Then there’s this news story about Kevin Y. Jung, a prominent Bellevue, Washington lawyer who was shot in the head and critically injured while sitting in his car in his office parking lot. The shooter? His opposing counsel, William R. Joice, a former prosecutor and Air Force fighter pilot. The two had represented opposing parties in a civil lawsuit involving the fraudulent sale of a Korean store. Joice testified at his trial that he had fallen behind in the case due to his inexperience and decided upon shooting his opponent as a way of buying himself time. Joice ultimately did buy himself time. A lot of it. A Seattle, Washington judge sentenced Joice to 31 ½ years. Meanwhile, Jung’s condition deteriorated and he finally died of complications from his gunshot wound.

Finally, there is this article of unknown origin that was recently passed on by a colleague. It purports to be a defense lawyer’s guide to waging psychological warfare against plaintiff’s lawyers. I have doubts about authenticity of this article. Nevertheless, its description of the tactics employed by some lawyers rings all-too true. Read for yourself and decide. It may give you a clue of what you’re in for should you decide to file a lawsuit.

Psychological Warfare: The Best Defense to Any Plaintiff’s Claim

The warfare starts when you first hear from the Plaintiff’s attorney or a lawsuit is filed. Immediately search all public records, court records, state bar records, the internet, MySpace, Twitter and any other sources you can find, including the attorney’s website or websites for information on both the Plaintiff’s attorney (“Counsel”) or the Plaintiff. You can find a lot of good information about the attorney or client’s mood at particular times, confidence, vulnerabilities, tenacity or lack thereof or anything you can add to your arsenal. This information usually also allows you to be able to tell your client how often the Plaintiff’s attorney appeals cases and whether they are in it for the long haul, if they only take cases to trial that they are sure to win and their general approach.

Keep in mind when reviewing records of Counsel’s litigation history, that Counsel losing trials and filing a lot of appeals is never a good sign. That means Counsel does not settle cases that probably should be settled and seems to spend more time and resources than he or she should on cases that are not likely winners and likes to litigate. This type of Counsel has convinced himself or herself that they are on a righteous campaign and they are far more dangerous than those trying to simply make a living and do not believe in our litigious society. This type of lawyer is the most dangerous and can cost your client a lot of money. Be very cautious about litigating against a lawyer that regularly appeals the case following a trial loss. It is always more prudent to try to resolve the matter with these lawyers.

One of the best methods for inducing a settlement that is more beneficial to your client is to shake the confidence of the Plaintiff’s lawyer, a lot of which will reach the Plaintiff, and if done correctly, can get the lawyer to outright dismiss the case for a waiver of costs, regardless of the merits of the case. There are several approaches you can take, but using all of them in a multi-pronged attack is the most effective using the following steps:

First, build a relationship with Plaintiff’s counsel and always be very pleasant and warm at first contact. Tell them how you look forward to working with them. You may even have common interests that you are aware of from their Facebook or other social media page. You may attend the same Temple or Church for all you know, both love Pugs or a particular breed of dog or even have mutual friends. You can make the Plaintiff’s attorney believe you are an ally in justice or someone they can trust to give them straight answers or even help them in a time of need. But, you need to build the bonds through what you have in common and shared experiences. Be sure to covertly encourage Counsel to share as many experiences, feelings or interests as you can get them to and feign interest by even asking good pointed questions. Counsel will think you care and you respect them and even have an interest in who they are. No matter how irrelevant and trivial their stories are to the case you are litigating, you are building a bond that will later be used to possibly get them to dismiss the case for a waiver of costs or accept a meager settlement.

Second, after the deposition of the Plaintiff, you have had enough time to dig up what you can on both the Plaintiff and his attorney, you can talk about the case with the Counsel emphasizing as many similar cases that you can that have crashed and burned. Discuss cases in which large attorneys’ fees awards have been made against the Plaintiff. These cases are few and far between but the Plaintiff’s lawyer will not know that in many cases or whether you yourself do it often, you can even tell Counsel that you specialize in cases in which that can be done and assigned to those cases. But do not be so obvious and say that you are assigned to Counsel’s case for that reason. If you are asked, just say cases are assigned by the intake attorney and that the cases are not discussed for possible attorneys’ fees recovery until further in the litigation. However, if the Counsel seems experienced or sophisticated, do not even attempt the attorneys’ fees recovery threat because you will lose all credibility.

