[HN Gopher] Sick Workers Connected to 41 Percent of Food Poisoni... ___________________________________________________________________ Sick Workers Connected to 41 Percent of Food Poisoning Outbreaks, CDC Reports Author : _delirium Score : 89 points Date : 2023-06-03 20:03 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com) | JustFalse wrote: | Lol, wish in one hand serve food in the other. So long as we | don't have universal healthcare and paid sick leave in the US | poor folks are gonna make your food while they're sick. | explaininjs wrote: | The percent given is deceptive, it's in fact 40% of outbreaks | _where the cause was known_. But since many outbreaks have no | known cause, it's only 25% of all outbreaks. | | Extrapolating "known cause" data to all cases is foolish - | clearly if someone had been sick then the cause would be known | (unless for some reason they were hiding that fact from | investigators). | kitsunesoba wrote: | Even so, that 25% represents a _lot_ of cases that could 've | easily been prevented. It's extremely low-hanging fruit that | would quickly be acted upon in just about any other situation. | dboreham wrote: | The stats might work against your thesis: the outbreaks where | the cause is unknown might be _more_ likely to be caused by | pathogens transmitted by workers. | oldgradstudent wrote: | Reminds me of the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack[1] which was | investigated by the CDC and also blamed on sick workers[2] | because they were the first to fall ill. | | Only after internal conflicts between the Rajneeshes rose up to | the surface, it turned out it was an intentional biological | attack. | | Netflix' Wild Wild Country is a good that covers it (eventhough | it is too long, and way too nice towards the Rajneeshees). | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_atta... | | [2] https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/us/ill-handlers- | suspected... | | [3] https://www.netflix.com/title/80145240 | lifeisstillgood wrote: | Imagine a world where every employee not only had the sort of | sick-cover nice white collar jobs in software get, but got paid | sufficiently well they could afford to put their kids through | college and had enough left over that they coukd walk out of any | job confident that they could take months to find the next one. | | Imagine a world where business had to really actually compete for | workers. | | Wonder what that world would look like? | nemo44x wrote: | Imagine utopia. We should strive towards utopia and brutalize | anyone not with us. Only then can we live in harmony and peace. | 6510 wrote: | We are already doing that one, at least some of us are. | zulban wrote: | Service industry purchases like burgers would be a lot more | expensive and I'd gladly pay. | inamberclad wrote: | Except that in nations that require such labor protections | still have plentiful and reasonably cheap fast food. The US | really does just get the worst of both worlds. | Larrikin wrote: | Don't forget that restaurants not only exist at reasonable | prices, but they don't all go out of business without | tipping. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Something has to give if a greater share of sales goes to | wages and benefits - it's usually the rent. Imagine: not | only does labour and the customer benefit from better | worker protection, the supremely unproductive real estate | sector gets a smaller share. Wins for eveyone except the | FIRE sector. | cj wrote: | Hadn't heard of FIRE, in case it helps anyone else: | | > FIRE refers to a sector of the economy composed of | finance, insurance, and real estate | depingus wrote: | Capitalists have imagined that world and they're fucking | terrified. That's why we're seeing such aggressive levels of | union busting. Off the top of my head here's the most recent: | https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/05/09/de... | theropost wrote: | A world where everyone takes pride in what they do. Where they | realize their work is for a better good, a better world. Where | they put in the effort, and do not try to defraud or manipulate | the system for their own personal gain. Where everyone | contributes, and adds to creating a better society for the | young, and the old. For all. | droopyEyelids wrote: | You are describing the nordic countries in Europe. | dboreham wrote: | Europe? | philjohn wrote: | Is this any wonder? Lower paid work often has ridiculous rules | about being off sick, if it even offers paid sick time. | | This is the inevitable conclusion of the race to the bottom in | the US over the last 43 years. | leononame wrote: | I'm still baffled every now and then about the US. That paid | sick time is even a thing to discuss and that the workplace | sets those rules is another of those moments. | | Can anyone chime in in defense of this? Is there a side to this | I'm not seeing? | alistairSH wrote: | Defense? "The market at work" (ignoring labor isn't a perfect | market and being an over-controlling asshole isn't required | to make a profit). | | The US is just anti-labor and in love with cheap consumables. | Combined, we end up with a massive case of haves and have- | nots. Vacation, sick leave, retirement accounts, medical | care. It's great if you're rich (as damn near everybody on | this forum is). | | My brother in law is an auto mechanic here in the US. My | uncle as well, but in Scotland. While they're overall income | is pretty close (solidly middle class) the amount of | financial stress in the US is MUCH MUCH higher. | | It's so short-sighted. I'd happily pay another $30k/year or | more in taxes for nationalized medical, lower college costs | and other things most Europeans have. | Reubend wrote: | If you make enough money that you would be happy "happy" | paying an extra $30,000 per year, then you're either a very | generous person or an outlier. Most Americans wouldn't want | to pay that