interpreted “sick days” as unpaid. When I’m sick I don’t waste PTO so I wouldn’t call it that.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not all places combine sick and PTO, that’s why they differentiate them as “sick days”

          I’ve worked places that gave x days PTO and y days for sick leave, though it’s fucking stupid and prefer where I work now that just lumps the 2 together into one big time off pool

          • Bangs42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Where I work now is really weird as far as time off goes. I don’t get a limited number of vacation days. But I do have a limited number of paid sick days.

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Anywhere I’ve taught, my email has been inundated with requests for sick leave sharing. Depending on where you teach, you have to pay for your sub if you run out of leave.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It’s very common in Romanian to

          1. Not know a lot of English and

          2. Use a Romanian word and make it sound kind of English to make a point

          Eg: “I gătated dinner” - ‘a găti’ = to cook -> I gateted dinner ~= I cooked dinner.

          This is a bad example because it’s not really used, most people know the ver “to cook”, but you hopefully get what I’m explaining.

          In this context, ‘a inunda’ is a verb in Romanian, it means “to flood (something)”. If you’re Romanian and you don’t know the word exists in English, ‘inundated’ sounds like one of those made-up “verb+ed” constructions.

          So while it’s a silly question for someone who doesn’t know Romanian, it’s also a valid question for someone who has heard these types of bad constructions before, and has never heard of the English verb “to inundate”.

          Hopefully the guy’s reply makes a bit more sense now, I don’t think it was actually meant as an insult tbh (☞゚ヮ゚)☞

          • Moghul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah but the other guy could’ve pasted that word in the nearest search bar, gotten their answer, and not looked dumb.

            Also maybe it’s a newer thing but I don’t think I’ve heard people put that suffix on the end of words outside of trying to be funny by sounding dumb.

            • Skates@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Oh, I agree. I was just trying to add some context to the guy’s comment, because it seemed like the question (while avoidable with a quick search) was taken as malicious, whereas knowing the context makes me read it as jokey/curious at most.

        • Hiro8811@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I guessed that much but it’s very similar to “inundat” which also means flooded in Romanian