By Arthur Weinreb
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
It's already come to the U.K. Some businesses have instituted policies of giving employees paid time off to look after their sick puppies and kitties or take them to the vet. The theory is that employers who grant such benefits will be more attractive to prospective employees and create a better work environment. The policy also recognizes how closely attached many people are to their pets.
Now no employer should begrudge an employee who takes time off to rush a seriously ill or badly injured pet to the veterinarian. After all, to abandon a pet in distress could easily constitute animal cruelty. It's similar to not remaining at the scene of an accident because to do so might make you late for work. But the notion that employees should be given time off, with pay, because their pet is a little under the weather is patently absurd. It's further proof of the low value that too many people place on their employment and of the notion of personal responsibility.
It used to be, back in the olden days, that people would only take time off from work when they were sick. Those days are long gone. Now many employees take time off when they simply aren't "feeling well". One sneeze and they run to the phone and call in sick because they might be coming down with a cold (and that's true -- they might). Wake up with a headache; well, it could be a brain tumour. Better take the day off work and go to the doctor. It's not like you have to pay the doctor. Now, if Canada follows the U.K., and it is only a matter of time, people will be calling in sick when their dogs and cats seem to be a little under the weather. In Britain, it is estimated that peternity care will cost businesses 19 million annually (CAN $8.1 million).
Once peternity care is instituted you can guess what's coming next -- and it is. The Royal Mail for one is considering granting compassionate leave when a beloved pet passes away. PETA must be jumping for joy at how their notion of "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" is catching on.
So far this policy only applies to dogs and cats. This is kind of reminiscent of the time when the word "persons" really only meant white males. You know that this will not last. After all, one man's pest is another man's pet. Suppose you don't have any pets but you find a spider in your house. And the spider doesn't look too well. Yippee!!! An excuse to take time off work. "Hi, it's me; I won't be in today. Spidey's on his last three or four legs. If you don't see me for a couple of weeks, he will have died". Of course if you really want to take the week after next off, you can always just wait and kill the damn spider then. It's hard to see how a policy like that could ever be restricted to dogs and cats while ignoring the plight of those who have birds, hamsters, white mice and other assorted animals, fish and insects as pets. There's a Charter argument in there somewhere.
If pets are going to be treated like people, the next logical step will follow. If the health and well being of animals and pets are going to be as important as that of humans, then the government will just have to step in and run pet care. Forget the environment and people care. All parties will run on the platform that they will spend more money on improving pet care. It will become the defining issue in future elections.
There certainly would be an advantage in having the government control pet care. Fido and Fluffy would, like people, get to become true patriotic Canadians by sacrificing their lives by dying on a waiting list.
It's only a matter of time before peternity leave and compassionate leave for pets will be standard practice for much of the Canadian workforce. The mind boggles at what could possibly be next. What about sick plants?
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement