this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
977 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12178 readers
2183 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
people should use all of their sick days
Why do you even have an allocation of sick days? It's not really a concept anywhere I've worked (in the UK).
I’m in the US and I get 3 paid sick days a year. Anything more and I don’t get paid PLUS I get a point. After 8 points I lose my job. We come to work sick unless we are in the hospital.
If Americans knew what workers rights were they'd be very angry to realise they have none.
Most Americans still have their hears shoved so far up their asses that they think all of Europe is a freedomless third world region where the governments silence all criticism and doctors still use leeches or something. Just completely delusional and in denial.
Of course most Americans haven't even left their own state, never mind gone to Europe to experience it themselves.
i mean... i would like to go to europe, but where on earth do i find the time off work and the money to do it?
that americans are not better traveled is not entirely the fault of their attitudes. it's easier for your average european to travel internationally for a number if reasons, both practical and systemic.
edit - for many americans, international travel is a privilege.
You're right, it is a great privilege. I've never left the U.S. either. But I'm also not a fucking dumbass MURICAMAN that thinks a $5000 bill for a broken arm and 3 sick days a year is something to be grateful for.
I'm able to see that my country is super fucked up and that mlst of Europe seem to do most things better.
No, we have worker's rights -- not enough, but you do have rights. Federal and state labor law covers a surprisingly broad number of topics.
Shitty employers want you to think you don't have rights, because they want to continue to illegally exploit you.
https://www.fairwork.gov.au
Look up what you could have and tell me if it actually compares.
Like to have some more of those rights? Consider joining a union.
This is because, so far, it’s up to the state’s to regulate, if they even do.
Ex: in Colorado, the minimum PTO is 48 hours per year.
This is an American misapprehension. Even in your most worker friendly states you have extremely sub-par workers rights for a first world country.
But it’s also a misunderstanding of how the US is governed and regulated. It’s setup more like Europe than people realize.
And yes, we’re fully aware of how much most of us are getting screwed on worker’s rights for time off. People in other countries don’t think we’re aware but we are. The question becomes, how do you fight for more rights? Our politicians absolutely suck. That’s the main issue. The two party system doesn’t work but we can’t agree what to do about it.
Strike, fight, bleed, die.
We have ours because us and our ancestors already fought and died against our oppressors to get them.
You have two choices, die for your overlords, or die for your rights.
That’s an option but it would have to be something so heinous, to push us to unite, I couldn’t fathom it. Nothing, so far, has pushed us to that point.
Think about how many mass shootings we’ve had and that still doesn’t unite us. The issue is more complex than our European friends understand.
That is fucking insane. The burden for everyone who gets sincerely sick and is horrible fucked. Its just sad.
My last job had no sick days. I would get no pay for the day and a point, and at 6 points you're gone.
The job I have now ALSO has no sick days, but at least the attendance policy is so lax I can literally skip 2/3 shifts and stay employed. Still no pay, but it's a bit less shitty than my last job.
The bar is so fucking low I don't think ground penetrating radar could find it.
Might be worth checking the flowchart to see if you're eligible for FMLA leave. If you are and they're denying you sick leave The Department of Labor would love to hear about it -- they don't screw around.
I read FMLA as Fuck My Life America.
(Not American)
American multinationals HR "We don't dispute your illness but we must think of the commercial value" fucking cunts
I work in Spain, we don't have sick days. If the doctor says we are not apt to work, we take a leave intil the doctor says so. Indefinitely. No maximum. As long as the doctor says.
This limit thing is so weird. Yeah, you can use them as vacation of you are healthy but that's an abuse and then when you need them you will be vulnerable without days. It's better to have infinite days, to be used only when you are actually sick, as stated by your doctor.
I'm always amazed by how Americans in particular (sorry if you're not, I'm assuming) tend to go from one end of the spectrum to the other without any middle stops in common sense land. I once had a US friend go straight from "we have bad health care" to "we need a violent revolution" with no consideration to... you know, maybe good health care?
I mean, from my perspective it seems pretty obvious that you should only take as many sick days as you need, but you should take all the ones you need, to an unlimited total amount.
