Response to Swine Flu school closures: Webinars? Try Paid Sick Days
Posted August 25th, 2009 by Katie BethellOn Monday, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan released a statement calling on schools to “ensure instruction continues should the virus cause high absenteeism or school closings” that result from H1N1 (Swine Flu) outbreaks.
Duncan suggested schools should evaluate what materials they have available for at-home learning, such as distributing recorded classes on podcasts and DVDs; creating take-home packets with up to 12 weeks of printed class material; or holding live classes via conference calls or “webinars.”
Webinars?!? I’m hip to the groove that we should keep kids learning, but the Secretary of Education needs a huge reality check. The Department of Labor reported that over 68% school aged children have all parents working outside the home. That means that when schools close, or when kids are sick, the first, and most important question parents have is not “how do I make sure my child gets her math lesson” but instead is, “Who is going to take care of my 6 year old today when I have to work?!”
Secretary Duncan needs to see the big picture. If he wants to reduce the number of days that children miss out on learning due to illness, step one is to reduce the risk of that illness’ transmission.
Paid Sick Days are critical to making this happen. As Dr. Anita Barry of the Boston Public Health Commission points out:
“For some parents… if they don’t show up at work, they don’t get paid, and people may already be on the economic margins,” Barry says. “So parents were desperate to get some of these children back in school.” As a result, there were many sick, contagious kids in Boston classrooms this spring.
If the Secretary Duncan wants to offer real help and support to parents, he should publicly support the Healthy Families Act. This Act will allow working people to earn paid sick days that they can use to care for themselves or their children when they are sick. Paid Sick Days not only benefit families, they also save businesses money by keeping workers healthy and productive.
By setting a minimum standard for employer-provided paid sick days, we make sure that every working parent will be able to keep the flu out of schools so they don’t have to close.
23 Comments
I know that it’s easy to say “cut back on the non-essentials and you can afford…”, “your family comes first…”, Take a really good look around, people are hurting. Mothers are going back to work, not because they can’t do with out their weekly manicure! Our families have to eat. Some of our husbands have lost jobs, some of our families small businesses have failed or are failing. STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE WE ARE PUTTING OUR SELFISH WANTS FIRST.
[Reply]
Trish Reply:
September 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Please try to remember that for every employee that calls in sick, someone else has to do that person’s job. That might mean more work for someone who is already there, but in today’s world the workers are already stretched by layoffs and the need to do more work than ever before. So, now you have to call someone else in to cover. If you pay the sick employee and then someone to come in, your staffing costs just doubled. Do it for the week that the school wants the child to stay out.
If you are already struggling, how long can you afford to pay extra staff before you have to start swinging the layoff axe again?
[Reply]
I love that Arne thinks all children have access to iPods and the internet! There are SCHOOLS in some communities that don’t even have computers or school nurses!
And he thinks an ill child is going to do school work while trying to heal……well.
Some have mentioned the schools teaching
kids how to be healthy, HA! They are too busy trying not to leave any one behind-even if they SHOULD be left behind. (It’s like playing soccer and not keeping score so no one’s feelings get hurt when the other team wins.) And the health education that does exist in the schools is more focused on preventing teen pregnancies and mono than keeping generally heathy.
[Reply]
August 30, 2009 at 9:54 am by Lynna SpencerLet’s see, auto insurance covers the acts of the driver-not the car. Health insurance is there to help you pay for health care, which should include proventive medicine. If it did cover preventive medicine they would have fewer sick claims! It’s rediculous that insurance costs so much and we hardly get anything for it. We barely get a teeth cleaning (preventive medicine) every year. Wait ’till you get sick and have to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars out of pocket just to meet you deductible. Washing your hands is not enough of a preventive measure to keep people from getting sick, we need education, the medical community, insurance and the participation of the community to help cut down the spread of more than just the flu. So no, saying that health insurance should cover preventive health is not like saying oil changes should be covered by auto insurance.
[Reply]
Maryann Westfall Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@Lynna Spencer, Traditional health insurance is designed to insure an individual against health costs that the average person cannot afford, in the unlikely event that they had a serious illness. This would be for things like cancer treatments, surgeries, organ transplants, etc. Based on actuarials, statistics and our own common sense, it would be impractical for us to save up for any of these. Since many people pay a good bit towards this insurance, and don’t normally need cancer treatment or an organ transplant, they tend to forget its purpose, and want to use it whenever possible to get something out of it. But that is not its purpose.
