Today, the Washington Post reported that “the United States and other northern countries have been racing to prepare for a second wave of swine flu virus.” “While flu viruses are notoriously capricious, making any firm predictions impossible, a new round could hit the Northern Hemisphere within weeks and lead to major disruptions in schools, workplaces and hospitals,” the Post noted. On Meet the Press yesterday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked if he anticipates any school closings in the fall due to swine flu and made the following observations:

The experts basically say if the child appears sick or if you appear sick, stay home until the symptoms go away…[R]emember, a lot of parents have to work and missing a day of work to take care of the kid or worse leaving the child home unsupervised puts the child in danger and hurts the family.

Watch it:

President Obama was in Mexico today to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and the virus was one of the topics of discussion. Reuters reported that “a senior Obama administration official said the goal was to ensure that the people of the three countries are fully informed about steps to mitigate the spread of the virus.” Indeed, flu concerns have “prompted a flurry of activity by federal, state and local officials, including intensifying flu virus monitoring and making plans to distribute vaccine and antiviral drugs and other treatments if necessary.”

All of this preparation is great, but it doesn’t address the simple fact that one of the most effective ways to combat the spread of a flu virus is to simply have sick people stay away from work and/or school. But this is made much more difficult due to the fact that America is alone in the industrialized world in not guaranteeing at least some paid sick leave for workers.

Almost 50 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. have no paid sick days, including 76 percent of low-wage workers and 86 percent of food service workers. These workers can’t stay home to take care of themselves, and certainly can’t stay home to care for a sick child or a child whose school has been closed as a precaution against the flu.

There are currently two bills before Congress that could rectify this situation. One, the Healthy Families Act, would guarantee up to seven paid sick days (and would allow the use of sick days to care for ill family members). The provisions in the Healthy Families Act have also been placed into Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) Balancing Act of 2009, which incorporates a whole host of health and leave initiatives aimed at working families.

Three cities — San Francisco, Milwaukee and Washington — have taken matters into their own hands and “adopted legislation requiring employers to provide paid sick days to their employees.” Bloomberg has also expressed an openness to doing the same in New York City, for large employers. But with a second round of swine flu potentially coming this fall, it’s time for Congress to make guaranteed sick leave the law of the land.

It’s already been reported that Wall Street banks are getting back to their pre-crisis compensation practices. But the New York Times added another wrinkle to the story today, noting that some banks — including those ostensibly owned by the U.S. government — are “reviving the practice of offering ironclad, multimillion-dollar payouts — guaranteed, no matter how an employee performs”:

For a short time, banks had stopped offering guarantees, after the financial crisis turned their profits into losses and as Washington began to scrutinize their use of public money. But now, with banks apparently rebounding after two consecutive profitable quarters, some have resumed the practice, arguing that such bonuses are needed to attract and retain top performers.

The usual suspects — Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — are back to offering guaranteed bonuses, but so are Citigroup and Bank of America, the financial behemoths still living off of government bailouts.

The problem with a guaranteed bonus is that it is completely unhinged from any sort of performance metrics. With no serious downside, the bankers are encouraged to go all-out in search of profits, as going bust entails little personal financial risk. “Is Wall Street again going to overpromise, and then when the market turns down, we’ll have another set of pay problems?” asked Alan Johnson, a pay consultant who specializes in financial services.

In a report released last month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed just how disconnected bank bonuses are from the performance of those who receive them. “Two firms, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch suffered massive losses of more than $27 billion at each firm [in 2008],” Cuomo wrote. “Nevertheless, Citigroup paid out $5.33 billion in bonuses and Merrill paid $3.6 billion in bonuses. Together, they lost $54 billion, paid out nearly $9 billion in bonuses and then received bailouts totaling $55 billion.”

If the complete failure of a firm is not enough to alter employee pay, then what is? As the Miami Herald’s editorial board wrote yesterday, “it’s time to bring a measure of common sense to the realm of executive compensation”:

Before adjourning for the August recess, the House passed a measure that puts new constraints on executive pay, enabling regulators to ban payments that produce “perverse incentives” to take risks that could damage the financial system. Think high-risk mortgages, the kind that brought down the housing industry. The Senate should follow suit when it returns to work next month.

As Lucian Bebchuk wrote, “regulation of pay in financial institutions is justified by the very same moral hazard concerns that provide the basis for existing regulation of the sector.” However, there have thus far been no indications from the Senate that the bill will do anything but languish. But maybe the stories emerging about Wall Street’s return to the status quo will change some minds?