Will Your Waiter Give You the Flu?

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?safesearch=1&search_language=en&search_type=similar&similar_photo_id=26379610&sort_method=popular#id=74512372&src=94497cdae5a14a0df5d96bd817b6b951-1-0">Dmitry Kalinovsky</a>/Shutterstock; <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=flu+virus&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=74263402&src=ab202318e9c76ae86006deba7e4ab53a-1-4">SARANS</a>/Shutterstock; <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=flu+virus&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=42546328&src=ab202318e9c76ae86006deba7e4ab53a-1-1">CLIPAREA</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Fifteen minutes before Victoria Bruton’s lunch shift at a busy Philadelphia dining joint, she began to feel dizzy and hot. “I had gone to my boss and asked if I could leave because I wasn’t feeling well,” Bruton, now 41, remembers of her first case of what she assumed to be the flu. “They asked that I finish the shift. And frankly, I couldn’t afford not to.” The sole source of income for her two daughters, Bruton powered through the shiftand spent the next two days confined to a sickbed. 

Like most of the country, Philadelphia doesn’t require restaurants to pay sick leave for its food handlers, though longtime food workers like Bruton, advocacy organizations, and lawmakers are currently fighting for a law to do so in Pennsylvania. Councilmen in Portland, Oregon, are also debating a similar initiative. But these two proposals are the exception rather than the norm: According to a study from the Food Chain Workers Alliance, 79 percent of food workers in the United States don’t have paid sick leave or don’t know if they do. And it’s not just flu that sick servers can spread—a study out this week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the food industry’s labor practices may be contributing to some of the nation’s most common foodborne illness outbreaks, and even more than previously thought.

The report draws from a decade’s worth of records detailing nearly 4,600 outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Of them, the agency found that 46 percent of outbreaks arose from an oft-ignored culprit: leafy vegetables contaminated with norovirus, a highly contagious bug with stomach-flu-like symptoms. Another recent CDC study traced a whopping 53 percent of norovirus outbreaks, and possibly up to 82 percent, to infected food workers.

“Anything that we can do to prevent those workers from showing up at the kitchen when they’re sick will go a long way to preventing disease,” says Dr. Aron Hall, lead author of the earlier norovirus study and epidemiologist at the CDC. “Certainly, providing sick pay and sick leave policies [is] critical to ensuring sick workers stay away.”

Other researchers have also tied norovirus outbreaks to lack of paid sick leave, citing restaurant managerial practices as a major risk factor in the spread of foodborne illness. But the National Restaurant Association (NRA), along with state restaurant trade associations, has fired back, citing tight expenses and the fast-paced nature of the industry as reasons why restaurants shouldn’t be required to offer paid sick leave. These groups have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars to successfully shut down sick leave initiatives in cities like Denver and Milwaukee

A recent CDC study traced a whopping 53 percent of norovirus outbreaks, and possibly up to 82 percent, to infected food workers.

“Most part-time hourly employees don’t expect to receive paid sick leave,” Patrick Conway, president of the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association (PLRA) told me over the phone. “I think the problem that the employer has is not that they don’t want to take care of their employees—but what happens is that you’ve got to pay somebody who doesn’t show up to work because they’re sick, and you’ve got to pay someone who does show up to cover the shift. You’re paying double.”

“There’s no safer place to eat than a licensed restaurant,” Conway added, pointing out that the PLRA provides food safety training for employees.

Lisa Frack, communications director at Family Forward Oregon, a coalition of labor and family organizations pushing for paid sick leave in Portland, argues that the NRA’s economic concerns are flawed. She points out the issue of “presenteeism”—that a sick food worker is “present, but not productive.” Frack also highlights the compounded risk of a sick worker infecting other workers and stringing out his illness even longer, both of which impact business directly. It’s also unlikely that the NRA is taking into account the externalized costs. Norovirus, for instance, results in 150 deaths, 15,000 hospitalizatons, and an estimated $2 billion in health care expenses and lost work a year.

Sarumathi Jayaraman, cofounder of food worker advocacy group Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United) and author of a book about food industry labor out next week, agrees that the lack of paid sick leave helps perpetuate pretty big public health problems. “An employer in New York actually openly told us that it’s kind of a joke in our industry that our industry is single-handedly responsible for perpetuating the flu in the winter season because everyone knows restaurant workers work when they’re sick,” Jayaraman says. “Everybody knows it, and it just happens. It’s just tragic.”

Without pressure on restaurants to provide incentives for sick time, employees often feel that staying home could cost them their jobs, Bruton says. “It’s easier to come in sick, even if you are throwing up,” she adds. “You want to prove to your boss you’re not faking it.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate