janelane wrote:

In 30 lawsuits, FedEx Ground drivers have argued that they are employees, not independent contractors, and that the company should therefore pay for their trucks, insurance, repairs, gas and tires. In one lawsuit, a California judge ruled that FedEx Ground was engaged in an elaborate ruse in which FedEx “has close to absolute control” over the drivers. Last December, FedEx acknowledged another setback: the I.R.S. ordered it to pay $319 million in taxes and penalties for 2002 for misclassifying employees as independent contractors. FedEx could face similar I.R.S. penalties for subsequent years. FedEx said it would appeal.

To attract drivers, FedEx Ground often runs ads claiming that its drivers earn $60,000 to $80,000 a year. Many drivers say those ads are deceiving. Gross income can exceed $60,000, but Jean, echoing many drivers, said she had to pay nearly $800 a month for her truck, $125 a week for gas, $55 a week for business equipment, $4,000 a year for insurance policies, plus outlays for tires, maintenance and repairs. Some years, Jean calculated, her net pay was just $32,000, amounting to $10.25 an hour.

FedEx blows. Independent contracting is the biggest load of bull. The rest of the article is about how they fired her after she asked for a leave of absence for her third recurrence of cancer.

Another scam companies try is not hiring workers full time so they don't have to provide benefits. My sister ran into this at every retailer and restaurant where she's worked.

-janelane

It's simply because they cannot afford health care. Period. Employers want to provide benefits because they know they will get higher quality employees with less churn if they do. But if they are operating on 2% net margins (Circuit City, most hospitals, anything in manufacturing) then they simply cannot afford to. Solve the root problem (cost of health care in the US) and you will eliminate the symptom (lack of or poor benefits structure for workers).

flynn23 wrote:
It's simply because they cannot afford health care. Period. Employers want to provide benefits because they know they will get higher quality employees with less churn if they do. But if they are operating on 2% net margins (Circuit City, most hospitals, anything in manufacturing) then they simply cannot afford to. Solve the root problem (cost of health care in the US) and you will eliminate the symptom (lack of or poor benefits structure for workers).

Here, here.

-janelane

janelane wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
It's simply because they cannot afford health care. Period. Employers want to provide benefits because they know they will get higher quality employees with less churn if they do. But if they are operating on 2% net margins (Circuit City, most hospitals, anything in manufacturing) then they simply cannot afford to. Solve the root problem (cost of health care in the US) and you will eliminate the symptom (lack of or poor benefits structure for workers).

Here, here.

-janelane

Y'know, I watched this with great interest. I work in health care, and some of the systems interviewed are my former customers at a previous company. I can tell you that there is some illumination here, but the thing about health care that people keep failing to understand is that it is very very complex. It's like when you watch Nova and they're talking about quantum physics and string theory. It's just not that simple and for every example that's given in the Frontline program about things that are "right" about other nation's systems, there is an equal or greater number of examples of those same dynamics that prove to be "wrong".

I'm anxious to read the book, because I think it will be a bit less sanguine about the comparisons. But just one example is the low cost of imaging in Japan. What you don't know is that despite there being more images per patient in Japan, the error rate of read on those images is much much higher than in the US. There's a quality problem there, as well as a price point problem there. The answer is not simply "raise quality" or "raise price".

In most examples, the provider is the low man on the totem pole, yet that is the single person who can treat, prescribe, and is the most trusted source in the point of care with the patient. If the doctor has no incentive to do her job well beyond her own altruism, then you get lots of really sick and dissatisfied patients.

I do applaud Frontline for taking the approach that they took. Actually going to each country, interviewing citizens, doctors, administrators, policy wonks, and business owners to get a well rounded view of the their unique circumstance is truly compelling. It's much better than Sicko, which did nothing but to serve as a pointing finger (which finger and where it's to be pointing is left up to you).