much extra even if they could afford to. | zdragnar wrote: | The US federal government is not like other national | governments. Any powers not enumerated in the condition rest | with the state governments. As an example, murder is | generally not a crime under federal law [0] despite generally | being considered Bad. | | Over the years, for better and worse, the interpretation of | what powers the federal government are given had expanded | dramatically. Even so, compelling paid sick leave at the | federal level would need to rely on the interstate commerce | clause. | | I'm all for paid sick leave, personally, but doing it in a | way that actually passes conditional muster and isn't | overturned by a court isn't as easy as saying "this is a good | thing, why don't we do it?" | | [0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/murder/is-murder-a- | federal... | UncleMeat wrote: | There is no other side. The problem is lack of legislation. | | My sister is a physical therapist. She has a doctorate. Her | work fundamentally involves being close to other people and | touching them. This is one of those fields that 10-20 years | ago everybody said would be booming and highly lucrative. Her | sick time is counted against her vacation time. | | We live in a country completely captured by corporations. | kayodelycaon wrote: | Yup. I have a disability and any time off I take because | I'm sick is time I can't take to have a vacation. | | If I can sit up in a chair, I log in and stay near my | computer to attend meetings and answer emails. | | Even then, the majority of my time goes to being sick. | droopyEyelids wrote: | The USA is extremely hostile to unions, and labor has | virtually no ability to negotiate with capital. | | For example, last Thursday the Supreme Court just ruled that | unions can be sued for losses caused by striking | https://archive.is/0bYhe | | But that is just the last pieces of labor's power getting | washed away in the USA. Already things like sympathy strikes, | which give labor actual power in Europe, are completely | illegal. | twoodfin wrote: | "Losses caused by striking" is a funny way to describe the | holding of the case, which was about cement truck drivers | deliberately timing their strike to maximize the risk of | damage to the trucks and at a minimum spoil their loads. | | The decision was 8-1. | cj wrote: | I'm not sure higher pay would fix the problem. Money rarely | fixes any social problem. | | I hear about workers not showing up for work from a cousin who | manages a restaurant. They'll hire someone, tell them they | start Monday, and then Monday comes and the person doesn't show | up. | | Or a chef who has a drug/drinking problem (extremely common in | the industry) calling in "sick" last minute. | | Obviously there are exceptions but I'm not convinced that lower | pay = less reliable employee. Very possible it's a correlation | rather than causation. | danaris wrote: | I mean, to some extent, there's absolutely causation. | | Lower pay means you may not be able to afford a car. If the | public transport in your area is lousy, you'll be late more | often. | | Lower pay means if you _can_ afford a car, it 's more likely | to be an old beater, and if it breaks down, and you're not | 110% prepared to switch to public transport on a moment's | notice, you'll be late or miss work. | | Lower pay means a worse living situation. You're more likely | to be in an old building, with a crappy landlord, who may not | care about the asbestos in the ceiling, or the black mold in | the walls, or the bedbugs, and then you're more likely to get | sick. | | Lower pay means you can't afford good food, which means | you're more likely to get sick. | | Lower pay means you can't afford regular doctor visits | (especially since you're also much less likely to have any | sick time--paid or not--in which to _go_ to those visits), | which means you 're more likely to get sick. | | Lower pay makes it much more likely that you're in a high- | stress job--one where you're expected to jump for superiors | and customers at a moment's notice, and be punished for | trying to act like a human being--which means you're more | likely to get sick. | | Lower pay means you're more likely to be working multiple | jobs, and thus getting too little sleep. That makes it more | likely that you'll oversleep sometimes and miss your alarm, | and be late or miss work. | | I daresay I could go on... | cj wrote: | I won't disagree with that. There's definitely some degree | of causation even if it's not 100%. | | The thing that concerns me the most is that when you go to | a restaurant in the US, the majority of people there do not | have any kind of health insurance, and therefore do not | have access to affordable healthcare. | djbusby wrote: | Don't even need higher pay. Just don't be an asshole boss | when folk need to be sick. Else, the burden is transferred to | the clients! | | Would all be easier with better health-care options and | assurances of an improved social-saftey-net. | cj wrote: | I'm not convinced social safety nets would fix worker | reliability (people skipping work when they're not sick) | | Work ethic, reliability, trustworthiness, etc are character | traits that aren't easily changed by a better HR policy or | safety nets. Unreliable workers will still be unreliable | regardless of how much they're paid. | jeffbee wrote: | > 43 years | | Surprisingly specific. | devonkim wrote: | It's usually political in nature I've noticed when being that | specific and that would be Reagan's first time. I go much | further back than that to even prior to the Southern | Strategy. It's a tad of a red herring to look at a | presidential term when it's usually a lagging indicator. | jeffbee wrote: | If it is political it bothers me that it is off-by-one. | pstrateman wrote: | People like to blame Reagan but the separation between GDP | and worker compensation happens around 1971. | | I'm sure it's just a coincidence this happened at the same | time. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_Agreement | Lammy wrote: | Try 1971's "An Interim Report to the President and the | Congress from the Commission on Population Growth and the | American Future", chaired by John D. Rockefeller III | https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10 | (copy and paste to avoid HTTP Referer check) | josu wrote: | Many indicators started diverging in 1971: | https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ | HideousKojima wrote: | Related to your link is also the Bretton Woods II agreement | which got us off the gold standard completely. | cma wrote: | Women heavily started entering the workforce around then | increasing the labor pool (increased supply of labor, | downwards pressure on wages. | inetknght wrote: | > _downwards pressure on wages_ | | I would believe that if it weren't for the fact that top- | level pay has significantly widened from the bottom-level | pay. | nemo44x wrote: | There's also many more people (in percentage terms and | actual) that are making top level pay. The upper middle | class has expanded greatly. Once the domain of lawyers, | doctors, and execs, the upper middle class has been | opened to a wider range of professionals. | | 50 years ago this class of people was <5% of people. | Today it approaches 30%. The lower class has also shrunk. | So this has come at an expense to the middle class. | | It isn't that the middle class is poorer but rather are | closer to the lower class than upper middle. Before the | middle class was much larger and more people were similar | and people compared themselves that way. | | This is why housing in some markets seems insane to | people in other markets. And why middle class people are | locked out when living in an upper middle area. | ToValueFunfetti wrote: | I don't know whether the claim is true, but I think this | effect supports it. Women are underrepresented at the | top, so you'd expect the wage pressure to be lower there. | Retric wrote: | Changes to the workforce size don't correlate well with | the downward wage pressure. Similarly female | participation in the workforce don't line up well with | wage stagnation. | | https://www.investors.com/wp- | content/uploads/2020/02/wLFPrat... | cma wrote: | https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs- | images/timworstall/files/20... | | Lines up well at parts. It isn't the full explanation. | golemiprague wrote: | [dead] | _delirium wrote: | This is the CDC report that the article is summarizing: | https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7206a1.htm | | (It's linked in the first sentence of the article, but thought | I'd drop a direct link here.) | black_puppydog wrote: | I remember the reactions from restaurant workers to the idea of | voluntarily self isolating. In short: "The fuck out of here." It | was a bit of an eye-opener to me at the time; the idea of no paid | sick leave was very strange to me and let me mentally prepare for | quite a long pandemic... | NoZebra120vClip wrote: | When I worked front desk, it was made known that I was | indispensable. We had a storm with law enforcement urging folks | to stay home, and I took two buses then slogged through a flood | to get into work. I caught a cold, and my supervisor said to come | in unless I was running a fever, and I'd need a doctor's note for | more. When I announced I had bed bugs, they were OK with an open- | ended leave though! | | Now a doctor's note seems to be a reasonable ask, but have you | ever tried to get one? Start with limited transportation and | insurance, then get into the doctor's office and ask. I think | I've made 3-4 requests and at least two, I was refused any | excuse. I got 24 hours off in another case. Your mileage may | vary: "I work at a buffet and my typhoid may be unwelcome" could | be a compelling case. But you still took two buses and showed up | at the doctor's office. | | Don't even think about a telemed alternative. They'll render | their letter worthless with disclaimers, because the HCP didn't | meet or examine you in any meaningful way. | genocidicbunny wrote: | My PCP hated these sorts of policies, so if you needed a | 'doctors note' from him, he would put down whatever you wanted. | No work for a week and then no heavy lifting for a month after? | Sure. Need to sleep in and start work no earlier than 11am? | Sure! He'd write these out as a prescription too, which was | helpful in shutting up HR after. | alistairSH wrote: | I've seen the same. That's the way to do it, IMO. Employer | doesn't trust employees to use sick leave appropriately, they | should pay the price. | | Or we could just legislate some sanity. 10 days sick and 15 | days holiday minimum nationally. But that would make too much | sense. | cameronh90 wrote: | Sick days shouldn't be countable except in extreme cases. | If someone is unfortunate enough to get something that | requires extended time off work, losing income shouldn't be | a worry. | | What is needed is a national insurance scheme that pays | your salary when sick beyond some minimum that your | employer has to cover. | alistairSH wrote: | Totally agree. I was just thinking baby steps towards | something reasonable. | batch12 wrote: | I have seen companies, that when confronted by this, that | will send the employee to a physician vetted by the company | to confirm the need for accommodation. | CoastalCoder wrote: | The article seems to conflate food poisoning with food-born | illness [0]. | | [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-poisoning-food- | poisoning-1... | aaronbrethorst wrote: | Probably because if you got sick after eating at a restaurant, | you wouldn't say 'wow, I contracted norovirus from a sick | employee or ate old or mishandled food!' | | You'd just say 'I got food poisoning!' ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-03 23:00 UTC)