Tell Counsel about the high cost bills you have gotten converted to judgments against the Plaintiff. Explain that your costs are at least five figures. This is easy to do with copying, investigators, subpoenas or anything that is not done in house. Tell them that many of the Plaintiff’s you have gotten costs against, even sue Counsel out of anger and use the Plaintiff’s litigation history to support this. The Plaintiff and Counsel have no idea what costs will be allowed and cannot ask you for an itemized list. If Counsel asks how the costs could be that high, immediately, with no hesitation and in full confidence, explain that your office is very thorough and meticulous and that is a low cost number by your standards. Not only does this justify your costs, you are making the defense case insurmountable. Listen closely on the phone as you will almost be able to hear Counsel’s heart sink. All the information you use for this purpose, if you use any actual data at all, should generally be from one of your offices anywhere in the country in the event Counsel tells you that his client will dismiss if he or she sees proof of this. This happens more often than you think. The ability to produce the proof later can mean the difference between an early victory and going to trial. The Plaintiff’s attorney will have no idea if you actually worked on the case you use as the proof and will take your word for it, and the reality is, at that point, it is academic.

Now that you have whittled Counsel’s resolve, tell the Counsel that you are willing to help them get out of the mess you have convinced them that they are in with this meritless case and you will plead with your clients for a waiver of costs for a dismissal, while telling them that your clients are furious that the case was even filed, will not settle the case, want to go to trial and win the case at any expense and sue the Plaintiff and Counsel. You then become the one trying to save the Plaintiff and Counsel by mediating between them and your client.

But, be careful not to attempt to do slam the Plaintiff’s case on the facts alone if the Plaintiff’s counsel has had a lot of success on these facts based on their litigation history and especially if they have far more experience than you do with cases on these facts. This happens often with lawyers that specialize and niche Counsel. For example, a “Lemon Law” lawyer will almost always have more experience on certain fact patterns than you do. It goes without saying that Counsel that specializes is always the hardest to shake, if not impossible if you do not have helpful information gathered. On the other hand, you will have a field day with attorneys whose websites say they practice personal injury, criminal law, family law, business law, trusts and estates, immigration, DWI defense, real estate and mediation. These attorneys are taking any cases they can get and are vulnerable to a psychological attack.

It is also helpful to use this approach when you have a motion pending, usually a dispositive one that the Plaintiff’s attorney has not started working on and is dreading the thought. The motion is more effective as an incentive to settle for a waiver of costs if it is riddled with exhibits and a compendium of cases from outside the jurisdiction that the Counsel does not want to have to read. Counsel is also busy and as solo practitioners may miss dates on discovery. If a date is missed or you have any other reason to file a motion to compel before you press for a dismissal, do so. Ask for as much as you possibly can in sanctions and strike the fear in Counsel. But, always say your client or preferably the client’s in house counsel is so furious that the case was filed that he or she is the one making you do all this. You are personally against asking for sanctions and sympathize with the Plaintiff’s attorney but have no choice, but you are there to offer a lifeline by letting them out with a waiver of costs and waiving the sanctions. Regardless of the outcome of the motion, the sanctions are a drop in the bucket for your client but would financially cripple the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, so this is a great weapon that we have and one of the most effective. It is not that hard to drum up a discovery dispute to be able to file the motion, and again, blame your client or in house counsel, you are always the good guy.

If the Plaintiff’s attorney talks about his client not settling and feeling like he or she needs to get something out of it, this is where you have to pay a little bit of money, and this is always an amount your client would gladly pay. Just make sure the amount is high enough that the Plaintiff’s attorney will get a little something out of it to make them go away or be able to cover their rent for the month, as many of them live hand to mouth. This is never more than five figures and is just a token. Explain to your client that they are merely driving by in their Bentley’s and kicking a few gold coins out of their car door as they driving by.

You can open up this attack in some cases very effectively with a meet and confer letter on a dispositive motion. Use all testimony harmful to the Plaintiff, as well as exhibits and any declarations you can get from people who detest the Plaintiff, have been sued by the Plaintiff or are even ex-spouses of the Plaintiff. Even if they are just character attacks and irrelevant declarations, the declarations will have an incredibly demoralizing impact. You may be able to find dilatants you will want to use on Facebook, Twitter and/or Court records.

