# Ambulance crew sickness levels ‘disappointing’



## ArcticKat (May 18, 2011)

MORE days were taken off sick by ambulance workers in North Somerset than at any other NHS trust in the South West during December.

Figures show staff at Great Western Ambulance Service (GWAS) failed to turn up to work because of illness an average of 2.5 days over the festive month.

http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/ambulance_crew_sickness_levels_disappointing_1_890347


----------



## DrParasite (May 18, 2011)

if it was up to management, no one would ever call in sick, never get hurt, and never be on vacation.  

you have sick time for a reason, and if you don't use it, you often lose it or don't get anything for not using it.    

or maybe the cold weather just caused everyone to get sick


----------



## JPINFV (May 18, 2011)

Sick time is for being sick, not a pseudo vacation day. There's a reason why vacation days and sick days are different, unless you're suggesting that they shouldn't be.


----------



## cruiseforever (May 20, 2011)

My service went to PTO (personal time off).  Greatest thing since sliced bread.  Gone is the temptation to call in sick when you get close to maxing out on sick time.  They banked our sick time.  I now look at PTO as vacation time and my frozen sick time as short term disability,


----------



## Sasha (May 20, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Sick time is for being sick, not a pseudo vacation day. There's a reason why vacation days and sick days are different, unless you're suggesting that they shouldn't be.



But if you're about to lose them due to not using them, they're for vacation.

I'm just speculating, really.. I don't have sick days.


----------



## exodus (May 20, 2011)

Sasha said:


> But if you're about to lose them due to not using them, they're for vacation.
> 
> I'm just speculating, really.. I don't have sick days.



Same, we have no paid sick days.

Edit: And that's the way I would see it if we had them. They give them to use to use, no reward for not using them. They eff yeah.  What they should do is let you cash then in at 50% pay at the end of the year or whenever your days reset.


----------



## Melclin (May 21, 2011)

Sasha said:


> I don't have sick days.



Isn't that illegal or something?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (May 21, 2011)

Melclin said:


> Isn't that illegal or something?


What are you some kind of America-hating-nazisocialcommunist? Giving people "sick time" is going to kill jobs and crush small business-owners. Have faith in the free market son it hasn't failed us yet!


...wait.


----------



## 46Young (May 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Sick time is for being sick, not a pseudo vacation day. There's a reason why vacation days and sick days are different, unless you're suggesting that they shouldn't be.



Many of us will try to put in for a day off that we need, or do a shift exchange if someone is willing. The thing is, many places have undesireable (for the employee) leave policies, more often than not due to keeping only the bare minimum in staffing, or perhaps to curb OT by not letting people take off. In fact, Charleston County EMS, back in 2008, would only let you take off if someone else agreed to work your shift as OT! there was no such thing as putting in for a day off and getting it if staffing ratios allow. Most EMS agencies aren't going to hire pad personnel for vacation relief, maybe some per diem employees, but they only work when they want to, not when the system needs them to. 

So, if a dept makes it prohibitively difficult to get paid time off, and you really need the day, perhaps to take a class, attend a wedding, go on a job interview, etc. the unwritten rule is that you bang in to get the day. Some places even prohibit use of sick days if your spouse or kids are sick. If you put in for the day, and get denied, you can't bang in for the same day without arousing suspicion. Bottom line, if they don't care about you, then why should you care about them?

I take it you've never heard of "mental health days" that people need every so often? If you're overworked, a sick day can help you recover.


----------



## JPINFV (May 22, 2011)

I have to ask, why would people put up with work conditions like that? If no one works for these places, then either their policies change or they go away. 

EMS: Battered spouse syndrome?

Also, what happens if you get sick after using all of your "sick" days to go to the beach?


----------



## 46Young (May 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> I have to ask, why would people put up with work conditions like that? If no one works for these places, then either their policies change or they go away.
> 
> EMS: Battered spouse syndrome?
> 
> Also, what happens if you get sick after using all of your "sick" days to go to the beach?



Why do they put up with it? It may be their first EMS job, so they think that the working conditions are considered normal, or even desireable, having no prior reference. People who have worked in other systems can see how effed up a place really is, and know what they should put up with, and when they need to game the system. This explains why a good number of places prefer to hire employees with brand new certs. The system can mold them how they see fit. Outsiders will work the system to suit their needs.

You're not going to take mental health days if you don't have much leave left. You're always going to leave a few days in the bank just in case.

