Punitive Action Against Workers Who Call in Sick

Roger Huntman (Letters, March 14) is entirely correct in citing company policies as the cause of spreading “flu and other contagious illnesses.” A good example is the State of California, which last year took punitive action against groups of predominately low paid and female workers by reducing their sick leave benefits.

Many employees do, indeed, come to work sick because they know that the state follows a consistent policy of understaffing in all departments and areas. If one workers is sick, the others in that work group, who are already overstressed, must somehow compensate. In the state hospitals and prisons this is not only very difficult, it is also dangerous. In departments dealing directly with the public, it results in longer lines and abuse by members of the public directed at the remaining workers.

A consistent policy of harassment for use of sick leave is followed in all departments: memos in personnel files, “counseling” interviews and penalties are imposed. These become part of the employee’s record. No matter how valid the reason, these records may prevent promotion or even lead to demotion or worse. Even employees who bring a “doctor’s excuse” may be refused sick leave. When you make $1,500 or less a month loss of a few hours’ pay is a family disaster.

Supervisors and managers are able to leave to take a child to the doctor and adjust their time, frequently without the need to get permission from anyone. They do not need to use sick leave unless they, personally, are flat on their backs. Often they can also afford the luxury of a wife to attend to sick children.

Also, managers and supervisors do not give hands-on care to sick and assaultive clients. State hospital and prison populations can become reservoirs of infection: a few years ago at Atascadero a rubella outbreak spread rapidly throughout staff and patients. How many of those staff people received financial compensation in recognition of the fact that their illness was the result of the hazards of the job?

At the School for the Deaf in Riverside we have just had a number of tonsillitis cases, resulting in several staff illnesses. Yet a new and even more restrictive policy is being enforced there.

So the true incidence of sickness among staff and supervisors is confused by the dissimilarity of application of policy, and workers are being punished for use of sick leave that is a contractual right.

Employers urgently need to come into the 20th Century and act on the principles of preventive medicine: people should be encouraged to stay home when they are sick. Workers whose jobs expose them to additional hazards--stress, danger, infection--should be allowed to use their own judgment as to when they are too ill to be safe on the job. Staffing should be adequate to allow for good health practices.

JOYCE F. BARRIER RN

Riverside