Third, which is a Golden Rule or sorts, is to never paint a case as hopeless to Counsel based on Counsel’s abilities or experience. You will make Counsel resentful, angry, hurt and given Counsel something to prove. That is the last thing you want. Even if he is clueless, he can get past dispositive motions and win at trial. Many of us have been burned that way. The inexperience of lack of knowledge just means we will win the psychological war. Always find a case in the public record that Counsel was successful on. Even there is no much, pick anything. Say things like “I know you are really good because we researched you. I saw you won that opposition to a demurrer on the Jones v. Smith case. Your worked was good that I kept a copy.” Getting a copy of one successful pleading if the Plaintiff attorney has not won any trials costs almost nothing but makes Counsel truly believe you respect Counsel’s work, skills, reputations and you have no doubt about their legal acumen. Then, revert to your point about how they are taking a risk and wasting time and may as well work on their meritorious cases and put their skills to good use.

Lastly, you need to emotionally wear the Plaintiff down to have a good attack. Send subpoenas to their employers, doctors, family or anyone else you can think of. It is very embarrassing for Plaintiffs to have everyone know about their lawsuit, as many people look at litigants as opportunists and it is scary for most Plaintiffs to have all of their privacy taken away. More importantly, it is a heavy burden on the Plaintiff’s counsel to run around town trying to find out who received a subpoena and what they know and then meeting and conferring. Your fallback position is always that you have no idea what the doctor or employer or whoever you sent the subpoena to could have and therefore it could be relevant to the case.

Also send investigators to talk to all the neighbors and loved ones. Anyone hearing from an investigator makes the Plaintiff have a lot of explaining to do to that person. The Plaintiff will not want to discuss the lawsuit and if they do, it gives you more people to depose. Furthermore, many times, the Plaintiff’s explanation to their employer will just make the employer nervous about keeping them employed and the explanation to neighbors, friends and family will likely make little sense as they cannot articulate legal principles with confidence. Many lay people would say they do not understand how “you filed a legitimate lawsuit and you are being investigated.”

These strategies are effective because most Plaintiffs’ attorneys are isolated as solo practitioners or at small firms and are swamped with work that we bury them in. They do not have anyone to review the files and give them encouragement. You become the only outside voice giving an “independent” evaluation. These strategies cost very little time and money and are very effective in saving your clients millions of dollars, regardless of how solid the Plaintiff’s claim is. You dash the hope of the Plaintiff and the Counsel that you would ever settle for any substantial amount of money and your client is so angry that they will fight to the end and then come after the Plaintiff and their attorney. You can make any Plaintiff’s attorney believe that your case is not worth the hassle and their time is better spent on the multitude of other cases they have.

Related posts:

1. How Much Do Lawsuits Cost?
2. Arbitration Works Better than Lawsuits . . . But for Whom?
3. How Much Time Do Lawsuits Take?

1. Job-Seeker Mistreatment. With the tables turned, employers have enjoyed having the upper-hand on desperate job seekers. (US News: “How The Recession Has Changed Hiring”). Unfortunately, some have been classier about it than others. US News took a look at 5 Ways Companies Mistreat Job Seekers and found the following usual suspects: disrespecting the candidate’s time with last-minute cancellations and such, not letting the candidate know what to expect next or when, not stating the salary range and lowballing the candidate, misrepresenting job duties, and not bothering to tell the candidate they’ve been nixed.
2. Employee Abuse. As a labor and employment law lawyer, I’ve been getting a high volume of complaints about employers abusing their employees or violating the law. Things like not paying employees on time or at all, not giving promised pay raises or promotions, not giving breaks, withdrawing job offers after the candidate has already quit their old job and relocated, etc. Unfortunately, not all of this is the basis for a lawsuit, but it’s demoralizing to the employee to say the least. One researcher has determined that a poisonous work environment can actually increase the sick rate of employees. Consultant Krogh Larsen has termed it “pathogenic management”. (““Bad management makes you ill”“). Of course, at times like this, employees who get sick and take medical leave often become targets for retaliatory (and illegal) demotions, paycuts and wrongful terminations by their employers. By this way, if any of this has happened to you, you need to talk to a lawyer.
3. Executive Greed. As people cling desperately to their jobs or lose them and everything else, including their homes and marriages, executives are taking this opportunity to rake in obscene amounts of money. In “CEO salaries pay no heed to recession”, DailyFinance.com reports on the packages underperforming American companies rewarded their executives with in 2008. At no. 3, Ray R. Irani, CEO of Occidental Petroleum Corp., got $222 mil. (remember those high gas prices during the depths of the recession?). At no. 2, Larry Ellison, co-founder of software maker Oracle Corp., got $557 mil. And coming in at no. 1, Stephen A. Schwarzman, founder of private equity fund Blackstone Group, got $702 mil. That’s G-R-E-E-D writ large.

