Originally Posted by snowbunny

Can we have a reality check here?

Most of us on this site are by self-selection more highly educated and paid than the average worker in ANY country. Our personal experiences are likely to be the *best* a country has to offer rather than the average or the worst.

For those lucky (and yes, I said *lucky*) enough to have been born into a family and a culture that provided them with all the necessities and many of the luxuries, including health care and education that has enabled us to thrive.

However, in the US, there are MILLIONS of people who work from dawn til dusk and beyond who are living at or below the poverty level. They do not get any sick time, holiday time, or maternity leave. They cannot afford to save for a rainy day -- every day is a rainy day. They can't get a better job -- they don't have the necessary skills and they can't pay to acquire them.

FMLA provides for twelve weeks of *unpaid* leave but it does not apply to workers who work at companies with less than 50 workers. This is the ONLY federally mandated leave and it isn't even available to all workers. During this time, in addition to not being paid, the worker must PAY his/her health insurance premiums -- a hefty cost with no income.

Tracy -- your complacency about all of this is typical of Americans, not atypical. That's why, however, you're feeling the heat from people who believe that there are some very minimal but fundamental rights that residents of a wealthy country should have. We are the ONLY developed nation to not offer universal health care. We are at the bottom of all tables when it comes to infant mortality and maternity leave. This is abominable. It's one level above slavery; it's non-agricultural sharecropping. To the rest of the civilised world we look like uncaring heartless screw-the-poor bastards.

Instead of asking "why should we provide decent social benefits to all residents" ask "why shouldn't we"?

Originally Posted by snowbunny

Can we have a reality check here?
................
Instead of asking "why should we provide decent social benefits to all residents" ask "why shouldn't we"?

Originally Posted by snowbunny

Can we have a reality check here?

Most of us on this site are by self-selection more highly educated and paid than the average worker in ANY country. Our personal experiences are likely to be the *best* a country has to offer rather than the average or the worst.

For those lucky (and yes, I said *lucky*) enough to have been born into a family and a culture that provided them with all the necessities and many of the luxuries, including health care and education that has enabled us to thrive.

However, in the US, there are MILLIONS of people who work from dawn til dusk and beyond who are living at or below the poverty level. They do not get any sick time, holiday time, or maternity leave. They cannot afford to save for a rainy day -- every day is a rainy day. They can't get a better job -- they don't have the necessary skills and they can't pay to acquire them.

FMLA provides for twelve weeks of *unpaid* leave but it does not apply to workers who work at companies with less than 50 workers. This is the ONLY federally mandated leave and it isn't even available to all workers. During this time, in addition to not being paid, the worker must PAY his/her health insurance premiums -- a hefty cost with no income.

Tracy -- your complacency about all of this is typical of Americans, not atypical. That's why, however, you're feeling the heat from people who believe that there are some very minimal but fundamental rights that residents of a wealthy country should have. We are the ONLY developed nation to not offer universal health care. We are at the bottom of all tables when it comes to infant mortality and maternity leave. This is abominable. It's one level above slavery; it's non-agricultural sharecropping. To the rest of the civilised world we look like uncaring heartless screw-the-poor bastards.

Instead of asking "why should we provide decent social benefits to all residents" ask "why shouldn't we"?

Originally Posted by Tracym

Sorry, but that's goofy. Family Medical Leave act guarantees 3 months. And if she's that distressed (understandably) she could get medical leave based on depression.

Originally Posted by Bob

Aye...but it's unpaid...and only enforceable if your employer has over x amount of people, 50 I believe...so for many, it's a moot point.

And bereavement policy is generally crap, I'm lucky that my place is pretty good, especially after what happened to one of the guys son. But over where the missus used to work, bereavement only included immediate relatives - spouse/kids for 5 days leave, everyone else was 2 days...and we're talking the biggest credit card provider in the US, not some small little outfit.

Originally Posted by snowbunny

Can we have a reality check here?

Most of us on this site are by self-selection more highly educated and paid than the average worker in ANY country. Our personal experiences are likely to be the *best* a country has to offer rather than the average or the worst.

For those lucky (and yes, I said *lucky*) enough to have been born into a family and a culture that provided them with all the necessities and many of the luxuries, including health care and education that has enabled us to thrive.

However, in the US, there are MILLIONS of people who work from dawn til dusk and beyond who are living at or below the poverty level. They do not get any sick time, holiday time, or maternity leave. They cannot afford to save for a rainy day -- every day is a rainy day. They can't get a better job -- they don't have the necessary skills and they can't pay to acquire them.