For preventive health care and minor medical treatments, there are the newer health spending accounts — basically, savings that can be used for any health-related items. Many self-employed people have these, but they are available for anybody who wants to participate. Many insurance companies offer additional dental and eye plans that include preventive maintenance. Another way to manage the cost of preventive care is to open a personal savings account at a bank, and use it for self-specified items such as dental appointments. Not only do you keep whatever money is in the account if you don’t spend it, but you may even earn interest!
Like health insurance, auto insurance is designed to insure against unexpected expensive losses. It is not intended for prevention. Thus, you would not be able to pay for an oil change, or NoDoz, or a car seat with it. And it does not cover the acts of the driver (state, local and federal law covers that). It covers damage to the driver, the car, personal property, others, depending on what components an individual purchases in the policy.
[Reply]
Lynna Spencer Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@Maryann Westfall, What do you think auto insurance is for?!?! You think the car is going to wreck itself?!? Acts of the driver refers to those unforseen accidents that cause those ‘unexpected expensive losses’-and the law does NOT “cover” or prevent people from doing stupid stuff in their cars. It only says you not supposed to do certain things and doesn’t pay the victims in an accident. Yea, I know a tree limb could fall on my car or hail could ding the hell out of it but auto insurance should not be compared to health insurance. They are completely different things. And they have auto insurance policies that DO cover preventive maintenance on you car, they’re called extended warranties. Do you think people are gonna do something to cause themselve to get cancer or require an organ transplant on purpose-no, but they do drive idiotically every day-on purpose.
If they are insuring AGAINST illness, wouldn’t it make sense for insurance to cover preventive health care? If they did, the cost of insurance would go down and more people could afford it (ours is $1500 a month for 4 people) because they would have fewer sick claims-this is one reason they don’t want regulation and don’t want to cover preventive measures. And what happens to the money you pay every month and don’t use-does your family get a rebate at the end of your life for unused premiums-no it goes to employees who are given bonuses for denying claims and keeping people from using thier benefits that they’ve paid for through thier premiums. My auto insurance sends me a check at the end of each year, it’s not a refund but more of a dividend-liken to investment dividends-health insurance could easily do this too. oh, wait, their loobyists and employees would loose out on those bonuses.
Another rip-off in insurance is that my very healthy family has to pay the same premiums as the unhealty, smoking, drinking, won’t take care of themselves
people next door! If I’m a good driver, I get a discount-how ’bout if I’m healthy I get a discount. Oops, again someone looses a bonus if I’m not paying as much as the unhealthy man next door!
Again, we need education, the health AND insurance industries and the participation of communities to help prevent the spread of flu, colds, pinkeye, etc. Paid sick days are the norm in other ‘civilized’ countries-and we’ve had to work hard just to get maternity leave for mothers. It all boils down to ME, ME, ME! You can’t have a decent life because I want more!
[Reply]
Maryann Westfall Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:11 am
@Lynna Spencer, There are so many counterpoints, confusion about the problems and solutions offered, lack of understanding of how insurance works, and new arguments added to the original posts, that it is non-productive to continue this thread. Suffice it to say that we disagree on paid sick days.
Anita Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 3:15 am
We’ve noticed comments coming from your IP address that use different names and email addresses. This practice is known as sockpuppetry. It is a bannable offense because it undermines the trust required for honest conversation that we work to nurture on our blog. If we notice another instance of sockpuppetry from your IP address, we will ban comments from that IP address. Sockpuppetry violates our website’s Terms of Use. Thank you for understanding.
ME, ME, ME! Society is so outwardly driven and focused on achievement and profit that we forget about preventive measures in all aspects of our lives. Paid sick days would be a great! In addition to that, preventive health care should be encouraged by our health providers, covered by insurance and taught in schools (they don’t have “Health” classes in the schools here anymore). We should all take a step back and return to taking care of ourselves, our families and our friends and neighbors. In the end, we’d all be a much happier, healthier society.
[Reply]
Maryann Westfall Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
@Lynna Spencer, “Preventive health should be covered by health insurance.” Isn’t that like saying an oil change should be covered by your auto insurance?
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 9:56 am
@Maryann Westfall, Let’s see, auto insurance covers the acts of the driver-not the car. Health insurance is there to help you pay for health care, which should include proventive medicine. If it did cover preventive medicine they would have fewer sick claims! It’s rediculous that insurance costs so much and we hardly get anything for it. We barely get a teeth cleaning (preventive medicine) every year. Wait ’till you get sick and have to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars out of pocket just to meet you deductible. Washing your hands is not enough of a preventive measure to keep people from getting sick, we need education, the medical community, insurance and the participation of the community to help cut down the spread of more than just the flu. So no, saying that health insurance should cover preventive health is not like saying oil changes should be covered by auto insurance.