In an era where capitalist companies have shown breathtakingly bad judgment and had the temerity to ask for government handouts to bail themselves out, a conservative Supreme Court continues to give employers a free pass. In “The Supreme Court moves to the right, perhaps sharply to the right”, renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky explains the anti-employee and anti-plaintiff direction the Supremes have recently taken. Perhaps the most underreported development is the Supreme Court’s decision to make it tougher for plaintiffs, particularly those with discrimination claims, to bring a lawsuit in federal court. In Iqbal v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court effectively overturned more than 50 years of precedent and dramatically changed the rules of the game by now requiring plaintiffs to make “plausible” fact-supported allegations in their complaints. That’s a tall order for plaintiffs considering lawsuits usually start out with the employers having all the witnesses, documents and information. Nowhere is this more true than in discrimination cases where employee suspicions of disparate treatment or impact are often based on nothing more than differences in compensation or position over time.

Income Distribution

If you still have any doubt about who the big winners and losers were in this latest recession, take a look at this sobering chart from UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez. It says it all. The top 10% of earners in the US went from taking 35% of all compensation in 1982 to 50% in 2007, with the last big surge starting in 2002 and continuing through the recession. It’s a safe bet that the US worker was nowhere to be seen in that cushy 10%.

Let’s hope the coming recovery brings with it a more employee-friendly environment.

No related posts.

The Associated Press reports in an article entitled "California judges aren’t sharing state’s economic pain" , that California superior court judges, the kind of judges most employees would come before in most employment lawsuits, receive perks and supplemental benefits of up to $46,000 per year from county governments. That is on top of their $179,000 state salaries. In 2008, a California Court of Appeal overturned a superior court judge in finding that Los Angeles County’s payments to judges of $21 million per year in perks and supplemental benefits were a violation of the California constitution. The case, Harold P. Sturgeon v. The County of Los Angeles, Fourth App. Dist. Div. One, Case No. D050832 , was filed by Judicial Watch , a conservative watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. After the ruling came down, the California Judges Association responded by successfully lobbying Sacramento to keep the perks in place through legislation (S.B. 11 ) that was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009.

What does all this mean for you?

If you happen to work for a county government entity and you decide to take them to superior court, watch out. You will be appearing before a judge whose health club membership or health insurance is being paid for by that very same county employer you are suing. How fair can you expect this judge to be to you? In my experience, expect the worst.

If you’re a taxpayer in California, it means that up to $25 mil. per year of your tax money is being paid to judges in the form of perks, above and beyond their state income, that are unconstitutional.

These County paid perks undermine all notions of justice, particularly considering how often County entities appear as litigants in court.

What is to be done?

Related posts:

1. Sexual Harassment in California
2. Filing a Discrimination Complaint in California
3. Discrimination Laws in California

If you’re like most people, you probably answered yes. But as usual, the truth is not so simple.

For those of you who are interested in getting past the tort reform hype and learning the cold, hard facts about the infamous McDonalds coffee cup case, read "The MCDONALDS Coffee Cup Case— Separating The McFACTS From The McFICTION" . Did you know the following "McFacts"?:

1. The infamous McDonalds coffee which the coffee cup lady (Stella Liebeck) bought was 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius) at standard atmospheric pressure. 185 degree liquid can cause third degree full-thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
2. Before the coffee cup lady got burned, 700 other McDonalds customer who were burned by McDonalds coffee had brought claims against the restaurant during the preceding 10 years.
3. When the coffee cup lady spilled her McDonalds coffee into her lap, the car was parked and she was in the passenger, not driver, seat. She was NOT trying to drive and drink coffee at the same time.
4. The coffee cup lady suffered third degree burns from her McDonalds spilled coffee to her groin, thighs, genitalia and buttocks. She had to spend 7 days in the hospital, 3 weeks at home, skin grafts and at one point, her life was thought to be in jeopardy.
5. After judgment, the judge reduced the jury’s punitive award from $2.7 mil. to $640k.
6. The coffee cup lady had initially asked McDonalds to pay $2k for medical bills plus her daughter’s lost wages. McDonalds played hardball and refused to offer more than $800.

As S. Reed Morgan, the lawyer who represented the coffee cup lady, says: "Is this an individual who didn’t take responsibility, or a corporation that didn’t take responsibility? The jury found 20 percent against Mrs. Liebeck and 80 percent against McDonald’s."

