I’m a little skeptical of that sick leave data source, since it claims that Australia offers 6 months or more “paid leave for personal health needs through employers and the social security system,” while Australian unions are campaigning for government support for 3.3 million casual workers with no sick leave: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/unions-call-for-quarantined-casu...
Keyword is casual workers which I suppose is the same as interim and flex workers. These have different rights [1] than people who have a contract. Same with self-employed.
[1] This has its pros and cons but that is beyond the scope of the point.
That's right. It's not beyond the point because in both countries, these millions of casual retail and hospitality workers are the source of the risk discussed in the article (they won't self-quarantine because it would cost them their income). It would be wrong to look at the chart you linked, which shows Australia and Western Europe as green and the USA as orange, and conclude that the USA is unique among developed economies in having a casualised workforce and "zero universal guaranteed paid sick leave."
What I meant with "beyond the scope of the point" is that the discussion of the pros and cons of such system (of casual workers / interim) i a tangent I'm not going on about.
In this context it'd be proper to include an amount/percentage of people who have such a job versus those who have a normal job (with permanent contract). I'm also interested in differentiation between different states, but then again there might also be differences in say Germany's provinces.
On another note, the USA is not unique among developed economies in this context; South Korea is also a developed economy.