What do you mean by battered spouse syndrome? I don't understand what you're getting at.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (May 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> I have to ask, why would people put up with work conditions like that? If no one works for these places, then either their policies change or they go away.
> 
> EMS: Battered spouse syndrome?


 Perhaps in better economic times or in a cultural milieu that was supportive of worker's rights it might be as simple as this. But in contexts such as today's time, where the economy is still poor, unemployment is high (in California it's been hovering around 12%), and in a culture that values business interest over and above worker's rights (as is the case in America) then things become somewhat difficult.



> Also, what happens if you get sick after using all of your "sick" days to go to the beach?


 A calculated risk that, unfortunately and needlessly some people have to take. In most modern, developed countries business and the public at large acknowledge that people are not machines and need to be given appropriate and reasonably flexible timeframes to rest and recover. That's why in Europe or other western countries employees are required by law to be granted 4, 5, 6 weeks (perhaps more in some cases, and some businesses voluntarily grant even more) of paid vacation time.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Perhaps in better economic times or in a cultural milieu that was supportive of worker's rights it might be as simple as this. But in contexts such as today's time, where the economy is still poor, unemployment is high (in California it's been hovering around 12%), and in a culture that values business interest over and above worker's rights (as is the case in America) then things become somewhat difficult.


I find it hard to believe that the economy went into the toilet and all of the EMS companies immediately rewrote their vacation leave policy. 

I also find it hard to believe that "workers rights" includes the ability to take unlimited time off for any reason they want. 

What rights does the business owner have to run their business? Surely the person who's made the investment in time and money and taken on considerable risk to build the company and keep the company running has some rights? Similarly, surely the tax payers have some rights to insure that their tax dollars aren't being abused by municipal employees?

Would you support a company that only offered time off without delineation between sick and vacation days? 




> A calculated risk that, unfortunately and needlessly some people have to take. In most modern, developed countries business and the public at large acknowledge that people are not machines and need to be given appropriate and reasonably flexible timeframes to rest and recover. That's why in Europe or other western countries employees are required by law to be granted 4, 5, 6 weeks (perhaps more in some cases, and some businesses voluntarily grant even more) of paid vacation time.


...because the US should be taking lessons in how to run a country by the likes of Greece? 

I agree that people aren't machines, however if employees decide to lay down and get run over, then I have little sympathy. The labor market in the US is, in the end, a market economy. It's unfortunate that one side (the laborers) feel that it's everyone else's job but themselves to advocate for their side of the market agreement.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> What do you mean by battered spouse syndrome? I don't understand what you're getting at.



The entire, "I hate the conditions at this job or in this industry, but I refuse to leave. I can't leave. I can't explore other options. I have to stay, even if it means staying with an intolerable work environment [which, of course, is individually defined]. I can't even look at other lines of work." 

If someone is taking a beating every day at work and refuses to confront the company about it (including exercising the option to leave), then why is it someone's else's job to fix their work environment or why does that make it ok for them to abuse the terms of their agreement? Why is it OK for the employees to abuse the terms of their employment, but not the business?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (May 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> I find it hard to believe that the economy went into the toilet and all of the EMS companies immediately rewrote their vacation leave policy.


 No, but I suspect they've certainly taken advantage of the current situation and exploited it to greater effect than they previously were.



> I also find it hard to believe that "workers rights" includes the ability to take unlimited time off for any reason they want.


 That's hardly what I implied.



> What rights does the business owner have to run their business? Surely the person who's made the investment in time and money and taken on considerable risk to build the company and keep the company running has some rights? Similarly, surely the tax payers have some rights to insure that their tax dollars aren't being abused by municipal employees?


 Certainly they have rights as well, but they ought to know their business/public service is worthless without quality people and the good work that they do. Furthermore, workers should have a reasonable expectation to not be exploited and subject to deplorable/unsafe working conditions. There is an equilibrium to be formed here, and at the moment in the US there rather obviously isn't one. All you have to do is look at the stagnation of the median wage in this country over the last 30 years despite enormous productivity gains to see which direction the scale is tipped toward.



> Would you support a company that only offered time off without delineation between sick and vacation days?


 Sure, if that's the business model they chose to implement in their organization. Would it be proper or effective? Probably not, but that's not at all what I suggested _should_ be the case anyway. The fact is people often have to use their sick time for certain unavoidable and often necessary events that occur in life even when they're not actually sick, and that this is unfortunate and needless.




> ...because the US should be taking lessons in how to run a country by the likes of Greece?


 I was thinking more like Sweden or Norway or Germany.



> I agree that people aren't machines, however if employees decide to lay down and get run over, then I have little sympathy.


So, when people are forced to make less than ideal decisions because of forces largely out of their control we should respond with...derision? 


> The labor market in the US is, in the end, a market economy. It's unfortunate that one side (the laborers) feel that it's everyone else's job but themselves to advocate for their side of the market agreement.


 It's kind of difficult to do that when government regulating bodies are staffed with people affianced to corporate lobbyists who turn a blind eye to union busting activities. I mean just look at the flagrantly illegal actions that have been going on in Wisconsin and the hundreds of thousands of people protesting (and now recalling) those who have engaged in such activity.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Certainly they have rights as well, but they ought to know their business/public service is worthless without quality people and the good work that they do. Furthermore, workers should have a reasonable expectation to not be exploited and subject to deplorable/unsafe working conditions. There is an equilibrium to be formed here, and at the moment in the US there rather obviously isn't one. All you have to do is look at the stagnation of the median wage in this country over the last 30 years despite enormous productivity gains to see which direction the scale is tipped toward.



Definitely true that quality people and good work is needed. Now define "quality people" and "good work?" If a benefits package is recruiting and keeping people that meet the employer's definition, why should the employer pay more? Similarly, what responsibility does the employee have in ensuring that they aren't exploited? Why is it the governments job to decide for me the minimum reasonable employment package? If, for example, an employer and I mutually agreed that I'd work 4 10 hour days a week instead of 5 8 hour days (at least in California where overtime is anything past 8 hours a day) paid at straight time, shouldn't I have that option to work straight time? 

Also, median wage is an interesting metric. If a business increases efficiency and cuts unneeded jobs, then the median wage can go down, even if the people left make more money since there are less actual jobs. 




> Sure, if that's the business model they chose to implement in their organization. Would it be proper or effective? Probably not, but that's not at all what I suggested _should_ be the case anyway. The fact is people often have to use their sick time for certain unavoidable and often necessary events that occur in life even when they're not actually sick, and that this is unfortunate and needless.


How much paid time off would be appropriate then? Also, is there a difference between lumping vacation and sick leave together officially if the employees are going to treat it that way? Finally, at what point do we reach a "Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk?" After all, there will always be someone asking for more paid time off. 




> So, when people are forced to make less than ideal decisions because of forces largely out of their control we should respond with...derision?


Life is full of less than ideal decisions. Why should employees be immune from them? Also, if at some point that is in their control (such as the period up to them actually needing it) then why should derision not be employed? Should I feel bad for people who choose not to have car insurance or health insurance when they suddenly need it? Should I feel bad for someone who racks up a ton of credit card debt, and then after signing on the solid line agreeing to the terms of the credit card, be upset that they have to pay an interest rate that was agreed upon before opening up the account? At some point, the benefits package was mutually agreeable by both parties. When did the benefits package became untenable to the employee. Why was it not addressed then? 




> It's kind of difficult to do that when government regulating bodies are staffed with people affianced to corporate lobbyists who turn a blind eye to union busting activities. I mean just look at the flagrantly illegal actions that have been going on in Wisconsin and the hundreds of thousands of people protesting (and now recalling) those who have engaged in such activity.


Again, what part should the employees play in their own employment terms? Shouldn't the employee be willing to stand up alone and say, "Here's what I bring to the company, here's what I need?" Why is it everyone else's job, but the employee, (including, to an extent, unions) to stand up for the employee?


Also, if these rules are so great, why are there exempt classes of employees? Shouldn't everyone be subject to the same rules?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (May 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Definitely true that quality people and good work is needed. Now define "quality people" and "good work?" If a benefits package is recruiting and keeping people that meet the employer's definition, why should the employer pay more?


 Consideration as to whether the organization is successfully recruiting and retaining people it deems satisfactory is due to the compensation package really being all that competitive or market forces that create disproportions in supply and demand causing working citizens to take whatever they can get has to be made before answering that question. You could, of course, chalk this up as a consequence of living in a free society or free market economy, and to a certain extent that may be true. However, I don't believe we really live in a true free market economy, and the negotiating field is always biased to employer benefit.


> Similarly, what responsibility does the employee have in ensuring that they aren't exploited?


