this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
109 points (100.0% liked)
politics on db0
157 readers
61 users here now
don't start no shit
won't be no shit
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, if he is dead that is a different matter. But that's not what the quote is about. Here is the full paragraph for clarity:
the quote is a pointless detail in the overall situation.
Fair enough, but if you were as sick as mcconnell clearly is that you cant/wont have a 5 minute meeting with your boss (aka someone who isnt going to cover for you) after a month then you should be let go from the workforce and moved to disability coverage from the state.
disability coverage isnt the same as employment paychecks. blah blah blah. yeah yeah. that is also a problem but out of scope for this conversation.
I deleted my comment because it was needlessly snarky and I regretted the behavior.
But I didn't agree with your opinion on how to handle long term absence.
The distinction of who pays a worker that is off for illness isn't my hang up. It's the idea that the protections people gave at work are "too much". I get 17 weeks sick leave because of my collective agreement. It's not all 100% and it needs medical certification, but it's a lot. When collective bargaining comes around you bet we get told that's "too much" and out of line with everyone else. Press releases get made about how we are greedy. I oppose the race to the bottom and pitting workers against each other rather than fighting to ensure those without protection are covered.
this is the distinction I'm making with mcconnell. its equivalent to you ending up in the hospital and not communicating any verifiable information with your workplace on when you'll be back. any company would replace a worker in that situation, and it'd be justified due to the lack of verifiable information. McConnel has released 0 medical records verifying his condition.
Perhaps you have information I don't? The article in the post says:
I read that as his workplaces doctor is providing care.
doctors meet with unresponsive patients all the time while providing care. two things can be true at once.
anyways, what are you trying to get out of the conversation at this point? I really dont care about mcconnell or his well being/job status beyond the democratic reps being spineless per usual.
You said he didn't supply medical information to his employer but the article says that the Office of the Attending Physician issued a statement. You replied to my comment with what I feel is an incorrect statement, of course I'm going to reply. Maybe you missed the line in the article and it would be helpful to know this?
I looked up the statement from the Physician and it does specify:
I don't know how to interpret that in any way but the doctor who is supplied by his employer has met with him.
I said this in the comment I deleted I feel like I have to say it: good thing my initial comment has nothing to do with McConnell!
smile he didnt. his office provided a statement that provides no time range for possible recovery, makes no diagnosis, and only claims 'physical therapy'. for all intents and purposes we can assume mcconnell will not be capable of returning to his duties for the remainder of his term.
Fun fact: comatose patients also receive physical therapy as part of their care. Everything in that statement could be 100% true, and he could be in a coma.
Edit: couple extras -
Removing him now has almost zero impact on anything (sick leave or otherwise) beyond demonstrating if the kanasas gov has a backbone. =)
None of this has anything to do with my opinion that framing sick leave as luxurious is harmful. Weird that you think being in a coma means you shouldn't get sick leave tho
we're agreed on that. but that's the authors personal opinion. its a fairly retarded one given that tax payers are on the hook regardless because senators have a pension. Even if we wanted to get into the discussion around what is 'reasonable' for paid sick leave its completely immaterial to McConnell's case. The only factor atm his constituents being disenfranchised of their representation.
Its weird that you think being in a coma isn't by definition sick leave. you're sick and not going to be showing up.
I think your issue is you're not distinguishing between two entirely different states:
organizations should be required to keep you employed for a reasonable period of time in such. after which they'll need to hire someone to replace the work you're not doing. This is true regardless of how sick leave is implemented and administered.
Anywho this conversation is dead. we're not in disagreement over anything that matters to either of us.
I don't agree with your take on sick leave. But there is nothing to discuss.
That's because I havent given you my take on sick leave. you're inferring things I have not asserted. I've in fact agreed with you on sick leave details each time you're brought it up and clarified where you're misconstruing statements.
For example:
Only things I have asserted is why McConnell's situation isnt related to a larger discussion on sick leave. Which coincidentally is exactly why I havent given you any real information on my positions regarding sick leave.