Yet another example of why workers should be given fair benefits: Public health experts are worried that the H1N1 pandemic could worsen as a result of employees who are sick going into work because they can't afford to take the day off. Especially workers who deal with the public like waiters, child care employees, and retail workers. "Tens of millions of people, or about 40% of all private-sector workers, do not receive paid sick days, and as a result many of them cannot afford to stay home when they are ill. Even some companies that provide paid sick days have policies that make it difficult to call in sick, like giving demerits each time someone misses a day." Children with swine flu also are going to school when they shouldn't, because their parents send them to school because they have to go to work. A survey last year by the National Opinion Research Center found that 68% of those not eligible for paid sick days said they went to work when they had a contagious illness. The survey also found that 11% of respondents said they had lost a job for taking off days for an illness for themselves or a family member; 13% said they had been told that they would be fired or suspended if they missed work because of an illness. (Full Story)
The article also highlights Wal-Mart's unfair system. Employees generally receive a demerit point when they miss one or more days because of illness or other reasons. Once they obtain four points over a six month period, they receive warnings that can lead to dismissal. In addition, when Wal-Mart employees call in sick, their first day off is not a paid sick day (they either have to take a personal day or vacation day, or not get paid), but the second or third days are paid. This policy is intended to keep workers who are not actually sick from taking the day off. That is terrible. It sounds to me like it's just a ploy to not give the workers the benefits they deserve. It's a way for Wal-Mart to cut costs by denying benefits. And they're somehow justifying this cut by the idea that workers are liars and will just go play hooky. Not everyone that takes one day off of work for sick leave is simply going fishing. People that are legitimately sick for one day are being denied their benefits. And besides, who cares if workers take a sick day to go fishing. It's their benefit that they accumulated. If they want to use their sick days when they're not sick, that's their decision. And if they use them all up when they're not sick, and don't have any paid sick leave when they do get sick, then that was their personal decision. Wal-Mart is not paying any extra when people use their allotted sick days when they aren't sick.
Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, will make a rare address to both houses of the U.S. Congress. This is only the second time the chancellor of Germany has done this. She is expected to talk about climate change, transatlantic ties, and the downfall of Communism in Europe. (Full Story)
Too bad George W. Bush isn't there to give her another creepy shoulder massage...
This year Americans have spent a record-breaking amount on guns and ammunition. Industry officials estimate that gun-owners purchased 12 billion rounds of ammunition this past year. This is an increase from the 7 to 10 billion in a "normal" year. Since last October, gun shops sold enough bullets to give every American 38 of them. That's exactly what we need...people owning more guns and bullets when the economy is bad, people are being laid of, homes are being foreclosed, people are stressed about finances. This will turn out real well...
One possible explanation given for the surge is that after the election of a Democratic president, people heeded the warnings of groups like the NRA that said the new administration would make bullets more expensive and harder to get. The executive vice president of the NRA said that people are responding to legitimate concerns, "I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime [which is actually decreasing]. And I also think that it's people worrying about whether they'll be attacked by politicians. They're suspicious, and justifiably so." Justifiably so?! That politicians are going to attack the people and the people should stock up on guns and bullets?! (Full Story)
Interesting article on Russia's alcohol problem. "Russians consume roughly 4.75 gallons of pure alcohol a person annually, more than double the level that the World Health Organization considers a health threat. The consumption figure for the United States is about 2.3 gallons."(Full Story)
The issue of abortion could be an obstacle for health care reform. A bloc of House Democrats are concerned that provisions in the health care legislation could lead to public funding for abortions, and they're threatening to vote against the bill. They're concerned that federal subsidies for people who cannot afford health insurance and the government insurance alternative could be used to pay for abortions. Under a 1967 law, federal funds cannot be used for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or to ensure the life of the mother). Democratic leaders backed a provision this summer that would allow people to use subsidies under the bill to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, but only funds from individual or employer health care premiums could go towards paying for an abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), one of the Democrats that feel the health care legislation would use federal money to pay for abortions, unsuccessfully tried this summer to insert a provision in the bill that would ban any health care plan that covered abortions from being included in the health care exchanges. The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said Stupak and others that hold the same stance are "attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market." (Full Story)
I think these anti-choice Democrats are crying foul against a direct link that isn't there. The provision these Democrats are unhappy about already specified that funding for abortions would have to come from individual or employer premiums. So the federal government isn't funding abortion. But these Democrats (and Republicans, of course) say that the federal government is helping people to buy a health plan, and that health plan might have coverage for abortion, and so the federal government is paying for abortion. There is a difference between the federal government providing subsidies and access to insurance, and the government providing funding for abortion. This is not a direct link. The federal government is providing the means for those to get health coverage. If an individual decides on a certain plan that covers abortions and if they one day make the personal decision to get an abortion, that is their personal choice. The government was not involved in nor endorsed that personal decision. The government provides a lot of assistance to many, many Americans. Everyone is given some assistance or benefits by the government whether they acknowledge it or not. So is the government directly accountable for every decision that people make? The government provides Pell Grants to students. Let's say a student, with the financial assistance of the government, goes to school to become a doctor. This student decides to become a doctor that provides abortions. Is the government paying for abortions? Should there be a provision that to receive a Pell Grant you're restricted from going into any field that would result in you providing abortions? Ridiculous.
Everyone in the United States has the right to get an abortion. They also should have the right to an insurance plan that offers that coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment