[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)