 I would say the employee is responsible for knowing what his rights are, when labor and/or health & safety regulations are being circumvented (to the best of his ability), and how to tactfully bring this to the appropriate person within that organization's attention. None of this is particularly useful, however, when the employee is effectively on his own and has no one advocating for him or looking after his own rights. The employee is at tremendous disadvantage in such situations, and it is simply naive to think otherwise.


> Why is it the governments job to decide for me the minimum reasonable employment package? If, for example, an employer and I mutually agreed that I'd work 4 10 hour days a week instead of 5 8 hour days (at least in California where overtime is anything past 8 hours a day) paid at straight time, shouldn't I have that option to work straight time?


 Unfortunately, historical precedent indicates that a disinterested third party with a democratically endowed legal authority to regulate and enforce such matters appears to be necessary. I don't think the government needs to be getting into the details or specifics of typical compensation packages, but rather should support collective bargaining rights and enforce health and safety standards that are actually meaningful.



> Also, median wage is an interesting metric. If a business increases efficiency and cuts unneeded jobs, then the median wage can go down, even if the people left make more money since there are less actual jobs.


 The median wage is the typical metric used in discourse related to the financial situation of the typical American worker since, as you know, the "median" of a data distribution is insensitive (or, less sensitive) to outliers. If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the _mean_ wage of everyone in the bar has just increased dramatically even though that's not an accurate reflection of reality. Because of that, every economist I've read or followed uses median wages to discuss the situation of the typical American worker.




> How much paid time off would be appropriate then? Also, is there a difference between lumping vacation and sick leave together officially if the employees are going to treat it that way? Finally, at what point do we reach a "Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk?" After all, there will always be someone asking for more paid time off.


 Well, I don't think it's particularly helpful to get bogged down in specifics; but, clearly the situation we have now is inadequate. I'm not aware of any state (certainly California is not one of them) nor any federal legislation that requires employers to provide _any_ paid vacation time. Meanwhile, the European Union mandates its member countries to require employers to provide at least 4 weeks of paid vacation (which is distinct from "sick time"). I think that would be a good starting point. As to the slippery-slope concern I think once people feel as though their basic needs are met they typically don't ask for much more in the way of concessions. Also, it cuts both ways. As an employer I don't have to provide my employees vacation time, so why not take it a step further and take away overtime, or scheduled breaks, or weekends, and so on?




> Life is full of less than ideal decisions. Why should employees be immune from them?


 Since when does having access to actual, usable vacation time to at least _minimize_ the impact such things have on a person's professional life amount to being immune to life's misfortunes? 





> Also, if at some point that is in their control (such as the period up to them actually needing it) then why should derision not be employed?


 If it actually is in their control then I don't think we have anything to disagree about. My point is simply that more often than not it really isn't, but is rather a result of their employer's austerity.


> Should I feel bad for people who choose not to have car insurance or health insurance when they suddenly need it? Should I feel bad for someone who racks up a ton of credit card debt, and then after signing on the solid line agreeing to the terms of the credit card, be upset that they have to pay an interest rate that was agreed upon before opening up the account?


 I think that the _typical_ person's culpability when such matters go awry is hardly a clear-cut case. Once again, if we're talking about situations where a person is simply being negligent, then there's really no disagreement. I'm saying that more often than not it isn't negligence it's exploitation from predatory employers, financial institutions, health insurance providers, etc. I mean come on, after all that has happened in recent years in American society it should really be apparent that the typical working American is basically just getting screwed. 


> At some point, the benefits package was mutually agreeable by both parties. When did the benefits package became untenable to the employee. Why was it not addressed then?


 Really? In how many contexts is negotiation between employer and potential employee on equal terms? Especially in EMS. Why should I as an employer even bother listening to this candidate's terms when there are tens if not hundreds of others just like him? They should just accept what I offer and be happy they're even getting that. Most Americans are faced with this situation, I should think, and especially in contemporary times. They have to take what they can get when they can get it because whatever it is they're offered, it's better than being out on the street. This is intensely unhealthy for a society in my opinion.



> Also, if these rules are so great, why are there exempt classes of employees? Shouldn't everyone be subject to the same rules?


 In an ideal world, yes; but, in the interest of fostering a fair and just society things like this are often necessary. Sure the FLSA is not perfect, but I think the spirit of it is reflective of reality and is in accordance with the protection and advocacy of the poor and marginalized. People in executive, consultant, administrative, etc. positions are simply in a better position to advocate for themselves and are not nearly exposed to the sort of exploitative risk as "non-exempt" employees are.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Consideration as to whether the organization is successfully recruiting and retaining people it deems satisfactory is due to the compensation package really being all that competitive or market forces that create disproportions in supply and demand causing working citizens to take whatever they can get has to be made before answering that question. You could, of course, chalk this up as a consequence of living in a free society or free market economy, and to a certain extent that may be true. However, I don't believe we really live in a true free market economy, and the negotiating field is always biased to employer benefit.


I think it depends on where the employee is working/applying to. Yes, in situations like most of EMS, the drastic oversupply puts power firmly in the hands of the employer, as does many other low level positions. To save a long reply, I think there's a big difference between how companies value exempt vs non-exempt positions for reasons inherent to what the job entails and what is actually expected from the employee. However, it's interesting that some jobs are deemed, for what ever reason, to need protection while other jobs don't. Who's looking out for the hours worked and protecting employees who work under a salary instead of hourly wage? Shouldn't the government step in and demand bonuses if a salaried employee works more than 40 hours a week? Is there some sort of inherent difference between exempt and non-exempt jobs themselves that removes many of the labor protections for exempt positions, or is it an issue with the individuals who largely fill those positions? 




> I would say the employee is responsible for knowing what his rights are, when labor and/or health & safety regulations are being circumvented (to the best of his ability), and how to tactfully bring this to the appropriate person within that organization's attention. None of this is particularly useful, however, when the employee is effectively on his own and has no one advocating for him or looking after his own rights. The employee is at tremendous disadvantage in such situations, and it is simply naive to think otherwise.


So, the individual has no duty to argue or show why they deserve a higher wage or better benefits package? No duty to show what they bring to the company or distinguish themselves from others? 



> Unfortunately, historical precedent indicates that a disinterested third party with a democratically endowed legal authority to regulate and enforce such matters appears to be necessary. I don't think the government needs to be getting into the details or specifics of typical compensation packages, but rather should support collective bargaining rights and enforce health and safety standards that are actually meaningful.


However many of the things being discussed (such as how much vacation should be required) doesn't fall into health and safety standards. 



> The median wage is the typical metric used in discourse related to the financial situation of the typical American worker since, as you know, the "median" of a data distribution is insensitive (or, less sensitive) to outliers. If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the _mean_ wage of everyone in the bar has just increased dramatically even though that's not an accurate reflection of reality. Because of that, every economist I've read or followed uses median wages to discuss the situation of the typical American worker.


Which is why it's useless when comparing to productivity. If I've just increased efficiency, the median wage isn't going to change when I fire 2 workers and give a raise to a third, but productivity is going to increase. I'm making more product with less employees, which is a good thing as I should be more competitive in foreign markets. 



> Well, I don't think it's particularly helpful to get bogged down in specifics; but, clearly the situation we have now is inadequate. I'm not aware of any state (certainly California is not one of them) nor any federal legislation that requires employers to provide _any_ paid vacation time. Meanwhile, the European Union mandates its member countries to require employers to provide at least 4 weeks of paid vacation (which is distinct from "sick time"). I think that would be a good starting point. As to the slippery-slope concern I think once people feel as though their basic needs are met they typically don't ask for much more in the way of concessions. Also, it cuts both ways. As an employer I don't have to provide my employees vacation time, so why not take it a step further and take away overtime, or scheduled breaks, or weekends, and so on?



Well, I would rather work weekends than weekdays actually (free time when things are actually open, and largely empty). I wouldn't necessarily mind negotiating what overtime is considered, especially since overtime does have the potential to harm both companies and employees (for example, if I want to work 4 12 hour shifts a week, my company could say "no" due to the 8 hours of overtime under federal work rules. They hire a second person, maybe part time, maybe full time. Thus I lose out on 12 hours of work, and the company has to pay to train and outfit an extra person, and depending on status, pay for benefits. Hence making this a lose-lose situation for everyone involved). 

Scheduled breaks? Out of the 4 places I've worked, only 1 gave scheduled breaks. I don't think I can remember what a scheduled break was, and I definitely don't miss having a half hour of unpaid lunch time when it comes to EMS. Actually, come to think of it, I largely wouldn't have minded not having a half hour lunch break when I worked at the movie theater, provided I'd have the opportunity to pool my 2 10 minute breaks in an 8 hour shift. Oh, but right. I don't have the ability to negotiate that. 

I will also say that I've never felt that I've been intentionally screwed at anyplace I worked at. 