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 8:15 am
@Maryann Westfall, no misunderstanding of how health insurance works here-just a desire for the ENTIRE health care enterprise to work better for what we pay for it. Yes-people in other countries who receive paid sick days, government paid health care, better schools, and a host of other ‘benefits’, pay for it with higher taxes. But friends who live in theose countries LIKE it. I notice your family owns a business-I too, own a business. Of which, I am the sole employee-and have it much easier when it comes to caring for a sick child. I work from my home. I’m also one of the lucky few that can afford my $1500/month health insurance and to actually have other back up plans for unexpected healthcare expenses. But I also think it would benefit everyone if we had some mechenism in place to assure workers were able to care for a loved one without worrying about loosing their job(s).
And I applaud you for offering health insurance and paid sick days to your employees-but not every one is so lucky.
[Reply]
Like so many other demands these days, people feel that they are entitled to paid sick days. While it would be nice to be paid while at home sick, or caring for the sick, it is nobody’s responsibility (or business) but my own on how to manage my family’s health. Paid sick days should be a perk that businesses can use to attract better-performing employees, not a mandated benefit in order to do business in America.
It is sadly true that many American families have painted themselves into a corner by committing to lifestyles that require both parents to be wage earners. The solution is to change your lifestyle so that you are not dependent on two incomes — size down your home, stop buying on credit, scale back consumption. Also, support one wage earner’s effort to improve their earnings. Then you can better handle what life might unexpectedly throw at you, like the flu.
[Reply]
Katie Bethell Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@Maryann Westfall, Thanks for your comment! I’m wondering what you think about the public health considerations? Today, 74% of people in the food service industry aren’t allowed any paid sick days. And, nearly half of stomach “flu”-related outbreaks caused by the norovirus are linked to ill food-service workers.
I think paid sick days have a much deeper importance for the economic security and health of our country than just a perk.
Would love to know what you think about the public health angle.
[Reply]
Maryann Westfall Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
@Katie Bethell, You can probably guess at my position about this administration’s health care reform proposal. It’s aim is to empower government and redistribute wealth. The govt. does not need to provide health care for all — it just needs to assist at-risk groups (because the private sector can’t or won’t). For everybody else, it’s a choice (prioritized by lifestyle, among other things). There are already two govt. programs in place to help at-risk groups — Medicare (for the elderly on a fixed income) and Medicaid (for low-income). Additionally, there are many “lesser” state and federal programs to help localized specific groups (pregnant single women, handicapped, substance abuse, Red Cross, March of Dimes, etc.), many without income guidelines; many supported by contributions from private donors. (Just this past Saturday, $1.3 million was raised for the Aflac Center for children with cancer.) Finally, there are hospitals and doctors who are bound by the Hippocratic oath to aid, no matter what the economic status. If govt. were truly devoted to aiding those in need, it would repair the govt. programs already in place. It would also empower the private sector so they can continue to contribute to the solution; not bind them with narrow legislation that ties their hands and unilaterally provides for everyone, even those that choose to make health care or savings a low priority. In the end, one must decide if government can and should ”fix the problem” by forcing everybody onto one new program, or if the free market can and should continue to improve its quality and delivery of a world-class care system. Government can’t do it — it already has a proven track record of abysmal and costly mismanagement.
Is the sick food service staff to which you are referring the cafeteria workers in our government schools? You’re right, epidemics are a concern to our national health. The example you give is probably already legislated by OSHA — I’m pretty sure since they serve food, those workers should NOT be at work, regardless of whether or not they get paid sick days. And they should know this before they accept the job. So, if your concern is about yourself or your children being exposed to contaminated food, there are ways in which you can take personal responsibility to manage that, and ways that the school can (and should) manage that. If your concern is about the sick worker not affording to miss a day of work, as I’ve mentioned before, they have choices about where they work, and what perks that employer provides.
We all need to be prepared for the eventuality of illness (whether we are sick, caring for somebody sick, or avoiding exposure to illness from a colleague). Do we prepare for it by forcing others to put contingency plans in place, or do we prepare for it by setting up our own contingency plans?
[Reply]
Laura L A Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@Maryann Westfall, Many families I know who have two working parents can not simply scale back on consumption so that one parent can stay home. That’s a middle class idea. The working poor are at two (or more) jobs to pay the rent, pay for food, pay medical costs (since many aren’t covered by a company’s health insurance and they “make too much” for public assistance), etc. Many of these families are living pay check to pay check, not because they are spending on indulgences, but because they are taking care of extended family members, or the good-paying jobs are now overseas, or they made bad decisions in the past, or a host of other reasons.
