America's flawed approach to sickleave is making the pandemic worse.
.c-editors-note:after{background-color:#000;content:"";display:block;height:1px;margin:32px auto;width:96px}.c-editors-note__text{font-family:AGaramondPro,Adobe Garamond Pro,Garamond,Georgia,serif;font-style:italic;margin:0;letter-spacing:0;line-height:24px}@media {.c-editors-note__text{font-size:20px;line-height:1.4}}.c-editors-note__label{font-family:AGaramondPro,Adobe Garamond Pro,Garamond,Georgia,serif;font-weight:700;font-style:italic}.
But the law excludes all sorts of employees. Large companies aren’t included in the law, and small companies can claim an exemption. Employers can supplement what’s required under the law with more expansive leave policies, but some companies are already ending the more generous leave policies that they put in place immediately after the coronavirus outbreak.
Under the FFCRA, employees can get time off only for a reason directly related to COVID-19, and the law exempts employers with more than 500 employees, likely because many large companies already offer paid sick days—though perhaps not two weeks’ worth. What’s more, companies with fewer than 50 employees can qualify for exemptions if it would “jeopardize the viability of the business.” This rips open a major loophole that could leave millions of workers without paid leave.
Sometimes, this process goes well—not all companies act in bad faith. Many employers treat their workers fairly and allow ample leave for emergencies. High-paying employers, in particular, seem to take medical and family emergencies in stride. If you run out of sick days, your company might let you take more unpaid time off, but still return to your job when you’re better. Not everyone who gets sick will get fired.
So, what if you’re soon forced to go back into the office, and in doing so, you get exposed to the virus and fall sick? Your main recourse is a worker’s compensation claim. But a successful worker’s comp claim rests on showing that you caught the coronavirus at work—something that can be nearly impossible to prove, says Michael Duff, a law professor at the University of Wyoming.
日本 最新ニュース, 日本 見出し
Similar News:他のニュース ソースから収集した、これに似たニュース記事を読むこともできます。
Social distancing and masks reduce risk of getting Covid-19, review findsThe 'most comprehensive study to date' found that physical distance and perhaps the use of a mask were the two best ways to prevent transmission of the novel coronavirus
続きを読む »
Anti-Racism Protests Versus COVID-19 Risk: 'I Wouldn't Weigh These Crises Separately'Many local officials fear a spike in COVID-19 cases amid protests across the U.S. But health experts, even as they urge caution, say they support the demonstrations — because racism itself also poses a dire health threat.
続きを読む »
Distancing and masks cut COVID-19 risk, says largest review of evidenceKeeping at least one metre apart and wearing face masks and eye protection are the best ways to cut the risk of COVID-19 infection, according to the largest review to date of studies on coronavirus disease transmission.
続きを読む »
American Seafoods confirms 86 crew on fishing trawler contracted COVID-19American Seafoods says 86 crew on fishing trawler have contracted COVID-19.
続きを読む »
Why The Covid-19 Pandemic Still Poses Significant Risks For ChildrenDr. Barry Bloom, who has fought infectious diseases around the world, discusses the impacts - both direct and indirect - that the Covid-19 pandemic will have on children around the world if timely interventions aren’t made.
続きを読む »
What wealthy independents, a key swing vote, think about Trump, Covid-19 and the economyMillionaires who identify as political independents are closer to the outlook of wealthy Democrats than wealthy Republicans on several key issues, according to the latest CNBC Millionaire Survey.
続きを読む »