The Employment Crisis

[rooster]

"those sick employees who infect others"

Why would the guy who doesn't get sick sue anyone?

Your reading comprehension is cute.

So the sick employee is supposed to sue?


“Why would the guy who doesn't get sick sue anyone?”
Because my original statement was
“So if one guy on my crew gets COVID and the rest are forced to quarantine”

as in during this “pandemic” people who potentially weren’t even sick were out of work with no pay because safety departments everywhere and in most companies forced a mandatory quarantine of anyone came into contact with someone who tested positive.

you didn’t answer this though, “You think the guy who doesn’t get sick days can sue someone without paying a lawyer thousands of dollars?”

ill patiently await a real answer

 

[DoggyDaddy]

you didn’t answer this though, “You think the guy who doesn’t get sick days can sue someone without paying a lawyer thousands of dollars?”

I think he missed "days" in your post.

 

[rooster]

I'll do you one better- "fellow servant doctrine".

But hey...worker comp.....maybe.

Interesting, never heard of this being applied in construction though where quite routinely a fellow employees actions cause someone else to be hurt.

 

[bwframe]

OMG, how did we ever live with the flu? Viruses, colds, allergies?

People get sick with random stuff all of the time. It's part of life.

 

[actaeon277]

OMG, how did we ever live with the flu? Viruses, colds, allergies?

People get sick with random stuff all of the time. It's part of life.

Well, the "powers" decided "this" was "different"

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Well, the "cowards" decided "this" was "their chance"

FIFY

 

[actaeon277]

FIFY

Little from column A
Little from column B.

 

[AtTheMurph]

So the sick employee is supposed to sue?


“Why would the guy who doesn't get sick sue anyone?”
Because my original statement was
“So if one guy on my crew gets COVID and the rest are forced to quarantine”

as in during this “pandemic” people who potentially weren’t even sick were out of work with no pay because safety departments everywhere and in most companies forced a mandatory quarantine of anyone came into contact with someone who tested positive.

you didn’t answer this though, “You think the guy who doesn’t get sick days can sue someone without paying a lawyer thousands of dollars?”

ill patiently await a real answer

The ones who became infected from a person who was not responsible enough to stay home,? Yes.

If he didn't stay home because he wasn't responsible enough to save enough to have an emergency fund? Yes.

The person who is sick and irresponsibly brings it to work and infects others should be sued by those he/she infects.

 

[Ark]

The ones who became infected from a person who was not responsible enough to stay home,? Yes.

If he didn't stay home because he wasn't responsible enough to save enough to have an emergency fund? Yes.

The person who is sick and irresponsibly brings it to work and infects others should be sued by those he/she infects.

Our economy would grind to a halt if people were allowed to sue their bosses and coworkers because they caught a sniffle at the office.

We have NEVER held individuals financially liable for getting a respiratory virus or transmitting it to someone else. It's lunacy. It would be impossible to have a functioning society.

 

[HoughMade]

"Fellow servant doctrine". Very old. An employee cannot sue his employer or fellow employee for on-the-job injury (except for in very limited circumstances).


and as to Worker Comp...good luck:

"(a) As used in this chapter, “occupational disease” means a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall not be compensable, except where such diseases follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section.

(b) A disease arises out of the employment only if there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all of the circumstances, a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease, and which can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, and which can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause, and which does not come from a hazard to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of the employment. The disease must be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee. The disease need not have been foreseen or expected but after its contraction it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence."

Ind. Code § 22-3-7-10

 

[Steve]

Effective June 19th, Indiana will join the growing number of states that are suspending the federal unemployment assistance program. This means that people who have been receiving $300 a week or more will no longer be collecting that amount. After living with it as a source of income for over a year now, they are facing a rude awakening. I have to believe that this action is going to result in an even more volatile atmosphere in the coming months. No money coming in, food prices going up, many family budgets already stretched to (and beyond) their limits, utility costs rising, and the general uncertainties about the future has to make for a disturbing recipe for this upcoming summer.

I realize that there is no easy solution to this problem, but after creating a large group of people who have become dependent on that income, is it really a good idea to cut them off "cold turkey"? Why not slowly reduce the amount over the next few months instead? How about matching what ever paycheck they can earn dollar for dollar up to a certain point?

Batten down the hatches boys, it could be a rough one.

 

[bwframe]

Wonder how much the scamdemic combined with the current administration has grown it's own entitlement class?


WIBC reporting that the next gov't "paycheck" after the unemployment runs out in June will be the child tax credit payments, supposedly in the mail in July?

Economist and UIndy Professor Concerned about Child Tax Credit's Impact on Indiana

STATEWIDE--If you are a parent, you can expect some extra money beginning July 15, as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rolls out an expanded tax break for millions of families known as the Child Tax Credit. Parents will get a monthly payment of as much as $300 per child for children 5 years...

www.wibc.com

“So the government is taking money from your pocket and putting it in your other pocket because 92% of the families are going to get a check as a result of this. I can’t fathom the reason behind this,” said Matt Will, economist and professor at the University of Indianapolis, in an interview Tuesday morning with 93 WIBC’s Tony Katz. “We’re doing it with a tax credit on just having children, so just giving birth gives you money from the government rather than having people work to get that money.”

 

[churchmouse]

Well, the "powers" decided "this" was "different"

And it was the next act in the playbook they have written in the drawer.

 

[grillak]

Effective June 19th, Indiana will join the growing number of states that are suspending the federal unemployment assistance program. This means that people who have been receiving $300 a week or more will no longer be collecting that amount. After living with it as a source of income for over a year now, they are facing a rude awakening. I have to believe that this action is going to result in an even more volatile atmosphere in the coming months. No money coming in, food prices going up, many family budgets already stretched to (and beyond) their limits, utility costs rising, and the general uncertainties about the future has to make for a disturbing recipe for this upcoming summer.

