Comments on: What Will First Lady Michelle Obama’s Work-Life Balance Efforts Look Like?

By: Morra

Morra — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:37:12 +0000

How about the UK model, in which employees have the right to request an FWA? Do you see something like that ever being implemented as part of an Obama administration?

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/11/10/48207/flexible-working-bouncing-back.html

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:55:16 +0000

Sean, the above commenter, makes an interesting point, and I think Michelle Obama oversimplifies the issue by suggesting that unpaid sick days are invariably wrong.

It depends, of course, on whether or not the wages are high enough to allow the worker to save, as Sean suggests.

If the wages are high enough ONLY for subsistence, and not for saving, then the employer must step in when illness, emergency, or pregnancy (a fundamental human right) occurs. That’s only fair. And if the employer can’t make ends meet as a result, the government should step in with a safety net for that employer.

We are all at risk for illness and family emergency, so we all need to pitch in to help those who are struck.

By: Mark Harbeke, Winning Workplaces

Mark Harbeke, Winning Workplaces — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:43:18 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Sean. Turning her argument around by changing that one word — a pivotal word — is a good exercise. I personally agree with you in that employers shouldn’t be forced to bail employees out when one of those unexpected life events comes up.

At the same time, though, they do have an opportunity and even a responsibility to work on creating and sustaining a culture that energizes and nurtures employees so they get sick less often (reducing unexpected absences, and presenteeism, or trying to work through sickness or other ailments). Why is this so? Because it has an impact on medical costs incurred as part of the overall health system, and because the higher company productivity that comes with a reduction of these events helps their employees and their communities at the same time, ultimately influencing GDP at the national level.

How does this work in practice? Check out this post my coworker wrote yessterday on our blog, which talks about the health and wellness activities at one of our 2008 Top Small Workplaces, Decagon Devices in Pullman, Washington: http://tinyurl.com/6omamn

Your comment certainly serves as debate fodder from many angles. Thanks, Sean.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:00:51 +0000

What if we change one word in Mrs. Obama’s rhetorical declaration:

“Employers shouldn’t be punished because someone gets sick or has an emergency.”

So what is the principle that leads her to conclude that it is somehow more appropriate for the employer to bear the cost of the employee’s personal problem than for the employee to bear that cost? Is the principle simply that some employees don’t have the money to sustain a few days or weeks off work? If so, why isn’t the solution to encourage them to save more money for such emergencies? Or is the real principle simply that because the employer is presumed to have more money, it should pay for employees to not work when they have to deal with their personal problems?