As far as specifics, specifics are important. If you don't have a goal set, what are you working towards beyond an ambiguous "more"?




> Since when does having access to actual, usable vacation time to at least _minimize_ the impact such things have on a person's professional life amount to being immune to life's misfortunes?  If it actually is in their control then I don't think we have anything to disagree about. My point is simply that more often than not it really isn't, but is rather a result of their employer's austerity.


I'm going to pool these together. 

What about the impact of the discussion of wages and benefits when someone was first hired? If an employee makes a less than ideal decision during the hiring process, why is that the employers fault?

As far as control, I've yet to be forced to work any job. If I decided to quit a job, nothing would have stopped me. There is no gun to my head forcing me to get up and go to work or school. The decision to make no decision and the decision to take no action are still decisions and in the control the individual. The decision to take a job is still in the control of the individual. 

Maybe I'm living with rose colored glasses from having part time entry level or technical positions (I'd argue that an EMT at an ambulance company is entry level whereas an EMT at an amusement park is more technical in the sense that the supervisors and managers really aren't in a position to question or over rule reasonable judgement calls) while a full time student, but I think that employees largely have more power than they think they do, and thus are largely unwilling to wield said power. I also think that most employees largely fail to appropriately distinguish themselves and/or show their value, which hinders how the market should work through no fault of the employer. Any job is an opportunity, its just that most employees don't act like it is.




> I think that the _typical_ person's culpability when such matters go awry is hardly a clear-cut case. Once again, if we're talking about situations where a person is simply being negligent, then there's really no disagreement. I'm saying that more often than not it isn't negligence it's exploitation from predatory employers, financial institutions, health insurance providers, etc. I mean come on, after all that has happened in recent years in American society it should really be apparent that the typical working American is basically just getting screwed.


Does exploitation occur? Sure, but at the same time not everything is exploitation, especially in situations where, as discussed above, the employee agrees to the situation. If an employee fails to ask about or for vacation days, then it's the employee's fault. It's like in Pirates of the Caribbean when Barbosa and Elizabeth were negitiating the end of hostilities against Port Royal. Is Barbosa exploiting Elizabeth when she fails to include her return as part of the deal, or since she didn't bring it up, can he assume, as he did, that it must be meaningless? 



> Really? In how many contexts is negotiation between employer and potential employee on equal terms? Especially in EMS. Why should I as an employer even bother listening to this candidate's terms when there are tens if not hundreds of others just like him?


If I can show that I'm going to show up on time, work hard, respect the equipment, provide good customer service, and write billable reports with minimal problems, then I've distinguished myself from a lot of the applicant pool. Similarly, those reasons are good reasons later on to bring up when I'm looking to renegotiate the terms of my employment for, say, a raise.  Now, yes, this should be expected from all employees, but you should know better than that. 

Similarly, once at the company, if I've proven useful to help in the training/QI department, or supervision, or plenty of other ways (some official, some not), then I should be able to leverage those for better terms. How many people holding labor jobs both distinguish themselves like that and meaningfully articulate it. 



> In an ideal world, yes; but, in the interest of fostering a fair and just society things like this are often necessary. Sure the FLSA is not perfect, but I think the spirit of it is reflective of reality and is in accordance with the protection and advocacy of the poor and marginalized. People in executive, consultant, administrative, etc. positions are simply in a better position to advocate for themselves and are not nearly exposed to the sort of exploitative risk as "non-exempt" employees are.


Are they in a better position because of the abilities of the employee or because of the actual job that they hold?


----------



## DrParasite (May 23, 2011)

Sasha said:


> I'm just speculating, really.. I don't have sick days.


you what???? so you work full time, for at least 3 years, and if you take a day off because you have the flu, you don't get paid?  or if you have puking your guts out, and have to be in bed for a week straight and don't go to work, you don't get paid for that week? how do you pay your bills?

Sasha, as a paramedic, why do you put up with that?  come to my state, we will start you at ~20 an hour, give you more paid sick time and vacation days than you will know what to do with, and you won't have to deal with slave conditions.


46Young said:


> In fact, Charleston County EMS, back in 2008, would only let you take off if someone else agreed to work your shift as OT!


that's actually a pretty awesome deal.  you can get a day off and they can get OT.  staffing levels are maintained, and OT is paid out.  I'm guessing no per diems, so everyone is FT (and probably in one union).  sounds like an awesome deal, I wish we had a rule such as that.