FMLA provides for twelve weeks of *unpaid* leave but it does not apply to workers who work at companies with less than 50 workers. This is the ONLY federally mandated leave and it isn't even available to all workers. During this time, in addition to not being paid, the worker must PAY his/her health insurance premiums -- a hefty cost with no income.

Tracy -- your complacency about all of this is typical of Americans, not atypical. That's why, however, you're feeling the heat from people who believe that there are some very minimal but fundamental rights that residents of a wealthy country should have. We are the ONLY developed nation to not offer universal health care. We are at the bottom of all tables when it comes to infant mortality and maternity leave. This is abominable. It's one level above slavery; it's non-agricultural sharecropping. To the rest of the civilised world we look like uncaring heartless screw-the-poor bastards.

Instead of asking "why should we provide decent social benefits to all residents" ask "why shouldn't we"?

Originally Posted by Bob

Aye...but it's unpaid...and only enforceable if your employer has over x amount of people, 50 I believe...so for many, it's a moot point.

And bereavement policy is generally crap, I'm lucky that my place is pretty good, especially after what happened to one of the guys son. But over where the missus used to work, bereavement only included immediate relatives - spouse/kids for 5 days leave, everyone else was 2 days...and we're talking the biggest credit card provider in the US, not some small little outfit.

Originally Posted by penguinsix

I have never believed anything that has to be provided to me by another is a 'right'. I was born with rights--they were not given to me by a government or others, but existed because I was human. I have never believed in forcing another person to provide something to me--it is tantamout to me taking away his rights.

Then again, maybe that's what makes the US not the UK....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, if you want to talk about whether there should be a 'benefit' I'm all ears. But considering it a 'right' is a non-starter.

Originally Posted by Tracym

Tons of paid time off isn't a U.S. thing, that's true.
...........Again it's the thing - do you want to pay taxes, and then get it back (paid time off etc.) if you need it? Or do you want to be responsible on your own for saving for such a contingency.............The thing is, all this money and benefits don't come out of nowhere. If you make the employers pay them - the cost of goods and services increase. If you have the government pay them, taxes increase.

Which is fine, if that's what the people want. Or, the argument is I think, you keep more of your own (paying less taxes and for goods/services) and save it up. Then are responsible for taking care of that kind of thing yourself, resorting to government help only in the case of long-term disability or some such..........

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl

Wasn't it Poppy who recently had a problem with bereavement leave? She'd had to go back to the UK because her father was dying and due to the funeral arrangements stayed for 2 weeks (I think). When she got back she was told she would be fired if she took any more time of this year.

Originally Posted by Tracym

Again it's the thing - do you want to pay taxes, and then get it back (paid time off etc.) if you need it? Or do you want to be responsible on your own for saving for such a contingency.

Obviously the majority of the brits here seem to want the former. Which is fair enough.

Apparently so far the majority of the US has not agreed.

Originally Posted by Tracym

Still sounds like a crappy company, on the face of it anyway.

It did make me think though - why doesn't the FMLA not apply to small companies (which I had forgotten).

And why is a big company more likely to pay for that kind of leave (I'm not saying always, just more likely).

When I think about it, a large company could probably absorb the costs without too much impact.

But if you have a small employer - say a mom/pop shop with 5 employees just for example - if he had give an employee a long-term paid leave, he would then be having to pay someone to replace them. So in effect, you'd be directly taking the money out of his pocket, to give to the other guy.

So should the employer be responsible for the things that happen to people, or should the people themselves? Or more accurately, where's the line?

Originally Posted by Tracym

Still sounds like a crappy company, on the face of it anyway.

It did make me think though - why doesn't the FMLA not apply to small companies (which I had forgotten).

And why is a big company more likely to pay for that kind of leave (I'm not saying always, just more likely).

When I think about it, a large company could probably absorb the costs without too much impact.

But if you have a small employer - say a mom/pop shop with 5 employees just for example - if he had give an employee a long-term paid leave, he would then be having to pay someone to replace them. So in effect, you'd be directly taking the money out of his pocket, to give to the other guy.

So should the employer be responsible for the things that happen to people, or should the people themselves? Or more accurately, where's the line?

Originally Posted by Bob

It's all about money...they don't think longterm morale for people, very little done to keep employee loyalty, though the employer expects it at every turn.

The line should be, the government take up some slack for people that have having a crap time of things with the taxes that they pay.