I realize that there is no easy solution to this problem, but after creating a large group of people who have become dependent on that income, is it really a good idea to cut them off "cold turkey"? Why not slowly reduce the amount over the next few months instead? How about matching what ever paycheck they can earn dollar for dollar up to a certain point?

Batten down the hatches boys, it could be a rough one.

i've been saying since day 1 that the responsible thing would have been to only compensate people who lost income up to what they would have earned after taxes. the general population did not need any extra money. the question i had was, if they were able to live off of $500/wk before the "pandemic" hit, why would they need $600 more a week?

as stated earlier in this thread, my crew & myself were considered essential and never lost a day of work (for which i am very grateful). through the generosity of the company & our customer we were able to still recieve our normal pay. we ONLY recieved our NORMAL pay.

none of my bills went unpaid, no missed car note or meals. i had to be just as responsible with the money i earned. so i don't see how people recieving sometimes double their normal pay for "free" should need a weaning period.

that is a slap in the face to the people who still had to be responsible with their earnings.

 

[grillak]

Wonder how much the scamdemic combined with the current administration has grown it's own entitlement class?


WIBC reporting that the next gov't "paycheck" after the unemployment runs out in June will be the child tax credit payments, supposedly in the mail in July?

Economist and UIndy Professor Concerned about Child Tax Credit's Impact on Indiana

STATEWIDE--If you are a parent, you can expect some extra money beginning July 15, as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rolls out an expanded tax break for millions of families known as the Child Tax Credit. Parents will get a monthly payment of as much as $300 per child for children 5 years...

www.wibc.com

“So the government is taking money from your pocket and putting it in your other pocket because 92% of the families are going to get a check as a result of this. I can’t fathom the reason behind this,” said Matt Will, economist and professor at the University of Indianapolis, in an interview Tuesday morning with 93 WIBC’s Tony Katz. “We’re doing it with a tax credit on just having children, so just giving birth gives you money from the government rather than having people work to get that money.”

i totally agree with this. i know of many "families who stand to bring in $1,200+/mo just because they have children. some have not worked a day in their life. a lot were just irresponsible by having children without the ability to care for or support them. a lot where already recieving public assistance.

al lot of them lost absolutely nothing beacuse of the "pandemic" yet they will be recieving more "free" money than a lot of people who work everday take home.

this country, with a knee jerk reaction (it looks more to me like a well-planned plot), has just screwed the working class. and even the non-working class without them realizing it.

 

[sparky32]

i totally agree with this. i know of many "families who stand to bring in $1,200+/mo just because they have children. some have not worked a day in their life. a lot were just irresponsible by having children without the ability to care for or support them. a lot where already recieving public assistance.

al lot of them lost absolutely nothing beacuse of the "pandemic" yet they will be recieving more "free" money than a lot of people who work everday take home.

this country, with a knee jerk reaction (it looks more to me like a well-planned plot), has just screwed the working class. and even the non-working class without them realizing it.

If you keep feeding the animals eventually they wont feel the need to go hunt for food themselves as the old analogy goes. Keep everyone on that Gov "free money".

 

[Born2vette]

Its a legal way to buy votes.

 

[churchmouse]

i've been saying since day 1 that the responsible thing would have been to only compensate people who lost income up to what they would have earned after taxes. the general population did not need any extra money. the question i had was, if they were able to live off of $500/wk before the "pandemic" hit, why would they need $600 more a week?

as stated earlier in this thread, my crew & myself were considered essential and never lost a day of work (for which i am very grateful). through the generosity of the company & our customer we were able to still recieve our normal pay. we ONLY recieved our NORMAL pay.

none of my bills went unpaid, no missed car note or meals. i had to be just as responsible with the money i earned. so i don't see how people recieving sometimes double their normal pay for "free" should need a weaning period.

that is a slap in the face to the people who still had to be responsible with their earnings.

Simple answer.....Buying votes. Getting the sheep all lined up for the next act in the grand play we are watching right now.

They bought us off dirt cheap.

 

[yote hunter]

I have an acquaintance who is a long term upper management person who works for a large corporation. His management group has been rotating running third shift labor positions, as they cannot find workers.

It seems as though our gov't paying people not to work is becoming more and more of an issue.

.......................................................................

Restaurant employment 'crisis' continues as summer approaches

Restaurants statewide are scrambling to find new hires, causing some to provide better wages and benefits.

www.wmur.com

Georgia employment leaders say federal benefits leading to labor crisis unfolding in state

They say one of the contributing factors is that federal unemployment benefits are so good, many people would rather stay home than find a job.

www.wsbtv.com

Businesses, local leaders reflect on employment crisis

Staff shortages are occurring in local businesses.

www.bransontrilakesnews.com

3rd shift is a young mans thing, I’m to damn old to work 3rds

 

[dudley0]

Here's the short version of what I have seen with all the free money:

-Two 19ish tenants living in a house. Both laid off and both collected the extra $600/week. Utility company contacted me to see if they were still there as they owed over $1500.

-One tenant who moved her ex in so she could get his disability checks not making rents. Blamed the pandemic. Still gets the extra income, nothing changed for her.

-Married couple both on partial disability. No pay disruptions. She talks to me one day saying she wished there would be another stimulus check because she wanted to buy something special for her grand child.

-One tenant kept taking days off work because she could say her son was exposed to the virus at school. She was not sending him to school. Company didn't fire her but didn't pay her either. Complains to me that she has no money.

But to even it out I have one long term tenant who contacted me asking if I had any other tenants that were hurt by all this. He was donating his stimulus checks and wanted to keep it local. I couldn't accept anything for any of my tenants as none were actually hurt financially by all this.