I'm all for it. Employers can suck it up and provide basic coverage like this.
You know I was talking about issues that actually help the working poor? Here you go.OLYMPIA — Democrats in the state Legislature say they have their best chance in years to give Washington employees up to five weeks of paid family medical leave — and a guarantee that they would still have a job when they return.
The proposed benefit, which would be one of the most generous in the country, has roiled the state's business groups, who say it would drive up costs and weaken Washington's recovering economy.
But supporters say the bills would help thousands of workers who are forced to choose between losing their job or staying home to take care of a newborn baby or ailing parent.
"People who are making beds at the hotels, serving dinner ... are living on the edge," said Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines and the bill's prime sponsor in the state Senate. "They have no sick leave, they have no vacation leave."
Rage! Overwhelming!Opponents argued that most employers already go out of their way to help good employees, and that a government-mandated leave program could be abused.
"The only people this bill would benefit are people who are not good employees," said Dan Fazio, assistant director of government relations for the Farm Bureau.
I'm all for it. Employers can suck it up and provide basic coverage like this.
This sounds like a poor idea to me. We already have the FMLA to gaurantee leave to workers, the only difference is that this law makes it paid leave. Why should a single unlucky company have to assume the considerable liability of paying someone for 5 weeks when they don't work? I don't like forcing companies to assume welfare duties like this. If we a society need a financial safety net for people in these circumstances then it should come from public funds and the cost should be shared fairly.
I'm with you Jason. Private businesses should be forced to be as inneficient as the federal government beauracracy as soon as possible.
Or better yet! as inneficient as France!
Sure. Based on that logic, we shouldn't guarantee their original jobs for National Guardsmen when they return to the companies they worked for before the war.Originally Posted by MikeTwain
I don't think Guard service is paid leave.Originally Posted by Case
No, but companies have to plan to hold positions for people for years. Kinda puts five weeks of paid parental leave in perspective.Originally Posted by MikeSofaer
It's a step in the right direction, seems a bit low though..
"Right now?" Yeah, I'm sure she'd be all for it if the times were better :roll:"We think this is not the direction to go in this economy right now," said Carolyn Logue, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business.
Great, pay for it out of taxes then. Would the lobbyists complain about that too? Yes.Originally Posted by Nick Walter
Well my original post had very little logic in it as it was more of an anti-Jason troll.Originally Posted by Case
But to your point, I thinkt there's a huge difference between guaranteeing jobs for service members and guaranteeing jobs to people that need medical or family leave. First, it's far too easy for unscrupulous people to abuse family or medical leave policies to the detriment of small businesses. It's much more difficult for somebody to abuse a military service leave policy. Second, although difficult family situations and medical problems are always sad and often tragic, I simply don't agree that creating more and more leave benefits are the answer.
I don't want the government to solve these problems for me and I don't want my taxes to pay to solve these problems for somebody else.
Ok, so... what *is* the answer?Originally Posted by MikeTwain
That's a great alternative suggestion, why don't you write your state legislators and suggest it? "Dear Senator, I like the idea of the five week paid family leave bill, but after discussing it, I realize that it may be burdensome to expect companies to pay for it themselves. However, I'd be happy to have a portion of my tax dollars go to such a plan."Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
The business lobbyists would probably be happier enough to accept it as a compromise, but then again the tax reform lobbyists might get upset then. Of course, if you don't do anything, then the labor lobbyists aren't going to be happy.
Paid leave, that's interesting.
I have to imagine that it would be loophole city. Companies would have to plan for every employee getting 5 weeks off plus their normal vacation plus sick days.
Adding the provision that the salary is paid with tax dollars is a great way to kill it by the way.
I don't understand how compairng Guard duty leave and paid leave is supposed to provide perspective.
How can I answer for somebody else how they should deal with a major life crisis?Originally Posted by extarbags
We're just not even on the same wavelength. You demand a canned solution from me right after I just told you that canned solutions are not the problem.
The only "solution" to this "problem" is that if you know somebody that has a medical problem or a life issue, then lend a hand and help them out.
Sometimes I think some people won't be happy until a government nurse follows them around to wipe their butts and change their diapers and feed them their pureed squash at dinnertime.
As opposed to the current plan of firing every employee within a couple of years of their start date to meet arbitrary revenue projections, or keep anyone from drawing to large a salary.I have to imagine that it would be loophole city. Companies would have to plan for every employee getting 5 weeks off plus their normal vacation plus sick days.
Well two wrongs don't make a right and I don't see how they relate.Originally Posted by noun
I would imagine that an employer who fired employees to keep them from drawing too large a salary would get in trouble eventually or run out of employees. It may work for some industries though.
Oh yes, the employers can do nothing about it when they're making it up. In fact, they can't tell at all. Give me a break, this isn't a problem; show even vague evidence that this is a statistical concern.First, it's far too easy for unscrupulous people to abuse family or medical leave policies to the detriment of small businesses.
Sometimes I think capital and its boot-licking lackeys won't be happy until we reinstitute slavery.Sometimes I think some people won't be happy until a government nurse follows them around to wipe their butts and change their diapers and feed them their pureed squash at dinnertime.
