[Tetto]

Originally Posted by Victor_M

You missed the point by a mile..
Have you even read the rest of the thread?
Not to mention this isn't some contest where you get to show off your vacation days. What I was referring to was the Average number of days.
Of course some people will get more, others less.
How you managed to turn this into an american vs european pride thing is beyond me.

I really wasn't boasting or showing off, just pointing out that hard work and sacrifice can pay off. I'm sure there are people far better off than I am, good for them. Of course, some nanny state could just pass a law and everybody starts off with 30 days a year vacation, no matter what job you do.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Tetto

Well, lets see; I wasn't born in Europe, get 5 weeks vacation, two personal days, 12 holidays +4 floater days to choose. I get up to 26 weeks sick time, the first six weeks out I get my full pay, then it goes down from there.

Imagine...All that from a "backwards" American company!

Yep, you'd better stay over there, you're far better off

That's like saying that baseball players get millions of $$$$.......the point is getting a job with the kind of perks you describe is almost like winning the lottery whereas in most of the developed world it is not.

It would be nice if companies simply did it because "its the right thing to do" but human nature doesn't work that way......

Originally Posted by bobtn

BTW, 7wishes for every 45 year old John, there are several moochers gaming the system. Our overall US 2011 work ethic stinks. Its been a several decade long journey down from the levels of prior generations, who were ashamed to be doing anything but standing on their own 2 feet. Our work ethic than was our biggest asset. Education was not meant to replace it, but to be in addition to it.

Still doesn't justify making John destitute....what's YOUR answer for him smartie? And there are MILLIONS like him.....from my experience I'd say the ratio of "Johns" to "moochers" is closer to 1:1, not 1:several. And by the way, I know a couple of "arch conservatives" who's views on this would make even yours and JViello's look "socialist" by comparison (in that they really did go so far as to suggest eliminating child labor laws and have no minimum wage whatsoever because they are as purely "libertarian" as I have ever seen) who by cruel fate ended up in a situation somewhat similar to John's in the last year or two and they are "eating their words" somewhat. I hope that doesn't happen to you one day.....not meant as an insult or personal attack, I respect other views and even in my first post started out noting that some "game the system", but you'd be surprised how some people change their thinking when "the shoe goes on the other foot" so to speak.

[bobtn]

There will always be Johns, and there will always be family. I've helped mine on many occasions, and notice we have millions of 99ers w/o EQUAL numbers of newly homeless. There are also many terrific charitable orgs that also help them.

Long-term, if you really care about John, fight for gov't to get out of the way of job creation. To partner with business, not to treat them as the enemy. Supply/Demand is John's biggest enemy. Fix it, and he'll be gainfully employed. Fail to, and no nanny state can keep him afloat.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

There will always be Johns, and there will always be family. I've helped mine on many occasions, and notice we have millions of 99ers w/o EQUAL numbers of newly homeless. There are also many terrific charitable orgs that also help them.

Long-term, if you really care about John, fight for gov't to get out of the way of job creation. To partner with business, not to treat them as the enemy. Supply/Demand is John's biggest enemy. Fix it, and he'll be gainfully employed. Fail to, and no nanny state can keep him afloat.

You need a mix of both. I honestly do think if we (to use an extreme example put in here earlier by someone.....was probably done "tongue in cheek" but not considered extreme in most of Europe) mandated 30 days of vacation it would affect job creation (and "abuse" would be a big factor too), but at the same time there is a limit to "getting out of the way" as too many (not all of course, but too many) would be unethical and take advantage of it.

Lets say for example we eliminated (or significantly reduced) the minimum wage to create jobs. Is having lots of new $1/hour jobs really better than what we have now? Do you really think that it would create more jobs that are at least above the current minimum wage? What good is cutting the unemployment rate in half if almost all of that growth is in jobs where people still need charities to survive even if they work full-time? Would "John" be that much better off in say a $3/hour job than he is now?

Having people come in sick because they are fearful of losing their jobs if they don't come in and are so "working poor" that even if they do keep their jobs it affects being able paying their rent, etc. and in turn make others sick who then have the same dilemma is a crime. I don't think mandating 5 days of paid sick leave (which I will grant a majority though far from all decent employers more or less do without a mandate) is going to crash the economy because any jobs lost from it are jobs we shouldn't be "proud" as a society to have created in the first place. It's also a low enough amount that "abuse" is a negligent factor.

[bobtn]

7 wishes, This thread is not about eliminating minimum wage, child labor, or any law already passed. Its about a state viewed as UTC's ABC state, and ranked no higher than 46 on any state friendliness to business lists adding still another costly mandate. Joe already has to deal with the fact he lives in the only state with net job losses since 1990, you think his chances got helped by this nanny state bill? Stay on topic, please, and remember the way up the business-friendly charts (and DM says "Ct is open for business-LOL!) is one less nanny state bill at a time. Based on DM's first few months, relax, you will catch the 2 or 3 states that are less business-friendly under his regime. 1 bill at a time.

[steel7]

5 days a year paid sick leave isnt bad. Here in ca the public employees get a max of 12 per yr. Im not sure about private employees but i never got sick leave pay.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

7 wishes, This thread is not about eliminating minimum wage, child labor, or any law already passed.

There was a time when even those laws had this kind of debate to get passed, and as I noted earlier, I know people who even think those laws should be at least "softened" (particularly the "minimum wage" law) to "burden business less". I know others who would be way to the "left" of me, who think min wage should be $10/hour (which I think is high enough to truly effect unemployment and is thus too high, in fact, like SCR I think a mandate that the state min wage should exceed the federal one is ridiculous), or that think a law like the subject of this topic should be closer to what they have in much of Europe. All laws start out as bills for debate, so it shouldn't be an issue of "what already passed" vs. what didn't.

So this is very on-topic. My point is that a line gets drawn somewhere, and the debate is where that line gets drawn. In your view, the line is to not have the "5 day" bill entirely. Mine is that a "5 day" bill is fine, but more than that is a true "burden".

[bobtn]

My view would be the 5 day bill should only be considered by states that rank high (as in 1-10) already for business-friendliness, with unemployment rates in the lowest fifth of the nation. Adding it in Ct's situation is like bringing in ones worst relief pitcher for game 7 of a world series, bottom of the ninth, tie game.

[Jabronie]

I'm kind of lost. Would you rather have them feel obligated to come into work risking infecting other workers? When I was a manager, when people came in noticeably sick, I told them to wrap up what they had to and to take the day off, rest, eat, relax, and get better. I don't want that spreading through the office / building. As an employee I don't want my co-worker, who's sick, cranky, and non responsive or drugged up sitting next to me trying to work. It just makes little sense from all perspectives.

Isn't part of this also to help prevent people from being fired when sick? Who wants to face the choice of being fired, or going to work and have 'it' shooting out both ends, twice an hour? For me, it's a quality of life issue, and it's needed.

[bobtn]

4 in 5 offer personal days NOW. For the 1 in 5 that don't this bill may mean laying off employees, as too much cost pressure already exists on small businesses operating in high-cost regions. Do you wish to risk layoffs over this? Will you accept the responsibility of funding the needs of those laid off over this? Its easy to play the caring role, when the costs of unintended consequences are borne by others. Now should you be willing to bear said consequences, that changes the equation.