Whatever the reasons parents work, if we truly value families, we would make sure to support time needed to spend caring for children whenever we can. Frankly, we can’t afford not to.
[Reply]
Maryann Westfall Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
@Laura L A, You are right: if we value families, we would make sure to support time needed to spend caring for family members. But the “we” is not government; it is you, your spouse, your employer, your neighbors, your friends, your relatives (and MY spouse, employer, friends, relatives, etc.).
One person’s indulgence is another’s necessity (and vice versa). So I can’t answer to your claim that you cannot scale back on consumption. Am I to believe that you are hopelessly without the ability to improve your condition unless the govt. forces your employer (or your husband’s employer) to pay for sick days?
Remember when there was no such thing as child care centers? Because of market demand (and us working moms), many businesses provided them. Govt. did not need to mandate them. What about paid vacations? Insurance? Fitness club memberships? All perks that businesses offer when they can. And it’s not mandated. Why do you suppose they do that? The same is true for paid sick days. When private business sees that it can afford to pay for sick days, and it needs to offer this as a benefit to attract workers, then it will be made available. Until then (and especially in the next coming years because of the costly solutions to recent economic woes), we need to prepare to take care of ourselves instead of demanding that others do it for us.
P.S. This is not a class issue. It’s about where you work, and how you spend your money, no matter what income level. Making minimum wage, roommates, mac-n-cheese. Been there. Done that. Got beyond it. Many businesses are taking away perks because they just can’t afford them. Our produce distribution company offers health insurance and paid sick days to all its employees — most of whom are low wage-earners. If you think the cost of food is expensive now, wait until the government forces our business to pay an additional tax on this new govt. proposed plan. Because of our tight profit margin, we’ll have to pass on that 3% increase or we’ll have to close our doors. Then, 40 families with no paid sick days AND no income!
[Reply]
I am all for paid sick days, and I realize that is one of the momsrising campaigns, but I also think a lot of people who do get paid sick days, don’t take them when they should because it will not go over well with their boss or clients. However, if the White House and CDC sent the message of not only “keep your kids home” but also, “stay home from work to care for them if you can, and let your employees stay home from work to care for their sick children,” then it would instantly become more acceptable to take a day off for this reason. Of course, then they would have to address the fact that many people don’t get paid sick days, and maybe that’s why they don’t say it.
[Reply]
Katie Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
@Christina, check out my blog post from last week http://www.momsrising.org/blog/duh-employers-let-sick-workers-stay-home/ for more about what the CDC is recommending for employers! you’re totally right on!
[Reply]
Ridiculous! Duncan should be addressing how the public school system should be educating kids to be healthy. How to eat well and exercise, washing hands, flu prevention, etc. Oh, I forgot-there’s no time for that because kids need to learn the “standards” and be tested, tested, tested.
[Reply]
August 27, 2009 at 11:12 am by Colleen KimberlinWebinars? OK, my understanding is that this is a tough flu. Does anyone really think our kids, with high fever, aches and miserable will actually be able to sit in front of a computer and learn through a webinar. COME ON!
How about better prevention?
And the comments about who will be home with these kids are right on. When are we going to pull our country up to the standards of almost every other country and EVERY non-3rd world country and implement REAL family values?
[Reply]
August 26, 2009 at 10:44 am by W WentzPaul, it is interesting to know how H1N1 came into existence, but what we all need to realize is that if it wasn’t H1N1 this year, it would be another flu or virus in a coming year. We’ve heard for many years that a big flu outbreak is just around the corner. And we’ve dragged our heels in preparing our school system for handling the continuing education of our children in this circumstance. As the author notes, most importantly we need to focus on how to keep the virus from spreading. Even if H1N1 doesn’t become a big killer – we need to use this as a warning to get prepared for the next virus.
[Reply]
August 25, 2009 at 8:56 pm by paul siemeringvery nice- I agree. unfortunately, however I’m afraid old Arne is too clueless to help. he’s there cause he’s obama’s basketball buddy. in fact i’m pretty sure I heard him say “heck of a job Arne”
what i’d really like to suggest though is a special lesson plan to be handed out nation wide. it would we would teach
First Smithfield, the biggest porkers in the world, was having problems in the u.s. so they decided to move to less regulation in Mexico.
next, under the terms of NAFTA, force fed to mexico by Clinton, Mexico COULD NOT REFUSE.
so Smithfield opens this loathsome and disgusting million pig feedlot
in Mexico
then practicing their widely criticized methods, for which they’d left the states, conditions were such that the hogs developed this H1N1 flu thing
which is known in Mexico alternately as NAFTA flu or Smithfield flu.
think what a useful lesson this might be!
[Reply]
Leave a Comment