Umm, how do you expect him to show you statistics of what might happen if we implement a plan?Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
I imagine there are statistics in HR journals out there about people taking paid sick days which might be related enough to be meaningful in this context. I know my employer used to offer unlimited paid sick-days until a few people started taking 15 a year above and beyond their vacation time. Then my employer imposed a limit of 4 sick day/year and miraculously the 15 sick day/year people got much healthier and only needed 4 sick days/year thereafter
I guess I look at it this way. If there were no abuse concerns, how come the vast majority of employers limit the amount of paid sick time a person gets?
There is some serious Gandolf-level hand waving going on in that post.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
Why the FUCK are Republicans so concerned about the edge cases where people abuse the system? OH NO, SOMEWHERE A JAGOFF IS GETTING A BONUS HE/SHE DIDN'T DESERVE?
Where's the moral outrage against corrupt accounting practices, crooked CEOs and tax shelters, which drain your precious coffers more than some poor shlub who wants a little extra time off?
Oh, that's right, the latter folks are THE FILTHY, LAZY POOR. Do half of you moral crusaders even have friends that work minimum wage or low-level jobs, and understand just how much abuse goes on there -- how shackled they are to the whims of the businesses they work for?
If it's such a problem, I'm sure the countries like Sweden would have numbers analyzing this, no? And I'm not sure why the pass filter the this is "no abuse concerns". People abuse everything to some extent as a matter of course, so as long as it is not's worse than most la-de-da.Originally Posted by Nick Walter
Because employers can't pay people forever when they don't show up to work. Technically, it's a tradeoff between the cost of providing the sick leave and the cost of the worker getting pissed and leaving.I guess I look at it this way. If there were no abuse concerns, how come the vast majority of employers limit the amount of paid sick time a person gets?
Of course, if we're all soooo concerned with small businesses, here's an idea: duplicate the unemployment insurance structure. Since really this is a case of business screwing labor, pay for the benefit with a tax on capital gains; since the vast majority of capital gains is by huge companies, the small businesses wouldn't pay much.
Then use the proceeds to reimburse companies, with a sliding reimbursement scale for company size.
I am outraged at these abuses. We're just not talking about them in this thread.Originally Posted by Doug Erickson
I have several friends and family members that work low level jobs. A few of them work for small businesses that would be deeply hurt by having to pay salaries and get nothing in return.Do half of you moral crusaders even have friends that work minimum wage or low-level jobs, and understand just how much abuse goes on there -- how shackled they are to the whims of the businesses they work for?
What does Sweden have to do with this?Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
And just for reference, has anyone heard of abuse stories with the federal family medical leave act? No? Even when the complaints about it were actually the same?
Sure, a few dorks will screw around and fake illnesses, but employers can respond to that they way they always have: firing people who lie.
FMLA is unpaid leave. How the hell can you abuse that? If a person wants unpaid time off, they can easily arrange to become unemployed!Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
http://lpa.igc.org/lpv25/lp10.htmOriginally Posted by Nick Walter
As hilariously implausible as the rest of that is in the US - I can imagine the shitstorm from business if someone proposed a 6 hour day for parents with young children - it's not like this is all a crazy idea no one has tried before.Sweden gives all families a universal tax-free child or family allowance for each child up to the age of 18. The allowance usually adds up to 5% of average earnings, per child. Working parents are entitled to paid and job-protected 15-month parental leave following childbirth, an unpaid but job-protected additional leave of three months, and the right to work a 6-hour day until their youngest child is eight. They can also take up to 60 days a year of paid sick leave if they need to care for an ill child, and are guaranteed the right to take time off to visit their child's school or childcare center.
EDIT: Post removed but un-deletable cause you dang kids post replies too fast :D
Oh, pretty cool related article:
If we're worried about a falling birth rate, making it easier to raise a child with policies like this is the way to go.The Baby Boycott
Conservatives thought that if they only made it harder for mothers to work, women would stay home.
Instead, women stopped having kids.
Fortunately, researchers have come a long way since Alfred Marshall and have identified some common factors among the countries with the lowest birth rates, which are evident in the U.S. as well---and they have little to do with selfish women or emerging lifestyle choices. It turns out that the developed countries with the lowest fertility rates happen to be those with social and economic structures still organized around the patriarchal "male breadwinner model," which is designed to force women out of the workforce once they have children.
The leading thinkers on this subject, from French demographer Jean-Claude Chesnais to American MacArthur genius and feminist economist Nancy Folbre, have made a provocative case that when women have wide opportunities in the workplace that are severely curtailed by having children, the birth rate will fall to very low levels.
You don't have to look that far. Canada has a great family leave plan.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
Basically, it's a part of Employment Insurance. It's a deduction on your pay cheque, similar to income tax. Then, if you take what is called Parental Leave, you get some portion of your wages back out of it. I believe it's 60% percent. I think Dad's could take up to 6 months (though I think this has recently been cut back to 3), Moms can take up to a year. It doesn't really cost the company any more than a regular employee, all they have to do is gaurantee your job will be waiting for you when you return.
When my son was born, I took a month off.
Oh yeah right, I forgot, Americans can't learn anything from any other country, can they? I forgot that democracy, freedom and sanitation are American inventions.Originally Posted by Nick Walter