The McDonalds coffee cup case was no runaway verdict but, somehow, it was turned by the media into the poster child for greedy plaintiffs who refuse to take personal responsibility and frivolous litigation. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ lawyers to this day are finding they have to defuse the hype and lies that have grown around this infamous coffee cup case during the initial jury panel interview phase of trial (otherwise known as "voir dire"). It’s an unfortunate legacy that threatens to continue poisoning jurors’ minds indefinitely.

Related posts:

1. Dukes v. Wal-Mart: 9th Circuit Upholds Class Certification in $11 Billion Sexual Discrimination Case

Starbucks barista Sandra Andersen only knew Annamarie Ausnes as an upbeat customer who would come in the mornings to order her usual cup of coffee. One morning last October, Andersen noticed that Ausnes wasn’t her usual cheerful self. So she asked her what was wrong. Ausnes leaned across the counter and confided that her kidneys were failing and no one in her family was a match. She was losing hope. The next thing that happened was an act of unspeakable goodness.

Read all about it here: CNN’s story, Barista donates kidney to save customer’s life. It’s great to know that heroes still exist.

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. U.S. Workers: Say Farewell to Job Growth

That’s why, when I read this editorial, it brought a smile to face. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

Related posts:

1. What Really Goes On in Jury Rooms?
2. Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?
3. Why Cursing at a Judge is NOT a Good Idea

Aircraft: The US (Boeing) and Europe (Airbus) have been in a see-saw battle for the number one position.

Automobiles: Dominated by Japan (Toyota, Honda) and Germany (Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler).

Chemicals: Dominated by Europe (BASF, Shell, Bayer AG).

Petrochemicals: Dominated by the Seven Sisters – Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia), formerly Aramco; JSC Gazprom (Russia); CNPC (China), NIOC (Iran), PDVSA (Venezuela), Petrobras (Brazil), Petronas (Malaysia).

Semiconductors: While the US (Intel) occupies the number one position in the semiconductor industry, Korea (Samsung Electronics) and Japan (Toshiba Semiconductors) occupy no. 2 and 3 respectively.

Shipbuilding: Dominated by South Korea (Samsung Heavy Industries, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding), Japan (Universal Shipbuilding Corp.) and China (Dalian New Ship Heavy Industry Co., Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding).

Steel: Dominated by Luxembourg (Arcelor-Mittal), Japan (Nippon Steel), and Korea (POSCO).

Textiles: Dominated by China, Asia and Southeast Asia.

Americans used to build what the rest of the world wanted. Now Americans are the leading destination for import goods from around the world. This and irresponsible spending has helped to fuel the US’s “twin deficits” – a budget deficit (projected to hit over $400 billion this year) and a current account deficit (the trade deficit was $63 billion as of November 2007) – both of which are weighing the US economy down.

Here is one indication that the US economy is in serious trouble: the job growth engine is showing signs of stalling. So says Business Week in this sobering article, “The Great American Jobs Machine Is Conking Out”. The article points out that workers who lose their jobs are having a hard time finding new ones. This past January, 18.3% of jobless workers were out of work for six months or more, up from 16.2% a year earlier.

I still believe in the American Dream, that it can still be saved. Tomorrow is National Presidential Primary Day. I plan to vote. I hope you’ll join me.

Related posts:

1. US Workers: Overworked, Underpaid & Left Behind
2. H1-B Visa Workers: Know Your Rights
3. Should Workers Be Paid for Answering Emails After Hours?

“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all, frighten people, and secondly, demoralize them. An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern”.

I think this single statement crystallizes for me the entire sum of my thinking on what’s gone wrong with the US. Americans, quite simply, have become afraid of their government. And U.S. government, in turn, has become the servant of multi-national corporations which increasingly have no allegiance to any single nation.

Corporations control U.S. government which controls the people.

It didn’t have to be this way.

In his farewell speech in 1961, President Eisenhower foresaw the coming dominance of what he termed the “military-industrial complex”. He warned Americans to stay vigilant.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. . . . We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”

Apparently, Americans fell asleep at the wheel of government. They have woken up to find multi-national corporations sitting in the driver’s seat.

We now live in a country whose top leaders share close ties with Kellogg, Brown & Root, Halliburton and the oil industry. Congressional representatives are regularly sold to the highest bidders. And perhaps not surprisingly, the U.S. is mired in a war that few Americans support and that all told is expected to cost taxpayers a staggering $1.9 trillion. Ever wonder into whose pockets all that money is going? President Eisenhower would have known the answer. President Bush and his circle of friends definitely know.

