[Alupis]

> Sometimes though it just protects the worker who’s trying but their kid or SO got incapacitated or something equally horrible is happening to them and the last thing they need is fired.

OK, but private businesses in the US are not public jobs programs, and shouldn't have any obligation to keep paying unproductive employees.

That puts a financial strain on the organization, and can be toxic to a healthy work environment.

(For the record, I'm not railing against people in that position - I'm railing against people perfectly capable of working productively, but choose not to because there is no consequence. It would be analogous to government jobs where the worst that happens is you're transferred to a different department and become their problem instead.)

[CraigJPerry]

>> I'm railing against people perfectly capable of working productively

I get that and i’m in no mind to let them off but i’m not willing to hurt good actors just to be sure no bad actor ever scores a free lunch.

[Alupis]

Fair enough. There is a fine balancing act with heavy-Union shops.

My experience might be more sour than others... I've never personally seen a Union step up to help someone justly... it's always been to keep bad employees employed, and to sue management for various things, and demand higher wages even though the business can't afford them.

You end up spending a bunch of time worrying about what the union will think, instead of what the employee needs.