Like, that seems so simple. It's how it's always worked in the multiple countries I've lived in. You're sick? You call in sick. You need to be off for multiple days? You ask your doctor to officially declare that you're sick. The company is taking a hit? The government covers your wages during your long term sickness.
This works. We know this works. It's obvious this works.
We don't believe that the government will let us have good Healthcare without revolution at this point. One side violently opposes it and the other dangles it like a carrot on a stick for votes, with no intention of actually providing it because if they actually improved things somewhat they'd lose a precious bargaining chip. This song and dance has been going on for as long as I've been alive. We're losing hope here.
See? But that's the thought process that I find baffling. Because I can't find an American who doesn't claim to be dissatisfied, so... how do you land in that mix of conformism, where you don't think you can take political action of any sort to address it, but also extremism, where you think the logical endgame is full on armed conflict?
How do you massage a whole continent-sized country's psyche into just sitting there and taking it right up until the point where you start shooting people? I'm not even French and even I can see the glaring hole full of mass protesting right in the middle of that crap.
And hey, not to spoil any big secrets, but the US is literally the only democracy that hasn't rewritten its constitution fundamentally since its creation. You guys know that's allowed, right? Go argue for a proportional system or a parliamentary system or something. I mean, you guys could try doing something at all before deciding that it's full-on purge time.
Because if we try to change anything, we run the (very high) risk of losing our jobs, then our homes, and ending up on the streets. If you have a way to get over 300 million people all on the same page for a general strike, who are all willing to risk losing their income, please let me know.
I don't think this really addresses the question. Revolution provides even more of an economic disruption?
Keep in mind the OP is not an American. They don't have the context.
I'm American and it's never made much sense to me, either.
Afaik it's fundementally 5 forces.
Finally, this unwillingness to be the first to bite the bullet. Inevitably, the first people to start off these grassroots movements are going to get the shortest end of the stick. They are people sacrificing their free time and economic security for a movement that begs others to do the same.
It's a massive risk.
FWIW, I do recognize all of those from the outside looking in.
I also recognize that you have so few protections that action is riskier than it is here, where protesting can't be legally retaliated against and there are actual labor protections in place that make effecting change easier. Which in turn is part of the expectation that the government should proactively help you when you need it.
But still, it does seem like there should be a middle point somewhere where you get rid at least of point one and you tip over point three, right? That seems like it'd happen way before stuff gets really violent.
But then, culturally you guys fantasize about violently confronting the government since day one, which I guess is what happens when your foundational myth is also a colonial-revolutionary myth.
It is pretty messed up, though.
We are protesting. So far we've been at best ignored, and at worst...
You've probably seen what our police are like.
Okay, so, I'm going to ramble a lot because this is something that causes me a lot of anxiety and stress, but I'll try and explain this, there are a lot of Americans who support better practices and would happily vote for politicians who claim to support them, and then often do, but the politicians often go back on their word, or at the very least, are stopped by the rest of their party or the opposing team (yes, team). Why do politicians go back on their word, or only attempt to follow through when the vote is stacked against them? Because often the things that will improve the lives of Americans are things that will go against corporate interests. Don't be fooled, Democrats are bought and paid for by corporations too, the things the implement are usually things that will have little to no corporate cost. However, the moment you start talking about things like higher corporate taxes, taxes on the rich, public healthcare, etc, they act like they have no idea what you're talking about. They basically serve the purpose of not being Republicans, while the Republicans serve the purpose of not being Democrats.
Okay, but at least Democrats aren't running headlong towards fascism, right? Yes, however now you have the issue where many states have the votes rigged in favor of one party, typically republican. I live in a state that should have a significantly higher number of democrat representatives, both in the state and federal legislature. However, because the voting districts are gerrymandered to hell, it means Republicans get a significant advantage. Then, you have the issue where republicans are intentionally making kids idiots because they know it increases the chances of them being future republicans. You have the problem where your only choices are the politicians the Democrats or Republicans put in front of you.
You could try and start a new party, but remember that for every vote you capture, that's possibly one less vote going to the only major party who doesn't want a 4th Reich; because you probably won't be capturing any republican votes. You have to be certain that you're going to capture enough votes to beat the Republicans and the Democrats, otherwise the Republicans will probably win and try their damnedest to implement Project 2025. To steal a phrase, "if you're going to kill the king, you'd better not miss". Everything has to go right, which means it won't.