46Young said:


> Most EMS agencies aren't going to hire pad personnel for vacation relief, maybe some per diem employees, but they only work when they want to, not when the system needs them to.


not true.  most fire agencies won't hire personnel, but EMS only ones will all the time.  per diems are cheaper than full timers, since you don't have to pay benefits.  my agency has two FT float people (who cover everyone every other 4 day week,where they are scheduled for 48 hrs that week, so we average only 40 hrs a week), as well as 3 FT floaters, who just fill in at 36 hours a week wherever there openings (essentially 3 full time per diems).



46Young said:


> I take it you've never heard of "mental health days" that people need every so often? If you're overworked, a sick day can help you recover.


i have both heard of them and used them.


JPINFV said:


> If, for example, an employer and I mutually agreed that I'd work 4 10 hour days a week instead of 5 8 hour days (at least in California where overtime is anything past 8 hours a day) paid at straight time, shouldn't I have that option to work straight time?


key word being MUTUAL.  not mutual as in "this is the job, take it or leave it", but mutual as in "this is what we plan to give you, is there anything else you want?"  plus if the decision is taking a bad job to put food on the table and a roof over your head and not accepting the bad job and going hungry, what would you do?


JPINFV said:


> Again, what part should the employees play in their own employment terms? Shouldn't the employee be willing to stand up alone and say, "Here's what I bring to the company, here's what I need?" Why is it everyone else's job, but the employee, (including, to an extent, unions) to stand up for the employee?


because the employer is typically a bully.  they have minimal intentions to give anything more than they absolutely have to, regardless of if it would be helpful, to the employee.  plus, if the potential employee doesn't accept the crappy job, than someone else will.

There is a company by me that is a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty company, that I worked for for 3  months.  when i was hired they asked how much i wanted to be paid, and I said $11 an hour, since I have 10 years of experienced, 15+ certifications, a bachelor's degree, 3 instructor certificates, and am cross trained as a firefighter.  The boss said they would pay me $9 an hour, with no benefits.  why?  because an 18 year old who just got his EMT card is considered my equal in the eyes of the state minimum requirements to staff an ambulance, and he will accept $9 an hour.  not much of a mutual agreement, but I needed a job.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

I think I should add this because it definitely changes my views. I was raised to value hard work. My father is an aerospace engineer in a position that normally requires a masters degree at a minimum despite his college education being half of an associates degree and a FAA airframe and power plant rating (which I'm not sure if it's current though). He went from being a mechanic for Cessna to being a project engineer for a major defense firm working on cutting edge projects. Now he's basically a trouble shooter and is budgeted a good chunk of money to design things to make processes more efficient. He's done that by knowing who to talk to, being able to articulate plans and ideas, and manufacture simple mockups using common supplies. 

The way I was raised was you go to work and do your best, every day. Don't like the job, don't want to do your best, there's the door to the manager's office or CEO (and yes, at my first EMS job which was a good size (40-50 ambulances when I left, BLS and CCT, and yes, on a few occasions I've talked with the CEO to get things like days off like Thanksgiving, which I got off both because I was known to pick up shifts and agreed to work Christmas (which I was planning to work anyways)), alternatively, there's the exit. Do what needs to be done, even if it's not necessarily required. Work hard, and you will be noticed. Bring it up tactfully when needed. Be articulate. Every job is an opportunity, don't let it go to waste. 

I've gotten away with things that would often require a written writeup with an unofficial, off to the side counseling because, as the training manager said, I don't hide things like trying to block the camera on the drive cam. 

To be honest, working as an EMT, I've seen very few coworkers that actually had a work ethic besides "minimum not to get in trouble" or were articulate. 

I don't know. Maybe I'm young, inexperienced and ignorant. Maybe I'm a budding workaholic. Maybe it's the fact that every job I've had was because I wanted a job, not because I needed it to survive. Maybe I'm just that good. Who knows. However, I refuse to believe that a good work ethic is something innate that either people can't develop, and a lot of what I've seen people consider "abuses" from employers were more of their own doing than anything else.


----------



## JPINFV (May 23, 2011)

DrParasite said:


> key word being MUTUAL.  not mutual as in "this is the job, take it or leave it", but mutual as in "this is what we plan to give you, is there anything else you want?"  plus if the decision is taking a bad job to put food on the table and a roof over your head and not accepting the bad job and going hungry, what would you do?


Take the bad job for as short a period as needed. However, even in a bad job doing your best has merit. How many managers at companies (in general, not just EMS) have started at an entry level position? 

Also, all employment is, in the end, mutual. Last time I checked slavery was unconstitutional and by showing up you're giving, at minimum, tacit approval to the companies treatment of you. 



> because the employer is typically a bully.  they have minimal intentions to give anything more than they absolutely have to, regardless of if it would be helpful, to the employee.  plus, if the potential employee doesn't accept the crappy job, than someone else will.


How many employees have no intention to do more than the minimum required? Hmm, employees want to do minimal amount of work for maximum amount of pay and employers want the maximum amount of work for a minimum amount of pay. I'm sure there's some place in the middle to meet. The problem is what happens when only one side actually comes to the table?






> There is a company by me that is a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty company, that I worked for for 3  months.  when i was hired they asked how much i wanted to be paid, and I said $11 an hour, since I have 10 years of experienced, 15+ certifications, a bachelor's degree, 3 instructor certificates, and am cross trained as a firefighter.  The boss said they would pay me $9 an hour, with no benefits.  why?  because an 18 year old who just got his EMT card is considered my equal in the eyes of the state minimum requirements to staff an ambulance, and he will accept $9 an hour.  not much of a mutual agreement, but I needed a job.



First off, let's be serious. How many certifications actually mattered? CPR/BCLS? Ok, everyone has that. ACLS/PALS/etc? Relatively useless as an EMT. Fire fighter certification(s)? Were you being employed to fight fires? Things like EVOC (regardless of the actual worth), PHTLS, etc might be useful. How many of them were instructor courses? Did you offer to help run courses as a part of your employment? 

Did you set a time to get reevaluated for a raise? If I went to work long term now, I'd definitely be open to a lower starting wage provided a reevaluation was done in, say, 3-4 months once I could establish my worth isn't just on paper. Did you offer to help with chart reviews? A BS might not be completely helpful playing medi-taxi, but it's useful in the QA/training department?


----------



## DrParasite (May 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> How many employees have no intention to do more than the minimum required? Hmm, employees want to do minimal amount of work for maximum amount of pay and employers want the maximum amount of work for a minimum amount of pay. I'm sure there's some place in the middle to meet. The problem is what happens when only one side actually comes to the table?


go watch the movie Office Space, pay close attention to Jennifer Aniston's part involving flair.





JPINFV said:


> First off, let's be serious. How many certifications actually mattered? CPR/BCLS? Ok, everyone has that. ACLS/PALS/etc? Relatively useless as an EMT. Fire fighter certification(s)? Were you being employed to fight fires? Things like EVOC (regardless of the actual worth), PHTLS, etc might be useful. How many of them were instructor courses? Did you offer to help run courses as a part of your employment?


off the top of my head, PHTLS, ISC300, HazMat Operations, PEARS, PEPP, CBRNE Operations, EVOC, GEMS, and those don't even include my rescue or firefighter ones, or my dispatching ones (some which are great when it comes to diffusing hostile situations).


JPINFV said:


> Did you set a time to get reevaluated for a raise? If I went to work long term now, I'd definitely be open to a lower starting wage provided a reevaluation was done in, say, 3-4 months once I could establish my worth isn't just on paper. Did you offer to help with chart reviews? A BS might not be completely helpful playing medi-taxi, but it's useful in the QA/training department?


you never have had a real job have you?  not knocking your med school education, but have you ever had a "real" job for over a year, that you needed to pay your bills?  you seem widely optimistic, which can be good, but it can (not will, but can) lead you to a shocker when you work 3-6 months, busting your butt, doing chart reviews, and every extra task you can, only to be told after the 6 month period "you're a good employee, thanks!!" and when you ask for a raise, be told that no, you won't get getting it.  I know when you become a doctor, you will be working for peanuts, and you will (hopefully) make a lot of money, but there are a lot of crappy bosses out there that will screw their employees just because they can, or rather, just because someone bigger than them will not tell them that they can't do it.  and if you don't like their decision, go find another job, because the next person they replace you with will be paid the lowest level possible as well.

and just for the record, I haven't done IFTs since I was in college as a summer job.  I do 911s only.  So having rescue training can help with car accidents, and other rescue situations, as well as the hazmat and cbrne stuff.  ditto the ICS training, esp when you go to the mass casualty.  and those certs also help me as a dispatcher, since i know what questions to ask from a field provider's point of view, and what they want to know, not just what a set of cards is asking about.


----------