In the case of multi-national corporations versus U.S. government, I declare the undisputed winner to be: multi-national corporations.

Back in the hippie era of the ’70s, American democracy was stronger than ever. Americans viewed it as their patriotic duty to stand up to the government. President Nixon resorted to illegal methods in his attempts to tame his enemies, which comprised just about everyone. Eventually, the Watergate break-in proved to be his undoing, leading to revelations of destroyed illicit tape recordings, warrantless wiretapping, illegal investigations, secret slush funds, political espionage and sabotage on a massive scale.

Today, we have a sitting President who has engaged in warrantless wiretapping, illegal torture, suspension of habeas corpus, systematic suppression of scientific research, and on and on. Sound familiar at all?

Something has changed, however. Americans no longer have the will to hold rallies and protest against the government. And a government that used to serve and fear the people now controls them. As Mr. Benn observed, people who are frightened and demoralized are easier to control. Americans today are shackled by mortgages, credit card debt, poor or non-existent health insurance, declining job opportunities and a weak economy. Newspaper headlines sow fear by sensationalizing plane crashes, terrorist attacks, Columbine-type massacres. Perhaps this helps to explain why Nixon was impeached in 1974, but Bush remains in office in 2007.

In the case of the Government versus the People, I declare the undisputed winner to be: U.S. Government.

I find myself wondering all the time, when will Americans say, that’s it, we’ve had enough! After a short 230 years, are the curtains already coming down on the Great American Democratic Experiment? I’ve got my fingers and toes firmly crossed as we head into the next Presidential election.

Related posts:

1. Harris Poll: 3 of 5 Americans Believe Juries Fair

Being an employment attorney, I was especially surprised to watch Sicko’s account of how poorly US medical leave policies compared with those of other countries. Then I did some further research.

According to a 2007 report from The Project on Global Working Families – The Work, Family, and Equity Index: How Does the United States Measure Up? – which surveyed worker policies in 177 countries, the US performs well in terms of anti-discrimination policies, while US overtime policies are near the top of the range (only 6 countries mandate more than “time and a half”).

Where the US lags behind, though, is in sick, medical and paternity/maternity leaves and work hours. Here are some excerpts:

- “U.S. guarantees no paid leave for mothers in any segment of the work force, leaving it in the company of only 3 other nations: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland.” [Note: California has the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law]

- “137 countries mandate paid annual leave. 121 countries guarantee 2 weeks or more each year. The U.S. does not require employers to provide paid annual leave.”

- “At least 126 countries require employers to provide a mandatory day of rest each week. The U.S. does not guarantee workers this 24-hour break.”

- “More than 81 countries provide sickness benefits for at least 26 weeks or until recovery. The U.S. provides only unpaid leave for serious illnesses through the FMLA, which does not cover all workers.”

- “49 countries guarantee leave for major family events such as marriage or funerals; in 40 of these countries, leave for one or both of these family events is paid.” Not the U.S. And not California. Just a few months ago, SB 549, a bill that would’ve given employees 4 days of bereavement leave, passed the California legislature. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Imagine getting fired for attending your mother’s funeral. You can stop imagining, that’s the reality.

Under the US Family Medical Leave Act (and also under the analogous California Family Rights Act), employees are entitled to take a maximum of only 12 weeks of job-protected medical leave to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own serious illness. The FMLA does not protect all workers, only those who have worked at least one year for their employer, have worked at least 1,250 hours in the past year, and whose employer has at least 50 employees working within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. According to the AFL-CIO, this means FMLA leaves 40% of workers out in the cold.

You might think that being “hard-core” means Americans are more productive than everyone else. Wrong. According to the OECD, US productivity is lower than countries with more generous medical leave policies like Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway and, surprise, France, a country that Sicko focused heavily on. In fact, according to this article in the Washington Post, 75% of women in France with at least two children are employed. The number in the US is far lower than that.

So working reasonable hours, being able to take time off to take care of illnesses, and having periodic breaks from work translate into greater productivity (and a happier worker)? You don’t say. Looks like it’s time for Governor Schwarzenegger to rent his own copy of Sicko.

Related posts:

1. FMLA Medical Leave Expanded to Families of Military
2. Minimum Wages around the World
3. Fired Chase Manhattan Employee’s Recovery for FMLA Violations Could Exceed $7 Mil.