So protest, right? Well, that only kinda works. The moment a protest runs into corporate interests, it hits a brick wall. You can be sure that every corporation will immediately start funnelling money into shady political groups who'll use it to spread FUD and manufacture bad actors so the protest loses public appeal. You can try and upgrade the protest to a riot and commit property damage, but that'll only make you look bad and you'll struggle to find support from people. That means the likelyhood of a protest going well and having any real effect is pretty slim.
So... What else can you do at that point? These people have more money than God. Something like the top 40 richest people in the world have enough money that they could likely completely and permanently fix many of humanity's global issues, and still have billions to play with. Yet they don't.
Well, you can ban political contributions.
Over here you have a hard limit on how much money private citizens and corpos can contribute, no donation can be anonymous. You can't even sell merch or collect cash donations if you're a political party.
But a more interesting point you made is the perception of protests. You picture them as... well, US protests. You get a cute little march with people giving cops flowers and then it escalates to "riot", which is already on the other end of the going straight to violence spectrum I find so weird.
The escalation point of a protest in my mind is a strike (which, weirdly, your relatively rich media people just successfully and very publicly did, and are still doing). The next step after that is a general strike.
Sure, I hear that there is likely not enough public support for that in the US. You seem to see that as part of the system that prevents nonviolent action from being useful, but surely the lack of support discards the option of violent action as well, right? When you talk violent or revolutionary acts you also need public support. If people aren't willing to put real pressure in other ways you're also not going to round up the capitalists using sticks and handguns any time soon.
I'm not surprised at the sense of powerlessness, I'm surprised by how the notion that violence solves the powerlessness is so prevalent.
Chicken and egg problem. In order to ban political contributions, you would need to elect enough polititans who will vote for that against the corporate interests mentioned. Not just a majority if polititians either.
Because the high court has decided that political contributions are "speech", it would take a constitutional amendment to end them. That means 2/3 of both the upper and lower houses. Then, it has to get a majority in 3/4 of the state legislatures as well before actually taking effect.
For reference, in the last 41 years it hasn't been possible to do that for an amendment saying women have the same rights as men, something that runs into far less corporate opposition than ending ~~bribery~~ political contributions.
Yeah, no, your constitutional system is broken beyond repair.
That's not up for debate. Like I said above, every other democracy has done a new Constitution or a full on rework at some point. Americans are pretty unique in getting hung up on their foundational moment like that.
I mean, SC precedent can be altered eventually, but even the really obviously flawed design of the court in general is a constitutional issue with obvious improvements available.
But again, a new Constitution seems like a much lower bar than... you know, The Revolution.
i think a lot of us feel the problems are so entrenched, and any lower bar to change so inaccessible, nothing short of violence will create any significant change.
given how difficult it would be to (for example) change our constitution or end corporate political contributions through non-violent means, what's left? every part of our current system is self-reinforcing on the national level.
it doesn't help that the sentimental commitment to "our founding fathers" is equivalent to something like religious faith (see - christofascism, american nationalism) and/or national identity (because we don't have any other).
Did you just say the government pays regular citizens?? Where I come from that’s communism. Governments are only supposed to pay corporations like the good lord intended.
Well, no, they do. They pay your boss to pay you. Or they pay you instead of your boss. Either way your boss gets stuff, so... yay capitalism?
A common tactic for startups is to offer "unlimited days off" knowing that people won't take days off.
Best part for them is that because you don't have specific days to take off they don't have to pay you for them when you quit.
because I am a big gobshite, I always mention this. They ask for feedback about benefits in most companies, I always say, "yeah you say unlimited time off but I'm not allowed to take 365 consecutive days?"
two separate companies have changed it to "flexible time off" because of my inability to keep my trap shut
I don’t know if that’s reality though. Part of my new job’s compensation package that I negotiated in was unlimited days off. I’ve already taken a vacation I wouldn’t have been able to with my previous job. I know better than to abuse the privilege but the trade off of not getting it paid out on exit is already worth it for me.